PDA

View Full Version : The History of the Universe


Pages : [1] 2

Master_Keralys
01-13-2003, 04:59 PM
Scientists keep debating the origin of the universe. They keep telling us that life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance. On the other hand, there are those who tell us that the universe was designed, and it doesn't necessarily matter who designed it; the point is that it was designed. So why is it that evolution, which is so flawed that its originator disavowed it at the end of his life, and many modern scientists accept only because it corresponds with their own worldview, is the only acceptable theory to teach in school?

C'jais
01-13-2003, 05:06 PM
Evolution is a fact. Creationism (Intelligent design) isn't. You can't prove intelligent design in any way.

If you really don't believe in evolution, I'll have to send some new species of bacteria, evolved to be immune to most antibiotics, your way.

...And so it has begun anew. The immortal thread. It might perish for a while, but it shall always return again. Never is it truly dead.

Taos
01-13-2003, 05:28 PM
I believe in evolution. It is a natural process and it makes the most sense IMO. With the design theory......I agree with you, it doesn't matter who made it, but.....

My question is how did this being, who was supposed to have created everything, come to be? I have never heard or seen a good answer to this question....

ET Warrior
01-13-2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Leemu Taos
My question is how did this being, who was supposed to have created everything, come to be? I have never heard or seen a good answer to this question....

Ummmmm...........one day God's mum and dad fell in love.......:D

matt--
01-13-2003, 09:42 PM
I believe in Evolutionism with an inner core of Creationism. I can't accept an existance without beginning, there must have been something before it. (God in my belief system)

Evolution is a fact.
No it isn't, it's a well accepted scientific theory. Had it been a fact, it would be called Evolutionary Law.

Reborn Outcast
01-13-2003, 09:49 PM
Oh no I've heard about these threads. :) Mace-Windu is right, evloution is not a fact just a well known accepted scientific theory. I belive in BOTH creationalism and evolution to an extent... God created all the birds and beasts on the earth, it says so in Genesis but it never proves that evolution didnt happen... so to a degree I believe in evolution but creationalism would definatly be where I stand right now.

patchx
01-14-2003, 12:28 AM
Scientists keep debating the origin of the universe. They keep telling us that life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance.


no they dont

evolution doesn't rely on chance as common creationist propaganda would have you believe but on the enviromental conditions the organism evolving finds itself in

also evolution has nothing to do with big bang theory or the formation of the universe

it is possible to accept evolution and big bang theory and still believe in an intelligent designer behind it all


So why is it that evolution, which is so flawed that its originator disavowed it at the end of his life,


this is a myth, Darwin never recanted on his death bed, its a common yet completely erroneous fairy tale


and many modern scientists accept only because it corresponds with their own worldview, is the only acceptable theory to teach in school?

because it is a scientific theory capable of being disproven and based on reasonable deductions gathered from empirical evidence and open to critical analysis as opposed to creation science which is an attempt to gather evidence to support a preexisting traditional religous belief

evolution is a fact in that it is observable and obvious

there is also the Theory of Evolution

the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are two different things, the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain and predict the fact of evolution with science

-patch

Tyrion
01-14-2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Scientists keep debating the origin of the universe. They keep telling us that life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance. On the other hand, there are those who tell us that the universe was designed, and it doesn't necessarily matter who designed it; the point is that it was designed. So why is it that evolution, which is so flawed that its originator disavowed it at the end of his life, and many modern scientists accept only because it corresponds with their own worldview, is the only acceptable theory to teach in school?

*cracks knuckles*

*ahem*

Firstly,Darwin did not say his theory was a lie. Infact,a preacher who was preaching at Downe(his place he lived where he died) who was christian said he said that. His daughter and mother both said that his last words were "I am not in the least afraid to die."

"Darwin was not an atheist. He described himself as an agnostic, and it is likely that he retained a belief in some kind of personal God, although not a diety who, like some master puppeteer, took a direct and continuously intervening role in the evolutionary process and in human affairs. Throughout his life Darwin maintained a sense of deep humility and a concern for his fellow man, fully aware of the limits of science. Darwin was deeply affected by the death of his older brother Erasmus ("Ras") in August 1881, and it is conjectured that his grief may have exacerbated the seriousness of his own poor health. In early 1882 he had several minor heart attacks. His condition worsened and on April 19, 1882, at 73 years of age, he died at Down House, after several hours of nausea, intense vomiting and retching, symptoms of a chronic illness that bedeviled him for the last 40 years of his life. At his bedside, and attending to his needs, were his wife Emma, his daughter Henrietta and his son Francis. A widespread rumor circulated -- facilitated by an evangelist by the name of Lady Hope who preached in Downe during the last years of Darwins life -- that on his deathbed Darwin renounced evolution and declared himself a Christian. This story, totally contradictory to the nature of the man himself, is a falsehood, denied by his daughter Henrietta and those who knew him best and who were actually at his bedside during his last weeks. Darwin's last words, spoken to his wife Emma, were in actuality, "I am not in the least afraid to die."

The link is http://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html.

2. I've used the chance theory before. But after a while,it got too boggling. I knew that something had to created us all. Even if by mere chance. So I created my own personal god.

3. The reason why Evoultion is tought in schools,is because it's a theroy,you dont have to use it,and it has the most scientific proof of them all to credit it.(Can Christianity explain why there were Australiopithicus' and ect. to begin with? Or are all those fossils merely ways for him to test us?:rolleyes:

El Sitherino
01-14-2003, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion
*cracks knuckles*

*ahem*

Firstly,Darwin did not say his theory was a lie. Infact,a preacher who was preaching at Downe(his place he lived where he died) who was christian said he said that. His daughter and mother both said that his last words were "I am not in the least afraid to die."

"Darwin was not an atheist. He described himself as an agnostic, and it is likely that he retained a belief in some kind of personal God, although not a diety who, like some master puppeteer, took a direct and continuously intervening role in the evolutionary process and in human affairs. Throughout his life Darwin maintained a sense of deep humility and a concern for his fellow man, fully aware of the limits of science. Darwin was deeply affected by the death of his older brother Erasmus ("Ras") in August 1881, and it is conjectured that his grief may have exacerbated the seriousness of his own poor health. In early 1882 he had several minor heart attacks. His condition worsened and on April 19, 1882, at 73 years of age, he died at Down House, after several hours of nausea, intense vomiting and retching, symptoms of a chronic illness that bedeviled him for the last 40 years of his life. At his bedside, and attending to his needs, were his wife Emma, his daughter Henrietta and his son Francis. A widespread rumor circulated -- facilitated by an evangelist by the name of Lady Hope who preached in Downe during the last years of Darwins life -- that on his deathbed Darwin renounced evolution and declared himself a Christian. This story, totally contradictory to the nature of the man himself, is a falsehood, denied by his daughter Henrietta and those who knew him best and who were actually at his bedside during his last weeks. Darwin's last words, spoken to his wife Emma, were in actuality, "I am not in the least afraid to die."

The link is http://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html.

2. I've used the chance theory before. But after a while,it got too boggling. I knew that something had to created us all. Even if by mere chance. So I created my own personal god.

3. The reason why Evoultion is tought in schools,is because it's a theroy,you dont have to use it,and it has the most scientific proof of them all to credit it.(Can Christianity explain why there were Australiopithicus' and ect. to begin with? Or are all those fossils merely ways for him to test us?:rolleyes: well said tyrion. i couldnt have said it any better. people need to stop listening to propoganda and check out stuff for themselves. why do people think somethings enemy is gonna teach about it truthfully (ie anti evolutionists teaching about evolution and what it says.) people need to use common sense.

mercatfat
01-14-2003, 01:34 AM
Evolution is totally real. Another term for it is adaptation.

Scientists observing.. Goldfinches, I believe it was, watched the birds and how they changed from season to season to keep eating the nuts in area. Surviving birds' beaks changed from season to season and child to child as the composistion of the shell changed. I don't remember the exact details, but I remember that the beaks got more firm from the get-go in the offspring when the crop had a harder shell, and became sharper when the shell was more.. smooth, I think. I'd have to go look it up.

People that survive bubonic plague get a gene mutation that protects against AIDs, and if two people both have the mutation and reproduce, their Offspring will be immune. Immunity is a form of evolution. This circles back to bacteria, which evolve in a survival of the fittest manner.

The DNA in bacteria is what mutates and becomes more resistant. Why should only bacteria DNA evolve?

C'jais
01-14-2003, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I belive in BOTH creationalism and evolution to an extent... God created all the birds and beasts on the earth, it says so in Genesis but it never proves that evolution didnt happen...

That's because it'll be proof of the negative. It's nearly impossible to prove the non-existance of something. I can't prove there ísn't any god. I can, however, prove that evolution happens.

The difference between evolution as a fact, and evolution as a law is that the model of evolution is the one that goes back in time to explain that man and dinosaurs did not live side by side. The fact of evolution is that we can see with our own eyes that new species have evolved this very day. The model cannot be tested since we won't have a chance to go back in time and see if it holds true. The fact is indisputable, though. I dare you to prove otherwise.

What this debate always bogs down to is how it all started. Creationists generally accept that new species can evolve, but when we start to touch on their Genesis, they get all itchy. Sadly, they can never prove their theory. They're content with nitpicking evolution, even though it haven't been disproven so far. The conclusion always seems to be that God could have planted evidence against the Genesis to test our faith. He could have messed with test results and dating methods because he felt like it. That just doesn't work as an argument. The Genesis is just as much bullcrap as that Raelian theory which involve aliens seeding the earth with life. That's a slightly better theory, however, as we can disprove it once can see that life evolved from bacteria.

Meh.

Master_Keralys
01-14-2003, 11:53 AM
While you are correct in pointing at that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, there is proof of a creator. There is a principle known as irreducible complexity. This means that all the parts in that system must be present for it to work. A perfect example is the eye. While the eye could theoretically be reduced to a light-sensitive "eyespot" of cells, it cannot be reduced further than that. The protein process which occurs for even a light-spot is incredibly correct, and if all the proteins are not correct and being selected in the correct order, then the eyespot doesn't work.

Even bacteria have irreducibly complex systems. As far as "newly evolved species" go, there are no such things. Some species of bactia have developed immunities to antibiotics, but this is in no way proof of evolution. This is adaptation, which is a result of natural selection. However, while microevolution is scientific fact, the opposite is true for macro-evolution(changing in species). Nowhere in the fossil record is there even one change from species to species. Furthermore, most of the so-called intermediary forms for humans are little more than jawbones or skull fragments. As well, it must be noted that even full skulls can be structured to appear the way hopeful archeologists want them to. A minor rearrangement of the bones gives you a normal human skull. The so-called proof of evolution, then, is not proof at all.

-s/<itzo-
01-14-2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Evolution is a fact. Creationism (Intelligent design) isn't. You can't prove intelligent design in any way.

No, evolution is not a sure known fact thats why its called an "evolution theory".


and creationism is believing in faith.


so no one really no for sure which is the true answer to this question simply because no one lived in that era. but the evolution theory seem more logic than creationism.

C'jais
01-14-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
While you are correct in pointing at that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, there is proof of a creator. There is a principle known as irreducible complexity.

I asked for the proof of a creator, and you still have not given any. This is a vague attempt at undermining evolution, it is not proof of anything.

And no, you can always reduce the complexity in nature into more basic components. The eye consists of light sensitive cells. Cells are specialized - Whoa! News at ten. This isn't disproof of evolution, nor proof in any way whatsoever of creationism.

As far as "newly evolved species" go, there are no such things.

No such things? Tests have been run on genetically modified fruit flies which resulted in the modified ones being unable and unwilling to mate with normal ones. This is evolution. Do you have any idea how much time it takes for a single new species to emerge?

Consider dogs. Take the Chihuahua and the Grand Danois (big Dane :)). One is the size of a rat, the other the size of a small horse. They're both dogs. Now, we're going to run some serious selective breeding on these two dog species. We pick the smallest Chihuahuas to breed with each other, and do the same to the GD's, except we pick the largest in this case. We'd continue to reduce the size of the Chihuahua to that of a rat, and we'd continue to enlargen the GD to that of a pony. It would take many, many decades for this selective breeding to reach these stages, but you cannot doubt that it could be done with persistance.
Now, take these two dogs, and place them in different environments. We'd place the Chihuahua in an underground environment, where it'd have to use it paws to dig through the earth, and we'd use the enlargened GD's as riding beasts for little children. The Grand Danois would need strong legs and some healthy paws for this, so we'd naturally pick the most suited for this role, breeding our way to tougher feet and stronger legs. Again, it can be done.

At this stage, clearly the two kinds of dogs are both unable and unwilling to reproduce with each other; if left on their own they'd only naturally pick dogs from their own race, since no other kind of dogs match them in size and shape anymore.

We now have two different species. They're no longer dogs after these centuries of selective breeding. We have a tiny mammal suited to borrow underground, and a big beast of burden suited to carry luggage and children. The DNA of these creatures have now changed so radically from a regular dog, and since they're both unable and unwilling to mate with normal dogs anymore, we can safely label them a new species. But where is the missing link? We now have rodent like tunnelers, powerful riding beasts... and regular dogs. They couldn't possibly be connected, could they? After all, there are no links between the regular dog and the little rodent-like creature. And none between the riding beast and regular dogs. Surely they must be 3 individual species.

Nowhere in the fossil record is there even one change from species to species.

The fossil record will always be incomplete. A certain creationist called Gish has given rise to Gish's law: "The gaps in the fossil record equals the amount of missing links."

No matter how many "missing" links we dig up, you'll always categorize them as an entirely new species which has no relation to others and proceed on your merry way. You want us to unearth some weird chimeric monster with equal traits from both parent and daughter species. This is impossible, yet the Archeopteryx comes close. But I guess this is a seperate species with no relation to neither dinosaurs nor birds, right?

Another good example might be whales. Hippos are very much alike whales in bone structure. Their feet strikingly resemble fins. This has led to the suspicion that whales were once whales stranded on shallow water and thus began to grow some crude feet for extra mobility. This has been proved when arheologists dug up a specimen resembling a temporary cross over between hippo and whale. But this is probably another species with no relation whatsoever to whales and hippos.

Humans. "Missing" links have been found, among them Erectus, Africanus and Afarensis. And no, their skulls are far too different from ours to be a simple bad reconstruction.

Now, the decaying speed of isotopes, the non-decaying speed of light, the many idiotic built-in flaws in humans, the layers in the earth, the tectonic movements, the observed changes in isolated species, the fossil record and DNA all point to there being no need for a creator, the earth being immensely old (this is not a proof against a creator, but many Christians insist on the earth being a measly 10k years old) and the model of evolution fact.

Skitzo: Evolution is a fact because it can be used to predict prehistoric data. If, for example, we found a human fossil embedded in the layers of the Jurassic period, evolution would be more or less in doubt. But since it has so far worked flawlessly, and is able to predict much more detailed findings, it is fact. It can also be used to predict future events, such as disease epidemics. Without evolution, we wouldn't have the knowledge of genes, cross-breeding and life itself.

Lastly, read this. (http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/things.htm#silly) All of it. I like this link, yes.

I'm going to give you Creationists a task to solve. Present to me empirical proof of the Earth being created as written in the Bible. And before you start, No, trying to inanely disprove the evolutionary model is not proof of the Biblical creation happening in any way.
Y'see, the way things work these days is to present empirical proof of your own theories, it is not trying to debunk the other dudes' theories.

If you don't believe in the Biblical creation of things, great. Score one for rational thought. But if you don't, please present whatever theory you might have in its place.

Master_Keralys
01-14-2003, 08:33 PM
Consider dogs. Take the Chihuahua and the Grand Danois (big Dane ). One is the size of a rat, the other the size of a small horse. They're both dogs. Now, we're going to run some serious selective breeding on these two dog species. We pick the smallest Chihuahuas to breed with each other, and do the same to the GD's, except we pick the largest in this case. We'd continue to reduce the size of the Chihuahua to that of a rat, and we'd continue to enlargen the GD to that of a pony. It would take many, many decades for this selective breeding to reach these stages, but you cannot doubt that it could be done with persistance.
Now, take these two dogs, and place them in different environments. We'd place the Chihuahua in an underground environment, where it'd have to use it paws to dig through the earth, and we'd use the enlargened GD's as riding beasts for little children. The Grand Danois would need strong legs and some healthy paws for this, so we'd naturally pick the most suited for this role, breeding our way to tougher feet and stronger legs. Again, it can be done.

At this stage, clearly the two kinds of dogs are both unable and unwilling to reproduce with each other; if left on their own they'd only naturally pick dogs from their own race, since no other kind of dogs match them in size and shape anymore.

We now have two different species. They're no longer dogs after these centuries of selective breeding. We have a tiny mammal suited to borrow underground, and a big beast of burden suited to carry luggage and children. The DNA of these creatures have now changed so radically from a regular dog, and since they're both unable and unwilling to mate with normal dogs anymore, we can safely label them a new species. But where is the missing link? We now have rodent like tunnelers, powerful riding beasts... and regular dogs. They couldn't possibly be connected, could they? After all, there are no links between the regular dog and the little rodent-like creature. And none between the riding beast and regular dogs. Surely they must be 3 individual species.

You're missing the fact that this doesn't happen. There are limits to what breeding can do, eg the sugar beet. No matter how hard the breeders try, even with new genetic manipulation, they can't get past 17% sugar content. Why? There should be an infinite amount of changeability, right? But there simply isn't.

Next the moon is moving away at about 2 inches per year. If the moon were two million years old, then at that time, the moon would be causing tides to cover all land twice a day. And the generally accepted time of birth is 2 billion years old!

Space dust still exists. It wouldn't if the universe were 15 billion years old: it would all have been caught by various sources of gravity. Furthermore, the accumulation rate of dust on the moon is about 2.7 inches per million years. If the moon was 2 billion years old, it would have 2700 inches of dush on it - a fifth of a mile. If you recall, that's why they put the huge landing pads on the Apollo's because they thought it was so deep. In reality, it's only about .5 inches deep.

Next off, dating based on radioactive isotopes only works in an environment where the magnetic field is stable. Earth's isn't - it's deteriorating, so it doesn't work.

Irreducible complexity means that an individual cell with it's proteins is useful. Try reducing an eyespot to something useful in each cell - it doesn't happen. So it doesn't evolve: there's nothing useful about such cells unless the whole system is present, so the fish or whatever doesn't have any use for it. It's just extra baggage that has no help value for the organism, so any such mutation would be selected against!

Finally, the sheer complexity of the universe, combined with the Anthropic Principle (which I'll explain tomorrow if I have time) indicates that such a universe could not be byproducts of mere happenstance. Also, the whole thing with the Big Bang doesn't work. More on that tomorrow, too. I have to go, now.

C'jais
01-15-2003, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
You're missing the fact that this doesn't happen. There are limits to what breeding can do, eg the sugar beet.

And what exactly is a "sugar beet"?

No matter how hard the breeders try, even with new genetic manipulation, they can't get past 17% sugar content. Why? There should be an infinite amount of changeability, right?

No. First of all, you cannot relate this in any way to the dog example. It has no relevance. We agree we can grow dogs bigger, right? And smaller as well (otherwise all the dog races just popped into existence which we have very recent records of them not doing). Where exactly is the defining line between what we can do with breeding and what we can't do? There isn't any line. While the bone structure may prevent us from selectively breed our way towards jellyfish, it does not not prevent us from gradually making dogs bigger, as evidenced in the dog races we have already done so to.

Second of all, this is not proof of anything. It means there's something science hasn't explained yet. Shocking, right?

Next the moon is moving away at about 2 inches per year.

Wrong. The moon's orbit around earth is fluctuating. You know why we get Ice ages? They happen due to fluctuations in orbits of the earth, the sun's radioactive shields and comets. Geologists can actually predict that we'll have another ice age our way due to geological research and knowledge of earth's immensely old history. But I guess you don't believe in ice ages anyway. Nevermind though, when we'll get another ice age, we'll all see who was least false.

Space dust still exists. It wouldn't if the universe were 15 billion years old.

This isn't proof of a creator. It's not disproof of evolution. It might vaguely be taken for proof of the earth being very young, but even this doesn't hold up to all the other real evidence pointing the other way. You can't date the earth with this technique.

I'll tell you what it is though. It's proof that God designed a universe in which he was required to do miracles every freakin' nanosecond for it to hold together. Take the second law of thermodynamics (which I'm sure you'll bring up eventually) - if it actually worked the way creationists like to describe it, God made a miracle every time a snowflake formed. It'd be extremely stupid for God to make a universe in which he was required to constantly maintain it.

Bottom line: You're God-gapping here: using God as an excuse to fill in the currently unexplained holes in science. But this dubious way of thinking will be on constant retreat from science. People once had no idea what fire was. People once had no idea what created a baby. People once had no idea that the earth was flat. People once had no idea what created the plagues. People now currently have no real answer on how life first appeared on earth. But it will never stay that way.

Next off, dating based on radioactive isotopes only works in an environment where the magnetic field is stable. Earth's isn't - it's deteriorating, so it doesn't work.

Yet it has worked fine so far. Isotope dating have actually predicted geological and archeological discoveries. And it has happened so many times to prove they're not merely being extremely lucky.

Irreducible complexity means that an individual cell with it's proteins is useful.

And you are to say that a cell in our eye isn't being useful? That it can't sustain itself? That it doesn't benefit from, and contribute to the communion of cells around the body?

There are things called single organisms and multiple celled organisms. You're confusing the two. Cells in many celled organisms are extremely specialized. Big news. They're so specialized that they wouldn't survive if taken out of the organism. Your understanding of even simple biology is astounding.

And yes, they can evolve. Changes happen gradually, and at a very slow pace.

While we're on the topic of specialized eye cells. Certain cave fish exist, who have non-functional eyes. That's right, they have eyes, yet they're blind. Why would a creator make them this way? Evolution can explain this weird phenomena though, they evolved from fish who no longer needed sight in dark caves. You can call this "adaptation" all you want, yet it's only proof of evolution.

Finally, the sheer complexity of the universe, combined with the Anthropic Principle (which I'll explain tomorrow if I have time) indicates that such a universe could not be byproducts of mere happenstance. Also, the whole thing with the Big Bang doesn't work. More on that tomorrow, too. I have to go, now.

Yes. You do that. And while you're at it, present some proof of your theory as well. Trying to disprove mine won't make you look any better in the end, unless you have substantial, empirical proof of your own as well.

Even if you should succeed in disproving evolution, that does not make you right at all. Suppose we found out the earth was really only 10k years old, and that every species had once been planted on earth by something else, it still would not need, explain or show God. Aliens are actually a more logical choice in explaining why this occured, and this makes even the Raelians more right that you.

Tyrion
01-15-2003, 05:00 AM
Since I havent taken Astronomy yet..or even studied,I'll use the paragraphs I know...


Finally, the sheer complexity of the universe, combined with the Anthropic Principle (which I'll explain tomorrow if I have time) indicates that such a universe could not be byproducts of mere happenstance. Also, the whole thing with the Big Bang doesn't work. More on that tomorrow, too. I have to go, now.

The general theory of the big bang is that the universe collapses,going back to it's center point of gravity,eventually becoming super densed.Then it'll all explode,expanding until it collapses,ect.

Rogue_Ace
01-15-2003, 04:53 PM
The general theory of the big bang is that the universe collapses,going back to it's center point of gravity,eventually becoming super densed.Then it'll all explode,expanding until it collapses,ect.

Can you tell me where it gets the energy to explode every time. If it collapses in on itself every time then does it not signify the loss energy. Where does it fill its preverbal gas tank.

And as for life evolving on earth over billions of years look at this. If the earth is as old as you say then it still wouldn't be able to support life until recently. Dont believe me then go to any website about the decay of the magnetic field that surronds earth. Even if the speed of deacy is slowing down (like the speed of light) the earth would not have been able to support life for more then 10,000 years (give or take a couple thousand).

C'jais
01-15-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
And as for life evolving on earth over billions of years look at this. If the earth is as old as you say then it still wouldn't be able to support life until recently. Dont believe me then go to any website about the decay of the magnetic field that surronds earth. Even if the speed of deacy is slowing down (like the speed of light) the earth would not have been able to support life for more then 10,000 years (give or take a couple thousand).

Wrong. The magnetic field is fluctuating wildly. You lack the proper timescale to state this.

And again: Even if your post was true, it'd still not be proof of a creator. It'd still not be proof of God. And it would by NO means disprove evolution. What you're doing here is trying to argue the earth is younger than what every respectable scientist states.

The comment about the big bang is just God-gapping. It won't do.

Rogue_Ace
01-15-2003, 05:27 PM
What you're doing here is trying to argue the earth is younger than what every respectable scientist states.

Thats because whenever a respectable scientist realises the fact that the current view of evolution is not compleatly valid and states it in a public manor, he suddenly becomes a God loving wacko and no one will listen to him/her anymore. BTW I dont presume to know everything and the second that you give me hard data then I will of course admit i'm wrong.:D

griff38
01-15-2003, 06:06 PM
Well it's possible that Intelligence used evolution to create life, but it clearly has been shown random events with enough time can lead to enviroments capable of supporting basic single cell life.

Also, remember evolution makes no explanation of the Universes origins. That's the job of astronomy. Which backs up Geology, which backs up Archeology, which backs up Evolution. That's too many independent sciences to all be wrong.

Always remember anyone who claims to be 100% sure of anything does not know what they are talking about.


OH and where does it say the Earths magnet field can be harmful to lifeforms?

C'jais
01-16-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
Thats because whenever a respectable scientist realises the fact that the current view of evolution is not compleatly valid and states it in a public manor, he suddenly becomes a God loving wacko and no one will listen to him/her anymore.

Simply not true. Whenever such a person postulates something like that he does not have his facts right, and as such becomes pariah in the scientific world.

BTW I dont presume to know everything and the second that you give me hard data then I will of course admit i'm wrong.:D

I already gave you hard data. You have given me none so far.

The trick is, you still haven't presented a theory yourself backed up by empirical proof. Until you've done that, you cannot convince anyone, since the best you can do is shoot at the age of the earth and use this as some phantasmic proof of a creator.

Pad
01-16-2003, 05:36 PM
i also believe in the EVOLUTION as its the best thing to describe how evrything works/will work. for example: a bacteria irresitant to a medicin can evolve to a new form thats actually resistant to the medicine.

and in my opinion creationism (god,...) are just the imagination of ppl when they are in trouble or havin difficult times. whenever there is war, plagues,... ppl go back to praying ;)

Master_Keralys
01-17-2003, 07:41 PM
Theory: an unproved assumption: CONJECTURE (source: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

A theory can not be proven. Anything that has been conclusively proven is considered a law. Cjais, no argument you've given has been any more convincing than the creationists' view.

I have said before and I say again, simply because one is religious and-or disagrees with you does not mean he is not able to have a rational argument. Whenever such a person postulates something like that he does not have his facts right, and as such becomes pariah in the scientific world. Here you say that anyone who says anything that doesn't line up with your train of thought is unilaterally wrong. Well, this isn't necessarily the case.

Furthermore, you have presented no empirical evidence yourself. Those blind fish you were talking about - their eyes aren't useless because they "evolved" to be specifically useless. The fact is, they have not had that trait selected against. It's not that blindness has been selected, but that it hasn't been not selected. Natural selection in no way proves evolution. An intelligent God would have provided ways for creatures to adapt; else, they would die as soon as there was a minor change in environment. So how is it that it disproves God again?

Padanime - I can tell you from experience that people stick with God besides when there's times of trouble. If you don't agree, go look up any of the great Christians. Also - in times of difficulty, people are more likely to blame God for their problems and leave HIm than to turn to Him.

C'jais
01-18-2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Theory: an unproved assumption: CONJECTURE (source: Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

That's not the scientific use of the word "Theory" (and scientists should know, since they coined the term):

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspects of the natural order that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization of nature. When scientists talk about the theory of evolution - or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter - they are not expressing reservations about its truth. (source: Sciam.com)

I have said before and I say again, simply because one is religious and-or disagrees with you does not mean he is not able to have a rational argument.

It does. Stating the Genesis is factual truth is irrational. It defies the fossil record and other facts. Stating I can fly because it's written is irrational, everyone can see I can't fly.

Here you say that anyone who says anything that doesn't line up with your train of thought is unilaterally wrong. Well, this isn't necessarily the case.

My train of thought is less false than yours. This is not about disproving God as seem to think, that would be impossible. Disproving an invisible, supernatural being is incredibly hard. This is, however, about blasting your "Genesis" into the ground. Proving evolution does not NOT disprove God.

The Pope has already accepted the evolutionary model as fact. He, of all Christians accepted that the Bible is not correct in this instance. Why can't you?

Furthermore, these "scientists" who attack evolution, again, lack scientific, empirical evidence. At best they state that certain evolutionary problems are unsolved (which is correct).

Furthermore, you have presented no empirical evidence yourself. Those blind fish you were talking about - their eyes aren't useless because they "evolved" to be specifically useless. The fact is, they have not had that trait selected against. It's not that blindness has been selected, but that it hasn't been not selected. Natural selection in no way proves evolution. An intelligent God would have provided ways for creatures to adapt; else, they would die as soon as there was a minor change in environment. So how is it that it disproves God again?

What exactly are you trying to say? That adaptation is fact, but evolution isn't? What's the exact difference between the two?

Adaptation: An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.

Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

These are not my words. Just taken from an online dictionary. As you said, natural selection is a fact. That the genetic composition changes during successive genrations is a fact. It appears evolution as described in the English language is a fact.

Also - in times of difficulty, people are more likely to blame God for their problems and leave HIm than to turn to Him.

This is just flat out wrong again. History clearly shows that a population is more than likely to turn to their God during times of great difficulty. Look at the exodus in the Bible, the Plague and the two world wars. People turn to, or even invent (as shown in the Bible) God, during times of trouble.

Tyrion
01-18-2003, 02:06 PM
Just to make it clear,the pope is catholic,not christian.

So that's a moot point,since Christians(or at least some) think that Catholicsm is,well, a perverted twisted belief of Christianity.

(Note that the perverted twisted stuff came from someone else's mouth,not mine...)

Katarn07
01-18-2003, 03:21 PM
Evolution does indeed exist, but to the point that they can become so smart and all?

The universe was designed. But over the years, yes, animals have evolved, as humans have.

ie Appendix is no longer used....

Psydan
01-18-2003, 03:34 PM
Ok, once again we're making this a religious question which could go on forever because everyone has different opinions. The question was EVOLUTION or INTELLIGENT DESIGN. I think the main point was that evolution ( by that I mean that all life today came from an original "accidental" life form) is such an impossible thing that there must be something out there that is seperated from our constraints of physics and is able to create life. It doesn't have to be a debate over religion, and Cjais you are the one who keeps saying that a good argument isn't about disproving your opponents veiw, well you are the one who keeps trying to prove a belief in Creationism wrong, and bringing religion into it. There must be something wrong with evolutionary theories right now or else we wouldn't be debating over it.
(BTW, I know you're thinking "well doesn't that make Creationists wrong too?" well, there is no direct physical evidence of Intelligent design that isn't circumstantial, but it isn't a science, it's a belief. Evolution is science, so it should be able to be proven without a doubt by direct physical evidence, so go ahead and tell me that they've proven without a doubt that humans are decendants of some ancient one-celled organism that was given life through random chance. I believe in gravity beause they can prove it without a doubt, and prove it as a given constant.) Furthermore, if all life came from an accident, and evolved completely through more accidents and natural selection, where did differentsexes come in? I mean there are a lot of complex things that seperate male from female, and while all of those were being perfected, who were these mutant males/females mating with to pass on this new trait? Also, how does evolution explain the bombardier beetle?(look it up if you dont know, or I will explain it later)there are just too many reasons to not believe in evolution. But that's just my opinion, and Im not trying to make anyone angry over it.

ET Warrior
01-18-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
And what exactly is a "sugar beet"?

Ooooo, ooooooo I know this one!

Sugar beets are the beets that are used to make sugar. I'm not sure of the exact processes that they go through.....but they're brown, beet-shaped, and approximately as big as a football. Yes, i know, my knowledge astounds you all......:cool:


Actually we have a sugar beet factory in my town.........

ShadowTemplar
01-18-2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
Can you tell me where it gets the energy to explode every time. If it collapses in on itself every time then does it not signify the loss energy. Where does it fill its preverbal gas tank.

Check www.sciam.com. If you're lucky you can find an article on it. If not, you get a veiw of REAL science, for a change.

Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
And as for life evolving on earth over billions of years look at this. If the earth is as old as you say then it still wouldn't be able to support life until recently. Dont believe me then go to any website about the decay of the magnetic field that surronds earth.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, never heard about polar turns?

Originally posted by Rogue_Ace
Even if the speed of deacy is slowing down (like the speed of light) the earth would not have been able to support life for more then 10,000 years (give or take a couple thousand).

When did the nondecaying speed of light begin to decay?

C'jais
01-18-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Psydan
Ok, once again we're making this a religious question which could go on forever because everyone has different opinions.

This is not a religious debate. Look at the mud-slinging between "Christians" and Catholics - that's a religious debate.

This is not about opinions. This is not about getting you to see our side of things. This is about getting you to realize facts.

The question was EVOLUTION or INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Intelligent design is the same as Creationism, which, in the Christian sense of it, is the Genesis.

I think the main point was that evolution ( by that I mean that all life today came from an original "accidental" life form)

NO. Abiogenesis is the science of explaining how we got here in the first place - IE bacteria, God or whatnot. Evolution is about explaining how we evolved after we got here. According to Darwin, he did not try to refute the Bible - he believed that it was still possible God created life in the original forms. The only thing he cared for was how we evolved from then on.


and Cjais you are the one who keeps saying that a good argument isn't about disproving your opponents veiw,

I never said that. Quote me, please.

well you are the one who keeps trying to prove a belief in Creationism wrong, and bringing religion into it.

Religion is what makes you believe the Genesis is fact. Religion is what makes you convinced that evolution isn't fact. Religion is the central point of this debate.

There must be something wrong with evolutionary theories right now or else we wouldn't be debating over it.

False assumption. Just as I can claim that I'm able to fly and thus defy the laws of gravity, this does not mean that there are somehow "holes" in the law of gravity.

What we have here are facts, and people who don't accept them. If you think there are some weird holes in evolution, why don't you go ahead and tell us exactly where they are?

This debate is about you, the Christian people.

so go ahead and tell me that they've proven without a doubt that humans are decendants of some ancient one-celled organism that was given life through random chance.

Again, this is not evolution you wish proved. This is abiogenesis.

While we currently do not know with 100% certainty how the first cells formed, we do have a pretty plausible theory, which is more than can be said about your Genesis.

Furthermore, if all life came from an accident, and evolved completely through more accidents and natural selection, where did differentsexes come in?

Abiogenesis, yet again. The difference between sexes are not complicated on a molecular level. All it takes is one cell to be different from the other. From an evolutionary point of view, it's a benefit that the offspring is different from the parents (opposite of asexual breeding = cloning) - it'd have more new traits to put to the test and thus improve the species a lot faster.

Also, how does evolution explain the bombardier beetle?

Explain, if you will. But know that this is not a hole in the evolutionary theory, or that it has anything to do God, whatever you're going to state.

ShadowTemplar
01-18-2003, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Psydan
Ok, once again we're making this a religious question which could go on forever because everyone has different opinions.

You confuse opinion and fact. In a democracy you have to yield to cold, hard fact, or said democracy would collapse with the first demagouge to stick out his head.

Originally posted by Psydan
The question was EVOLUTION or INTELLIGENT DESIGN. I think the main point was that evolution ( by that I mean that all life today came from an original "accidental" life form) is such an impossible thing that there must be something out there that is seperated from our constraints of physics and is able to create life.

Do you know anything about the Theory of Evolution? At all. Evolution does not cover what happened before life appeared. Only what life did after. Of course rationalists will often hold a scientific view of both, but that doesn't make them the same.

Apart from that, I haven't seen any probability calculation that showed that creation by chance is impossible.

Originally posted by Psydan
It doesn't have to be a debate over religion, and Cjais you are the one who keeps saying that a good argument isn't about disproving your opponents veiw, well you are the one who keeps trying to prove a belief in Creationism wrong, and bringing religion into it.

It becomes a debate over religion when you start denouncing facts like evolution.

Originally posted by Psydan
There must be something wrong with evolutionary theories right now or else we wouldn't be debating over it.

Either that, or you know too little about it. In some African banana republics it is debated whether HIV is a sexually transmitted disease.

Does that mean the the theory that HIV is sexually transmitted is faulty, or that some Presidentes don't like the prospect of having to found safe-sex programs?

Originally posted by Psydan
Evolution is science, so it should be able to be proven without a doubt by direct physical evidence, so go ahead and tell me that they've proven without a doubt that humans are decendants of some ancient one-celled organism that was given life through random chance.

The first living organism didn't appear by random chance. As I explained above, nature favors certain chemical reactions. Luckily for us, some of them produced life. So let me say this in no uncertain terms:

NEVER, EVER, CLAIM THAT EVOLUTION REQUIRES LIFE TO BE CREATED BY "RANDOM CHANCE" AGAIN!

Unless, of course, you wish to make fun of yourself...

Originally posted by Psydan
I believe in gravity beause they can prove it without a doubt, and prove it as a given constant.)

Then you do not believe. You must learn to make the distinction between belief and fact.

Originally posted by Psydan
Furthermore, if all life came from an accident, and evolved completely through more accidents and natural selection, where did differentsexes come in?

That "missing link" is no longer missing. On Iceland (I think) a one-celled organism was found that habitually engieered its own DNA sequence. The step to gender-based reproduction is not great from that point.

Originally posted by Psydan
I mean there are a lot of complex things that seperate male from female, and while all of those were being perfected, who were these mutant males/females mating with to pass on this new trait?

The distinction between genders needs not to be complex. Malaria uses both genderbased and nongenderbased breeding in different phases of its lifecycle, for example. And Malaria is a simple organism.

And several deep-sea organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually. This method of breeding could be a cross-form.

Originally posted by Psydan
Also, how does evolution explain the bombardier beetle?(look it up if you dont know, or I will explain it later)

I know what the Bombardier Beetle is, but I don't see in what way it disproves evolution.

Originally posted by Psydan
there are just too many reasons to not believe in evolution. But that's just my opinion, and Im not trying to make anyone angry over it.

There are many reasons not to believe in evolution. Chiefly: You don't need to believe in something that you can see with your own two eyes.

Psydan
01-18-2003, 10:45 PM
First of all:
Believe
v. tr.
1.To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2.To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3.To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
So, yah i think that accepting evolution, even if it has been "proven", is believing in it.

Next:
Creationism
n.
1.Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
But Master_Keralys specifically said as the topic beginner:

Quote by Master_Keralys : "On the other hand, there are those who tell us that the universe was designed, and it doesn't necessarily matter who designed it; the point is that it was designed."
So, this isn't a debate over creationism, it is about Intelligent design vs. Evolution
Evolution in this debate would be the veiwpoint that:

Quote byMaster_Keralys: "life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance"

If you believe that some being put us here intelligently then you are for intelligent design.
If you believe that everything was created through natural events, whatever they may be, but that no intelligent life helped life began, then you are on the "evolutionist" side.
You could be in the middle, but then what do you believe, and are you just trying to argue?
And:
Abiogenesis
n :
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
How does this relate to male/female formation?


Quote by Cjais:"I never said that. Quote me, please."
Quote by Cjais:"Yes. You do that. And while you're at it, present some proof of your theory as well. Trying to disprove mine won't make you look any better in the end, unless you have substantial, empirical proof of your own as well."
I interpreted if that as you saying that we should be backing up our own side, not attacking the other side. Please excuse me if I interpreted it incorrectly.

Quote by ShadowTemplar:"The distinction between genders needs not to be complex. Malaria uses both genderbased and nongenderbased breeding in different phases of its lifecycle, for example. And Malaria is a simple organism.

And several deep-sea organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually. This method of breeding could be a cross-form."

Quote by Cjais:"Abiogenesis, yet again. The difference between sexes are not complicated on a molecular level. All it takes is one cell to be different from the other. From an evolutionary point of view, it's a benefit that the offspring is different from the parents (opposite of asexual breeding = cloning) - it'd have more new traits to put to the test and thus improve the species a lot faster."

Well, I wasn't saying that the actual organism had to be complex, just that the distinction between genders, look at even the simplest sexually-reproducing species, there are major differences in even the organisms charecteristics that seperate male and female. And, aren't sex cells a type of cell? So wouldn't it have to be a multi-cellular organism to have a gender?
What I'm saying is that if the first female is born, is it really possible that there will be a male that is perfectly programmed (using the word programmed as a loose term) to reproduce with that female? Also, isn't cloning a type of asexual reproduction, not the opposite of it?

Quote by ShadowTemplar: "I know what the Bombardier Beetle is, but I don't see in what way it disproves evolution."
Well, the bombadier beetle uses a special type of self-defense. It's able to spray a stream of steaming hot liquid, that makes a loud popping noise, and that blinds and can burn the predator.
It sprays hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide out of seperate sacs, and when they mix they combine to form a chemical reaction. Now how could evolution produce this? Could it be possible that a creator made this special function? How would these particular chemicals naturally be made into the beetle, and how would it adapt to create these chemicals, how would the beetle know that these chemicals would be a good defense mechanism?But, you could go ahead and say whatever you want, because really you'll never believe anything that I say.(speaking of which, it's kind of dumb in my opinion to be arguing about the use of words like believe, but thats just my opinion)
And, "evolution" (species adapting to the environment, which by the way is one of the characteristics that all things must have to be considered "living")has been proven, many times, so it is a fact, and I'm not doubting it, but I do doubt "evolution" as it relates to this post topic (being the alternative to ID. The theory that no intelligent being(s) formed life on Earth).

ShadowTemplar
01-19-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Psydan
First of all:
Believe
v. tr.
1.To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2.To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3.To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
So, yah i think that accepting evolution, even if it has been "proven", is believing in it.

Keywords: Accept, credit, and expect or suppose. All are subjective. Useless crap.

Cold, hard facts are not subjective. Usefull tools. See what I'm getting at? If you hold something to be applicable because that is what empirical evidence suggests, then you are beyond faith. That is sense (percieved by the senses).

So, you could believe evolution, but there would be no point to it, because it is proven fact, so there is no need to believe in it anymore.

Originally posted by Psydan
Quote byMaster_Keralys: "life and the planets and everything else are just byproducts of mere chance"

This is a demagougic argument. Evolution doesn't claim that everything happens according to chance. See above (I could repeat myself, but I'm too lazy for that).

Originally posted by Psydan
If you believe that some being put us here intelligently then you are for intelligent design.
If you believe that everything was created through natural events, whatever they may be, but that no intelligent life helped life began, then you are on the "evolutionist" side.

Yes. What's the news in that? Oh, and it's still wrong to say that you "believe" that no intelligent life helped. It's not belief, its fact.

Originally posted by Psydan
And:
Abiogenesis
n :
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
How does this relate to male/female formation?

I didn't relate the two, did I? Gee I'm too tired for this.

Originally posted by Psydan
Quote by Cjais:"I never said that. Quote me, please."
Quote by Cjais:"Yes. You do that. And while you're at it, present some proof of your theory as well. Trying to disprove mine won't make you look any better in the end, unless you have substantial, empirical proof of your own as well."
I interpreted if that as you saying that we should be backing up our own side, not attacking the other side. Please excuse me if I interpreted it incorrectly.

What he said was that you cannot prove the positive by proving the negative. And you also can't prove the negative, so you are basically wasting your time trying. In short: Prove the positive. If this excludes some other hypothesises, tough. But dispelling such faulty hypothesises would belong after you have proved the positive.

Originally posted by Psydan
Quote by ShadowTemplar:"The distinction between genders needs not to be complex.

[...]

Well, I wasn't saying that the actual organism had to be complex, just that the distinction between genders, look at even the simplest sexually-reproducing species, there are major differences in even the organisms charecteristics that seperate male and female.

No. Again I turn to my beloved marine creatures. There are many creatures that are natural hermafrodites. A marked example is a marine creature that fights to aviod bearing the young. The male sexual organ of the winner will impregnate the loser. This means that the winner can impregnate another specimen and so on, until it loses.

It is actually (I think) the same creature that I mentioned above as being able to breed asexually as well. This gives it a flexibility that is seen in few other places.

Originally posted by Psydan
And, aren't sex cells a type of cell? So wouldn't it have to be a multi-cellular organism to have a gender?

No. Sexual reproduction signifies a mixing of genes between the parents. You don't need specialized sex cells.

*calls in the residential Biology expert (C'Jais) to back me up*

Originally posted by Psydan
What I'm saying is that if the first female is born, is it really possible that there will be a male that is perfectly programmed (using the word programmed as a loose term) to reproduce with that female?

As I have proven with the above example, it wouldn't be neccesary. And, besides, the "first female" wouldn't just appear out of nowhere among a whole group of specimens that reproduced asexually. There is a sliding transfer.

Originally posted by Psydan
Also, isn't cloning a type of asexual reproduction, not the opposite of it?

WOOT? Of course it is asexual reproduction. What did I miss out here?

Originally posted by Psydan
Quote by ShadowTemplar: "I know what the Bombardier Beetle is, but I don't see in what way it disproves evolution."
Well, the bombadier beetle uses a special type of self-defense. It's able to spray a stream of steaming hot liquid, that makes a loud popping noise, and that blinds and can burn the predator.
It sprays hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide out of seperate sacs, and when they mix they combine to form a chemical reaction. Now how could evolution produce this?

If, and I'm not saying that that's how it happened ('cause then I'd have to read up on it), if a beetle species began to produce some unpleasant liquid, then predators would be less inclined to eat it = greater survivability. Then the rest is fine-tuning.

For more Q&A to "whole-greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts-nonsense" go to www.sciam.com and search on "15 answers". You'll find an article called "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense". Therein lie all the answers you need.

BTW: What is the structure formula for hydroquinone? Not that I think that you're lying, I just want to see if I can put it to some use, or make a model of the reaction or something.

Originally posted by Psydan
because really you'll never believe anything that I say.(speaking of which, it's kind of dumb in my opinion to be arguing about the use of words like believe, but thats just my opinion)

I'll never believe anything. If you have to believe it, then I for one find it too far out.

Originally posted by Psydan
And, "evolution" (species adapting to the environment, which by the way is one of the characteristics that all things must have to be considered "living")has been proven, many times, so it is a fact, and I'm not doubting it, but I do doubt "evolution" as it relates to this post topic (being the alternative to ID. The theory that no intelligent being(s) formed life on Earth).

Big, fat, glaring why. Why would the model not be applicable to life as a whole, when it so exellently describes the life that we see now?

BCanr2d2
01-19-2003, 09:06 AM
Evolution, a relatively new term, or supposedly new anyway. Let's clear up where we are as a race first. We, in the 21st Century are not that advanced. We should not consider the Ancient Greek or Egyptian civilisations less intelligent, since they were around a long time ago. Along the way, as we fought and razed buildings to the ground, the winners wrote history, the losers were absorbed.
Archimedes, Socrates, Plato ARE amongst some of the most intelligent thinkers to grace this Earth EVER. BUT once the Athenaen way of life was no more, what civilisation would really want to promote the ideas of a race they had just conquered?
The only reason people believe the Pyramids were made by slaves, is that it may, not sure haven't read it, the Bible states that it was the case. Now with currently excavation at the site surrounding the pyramids shows a more affluent kind of people were working on them, due to the kind of everyday items they had. All of a sudden going from a bunch of rank amatuers creating monoliths that have stood for over 4000 years, to having the ancient equivalent of a trained construction company doing the work.



In the last 10-20 years, it has been found that the current line of thinking, due to acts of war, amongst other things, makes the current western world not as intelligent as everyone would believe.

How many Greek texts, amongst others, were lost when the great library in Alexandria was burnt to the ground, removing traces of great thinkers like Archimedes....

Not even Da Vinci, one of the modern times most outstanding thinkers, could create the odometer that Archimedes had created for the Roman empire, due to some incorrect assumptions. There are lot of things that may be a lot further advanced and developed if not for the ravages of war that made most of the Hellenistic ideas lost to the world.

Over time, mans thinking, or intelligence have evolved and devolved according to whoever took control. Not until the last 50 or 60 years has the world started to think in a relatively uniform way, that will help us understand a lot more things.
It has taken us over 2000 years to catch up, in a relative sense, to where the Greeks were all that time ago. In realistic terms, the Theory of Evolution is relatively young in the terms of time and thinking. So, to find holes in something that tries to describe how we have changed since life arrived on Earth isn't going to be that hard.
The fact that about 80 years after the events, the Bible was being written, in that day and ages, was about three generations away from people who had seen any of it directly. It's like asking your grandchildren to write in about 120 years from now what it was like today, not a great deal of accuracy....
The fact that it took one Pope in the Middle Ages to declare the Bible as a literal statement of fact. That was about 1000 years after the book had been taught as a metaphorical text, in line with the people who wrote it. Why didn't all the other Popes before him make this declaration, OR did they not believe it to be literal?
There are scientists out there that say Evolution and Creation can go hand in hand. That the six days of creation, are describing the different times of the world that it took to arrive at a point where humans now roamed it.
How do we even know the King of Kings was actually Jesus, Emmanuel in other languages, and not some, what is now in modern Turkey, a man who through his family trees joined two seperate lines of kings from two dynasties. It seems as if that story in the Bible is a "chinese whisper" of this event. The events of the Bible may speak the truth to things that have happened, but are not in themselves totally irrefutable.


I'd believe something written by Archimedes over the Bible, even if they are of the same age.
We are nowhere near the stage of "If it hasn't been explained, therefore it's unexplainable" We know more about the moon and outer space that we do about the ocean floor. We don't totally understand our own planet, yet have a complete knowledge of our closest satellite....
Current Western thinking is relatively new after the Dark Ages, so consider us on 500 years into the new way of thinking, and not try to make it a total life sum of everything ever known on this earth. It just doesn't work like that, just because the Romans and the Greeks were advanced, does not make for a straight line of developed thinking from them.
The Greeks lost their fight for freedom, their ideas were lost to the world, the Romans lost too, so plenty of their ideas were thrown away as well.....

Mandalorian54
01-21-2003, 06:08 PM
The only reason people believe the Pyramids were made by slaves, is that it may, not sure haven't read it, the Bible states that it was the case. Now with currently excavation at the site surrounding the pyramids shows a more affluent kind of people were working on them, due to the kind of everyday items they had. All of a sudden going from a bunch of rank amatuers creating monoliths that have stood for over 4000 years, to having the ancient equivalent of a trained construction company doing the work.

acctually the slaves only hauled the blocks of clay or whatever pyramids are made of. the slaves also made the clay and straw blocks, but they were directed by the egyptians. Do you think that our construction workers design the bricks and model things. No they use the bricks, carpenters are a different story.

Also there are historical records to support it, and egyptian hiroglifacs or however it's spelt.

The fact that about 80 years after the events, the Bible was being written, in that day and ages, was about three generations away from people who had seen any of it directly. It's like asking your grandchildren to write in about 120 years from now what it was like today, not a great deal of accuracy....

according to historical documents it is exactly accurate.

The fact that it took one Pope in the Middle Ages to declare the Bible as a literal statement of fact. That was about 1000 years after the book had been taught as a metaphorical text, in line with the people who wrote it. Why didn't all the other Popes before him make this declaration, OR did they not believe it to be literal?

You need to get your facts straight.

Many people then believed it as many of us do now, some of the Bible is literal and some is metaphorical.

That is why so many people study it. And thats why we have pastors at churches, to study and teach the congragation.

And Constantine had done that before any Pope existed, by the way, the Pope is Catholic and the Catholic Bible has two added books to it, so the Bible he was talking about was a bit faulty.

----------------------

okay I don't have time to re-read evry post and point out all your mistakes.

Evolution is not a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!

it can not be proven!!!!!!!!!!!

God was not created! He reated Time! GOD has no beginging and will have no end. Is that so hard to imagine?

so tell me cjas, where do you think the first cell come from?

Breton
01-21-2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
acctually the slaves only hauled the blocks of clay or whatever pyramids are made of. the slaves also made the clay and straw blocks, but they were directed by the egyptians. Do you think that our construction workers design the bricks and model things. No they use the bricks, carpenters are a different story.

Also there are historical records to support it, and egyptian hiroglifacs or however it's spelt.



Firstly, the blocks weren't made of clay, but some kind of stone (sandstone or something). Also, there is nothing that indicates that there was slaves who built the monuments, workers yes, but why should it be slaves? I quote a website: "The pyramids of Egypt – believe it or not – were built by the Egyptians."

http://www.nunki.net/PerDud/TheWorks/Express/WhoBuiltPyrimads.html

Evolution is not a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!

it can not be proven!!!!!!!!!!!

Most people thinks that bacterias evolving resistance against antibiotics it evidence enough.

Breton
01-21-2003, 07:00 PM
"The story so far:
In the beginning the universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Many races belive that it was created by some kind of god, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI belive that the entire universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.
The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel.
However, the Great Green Arkleseizure Theory is not widely acceptd outside Viltvodle VI and so, the Universe being the puzzling place it is, other explanations are constantly being sought."

-The beginning of "The Resturant at the End of the Universe" by Douglas Adams

Reborn Outcast
01-21-2003, 07:22 PM
Ok yet again I am here late. :)


My reasons that evolution is not true: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS IN THE WORLD. And don't go trying to tell me that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it is FAKE. Why are their only 6 fossils of Archaeopteryx in the world and why do ony 2 have feathers? Because its fake.

From a website that I found:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you ask an evolutionist to tell you a transitional link, he will probably say: Archaeopteryx. So, what is, or what was this creature? Archaeopteryx is supposed to be a transition between a dinosaur—a reptile— and a bird, basically a bird-sized, feathered reptile. There is much evidence that this fossil is a fraud. If this is a real transitional species, it is the only one to be found anywhere on earth.

There are 6 alleged fossils of this animal. There should be millions, if it was a transitional link. Only 2 of these 6 fossils have feathers, the London and Berlin specimens. Since 1980, prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with visible feathers are forgeries. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement."

After examining this fossil from closer, we will see that everything points to it being a fraud.

All Archaeopteryx fossils come from the Solnhofen limestone formation in Bavaria, Germany. It is interesting that they were all found here, and that the owners of the mine made a great profit from selling the fossils.

The body of this animal strangely resembles Compsognathus, a bird-sized dinosaur. Were it not for the feathers, Archaeopteryx would be classified as Compsognathus. The feathers are exactly the same as for modern birds. The forger of Archaeopteryx probably just made feather imprints on a fossil of Compsognathus. This is also proven by the fact that all the feathers of Archaeopteryx are all laid out flat where the main slab and counterslab meet (these are the two sides of a fossil).

This animal probably couldn’t fly, since it doesn’t have a sternum (breast bone), which all birds and even bats need to have.

Other evidence pointing to forgery:

The feather imprints show double strike, which means that the feathers were imprinted twice in slightly displaced positions, when the forger placed the two blocks of limestone together.
Only the London specimen has a visible furcula, unique feature of birds.This furcula (or wishbone) is abnormally large and upside-down. It is even broken. How could such a flexible bone buried in soft sediments break, unless the forger accidentally broke it when taking it out of another fossil? The imprint of the furcula on the counter slab is not smooth, and shows the rough work of a chisel.
There is a strange, small grained material (called a "chewing gum blob") under the feather imprints. This material differs from the limestone surrounding the fossil. This is probably the wet cement used by the forger to make the feather imprints.
The main and counter slabs do not perfectly mate. There are bumps on the counterslab, made of the same fine-grained material found under the feathers. These bumps don’t have any corresponding depressions on the other slab.
There was much disagreement about these fossils until 1986, when they were analyzed with an X-ray resonance spectrograph, and definitive conclusions reached. It was found that the fine-grained material was significantly different in chemistry from the surrounding limestone, and the rock of the quarry in Germany where the fossils were found.
It has been proven that Archaeopteryx is a forgery that has deceived scientists for over 125 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Ok so that rules out the transitional link. No cross between species found when their should be MILLIONS of fossils like that.

Second reason: Their are NO TRANSITIONAL ORGANS TO BE FOUND. From that same website:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Besides the missing transitional species, there are no transitional organs either, e.g. there are no half scale and half feathers, no half leg and half wings (when reptiles are supposed to have turned into birds).

The other problem with transitional species is that if they ever lived, they would quickly have died and not passed on their genes. When evolving into a bird, the leg of a reptile would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing. Natural selection would select the reptile with normal legs, and the one that started to evolve into a bird would be unfit and die. Therefore, evolution would not occur.

How could the eye evolve for example? Natural selection wouldn’t select an animal with a partially evolved eye. For an eye to work properly, all its parts need to be in their place. A transitional eye wouldn’t be any good, and that’s why we never find such things in the fossil record. The eye could only appear with all its parts at the same time. This can only be done by a Creator.

Darwin was speculating in The Origin of Species, how the eye could have evolved, but he admitted:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
-------------------------------------------------------

So even Darwin, the creator of the theory of evolution, was hesitant.


Lets see what we have now, No transitional species, no transitional organs. Dinosaurs did not change all of a sudden into birds. So where are the transitional fossils. THERE ARE NONE. Sorry but evolution sound pretty wrong to me.

Now look at this from that same website:

-------------------------------------------------------
Let's try to imagine how the dinosaur—bird process could take place. First of all, we need approximately 100 million years. At the beginning of this period, there is the four-legged dino, and at the end the two-legged, two-winged bird. Well, our little dinosaur was in deep trouble, because predators were killing his family, and he couldn't run fast enough, or his environment had changed and he didn't have any place to hide. And then by chance (random mutation) a rather curious little dinosaur hatched which had a few feathers on his back and his two front legs were less functional. Curiously, he survived. By chance again, his offspring had more feathers and even less functional front legs. This process continued for 50 million years, until our dino-bird had neither well-running front legs, nor developed wings to fly. So, instead of being a better survivor than others of his original species, as expected by the evolutionary theory, he was a worse one. Poor chap, he couldn't even exist, because he would have been the first to be eaten by the predators.
-------------------------------------------------------


So there are the hard facts that evolution is not true.

C'jais
01-21-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Most people thinks that bacterias evolving resistance against antibiotics it evidence enough.

Oh, they're just adapting. That this adaptation involves severe DNA changes is a minor issue.

That we can date our relationship with other races via DNA substitutions, which records the time of separation from the common ancestor is also just an unimportant detail.

If you found a skull in a desert which resembled a cross over between a human and an ape, how would you react?

How would you react if you were told that a chimpanzee shares 98% of its genes with us, and that it's more closely related to us than to orangutangs?

Murtaugh
01-21-2003, 07:38 PM
Aliens created the universe, just like they created earth!
http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html
All hail Rael!!!

TheWhiteRaider
01-22-2003, 02:09 AM
Oh boy here we go again.

BTW do you know why the bacteria are able to stand agains anti-biotics? I would like to see if you know.

And how accurate is you dating methods?

C'jais
01-22-2003, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
BTW do you know why the bacteria are able to stand agains anti-biotics? I would like to see if you know.

Natural selection. Out of a huge bunch of bacteria, a select few have the right mutation to withstand the applied anti-biotic. They'll survive, and pass on the gene when they multiply afterwards.

And how accurate is you dating methods?

Pretty accurate. So accurate, in fact, that they're able to predict where the fossils are, how deep they're buried and that we're not supposed to find human fossils in strata from the Jurassic period. If we ever did that, our dating methods would be way off, but this hasn't happened yet. The mere fact that they can predict fossil findings ought to be enough to ensure you that they aren't merely lucky numbers and wild pot-shots.

C'jais
01-22-2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
My reasons that evolution is not true: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS IN THE WORLD. And don't go trying to tell me that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it is FAKE. Why are their only 6 fossils of Archaeopteryx in the world and why do ony 2 have feathers? Because its fake.

Creationist conspiracy theory yet again. The 6 Archeopteryx fossils aren't fakes. The first one was excavated in the bloody 19th century. At that point, no one had got the slightest idea of dinosaurs being related to birds. It was this fossil that turned it upside down, not an attempt to convince the non-creationists at that point.

And it is plain false to state they were all excavated in Bavaria, Germany - they have been found deep in Asia as well.

Presuming we'd be able to find millions of transitional fossils if it wasn't a forgey only shows how little they know of fossilization and the theory of evolution. And using this one example gives you no right at all to dismiss the countless other transitional fossils. How about Lucy, the Neanderthals, Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and the several transitional fossils found, showing a smooth transition between fish and land living creatures?

When evolving into a bird, the leg of a reptile would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.

Again more bullsnot. The first flyers came from forest dwellers, leaping from tree to tree, like the flying snakes and squirrells today. Tiny creatures, which spread their limbs and glided from the treetops. Natural selection would at first select the ones with increasingly more skin stretched out between their arms and legs, so as to make for better gliding. Once this had reached a comfortable stage, tiny feathers began to appear, and it'd instantly help these gliders. Now comes the fine tuning - from being a mere assist in gliding, these feathers slowly grew to the whole body and began to form wings which the creatures would need to steer with.

How could the eye evolve for example?

Imagine that you're one of the very first many celled fish living at the beginning of evolution in water. You have no eyes. The water is incredibly dark. You cannot distinguish the water surface from the water bottom. Now, light sensitive cells begin to evolve. You still can't see anything, but now your new light sensitive cells react when confronted with light, allowing you to see the surface. An immense aid. The rest is fine tuning - these light sensitive cells grew more and more specialized and accurate, allowing you to make crude patterns in the terrain and thus making sure you don't bumb into anything etc.

And one last thing regarding fossils:

Fossilization takes time. It has been proven. If all animals lived alongside each other (not that there'd be any space for them), how come we're only able to find fossils of the old ones, dated with our seemingly useless radioactive isotope dating methods?

ShadowTemplar
01-22-2003, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
My reasons that evolution is not true: THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES FOSSILS IN THE WORLD. And don't go trying to tell me that Archaeopteryx is a transitional species because it is FAKE. Why are their only 6 fossils of Archaeopteryx in the world and why do ony 2 have feathers? Because its fake.

You cannot say, based on one forgery (if your source is even remotely credible (big if, incredibly big if)). As for the rest of the crap in your post: READ "15 ANSWERS TO CREATIONIST NONSENSE"! You will find everything beutifully explained there. Once you have adressed everything in it, you can come back and talk about facts... Until I rip your arguments apart, and burn the remains (and every mean, yes, all fifteen, capice?).

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
So there are the hard facts that evolution is not true.

Well, newsflash. That's roughly what we've been telling you all the time. Nothing is true, only more or less wrong.

Oh, and BTW: Do you know anything about either Biology, Chemestry, or Physics? Avogadro's constant? Planck's constant? Freeman's constant?

ShadowTemplar
01-22-2003, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Murtaugh
Aliens created the universe, just like they created earth!
http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html
All hail Rael!!!

Remember "Independence Day"? UFOs should not unconditionally be welcomed. Besides: There is a reason why ET hasn't dropped by yet: There are probably incredibly few civilized planets in the galaxy (if you browse www.sciam.com you may of may not be able to find the Sceptic article in which this is explained, but the basic point is that L is too small).

BCanr2d2
01-22-2003, 05:41 AM
according to historical documents it is exactly accurate.



You need to get your facts straight.

So, you think three generations removed from the actual events isn't enough? When not every person has easy access to record everything that they see or hear. They can't put a story in the news without a direct source, yet people will change their lives and beliefs to some "someone told someone who told someone" written book. If you went to anywhere with this kind of disassociation from the source, they would think you are nuts...

Hindsight is great, I agree that the Bible fits in with many, but not all events in it. The Romans did not have a census that forced Mary and Joseph to go to Jerusalem. Explain this so called pivotal event that forced them to move from one town to another? If the most advanced civilisation at the time didn't do it, who did?
It is also contentius the ay that certain key words have been interpreted. Of where the Bible states things were meant to be based, the languages are very similar, and to interpret in the wrong language makes a mockery of what is said in the Bible. Jesus is not actually named in the Bible, since it wasn't written in English, I think it is more likely to be Emmanuel that is the name that is stated....


Many people then believed it as many of us do now, some of the Bible is literal and some is metaphorical.

That is why so many people study it. And thats why we have pastors at churches, to study and teach the congragation.

And Constantine had done that before any Pope existed, by the way, the Pope is Catholic and the Catholic Bible has two added books to it, so the Bible he was talking about was a bit faulty.


BTW its ROMAN Catholicism - The East Roman Empire, ie Byzantine Empire took it as their official religion. When the Byzantine Empire existed, it took in approx 2/3rds of the original Roman Empire, which was approx 80-90% of the known civilised world at the time.
Some love to talk about Christianity and all the different denominations, does anyone bother to really look up as to when they actually were formed?
Lutheran - Middle Ages, bordering on Reniassance. I think you will find that the doctorine taught in many of these denominations are about 1200-1500 ingrained from Catholicism, due to the influence of the Roman Empire. So when the Pope said it was literal, more than a fair share of the world had to go along with interpretation.

You also state the evolution is not a fact, none of us deny that, but how can you prove that the Bible is fact too? All we have is people who will try to debunk evolution, well science actually, using stories from texts that are 20-40 years old.


I ask you this:

If the Bible is able to be read differently by everyone, then wouldn't you tend to agree that it was actually written as parables, rather than actual fact? The Jews writing style was that of parables, and they were the ones who wrote it. Why would they change one text?

C'jais
01-22-2003, 05:13 PM
I am all that is. None of you exist.

The world began with me. Time was created when I were born. History before my birth has no meaning, because I am all that is.

My environment is a world desperately pulled over my eyes to blind me from the truth - that I am alone. The names I see on my screen before my eyes are nothing. Merely electric impulses interpreted by my brain. The air I breathe is Me myself. Everything revolves back to me, and the world will cease to exist when I die. But I will never die. The concept of time and death are mine, and mine alone. The universe will crumble and everything will be erased when I am no longer here. There will be no history beyond my death and birth, for I am all that is.

You are but figments on my eyes. Nothing. Everything is a mirror of Me. Everything exists on my perception, and mine alone. I am All. You are Nothing.

Prove. Me. Wrong.

Reborn Outcast
01-22-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
The world began with me. Time was created when I were born. History before my birth has no meaning, because I am all that is. Prove. Me. Wrong.

If you are trying to be God... he was never born, he always has been there. I proved that you are not God.

If you are trying to be Jesus then time did not start when he was born. And the time before he was born had a great meaning because it was setting the stage for his birth. I just proved that you are not Jesus.

Master_Keralys
01-22-2003, 05:31 PM
Cjais - that's philosophy now for one thing. For another, if that's the case, then you're the same nothing, and I am everything. "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still fall?"

If you're all that exists - you are all and everything else in the universe is subject to your perceptions - then where did you come from? If nothing else exists, then where did you come from? If uyou have existed eternally, then you could be what we call God. Except that I know you're not, given that god exists outside of spacetime, and you say its simply one of your illusions.

Master_Keralys
01-22-2003, 05:33 PM
Exactly Reborn. Nicely stated.

C'jais
01-22-2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
If you are trying to be God... he was never born, he always has been there. I proved that you are not God.

That is a postulate. I can see that I'm all that is. I can see that everything is but a reflection of my perceptions.

If you are trying to be Jesus then time did not start when he was born. And the time before he was born had a great meaning because it was setting the stage for his birth. I just proved that you are not Jesus.

The concept of religion, time and Jesus were not created until my birth. There is no history before my birth. Prove it.

And no, I'm not trying to be God, and neither Jesus. I am all that is, and nothing has any relevance except for me.

C'jais
01-22-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Cjais - that's philosophy now for one thing.

Everything is philosophy. Prove the opposite.

then where did you come from?

The concept of time did not exist before I.

I am not God. God is an omnipotent concept. I am not omnipotent.

Everything exists the way I perceive it. Everything revolves around Me.

Psydan
01-22-2003, 09:44 PM
But Cjais I can see, for a fact, beyond doubt, that I am here. Though you may not believe this it is quite obvious to me. Of course from my perception all of that may be true for me, and you can't prove me wrong either. This is because you have created for yourself an effective lie that turns everything we say into nothing because it might just be your perception that causes you to think that we're saying this, and this can't be proven wrong, or are you even still waiting for a clever argument, you know as well as I that this is pointless, and now, go ahead and continue to assult my religion, I know that that is the point your trying to bring home, well I don't care. If you choose to reject God's gift then that is a tragically bad mistake, and I wish you would reconsider, but I'm not going to keep up this charade of you trying to be clever, and trying to prove us wrong. The question was how you thought the universe began. Can we at least have a good session of creative opinions instead of proving each other wrong, because apparently none of the arguments are even affecting the other side. As for Christianity the Bible says(KJV 2 Corinthians 5:7)
7(For we walk by faith, not by sight: ) <----(Not a smilie)

I've decided that I don't need to argue, you don't care, and I don't need to disprove you, because always by your perception you will be right (And I will always be equally right, at least in my perception), so let's stop trying to prove each other wrong, I know you're going to disagree, (of course, it wouldn't be in any of our nature to actually agree) but I don't think we should argue every point, because I will always believe in God as the creator of the universe.

TheWhiteRaider
01-23-2003, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Cjais
Natural selection. Out of a huge bunch of bacteria, a select few have the right mutation to withstand the applied anti-biotic. They'll survive, and pass on the gene when they multiply afterwards.

[B]


You sort of dodged the question. I mean do you know what is the machine is not what made it.


Pretty accurate. So accurate, in fact, that they're able to predict where the fossils are, how deep they're buried and that we're not supposed to find human fossils in strata from the Jurassic period. If we ever did that, our dating methods would be way off, but this hasn't happened yet. The mere fact that they can predict fossil findings ought to be enough to ensure you that they aren't merely lucky numbers and wild pot-shots.

Oh realy? Then I guess you would not know that Half-lives can be changed would you? It has been proven. And some of the methods are based on so little proof?

The East Roman Empire, ie Byzantine Empire took it as their official religion

Not realy.

C'jais
01-23-2003, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Psydan
This is because you have created for yourself an effective lie that turns everything we say into nothing because it might just be your perception that causes you to think that we're saying this, and this can't be proven wrong, or are you even still waiting for a clever argument

You finally got my point. Good.

Now apply this to every point you have made.

There's a trick though. Instead of whining, postulating bullcrap, you could dish up some testable evidence that the earth is older than my current age. Books and statements are not going to help you. You cannot prove these are older than me. On the other hand, if you carbon-14 date something to be 10.000 years old, you'll have proved without a doubt that I'm lying. Because I can test this myself. And so can you. Only testable, empirical evidence is going to help you. B!tching that I can't possibly bring philosophy into an already philosophical debate is not going to further this.

because I will always believe in God as the creator of the universe.

And that is called blind faith. No matter what damning evidence we dig up, you'll apparently always blindly believe in the biblical creation. Fundementalism is a disease of the mind, and if you're that cornered and skewed, I'm not even going to try to change your views on this.

Now I ask you: Are you willing to change your interpretation of the Bible if presented with damning proof? If you're not, get the hell out. I mean it. I'm not going to waste my time.

If you are, tell me why it's so important for you to take the Bible that literally. God can still exist if you "believe" in evolution. God can always be there, and I'm not even trying to disprove Him.

C'jais
01-23-2003, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
You sort of dodged the question. I mean do you know what is the machine is not what made it.

And you sort of dodged the answer.

It's not relevant what does the genetic change (mutations eh?) - fact is, it happens. Evolution (or adaptation, if you prefer) so obviously happens, and I frankly don't care if it's God who is doing it all, or nature itself.

Oh realy? Then I guess you would not know that Half-lives can be changed would you? It has been proven. And some of the methods are based on so little proof?

Oh really? I don't care, it's worked so far that it cannot plausibly be mere luck that did the predictions. Could God have made the predictions, the isotopes, the fossils? No matter. It works, with or without God.

Not realy.

Would you be so kind as to explain just what religion it was, if it wasn't Catholicism?

Reborn Outcast
01-23-2003, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Cjais
And that is called blind faith. No matter what damning evidence we dig up, you'll apparently always blindly believe in the biblical creation.

I would rather have blind faith and believe that there is something after death, than not have any faith at all.

BCanr2d2
01-23-2003, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Not realy.

This being in reference to the Byzantine Empire not having Catholicism as their religion.....

Then answer me this, why is the Byzantine Empire also known as the East Roman Empire or the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE? It was the Western Roman Empire that did not take catholicism with them, they are the ones who continued to persecute the Catholics....
Religion is one thing that split the Roman Empire in two....

St Sophia's in Istanbul wasn't built as a mosque, it was a Catholic Church, which is in sight of the Blue Mosque. Why would the Byzantines spend relatively a lot of money to build a large Church on top of the Hill in the Topkapi region, the Ottoman Palace is in this area as well, which is the highest region on the European side of Istanbul, IF Catholicism wasn't their main religion?


Naturally occuring isotopes - now lets discuss this term if you want to pick on science once again. What kind of extreme laboratory conditions have to exist for these isotopes to change half life? Then tell me if you can replicate them naturally on this earth?
It's like me saying I can make your head explode, now explain to me where on this Earth will it happen naturally? Personally, it'd happen if it was in a vacuum, but they don't occur on Earth, and space isn't one either......

Cjais,

Love the way you made your point there.

Reborn,
he never said he was God, he was suggesting that he was a god. Why has christianity just used a noun, spell it with an uppercase letter and hijack the word? I am sure this was a term that came from other languages and religions before Christianity came along.

Let everyone wonder when the Gulf Stream Atlantic Ocean Current is interupted by the freshwater melt from the Arctic ice, where their god is, and why this severe change in world climate has occured.
Did their god create fossil fuels (Hmm, if you don't believe evolution, then why bother with science at all and the time to create deposits of oil, coal etc) to force a hole in the ozone layer, and then to create the Arctic ice to melt to bring one what could potentially be the beginnings of the next Ice Age?

Explain, if Evolution isn't true, therefore giving the Earth a lot shorter time span, explain how the fossil fuels burnt to provide you the electricity you use, and the fuel for the car you drive?

C'jais
01-23-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I would rather have blind faith and believe that there is something after death, than not have any faith at all.

And I would rather believe I'm the be all, end all of everything rather than having no faith at all.

It's a nice thought. It makes you feel good. But it is an empty illusion.

Listen guys, have you heard about the Old viking myths? They're called myths, but they were in reality a religion once. Their "Genesis" is even more funked up than yours - it involves carving the meat of a giant into earth, and swetting out humans from its armpits.

Or, how about the Raelian religion? Aliens created all life on earth with DNA manipulation?

I'm sure you'd all like to see Creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in schools.

I can "prove" all of the above myths with the same technique you're applying to evolution. Trying to debunk science and telling us that on the one hand, you have a God that has apparently planted major evidence for a non-Biblical creation theory, and on the other hand seemingly "likes" to bend reality's laws to suit his follower's views on things.

Here's how it goes. If you should ever succeed in debunking evolution (and science), I'll immediately step in from the left and use my very own viking religion (it's a religion now that its myths are "true") instead of the biblical Genesis. Then we can argue over which religion is hotter.

But I warn you, I already have my facts straight: The viking myths haven't even caused a 1/10 of the murders that the Christian ones have.

C'jais
01-23-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Explain, if Evolution isn't true, therefore giving the Earth a lot shorter time span, explain how the fossil fuels burnt to provide you the electricity you use, and the fuel for the car you drive?

Very good point, but I'm afraid I can already answer for my fellow Creationists on this one:

It has not been proven that fossilization takes time. Our dating methods are inherently wrong when it comes to these matters. Even though scientists act like they know what they're talking about, when it comes to determining if fossils indeed do create fossil fuels over a very long time, they don't know anything.

And even though they still insist we will run dry of fossil fuels because we're burning it faster that it's being created (from where? Fossils? Cannot be), they're just talking out of their ass. Nevermind, we will see when the time comes and God no doubt will create a huge extra surplus of fossil fuels for us to burn. Then they'll know their failure.

Good point again.

Master_Keralys
01-23-2003, 06:48 PM
why is the Byzantine Empire also known as the East Roman Empire or the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE?

It's not. The Holy Roman Empire is the area occupied by Germanic tribes united under Charlemagne and his successors in the latter half of the dark ages. Get it straight man.:)

And that is called blind faith. No matter what damning evidence we dig up, you'll apparently always blindly believe in the biblical creation.

Nonsense. Blind faith is accepting something without questioning it. I question, often daily, the validity of my faith. Something tells me it's true though. Point 1: it's the only view on life that offers any hope. If there's no hope, no reason to live, why don't we just lie down and die now? But I don't see anyone doing that.

Point 2: Every piece of information in the Bible that can be verified with current archeological evidence - is right. Example - the date of the worldwide flood. The oldest tree in the world is ~ 4400 years old - exactly the age it would be if it started growing immediately after the end of the Biblical flood. The Grand Canyon could have been created at the same time, and probably was, if you ask some more objective archologists. Also, every culture in the world has a flood legend. Coincidence? I don't hink so.

Jesus - a clearly historical figure. Aristotle - we accept his historicity, correct? Well, the first manuscript we have of his works is from 1400 years after his death. But he's still viewed as real, correct? Okay, the first manuscript of the gospels are less than 80 years after his deat [and resurrection]. Aristotle - around 15 early manuscripts. Jesus - around 25000. The Bible is true in every other respect, why wouldn't it be regarding God.

Finally, I state that if one could conclusively prove the existence of God - there would be no need for belief or faith, everyone would know the same thing, that He exists. Here's the thing - let's stick to science in this post, and I'll start another one on theology.

As far as fossil fuels go, Cjais was right. The other thing is, given the pressures and the like - the fossil fuels couldn't be more than 10-14000 years old. More proof that the Biblical timeline is correct.

Evolution doesn't explain why human nature is inherently corrupt and power hungry. In actuality, it would be more profitable to have a nature that benefits the society and thereby benefits and protects the individual. Next, the process of natural selection doesn't prove evolution. Nor does it prove a Designer. It actually doesn't prove anything, except that living creatures have the ability to adapt.

Reborn Outcast
01-23-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Religion is one thing that split the Roman Empire in two....
No it was split into two parts because the Empire was falling apart. The new ruler (can't remember his name) Decided it would make the empire easier to rule if it were in two parts. He still had control over everything but he had a lower "king" working on the western half. Religion had nothing to do with it. Economy and the state of the empire did.

Originally posted by Cjais
I'm sure you'd all like to see Creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in schools.

The only reason its not taught in public schools is because of the law that states there is to be no crossing of the government and the church.

Originally posted by Cjais
Our dating methods are inherently wrong when it comes to these matters.

Ah an dcorrect you are. I'll look it up but I heard a story about some scientists who did a carbon date on a piece of paper that had just been made 10 minutes earlier and it dated it at 10,000 years old... the oldest tree known is around 4400 and we dont use fossilised things for paper..

Psydan
01-23-2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
Did their god create fossil fuels (Hmm, if you don't believe evolution, then why bother with science at all and the time to create deposits of oil, coal etc) to force a hole in the ozone layer, and then to create the Arctic ice to melt to bring one what could potentially be the beginnings of the next Ice Age?

Explain, if Evolution isn't true, therefore giving the Earth a lot shorter time span, explain how the fossil fuels burnt to provide you the electricity you use, and the fuel for the car you drive?

Just to let you know, they found an iron pot,(it is very obviously not natural)buried in layers of coal! Now, if we find pots made by humans, buried in coal, that kind of shows that it doesn't take so long for coal to be formed as some people think.
(just found this today) Very good website: http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
shows a lot of proof for creation, though I'm sure somebody could cause endless debates on the information, as many seem to want to.
Also, Cjais, I just wanted to say that using your theory I could just say that the carbon testing is only a perception of my reality, and that they don't prove anything. Also you have yet to give any "proof" that all life came through evolution, go ahead, show me how science has proved beyond reasonable doubt that humans came from a freak event, and millions of years of accidental changes, and you'll have some proof, or let some scientist use whatever non-organic things he can to try to produce life. If you can reproduce the same results every time, then that is good proof that life could have come without a creator, but I've never seen any "proof" of random events producing life.

Reborn Outcast
01-23-2003, 09:13 PM
Cjais explain this... How were those first bacteria formed? I have not heard you talk about that once.

TheWhiteRaider
01-24-2003, 02:12 AM
Then answer me this, why is the Byzantine Empire also known as the East Roman Empire or the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE?

MAby you should get some facts straight. The Holy Roman Empire was where Germany is now(somewhere around there.

The East part has the Orthodox church ok? There is a huge difference between the two.

And you sort of dodged the answer.

No you misunderstood the question.

Naturally occuring isotopes - now lets discuss this term if you want to pick on science once again. What kind of extreme laboratory conditions have to exist for these isotopes to change half life? Then tell me if you can replicate them naturally on this earth?

FIRST I AM NOT PICKING ON SCIENCE!
I am questioning your theory ok? You get nowhere in science without questions.

You real want to know how?

RA=radioactive(below)

Scientist have done it by just putting non-RA iron next to RA Iron. The non-RA iron became RA with it's RA clock reset to 0 and the first RA iron lost about 300 years on it.

Also they have found that pressure, water, and heat will change the rate of decay. Here is a quote from geologist Wakefield Dort, Jr., found in the Antarctic Journal(September-October 1971):211

"The apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead for no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years."

I'm sure you'd all like to see Creationism taught as an alternative to evolution in schools.

You know that even some evolutionist are for teaching Creation is schools? As Richard D. Alexander points out.

"No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed, at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution. Not only is this worth mentioning, but a compairison of two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason. Our primary goal as educators should be to teach students to think, and such a comparison, particularly because it concerns an issue in which many have speacial interests or are even emotionally involved, may accomplish that purpose better than most others."

Cjais explain this... How were those first bacteria formed? I have not heard you talk about that once.

In the last E vs. C debate it was Gonk that mainly talked about it. But Cjais will.

How about Lucy

Oh you mean the fossel that it's bones were found 50 miles apart and they were not of the same host?

RpTheHotrod
01-24-2003, 03:44 AM
eh... let me say one thing..because debating this is pointless other than the following:

Evolution is NOT a fact.

THEORY of evolution anyone? Not to mention the guy who made it up said it was FALSE and NEVER meant to be taken seriously (just a thought, he said).

Yet, the school system teaches it's a fact. In FACT....most of the "facts" on evolution have been proven FALSE...yet those are still taught in school as facts. False Facts...there's evolution for you.

Want to know something cool? Last year, a scientist team were doing experiements with quarks.. and as time goes by, they multiply (or something along those lines). They took the rate (which never changed) and decided to go backwards in time until the quarks would be so "un-multiplied" and few, the universe would cease to exists (due to "falling apart"). Guess how many years it was where that point was found?

Roughly 6000 years ago.

This was proven and put on the news, but many people freaked out and buried it right after it was released.


Just FYI (and this is true, done by a NORMAL scientist)


and...

using the "soandso begot soandso"s from the Bible, and other "time events" recorded in the Bible, after years of study, they were able to put together how long ago the Earth was created (according to the Bible)....guess how many years?

Rougly 6000 years ago.

Pretty interesting, eh? BTW, this is old news. It's been around for several years. I have a chart I made if you want to see a timeline of "The Eye of Time"

Tyrion
01-24-2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
eh... let me say one thing..because debating this is pointless other than the following:

Evolution is NOT a fact.

THEORY of evolution anyone? Not to mention the guy who made it up said it was FALSE and NEVER meant to be taken seriously (just a thought, he said).

False.

http://www.public.coe.edu/departments/Biology/darwin_bio.html

"Darwin was not an atheist. He described himself as an agnostic, and it is likely that he retained a belief in some kind of personal God, although not a diety who, like some master puppeteer, took a direct and continuously intervening role in the evolutionary process and in human affairs. Throughout his life Darwin maintained a sense of deep humility and a concern for his fellow man, fully aware of the limits of science. Darwin was deeply affected by the death of his older brother Erasmus ("Ras") in August 1881, and it is conjectured that his grief may have exacerbated the seriousness of his own poor health. In early 1882 he had several minor heart attacks. His condition worsened and on April 19, 1882, at 73 years of age, he died at Down House, after several hours of nausea, intense vomiting and retching, symptoms of a chronic illness that bedeviled him for the last 40 years of his life. At his bedside, and attending to his needs, were his wife Emma, his daughter Henrietta and his son Francis. A widespread rumor circulated -- facilitated by an evangelist by the name of Lady Hope who preached in Downe during the last years of Darwins life -- that on his deathbed Darwin renounced evolution and declared himself a Christian. This story, totally contradictory to the nature of the man himself, is a falsehood, denied by his daughter Henrietta and those who knew him best and who were actually at his bedside during his last weeks. Darwin's last words, spoken to his wife Emma, were in actuality, "I am not in the least afraid to die." "

Edit- And if the Universe wasnt here 6000 years ago,why could god be here? If he could be in nothing,then maybe something else could be here in nothing? Not neccisarliy god.

(P.S.,this conversation also seems pointless,as none of us can prove who is right and who is wrong just because our minds just arent powerful enough to even fathom our beginnings.)

C'jais
01-24-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It's not. The Holy Roman Empire is the area occupied by Germanic tribes united under Charlemagne and his successors in the latter half of the dark ages. Get it straight man.:)

True, the Holy Roman Empire had nothing to do with the Empire of Constantinople. His other points remain valid enough though - They were decidedly Christian. If you don't believe they were, give proof of something else.



Point 1: it's the only view on life that offers any hope.

So other religions don't count on that, eh? I'm sure Muslims have just as much hope as you.

And if I don't believe in anything at all (meaning I have no hope), how come I don't lay down and die? It is a biological imperative that we don't just "lay down and die". It has nothing to do with religion. By the same argument, every non-human race should simirarily commit suicide.

It is false reasoning. Unfounded claim.

Point 2: Every piece of information in the Bible that can be verified with current archeological evidence - is right.

Not. (http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/flood.htm)

The oldest tree in the world is ~ 4400 years old

Not exactly. There have been found plant life dated to be well over millions of years old.

Also, every culture in the world has a flood legend. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Not true. Blatantly false, even.

As far as fossil fuels go, Cjais was right. The other thing is, given the pressures and the like - the fossil fuels couldn't be more than 10-14000 years old.

Not true. Even if it happened that way, it'd require that more plant life had existed at your start of the world than had ever grown on the earth.

Evolution doesn't explain why human nature is inherently corrupt and power hungry.

It does not intend to. Does astronomy explain economic growth? I don't think so.

If you think humans are bestial savages when it comes to survival, you're absolutely right, thought.

In actuality, it would be more profitable to have a nature that benefits the society and thereby benefits and protects the individual.

I agree. But we don't. And never have we had one.

It actually doesn't prove anything, except that living creatures have the ability to adapt.

And this adaptation couldn't possibly lead to new species? Unthinkable? Nevermind, it has already been proven on existing specimens, so that point is invalid anyway.

C'jais
01-24-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Psydan
Also, Cjais, I just wanted to say that using your theory I could just say that the carbon testing is only a perception of my reality, and that they don't prove anything.

Oh, you could say that? You are all doing this.

Read this, and remain forevermore silent about evolutionaty dating methods. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold)

And this as well. (www.c14dating.com)

And while you're at it, better read this to avoid further blunders. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#k-ar)

Also you have yet to give any "proof" that all life came through evolution

It doesn't matter. I don't care if God created the first bacteria or if nature itself did. No matter. What does matter is that the earth is immensely old, that humans evolved through a freak accident (or God manipulating) and that we are not the be all, end all of life.

but I've never seen any "proof" of random events producing life.

You and I both know full well that it's downright impossible to re-create the scenario of life developing from inorganic materials. It'd require conditions on this earth that does not exist anymore, and a few billion years. I don't have that.

But neither can you re-create any miracle to prove God.

C'jais
01-24-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Cjais explain this... How were those first bacteria formed? I have not heard you talk about that once.

Run a search for the second evolution vs creationism debate in the swamp: Evolution vs Creationism - a reasoned debate (I believe it was called).

I made a lengthy post about it in that thread, somewhere along the end.

But this doesn't matter at all, really. As before, I don't give a flying funk if God made the first single celled life, or if it's indeed God that's doing all the evolution proved in countless experiments.

Read this, and remain silent about the probability of "random" life originations. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html)

I don't require you understand it, though. Just read it. And stop making these silly assertions.

C'jais
01-24-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
No you misunderstood the question.

What is doing the adaptation? You want to know what exactly is making them immune to anti-biotics? Is that the question?

I already gave the answer.

You real want to know how?

[Snip]

And I present this, again. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold)

Weird non-recurring results does not prove anything at all. It proves that the dating methods alone can sometimes give unexplainable results. Big news. But combine all the radioactive dating methods, remove the sporadic unexplainable results and they never deviate.

You know that even some evolutionist are for teaching Creation is schools? As Richard D. Alexander points out.

Do you have a source for that? I'd like to see it in context.

Regardless, it looks more like he's referring to his students picking the unproven theory of Creationism apart with lab experiments. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh you mean the fossil that it's bones were found 50 miles apart and they were not of the same host?

You mean this? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html)

C'jais
01-24-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Evolution is NOT a fact.

But can you prove it?

Creationism cannot be proved wrong, and it cannot be proved right - just as Rael's "science-religion" and the old Viking myths.

You can only try to disprove evolution. Once that is done, what will you do? Automatically assume YOUR theory is the right one?

I give you a small task, one that you no doubt will quickly complete: Present to me proof of the earth being created by God as written in the Bible.

Some people will probably noticed I posted the same thing a while back, but that's because no one responded to it, and proceeded to do what's logically unsound: State their theory is true, because ours is wrong. False reasoning.

Yet, the school system teaches it's a fact. In FACT....most of the "facts" on evolution have been proven FALSE...yet those are still taught in school as facts. False Facts...there's evolution for you.

And which facts would this be? That new species of fruit flies and bacteria have already evolved due to their high breeding rate, and quick mutation rates?

Want to know something cool? Last year, a scientist team were doing experiements with quarks.. and as time goes by, they multiply (or something along those lines). They took the rate (which never changed) and decided to go backwards in time until the quarks would be so "un-multiplied" and few, the universe would cease to exists (due to "falling apart").

And how does this disprove radioactive dating? You lack the proper timescale to state this. Can you give a source for this, though?

using the "soandso begot soandso"s from the Bible, and other "time events" recorded in the Bible, after years of study, they were able to put together how long ago the Earth was created (according to the Bible)....guess how many years?

Can you give a source?

Pretty interesting, eh?

Not really. By carefully observing my garden over the course of half a year, I can deduce that since my plants are all withering, the world must only be around half a year old, otherwise all plants would have been dead a long time ago. Pretty interesting, eh?

C'jais
01-24-2003, 02:56 PM
Now that we've asserted radioactive dating methods beyond a doubt so far have been proven correct, this presents a dillema.

First, read this. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html)

And read this, if you're unsure of what evolution really means. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)

Answer at least some of these questions, and I'll be mightily impressed. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html)

Remember, God could have started it all. God could have sparked the big bang, could have seeded the first single celled life on earth, and could have guided the evolution to his wishes. He can exist alongside with evolution. No harm in believing that.

Master_Keralys
01-24-2003, 05:12 PM
But can you prove it?

No but neither can you prove it. Here's the thing Cjais - in either argument, most of the evidence is negative for the other side. There's simply too much we don't - and can't know. Unless someone invents a time machine.

As far as fish eyes go - there is no reason to believe that the light-sensitive cells would start to evolve in the first place. For one thing, functioning light-sensitive cells only exist in groups; single cells are useless in that case. so the only way those cells could possibly come into existence is by an extremely improbable mutation.

As far as Archeopteryx goes - why is it that you first say that finding transitional species is extremely improbable, then say that we've found six Archeopteryxes. Does it just somehow luckily defy the odds? Furthermore, the evolutionary path you described for Archeopteryx would never happen, and you should know that. The evolution would occur so slowly that there would actually not be anything to select for. We're talking millimeters of skin at a time, nothing that would be helpful for a really long time. So it couldn't get chosen by natural selection: it wouldn't help the creature mate or survive, so, it wouldn't get selected. Next, there would come a point when the skin would be a hindrance and would cause the creature to be easy prey for predators while not helping the creature enough to make a difference. At which point the trait would be selected against, and birds would never exist.

C'jais
01-24-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
No but neither can you prove it.

Radioactive dating, experiments with live specimens, observed DNA changes, the fossil record, and one unifying theory is what can be proven for evolution. It can be proven.

Here's the thing Cjais - in either argument, most of the evidence is negative for the other side. There's simply too much we don't - and can't know.

Here's what we know:

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Mankind has only recently existed.

The fossils show a gradual transition between the different species of life that ever existed. And this happened over great period of time, with some species becoming extinct, and others evolving to fit niches in nature.

As far as fish eyes go - there is no reason to believe that the light-sensitive cells would start to evolve in the first place. For one thing, functioning light-sensitive cells only exist in groups; single cells are useless in that case.

Why would they be useless in a single celled form? Why would it be a supposedly "improbable" mutation?

As far as Archeopteryx goes - why is it that you first say that finding transitional species is extremely improbable, then say that we've found six Archeopteryxes.

I never said finding transitional fossils would be improbable. I said that with your reasoning, every transitional fossil we dig up you'll immediately classify as an independent species with no relation to other species. Even though DNA tests have proved that they're very much related.

At which point the trait would be selected against, and birds would never exist.

Take a close look at this monstrosity recently dug up. (http://rhein-zeitung.de/on/03/01/22/topnews/fossil.html)

Does that look like remniscient of a flying squirrel to you?

Your understanding of natural selection is limited. You forget to include in that equation that we have several million years to mutate our forward to this. Each little millimeter of skin would be carefully passed on to the next generation and natural selection would make sure that it happens simultaneusly on each of these creatures. Now, we have several thousand of these dino squirrels slowly evolving their way forward to better gliding ability - at the same time. It isn't improbable at all once you factor in a few million years.

But yes, you touched on a subject that hasn't been completely satisfactory answered with evolutionary evidence yet. But the other facts remain: 4.5 billion years old earth, DNA changes in offspring that culminate in other species and real observances of the theory in action by insects and bacteria.

Present empirical evidence of the biblical genesis. Now. None of you have done it yet.

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory? (I'd like to see you present evidence of this. I'd very much like it, actually)

3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory?

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

TheWhiteRaider
01-25-2003, 02:30 AM
You want to know what exactly is making them immune to anti-biotics?

Yes I want exact anwsers not just "it is a mutation".


The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Realy? I got to hear how you know.

It isn't improbable at all once you factor in a few million years.

No it still is. Random chance does not remember previous results! It is like saying that because a coin turned up heads it is going to be tails next. It is not true. It is still 1/2 chance every time you filp

The fossils show a gradual transition between the different species of life that ever existed

Not quite. Let's just say for a second that the flood did happen. Now if it is true. Would not the slower one not be able to make it to higher ground? Would not humans be able to get to high places before they died? Would not the ones that could not climb be near the bottum? Also did you know trees have been found verticaly in the ground?

But combine all the radioactive dating methods

When ever all the radio active methods are used at the same place you get an error of 1.5 - 15 bliion years.


I think evolutionist tend to prove the wrong things.

If Jimmy eats poison Jimmy will die. True
Jimmy died so that means Jimmy ate poison. False

That tends to be the logic behind alot of what you said. You tend to go proving more that it could rather than it did.

BTW, What observed DNA changes may I ask?

C'jais
01-25-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by TheWhiteRaider
Yes I want exact anwsers not just "it is a mutation".

But it is a mutation that is the cause of the genetic change.

Out of a bunch of bacteria, a very select few will have a genetic change from the rest that enables them to code for a different protein than the others. This protein makes them immune. Then, after all the others have been wiped out, the ones with the genetic change will replicate and ensure the survival of the gene.

It's been tested on humans as well - due to a genetic change, we're now immune to the plague.


Realy? I got to hear how you know.

Half-lives of radioactive isotopes. I don't expect you to understand it though, and you'll probably whine about the inaccuracy once more.

Reply after you've read this. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html)

No it still is. Random chance does not remember previous results! It is like saying that because a coin turned up heads it is going to be tails next. It is not true. It is still 1/2 chance every time you filp

Reply after you've read this. Note that it's not sequential, but simultaneus. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Search)

And read this to understand that evolution does not depend on chance. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html)

Not quite. Let's just say for a second that the flood did happen.

I don't really care aobut the flood anymore. Massive evidence is against it.

Here. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html)

And here. (http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/flood.htm)

Would not humans be able to get to high places before they died?

With the rate of the downpour, every human would be vaporized or liquified in a matter of hours.

When ever all the radio active methods are used at the same place you get an error of 1.5 - 15 bliion years.

Source, please.

An interesting example is the formation of ice on Greenland. Every year, a new layer is added. If you go backwards, you can count several thousands of years (about 40.000), and you can correlate the changes in the ice with natural phenomena.

BTW, What observed DNA changes may I ask?

When mutations occur, the DNA is changed. So far so good.

These DNA changes are recorded in nucleic chain. It has been proven on live specimens altering and mutating to fit the changed environment. Thus, you can prove how much time has passed since the mother species evolved into the examined one. This theory has been tested on dogs as well as several other living animals with living, provable species.

C'jais
01-25-2003, 11:50 AM
And just for good measure:

1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory? (I'd like to see you present evidence of this. I'd very much like it, actually)

3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory?

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

Take a close look at this yet again. (http://rhein-zeitung.de/on/03/01/22/topnews/fossil.html)

Remember what I wrote about a "flying squirrel dinosaur"? I, not even an expert by far, predicted this fossil discovery! Remarkable. It really is. And not mere luck - the theory of evolution was a clear indication that such a fossil would be found.

Now, let's see you creationist predict ANYTHING at all with your theory. Fossils, natural phenomena, geological excavations - I don't care. Just predict something, and you can stop looking stupid in the light of evolution.

Reborn Outcast
01-25-2003, 06:14 PM
Cjais did you edit your post? Because I noticed before that you had a link to a hydrogen page I believe and now its gone. I would like to see that link again if you took it out. (I am in the process of getting info so I will post later I just want to see the link.)


Edit: Ah nevermind I found it. (It was in the isotopes section and it was helium)

Reborn Outcast
01-25-2003, 06:45 PM
Ok sorry for the double post but here we go...

Taken from this site. (http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html)

Here are nearly a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers I list below in bold print (often millions of years) are maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less that the required evolutionary ages, while the biblical age (6,000-10,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time-scale and for the biblical time-scale.
Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with an old universe only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a young universe. The list starts with distant astronomic phenomena and works its way down to Earth, ending with everyday facts.


1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical maximum ages (on this basis) of 10,000 years.(1)
Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.(2) So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations.

Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.


2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.(3) This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e. mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 metres.(4)
The main way currently known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only one billion tons per year.(4) As far as anyone knows, the other 25 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years.

Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometres deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis Flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago.


3. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers(5) and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.(6,7) As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.(7) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.(7) Calculations(8) for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1,000 years.(9) Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis Flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.(10) This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data.(11) The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old.(12)

5. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.(13)

6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
Strong geologic evidence(14) exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone -- formed an alleged 500 million years ago -- of the Ute Pass Fault, west of Colorado Springs, was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.

7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.(15) 'Squashed' Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time-scale.(16) 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.(17,18)

8. Helium in the wrong places.
All naturally occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in five billion years.(19) This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age.
A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years.(20)


9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.(21) By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies.(22) If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artefacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

10. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.(21) Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the four billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.(22)

11. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.(23) Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The biblical time-scale is much more likely.(22)


Here is an answer to your dating methods...

A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad. Young basalt rock at the Canyon's top produced an age estimate 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon's bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron). If such a sophisticated method is so flawed, geologist Dr. Steven Austin rightly wonders, "Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?"



And some more... The Assumptions are the evolutionists theories.


[QUOTE]ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.
PROBLEM: One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.


ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists have also tended to assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.
PROBLEM: The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem.7 Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.


ASSUMPTION: They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.8
PROBLEM: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change.9 If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks.


Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated:

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."10

Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation:

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."

C'jais
01-25-2003, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

The problem that is referred to by the creationist here is that the short- period comets have not occupied their present orbits for very long (in astronomical terms). Each time a comet passes close to the sun, some of its matter is driven off into space by the sun's energy (forming its "tail"). "Short-period" comets are believed by astronomers to have a lifetime of only a few thousand years, because after that all of their "tail-producing" matter would be used up (indeed, astronomers have noted comets to "vanish"; the remaining material only makes its presence known upon entering the Earth's atmosphere; this is likely the origin of meteoroid swarms.)

However, the fact that a comet cannot have occupied its present orbit for very long does not automatically imply that it is young. The Oort hypothesis does explain this problem as well, in that long-period comets -- if frequent enough -- will be moved into short-period orbits by a relatively near approach to a planet (comet loses momentum, planet gains it, comet is now in a vastly shorter orbit, planet is now in a very slightly longer orbit).

In fact, of the short-period comets, roughly half orbit pretty much between the sun and jupiter, leading astronomers to believe that jupiter "captured" them into their current orbits. (Statistically, we would expect the largest planet -- the best "capturer" -- to have captured the most short-period comets).


2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
According to secular scientific literature,

Which? Most likely another out-of-context quote or a "scientific litterature" of dubious origin.

And plate tectonics do take care of that problem. Otherwise we'd be up our hips in mud in a few thousand years.

3. Not enough sodium in the sea.

This is just unfounded hogwash. As far as anyone knows, these things move in cycles.

4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.

The decay is not a steady state. In fact, there is considerable evidence for reversals. The atlantic ocean floor as it spreads shown the weakening - reversing - strengthening recorded in its stone as the continents spread from the mid-atlantic ridge.

The field is expected to reverse sometime in the next few thousand years. A time scale on page 78 shows the reversals over the past 170 million years, as deduced from the magnetic patterns in oceanic crust. I counted about 200 reversals on the chart.

5. Many strata are too tightly bent.

I'd like to see this applied to a real observation, rather than mere speculation of "many mountaineus regions".


6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.
It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground.

Documentation?

Regardless, that is one weird result among many correct ones. The way things work is that you have to present proof of the dating method being consistently wrong, and on occassions where most modern scientists had proved themselves correct. It just doesn't help to whip out an example of grotesque results, which most scientists likely already know can't be used for anything.

7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.

Read this. I can't bother with cut n pasting a huge piece of text. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#polonium)

8. Helium in the wrong places.

This statement is false. It falls precisely within predicted limits.


9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

Why does this imply this? Because skeletons get pulverized? Because we haven't dug up enough "artifacts" yet? And where do they get this notion that 4 billion should have lived and have become buried, all readily available for excavation?

The false reasoning abounds, it seems.

10. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.

And with good reason. Due to the climate, animal life and the recent ice age, the stone age people would have to be nomadic hunters.

And this is a completely unproven hypothesis. By the same standards, I could say that because the medieval people were just as intelligent as us, we should have built nukes in the late 16th century. You can't a theory on what we "should have been able to do". That must be tested.

It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the Flood, if at all.

The mere mention of the Flood gives me fits. What did the meat eaters eat after landfall? Were viruses taken aboard the ark? And how many numbers of self-replicating species would be taken aboard?

11. History is too short.
Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.

Which megalithic monuments is he referring to? What "beautiful" cave paintings is he referring to? It's not very difficult to record the lunar phases. Establishing formal grammatic for writing would take a lot of time, the uselessness of history recording would make it highly unlikely.

Here is an answer to your dating methods...

Nope.

Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.
Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.
As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).
Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay
While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.
The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.
The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.
It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.
Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.

All your "assumptions" are answered in the above if you care to read it.

Congratulations on making your first Redwing (In honour of Redwing's obscenely long posts which were a pain in the behind to reply to).

Now, since I've taken time to answer all your cut and paste work to the best of my ability, I now present to you questions I'd like to see answered as well:


1. Is there any reason to believe in your theory rather than some other version of creationism?

2a. Is there any observation which was predicted by your theory? (I'd like to see you present evidence of this. I'd very much like it, actually)

3. Is there any comprehensive and consistent statement of your theory?

4. Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?

4a. Explain the distribution of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants.

6. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? How is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

9. What did all of the carnivores eat after leaving the Ark? (This is not a question about what they ate on the Ark.) In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.

Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

10. Is it possible to fit the pairs (male and female) of all kinds of land animals and birds on the Ark? The answer must give a detailed calculation. Remember to include all invertebrates as well as vertebrates, food and water, and neccesary environmental controls. Remember to include all kinds of cattle. Explain the meaning of the word "kind".

10c. Explain how there were pairs, male and female, of social (forming colonies), parthenogenic (female only) and hermaphroditic (both sexes in one individual) animals.

Take a close look at this yet again. (http://rhein-zeitung.de/on/03/01/22/topnews/fossil.html)

Remember what I wrote about a "flying squirrel dinosaur"? I, not even an expert by far, predicted this fossil discovery! Remarkable. It really is. And not mere luck - the theory of evolution was a clear indication that such a fossil would be found.

Now, let's see you creationist predict ANYTHING at all with your theory. Fossils, natural phenomena, geological excavations - I don't care. Just predict something, and you can stop looking stupid in the light of evolution.

BCanr2d2
01-25-2003, 11:31 PM
There are many things that people could postulate in regards to evolution. I can see also how a Creationist could explain how so much of the animal life, including humans have such a shared amount of DNA, close to 80 or 90%. Does that not insinuate that EVERY being came from a common ancestor?

I can see how a creationist could say that this commonality is the "god" factor in it all, but does nothing to explain everything...

As for the intelligence factor, I have mentioned elsewhere, not in this debate I believe, that our current "knowledge" isn't the entire sum of all knowledge on this earth that ever existed. History is written by the victors, and why would the victors want to perpetuate ideas from a civilisation that they destroyed for being different!
The Anicent Greeks would probably have the world at least 400-500 years ahead of where it is now, if not for the invasion and subsequent defeat in Athens.....
The Ancient Egyptians knew of how to successfully build pyramids, which in our understanding is a complex thing to do. Their knowledge in engineering and maths must have been immense to design them, like that of the Greeks.

Only now, as we start to discover some of the ancient texts thought lost are we realising how we could've been almost 1800 years further advanced. It is weird to see that only in the last 100-200 years that we have begun to actually catch up to the level of development that existed 2000 yrs ago. We maythink that we are at the smartest ebb of human intelligence, far from it.....

RpTheHotrod
01-28-2003, 12:51 AM
This is why I say the debate is pointless. This side says they are right, the other says they are right. Everyone won't know until the end.

Now, Cjais ,who was insulting what I said, by using a sarcastic answer. You just stare at your garden...the scientist team went down to the level of Quarks...can you study how quarks MULTIPLY? No...you see a withering plant and you're happy. That'd never amount to anything scientificly.

My point also about evolution was NOT to say Creation was a FACT (Which I believe it is), my point was to correct the person who said evolution was a fact. It isn't, it's the THEORY of evolution.

You read into things too much and start blurting out saying how the other person is WRONG about something they never even said. I take your reply as an insult, and putting words into my mouth I never said.

C'jais
01-28-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
This is why I say the debate is pointless. This side says they are right, the other says they are right. Everyone won't know until the end.

Yes. Everything is pointless. There's no point in arguing about anything, because no one in these forums have ever changed their minds about anything.

Now, Cjais ,who was insulting what I said, by using a sarcastic answer.

Please. Please. I was not being sarcastic. I was trying to make a point - that observing plants wither only once and then forget to stay and see the whole story. Every Creationist dating construct is only true as long as you don't tell everything behind it.

For example, the moon dust argument. It's stated that 15 million tons of dust enter the earth. That's pretty irrelevant since erosion takes care of this. But on the moon, there is no erosion. Surely it would result in there being quite a deep layer of dust. Problem solved: the moon is young.

No. They forget to tell that the figure of "15 million ton" is outrageously false. It was "observed" by a creationist who since admitted it was an "overstatement". Modern tests have since shown it is only about 30.000 ton instead. And on the moon, only about half a feet is dust. Below that, the dust is packed into "regolith" - packed powdery material. And they somehow also forget to mention that the dust on the moon is disolved by radiation and meteorite impacs (small ones, of course). Another thing to note: There had been several lunar landers before the Apollo mission: Soviet and American vehicles has been there before, so they were quite aware that the dust wasn't that deep. Case finally closed.

you see a withering plant and you're happy. That'd never amount to anything scientificly.

And neither would testing quarks once, without documentation.

Here's how it goes: We have several radioactive isotope daith methods. Using in conjuction, they all point to the same age of everything tested upon (with a few million years apart when dating very old objects - which is to be expected and is pretty irrelevant when we're into the billions anyway).

Now, they've been tested several times, and they always give the same result when applied to another isotope dating method, and when used several times on the same material. And no, giving examples of where it has gone haywire is not going to help - scientists know which materials it's unsafe to date with this (such as lava rock, since it's been down in the earth for a looong time). And one bad example only proves they did something wrong - not the method itself was wrong.

These dating methods are in fact so accurate and thoroughly tested that it's possible to predict the age of geological strata or fossils. That means, before actually testing the item with the dating methods, it's quite possible to predict the result based on which layer it lay in, and where it was found. This would not in any way be possible if the dating methods went completely haywire each time we tested this stuff. Due to this prediction, we can safely label the isotope dating methods as being very consistent, very safe, and very accurate.

Show me a discovery where creationists have predicted the dating result simirarily to scientists, and I'll start taking your theory a wee bit more seriously.

My point also about evolution was NOT to say Creation was a FACT (Which I believe it is)

Here we go again. You don't believe facts. Do you believe in the Periodic table of the elements? Or do you realize it's fact?

You believe in something that's unproven, something that's not verified, something that's not fact. If it was fact, there'd be no need to believe in it.

Show us creationism is not worthy of believing in, by showing us the cold, hard facts. Prove us wrong. Don't point to the Bible and scream "God did it!". Don't point to weird dating constructs that can only prove the earth is young if you leave out half the story and that can't even date objects. Don't point to currently unsolved problems in science (what sparked the Big Bang, HUH?) and inanely try to prove your theory with this. Don't point to a certain beetle species and yell "Well, how do you explain this?" and then retreat again. Don't point to God and absurdly claim he could have done everything described by your theory, simply because he can bend the laws of nature - it doesn't work that way, you have to present positive proof that your theory is correct.

If you can't, you'll look no better than me saying you all were created 10 minutes ago. I saw God create you 10 minutes ago. You'll all say I'm ravingly mad, but all I'd have to say, if God is all-powerful, why could he not have created you 10 minutes ago, with the false appearance of looking older than you really are? He could have created you with inserted memory of things that never took place. If you accept the existence of an all-powerful God, you could never prove this wrong. And this is what you're doing. We simply can't accept this, because it's logically tremendously false.

my point was to correct the person who said evolution was a fact. It isn't, it's the THEORY of evolution.

The theory of evolution is fact. You mistake a "theory" as something that isn't fact, something that hasn't been proven.

The scientific definition of theory is something that can be proven, can incorporate laws and tested hypotheses. A "law" is a descriptive generalization about nature.

When scientists talk about the theory of evolution (or the theory of relativity, or the atomic theory for that matter), they are not saying it's not fact. These theories rely on indirect evidence, but the evidence itself is clear enough. We can't see atoms either, but we know they're there, and we can obviously see their effect.

What we know, have tested and what's fact: The earth is 4.55 billion years old. Man was not the first species to come into being, in fact they're one of the last. Life started out very simple, and very small, in the water. It then began to gradually evolve into different species.

Now, come up with evidence that suggests we all existed at the same time. That there was space enough on the planet for every species that ever lived to co-exist. That there was food enough for them. That they somehow could fit into an ark. That all life didn't die from pressure and downpour. That the predators aboard the ark could somehow survive on eating nothing for several years after landfall when the prey species were still 2 specimens strong. That the different human skin colors could somehow evolve from just 2000 years. And then there are always the huge genetic problems with the ark. These questions should keep you busy for a while, but I'm eager to give you more once you've answered them.

You read into things too much and start blurting out saying how the other person is WRONG about something they never even said. I take your reply as an insult, and putting words into my mouth I never said.

And I take your reply as an insult, because I obviously did not "put words in your mouth".

I'm starting to feel there are certain people in here who wants to be offended. I'm not kidding. They act as if their world views are not to be reasoned with, and any attempt of shooting at its lack of logic is met with severe discontent, as if their own mother had been called names.

Listen, have I ever expressed offense at the prospect of actually defending the theory of evolution and science itself? Not in the slightest. While I sometimes found some of you a bit unreasonable, I've always treated you with respect. I've always answered all of your questions. I've always held the notion that a world view is only as good as long as its fact. When it has been disproven, it's time to change your views on things - not stand insulted. If you can successfully prove to me that your theory of Creation is true, I'll cease fire. I'm perfectly willing to accept new facts and reconstruct my view of the world if given sufficient evidence.

[/Redwing]

Sorry for the long post.

RpTheHotrod
01-28-2003, 07:03 PM
Don't forget about "dating techniques".

Not too long ago, they decided to "date" a hammer that was in our "generation".

After several tests, the hammer was dated to be several millions of years old.

RpTheHotrod
01-29-2003, 12:08 AM
and btw, I never said my theory was true (which I do believe). I was just stating something I saw in the news, and you start attacking me.

Me: Hey look, some girl got murdered in new york today
You: GIVE ME A SOURCE, I can look outside and see some kids playing, doesn't mean they are gonna kill eachother!


Seriously...I just saw it on the news awhile back and was talking about it. I wasn't using it to DEBATE ANYTHING.

C'jais
01-29-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Don't forget about "dating techniques".

That's what I just spent several paragraphs on.

Not too long ago, they decided to "date" a hammer that was in our "generation".

After several tests, the hammer was dated to be several millions of years old.

A weird test result. News at freakin' ten.

Now, this does not in any way disprove isotope dating by a long shot, since we can predict results, arrive at the same age with several different methods (among them Greenlandic Ice samples that has nothing to do with radioactive isotopes).

And I still want some documentation on this. Such big news must surely have made it to peer-reviewed scientific magazines.

RpTheHotrod
01-29-2003, 12:38 PM
You are wanting this, you are wanting that. Go research and look it up. I have work + college where I'm gone from morning until 10 at night. I don't have time on my hands.

edit- Was talking to someone that has some experience in that field. They said that alot of the dissproven evolution tests are not opened out to the common public. If you go down to those "dinosaur footprints", the tours always stay clear of the area where human and dinosuar footprints are at the same place, at the same level.

of coarse, some of the dissproven evolution "proof" do eist in some books. Like "Lucy", or alot of the other bones found (a tooth was found, and they buitl this entire skeleton of what the human looked like and put it into the history books for years, butit was evetually found that it was the tooth of a pig...yet our history books in our schools still say it is absolute proof of evolution). Another was a half man/ape skull....later discovered that they were 2 different skulls put together, and there was actually a gun-like material keeping 1 of the teeth in their socket....plus the skull was treated with a chemical to make it seem very very very sold.

I can't give you absolute proof that God exists, it's all on faith. I can give you several evidence that there is using the Bible. Several things in the Bible have been always considered simply not true, only later to dicover that the Bible was telling the truth (lost cities that "never existed" that have been discovered, the world is round and held on nothing, geographic locations and historic records, and some other things)


Evolution is not science. It's all guesswork. True science will never be at the level of the Bible...but the Bible always proves true science. Before we discovered alot of things, it was already in the Bible...but ignored.

Remember how several people died awhile back (I think Washingston too)? They thought blood was bad, and would "remove" blood to get rid of the infection...there's life in the blood. Remember how people used to think the world is flat? Remember how people thought the world was carried by Atlas? It's all in the Bible showing it's simply not true. I know that's all basic, but I don't want to go to far in depth.

C'jais
01-29-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
You are wanting this, you are wanting that. Go research and look it up. I have work + college where I'm gone from morning until 10 at night. I don't have time on my hands.

All I want is evidence for Creation.

The burden of proof is on you, since evolution is already established as a proven theory and taken for granted, with much evidence behind it.

Except to certain religious people, of course.

ShadowTemplar
01-29-2003, 02:22 PM
Reborn: When refering to such a huge text, just sum up the points and link to the "proof".

Every Creationist: If there was any proof of Creation, why hasn't it appeared in a peer-reviewed magazine? And before you start coming up with some lucridious conspiracy, remember that such a conspiracy would have absolutely no motive for hiding or debunking evidence of Creation.

Was talking to someone that has some experience in that field. They said that alot of the dissproven evolution tests are not opened out to the common public.

Again a conspiracy. There still is no motive.

If you go down to those "dinosaur footprints", the tours always stay clear of the area where human and dinosuar footprints are at the same place, at the same level.

No, they don't stay clear. Because there is nothing to stay clear of.

of coarse, some of the dissproven evolution "proof" do eist in some books. Like "Lucy", or alot of the other bones found (a tooth was found, and they buitl this entire skeleton of what the human looked like and put it into the history books for years, butit was evetually found that it was the tooth of a pig

Lucy isn't the only proof of evolution, so disproving Lucy doesn't disprove evolution. This contributes nothing to the topic (ie it's SPAM).

...yet our history books in our schools still say it is absolute proof of evolution).

That's shoddy schoolbooks, not a fault of evolution (in fact it's probably the fault of politicians who refuse to spend money on the scientific disiplines (perhaps because they don't like the results)).

Another was a half man/ape skull....later discovered that they were 2 different skulls put together, and there was actually a gun-like material keeping 1 of the teeth in their socket....plus the skull was treated with a chemical to make it seem very very very sold.

Where there is money, there is fraud. See the comments applied to Lucy.

I can't give you absolute proof that God exists, it's all on faith. I can give you several evidence that there is using the Bible.

Faith=Useless, dangerous foolishness, and should be treated like a mental disease (http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Transitory_Human/column.aspx?articleID=2002-12-15-2).

And you cannot prove anything through the Bible. That inevitably ends up as circular reasoning. Because the Bible is a work of fiction!

Several things in the Bible have been always considered simply not true, only later to dicover that the Bible was telling the truth (lost cities that "never existed" that have been discovered, the world is round and held on nothing, geographic locations and historic records, and some other things)

This is a prime example of Christianity taking the credit for the accomplishments that science has produced. In spite of Christianity, I might add.

Also: The people who did that research (the Modernist movement (Catholic fanatics, whom the Church had made the mistake of equipping with science)) almost uniformly converted away from Christianity during it (read "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deciet"), because they found that the Bible couldn't possibly be true, based on the archeological record.

Evolution is not science. It's all guesswork.

Read the ****ing thread before you post such bull****.

True science will never be at the level of the Bible...but the Bible always proves true science.

False. Science doesn't need the Bible. It can prove itself. Unlike the Bible. And science is above and beyond the Bible in all respects: Can the Bible tell you how to build a Boing? No, it is useless for that. Can the Bible tell you how to build a power plant? No. It is useless for that. And so on.

Before we discovered alot of things, it was already in the Bible...but ignored.

Hogwash. Sources?

Again: Can you build a plane/power plant/refrigirator/electrical light source/computer/anything else from the BibleBigBookofBullcrap? I think not.

You have the very essence of true power within reach, and yet you turn away, because of some obsolote, ancient book. Yet you use the positive results of this power, like a parasite without contributing anything. Words cannot begin to describe my contempt for such hypocracy.

Remember how several people died awhile back (I think Washingston too)? They thought blood was bad, and would "remove" blood to get rid of the infection

That's a CHRISTIAN practice. Get your facts straight, or get the hell out!

...there's life in the blood.

Hogwash. There is O2, that's what's in the blood. Life in the blood? What bull****. Get your facts straight, or get the hell out!

Remember how people used to think the world is flat?

That's a CHRISTIAN practice. Get your facts straight, or get the hell out!

Remember how people thought the world was carried by Atlas?

That's another religion (read: Another piece of useless nonsense).

It's all in the Bible showing it's simply not true.

The Unholy Bible doesn't show anything to be true or not true! Period! Get your facts straight, or get the hell out.

I know that's all basic, but I don't want to go to far in depth.

I get the impression that you can't go too far into depth... So prove me wrong, I dare you. [Edited content due to ad hominem attack - C'jais]

And as a note on the side: Your "God" never did anything for me. I am what I am today because I worked for it. I don't owe "God" anything. Your "God" never righted any wrong that befell me (and that same "God" should know that quite a few have). I have nothing to be thankful towards "God" for!

ShadowTemplar
01-29-2003, 03:40 PM
This is going nowhere fast (though I hate to admit it).

What we have here is a severely understaffed Evolution side who actually takes the time and care to find the facts and sources to back their arguments.

On the other side we have a bunch of Creationists who keep repeating the same crap that has been refuted a thousand times a thousand times, and who don't display any knowledge beyond what would be expected of a child of 12 (I don't claim that they don't possess the knowledge, I simply state that they have yet to show it, just like their unfounded hypothesis).

Furthermore, while we have always endeavoured to read and take into consideration the links that have been provided by the Creationis side, they have yet to show us the same decency.

And, even though we have provided numerous guides to the diciplines of Logic and Reasoning, I have yet to see any Creationist here who actually had a well-structured, logically water-proof, and thought-out reply, that took into account the most immediate consequences of their claim.

Also I am sick and tired of Creationists who first try to reason for their faith, and then, when their faith is shot as full of logical holes as a snowman standing in front of a machine gun, retreat back up the hill, saying that "that's what they believe" or something to that effect. Don't bother to try to prove something unless you accept that it can also be disproven. The two go hand in hand.

Lastly let me express my contempt for people who reap all the goods that science have produced and still try to debunk it. Hypocracy like that cannot be adequately commented on in this forum without breaking several of the rules (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64362) that govern these forums.

This is ShadowTemplar, signing out.

C'jais
01-29-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
If you go down to those "dinosaur footprints", the tours always stay clear of the area where human and dinosuar footprints are at the same place, at the same level.

Right. So what's the real motive to do that? Do you seriously think that the world of science is conspiring against irrefutable proof of Creationism? Why in the heavens would they do this?

of coarse, some of the dissproven evolution "proof" do eist in some books. Like "Lucy"

Lucy is not a hoax. Neither is Toumaï. Neither are the Homo Erectus fossils. Nor the Homo Habilis. I already gave a link to the Lucy "hoax" - do I have to repeat myself?

or alot of the other bones found (a tooth was found, and they buitl this entire skeleton of what the human looked like and put it into the history books for years, butit was evetually found that it was the tooth of a pig...yet our history books in our schools still say it is absolute proof of evolution). Another was a half man/ape skull....later discovered that they were 2 different skulls put together, and there was actually a gun-like material keeping 1 of the teeth in their socket....plus the skull was treated with a chemical to make it seem very very very sold.

Hoaxes invented for money. Not to uphold this grand conspiracy. Scientists scoff at this, and the world of science is constantly rooting out these pariahs whenever encountered.

The same cannot be said for the world of evolution. No doubt they've all been told that the Lucy fossil was not a hoax - yet they still go on and on, and somehow "forget" they were told that some time ago. Same goes about the dating constructs - all of them have been refuted, but they still "forget" to tell other creationists that they can't use this "proof" anymore, because it's false. And most even forget to remind themselves of this again.

I'm willing to stake everything on stating that if you creationists (the ones I've been arguing with here) should ever encounter another evolutionist, and try to persuade him, you'll probably dig out the same "isotope dating is false", "dust on the moon is accumulating too fast", "how do you explain the chance of life appearing on earth", "polonium halos indicate this and that", "there are no transitional fossils", "no-one have ever seen a new species evolve" etc etc. I sincerely doubt you'll remind yourself that it has all been disproven. I sincerely think you'll still proceed on your merry way and "forget" what I and many others proved to you.

I can't give you absolute proof that God exists, it's all on faith.

But is faith relevant when discussing cold, hard facts? If faith relevant when evidence to the contrary shows it cannot be true?

Evolution is not science. It's all guesswork. True science will never be at the level of the Bible...but the Bible always proves true science. Before we discovered alot of things, it was already in the Bible...but ignored.

Such talk. Can you provide linkage to this?

Remember how several people died awhile back (I think Washingston too)? They thought blood was bad, and would "remove" blood to get rid of the infection...there's life in the blood. Remember how people used to think the world is flat? Remember how people thought the world was carried by Atlas? It's all in the Bible showing it's simply not true. I know that's all basic, but I don't want to go to far in depth.

Blood is life? The non-Christian world thought the world was flat? The non-religious world thought the world was carried by Atlas? Jesus can save us?

Which of these can you prove in any way? Which of these are relevant.

None.

Reborn Outcast
01-29-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Reborn: When refering to such a huge text, just sum up the points and link to the "proof".

Sorry I wasn't aware of that. I'll remember next time. :)


Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Every Creationist: If there was any proof of Creation, why hasn't it appeared in a peer-reviewed magazine?

By "peer-reviewed" do you mean magazines like the famous science ones? The reason proof about Creationalism doesn't appear in that is because they don't want to put it in there. Thye only want evolution.


Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
This contributes nothing to the topic (ie it's SPAM).

No it isn't. Spam is something that is absolutely worthless such as calling the mods and the forums stupid on you're first post or posting 1 liners in 35 different threads. This is spam, what was posted on Lucy is not... it just something you don't want to even take a chance of looking at.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
That's shoddy schoolbooks, not a fault of evolution (in fact it's probably the fault of politicians who refuse to spend money on the scientific disiplines (perhaps because they don't like the results)).

Psssttt... Don't tell anyone but... All history books say this because talking about creationalism in a way that makes it seem like the book accepts it over evolution would violate the law of no binding between the school and church.



Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Where there is money, there is fraud. See the comments applied to Lucy.

Umm they're is money in every "evolution proving" find... so won't they're be a fraud according to your reasoning?


Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Faith=Useless, dangerous foolishness, and should be treated like a mental disease (http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Transitory_Human/column.aspx?articleID=2002-12-15-2).

Produce another website that agrees with this writer or this concept... one website that states this DOES NOT make it true... more sources please!

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Because the Bible is a work of fiction!

And where are you getting this "proof" that the Bible is fiction from? I want to see how you are making this assumption.



Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Read the ****ing thread before you post such bull****.

Please lets keep it civilized here.



Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Can the Bible tell you how to build a Boing? No, it is useless for that. Can the Bible tell you how to build a power plant? No. It is useless for that. And so on.

I assume you meant "Bong" instead of "Boing" and since the Bible is a RELIGIOUS BOOK it WON'T teach how to make a bong. And since when does a religious book tell how to make a powerplant or a bike? Those are two totally different fields. Get your facts straight, your example proves nothing. Construction Does not have anything to do with the Bible.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Again: Can you build a plane/power plant/refrigirator/electrical light source/computer/anything else from the BibleBigBookofBullcrap? I think not.

And again... WHY ARE YOU COMPARING CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES TO A RELIGIOUS BOOK? Get your facts straight. People don't read and believe in the Bible to learn how to build a power plant.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
You have the very essence of true power within reach, and yet you turn away, because of some obsolote, ancient book. Yet you use the positive results of this power, like a parasite without contributing anything. Words cannot begin to describe my contempt for such hypocracy.

What is this true power?!?! "True power" is considered by many to control the world. Christians do not want to control the world. And hypocracy? Parasites? What positive results and what "power"? If you are referring to evolution the I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about by Christians using the "positive results" from that. If you're talking about technology then you have no idea what you're talking about. My dad who is a Christian is working hard to make fiber optics systems THAT YOU WILL USE TO MAKE EVERYTHING IN YOUR HOUSE FASTER. Hmm, Christians aren't contributing? And my grand-father who is also a VERY storng Christian helped develop the VERY PLANES THAT PEOPLE FLY ON TODAY. Hmm, Chrisitans aren't contibuting? What "positive results" are Christians "using like parasites without contributing"? Unless I didn't understand what you were referring to then,once again, think before you type.


Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Hogwash. There is O2, that's what's in the blood. Life in the blood? What bull****. Get your facts straight, or get the hell out!

Hmm I see you are very unfamiliar with the LIVING THINGS in our blood called CELLS that ARE ALIVE.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
That's a CHRISTIAN practice. Get your facts straight, or get the hell out!

Oh man here we go again. THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT UNTIL COLUMBUS PROVED THEM WRONG. Where are you getting that this was a Christian practice? Sources, now. AND IN THE BIBLE IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE WORLD BEING FLAT.. i.e. IT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN PRACTICE.
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

I have more but this post is becoming way to long so if you ask... I will give.


Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
The Unholy Bible doesn't show anything to be true or not true! Period! Get your facts straight, or get the hell out.

Website that proves this? Where? Oh wait there is no website.


Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
And as a note on the side: Your "God" never did anything for me. I am what I am today because I worked for it. I don't owe "God" anything. Your "God" never righted any wrong that befell me (and that same "God" should know that quite a few have). I have nothing to be thankful towards "God" for!

Then I honesly feel sorry for you because He has done a lot for me because I ASKED and BELIEVED that He could do things in my life.

SORRY FOR THE LONG POST BUT THE POST I WAS REPLYING TO WAS A VERY LONG ONE AND SOME THINGS SAID IN IT REALLY GOT ME GOING.

C'jais
01-29-2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
By "peer-reviewed" do you mean magazines like the famous science ones? The reason proof about Creationalism doesn't appear in that is because they don't want to put it in there. Thye only want evolution.

They have no reason to. Each day, a theory is changed or modified. Why do you think they only want evolution? Scientists are only concerned with facts, how it happens.

Do you have any idea that these hard-core scientific magazines would make a fortune if irrefuatble proof of Creation were found true? Imagine that - every creationist from across the states would subscribe to these magazines in no time flat if that was the case. They have no motive to "only accept evolution". Conspiracy is useless without a real motive.

This is spam, what was posted on Lucy is not... it just something you don't want to even take a chance of looking at.

The post about Lucy was spam because it's already been disproven that her bones were found scattered several miles apart. It's simply not true, and firmly stating it is contributes nothing to this discussion.

All history books say this because talking about creationalism in a way that makes it seem like the book accepts it over evolution would violate the law of no binding between the school and church.

If presented with irrefutable evidence, there's nothing to stop them writing that. This "no binding between the school and the church" is yet more conspiracy hogwash. It has nothing to do with this.

Umm they're is money in every "evolution proving" find... so won't they're be a fraud according to your reasoning?

No. What he implied was that wherever there's money, there's a chance some yahoo is going to make up some hoax and make that money.

While on the topic of hoaxes, creationists usually forget to mention all the expeditions sent to discover the ark, and later making a ton of money on that with cheap souvenir crap. And they have never found the ark yet.

Produce another website that agrees with this writer or this concept... one website that states this DOES NOT make it true... more sources please!

Is this an attempt at ridiculing our desire to see some actual proof on wild creationist claims?

Templar does not need to do this in the slightest, as this website only expresses opinions on religion. They're not fact. As soon as they become fact, we'll be sure to show it to you.

And where are you getting this "proof" that the Bible is fiction from? I want to see how you are making this assumption.

Fiction, in this sense, means that the authors of the Bible are trying to tell a soothing story. They have not seen God create the earth as described. They have not given any evidence for Jesus saving people's souls.

It's fiction because several parts in it are not true. The Genesis, for one.

I assume you meant "Bong" instead of "Boing"

Jesus most likely smoked the hashish, but he actually meant Boeing - the aeroplane.

and since the Bible is a RELIGIOUS BOOK it WON'T teach how to make a bong.

But it ignores fact. It preaches several fallacies.

What Templar is getting at, is that Christianity is trying to quench the work of scientists. Scientists are sticking to facts, and facts alone. They're not going to stop researching the origin of the earth because it makes them heretics. They're not going to stop, because the evidence is there that the earth was not created as God described.

If it stood to Christianity alone, not much scientific progress would have been made, since it was considered heresy to question the truth of the Bible. That is his point.

If you are referring to evolution the I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about by Christians using the "positive results" from that.

If it wasn't for Darwin and other evolutionists, we would never have advanced genetic knowledge we have today. Knowledge we use to save lives.

If it wasn't for crippling the Christian beliefs, we would never have reached this stage of technology.

Read up on the history of the dark ages, Copernicus and Galilei.

Hmm I see you are very unfamiliar with the LIVING THINGS in our blood called CELLS that ARE ALIVE.

Blood cells are not alive. They're solely resposible for carrying oxygen to the cells in our body.

Oh man here we go again. THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT

A few daring heretics in the dark ages still managed to present proof of it not being flat before Columbus reached America.

They were imprisoned for thinking this way, and nearly killed.

And Columbus didn't prove the earth was round. He proved it was larger than what was known beforehand.

Website that proves this? Where? Oh wait there is no website.

We don't need a website for everything.

The Bible does not show anything to be true or not true. That's giving proof and evidence of it. The Bible does not give evidence that we will be saved. The Bible does not give evidence that God created the earth. That's why it's fiction.

Then I honesly feel sorry for you because He has done a lot for me because I ASKED and BELIEVED that He could do things in my life.

Yet this can never be proved that it was He who "gave" that to you.

You can attribute everything to God. "Just look at the beauty of this pinecone" - that doesn't prove God. There's no connection between God and "There is life".

SORRY FOR THE LONG POST BUT THE POST I WAS REPLYING TO WAS A VERY LONG ONE AND SOME THINGS SAID IN IT REALLY GOT ME GOING.

No problem. Long posts like this are encourages. It's when you just copy paste some huge text from a website that makes me annoyed. Please continue.

RpTheHotrod
01-30-2003, 12:59 AM
This is why I told you this debate is pointless...because it ISN"T a DEBATE.

A debate, both sides give "evidence" to something, and they debate.

Evo vs Creation...there is NO absolute evidence (if there was, evo would be thought as true by everyone, many scientists are beginning to re-think what they have been taught).

Yet... it seems every Evo side is this

"Evo is TRUE to there!"

Umm, that isn't debate....it would be just like me saying Creation is true, so there. You can't debate by saying your side is absolutely true...it wouldn't hold squat in a debate at all.

I just mentioned something I saw on the news and I get attacked and I'm told to "get the hell out!"?

I'm sick of people...I gave everything I've had, I've lost everything all in the name of helping others...but not once has any of them done anything back. Sometimes I get so tired of it. Get the hell out? yeah, why don't I***EDITED, best leave that out. Last thing I need is to be sent somewhere*** that'd make you happy then, wouldn't it? I know it would be easier for me, that's for sure.


Sick of it . Excuse me for speaking my mind.

BCanr2d2
01-30-2003, 08:18 AM
This topic has before, and it seems always will easily get to a stage of "You show proof of your side, otherwise it's not exactly a debatable topic".

Whilst many of us on the Evolution side have evidence, and also have the evidence to show inaccuracies in the Bible, when we ask people to refute our facts, they use examples of 1960's science, which is being easily disproven in the last 15 or so years. Some people are on top of what the scientists have discovered as of now, whereas it is also still easy to find the "false" or "proven false" science still around in textbooks and on the internet.
As for many things used and invented in life, the root of them is more likely to be that of Greek or Roman, since they were two of the most intelligent civilisations to exist. To put it all into perspective, we are only now starting to understand Archimedes and scholars of that time properly, and that is 2000 years ago. Many of us evolutionists are trying to say that if you refute one part of the scientific, then how can you readily accept other parts of it. Almost all science is intertwined with each other, so to take one out of the loop isn't really possible, nor really logical.
Our current knowledge isn't the sum of all known things over the history of time. Many historical documents of earlier civilisations, including those of Roman and Greek origin are lost as cities cot razed when invaded. If not for the Punic wars, there is no telling as to where we would be right now, about 1500 years ahead of where we are now technologically is my rough guess.
If Da Vinci, one of the Renaissance's greatest thinkers couldn't decipher all of Archimedes designs, think how far backwards we had devolved in 1500 or more years. If the newly discovered copy of Archimedes text had made itself known to thinkers in the Renaissance, then we would be another 200 years ahead of where we are today.
Right at this moment in time, neither side can hold the absolute truth as to the beginning of life. All us Evolutionists can do is prove the innacurracies that exist in the text that the Creation Theory comes from, to prove that creation itself is false, as well as support our own arguements.
If a text can explain the birth of the main person in it in two different ways, then how can we say all of the Bible is literal and true when it contradicts itself......

RpTheHotrod
01-30-2003, 08:32 AM
Please tell how it contradicts itself. I'll see what I can do.

C'jais
01-30-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
This is why I told you this debate is pointless...because it ISN"T a DEBATE.

What is it then? In a debate, rational arguments are put forth, and views on each side are backed up by evidence and logical proof.

A debate: where both sides are decided. Both sides have clear views on what they're arguing about, and they're not going to change their views from debating it. What they're doing is debating for the enjoyment of the onlooker.

Discussion: Where one or both sides don't hold clear views on what they're arguing. They're not firmly set in their minds about the topic, and are looking to acheive some sort of conclusion on the topic. An example would be where one person are just throwing in evidence and argumentation of one side, but are in fact not convinced about it yet. If the other side can refute it or prove him wrong, he'll work it out himself and be convinced.

This is just my definition of it. It's not fact.

Evo vs Creation...there is NO absolute evidence (if there was, evo would be thought as true by everyone, many scientists are beginning to re-think what they have been taught).

If you seriously think we have not presented pages of evidence, I'll suggest you look through the debate again. And check out the two previous debates on this.

And no, no evidence suggests that evolution is losing fans among scientists. A common myth, but it's completely unfounded.

Yet... it seems every Evo side is this

"Evo is TRUE to there!"

The assumption alone that there is such a thing as absolute truth I find moronic. We have never said that. We've always presented evidence for our theories.

I just mentioned something I saw on the news and I get attacked and I'm told to "get the hell out!"?

That was rude, I agree. But you must admit it's pretty stupid to post something about Lucy or what have you, that we just refuted a few posts back. And if you present something along the lines of baseless, incorrect facts - we'll frankly tell you to remove yourself from this debate until you get your facts straight.

I've lost everything all in the name of helping others...

Depends solely on how you define "helping". Reaching out to them and tell them of God's work? Sweet my, that's not helping. How would you feel if I continually pestered you with my great god Flakziliakrrrrrs? That his view of the world is a skewed, incorrect one that involves liquifying humans and turning stone into grapewine - one that blatantly ignores facts? I'm sure you wouldn't want to be "helped" this way.

However, the way I would like to be helped, is if people kindly told me more about genetics, architecture, thermodynamics and astronomy. Something I can put to practical use. Something I obviously benefit from, and that can never hurt to know more of. Told me how it really worked - disspelled all the myths about it and showed me a better understanding of the world around me. That's science, for you.

C'jais
01-30-2003, 02:05 PM
As requested - a general outline of the evidence for evolution:

1) The world is old. 4.5 billion years.

2) The lifeforms on it are of varying age. Some died out long ago, some just came into existence the last 7 million years. Some are only found in older rocks, some are only found in younger rocks.

3) Fossils indicate that all the species evolved through stages. For example, there have been found old fossils of invertebrates, younger fossils of fish without spines, but remniscient of fish, and even younger fossils of vertebrates. Another example is the Archeopteryx - it is not a bird in any way except for the fact that it had feathers on its reptile legs. Yet another would be all the various horse stages - from looking like big dogs, the oldest fossils gradually change through time to look more and more like horses with hooves etc.

4) Not all the species that ever lived could have lived together on planet earth at the same time. There would simply not be enough space or food. And don't give me that "abundant earth" bullcrap - if there was somehow food for all these species to consume at once, we'd immediately find huge, glaring evidence of that in 6000 year old rocks and strata. It's flat out logically impossible.

5) We can see changes in species even today. Among them are bacteria and various insect species which have changed so much in our lifetime to classify them as a completely new species. We can observe changes in species to fit the environment better (Galapagos finches), that it's only logical to connect this with the overwhelming fossil record and state with certainty that species change over time to new species that fit the environment better.

6) DNA. Changes in a species match the DNA changes. We've already located where the DNA code corresponds to different organs and other physcial attributes. By using tests, we can ascertain how much of a species DNA is equal that of another. Mutations in the genome accumulate over time, and by using this, we can ascertain how long (based on mutation rates) time ago these two species split off.

You have your work cut out for you. But please don't repeat arguments your fellow Creationists already have gotten refuted. Don't waste my time.

Mandalorian54
01-30-2003, 06:01 PM
correct me if I'm wrong...

when you see a sculpture or model on a desk you imediatly wonder who built it.


I heard a story once.
An athiest walked into a creationists office and noticed a model of the solarsystem on the desk. He then asked who built it, the creationist replied "No one, the gears and pieces all just formed together in that sculpture." The athiest then left.

nice little story hun.

well my point is when you see somthing your first impulse is 'who built it' not 'how long did it take for this to evolve'.

anyone can look at this buitiful universe and see that it must have been built. A universe doesn't just pop into existance from nowhere.

And the God who created it is alpowerful and has no begining and will have no end.

so if you have any comon sense you can see that the world did not evolve itno existence.

how many primitive indian tribs think they evolved. None they all know they were created and attempt to explain thier existence through thier rituals and stuff.

am I getting the message across already?!?

C'jais
01-30-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
when you see a sculpture or model on a desk you imediatly wonder who built it.

Yes. Man built it. It is a purely natual process. It is not caused by something supernatural, and I can prove that. There's no magic behind it.

The old watchmaker analogy is severely flawed: Watches have evolved - they started off with crude contraptions (solar watches) and slowly evolved to modern digital watches. I don't care if an outside force did this - the point is that they do evolve. Similarily, I don't give a flying funk if God started the Big Bang, or even if God steers the evolution to his needs and end - the point is that it happens. You can believe in God and evolution at the same time.

I'm tired of this. Read the rest here, if you care. (http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/watch.htm)

And refute this. (http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/genesis.htm)

Once I get the time off, I'll begin the barrage. Happy disproving until then. You still haven't answered the at least 20 questions I must have asked by now. Gently skipping past it does no good for your reputations as literate people.

RpTheHotrod
01-30-2003, 07:18 PM
When I said sacrificing everything, it isn't all "God stuff"...I'm talking everything...I have. The only possession I have left is my computer...I own nothing else. I've done everything I can to help others, and I'm sick of people abusing that "helpfullness" and leaving me in the gutter.

C'jais
01-30-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
When I said sacrificing everything, it isn't all "God stuff"...I'm talking everything...I have. The only possession I have left is my computer...I own nothing else. I've done everything I can to help others, and I'm sick of people abusing that "helpfullness" and leaving me in the gutter.

I'm really sorry to hear that.

But what exactly is it that requires you to sacrifice everything you own? :confused:

Is it because of a people exploiting your sacrifices, or is it too private to talk about?

I'm all ears.

BCanr2d2
01-31-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Please tell how it contradicts itself. I'll see what I can do.

One easy one to spot is the birth of Jesus, and with the two different Authors, Matthew and Luke who talk of it, not all the facts easily fit in with each other. Pretty easy when one didn't really know Jesus, and has used other known texts at the time to try and create his book in the Bible.

Isn't one of the most important events in the Bible the birth of God's only son, and if this can't be a consistent story amongst different authors, then how can you say all of the Bible is historical fact. With the known mistakes in the backward application of the Roman calender in the 6th Century, we can say that most of the events match up historically. Except at least that of the Census held at the time, it was not until after the birth of Jesus that Syria actually became a full province of Rome. This supposed census is most likely to have been held about 6-10 years after Jesus was born.
Matthew and Luke disagree as to where Joseph and Mary actually lived, whether they are living in Bethlehem, or that they had to visit it on the need of a census, coming from Nazereth. Some of the contradictions and inaccuracies also exist from the translation of the original Greek text into English, which in some places the wrong interpretation of the word may have been used.
Also, since Jesus was a Jew, crucifixes were not used on those who were not Roman citizens.

ShadowTemplar
01-31-2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
I'm willing to stake everything on stating that if you creationists (the ones I've been arguing with here) should ever encounter another evolutionist, and try to persuade him, you'll probably dig out the same "isotope dating is false",

[...]

I sincerely think you'll still proceed on your merry way and "forget" what I and many others proved to you.

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about Christian Doublethink, just in case Jedi-Monk ever sees this.

Me bad! I promised myself to stay out of this.

By "peer-reviewed" do you mean magazines like the famous science ones? The reason proof about Creationalism doesn't appear in that is because they don't want to put it in there. Thye only want evolution.

That's false. They get no submissions with creationistic contents (documented in several independent studies, for full details see the 15 Answers). Obviously they can't put something in their mags that they don't get and can't produce themselves.

And again you forget to answer the replies we give your posts. We have already asked you to explain the huge, glaring holes in this "conspiracy plot". But since you are so hell-bent on using it I'll just point out that a hoax of this scale would make the Apollo Program and the Manhatten Projekt put together look like childs play.

This masquerade would have to falsify mountains of studies from scores of different countries, and from almost all branches of science. I mean, seriously, do you think that it would actually be possible to pull it off? And if some "Masquerade" actually does have the resources and connections to pull it off, how come that science labs are cronically short of governmental founds?

No it isn't. Spam is something that is absolutely worthless such as calling the mods and the forums stupid on you're first post or posting 1 liners in 35 different threads. This is spam, what was posted on Lucy is not... it just something you don't want to even take a chance of looking at.

No it's something that I have refuted at least three times before in this very thread. And you have given no counterpoints whatsoever. You just repeat what I have already shot into the ground. Do you read my posts at all? The only reason that I can tell that you do is from your quotes.

All history books say this because talking about creationalism in a way that makes it seem like the book accepts it over evolution would violate the law of no binding between the school and church.

So you do admit that Creationism is infact nothing but a silly faith?

Umm they're is money in every "evolution proving" find... so won't they're be a fraud according to your reasoning?

False. You have not understood what I said. Firstly: There is not money involved in every evolution-supporting find (but there certainly would be money coming my way if I could produce some serious proof of Creation (even people who produce shoddy not-proof of creation can get it published in paperback format)).

Secondly: I said that in any business where there is money involved there will be fraud. I did not say that in every transaction in which there is money involved there will be fraud (there obviously isn't).

You apply the rules of two-way reasoning to a one-way argument. That doesn't hold.

Produce another website that agrees with this writer or this concept... one website that states this DOES NOT make it true... more sources please!

I can probably find several. But I would only have to look in a medical dictionary and match symptoms. However I only linked to this site to keep triggerhappy MODs at bay (aka: These aren't my words), not because I wanted to prove anything (that would be done in another thread).

BTW: You actually have a fine point. I may begin to take you Creationist remotely seriously when (or rather if) you start applying the same to your arguments.

And where are you getting this "proof" that the Bible is fiction from? I want to see how you are making this assumption.

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com Go through a few of their links. I make no assumption here.

Please lets keep it civilized here.

Civilized behavior included actually listening to/reading what the other guy says/posts last time I checked. In Denmark we have a proverb: Don't throw rocks if you live in a house of glass.

since the Bible is a RELIGIOUS BOOK it WON'T teach how to make a boing. And since when does a religious book tell how to make a powerplant or a bike? Those are two totally different fields. Get your facts straight, your example proves nothing. Construction Does not have anything to do with the Bible.

[...]

And again... WHY ARE YOU COMPARING CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES TO A RELIGIOUS BOOK? Get your facts straight. People don't read and believe in the Bible to learn how to build a power plant.

You are proving my point better than I ever could: The Bible doesn't state anything about the real world. So why cling to your precious Genesis? And if you say that the Bible does say something about the real world, then where do you draw the line? If it tells you how the world came about, then why doesn't it tell you how to live in it? Because Man was never meant to know? Gee, that's a good God... NOT!

BTW: I wasn't talking about a bong. I was talking about a JumboJet. Sorry for my crappy spelling.

What is this true power?!?! "True power" is considered by many to control the world. Christians do not want to control the world. And hypocracy? Parasites? What positive results and what "power"?

Science is the power that I refer to. Controlling humans is incredibly easy. Controlling nature is a lot harder (besides the ability to control the world is also derived from technological progress, since better tech means more advanced weapons (one of the not-so-good things about progress).

The fact that you sit comfortably before a computer in a nice warm (or cold, depending on what climate you are in) house, instead of being out in the potato field picking up your dinner are the positive results that I refer to. And the fact that you totally dismiss the tool that has given you these oppertunities (science) is the hypocracy that I refer to. Parasitic are the effects of your hypocracy.

If you are referring to evolution the I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about by Christians using the "positive results" from that.

You are. New drugs. But it was not evolution alone that I referred to.

If you're talking about technology then you have no idea what you're talking about.

[...]

Hmm, Chrisitans aren't contibuting? What "positive results" are Christians "using like parasites without contributing"?

I would like to point out that every advance in technology that has ever been produced has been produced on the basis of Rationalism, the antithesis of any religion.

Unless I didn't understand what you were referring to then,once again, think before you type.

Same comment can be more justly applied to you.

Hmm I see you are very unfamiliar with the LIVING THINGS in our blood called CELLS that ARE ALIVE.

Out of context quote. Again. I was responding to a post that clearly referred to some "life force", among all the other superstition in it (at least that's how I read it, sorry if I was mistaken).

Oh man here we go again. THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT UNTIL COLUMBUS PROVED THEM WRONG. Where are you getting that this was a Christian practice? Sources, now.

You're flat out wrong here. The ancient Greek and Egyptians (I think) knew that the world was round (and they even had the size pretty right, unlike Columbus, who would have starved to death if he had not found America).

It's the obelisk-in-Alexandria-and-well-in-someothercity-experiment (or was it the well in Alexandria? Anyway it doesn't really matter). It's a text-book math example that you can find in most math books that deal with the dicipline of Trigonomitry.

But this was supressed by Christianity.

A literal translation of Job 26:10 ect.

You can't make a litteral translation. It's not possible, as anyone who has actually done a reasonably advanced translation will know (just try translating this into French or German or some other language with which you are familiar, if you doubt what I say).

Website that proves this? Where? Oh wait there is no website.

Again I was responding to someone who clearly needs to get things spelled out in capital letters, based on his posts. Anyway, it follows logically from the fact that the Bible is fiction. And even if you don't accept that, it follows logically from the fact that there are no truths. Therefore the Bible cannot be truth.

Then I honesly feel sorry for you because He has done a lot for me because I ASKED and BELIEVED that He could do things in my life.

I sincerely hope that I didn't sound whining. Don't take it personally, but I don't want pity. At all. I can't really use it, but thanks anyway. But I would like to know what It has done for you, because I am pretty sure that I could find a perfectly natural explanation for it.

SORRY FOR THE LONG POST BUT THE POST I WAS REPLYING TO WAS A VERY LONG ONE AND SOME THINGS SAID IN IT REALLY GOT ME GOING.

Not your fault. I did do a Redwing (sorry 'bout that... Woops, looks like I did another...). (And getting people 'going' is pretty much what the Chambers are about, 's far as I understood it.)

This is why I told you this debate is pointless...because it ISN"T a DEBATE.

A debate, both sides give "evidence" to something, and they debate.

Yes. And the Creationist side has provided none so far that has not been refuted.

Evo vs Creation...there is NO absolute evidence (if there was, evo would be thought as true by everyone, many scientists are beginning to re-think what they have been taught).

False. On both counts. Evolution would not be thought true, just like gravity isn't thought true. And 'scientist' don't rethink the very basics of evolution it is one of the most stable theories of science. See 15 Answers.

And there is plenty of hard evidence. I can't help it if you choose to close your eyes, but it won't go away because you do.

Yet... it seems every Evo side is this

"Evo is TRUE to there!"

No we're not. See above.

Umm, that isn't debate....it would be just like me saying Creation is true, so there. You can't debate by saying your side is absolutely true...it wouldn't hold squat in a debate at all.

We're not. We're supplying plenty of evidence. It's the Creation side that you should be shooting at with that.

I just mentioned something I saw on the news and I get attacked and I'm told to "get the hell out!"?

No, I attacked your repetingly posting of things that have already been refuted. That's what. And I attacked your habit of repeatedly posting things that are so logically thin that you couldn't even convince a bright 5-year-old child with them.

I'm sick of people...I gave everything I've had, I've lost everything all in the name of helping others...but not once has any of them done anything back. Sometimes I get so tired of it.

You don't have to give up everything to help other people. If you do, then it's your choice, but IMO it's a bit (or rather very) naive to expect them to return the favor. There is no good in this world. No evil either, just vast, pitiless indifference.

Get the hell out? yeah, why don't I***EDITED, best leave that out. Last thing I need is to be sent somewhere*** that'd make you happy then, wouldn't it? I know it would be easier for me, that's for sure.

What would make me happy would be a reasoned debate. Not just mindless quoting of something that has been disproven already.

Sick of it.

So am I. For the same reasons, but you have the sides mixed up.

Psydan
01-31-2003, 09:37 PM
If you are a true evolutionist you should applaud every time you see a kid with Down's, or with any other kind of mutation, because that is how you think we got here. What are some "positive" mutations in some parts of the human race, but not most? Also, how come humans on different continents, seperated by oceans on both sides, didn't have any significant adaption such as wings or extra limbs or an extra eye or something? You can just tell me that it was too short of a time period, cause I guess that's probably your answer, right? Finally, how do light-sensitive cells just mutate into being? You can't mutate volentarily, or pass on a mutation through will, so how would animals just happen to get the kind of cells they need, and a light-sensitive cell is a very amazing trait for it to just "appear" in the gene pool, but I guess thats probably wrong too, huh?

Reborn Outcast
02-01-2003, 12:21 PM
Shadow this is why I get frustrated. EVERYTIME SOMEONE POSTS A LINK ON CREATION OVER EVOLUTION YOU DISMISS IT AS IRRELIVANT. And then 5 posts later you ask for evidence.

Master_Keralys
02-01-2003, 02:16 PM
Cjais - big question for you here.

You have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that evolution is science, and is about "cold hard facts". Yet, a few days ago, before I got really busy and didn't have time to reply, you asked the rhetorical question "Prove to me what isn't [philosophy]." Okay, so which is it? Is evolution philosophy or science.

You make my point perfectly with that statement, though - when it comes right down to it, everything is philosophy. There can be no conclusive evidence either direction in this debate; so far all I have seen from either side (myself included) is an attempt to debunk the other side's theory. Which is logical, when there is little conclusive evidence for either side. The watch example is a poor one to use, but it's point will work.

Admittedly, watches have changed over the years. But one doesn't question that the watch was created. While I disagree that macroevolution occurs - the whole finch thing proves nothing one way or another, as I'll explain in a moment - the point is that in order for evolution to occur, if it did, certain factors would have to be controlled by an external force.

Finches beaks - that whole thing doesn't show anything one way or another. The beaks can actually change sizes on individual birds. As in, if you take one bird and move it to a different island, where it has differenct needs, the beak will grow or whatever on that single bird. Gotta go.

C'jais
02-01-2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Psydan
If you are a true evolutionist you should applaud every time you see a kid with Down's, or with any other kind of mutation, because that is how you think we got here.

Do people with Down's syndrome usually marry and pass the mutation? Is it beneficial?

What are some "positive" mutations in some parts of the human race, but not most?

Mutations depends solely on the environment. If it's benefical to grow larger beaks to break the only nuts available - the big ones - it will happen.

Also, how come humans on different continents, seperated by oceans on both sides, didn't have any significant adaption such as wings or extra limbs or an extra eye or something?

Every heard of the punchline -"get a sense of scale"? The timescale required for an extra limb would be enormous, and it's doubtful that an extra limb would ever help that much. Growing something stronger, lighter or tougher is ridiculously easy compared to growing a completely new skeletal structure.

You can just tell me that it was too short of a time period, cause I guess that's probably your answer, right?

Part of it. But humans would never be able to fly simply by adding wings. Our chest would need to be gargantuan for that to happen. Our weight would need to be reduced drastically, and we'd look completely different. It's not going to happen - especially not since we have no need of it.

Finally, how do light-sensitive cells just mutate into being? You can't mutate volentarily, or pass on a mutation through will, so how would animals just happen to get the kind of cells they need, and a light-sensitive cell is a very amazing trait for it to just "appear" in the gene pool, but I guess thats probably wrong too, huh?

The rate of mutations is pretty constant. Your own body cells are mutating all the time. It's evident. There's no need to debate that it's thoroughly fantastic how HIV evolves so quickly that it makes it impossible to target. It's marvelous.

C'jais
02-01-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Shadow this is why I get frustrated. EVERYTIME SOMEONE POSTS A LINK ON CREATION OVER EVOLUTION YOU DISMISS IT AS IRRELIVANT. And then 5 posts later you ask for evidence.

Point to a concrete example.

I'll happily answer your questions, but not if you simply copy-paste 19 GB worth of text and expect us to reply coherently to that. We haven't got that time.

C'jais
02-01-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
You have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that evolution is science, and is about "cold hard facts". Yet, a few days ago, before I got really busy and didn't have time to reply, you asked the rhetorical question "Prove to me what isn't [philosophy]." Okay, so which is it? Is evolution philosophy or science.

It's science.

My commentary that "Everything is philosophy" was about how you looked at the universe. Everyone has their own view of it. Philosophy is about morals, for example.

"Philosophy is the no-man's land between Science and Theology, exposed to attack from both sides."

Me stating that everything is philosophy, is philosophy.

But facts are indeniable. You cannot deny that evolution happens - evidenced in observations and droves of evidence from the past.

There can be no conclusive evidence either direction in this debate; so far all I have seen from either side (myself included) is an attempt to debunk the other side's theory.

While I just posted a rough sketch of all the evidence for evolution, this is pretty much just about beating your theory to the ground. We've presented much empirical evidence for our theory, while the same sadly cannot be said for you.

Now, if you want to claim the moral high ground here, I suggest you make a rough draft of your theory. Back it up with empirical evidence and scientific observations. We've done our part long ago, it's high time you did yours.

While I disagree that macroevolution occurs

Disagree all you want. I'm sure bacteria and insects are not going to bother you about this.

the whole finch thing proves nothing one way or another

Finches' beaks shows that they're specialized to eating specific nuts available in their environment. This is evident. On the Galapagos Islands, there are several species of finches - each specialized to eat a specific kind of nut or even other sources of food. The finches are so specialized that they cannot eat each other's nuts (w00t?) - they can only survive by eating their own kind of nut. In other words - each species of finches are occupying a niche in their environment, that makes sure they share the food - they are at an equilibrium with the environment. They don't fight over food because they simply can't eat the other finches food.

It's now only logical to assume there once existed a common ancestor to all these different species of finches. One that was more diverse and not to so picky with regards to food sources. This ancestor gradually branched off into several niche species to take advantage of the abundant food. It's also curiously evident that the different species of finches are more or less isolated on different parts of the islands. This theory is being backed up by reasoning and empirical proof. Show me yours.

Regarding the watch analogy, the point is that you simply can't connect a watch to "God must have created everything." It doesn't work - there's no connection between the two, as it's clearly evident that the watch is being made by natural processes. There's nothing mystical about it. Evolution develops apes, which develops humans, which develops watches. Watches aren't created miraculously from nowhere. And the fact that they can't self assemble as nothing with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to self assemble.

Show me where in the world living things are spontaneously assembled from nothing.

Reborn Outcast
02-01-2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Show me where in the world living things are spontaneously assembled from nothing.

Wait did you just contradict yourself? Didn't the universe assemble spontaneously from nothing according to evolutionists?

C'jais
02-01-2003, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Wait did you just contradict yourself? Didn't the universe assemble spontaneously from nothing according to evolutionists?

According to evolutionists? No.

You apparently still don't get that you can believe God created life on earth, God controls the direction evolution is taking and that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity.

How would you react if I told you that nearly 80% of all Christians take evolution as a fact? That the pope does? That it in no way makes your beliefs invalid, except the Creationistic ones.

Reborn Outcast
02-01-2003, 08:10 PM
Ok C'jais I see your point now. I agree that evolution could be a work of God BUT I also believe in Genesis which I BELIEVE contradicts evolution because Adam names all the animals. It is a very difficult concept for a Christian who is still searching. BUT, do you believe that they're is a God? The whole point of the thread was "The History of the Universe". If they're was a big bang, God did it. This is what I believe. We've kind of fallen away from that subject and into another debate in which there is no "winner".



I am the first to admit, that though I may not sound like it in my posts, I am still wrestling with the concept.

RpTheHotrod
02-01-2003, 08:17 PM
Just popping in.


The term "Christian" isn't always what some people mean. Awhile back, any Catholic was called a Christian, for example.

The "Christian" most of us are talking about are the true Christians. The ones who believe in God, Christ's blood, and the Holy Trinity.

Also, all because someone says they are a Christian, doesn't always mean they are. I've had people my entire life telling me they were Christians, but they were never saved. People get the wrong idea what Christian means.

C'jais
02-01-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I agree that evolution could be a work of God

Wait. Go no further. Hold on to this.

It could, couldn't it? God created everything. God created nature, no? God created evolution. Why do you feel like you have to defend some absurd theory when the answer is right in front of your face: Everything ties so well together because God made it. Isotope dating is not an insult to God, or a way to lead his followers astray - it's a part of nature. God is in nature.

When God made the Big Bang, there was light. When God made the first life on earth, there was life. When God made man what they are today, Adam was created. It's all metaphorical.

A time has come to stop viewing the Bible in a "take-no-prisoners" literalistic way. It's a work of art, and art can be understood on many levels. The most crude and primitive of them is to take it as what meets the eye at the fleeting glance - the purely literal way. Just as an abstract painting is rubbish to those who don't see the depth in it, so is creationism bland and irresponsibly false to those that translate it the petty literal way.

BUT, do you believe that they're is a God? The whole point of the thread was "The History of the Universe". If they're was a big bang, God did it.

God could have made the Big Bang. God could have seeded life on earth. God could manipulated his creation to his vision and end. God can always be there.

RpTheHotrod
02-01-2003, 08:36 PM
One problem with that theory

and the evening and the morning were the first day


a total of 6 days to create
7th He rested.

Now, 1 "day" back then couldn't be millions of years...because of that "and the evening..." sentence. Now, by using your own science that you say in infallible, the earth could NOT have slowed down that long (to prolong one day to a million years), or the orbit would totally screw up. SO...the evening and the morning WERE the first DAY.



Only way you can say He used evolution to create the world is by not believing what the Bible says...which is His Word.

There you have it

:)


Don't bother asking me any questions...I'm just dropping by.

C'jais
02-01-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Now, 1 "day" back then couldn't be millions of years...because of that "and the evening..." sentence. Now, by using your own science that you say in infallible, the earth could NOT have slowed down that long (to prolong one day to a million years), or the orbit would totally screw up. SO...the evening and the morning WERE the first DAY.

Wh-wha?

The days mentioned are metaphorical. Do you really believe in physical "doors" in the firmament as well? I'd never, ever try to compare the "days" to units of time. It wouldn't make any sense.

Don't bother asking me any questions...I'm just dropping by.

Oh, it doesn't exactly work that way :)

There's no "I'm just dropping by, don't bother replying to my posts"-immunity here, that renders your statements invulnerable.

RpTheHotrod
02-01-2003, 09:52 PM
Fine.

If it said "day" I might not take it as a day

but it says

"the evening and the morning were the first day"

I'm saying, it HAD to be an actual DAY...because if one DAY in that instance was a million years, the earth (according to your infallible science) would fly out of it's orbit and who knows...get sucked into the sun.

so that proves (proving itself now, I'm saying..grr how do I say this. I'm not saying it's proof, but according to itself..what it is saying is an actual day)

Psydan
02-02-2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by C'jais

Regarding the watch analogy, the point is that you simply can't connect a watch to "God must have created everything." It doesn't work - there's no connection between the two, as it's clearly evident that the watch is being made by natural processes. There's nothing mystical about it. Evolution develops apes, which develops humans, which develops watches. Watches aren't created miraculously from nowhere. And the fact that they can't self assemble as nothing with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to self assemble.

Show me where in the world living things are spontaneously assembled from nothing. [/B]

Well, first of all, apes aren't thought to be the ancestors of humans(see 15 Answers to creationist nonsense, SCIAM, I believe its been mentioned here a lot) secondly, if there isn't a creator then you're stuck in a question of where the materials for that watch came from, unless you believe the Sci-Fi versions.
Also,
Originally posted by C'jais

You apparently still don't get that you can believe God created life on earth, God controls the direction evolution is taking and that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity.

How would you react if I told you that nearly 80% of all Christians take evolution as a fact? That the pope does? That it in no way makes your beliefs invalid, except the Creationistic ones.[/B]

But isn't the argument over whether or not you believe that some inteligent being, whether God, Aliens, or a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue, something made the Universe, or the opposite veiw that it was a complete random coincidence, with no help by an intelligent being in our creation. It doesn't matter what your personal religous or theological beliefs are, the question was whether or not you thought an intelligence helped to create us. I agree with you 100% Cjais on the fact that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity, but I don't believe that humans can come from fish(or ameobas, or whatever anyone believes). Can we set aside our personal descrepincies in our beliefs on what God we believe in, or what created us, and have arguments over why creationism can or can't be true?

C'jais
02-02-2003, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'm saying, it HAD to be an actual DAY...because if one DAY in that instance was a million years, the earth (according to your infallible science) would fly out of it's orbit and who knows...get sucked into the sun.

Why would it do this? You haven't explained why, yet.

Stop making the assertion that a day in the Bible context is meant to be a single unit of time. A day meant time has passed.

It makes no sense for God to operate in terms of night and day, since if he's God, he's everywhere and thus night and day doesn't exist to him. Do we agree he made the terms "night" and "day" to help humans understand him, even though it's not really true? Because, as we know, night and day are as relative as they get.

so that proves (proving itself now, I'm saying..grr how do I say this. I'm not saying it's proof, but according to itself..what it is saying is an actual day)

No, the Bible cannot prove itself. You're the one who's using circular reasoning to make your head and the earth spin.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by Psydan
Well, first of all, apes aren't thought to be the ancestors of humans(see 15 Answers to creationist nonsense, SCIAM, I believe its been mentioned here a lot)

We have a common ancestor in apes, yes.

secondly, if there isn't a creator then you're stuck in a question of where the materials for that watch came from, unless you believe the Sci-Fi versions.

And what makes you think you aren't stuck with the same question? The only answer we know for sure right now, is that we honestly don't know.

Creator or non-creator, these are still just postulations until we've identified what it really is.

But isn't the argument over whether or not you believe that some inteligent being, whether God, Aliens, or a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue, something made the Universe, or the opposite veiw that it was a complete random coincidence, with no help by an intelligent being in our creation. It doesn't matter what your personal religous or theological beliefs are, the question was whether or not you thought an intelligence helped to create us.

What we're discussing here, if you somehow managed not to see it, is whether creationism is fact or not.

Again: I don't care if God made the Big Bang. I don't care if God made the first bacteria and afterwards mutated and evolved them to his needs. What I do care about is that the Biblical Genesis isn't fact. It isn't, no matter how much you believe in a holy text.

Again: We've presented positive proof of evolution. You still need to present positive proof of the biblical genesis. It doesn't help to present dating constructs and state "Because the earth is young, our theory must be the right one". It doesn't work, you can't prove the connection, much as I can't state "Because the earth is old, my theory must be right." Try to debunk our dating methods, try to debunk science all you want - in the end you won't be right simply by having done this.


but I don't believe that humans can come from fish(or ameobas, or whatever anyone believes).

It's not about believing fact. Do you believe in the theory of gravity as well? The theory of relativity?

Can we set aside our personal descrepincies in our beliefs on what God we believe in, or what created us, and have arguments over why creationism can or can't be true?

Which is exactly what we're doing.

BCanr2d2
02-02-2003, 08:11 AM
Obviously those Creationist Scientists out there that take a view of the Bible in some cases being metaphoric, use the Genesis text to desribe what is in essence a logical six step sequence to the creation of life on earth.

They use eras to describe the days, being more of a metaphorical description of how events happened. If you fit this into how scientists describe the creation of the Earth, it all fits.

How did they know this back 2000 or more years ago, I do not know. You want a mystery, work out how ancient civilisations had enough of an understanding in science to write how the earth was created.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by BCanr2d2
They use eras to describe the days, being more of a metaphorical description of how events happened. If you fit this into how scientists describe the creation of the Earth, it all fits.

I dunno... creating light before the source of light itself? Creating plants that require photosynthesis before the sun was created?

How did they know this back 2000 or more years ago, I do not know.

I'll let you in on a secret: They're no more right than my viking myths. But it's still art.

Reborn Outcast
02-02-2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
Why would it do this? You haven't explained why, yet.

Stop making the assertion that a day in the Bible context is meant to be a single unit of time. A day meant time has passed.

Genesis 1:3 And God siad, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness He called 'night." AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING - THE FIRST DAY

C'jais
02-02-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Genesis 1:3 And God siad, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness He called 'night." AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING - THE FIRST DAY

Night and day are relatives. To the Inuits, half the year is one big day, and the other half is one big night.

It's flat out impossible to state that "When there's light, it's day - when there's darkness it's night". To God, whom I assume hovers in orbit of Earth, there'd be no night and day. To the Inuits, it'd make no sense to speak of night and day since their days and nights are pretty damned long to say the least.

There's always light as long as the stars are here, and there's always darkness as long as something blocks that light. Which means the concepts of day and night are as relative as they can possibly get.

Just as God can't label "Light is good", because light actually kills certain lifeforms, and oxygen is toxic to others as well.

Conclusion: Either God is an abstract invented by tribespeople, or He seriously has no clue WTF he was talking about at that time.

Pnut_Man
02-02-2003, 12:39 PM
No offense to you C'jais, but do you find discussing "God" comical? You say you assume he hovers above the Earth in Orbit, that sounds like a joke. I have a few friends who are athiests, we argue alot, I know the deal..just wondering..

And um, what do you mean by God has no clue as to what he is talking about? Do you mean the people who wrote that section of the Genesis have no clue what they're talking about?

C'jais
02-02-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
No offense to you C'jais, but do you find discussing "God" comical? You say you assume he hovers above the Earth in Orbit, that sounds like a joke.

I meant it in all seriousness. Where else would he be? Hiding in the grass?

And um, what do you mean by God has no clue as to what he is talking about? Do you mean the people who wrote that section of the Genesis have no clue what they're talking about?

Read what I just wrote one more time.

Master_Keralys
02-02-2003, 01:30 PM
Cjais, you're still missing the point of this. We respect your belief that evolution is true. It is a belief, because you simply cannot prove that humans evolved from amoebas. I think we can all agree on that, right?

And you still haven't explained irreducible complexity. Next point: If there is a design, a very carefully crafted universe that is, by all appeareance, specifically engineered to support life. Now, take into account things like the known fact that the Big Bang, however, whenever it happened, had happened at a rate less than one percent faster than it did - we wouldn't be here. The universe would have expanded to fast for anything to ever form from gravity and the like; motion would have simply been too great. Less than one percent slower, and we wouldn't be here either: the universe would have collapsed back in on itself almost instantaneously. And there are thousands of other variables just as critical to the existence of any life - much less life as fragile as that of humanity. That's called the anthropic principle, and everyone knows it exists - not just Christians.

So what we ultimately come down to is that, regardless of how God created us, He clearly did. I personally cannot see that you've proved evolution more than anything else. Isometric dating is reliable in that it agrees with what we want it to. And those "dating constructs" you're so fond of referring to aren't just constructs. Remember the hoaxes - the ones that they dated as being thousands, some of them millions of years old - and proved to be wrong. Those weren't Christians trying to disprove anything; those were evolutionists trying to date what they thought was a real fossil. So how is it that when Christians do it, it is a giant conspiracy, but when evolutionist scientists get crazy dates, it's just a mistake in the dating sytem that one, random time?

Unless we invent a time machine (which is extraordinarily improbable), we cannot know conclusively either way. It still comes down to what you believe. I happen to beleive that Genesis is right; you can't prove it's not. Just as I cannot conclusively prove you wrong. Which is where this went wrong; it should have been a rational debate and instead has turned into a mud-throwing argument. If we are going to continue, let's do it right. No more "get the **** out". Which I know most of us haven't done, but you get the point.

RpTheHotrod
02-02-2003, 01:33 PM
I'm trying REEALY hard not to think of yourself as stupid here.

I'm not saying the BIble proves itself...I'm SAYING, since you are taking the scripture and saying a day was a million years, since YOU ARE TAKING THE SCRIPTURE, THE SCRIPTURE IS SAYING

the evening and the morning


which means an actual DAY. Now you will say "but a day could be one FRILLION GAZILLION years" but since you are working with your "infallible" science, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the eart to have a "frillion gazillion years" day...because how do we have days? The earth orbits the sun, correct? Now....if a day lasted 43769269247643786034986734076892470689402376734890 67023849674384375348259656464212342165107452374575 38067237697436897349673549678493675908374028967403 89679437634768342672231233612125214356426754628754 69742389672340673412687375462875469742389672340673 41268736784967893761389678490367849678237697436897 34967354967849367590837402896740389679437634768342 675462875469742389672340673412687367849678 hours of standing still....don't you think the earth is going to be screwed up, and pulled into the sun by gravity? What keeps the earth from getting pulled in, that's right, the ORBIT......having days and nights!


I'm saying, according to ITSELF (The Bible), since you are taking something from it and saying something about it, the 6 days it took to created was.... SIX days.


man..I don't get why it's so hard to understand such elementary concepts.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It is a belief, because you simply cannot prove that humans evolved from amoebas. I think we can all agree on that, right?

I can prove we descended from a common ancestor to apes. I can prove all life didn't exist simultaneusly at one point in history. I can prove evolution happens on a daily basis right now. I can prove the earliest forms of life were very primitive and gradually evolved to the currents forms.

Now, take into account things like the known fact that the Big Bang, however, whenever it happened, had happened at a rate less than one percent faster than it did - we wouldn't be here. The universe would have expanded to fast for anything to ever form from gravity and the like; motion would have simply been too great. Less than one percent slower, and we wouldn't be here either: the universe would have collapsed back in on itself almost instantaneously. And there are thousands of other variables just as critical to the existence of any life - much less life as fragile as that of humanity. That's called the anthropic principle, and everyone knows it exists - not just Christians.

What is this meant to prove? That the chance that we're here is very slim indeed? I agree on that.

Give me a link to the site you got this from.

Isometric dating is reliable in that it agrees with what we want it to.

It obviously does not. You think scientists are specifically "crafting" the numbers they get? That they invent the results?

And those "dating constructs" you're so fond of referring to aren't just constructs.

Why don't you show me one that isn't. Show me one I haven't refuted by now.

Remember the hoaxes - the ones that they dated as being thousands, some of them millions of years old - and proved to be wrong.

Such talk again. Similar to "the fact" that human footprints are found alongside dinosaur ones? These footprints never happened - it's a myth.

but when evolutionist scientists get crazy dates, it's just a mistake in the dating sytem that one, random time?

Yet it obviously is, when it's possible to date with several different methods and achieve the same result. And not just radioactive dating methods, glacial and wood dating gives the same result. Fantastic.

What's even more remarkable, is that it's possible to predict the results that these several different dating methods spit out, based on which layer and where it was found.

So state once again with certainty that these one-time occurances somehow invalidates the entire principle of isotope dating.

Which is where this went wrong; it should have been a rational debate and instead has turned into a mud-throwing argument. If we are going to continue, let's do it right. No more "get the **** out". Which I know most of us haven't done, but you get the point.

And while you're still whining how this debate is going down the drain with each post you make, I'm trying hard to get it back on track.

Why don't you present some positive proof of the Genesis, and get to work on the questions I still need answered (some posts back).

C'jais
02-02-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'm trying REEALY hard not to think of yourself as stupid here.

Thank you. And I'm trying reeeeally hard not to think of you as deliberately trying to steer away from my unanswered questions and logic.

I'm not saying the BIble proves itself...I'm SAYING, since you are taking the scripture and saying a day was a million years

Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite. Very well, continue if you must.

the evening and the morning

which means an actual DAY.

And by stating this, you also claim that the years on the poles consists of fewer days than ours, since winter is one long night where the sun never rises, and the summer is one long day where it never sets.

Now you will say "but a day could be one FRILLION GAZILLION years"

Hold on. I never said that either. I'm now stating once again that I said the exact opposite, but since you're so convinced, quote me.

Now....if a day lasted [Humongous number edited out] hours of standing still....don't you think the earth is going to be screwed up, and pulled into the sun by gravity?

Ahh - I think I get it now. So when I said that Inuits and whatnot have days that last longer than we've ever experienced outself, you assumed I meant the earth was standing still. Am I right?

Clearly, your understanding of basic astronomy fails you here, as you don't even know what causes days and nights, and how they're completely dependant on where you are on the earth.

I'm saying, according to ITSELF (The Bible), since you are taking something from it and saying something about it

I am taking something from it and saying something about it? Errr.... And why does this make me open to illogical attacks on my intelligence?

RpTheHotrod
02-02-2003, 02:36 PM
You said

"No, the Bible cannot prove itself."

and now you just said

"Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite."

You're changing what you say. Make up your mind already


What causes our "evening and mornings"? The orbit around the sun. Sun goes up, sun goes down, sun goes up, sun goes down.

Now, if the Bible's "day" was a million years, the earth would have to had STOPPED turning (well, xtremely slowed down, without any change noticable except for maybe a few feet per 5,000 years?)...but it showes in itself the day was in fact, a day by showing and evening and the morning.

Go outside, look at the sun go up, look at the sun go down...it doesn't change. Now, if the sun were to go up, and stay up for the rest of yoru life...well...you're life wouldn't be that long because in order for the sun to stay in "position", the earth would actually stop rotating totally. Could you imagine what would happen to the earth if that happened for even a few months (ignoring the fact that gravity would drag the earth away first)? The light side would be scorched, and the dark side would have no sunlight and die off....so saying "evening and the morning" was a million years is out of the question.

Re-cap...what makes an evening and the morning? The earth rotating and orbiting around the sun. True, some evenings and mornings may LOOK different than other places on the earth, but they still have the same evening and morning.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
You said

"No, the Bible cannot prove itself."

and now you just said

"Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite."

You're changing what you say. Make up your mind already

Ooooh... quoting out of context - how I just love that.

No. I said the Bible could not prove itself, because that'd be circular reasoning. And now I'm saying you quoted me out of context (more than once) with regards to me saying the days should be taken for years.

Now, I understand the rest of what you posted, but as I said before, it makes no sense to see the "days" as literal days.

When I said it should be taken as a period of time having passed, I meant it. Let's see - how would a few tribespeople try to condense the history of the world as they knew it into laymen's terms? By writing -"A few days passed and God made the animals." How on earth could you get the idea that it meant literal days? That's nonsense, much as you can see it's equally moronic if I write "3 days passed and I made all the killer whales on earth. Then, 5 days after that, I made all the water on the planet for them to live in". If people start believing in that horsedung, they should get a psychic treatment, fast.

RpTheHotrod
02-02-2003, 02:53 PM
because it said

"and the evening and the morning were the first day"

the earth doesn't suddenly speed or nor slow down "everyonce in awhile"

If it just said "It was the first day", I understand what you're saying, but it gives you a window of time...an evening and a morning.

An evening and a morning doesn't change. It may look different at differnt parts of the world, but it does not change. The earth simply could not survive with pure darkness / pure light over a long period of time.

Put it this way, do you actually think a morning is a week long?

Btw, in the Biblical times, people were quite intelligent, they weren't "cavemen", as some people think.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
The earth simply could not survive with pure darkness / pure light over a long period of time.

Put it this way, do you actually think a morning is a week long?

Go live on the North Pole for a year.

Btw, in the Biblical times, people were quite intelligent, they weren't "cavemen", as some people think.

I never said cavemen - I said tribespeople. Tribespeople who couldn't fathom the idea that the earth was bigger than they could see. People who thought the earth was flat, because they had no way to tell otherwise. I'd be stupid living in that age as well, not having modern science at my disposal.

Reborn Outcast
02-02-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Go live on the North Pole for a year.

And notice that the North Pole is what... wait... its all ice? What no life can live there on its own without bringing thousands of pounds of gas for heat? Hmmm...

Originally posted by C'jais
I never said cavemen - I said tribespeople. Tribespeople who couldn't fathom the idea that the earth was bigger than they could see. People who thought the earth was flat, because they had no way to tell otherwise. I'd be stupid living in that age as well, not having modern science at my disposal.

Umm C'jais, technically, everyone in the world right now fits in as a tribesmen. Does that make us stupid? I think not.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 03:26 PM
Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all:

First off, why oh why did he make something as malevolent as viruses and HIV and not even tell the people at that time in the Bible? Better yet, why didn't he tell him that HIV would evolve thousands of years after their time?

Human embryos have tails and gill slits. Why would a creator make them this peculiar way?

Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails?

Why does the hair at the back of our necks stand up when we're scared, similar to other fur-covered animals? Cats and dogs use it as a warning sign of aggresion, but on us, it's completely useless in that regard.

Wisdom teeth. Why would a creator give us more teeth than could fit in our jaw?

Our little toes. They're useless. We don't use them in walking, and if we lost them, they wouldn't hinder our mobility in any way. Kids notice right away that monkeys really have four hands . A fifth digit is pretty useful if you're scrambling through branches (and secondarily manipulating objects). Our little fingers are truly useful and probably in no danger of disappearing. But we quit climbing in trees with our rear "hands" and they became feet - which explains why they have useless fifth digits.

Ever notice the thing hanging down your dog's, cat's or tiger's leg? It's called a dewclaw, and is completely useless, much as our little toes. In fact, it's sometimes so much in the way that it's removed. What could it possibly mean except a useless fifth toe in the process of being naturally selected out, and getting smaller and smaller to the point where it won't even be there anymore?

We have five fingers. So do all other mammals. Curious. All other mammals have five digits per limb, or the vestigial remains thereof, or we can trace the gradual shrinkage and loss of digits through the fossil record (as with horses). But the principle remains: Mammals have five digits- even when there's no good reason. Why should whales have the bones of exactly five digits buried in their flippers? Why should bats have wings seeming awkwardly stretched over exactly five fingers? Same old song: the commonality of five digits among the mammal family makes sense only if we are all descendants of a five-digited ancestor.

Why do snakes have useless remains of hips?

If hemoglobin were designed by God, it was designed to have far too much affinity for carbon monoxide. This great affinity has resulted in countless deaths.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas. This is, if anything, an even nastier bit of "design." At the very least, carbon monoxide could have been given a smell to help warn us (unless the Designer was constrained by the laws of chemistry--surely no impediment). It remains one of life’s traps for the unwary, with its victims often being infants in poorly ventilated winter homes. Or perhaps it is just one of evolution’s quirks, a chance attraction which natural selection has not eliminated because there is too little selection pressure against it. Evolution can play seemingly malicious tricks (think about it: the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning is such a recent development in our evolutionary history that we have acquired no ability to detect it), but could a Perfect Designer?

Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea?

Why do we need to have vitamin C in our diet when dogs can make it themselves? Surely God could have done the same for humans.

The Plantaris muscle. In the monkey it is a useful muscle which causes all the digits to flex at once, and thus is useful in swinging from trees by the feet. In the human it is atrophied, may be absent, and does not even reach the toes, but disappears into the Achilles tendon. There is no sensible reason for its existence in the human, except a common ancestry with monkeys.

Now, get to work and answer this. Just some of it, though. I can always give you more if you're interested.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
And notice that the North Pole is what... wait... its all ice? What no life can live there on its own without bringing thousands of pounds of gas for heat? Hmmm...

Try Greenland instead. The same day-night dilemma, slightly better living conditions. People have lived on Greenland for thousands of years now. They don't need gas to survive.



Umm C'jais, technically, everyone in the world right now fits in as a tribesmen. Does that make us stupid? I think not.

Technically, you haven't presented any logical inference that we fit in as tribesmen.

Pnut_Man
02-02-2003, 04:05 PM
I've gotta admit C'jais, the "Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all" post had alot of nice information.. How it proves that the "Creator of all life" isn't intelligent is beyond me. I see that post as a great way to prove that evolution is a fact.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
I see that post as a great way to prove that evolution is a fact.

Thank you.

I remember now, you're one of the cool Christians - one of those who feel evolution doesn't invalidate or violate the concept of God and the Bible, right?

All the more power to you.

Reborn Outcast
02-02-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Technically, you haven't presented any logical inference that we fit in as tribesmen.

Here is the definition for tribe:

1. A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.

2. A political, ethnic, or ancestral division of ancient states and cultures, especially:
Any of the three divisions of the ancient Romans, namely, the Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan.
Any of the 12 divisions of ancient Israel.
A phyle of ancient Greece.

3. A group of people sharing an occupation, interest, or habit: a tribe of graduate students.

4. Informal. A large family.

Sounds a lot like humans nowadays.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Sounds a lot like humans nowadays.

That's abusing the word.

The point is not that they were tribespeople dammit - the point I was desperately trying to make is that they were ignorant compared to us. No way around it.

And FFS, stop practicing these linguistic acrobatics - how would you feel if I blatantly ignored the point of your post and blasted your out-of-context quotes to hell and back for not making it clear enough, when I knew full well that I got it?

Gah.

Pnut_Man
02-02-2003, 04:54 PM
Unforunately it seems as if this thread has gone way off topic ;)
The name of this thread: "History of the Universe" is so freaking vague, was it meant to be that way O_o?

C'jais
02-02-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
Unforunately it seems as if this thread has gone way off topic ;)
The name of this thread: "History of the Universe" is so freaking vague, was it meant to be that way O_o?

The title is vague, yes, but I think people have got the gist of what it's about now ;)

It's not off topic yet, but certain people are working their way towards it. I've presented two minor Redwings of unrefuted facts and evidence.

I'm willing to go on with this, if we drag the topic back to refuting theories instead of arguing about the oh-so-apparent uselesness of this thread and how none of us are going to win. Come on.

RpTheHotrod
02-02-2003, 05:05 PM
I never said that you called them cavemen...there you go again, picking up stuff that isnt there and discussing it.


Why did He do all of that? Because He can? Why do I like vanilla coke, and I like Cherry Dr. Pepper, but I don't like Cherry Coke that much, and I hate Vanilla Dr Pepper? Makes no sense to you maybe, but I do it.

Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that.

yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that.

It's evidence of evolution. Powerful evidence, since the best you can come up with, is the tired old "God did it because he could".

Since you don't think this disproves an "Intelligent" creator, go ahead and tell me why it is not evidence of evolution.

yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point.

Not a massive civilization, but the point is there people up there. And that the concepts of night and day has a completely different meaning to them than to those who apparently got the message from God.

Psydan
02-03-2003, 12:12 AM
You asked for answers, well here are some...

Originally posted by C'jais
Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all:
[...]
Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails?


Well, if you look at any good anatomy book, you'll notice that there IS a purpose for these "non-functioning remains of tails". The "tailbone" has many important muscles attached to it that allow such things as going to the bathroom and giving birth, and we kind of need those things, so I'm guessing it's good that we have them.(Don't ask for a website, I got this out of my Bio book and from my Bio teacher)
Originally posted by C'jais
[...]
Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea?
[/B]

YEAH!!! That makes perfect sense!!!
All of the land mammals just jumped into the water, and those that didn't drown decided that it was a good place to live, so they sprouted fins, (like all animals are able to do if they wish really hard) and changed into dolphins! ;) That sounds plausible, and a lot more likely than God (I'm being sarcastic, so don't quote me on this!).

RpTheHotrod
02-03-2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all:

First off, why oh why did he make something as malevolent as viruses and HIV and not even tell the people at that time in the Bible? Better yet, why didn't he tell him that HIV would evolve thousands of years after their time?

Human embryos have tails and gill slits. Why would a creator make them this peculiar way?

Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails?

Why does the hair at the back of our necks stand up when we're scared, similar to other fur-covered animals? Cats and dogs use it as a warning sign of aggresion, but on us, it's completely useless in that regard.

Wisdom teeth. Why would a creator give us more teeth than could fit in our jaw?

Our little toes. They're useless. We don't use them in walking, and if we lost them, they wouldn't hinder our mobility in any way. Kids notice right away that monkeys really have four hands . A fifth digit is pretty useful if you're scrambling through branches (and secondarily manipulating objects). Our little fingers are truly useful and probably in no danger of disappearing. But we quit climbing in trees with our rear "hands" and they became feet - which explains why they have useless fifth digits.

Ever notice the thing hanging down your dog's, cat's or tiger's leg? It's called a dewclaw, and is completely useless, much as our little toes. In fact, it's sometimes so much in the way that it's removed. What could it possibly mean except a useless fifth toe in the process of being naturally selected out, and getting smaller and smaller to the point where it won't even be there anymore?

We have five fingers. So do all other mammals. Curious. All other mammals have five digits per limb, or the vestigial remains thereof, or we can trace the gradual shrinkage and loss of digits through the fossil record (as with horses). But the principle remains: Mammals have five digits- even when there's no good reason. Why should whales have the bones of exactly five digits buried in their flippers? Why should bats have wings seeming awkwardly stretched over exactly five fingers? Same old song: the commonality of five digits among the mammal family makes sense only if we are all descendants of a five-digited ancestor.

Why do snakes have useless remains of hips?

If hemoglobin were designed by God, it was designed to have far too much affinity for carbon monoxide. This great affinity has resulted in countless deaths.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas. This is, if anything, an even nastier bit of "design." At the very least, carbon monoxide could have been given a smell to help warn us (unless the Designer was constrained by the laws of chemistry--surely no impediment). It remains one of life’s traps for the unwary, with its victims often being infants in poorly ventilated winter homes. Or perhaps it is just one of evolution’s quirks, a chance attraction which natural selection has not eliminated because there is too little selection pressure against it. Evolution can play seemingly malicious tricks (think about it: the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning is such a recent development in our evolutionary history that we have acquired no ability to detect it), but could a Perfect Designer?

Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea?

Why do we need to have vitamin C in our diet when dogs can make it themselves? Surely God could have done the same for humans.

The Plantaris muscle. In the monkey it is a useful muscle which causes all the digits to flex at once, and thus is useful in swinging from trees by the feet. In the human it is atrophied, may be absent, and does not even reach the toes, but disappears into the Achilles tendon. There is no sensible reason for its existence in the human, except a common ancestry with monkeys.

Now, get to work and answer this. Just some of it, though. I can always give you more if you're interested.

You just said all of that is powerful evidence...

Those are questions, not evidence.

There you go again stating things that simply arn't true.

RpTheHotrod
02-03-2003, 01:35 AM
Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true. Not "well, since this, we can pretty much say that it was like that a million years ago"

No, not examples, no "probably"s, solid evolution that if stated on the news, so true and proven, that nearly every single person would agree that evolution is true.

BCanr2d2
02-03-2003, 08:03 AM
Then as many as we have said, give us proof that the Bible is true as well - it is not enough to discredit evolution, therefore assume Creation is correct. For all we know, both sides of the argument may be wrong.
It's like me saying 1+1= 3 and you saying 1+1=1, neither of us are right, but if you say my answer is wrong, you assume yours is right, without ever proving that it is. Just because one answer is not correct, does not necessarily mean that an alternate answer is correct by default, you must still prove that it is correct.
After all, most of the current line of thinking only stretches back 200 years, when the Greeks and Romans 2000 years ago knew just as much, or possibly more than man does now about many important things. Do not simply assume this technological age is the be all and end all of human knowledge....

At this moment, neither side can definitively say that either method is true or untrue. We can continue to disprove each other, but how do you refute someone who only quotes the Bible as their source, and not back it up with any other evidence.....

RptheHotrod, you are assuming that you are remaining still for a day or night to be lengthened by the Earth slowing down. I question your logic of how you make this assumption. After all, if it is written from God's perspective, then what is his interpretation of a night and day BEFORE the Earth was created? You do not know that, nor can you ever know that.
Cjais has already shown that the world, at its longest interpretation, was created in 3 years....
A complete literal interpretation of the Bible states that Joseph and Mary lived both in Nazareth and Bethlehem simultaneously, coming from the books of Luke and Matthew. As they state different things about what happened in the time leading up to Jesus' birth. The text was written originally in Greek, with the most highly accepted translation being that of King James, still in itself a quite old translation. You want to talk about out of context, it is here that I believe many Greek words to be placed out of context, or misinterpreted, since many languages have double meanings for the same words, depending where they are used.
You also take subjective choices, and try to pass them off as being objective. Taste, smell, amongst other things is subjective, it is up to each person to decide if they like what they are eating or smelling. You can't just go out there and say brown haired males aged 15, weighing 60 kgs, like Coca Cola over Pepsi, and state that this is the Creators choice...


As for those that refute that there is life in the Arctic, and extreme cold, then do a search on Lake Vostok in Russia and you might be surprised about what may exist in a lake that is constantly 4 km's under ice.....

Tyrion
02-03-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true.

The fact that virus evolve(through survival of the fittest)to combat immune systems,or vice-versa?

Master_Keralys
02-03-2003, 01:42 PM
Cjais, you ask in essence, "If we have a perfect Creator, why aren't we perfect?"

Now to go a bit theological here (don't quote me as being just a Bible-thumping wacko, okay, I'll get to science in a minute) - go read Genesis. It's our fault we're screwed up, not God's. He created us, and we were "good". And then the woman listened to a temptation, and did what God forbade her to do. The problem wasn't necessarily the fruit, but that God said "Don't eat it." At which point she got her husband to do the same thing. At which point all of nature became corrupted and flawed.

Human embryos have neither tails nor gulls splits. In reality, the "tails" are just early formations of muscles off of the tailbone - if you looked at your tailbone and the muscles attached to it, you'd see the same thing. Furthermore, the "gull splits" can be found in any human lung, just not as easily. What they actually are is the means for blood to pass through the lungs and pick up oxygen! Any resemblance, however superficial, to anything that might be our evolutionary ancestor, is pointed at as "proof" that we evolved.

If you walk into a room full of chairs, like at a furniture place, and everywhere you look you see chairs. Hundreds of em. And you, the evolutionist, says, "Hey, they all have four legs. Find the smallest one, that's where they all came from."

I walk into the same room and say, "Hey, that's a decent carpenter who made this stuff. And prolific, too."

Just because things are designed similarly doesn't mean that they "evolved" from one another. A perfect example is sharks and dolphins. They look very similar, but in reality are very different in internal structure and genetics, etc. So why do they look so similar? Because they were designed in a way that made them suitable for their environment.

Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same. Anything alive must grow and reproduce on its own. Viruses require host cells to reproduce. And the way the change is no different from the Europeans being immune to some diseases that the Native Americans were not. I have said before, and will say again, natural selection does not prove evolution. It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.

Anyone who says the Bible contradicts itself about Jesus' birth is wrong. When it gives differing geneologies - those are the geneologies of different people: Mary and Joseph. Careful examination shows that They could not have been in both places at the same time according to the Biblical record; they were required by Roman law to report to Bethlehem for the census. And they did.

Wisdom teeth fit just fine in some people's jaws. But I haven't seen a massive group of them just take over the human population because they're better fit to survive. for the most part, it is only select groups that have that problem - not all. A lot of which comes down to eating habits and differences in location.

Dolphins do have noses, in case you haven't noticed. And they actually have the ability to smell. Kind of like the Great White sharks, that smell blood in the water. Did the sharks evolve from something on land, too? Maybe a fish crawled out of the ocean, ran around as a lizard for a while, and then decided to crawl back into the ocean?

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land. So it gets eaten. Or it goes underwater, can't stay down for very long yet, and drowns. Or it goes underwater, can't swim very fast yet, and gets eaten by something nasty down there. Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.

That's the problem with evolution.

ShadowTemplar
02-03-2003, 03:03 PM
I promised myself (again) not to get into this... But I guess that I'll have another go:

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same. Anything alive must grow and reproduce on its own. Viruses require host cells to reproduce. And the way the change is no different from the Europeans being immune to some diseases that the Native Americans were not. I have said before, and will say again, natural selection does not prove evolution.

Whatever you classify a virus, it'll be a forced fit. It falls inbetween.

And natural selection is evolution.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.

Or a pretty stupid God who makes the environment change. Anyway, adaption to a different environment is evolution.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Maybe a fish crawled out of the ocean, ran around as a lizard for a while, and then decided to crawl back into the ocean?

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land. So it gets eaten. Or it goes underwater, can't stay down for very long yet, and drowns. Or it goes underwater, can't swim very fast yet, and gets eaten by something nasty down there. Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.

Again your beloved Irreducible Complexity. Which is just as silly as Irreducible Simplicity (of course anything can be divided by zero, its just those stupid mathmaticians who claim otherwise, against their own better judgement).

In this particular case you need to check up on the Galapagos biosphere, and particularily the reptiles living both in and out of the water. Or your local pond, where you will se numerous frogs. Over to C'Jais (and this time I hope to stay out).

ShadowTemplar
02-03-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I never said that you called them cavemen...there you go again, picking up stuff that isnt there and discussing it.

No. HE called them cavemen.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that.

What I called (and still do call) SPAM is mindless restatements of things that have already been refuted countless times, without coming up with anything new to counter the refuttal. That's just a cheap way to overburden the pitifully understaffed Evolution side. Oh, and he (and I) actually have proven evolution beyond reasonable doubt.

Does away with God, you say? Well, so what. When I look at the Universe I see no absolute values of good or evil. I only see a blind, pitiless indifference, as devoid of malice as it is of compassion. If you can't handle that, then by all means imagine a God whatching over you. But don't tell that lie to your children, or your pupils.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point.

Polar Bears? Evolved for the environment, you say? Ohh, gee.

C'jais
02-03-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Do me a favor. Name just ONE evidence that evolution is true. Not "well, since this, we can pretty much say that it was like that a million years ago"

Nature isn't that simple, but I can name some pretty good evidence that can only be explained by the evolution theory.

Pseudogenes, for one.

Pseudogenes (junk DNA) are remains of genes that no longer function, but continue to be carried along in the DNA as extra luggage that does nothing at all. Pseudogenes change as they're passed on from ancestors, and they're a powerful tool to reconstruct evolutionary relationships. As the common ancestor between two organisms, the more different their pseudogenes will be from each other.

When these genes are compared between, let's say, a human and a dog, their differences are relatively few, compared to human pseudogenes and those of wheat.

Humans have about 100 genes for odour receptors, yet only 30 of those are functional. In other mammals they're all functional, indicating we're losing our sense of smell because it's no longer dead important to survive.

In fact, DNA can also be used to eerily predict discoveries based completely on the evolutionary theory. Strange. It's works, it predicts, it saves lives and it has so far only served to increase our understanding of genetics... but it's not true. Ah well, I'd rather go with something that's actually functional and can predict things even if it's blatantly false.

Reborn Outcast
02-03-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Or a pretty stupid God who makes the environment change. Anyway, adaption to a different environment is evolution.

Wrong!!! If I move from New York City out to the farmlands in Georgia somewhere with pigs and cows and where it is hotter, I am going to have to adapt to my environment. Does that mean I'm evolving? NO. Adaptation to a different environment is NOT evolution.

C'jais
02-03-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
The problem wasn't necessarily the fruit, but that God said "Don't eat it." At which point she got her husband to do the same thing. At which point all of nature became corrupted and flawed.

Where does it say exactly this?

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

Human embryos have neither tails nor gulls splits. In reality, the "tails" are just early formations of muscles off of the tailbone

No. They are clearly tails. If they were "early formations" of the tailbone, they wouldn't be as huge as they are. They are tails, but gradually shrink back to the tailbone since that's a leftover from our ancestry with other species.

It's also almost remarkably peculiar that almost every mammal look exactly the same during the first stages of the pregnancy, complete with gills and tails. Every mammal, I stress again. Common ancestry? Nah - just God's curious sense of humour.

Oh, and it's gill slits.

Furthermore, the "gull splits" can be found in any human lung, just not as easily.

You are joking, right?

Gills slits in lungs? What are you smoking? Sorry. It's just not true. It is gill slits we see on embryos. They disappear as the pregnancy goes along, but it is indeniably (non-functional) gills.

I'd like to see you point out where exactly these gills should reside in our lungs. They're nowhere to be found, as far as I'm concerned.

If you walk into a room full of chairs, like at a furniture place, and everywhere you look you see chairs. Hundreds of em. And you, the evolutionist, says, "Hey, they all have four legs. Find the smallest one, that's where they all came from."

I walk into the same room and say, "Hey, that's a decent carpenter who made this stuff. And prolific, too."

That analogy is about as relevant as true as me saying: "We are all built from the same elemental compounds. Thus, we're all related."

They look very similar, but in reality are very different in internal structure and genetics, etc.

Sharks are fish. Dolphins are mammals. Dolphins share many more genes with us than with sharks. Related to us? Nah, probably not by a long shot.

Viruses can not technically be called alive by a standard biological definition of same.

Virus are made of the same basic proteins and nucleic acids as we. They as have DNA/RNA, as we. They can reproduce, as we. They can parasitize other creatures and gain from it (as we, heh).

They're neither alive nor dead according to biological conventions.

It'd be a pretty stupid God who wouldn't put in such a process to help creatures adapt to changing environments.

Tell me the difference between evolving and adapting. Tell me where the defining line between the two is.

Wisdom teeth fit just fine in some people's jaws.

Clearly, wisdom teeth are a bigger problem than you've realized.

Dolphins do have noses, in case you haven't noticed.

No. No. No.

They have no noses. You're confusing "noses" with snouts.

And they actually have the ability to smell.

Haha. You made a funny.

No, they cannot smell. At all. I'm staking a lot on this fact.

Now, isn't it curious that dolphins have genes that once coded for odour receptors? Related to us? Nah, God just felt like including all this junk DNA to puzzle us.

Kind of like the Great White sharks, that smell blood in the water.

Finally a place where you have your facts straight. Yes, sharks can smell. And yes, they do have noses.

Did the sharks evolve from something on land, too?

Nope. Sharks are fish. Dolphins are mammals. Whales are mammals. Both whales and sharks have a ton of traits in common with us. They have five "finger" bones in their fins. Sharks do not. I'm also betting, predicting, that whales have non-functional genes that code for odour receptors as well. Notice I'm predicting a discovery based on the evolutionary theory.

Why? There's nothing to select for that ability. In the intervening stages where the creature is just starting to develop something between its digits to better survive in water, it is more vulnerable on land.

Amphibious creatures. No, they wouldn't be "vulnerable" on land. They'd be gradually better swimmers, and thus inclined to stay more in the water.

Now it's dead, its evolution stopped, and this happens to every similar creature.

Argh. This is just false.

You assume that evolution works on a sequential basis, right? Wrong - it works simultaneusly since the rate of mutations is constant. The death of one individual carrying the changed gene is not going to stop the rest of those who also carry it. 60 millions years is not going them.

Seriously, do you have any idea how long 4 billion years is? We're nothing compared to that stretch of time. Nothing. We're totally insignificant when viewed in the proper timescale.

C'jais
02-03-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Does that mean I'm evolving? NO. Adaptation to a different environment is NOT evolution.

Factor in 2 million years. You'll "adapt". You'll see.

The problem with you guys is that you seriously have no sense of scale. You expect immediate evolving if I'm gone on a vacation to Egypt. Not going to happen.

Now, both in the sense of "adaptation" and evolution it requires several generations and thousands of years for something noticable to happen.

C'jais
02-03-2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Psydan
Well, if you look at any good anatomy book, you'll notice that there IS a purpose for these "non-functioning remains of tails". The "tailbone" has many important muscles attached to it

The point is that there are actually quite few muscles attached to this thing, and those that are attached to it could easily have been placed a more convenient place.

In fact, since it's so easy to break this bone, one must wonder why God implemented us with such ridiculously useless potential source of pain.

But seriously, what's so damn horrible to see we once had tails? We were once covered with fur and had a tail? Big f*ckin' whoop. As if it matters. But it's interesting none the less.

That sounds plausible, and a lot more likely than God (I'm being sarcastic, so don't quote me on this!).

Haha.

Do I have to repeat myself more than necessary, on even the basic concepts of evolution?

Reborn Outcast
02-03-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Where does it say exactly this?

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

And you need to read Genesis 2 before you speak:

Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die."

Now before you say anything about the last 4 words of that verse, God spared them because he loved them but he harmed the serpent. (Devil).

Originally posted by C'jais
But seriously, what's so damn horrible to see we once had tails? We were once covered with fur and had a tail? Big f*ckin' whoop. As if it matters. But it's interesting none the less.

But C'jais, this kinda disproves your theory of evolution. (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here so try to follow me.) If we once had tails then we would have had them over 4 million years ago. The hominid of the Australopithecines species did not have tails!!! Therefore, (according to evolution) since our tailbone have "no use" why havn't we "evolved" over 4 million years to have them removed completely if they're no use to us?

Pnut_Man
02-03-2003, 08:13 PM
I'm not sure where to continue from, and i'm not sure why i'm bothering with this hopeless thread yet again...
I might as well state my opinions:

God: So we're all just a result of random chemical reactions and chance? That's my comeback to people who do not believe in a Higher Power. The most important thing to understand while discussing God is that God is not human; he does not think like a human, his needs and motives are not human, therefore we cannot say that he was dumb to do this, or to think/plan this, etc. If what I have said is true, God does not plan or think, he always knows (which is beyond human comprehension for we live in a universe with beginnings and ends).

Evolution: I'm not really sure where in the Bible it says that Evolution is blasphemy and not true. Of course, you can interpret parts of the Bible to hint at this, but officially it was never written word for word. I find it quite simple to see that evolution could work.
-God creates the universe (possibly universes) and within it (them) he plants worlds for life to live upon (either planets were made for life to live on, or they're just random decorations that orbit around an energy efficent sun).
-God creates the first forms of life which are one day destined to become humans. Within these organisms God puts forth the will to survive and live on.
-God oversees the develop of life, possibly making sure that it goes on and succesfully evolves.
-The Ape finally reaches a milestone of its potential - Human.
-Humans reach the point where they can finally understand their surrondings and create complex thought.
-God comes down to Earth and tells his creations of his existence and of the rules by which they shall follow.

RpTheHotrod
02-03-2003, 08:40 PM
I am still waiting for the one absolute proof. Not "evidence' Even the bible has Evidence it's true. Several things are proven true in the Bible. (For example, I think it was the Hittites? People said for years they never existed, ever. Just fiction in the Bible. Well, guess what, we found their civilization awhile back, and their tools)

I asked for proof... not "clues", not "evidence".

You keep giving us "well, look at this, it's true"
and we'll keep giving you "well, look at this, this is true too"


and to whoever posted the chair thing, heh, and that room full of chairs, lol...good one :) Gonna remember that one.


btw, viruses (virii? or is that only computer terms) require something to survive. They don't evolve. They may adapt, but everyone does that, even today.

where the frick did you get "polar bears" from?

and how exactly did we get fossils of sea creatures in the middle of the united stats buried in the ground? the flood.

Also, if we came from monkies... why are there still monkies....

and you're still missing the missing link

Pnut_Man
02-03-2003, 09:07 PM
"Why are there still monkies...."

I thought this was obvious to pick up:
The so called "monkies" that we evolved from needed to evolve to survive to their surrondings. We can all agree that every monkey in the world does not exist in one exact location. Lets say the monkies from Africa needed to evolve so that they could use their hands for more purposes (using tools, throwing rocks, etc, etc). While this is going on, the monkies in the rainforest are having a swell ole time living in the trees, they have no need to evolve.

Basic Summary: You need evolution if you want your ancestors to survive. If one subject of a species evolves it does not mean that every subject of that specie will evolve as well.

C'jais
02-04-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
God: So we're all just a result of random chemical reactions and chance?

Not random. Selection points are not random. If our ape ancestors needed a bigger brain to survive, nature will damn well give them that, through selection pressure.

Consider a carton of milk. How does it get from the cow to the shelf? Without the farmer, the truckdriver, the grocer and the banker, that carton of milk would not arrive. Does this mean that there's a "Milk commisar" that oversees every part of this operation and makes sure it all goes as planned? How can this system organize itself by blind market forces alone? When we look at how command economies (communist) vs free market turns out, which is more logical - A DNA commisar vs the blind, random hand of natural selection?

If what I have said is true, God does not plan or think, he always knows (which is beyond human comprehension for we live in a universe with beginnings and ends).

The universe is vast and nearly infinitely complex. So vast and complex, that for God to tinker with it, he must be fully aware of the consequences of his actions. He must know its vast complexity down to minute detail. Everything that happens he can thus foresee the consequences of. If he can foresee that a comet will strike the earth in 3 thousand years, he can just alter a slight detail (break a few laws of physics, nothing too serious) and he has avoided an untimely demise for his creation.

...Which means humans cannot have free will if God is omniscient. Every action we do, God has predicted and foreseen before we're even conscious of taking it. Remember, even thoughts are actions, as they're neurochemical reactions in your brain. God has foreseen everything. Conclusion: We do not, and cannot have free will if God is able to rule his universe.

Evolution: I'm not really sure where in the Bible it says that Evolution is blasphemy and not true. Of course, you can interpret parts of the Bible to hint at this, but officially it was never written word for word. I find it quite simple to see that evolution could work.
-God creates the universe (possibly universes) and within it (them) he plants worlds for life to live upon (either planets were made for life to live on, or they're just random decorations that orbit around an energy efficent sun).
-God creates the first forms of life which are one day destined to become humans. Within these organisms God puts forth the will to survive and live on.
-God oversees the develop of life, possibly making sure that it goes on and succesfully evolves.
-The Ape finally reaches a milestone of its potential - Human.
-Humans reach the point where they can finally understand their surrondings and create complex thought.
-God comes down to Earth and tells his creations of his existence and of the rules by which they shall follow.

This is pure gold. Go out and preach this to other, less literalist Christians.

C'jais
02-04-2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I am still waiting for the one absolute proof. Not "evidence'

Sure. I'm happy with where you are now. You can go on with this charade of "Nyah! You haven't presented proof/evidence yet! I'm still right! Even though I haven't proved it! Nyah!" if you like. It will only make you look all the more like illeteral ignorants who wouldn't be able to notice logic even if it bit you in your behind.

But I'm happy with the direction where this is going. You have now retreated to your indefeatable core of pure faith that does not require proof or fact to be true. You have now given up on presenting proof and refuting mine, and with each whiny post you make, I will look all the more victorious because it is so indeniably obvious that you have given up on trying to prove creationism with scientific fact. Now, you say, you're right because the Bible tells you so. Anyone with an with a mV of brainpower is now able to notice see you're using circular reasoning to blind yourself from the apparently irrefutable fact I have presented. Even your fellow protestant is able to see that evolution is fact.

Want to hear some scary numbers? The number of "take-no-prisoners"-literal creationists are dwindling. They have been going downhill since the dark ages. It's looking grimmer and more and more ugly for your kind. Your world view is dying out. There is no sign that the Biblical world view is getting stronger. The evolutionary theory is getting more and more backed up by logic and facts with each decade.

So, even though I know you're dead set in your beliefs, and that nothing will cure you save disproving God (which I've done a few times now) - I'm content with the fact that I know I'll be right in the end. It's a superficial enjoyment, but I'm savouring it like nothing else. I'll burn in hell, but at least I can see I'm right with regards to evolution and that my descendants will live in a future devoid of creationist hogwash. Sorry for this rant, but if you can, I can damn well too.

Now lets get this thing back on track.

Even the bible has Evidence it's true.

You must learn to distinguish between historical fact and Biblical horsedung. It's historical fact that the Hittites existed. This would have been proved without the aid of the Bible. It's not fact that Jesus exerted miracles. That the Bible tells you so does not in any way make it fact. This is logic on a very basic level, and I'm praying hard that you can follow me here. We need evidence that miracles and reality bending took place.

btw, viruses (virii? or is that only computer terms) require something to survive. They don't evolve. They may adapt, but everyone does that, even today.

Ahh! So everything adapts?

What is the difference between evolution and "adaptation". Where is the defining line between the two?

Fine, we'll call evolution adaptation if that makes you happy.

and how exactly did we get fossils of sea creatures in the middle of the united stats buried in the ground?

Plate tectonics. How come there are sea shells on mount everest? How come Mt Everest is taller than Mt Ararat and yet still got covered by the flood? Plate tectonics.

Regarding the flood, how'd you explain the polar ice caps? What happens when they get submerged?

What happens to farm land when salt water is poured over it? It's useless as farmland. Did Noah farm recently after landfall?

What did all the predators eat after landfall?

Why is the geological layers and fossils found the exact same way evolution predicted them to - most primitive lowest etc? Ah, that's right, the primitive ones couldn't escape the flood and thus were covered earliest, right? Two words: Birds and plants. I'm sure you know by now what I'm going to say.

Also, if we came from monkies... why are there still monkies....

If children descended from adults, how come there are still adults?

They had a common ancestor, and I'm pleasantly surprised that an actual Christian knew and told you this. Well done, Pnut.

and you're still missing the missing link

What? The "missing" link between our ape ancestor and us? It's been found. In more

Okay, here it goes: Tugenensis, tchadensis, kadabba, ramidus, Lothagam, australopethicus, afarensis, bahrelghazali, platyops, boisei, crassidens, robustus, aethiopicus, africanus, garhi, rudolfensis, habilis, pekinensis, erectus, ergaster, louisleakeyi, neanderthalensis, steinheimensis, heidelbergensis, antecessor, rhodesiensis, helmei and last but not least: sapiens.

Now, which missing link do we need now? Oh, right, they're all hoaxes. Fakes. Useless evidence. All of them.

Reborn Outcast
02-04-2003, 03:24 PM
Cjais I'll say it again because you havn't answered me yet...


Originally posted by C'jais
Where does it say exactly this?

I'm thinking you trust your Jewish myths a bit too much, as the Bible specifically tells you not to.

And you need to read Genesis 2 before you speak:

Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it, you will surely die."

Now before you say anything about the last 4 words of that verse, God spared them because he loved them but he harmed the serpent. (Devil).


Originally posted by C'jais
But seriously, what's so damn horrible to see we once had tails? We were once covered with fur and had a tail? Big f*ckin' whoop. As if it matters. But it's interesting none the less.

But C'jais, this kinda disproves your theory of evolution. (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here so try to follow me.) If we once had tails then we would have had them over 4 million years ago. The hominid of the Australopithecines species did not have tails!!! Therefore, (according to evolution) since our tailbone have "no use" why havn't we "evolved" over 4 million years to have them removed completely if they're no use to us?

C'jais
02-04-2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Cjais I'll say it again because you havn't answered me yet...

hehehe... fair enough really.

But C'jais, this kinda disproves your theory of evolution. (I'm gonna go way out on a limb here so try to follow me.) If we once had tails then we would have had them over 4 million years ago. The hominid of the Australopithecines species did not have tails!!! Therefore, (according to evolution) since our tailbone have "no use" why havn't we "evolved" over 4 million years to have them removed completely if they're no use to us?

You have to understand, there's nothing to select against a tailbone. A tail there is, because it's useless when walking upright. But as stated before, there are a few muscle attachments to the tailbone itself, making it somewhat important (but it could easily have been removed and its muscle attachments placed somewhere far more convenient).

And scale again. Just as the dewclaw on dogs and cats, making a limb disappear is not something that's done overnight.

Oh, and I'm not even going near a Bible discussion here, as I haven't even read more than a few necessary lines. That point is completely irrelevant to evolution anyway.

Reborn Outcast
02-04-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
You have to understand, there's nothing to select against a tailbone. A tail there is, because it's useless when walking upright. But as stated before, there are a few muscle attachments to the tailbone itself, making it somewhat important (but it could easily have been removed and its muscle attachments placed somewhere far more convenient).

And scale again. Just as the dewclaw on dogs and cats, making a limb disappear is not something that's done overnight.

Oh yes I see what you are saying but I'm just wondering that, according to evolutionists, why wouldn't the tailbone have evolved over 4 million years to not break as easily? Or waht about the thing in your body (I believe that it is the appendix, correct me if I'm wrong) that leads to a dead end where "stones" are formed from food that builds up there?

And I did have a reasonable timescale with me because the hominid species of Australopithecines didn't have tails and that was 4 million years ago. I just see it impossible that, if evolution is true, we havn't evolved to make the tailbone more resistant or at least more comfortable when you sit on a floor or something. :)

EDIT: As you can see, I'm trying to make a rational arguement. :D

C'jais
02-04-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
why wouldn't the tailbone have evolved over 4 million years to not break as easily?

Oh, you want diamond hard bones? Sorry, I'm guessing you'll have to wait a long time for that to happen. Really, the problem is the structure itself that's a bit fragile. But nature has got to work with what it's got, so therefore it can't simply make the tailbone go away and reengineer the muscles unto a bone structure that's more solid, but that there would be no selection pressure to evolve. It simply isn't significant.

But God could do this. If he cares.

Or waht about the thing in your body (I believe that it is the appendix, correct me if I'm wrong) that leads to a dead end where "stones" are formed from food that builds up there?

Ah, another inconvenient problem that God could have designed a lot better. Again, it's simply not significant. Now, if the appendix was key to our survival and it's explosion would kill, you can bet that evolution would take care of it fast. Or we'd die.

And I did have a reasonable timescale with me because the hominid species of Australopithecines didn't have tails and that was 4 million years ago.

Tails are useless when walking upright. They were very quickly taken off, since it's a waste of energy to lug that sucker around all day without ever using it. But the tailbone, the last remain of it, has some minor use. There's no selection pressure against the tailbone. It remains.

I just see it impossible that, if evolution is true, we havn't evolved to make the tailbone more resistant or at least more comfortable when you sit on a floor or something.

Yeah, it'd also be convenient for bacteria to adapt to all kinds of anti-biotics before they were threatened by it. That way, they'd have their defenses up before it became an issue. I'm guessing you're thinking the same thing about the tailbone being inconvenient here, as well. But it's not going to happen, until it becomes a significant factor.

ShadowTemplar
02-04-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I just see it impossible that, if evolution is true, we havn't evolved to make the tailbone more resistant or at least more comfortable when you sit on a floor or something. :)

EDIT: As you can see, I'm trying to make a rational arguement. :D

But you are failing miserably because you have not considered the single most important question that you must ask yourself before calling an argument rational:

"Are there any insignificant factors here?"

Basically, the selection pressure on removing the tailbone isn't significant. In other words: Other factors are so vastly more important to the survival of the species than the presence/absence of tailbones. So it won't go away.

Or we'd die.

Which would infact be evolution taking care of the problem. The natural way.

Reborn Outcast
02-04-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Ah, another inconvenient problem that God could have designed a lot better. Again, it's simply not significant. Now, if the appendix was key to our survival and it's explosion would kill, you can bet that evolution would take care of it fast. Or we'd die.

Ah I did some research and look what I found...
We now know that the appendix serves as a type of lymphatic tissue in the first few months of life to fight disease. It is no more useless feature than one of your lungs is useless just because you can survive with only one lung.
It is VERY significant.


Originally posted by C'jais
But the tailbone, the last remain of it, has some minor use. There's no selection pressure against the tailbone. It remains.

Ah yes if you consider walking or playing sports minor, then sure.

The coccyx (tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in an completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover, vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility - it is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice skating, pearl diving, skiing, and gymnastics? This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone!

Evolution actually predicts that there will be leftover features as one organism turns into another. Creation predicts that although some life forms have degenerated and lost use of an original function, every part of an organism was designed to serve some useful primary or backup purpose.

Take a look at this. (http://www.evidence-for-evolution.com/)

Oooooo... and read this. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4361news8-9-2000.asp) Lots of stuff here disproving evolution.

Heres a nice website that counter Dawkins, who was a follower of Darwin. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp#bad_design)

Some interesting stuff about pseudogens. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv14n3pseudogene_pj.asp) (There was another, more technical website but it requires Adobe Acrobat to open so I didn't know if you would want it or not.)

Heres a nice thing on the "How long was the time period when God created everything". (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2452.asp)

VERY nice site talking about dating. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp)




Now, before you can even reply, READ ALL OF THOSE LINKS, which is exactly what you told me to do for your website like the "silly flood story" and stuff like that. READ ALL OF IT. And don't come back and tell me that it's a biased webpage or article. ITS SUPPOSED TO BE BIAS BECAUSE ITS TRYING TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION. Please, read all of it.

C'jais
02-04-2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
It is VERY significant.

Appendix: While it serves a minor role in the immune system (stress that minor), removing it does not seem to hurt the person, and they generally don't wish it back, since it might explode and kill them. Not particularily a benefit, and more a curse than a blessing.

Ah yes if you consider walking or playing sports minor, then sure.

It's just plain false that it serves such a role. The few muscular attachments it has could easily have been fitted on a less vulnerable structure.

Evolution actually predicts that there will be leftover features as one organism turns into another. Creation predicts that although some life forms have degenerated and lost use of an original function, every part of an organism was designed to serve some useful primary or backup purpose.

Odour receptors, again. Dewclaws. Little toes. Goosebumps. The hair at the back of our necks.

Now, before you can even reply, READ ALL OF THOSE LINKS, which is exactly what you told me to do for your website like the "silly flood story" and stuff like that.

But clearly you did not read it, or otherwise you wouldn't be presenting the same proof over and over again, which was refuted on those pages I gave. But nevermind, I didn't command you to read them really, and I certainly did not expect you would.

Let me get this straight: This debate takes place here, in this forum. This is not about exchanging links and saying "Well, explain this! (www.somelink.creationisthomepage.com)", and then think you've done your job. No. Unless you can understand the links you give me yourself, I am not interested in them in the slightest. I'm not going to haul all that ton of text into this forum and debate something you didn't even write yourself.

Here's what we do: You translate your links into your plain english and I'll refute that. You provide a link if I'm interested in more, or where your source is, so I can read it in greater detail. But to think this debate is about slinging webpages at each other I find a serious waste of time.

If you do this, I'll be more than happy to reply to your posts, but if you haven't even taken the time to understand your links yourself, then I won't be spending useless time in here.

Reborn Outcast
02-04-2003, 06:50 PM
C'ais thats your problem. I DID read all those links that I gave in fact. I DO understnad. But you just don't WANT to respond to them. You're ignoring the fact that I have given well presented links that might actually be true and go against evolution. You just don't WANT to hear it. Did you even read the links? If so then something should've struck your attention.

C'jais
02-04-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
But you just don't WANT to respond to them.

You're absolutely right. I am in no way going to respond to 14 pages of creationist propaganda that you have not even taken the time to understand. If you read and understood all of those links, write the points and arguments here and provide a link to the rest. If you cannot do this, you have not understood it.

I am not going to wage a silly "link war". If that was the case, I'd be spamming you with links with each thread.

Did you even read the links? If so then something should've struck your attention.

I read them. I was not surprised. The dating page just hauled up evidence of where the isotope dating methods had produced weird-ass results and used this as "compelling evidence" that they could not be trusted, even though they're used countless times simultaneusly on material that gives the same result, even alongside non-radioactive dating methods such as dendrochronology and ice samples.

One site even brazenly said transitional fossils are non-existant.

The site about pseudogenes argue that introns (DNA between genes) equals the pseudogenes.

Again, I am not going to haul all that ton of text to this forum and discuss something you haven't even taken the time to write or understand.

RpTheHotrod
02-04-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Sure. I'm happy with where you are now. You can go on with this charade of "Nyah! You haven't presented proof/evidence yet! I'm still right! Even though I haven't proved it! Nyah!" if you like. It will only make you look all the more like illeteral ignorants who wouldn't be able to notice logic even if it bit you in your behind.

But I'm happy with the direction where this is going. You have now retreated to your [b]indefeatable core of pure faith that does not require proof or fact to be true. You have now given up on presenting proof and refuting mine, and with each whiny post you make, I will look all the more victorious because it is so indeniably obvious that you have given up on trying to prove creationism with scientific fact. Now, you say, you're right because the Bible tells you so. Anyone with an with a mV of brainpower is now able to notice see you're using circular reasoning to blind yourself from the apparently irrefutable fact I have presented. Even your fellow protestant is able to see that evolution is fact.




OOOOOPPPSSS!! There he goes again, taking thigns that arn't there. You need to learn to stop that.

I never said anything like "Nyah! You haven't presented proof/evidence yet! I'm still right! Even though I haven't proved it! Nyah!". Ever. I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

Now for the second paragraph. I havn't retreated anywhere. For the last FRICKEN time

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.


Let me say it again, since you'll obviously miss it again and again and again

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.


maybe one more time


I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.



okay. I hope you actually read whatI say instead of putting words in my mouth this time.

There is no undeniable proof that evolution OR creation is true, so it's pointless to debate it.

edit- Just to mention it, all because there is no proof doesn't mean it's not true. Let's say some woman is murdered and there is no proof. Did it happen? Sure it did! Creation COULD be true... evolution COULD be true... but one of them is correct, and no one (in all) will no the truth till the end now, will we? I BELIEVE creation is true though. Now, for the last time

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

SO END THE POINTLESS DEBATE ALREADY.


No matter what someone says, I'm still believing in creation. Want to know something? I have had one CRAPPY life, but there's only one thing that has kept me from killing myself, knowing God is there, and He has a plan. If evolution was true, I"d be dead right now. Period. He's the only thing I'm living for...because life itself is NOT WORTH LIVING ANYMORE.

Pnut_Man
02-04-2003, 08:12 PM
I thought I might say something about my previous post in this thread. C'jais responded to the part where I went on about "it being crazy if we are all just a bunch of random chemical reactions." He interpreted this incorrectly..
I have no objections to natural selection, that wasn't the subject in which my statement was referring to. I was talking about the whole creation of the universe and the positioning of the planets; there are way too many factors involved in our (and the universe's) creation to say that it was just chance and that it was oridinary. I would go into further explanation but I find my thoughts to be of no use any longer. I believe in a God, I see evolution as a possibility..
One important thing for all non-religious folk out there- little fact about Christians- It is highly practiced in our religion that ones who have not seen but yet still believe possess the greatest characteristics of all. Unlike several other big religions of this world, we Christians do not need evidence to prove to us that God is real.

BTW: "Even your fellow protestant is able to see that evolution is fact." I didn't find that very appropriate.. Though Rp and I may believe in the same God, that does not mean all of our beliefs and customs are the same. Rp shouldn't be assulted with an assumption that "even his fellow follower" does not agree with him..

BCanr2d2
02-05-2003, 08:12 AM
Master_Keralys: I think you need to scrub up on your known Roman history when it comes to Syria. When Herod is referred to, it is about Herod the Great, is it not, and not his son? When Herod the Great was in power, Syria was not a full roman colony, therefore not actually required to do a Roman Census, as the Bible so calls them to do.
No Roman census was called for whilst Herod was in power, and it is approx 15-30 years between the two that were held in the nearby regions by the Romans. Not until Herod died, and the Romans made Syria a full Roman state, did they have to pay Roman taxes and go into census'.


As for the Appendix, it is actually something that is there to help disolve hard coated nuts, more like ones that would come off trees. It is a common trait amongst all mammals, but since we no longer eat hard nuts, such as gum nuts, then there is no real need for it to "disappear" from the human anatomy.... (Helps when you get appendicitis, and decide to read up on it whilst you are laid up after the operation.)

As for evolution, it actually choses to evolve things that allow for better reproduction, so anything that happens post-child bearing age will not be "evolved" out of any human, or animal genome. If there is a "successful" mutation, it will pass itself on for reproduction to the next generation, ONLY if it helps for the species to reproduce more. To gather more food, to have a larger brain, which allows us to think of alternatives to live until a reproducing age, think about where most successful mutations have taken us. They have taken us to the top of the food chain, so that we can multiply and thrive as we do as a human race.
Why are there so many geriatric diseases and afflictions, since they do not stop the species from reproducing, it is past our reproducing years, so nature has no reason to mutate these out.
Do not take humanity as it is now, it is a very well evolved species, that has such a little written history, which will prove and disprove nothing. We are now a species that actually choses to not go with evolution, and survival of the fittest, we perpetuate those DNA mutations that should not be passed on for a better species physically. This is where our evolved brain, that has ideas such as compassion "interferes" with pure evolution....


Rp, can I ask why then get involved in this debate, that you do not really intend to actually defend your beliefs. You also say that Evolution or Creation has true, but you also state that there is no proof to either. In my books that is taking a narrow minded view on how we came to being.
Who says that there is only two alternatives to how humans and animals came to this Earth, as many of us have said "NEITHER OF THESE TWO ALTERNATIVES MAY BE TRUE" - use my math analogy to see that one wrong answer does not make the other correct. Who is to say that perhaps Bhuddism, Hindu or Muslim are the correct answer.....

C'jais
02-05-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
OOOOOPPPSSS!! There he goes again, taking thigns that arn't there. You need to learn to stop that.

I never said anything like "Nyah! You haven't presented proof/evidence yet! I'm still right! Even though I haven't proved it! Nyah!". Ever.

While you did not say this exactly, this is what all your posts are sounding like.

You blatantly ignore whatever evidence we dig up, without even trying to refute it.You insist on calling creationism truth, fact and reality without presenting evidence for it. You keep arguing that this debate is pointless.

To me, it sounds like you don't belong in this thread, if you don't have anything constructive to say. If you've given up, please leave.

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

Now you're saying that there's no proof for creationism. Therefore making it a completely irrelevant hypothesis at best. One that should not be taught in schools or as fact. Am I right?

If you don't feel like there's any evidence for your theory, stop trying to dig all this dung up about dating methods etc and insist on calling it fact.

And there's no need to repeat your statements.

edit- Just to mention it, all because there is no proof doesn't mean it's not true. Let's say some woman is murdered and there is no proof. Did it happen? Sure it did!

Mmm hmmm.

And let's say that a woman was presumed murdered by her husband, yet all evidence points to it being a physical improbability, as her husband was working at that time. Could it happen? Sure, but only if God reconstructed the past to fit the assumption.

SO END THE POINTLESS DEBATE ALREADY.

Leave.


If evolution was true, I'd be dead right now.

No. How many times must I say that taking evolution as fact does not invalidate God? In Europe, creationism is taken as a joke when people hear of it for the first time. There are millions of protestant over here that "believes" in evolution and God at the same time.

Period. He's the only thing I'm living for...because life itself is NOT WORTH LIVING ANYMORE.

You need God as the junkie "needs" his fix. Sorry.

C'jais
02-05-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
BTW: "Even your fellow protestant is able to see that evolution is fact." I didn't find that very appropriate.. Though Rp and I may believe in the same God, that does not mean all of our beliefs and customs are the same. Rp shouldn't be assulted with an assumption that "even his fellow follower" does not agree with him..

Sorry, I just thought it was a good oppurtunity to prove it's possible to believe in the Christian god and the Bible at the same time.

RpTheHotrod
02-05-2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
While you did not say this exactly, this is what all your posts are sounding like.

You blatantly ignore whatever evidence we dig up, without even trying to refute it.You insist on calling creationism truth, fact and reality without presenting evidence for it. You keep arguing that this debate is pointless.

To me, it sounds like you don't belong in this thread, if you don't have anything constructive to say. If you've given up, please leave.

[B]

Now you're saying that there's no proof for creationism. Therefore making it a completely irrelevant hypothesis [b]at best. One that should not be taught in schools or as fact. Am I right?

If you don't feel like there's any evidence for your theory, stop trying to dig all this dung up about dating methods etc and insist on calling it fact.

And there's no need to repeat your statements.



Mmm hmmm.

And let's say that a woman was presumed murdered by her husband, yet all evidence points to it being a physical improbability, as her husband was working at that time. Could it happen? Sure, but only if God reconstructed the past to fit the assumption.

[B]

Leave.


[B]

No. How many times must I say that taking evolution as fact does not invalidate God? In Europe, creationism is taken as a joke when people hear of it for the first time. There are millions of protestant over here that "believes" in evolution and God at the same time.

[B]

You need God as the junkie "needs" his fix. Sorry.

Well, he still doesn't get it.

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.
I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.
I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.
I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

Check my posts, I said I was dropping by and saying that the debate is pointless. NEITHER side as undeniable proof, so it's pointless, yet you kept whining for me to say something, so i did, and now you're whining even more, and NOW you (a moderator) has stumped low enough to start INSULTING forum members. God isn't a "fix", He's the only reason I'm still living.

I can't believe how hard it is for you to understand 3 simple sentences.

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

Should I again? Maybe it will get into your head someday

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.


I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.



I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless. I never said creation was a proven fact or anything at all. I'm saying I BELIEVE it's true. There is no proof it's true.

Maybe I'll talk sloooower, so you can uunnndeerrstttaannnddd

FOR THE LAST TIME
FOR THE LAST TIME
FOR THE LAST TIME

I SAID
I SAID
I SAID

THERE IS NO UNDENIABLE PROOF
THERE IS NO UNDENIABLE PROOF
THERE IS NO UNDENIABLE PROOF

FOR EITHER SIDE
FOR EITHER SIDE
FOR EITHER SIDE

SO IT IS POINTLESS
SO IT IS POINTLESS
SO IT IS POINTLESS

TO HAVE A DEBATE
TO HAVE A DEBATE
TO HAVE A DEBATE

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE
THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE
THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE

TO KNOW THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH
TO KNOW THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH
TO KNOW THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH

UNTIL THE END OF OUR LIVES
UNTIL THE END OF OUR LIVES
UNTIL THE END OF OUR LIVES


All this "discussion" has done is make a moderator directly attack and insults someone elses belief. He even started ANOTHER thread to continue making fun of someone elses belief. Now instead of just insulting one's belief, he's gone to directly insulting people.

Reborn Outcast
02-05-2003, 02:28 PM
Rp I'm all for Creation but I believe that you are taking it out of line. Its ok to state something once but over and over and over in the same post is not right. I think everyone needs to CALM DOWN.

Just my $0.02

C'jais
02-05-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
All this "discussion" has done is make a moderator directly attack and insults someone elses belief. He even started ANOTHER thread to continue making fun of someone elses belief. Now instead of just insulting one's belief, he's gone to directly insulting people.

For the umpteenth time, facts are not insults.

If a person falls under the medical definition of "retarded", it's alright for me to walk up to him and call him a retard. It's not nice, but I will not be held accountable for it, and I cannot be dragged into court for it. Because he is.

I'm not calling you retarded, but I am calling Jack Chick a person in severe need of treatment of some sort. He's clearly delusional and schizophrenic. It's not because I don't like him, but it's so obvious that he's mentally sick. It's a sad day when religious beliefs are untouchable by the definitions of schizophrenia and personality disorder. They are not above the law, and I'd strongly suggest that Chick gets stuffed into a medical institute to avoid harming himself or others.

As for evolution, yes, it's possible to prove it. It has already been done in fact, but if you disagree, explain why.

If you don't have anything further to say, please leave and let us get back to the topic at hand.

Pnut_Man
02-05-2003, 05:06 PM
I was always taught to understand that in science, though much proof and evidence can be drawn, nothing is a fact; everything is a theory. Certain theories can have more evidence than others, but most importantly nothing we believe we have proven is a fact.

Things we can say are facts: the grass is green, I have 400 points, etc...

Even math, as logical as it is, has only been made up of theorems.

RpTheHotrod
02-05-2003, 07:26 PM
I asked for undeniable proof, and you still didn't give it. I"m not talking "a good chance" or "more than likely" or "since it's like this today, it must be like that along time ago", I'm talking about undeniable proof.

It doesn't exist, on either side.

Not worth "debating" anything with you. You just keep pulling things out of nowhere and saying people said or meant it, which is called lying, and using it to bring others down.


and btw, when the question "Why are there still monkies" was asked, why in the world did you ask "If children descended from adults, how come there are still adults?"

Anyone can get that answer. The adults die after a time. The children grow up to become adults, and they stay that way until the end of time. Child, Adult ,Child, Adult ,Child, Adult ,Child, Adult ,Child, Adult ,Child, Adult ... they don't "morph" or whatever into something else, it's always a human child, growing up to be a human adult, and dying. I can't believe you don't know how the human reproduction system works

C'jais
02-05-2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I asked for undeniable proof, and you still didn't give it. I"m not talking "a good chance" or "more than likely" or "since it's like this today, it must be like that along time ago", I'm talking about undeniable proof.

As long as you twitch on the hook of God, there will be no undeniable proof. For the rest of us, it has already been presented.

You could put it a different way: Which is the most plausible theory? Evolution or Creationism? Which theory predicts things? Which theory can be used for something scientifically, to advance our knowledge of the universe and to find cures to diseases? Which would be the best for everyone to trust in? Which would be the best for the race of humans to trust in?

Which theory has been backed up by positive proof? Which theory is a coherent theory?

and btw, when the question "Why are there still monkies" was asked, why in the world did you ask why there were still kids and adults (or something along those lines). Kids are our offspring. We don't give birth to monkies.

You misunderstood the analogy. We are the children - our ape ancestors were the adults. The apes gave birth to us, and they still remain. Until their time is up, of course.

Karsec
02-05-2003, 08:37 PM
I dont post much, because I only have internet at my school, and I check it there when I'm not doing some homework on it,but Im going to make an exception here

I've been wanting to stay away from this,but it's really gone to far IMHO

Was reading your reply, but it shows no proof. Maybe one might make more "sense" than the other, but Ive seen some preeety freaky stuff making less sense but ending up true

Reason I stay away from topics like this is because it just turns into big fights and name calling, and honestly, Im suprised to see a moderator falling to the same thing

There is no reason to keep insulting these people. Was reading your Jack Chick post too. All the insults are true? I doubt Jack Chick is a retard. However, you say he is, according to your statement about fact not being an insult

Chill with the insults and name-calling

So, cijais, you are saying you came from a monkey, haha. Okay, Ill give you THAT, but I know I didnt.

Now, I'm expecting to get banned for going up against a moderator, but go ahead, abuse your power. I don't post much here anyway. I dont respect anyone who goes around insulting other people because he can without worrying about punishment himself

BCanr2d2
02-06-2003, 06:52 AM
Let's not throw around medical terms either, retard and moron are medical terms for extremely low IQ's. I believe moron is defined at about 40 and retard around 20 IQ points, so lets try not to use them out of context.

I think this have devolved into a low level thread, that has one side that is prepared to present facts to their theories that they believe in, and the other side that uses circular reasoning to give their side. If it's in the book, it must be true therefore it's true because it's in the book is how I see most of the evidence presented for Creationism. It's a case of one side saying "You're wrong, I am right" and the other saying "I am right because"...
Why not try to explain that Humans are the same as animals, but walking upright, and God's role in the similarities. Or as to why there are meant to be layers of rock that are out of sequence, as God using his hands to create the Earth, and took some from another part of the world to help in his creation. You do not even present that, all you seem to present is "Evolution is false, therefore our beliefs are those that are true" without providing at least something that shows that it might be the case.

C'jais
02-06-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Karsec
Was reading your reply, but it shows no proof.

What reply? I've made quite a bit in this thread.

Reason I stay away from topics like this is because it just turns into big fights and name calling, and honestly, Im suprised to see a moderator falling to the same thing

Quote me. Show me where I crossed the line. If I ran this forum as other moderators would have done, this thread would have been closed a long time ago. I don't. I'll let this thing run to the end, regardless of whether you postulate I offended someone.

There is no reason to keep insulting these people.

Are isotope dating methods an insult to Christianity? If you take hard evidence as insults, and pointing out where you're using circular reasoning as a flame, then please leave.

Was reading your Jack Chick post too. All the insults are true? I doubt Jack Chick is a retard.

Retard is an IQ of 90 or lower last time I checked. I'm not certain of that, but I am certain he's schizophrenic. He's delusional. He sees things that do not exist. He lives in a fantasy world. By the sheer dictionary definition, he's schizophrenic and mentally ill.

Chill with the insults and name-calling

I have done no such thing. Stop these meaningless personal attacks.

So, cijais, you are saying you came from a monkey

I didn't say that. I proved we came from a common ancestor. There's a big difference. And notice I'm proving my claims. Where can we see some proof of your theory?

Okay, Ill give you THAT, but I know I didnt.

You don't know - you believe. When you know something that has not been proved or exists in the real world, you're not right.

Now, I'm expecting to get banned for going up against a moderator, but go ahead, abuse your power. I don't post much here anyway. I dont respect anyone who goes around insulting other people because he can without worrying about punishment himself

Why should I ban you? Because you said I offended someone without backing the claim up with quotes, at least? I'm not going to ban you for that.
But I am going to tell you to think deeply about whether to participate in this thread when you're so obviously not mature enough to debate these things rationally, especially trying to shoot me down as an offending moderator. I've been subjected to it before - I don't like it. But I am not going to ban someone for this crap.

RpTheHotrod
02-06-2003, 12:40 PM
You can go on with this charade of...
It will only make you look all the more like illeteral ignorants
and with each whiny post you make
with an with a mV of brainpower is now able to notice see you're using circular reasoning to blind yourself from the apparently irrefutable fact I have presented
Sorry for this rant, but if you can, I can damn well too.
And while you're still whining
And by stating this, you also claim [the person claimed nothing of the sort, another lie] that the years on the poles consists of fewer days than ours, since winter is one long night where the sun never rises, and the summer is one long day where it never sets.
What are you smoking?
Jesus most likely smoked the hashish
I was damn near falling off my chair laughing while reading this bullsh*t he's now made.
Because this 'tard apparently doesn't know anything about Islam.
I'll be damned if I didn't feel like busting a cap in his ass when I read that.
Once you start to delve into his clearly raving mind, it's obvious to anyone that he's.... mad.
Jack Chick can go piss on electric fences for all I care.
I'd f*ckin' laugh my behind off if I met a person as delirious as this in my neighboorhood.



I see quite a few insults there..and that's just a handful. Yes, thosse are all from you. Not the type on conduct I'd expect from a moderator. Of coarse, anything you say, according to you, MUST be fact. Jack Chick is a very intelligent man. Have you ever met him? Have you ever read about his personal life? How dare you make such empty claims against him then.

RpTheHotrod
02-06-2003, 12:44 PM
To Reborn

I'm going to have to keep re-stating the same thing over and over and over and over until C'jais gets a clue on what I'm actually talking about. He keeps pulling things out of nowhere and says I was saying that, and more. I'm not doing a debate, so everytime he keeps accusing me of believing or saying something, I'm going to have to keep saying the same thing, until he evetually (hopefully) figures out what I'm trying to say.

It's not my fault he doesn't understand 3 simple sentences.

For example:
He says I said creation is true and I don't need proof
LIE- I said I believe it's true, and there isn't proof

"And by stating this, you also claim...."
LIE- I never claimed anything

He said I was whining
LIE- I'm not whining or complaining about anything, but he's getting on my nerves, so I'm trying to get it in his head that I'm not debating or defending anything. I was just "dropping" by, but he told me that I couldn't simply "leave".

For some reason, he got the idea that he's a god with evolution and it's true, so everyone else with other beliefs are inferior. He then chooses to attack them and bring them down by saying they don't have "proper proof" and then laughing at others who believe in theirs.

Hey, I'm going to believe what I am going to believe, and I'm not going to let you tell me otherwise. I don't need to defend my belief, unlike you.

C'jais
02-06-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
You can go on with this charade of...
It will only make you look all the more like illeteral ignorants
and with each whiny post you make
with an with a mV of brainpower is now able to notice see you're using circular reasoning to blind yourself from the apparently irrefutable fact I have presented
Sorry for this rant, but if you can, I can damn well too.
And while you're still whining

Oh, those are insults. 'Course they are. You want me to dig up places where you directly called me stupid? I never called you stupid. I never insulted you.

And by stating this, you also claim [the person claimed nothing of the sort, another lie] that the years on the poles consists of fewer days than ours, since winter is one long night where the sun never rises, and the summer is one long day where it never sets.

Did you see this in context? Days and nights are completely relative to where you are on planet Earth. And if you happen to be in space, they have no meaning at all.

What are you smoking?
Jesus most likely smoked the hashish

He most likely did. He most likely used cannabis oil to "cure" his followers. You want me to dig up the article?

I was damn near falling off my chair laughing while reading this bullsh*t he's now made.
Because this 'tard apparently doesn't know anything about Islam.
I'll be damned if I didn't feel like busting a cap in his ass when I read that.
Once you start to delve into his clearly raving mind, it's obvious to anyone that he's.... mad.
Jack Chick can go piss on electric fences for all I care.
I'd f*ckin' laugh my behind off if I met a person as delirious as this in my neighboorhood.

This was directed at Jack Chick, note that. And I'm not sorry for posting that. Yes, those are insults, but I'm only human - if I see mad person, I point him out to make others aware of him. If I see a mentally ill person not in treatment, I'll point him out to others, as well.

Not the type on conduct I'd expect from a moderator. Of coarse, anything you say, according to you, MUST be fact. Jack Chick is a very intelligent man. Have you ever met him? Have you ever read about his personal life? How dare you make such empty claims against him then.

I believe the world is run by the giant N'brekshelgk and her minions of evil N'rashnreffenshrierkar demons. If you project such an obscure, empty and false world view into everything, you'll get rightly called insane. I don't care if it's Jesus and Satan or the killer whales from mars and their arch-nemesis, the transparent brick Tran'veeren we're talking about - a delusional world view no matter how common is still not right. I don't care if people hear "God" or "The Immortal Demon Emperor from the seventh layer of Hell" that's talking to them, beckoning and demanding action. If you're off the latter example, you'd be yelled out a freak in public, but there's really no difference.

Beliefs create barriers, as this thread has proved without any doubt now. I don't care, it's nothing new. These barriers have been firmly in place since the first Man called others sinners ripe for repentance.

C'jais
02-06-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'm not doing a debate, so everytime he keeps accusing me of believing or saying something, I'm going to have to keep saying the same thing, until he evetually (hopefully) figures out what I'm trying to say.

And instead of desperately trying to make me understand something I apparently haven't, you could leave. Leave, if you're not debating anything anyway, if you're not liking this discussion, if you know you'll never get me to understand Christ (or whatever it is), and if you know I just don't give a damn.

For example:
He says I said creation is true and I don't need proof
LIE- I said I believe it's true, and there isn't proof

When you believe something that has no proof behind, you're also implying you don't need proof to believe it. Which was what I said. Which is why I'm right.

"And by stating this, you also claim...."
LIE- I never claimed anything

If I state that the length of a day is the same all around the world, I'm naturally also claiming/inferring that the year (or months, if you prefer) are of shorter lenghts on the poles. It's called inference, or extension of your argument.


I was just "dropping" by, but he told me that I couldn't simply "leave".

I told you it's bad etiquette to make a statement, then immediately afterwards claim that we can't even begin to shoot it down, since you're leaving anyway. The "You can't simply leave after posting this" was meant in jest dammit. Of course you're in your full right to leave and watch your post get pulverized. I don't care - I just pointed out that it's a bad attitude to have. Now leave, I officially release you from this thread.

For some reason, he got the idea that he's a god with evolution and it's true, so everyone else with other beliefs are inferior.

Sure thing, Mr Holier-than-thou. Your beliefs are not inferior. They're just unfounded, there's no sensible reason to believe in them, and deep down useless.

He then chooses to attack them and bring them down by saying they don't have "proper proof"

And this is illegal? It's bad for a moderator to point out that there are such things as the laws of physics, that conveniently disproves the theory of creationism?

and then laughing at others who believe in theirs.

Referring to Jack Chick, I'm sure, since I never laughed at you. Yes, Jack Chick is a certified nutcase. I'm not ashamed to admit this. Why should I? Since when were Christian nutcases above and beyond other types of nutcases and the dictionary definition?

And note, I'm not calling you a nutcase. Jack Chick, on the other hand, is clearly too far out.

I don't need to defend my belief, unlike you.

The beliefs that are able to be defended are the only ones worth fighting for.

And you're misusing the word "belief" here. Evolution is not a belief. Not believing in a higher power is not a belief.

Now leave, if you think I'm calling you names and you don't like it.

Reborn Outcast
02-06-2003, 05:11 PM
I'm sorry guys but I'm removing myself from this thread. :( I can't get into the things being thrown back and forth. This thread was fun while it lasted. :(

Mandalorian54
02-06-2003, 05:26 PM
evalution is not possible plain and simply, when will you grasp reality?

life canot come into existence spontaniously. This is a FACT.

and you can't simply tell evryone to leave, that wont solve any of your problems.

C'jais
02-06-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
life canot come into existence spontaniously. This is a FACT.

Actually, there have been run several experiments, even high school level ones, where organic molecules formed from inorganic material with the aid of a single jolt of electricity, much as the early conditions were about 4 billion years ago.

and you can't simply tell evryone to leave, that wont solve any of your problems.

I was telling HotRod to leave if he didn't like this debate, or found it pointless. There's no need to keep telling us all that there's no proof for either side, when we are clearly of another opinion, and would like to discuss it as such.

RpTheHotrod
02-06-2003, 07:09 PM
I tried to, but you said I wasn't allowed to...because it makes my statements un-touched.

You got what you asked for.


I never called you stupid either.... yet another lie. Look it up what I said.

You just keep pulling lie, after lie, after lie.

I'm out of here, I hate people who lie just to try to bring down others. Worst moderator I've seen in jk2.

Karsec
02-06-2003, 08:47 PM
"Sure thing, Mr Holier-than-thou. Your beliefs are not inferior. They're just unfounded, there's no sensible reason to believe in them, and deep down useless. "

So, you're saying his belief is inferior

You say your and your alone is correct, and his is useless. Doesnt that mean inferior? Lesser than, not as useful, pointless, should I go on


and Rp, if the mod isnt smart enough to get what you saying, that his own dumb fault. Still, dont keep repeating the same message, because I dont think the mod will ever get ti in his thick skull.

RpTheHotrod
02-07-2003, 12:55 AM
No need to attack insults with insults.

Psydan
02-07-2003, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
Actually, there have been run several experiments, even high school level ones, where organic molecules formed from inorganic material with the aid of a single jolt of electricity, much as the early conditions were about 4 billion years ago.

Really? I have serious doubts of that. Sources?
And, when I asked for that kind of proof earlier you said:

Originally posted by C'jais
You and I both know full well that it's downright impossible to re-create the scenario of life developing from inorganic materials. It'd require conditions on this earth that does not exist anymore, and a few billion years. I don't have that.

But neither can you re-create any miracle to prove God.
[/B]
So apparently you have a contridiction in what you use as "proof" do you just make this stuff up to try to argue?:rolleyes:

C'jais
02-07-2003, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by Psydan
So apparently you have a contridiction in what you use as "proof" do you just make this stuff up to try to argue?:rolleyes:

There's a difference between organic compounds/molecules and a recreating strand of RNA. As for sources, I have none on this part, but it's really no big feat considering that nucleic acid is very simple in its construction.

Reborn Outcast
02-07-2003, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
There's a difference between organic compounds/molecules and a recreating strand of RNA. As for sources, I have none on this part, but it's really no big feat considering that nucleic acid is very simple in its construction.

If you're talking about making nucleic acid... its already an organic compound. If you're talking about making RNA and DNA, that would require thousands of nucliec acids, carbons and a few other organic molucules. Very unlikely at a highschool level, even professional.

Pnut_Man
02-07-2003, 07:36 AM
Nucleic Acid: Make up of thousands of nucleotides. A nucleotide contains a phosphate group, a five carbon sugar (ribose in the case of RNA), and one of 4 nitrogenous bases.

Organic Molecule: Basically anything that has carbon, with the exceptions of carbon dioxide and carbon-hydrogen

Not really on topic, but I thought I might as well inform the younger folk who haven't learned about that yet..

Pnut_Man
02-07-2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
[B]

Retard is an IQ of 90 or lower last time I checked. I'm not certain of that, but I am certain he's schizophrenic. He's delusional. He sees things that do not exist. He lives in a fantasy world. By the sheer dictionary definition, he's schizophrenic and mentally ill.

[B]


Jack probably isn't crazy, he's just a money hungry bastard who likes propoganda.

C'jais
02-07-2003, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I tried to, but you said I wasn't allowed to...because it makes my statements un-touched.

Lie. I said it would be bad etiquette to do so.

You got what you asked for.

I still have not seen any evidence of me "insulting" you.

I never called you stupid either.... yet another lie. Look it up what I said.


Now, Cjais ,who was insulting what I said, by using a sarcastic answer

Lie. The answer was not sarcastic. You just didn't get it.

I was just stating something I saw in the news, and you start attacking me.

Lie. I never attacked you, unless disproving your "evidence" constitutes an attack on you as a person.

I wasn't using it to DEBATE ANYTHING.

Lie. The moment you step into this debate and start slinging evidence around, you are debating.

"Evo is TRUE to there!"

Lie. Putting words in my mouth. Not true. False.

Umm, that isn't debate....it would be just like me saying Creation is true, so there. You can't debate by saying your side is absolutely true...it wouldn't hold squat in a debate at all.

Yet another lie. I never said evolution was the truth.

The term "Christian" isn't always what some people mean. Awhile back, any Catholic was called a Christian, for example.

The "Christian" most of us are talking about are the true Christians. The ones who believe in God, Christ's blood, and the Holy Trinity.

This is not so much a direct lie, since you don't have any idea what you're talking about: Anyone who believes in Christ is a Christian. Catholics are Christians, in fact, they were there before the protestantic church. You're going up against the English language with your ethnocentric views and a ton of prejudice of refusing to see other sections of Christianity, much as Skitzo once tried to do. I won't hold. While you can argue that you are the "true" Christians, you cannot deny that Catholics have their right to call themselves Christians as well.

There's no "I'm just dropping by, don't bother replying to my posts"-immunity here, that renders your statements invulnerable.

This is what I said to you. I did not tell you you couldn't leave. Which makes your postulation an outright lie and vindicates myself. Well done.

What I said was that it's bad form to tell people at the end of your post that we can't reply to your post since you're just "dropping by".

I said, there is no proof...so the debate is pointless

Lie. Since there's proof the earth is older than the Biblical timescale, your theory collapses.

okay. I hope you actually read whatI say instead of putting words in my mouth this time.

Lie. I did no so such thing. You, on the other hand, just did by stating this. Bravo.

Check my posts, I said I was dropping by and saying that the debate is pointless.

You were in this debate from page 2. You have continually said throughout it that you were "just dropping by". You've been "dropping by" for 5 pages now.

All this "discussion" has done is make a moderator directly attack and insults someone elses belief.

Lie. I never directly attacked or insulted anyone's beliefs.

I can't believe you don't know how the human reproduction system works

Lie. Never have I expressed my knowledge (or lack there of) of the human reproductive system.


You just keep pulling lie, after lie, after lie.

Now, lying I never did. Show me where I lied. The three examples you gave me before were not of me lying.

I'm out of here, I hate people who lie just to try to bring down others. Worst moderator I've seen in jk2.

Let me congratulate you on your way out that you've been the most hypocritical man I've ever seen.

C'jais
02-07-2003, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Karsec
You say your and your alone is correct, and his is useless. Doesnt that mean inferior? Lesser than, not as useful, pointless, should I go on

Please do. Feel free to argue that his beliefs have ever aided scientific research. That they have ever predicted something. That they can be used to prove something through empirical evidence.

That they're in any way useful beyond making people feel good about themselves, and justifying genocides and insanity.

and Rp, if the mod isnt smart enough to get what you saying, that his own dumb fault. Still, dont keep repeating the same message, because I dont think the mod will ever get ti in his thick skull.

Why thank you. I'm about to stop trying to spoon feed you up to a maturity level where it's possible to debate something without going after the man. Try going for argument next time. If you can't work your way around it, don't dodge the subject and start cursing at that person who said it. Now leave, if you've got nothing intelligent to say.

C'jais
02-07-2003, 11:52 AM
Now people, listen closely.

Anything further regarding people lying, I won't hear it - take it to the moderators. I will delete any posts from now on that doesn't deal with the thread topic.

In this forum, lying is considered spam, and should be taken to the moderators. You don't respond to spam, you report it.

I've now spent 2 pages refuting ridiculous accusations bordering on being flamy and keeping me from digging up more evidence, which you still demand. This does not further the debate, and is in nobody's interest.

Now, I realize that I am a moderator, but I do not have the power to ban people, if you find that a comfort. Report it to the other moderators, if you think I'm lying, since I already gave countless reasons for why I'm not.

You have been warned.

RpTheHotrod
02-07-2003, 12:07 PM
Which part of my above post did you not read? - C'jais

There is one thing I really don't get. You ask for evidence and proof...and when presented, you arn't happey and you want a source (which I understand), but when given a source, you still don't believe it....so why should I even bother wasting my time getting a source?

C'jais
02-07-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
There is one thing I really don't get. You ask for evidence and proof...and when presented, you arn't happey and you want a source (which I understand), but when given a source, you still don't believe it....

Because the source usually has no scientific integrity. In fact, if these creationist "scientists" had published a book with these ridiculous claims, they'd get dragged to the UVVU (The commitee concerning lack of scientific integrity). The only reason they have an audience at all is because of the Bible belt and the interweb.

so why should I even bother wasting my time getting a source?

You should spend your time getting a correct source.

All the creationist sources presented in this thread make our resident scientist jackass in Denmark (The skeptical environmentalist - Lomborg) look like a Nobel prize winner.

RpTheHotrod
02-07-2003, 12:18 PM
Can Science Prove God?

Is there a way to scientifically prove God's existence? Let's take a brief look at the scientific method and see if science has any way to prove or disprove the existence of God. In the scientific method, scientists observe some phenomenon and form a conjecture, a theory, about how it works. This theory must predict the outcome of some experiment or observation. Then the scientist does the experiment or makes the observation many times. If the experiment or observation fails, the theory is proven false and the scientist must develop a new theory. The new theory must take into account the actual results of the previous observations and experiments. Then the scientist tries again. No scientific theory is worth anything if it doesn't contain predictions that might prove it false. What if the prediction is true? Does that prove the theory true? No, it just proves the theory is more usefull than the previous theory. The new theory must make new predictions that can be proven true or false by experiment and observation. Many scientific theories have succeeded time and again, only to be disproved in the end. Scientists have come to the conclusion that theories are not true or false, but more useful and less useful.

Well, what about the theory of gravitation? Isn't that proven constantly everywhere around the world and throughout the universe? We know gravity exists. Every time we drop something, every time we don't float away from our chair, we prove gravity exists. But the theory of gravitation seeks to describe the way gravity works. Sir Isaac Newton was the first to "correctly" describe the rules of gravitation (we still don't know how it actually works). His description of the laws of gravity and motion are one of the greatest feats of the human intellect. After many years of being "proven" correct, a young upstart named Albert Einstein proved Newton's laws false. Only a little false, under special conditions, but enough to revolutionize science. Newton's laws still hold for the vast majority in all practical circumstances.

The nice thing about gravity itself is that you can scientifically prove it exists any time you want, just by dropping something and observing whether or not it falls. What about God then? Is there some way to prove His existence at any time by observation, like dropping something proves gravity exists? Even though God is invisible and not perceivable through our senses, is there something about God, His attributes, that can show us any time we think about it that He exists? Or must we just assume He exists, as many do, or assume He doesn't exist, as many others do. We need to KNOW, and stop assuming, for whatever the answer is, it's of paramount importance in each of our lives.


There is a way

If you came to me and said, "Prove to me that gravity exists." I might laugh. But if I took you seriously, I would pick something up and drop it. There are some, so spoiled by philosophy, who would not accept that as proof, but most rational people, scientists included, would find such a demonstration quite acceptable. Remember, the scientist makes a prediction according to the theory and then observes if it's true. The prediction here is: "If I release this object, it will fall. The result is: it does fall. (Obviously, helium baloons are a special case that prove the prediction in an unexpected way.) Is there such a simple demonstration available; proof by observation, to prove God's existence?

Yes, there is! In fact there are many. Not quite as simple as snapping your fingers and having God appear like some genie, but convincing enough to satisfy most people. The demonstration of the existence of gravity is one. The existence of something to drop. The existence of somewhere for it to drop. The existence of the object dropped. And the existence of the one who dropped it and the mind that observed and interpreted the dropping. Just the observation that things exist, that there is a creation, is a proof of God. You can't have a creation without a creator. God is the great Creator. That is His job, it's what He does. The whole universe and all that's in it is a great testimony to and proof of the existence of God. But some scientists say that existance is inevitable, given the laws of the universe.


Creation is perfect and consistent

The creation is ordered and predictable. Things don't suddenly appear or disappear. Gravity doesn't suddenly turn off at unexpected times. A kilogram of iron doesn't become half a kilogram one day and two kilograms the next. Everything works perfectly and in total harmony. No matter how wild and violent and strange things may seem here on earth and out in the universe, everything follows universal laws. The world turns, we have night and day. Earth orbits the sun, we have the seasons. We don't have to worry about the sun not coming up tomorrow morning or winter lasting five years. Isn't it nice that everything that God created always works? Wouldn't it be nice if everything people create would always work? (Well, maybe not everything!) It strains the mind to try to imagine such a perfect universe arising by chance. (It strains the mind to try to imagine anything at all arising by chance.) Such perfection and consistency could only be the product of a great mind. This is another proof of the existence of a perfect and consistent God.

Astronomers have observed regions of the universe thousands of millions of light years away. They have never found any difference in the behavior of matter and energy anywhere in the universe, nor do they ever expect to. Things work consistently here, where we are, and they work consistently everywhere else. As far as can be determined, they've worked that way from the beginning and will always work that way. But scientists speculate that in the first few seconds of the existance of the universe it was wildly different.


Matter and energy prove God

That young upstart mentioned earlier, Albert Einstein, showed that matter and energy are interchangeable. He described their relationship in what is probably the most famous equation in the world: E=mc2. One of the most basic laws of the universe is that matter and energy cannot be either created or destroyed. Matter can be changed from one kind to another and so can energy. Matter can be changed to energy and energy to matter. But in no case is there ever a loss or gain in the total amount. Yet science has also found that the universe has not always existed. The universe is expanding and ,according to evolution, thousands of millions of years ago it all seems to have started at one point. Where did all the matter and energy come from?

There Was a Beginning

One of the great discoveries of science is that there was no past eternity of matter and energy. According to many cosmologists, all matter and energy suddenly appeared at some time in the remote past. They call that occurrence "The Big Bang". Other theories have been proposed but so far haven't withstood the tests of science. According to the Big Bang theory, the whole universe began as a tiny unimaginably compressed ball of matter and energy. It exploded and is still expanding after tens of thousands of millions of years. If this is true, where did this tiny ball of matter and energy come from?

Some cosmologists theorize that such a thing must happen inevitibly. The paradox of the great law that says matter and energy cannot be created and the observations that prove there has been no past eternity of matter and energy point inexorably to a great Creator God.


Life proves God

What we can see of the universe through our telescopes is simple compared to the life on earth and all its forms and interactions. Leaving aside the environmental upsets caused by human exploitation, living creatures and ecosystems on this earth are beautifully functional and balanced. Yes, things go wrong occasionally, living things and whole communities of living things get sick. But even then, there is a healing capacity designed into every living creature and every ecosystem. Yes, designed in! Have you watched many nature shows on TV? Even though the whole focus is on evolution, you might be surprised to count the number of times the word design is used. God is the master Designer and life giver.

Down through history, people have dreamed of creating life. Occasionally you will read of some scientific discovery that is said to be a major step toward creating life in the laboratory. How many major steps are needed? When scientists still have no idea what life is, how can they tell if it's a major step or just incidental? What is life? Obviously, creatures from the largest Blue Whale and Giant Sequoia to the smallest microbe have things in common that define what we call life. But there is some controversy among scientists concerning viruses. Recently, a new disease producer has been discovered that is just a protein. A part of living things to be sure, but not alive itself. Where is the line between living and nonliving drawn? Only God knows. God is the great life giver. Only He knows what life is and only He can produce life. But what if life is only a natural chemical process following known physical laws? Would that disprove the existance of God?


Science tries to answer

Now these proofs and others of God's existence would satisfy most people, but many scientists have hypothetical explanations that don't require God. Though they have never produced life in the laboratory and have never seen it spontaneously appear, they believe as an article of faith that given the proper circumstances and enough time, life must appear. They say that the reason the universe is so perfectly formed and balanced is that if it were not, we wouldn't be here to observe and speculate on it. Perhaps, they say, infinitely many universes have arisen that weren"t able to produce intelligent life and so no one observed them. They even postulate laws that require the spontaneous creation of the tiny ball of matter and energy that started the Big Bang from nothing; that the universe created itself.

Science has no answer

But these are not really answers, they are just attempts to explain the unexplainable. What they overlook in all this is something without which all their speculations are worthless. It is also the greatest proof of the existence of God; the one which no one can dispute. That is the existence of physical law. Gravity follows law. That law was described by Newton and later modified by Einstein. Puny man may not yet perfectly describe that law, but it undeniably exists. It never changes, though human descriptions of it may change. The whole universe follows the law of gravitation and myriad other laws. From the smallest subatomic particle to the largest galaxy, laws are followed perfectly and for all time.

Living things follow laws; from the laws of chemistry inside the living cells to the laws of inter-species interactions in a large ecosystem. Not one of these laws ever changes or wavers. No scientist has ever created or destroyed or even slightly modified the actual operation of a physical law. No scientist would even know how to go about changing a law. Not one of these laws ever contends with another; all the laws of the universe are in perfect balance and harmony. Because all of the laws work together so perfectly, some scientists feel strongly that there may be a single universal law from which all other laws are derived. If this is someday found to be true, where did that law come from? Even when cosmologists speculate regarding the creation of the universe from the Big Bang, they develop speculative laws and then extrapolate from those speculative laws. Where did all these laws come from if not from the mind of the great Lawgiver, the mighty Creator of all matter, energy, law, and order? Even if it is ultimately discovered that the universe had to arise from nothing, that life had to arise from nonliving, those would be laws. The uncountable, perfectly balanced, harmonious multitude of laws just cannot spring from nothing! And if they all spring from one great law, that law cannot spring from nothing. There is no other answer, God the great law giver does exist!

Now that the existence of God has been indisputably proven, what does that mean to you and to your future? Don't you think you should find out if the Great Creator God who created the whole universe has any interest in you? Does He have a plan for you? Does He have things He wants you to do and are there things He wants to do for you? The answers to these questions are in the Holy Bible. The Bible has been much misunderstood and characterized by some as the meaningless ramblings of a minor tribe of people who lived in the Middle East thousands of years ago. Yet the Bible is owned by more people in the world than any other book. Why this strange paradox?

RpTheHotrod
02-07-2003, 12:29 PM
For you Big Bang fans

Fred Hoyle did some detailed calculations, and announced that a big bang would produce only light elements—helium, deuterium and lithium (the latter two are actually quite rare). He calculated that if the density of the universe were about one atom per eight cubic metres, the amounts of these three light elements would be quite close to those actually observed. In this way, a new version of the theory was put forward which was nothing like the older theories. This no longer mentioned the cosmic rays of Lemaître, or the heavy elements of Gamow. Instead, the evidence put forward was the microwave background and three light elements. Yet none of this constitutes conclusive proof for the big bang. A major problem was the extreme smoothness of the background microwave radiation. The so-called irregularities in the background are so small that these fluctuations would not have had time to grow into galaxies—not unless there was a lot more matter (and therefore a lot more gravity) around than appears to be the case.

There were other problems, too. How does it come about that bits of matter flying in opposite directions all managed to reach the same temperature, and all at the same time (the "horizon" problem)? The partisans of the theory present the alleged origins of the universe as a model of mathematical perfection, all perfectly regular, a regular "Eden of symmetry whose characteristics conform to pure reason," as Lerner puts it. But the present universe is anything but perfectly symmetrical. It is irregular, contradictory, "lumpy." One of the problems is why did the big bang not produce a smooth universe? Why did not the original simple material and energy just spread out evenly in space as an immense haze of dust and gas? Why is the present universe so "lumpy"? Where did all these galaxies and stars come from? So how did we get from A to B? How did the pure symmetry of the early universe give rise to the present irregular one we see before our eyes?

RpTheHotrod
02-07-2003, 12:37 PM
and here's something for you, just for fun


One reason why Evolution is false...using only a Rubik's Cube and some math.

Yes, it's true...a Rubik's Cube could help prove the theory of Evolution to be completely false. I hope that you all know what a Rubik's Cube is, so I'm not going to worry about an explanation. Let's get going:



Imagine 100,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,

000 (10^50) blind men stretched throughout the universe, all holding a messed up Rubik's Cube. Imagine the odds of all 100 billion-kajillion blind men completing the Rubik's Cube at the exact same time...pretty big odds. As a matter of fact, the average odds against each success of a Rubik's Cube is 40,000,000,000,000,000,000 (4 x 10^19) to 1. Multiply:



(10^50) x (4 x 10^19) = 4,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000, -

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (4^69)



"So, what's your point?"...According to the Nobel Prize-winning scientists Sir Fred Hoyle, that's about the same odds of one functioning protein molecule evolving by chance on the ancient Earth. Actually, he's probably being generous with those odds.

With those odds, we can pretty much rule out the chance of one protein molecule, let alone the many, very many, of them that are required to even contain life, and look at all of the complex life systems that we have today and every day.

Of course, you get those people that say that since there is a "chance" of this happening, it had to have happened becuase we are here today...they assume that we have evolved without actually proving it (and we all know what assuming does).

It's your choice. The odds are 4^69:1...would you bet $100 on it? How about your stereo? How about your beliefs? How about...your eternity? Your choice, choose wisely.

RpTheHotrod
02-07-2003, 12:45 PM
Here's something for you to read.


Evolution - A False Doctrine
by SIVAN TUMARKIN
April 1996


The Evolution Theory is a false doctrine devised by scientists lacking modern technology and
knowledge in an attempt to escape the aggressive confines of Religion, thereby forming a new
faith referred to as "natural selection". Throughout time, evolution mechanisms have been
developed to account for many barriers facing evolutionists. From Lamarckism developed by
Jean Baptisete DeLamarck (1829) to Darwinism by Charles Darwin (1859) to The Mutation
Theory by Hugo deVries (1901) right up to the current theory of Neo-Darwinism, modifications to
this doctrine have evolved to include modern scientific principles of Biology, Anthropology,
Physics and Mathematics. The concept of "Evolution" as proposed by Charles Darwin does not
in itself present opposition to creation by a higher order of intelligence. Evolution simply implies
"gradual change through time". Thus, a creator might have employed such means of creation
just as humans gradually design and build newer cars with an increased variety of shapes and
colors. The conflict arise when Naturalists insist that all life gradually evolved from non-living
matter by the process of natural selection which is a direct violation of The Law of Biogenesis1 .
Naturalistic evolution is considered and taught to be a fact rather than a theory by many
scientists and teachers. It is an everyday event to watch a television show such as the
Discovery Channel and constantly be reminded of how evolutionary mechanisms caused the
rise of life on Earth. Any inquiries questioning evolution are immediately suppressed or
answered with evolutionary terms such as "survival of the fittest" which is a tautology and hence
can not be disputed with out proper knowledge or deep understanding of the clauses used.
Although the theory itself offers abundant examples of "evolutionary paradoxes", many scientists
choose to dismiss these confrontations and faithfully follow the evolution doctrine. Careful
biological examinations of various organisms prove that purely accidental evolution is definitely
unattainable and offer proof to illustrate why many built in mechanisms in animals are either fully
functional as a whole, or are rejected.
Mathematical probabilities defy all arguments presented by evolutionists and clearly disqualify
natural selection as being a credible scientific theory. Furthermore, The Evolution Theory finds
itself strangled when trying to dispute its rationale against physics laws which govern this
universe. Darwinists insult science by refusing to follow scientific regulations and forcing this
"faith" as a fact before endorsing it as a theory. It is accepted by many scientists as the only
explanation for the origin of life, consequently omitting all other theories including creation. "We
in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had
with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we
tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the
presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science
classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather
than happened by chance." 2 The Evolution Theory is based on evidence gathered by "expert"
scientists to justify their claim of an evolutionary chain. In many cases, evolutionists use
strategies to shine their theory on to the public by means of media shows such as the famous
Scopes trial as well as secretly generating false "evidence" displaying skeletons of missing links
such as the Piltdown Man and refusal to claim responsibility for conclusions mistakenly made;
such as the case of Lucy. In addition, "evidence" supporting the evolutionary chain is invalid in
view of the tremendous lack of intermediate links between species as well as, all the evidence
pointing towards evolution is prominently based on the assumption that evolution has occurred.
Thus, once an assumption has become the evidence for the premeditated conclusion, it is
somewhat obvious to view that conclusion as the only logical explanation. One of the most well
known conflicts between Creation and Darwinism called the Scopes case, occurred in the
1920's which was especially engineered to make a mockery of Creationism. The Tennessee
legislature had passed a statue prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Opponents of the law
engineered a case test in which a former substitute teacher named Scopes volunteered to be
the defendant. William Jennings Bryan, three-time Democratic presidential candidate and a
Bible believer led the prosecution. The Scope's defense team was led by the famous criminal
lawyer Clarence Darrow. Darrow called Bryan to the stand as a Bible expert and presented him
with a tooth belonging to the Nebraska Man (prehistoric man within the evolutionary chain).
Darrow humiliated Bryan in a devastating cross-examination in which he showed that the
leading "scientific authorities" in the world confirmed the tooth belonged to a prehistoric man.
The "monkey-trial" was a triumph for Darwinism and had a powerful impact on the general
public. "However, years after the trial, the skeleton of the animal which the tooth came from was
found. As it turns out, the tooth on which the Nebraska Man was created belonged to an extinct
species of pig. The "authorities" who ridiculed Mr.Bryan for his ignorance, created an entire race
of humanity out of the tooth of a pig!"3 Such "authority figures" have been governing and
monitoring the media in an attempt to establish Evolution as a fact and not a theory. "It is
absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that
person is ignorant, stupid or insane!" 4 Nevertheless, not all scientists are limiting themselves
to one possible conclusion. There are those who openly admit flaws within this theory and try to
reasonably establish evidence to support their claims as true scientists. If they lack such
evidence, they permit criticism and act as respected scientists by drawing objective conclusions
based on their initial hypothesis and gathered observations. Such is the case with the founder
of the Theory of Evolution, Charles Darwin. "As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms
must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth? The number of extinct species must have been inconceivably great!... not one change of
species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed!...
He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole
theory." 5 Throughout the history of the Evolution Theory, many people have tried to help natural
selection "evidence" by engineering false proof that will in turn prove the missing link between
humans and apes. In 1912, Charles Dawson (a fossiologist) discovered some bones, teeth and
primitive implements in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to Dr. Author
Smith Woodward (well known and respected paleontologist) at the British Museum. The
remains were marked as being 500,000 years old. This new discovery generated mass media
coverage all over the world and "Evolution" became the primary theory for the origin of life. The
evolutionary link between man and ape was found! On October 1956, using a new method to
date bones based on fluoride absorption, the Piltdown bones were found to be fraudulent.
Further, critical investigation revealed that the jawbone actually belonged to an ape that had died
only 50 years previously. The skeleton, tested and confirmed by "expert scientific authorities"
proved to be a fake. This did not matter; the promotion of "Evolution" has been successful in
planting the idea that soon, the real missing link will be found, instead of generating an inquiry
as to the validity of this theory. "When it comes to the origin of life on the earth, there are only
two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (Evolution). There is no third way.
Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other
conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We can not accept that on philosophical grounds
(personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose
spontaneously by chance." 6 Present day speculation about human evolution is mainly based
on a group of fossils called autralopithecines and in particular, a specimen called Lucy, a 40%
complete skeleton. During investigations conducted from 1972-1977 in a far area of Ethiopia,
D.C. Johanson discovered a skeleton later to be known as Lucy. This again, generated mass
media coverage as an evolutionary link between humans and apes was found. In a National
Geographic article (December 1976), Joahnson claimed that "the angle of the thigh bone and
the flattened surface at its knee joint end... proved she walked on two legs." "However, evidence
regarding the actual discovery of the knee joint that was used to 'prove' that Lucy walked upright
was found more than 200 feet lower in the strata and more than two miles away. The knee joint
end of the femur was severely crushed; therefore, Johanson's conclusion is pure speculation."7
Anatomist Charles Oxnard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships,
has concluded that the australopithecines did not walk upright (not in the same manner as
humans). Furthermore, there is evidence that people including Kanapoi hominid and
Castennedolo Man walked upright before the time of Lucy. Obviously, if people walked before
Lucy, than once again, this "evidence" is disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor. Thus, the only
scientific basis for concluding that Lucy was an evolutionary link, was the assumption that
evolution did occur. When lining evidence on the assumption that a theory is a fact, the only
possible conclusion which could be generated is that fact; "the fact of evolution" (closed circle).
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observations and
wholly unsupported by facts." 8 One of the most serious blows to the Evolution Theory is the
absence of transitional forms. As Darwin was honest enough to admit the defect in his theory
regarding these intermediate links, his assumptions were credible. "The explanation lies,
however, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." 9 In 1859, this explanation
drove geologists to vigorously search for fossils of these "links". Although it has been over 100
years since Darwin's time, we now have fewer samples of "transitional forms" than we did back
then. Instead of heaving more samples, we actually have less because some of the old classic
examples of evolution have been recently discarded due to new information and findings, and no
new transitional forms have been found. "The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of
transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real,
they will never be filled." 10 Nevertheless, evolutionists still maintain their determination to put
their faith before the evidence. It is not with facts that evolutionists argue against the
theory of creation, but rather, with tentative assumptions based on faith and inability to explain
the paradoxes in nature. When confronted with questions such as "who came first, the chicken
or the egg?", they reply with philosophical answers containing no shred of evidence. Throughout
the natural environment, organisms have been discovered and examined revealing clear
evidence of defiance to the Evolution Theory. From the ingenious design of the human eye, to
the magnificent relationship between symbiotic organisms, right to the marvelous design of body
structures and color variation in nature, the notion of "it" happening by "mere coincidence" is
completely preposterous and a ridiculous theory for science to acknowledge. In addition to the
visual beauty in nature, DNA serves as an impenetrable shield to the Creation Theory and a fatal
weapon against the Theory of Evolution. "Take the human body alone-the chance that all the
functions of the individual could just happen, is a statistical monstrosity!" 11 Evolutionists are
helpless when trying to explain the step by step evolution of the human eye. As one of the most
intriguing organs of the body, it contains automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic
aperture adjustment. The human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright
sunlight. It sees an object with a diameter of a fine hair, and makes about 100,000 separate
motions in an average day. Then, while we sleep, it carries out its own maintenance work. The
human eye is so sophisticated that scientists are still trying to understand how it functions.
When objectively questioning his own theory, Charles Darwin confirmed that "to suppose that
the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for
admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,
could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest
possible degree... The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye could have been formed by
natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone." Nonetheless, evolutionists still stick
to their "faith" and a paralyzed answer, "it happened somehow, somewhere". It is hopeless to
try and explain how the eye evolved step by step because, it is either a complete structure
(including all other organs such as brain to perceive the information and then analyze it like a
computer, as well as all other organs such as heart, blood vessels, etc.), or it is incomplete, in
which case it will be rejected by the organism. It either functions as an integrated whole or not
at all. Darwin has stated that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory
would absolutely break down." However, the human eye is just the tip of the iceberg.
Evolutionists' problems are further complicated by the fact that hundreds of different eyes exist in
different organisms. These different eyes are built with absolutely distinct designs. A squid's
eyes are structurally different than a human's eyes or a crab's eyes, etc. To compare the
structures of these eyes is like comparing a radio's design with a computer's design. Both
receive and output signals but have completely different architectural designs. Such a case of
evolution, of many different eyes, each astonishingly designed and crafted, is surely a dilemma
an evolutionist must face. To illustrate, the Trilobite eye; unlike the lens of a human eye, which
is composed of living, organic tissues, trilobite eyes are composed of inorganic calcite. Unlike
human eyes which are composed of a single lens, trilobite eyes have a very special double lens
design with anywhere from 100 to 15,000 lenses in each eye (depending on the sub-species).
This special design allows the trilobites to see under water perfectly, without distortions.
Sufficient knowledge of Abbe's Sine Law, Fermat's Principle, and various other principles of
optics are fundamental in the design of these lenses. They appear to have been carefully crafted
by a very knowledgeable physicist.
Astonishing symbiotic relationships between organisms found in nature, mock the Evolution
Theory. There are many instances where organisms of different species are completely
dependent upon each other for survival. For instance, "the Pronuba moth lives in a cocoon in
the sand at the base of the Yucca plant. Pronuba moths can only hatch on certain nights of the
year, which are also the only nights that Yucca flowers bloom. When the Pronuba moth
hatches, it enters an open Yucca flower and gathers pollen12 . It then flies to a different yucca
plant, backs into the flower and lays its eggs with the Yucca's seed cells. It pushes the pollen it
had gathered into a hole in the Yucca flower's pistil, so the pollen will fertilize the Yucca's seed
cells where the moth laid its eggs. The moth then dies. As the moth's eggs incubate, the yucca
seeds ripen. When the eggs hatch, the moth larvae eat about one fifth of the Yucca seeds.
They then cut through the seed pod and spin a thread that they use to slide down to the desert
floor. They proceed into the sand and spin a cocoon and the cycle continues. There are several
kinds of Yucca plants, each pollinated by its own kind of moth that is the right size to enter the
particular flower. The Yucca plant and the Pronuba moth are dependent on each other for
reproduction, thus survival." 13 Another example of a symbiotic relationship is found between
large fish and usually smaller fish and shrimp. Many large fish feed on smaller fish and shrimp.
However, once these large fish find that their mouths have become littered with debris and
parasites, they swim to places were smaller fish and shrimp clean their mouths. When the
large fish opens its mouth and gill chambers, baring vicious-looking teeth, the little fish and
shrimp swim inside the large fish until they finish their job of eating all the debris and then swim
out unharmed and the big fish swims away. Both parties involved in this relationship benefit and
override the instincts developed by "Evolution" for self-preservation to eat the smaller fish and
shrimp, as well as, for the cleaning animals' unnatural suicidal tendency to walk straight into the
mouth of this large fish. This relationship is not limited to fish. The bird Egyptian Plover is
designed to freely walk into the mouth of the Nile crocodile to clean out parasites and leaves
completely unharmed. Such relationships challenge the Evolution concept of each animal's
instinct for self-preservation. However, such a relationship can occur if the organisms had
implanted information within their genetic program for them to act out and follow. A computer
will do whatever it is instructed according to the program it runs by. It will not display feelings or
change course out of will. It will only act as it was programmed to act. As stated by Charles
Darwin, "if it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed
for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have
been produced through natural selection." Therefore, the evidence of the Pronuba moth and the
Yucca flower clearly present a relationship in which not just one particular part of a structure of
an organism is necessary for the survival of another specie, but they are both completely linked
in a reproductive cycle in which both species had to "evolve" at the same time absolutely
annihilating the concept of "gradual evolution" by "chance"; a paradox equivalent to the famous
question of "who came first, the chicken or the egg?" Another paradox is "who came first, male
or female?" If the male or the female evolved first, then why would nature complicate itself by
allowing for that organism to "start evolving" two genders that have to be 100% compatible with
each other, as well as, each gender be attracted to the opposite gender, and many other
considerations to be taken in order to assure reproduction. It would be ridiculous to even
consider the possibility of both genders (in every specie containing two genders) evolving at the
same time with such complexity and compatibility. "The explanatory doctrines of biological
evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism."14 Another fine example of such paradox in
nature is the Bombardier beetle. The Bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an
impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this organism ejects
irritating and odious gases, which are at 2120F, out from two tail pipes right into the face of its
predator. Hermann Schildknecht, a German chemist, studied the Bombardier beetle to find out
how he accomplishes this chemical achievement. He learned that the beetle makes his
explosive weapon by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and
hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, there is a third chemical known as the
"inhibitor". The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store
these chemicals in his body. Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog,
he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes and, at the precisely right
moment, he ads another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). A violent explosion occurs right in the face
of the attacker. When analyzing the "evolutionary process" that allowed the Bombardier beetle
to develop such a chemical weapon, we are forced to speculate that first, there must have been
thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal
evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we assume, they have
arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need
to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the
other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for
you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such design and pre-meditative arrangement would
have to arise from intelligent foresight and planning. Nevertheless, assuming that the beetle
somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the important
inhibitor. The solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a
harmless mixture. To be of any value to the beetle, an anti-inhibitor must be added to the
solution. So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these
poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until
finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. With the anti-inhibitor developed he still can't touch his
predators because he still needs to "evolve" the two combustion tubes and a precise
communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the
explosion. So once again, for thousands of generations, the beetles blew themselves up to
pieces until they finally mastered this long range plan. Such a defense mechanism requires
vast amount of knowledge to design and construct. To argue that it all just evolved
instantaneously is absurd and to suggest that for thousands of generations, "natural selection"
aimed to achieve this specific and remarkable design is not within the Evolution Theory's
capabilities. 15 In addition to the superb design of structural engineering, nature, is filled with
magnificent varieties of colors arranged in geometric shapes and sizes. Many organisms exhibit
such architectural designs clearly showing intelligent pattern. Butterflies, fish, flowers, birds,
and many other types of organisms have color decorations as a part of their genetic makeup.
An animal such as the Zebra, contains an intelligent design of black and white stripes makes it
a very easy target for hunting (see cover page for illustration). Furthermore, these stripes on the
Zebra are composed of billions of cells, each have the proper chemicals to produce that specific
color in the specific location. When demonstrating how an evolutionary mechanism could have
developed the Zebra's patterned looks, the process can be paralleled to programming a
computer to randomly produce colored pixels on the screen and waiting to see if a pattern such
as black line, white line, black line, white line, etc. would occur. Furthermore, it is not enough to
hope for the black and white lines to appear (orderly), how can they possibly be genetically
integrated into the Zebra's coded DNA? Would a computer for no reason, program itself to
display these lines on the screen if you smash it everytime it didn't? Because of the Zebra's
patterned look, it can be seen from vast distances and killed. Evolutionary thinking is so
focused on what is practical and what is required for self-preservation, that when presented with
such a widespread of beauty which in many cases serve no purpose except for decoration, they
must either capitulate or ignore the facts. Such is the case with the fish, Rhodicthys.
Rhodicthys is of a bright red color. Yet, it lives in total darkness, 1.5 miles below the surface of
the ocean. Likewise, the deep-sea Neoscopelus macrolepidotus is vividly colored with azure
blue, bright red, silver spots, and black circles! Even the eggs of some of the deep-sea
creatures are brilliantly colored. Furthermore, naturalists' obsession for defending evolution no
matter what, has produced absurd and absolutely senseless statements regarding animals
such as the peacock.
"Do the creation scientists really suppose their Creator saw fit to create a bird that couldn't
reproduce without six feet of bulky feathers that make it easy for leopards?"16 It seems to me
that a peacock is just the kind of animal an artistic Creator would favor, but an "uncaring
mechanical process" like natural selection would never permit to develop. "I reject evolution
because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy,
histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The
foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long
deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."17
Ultimately, DNA is without a doubt the strongest weapon to hinder the Theory of Evolution. "Now
we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of
functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme
comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of this gene
(its complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls." 18 DNA is the coded
language on which the foundation of life is based on. Unlike electronic devices built by human
beings employing the rules of electricity (on, off) , DNA is an extremely more complex and
mystifying method for transmitting ordered information for it is founded on four acids (4 parts)
which make up a language far more detailed than that of two parts. DNA molecules can only be
replicated with the assistance of specific enzymes, which in turn, can only be produced by the
controlling DNA molecule. Each is absolutely necessary for the other and both must be present
for replication to occur. Thus, we can conclude that the basic grounds on which "evolutionary
mechanisms" operate, are in themselves, a paradox on the molecular level. "The capacity of
DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of modern technology. The information needed to
specify the design all the species of organisms which ever lived (known) could be held in a
teaspoon and there would still be room left to hold all the information in every book ever written."
19 Such extraordinary sophistication can only reflect super-intelligent design. In addition,
computer scientists have demonstrated conclusively that information does not and cannot arise
spontaneously.20 "The Information Theory has shown that mistakes cannot improve a code of
information; they can only reduce a code's ability to transmit meaningful information.
Information results only from the expenditure of energy (to arrange letters and words) and under
the all-important direction of intelligence." 21 DNA is information. The only logical and
reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that DNA was formed by intelligence. The
paradoxes facing evolutionists are unconquerable simply because, what used to be their most
convenient answer "we had millions of years for this to happen", is no longer valid for answering
questions such as, "who came first the chicken or the egg? Male or female? Pronuba moths or
the Yucca plant? DNA molecule or the enzymes responsible for its development? and so forth.
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of
chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the
facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely
complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically
and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

RpTheHotrod
02-07-2003, 12:49 PM
I doubt you're going to read any of what I just posted, because it seems people try to get around stuff that challenges their evolution belief.

However, if you did read it all, good for you.

C'jais
02-07-2003, 01:01 PM
Good work, Rp.

But before I tear into this, let me ask you: Do you believe in this? That the universe was created from God making the Big Bang?

C'jais
02-07-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I doubt you're going to read any of what I just posted, because it seems people try to get around stuff that challenges their evolution belief.

However, if you did read it all, good for you.

I'm reading it.

But not the last one, I'm afraid, as I can't read it when it's all scattered about. Could you edit it to make it more readable?

RpTheHotrod
02-07-2003, 01:12 PM
I don't believe He used the Big Bang, thought it is some interesting reading.



I'll try to edit it when I'm back from work. (Roughly 4 to 5 hours)

Either that or you can copy and paste it into word

Pnut_Man
02-07-2003, 01:34 PM
C'jais, we could all agree that in this universe there is a beginning and a end, correct? If this is true, what was the beginning of the big bang; how was that energy ball created? I have been thinking, and this is the only possible way to live in a dimension without a higher power:

Somewhere, if multiple dimensions do exist, there was a dimension that had no beginning or end. Somehow the energy that would be the big bang was created and brought to this dimension.

I'm not too sure if I believe in multi-dimensions, they were only tools of sci-fi writers. I would find it more convincing to believe that there is a being beyond all imagination that brought about the existence of the universe.

What are your views on the pre-big bang situation?

Reborn Outcast
02-07-2003, 04:04 PM
Very good info Rp!!! Congrats. The only problem is, now I'm going to kill you because my eyes hurt so much. :D


Oh and Rp I already posted the probability of evolution happening on page 1 or 2 or something and I was counted wrong... But still, very good stuff.

Psydan
02-07-2003, 04:45 PM
Wow, Rp, that took a while to read, but I think it had a lot of good stuff in it. After reading it all, I can't see how people could have very strong beliefs about the universe having no creator. And Cjais what the heck are you talking about? I dont see how you can get RNA out of what you said. Its rather obvious that you said in one post that it was impossible to create life, and in the other you said that it could be done at High School level. Either way, Im thinking it's probably highly improbable that you could create a strand of RNA either.

RpTheHotrod
02-07-2003, 08:03 PM
Thanks guys. It's best you copy and paste that article and paste it in word. Easier for us both, heh.

SkinWalker
02-08-2003, 02:54 AM
Guess I've got a little catching up to do ;-)

It seems this debate never goes away..... that's cool. It's fun to discuss.

The thing about evolution versus creation that come immediately to mind is that evolution is a scientific theory and creation is not.

Scientific theory operates under testable hypothesis and theories must be bounded. In otherwords, they apply only to a particular field of inquiry. If I discover that pushing the small round button on my monitor causes it to turn off or on, depending on it's current state, then I can reasonably apply this rule, or bounded theory, to other monitors.

I can't really say it was "god's will" since that could apply to the reason my car won't run without petrol. "God's will" is an unbounded explaination. It can apply to floods, death's, or my monitor switch.

Bounded theories can be tested (try many, many monitors.... same effect.... theory is strengthened), unbounded ones cannot.

Evolution is not a religion. It is science. That's it.

Creation, on the other hand generally relies heavily on religion. But so far as I've seen here, the only creation idea that is mentioned is the christian one. There are many other cults out there that have their own views of creation. Some similar, many different. It's a bit ethnocentric to just consider one possibility for creation.... if you reject the science, that is.

Although the theory itself offers abundant examples of "evolutionary paradoxes", many scientists
choose to dismiss these confrontations and faithfully follow the evolution doctrine.

Hmmm... one cannot apply the same reasoning that cult followers utilize to scientists. Scientists do not "faithfully follow" "evolution doctrine."

Evolution is a theory, not a religion and cannot be a doctrine, since it is by nature, correctable. Evolution by natural selection has fullfilled the requirements of a scientific theory superbly. I'm sure it will continue to be refined in the future, as what we have now is a theory based on over 2000 years of observation and correction. It's the end product of a long chain of hypothesizing and testing.

Creation, on the other hand, is not scientifically fruitful. The idea of creation (and I'm not just refering to the christian idea) came into being within cultures that had little ability to test their observations. Understanding of the world around them being severely limited, they did the best job they could at explaining the universe and it's existence. Had this idea, over time, been corrected or updated it would have held more validity, however, since creation is an idea that, especially in the christian view, is unchanging, it is therefore invalid.

I'll stop here for now, because, as Rp pointed out, longer posts are harded to read.... But I'll be around. I've finally got school / work sorted into some kind of routine :-)

Kickwhit
02-08-2003, 02:32 PM
Well, its time i got myself involved... I guess you could say im new to this place. New to this place, mind you, so dont bother treating me like a full-fledged newbie. So now, where to begin...

...i can see we have some ignoramuses here that are jsut gonna waste my time when i start arguing, namely C'Jais. So do me a favor, and keep your adolecent mind out of my dealings, would you/ ill permit you to comment on them, but reading this post makes me sure youll only make an ass out of yourself if you try and 'argue'. And Pnut Master? good form, indeed. So then, ill jsut begin at the basics. Though evolution and the big bang theory are not always synonimous, im sure most evolutionists beleive in the big bang. So then, which one of you psyco-babbling evolutionists wants to tell me, according to the evolution/big bang theories, how the universe started... and from what? Please, enchant me.

With that attitude, prepare to leave this place soon. How old are you? -C'jais

SkinWalker
02-08-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Kickwhit
Well, its time i got myself involved... I guess you could say im new to this place. New to this place, mind you, so dont bother treating me like a full-fledged newbie.

Welcome... Enjoy your stay. I bet it's short, but welcome none the less! We'll just refer to you as... say a half-fledged newbie then! j/k :-)

Originally posted by Kickwhit
...i can see we have some ignoramuses here that are jsut gonna waste my time when i start arguing, namely C'Jais. So do me a favor, and keep your adolecent mind out of my dealings, would you/ ill permit you to comment on them,

Well... that's very good of you. I'm sure C'Jais will appreciate it.


Originally posted by Kickwhit
So then, which one of you psyco-babbling evolutionists wants to tell me, according to the evolution/big bang theories, how the universe started... and from what? Please, enchant me.

Well.... actually, I've never really concerned myself with the Big Bang theory... as theories go, it has about as much validity as any other... including the "god factor." But, both of these theories (as well as the others) are not testable, so they rely on existing observation to make hypothesis on.

Big bang actually does have observable evidence that would support it as a theory. I'm not really into astronomy, but it is related to the motion (red shift / blue shift) of the universe as observed by astronomers that indicates that it is expanding outward from a common center.

Religious documents is about the only evidence that remains to support the opposing theory. One is observable and somewhat testable... the other is ... well... the word of the author(s).

Actually, I find the events of the last 4.6 billion years to be far more interesting. Natural selection and genetic mutation have certainly provided us with an wonderful abundance of life forms for our planet. The diversity of species is as broad and interesting as the diversity of environments.

I've never actually understood the need for debate over two ideas: creation as a belief really doesn't hold up to modern understanding of chemistry, physics, geology, biology, etc.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
which one of you psyco-babbling evolutionists

Originally posted by Kickwhit
...i can see we have some ignoramuses

Perhaps. I would assume that the root of that last noun to be "ignorant," which means to be without knowledge. If true, then you may be interested to know that psychobabble is a term that refers to "writing or talk using jargon from psychiatry or psychotherapy without particular accuracy or relevance." We're actually discussing chemistry, biology, genetics, physics, theology, and the like. Not much going on in the way of psychology.

Just didn't want you to go around as an ignoramus, I think more highly of you than that.

Cheers,
SkinWalker

SkinWalker
02-08-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
and here's something for you, just for fun


One reason why Evolution is false.

"So, what's your point?"...According to the Nobel Prize-winning scientists Sir Fred Hoyle, that's about the same odds of one functioning protein molecule evolving by chance on the ancient Earth. Actually, he's probably being generous with those odds.

With those odds, we can pretty much rule out the chance of one protein molecule, let alone the many, very many, of them that are required to even contain life, and look at all of the complex life systems that we have today and every day.

What Sir Hoyle was trying to do was support a theory that life on Earth was the result of outside, or off-world, introduction of biological matter, which resulted in the diversity we have now.

I take the view that all the genes that we have were already here, and the event that added them to the Earth was 570 million years ago. You know, the beginning of the Cambrian, that great event. And that everything that we have subsequently used has been simply a question of permuting and combining what came in at that time.

That's a quote from Sir Hoyle Interviewed by Brig Klyce at The Institute for Astronomy, Cambridge, England, 5 July 1996. He also said in that same interview:

t's my nature — I recognize that it must be an accident in my upbringing and the turn of the century when I was at the university — I just go from observation. I don't say, "It's absurd that there should be bacteria in space." I don't say that. It fits the observation, so it's the best theory we have. I don't care if it's absurd. So I didn't hesitate to publish it. That of course was the beginning of the disaster, the ridiculous. [With irony, of those who ridiculed the finding:] They know! They're born to know that the particles in space are not bacteria. God has told them.

Just some interesting info I had.

SkinWalker

SkinWalker
02-08-2003, 05:36 PM
Rp, the main problem with you posted essay is that it comes from an essay mill. It's difficult to see sources from essays, since they are basically opinion based upon facts as the author sees it. Still, there are some points worth discussing there.

There's a point (in there somewhere) about the lack of transitional species in fossil record. One has to understand that fossils that exist now are but a very few, VERY few, of the population that existed. I don't know the math, but conditions to permit fossilization are few: secondary mineralization, remineralization, leaching of bone mineral, and biologically-induced mineralization begin very rapidly after the bone is exposed to the environment. If the bone is not buried or underwater within 1-2 years of defleshing, it will literally become dust in the wind. The bone fragments may persist for several more years, but they are unrecognizable as to species. If the bone is buried or underwater, diagenetic processes begin rapidly. A bone can be completely remineralized within 5-10 years. Secondary mineralization can fill all the porosity elements within a few months in some environments. These are the environments which preserve bone the best.

There's also a point about the pronuba moth and yucca plant needing each other for survival. That's the relationship they have now. It is quite probably that natural selection was at work here. The original plant and moth may have survived quite well through other relationships, but the plants that had this relationship survived more consistently when the two species worked together. Over time, the two species became dependent upon each other since other mechanisms were lost during natural selection.

One has only to look at the invention of antibiotics and vaccines to see natural selection in action. Modern medicine has all but wiped out many of the worlds more significant diseases, however, current strains are resistant to medicines. The less resistant individuals died off, leaving the more resistant ones, which propagated and passed on the traits that make them resistant to antibiotics and vaccines. Thus, current strains of malaria and small pox are more hardy than their predecessors.

The theory of evolution may not be correct, but the evidence that is currently observable would indicate that it is considerably more valid than the idea of creation. The main validating trait of evolution is that it is scientific theory and is therefore testable and correctable. Creation is neither.

SkinWalker

RpTheHotrod
02-08-2003, 06:43 PM
I just posed that "essay" because it had some interesting information. It wasn't meant for anything other than that.

Luke Skywalker
02-08-2003, 07:43 PM
And time for me to enter the debate... I'll be brutally honest about two things:

1) Im not an expert in evolutionary theory but I'm not a total newbie to the concept

2) I am obsessed with philosophy. (Take note of that sentence)

Moving on...

I read with great intrest the argument put forth by some of the people that disagree with evolution could simply not have occured and that a grand plan is in place. To sum up what I have heard: creationism happened and evolution didn't. Ok, you are entitled to an opinion and in some cases an educated opinion. But I have to ask you this:

If life did not evolve on earth as purposed in CURRENT evolutionary theory and some form of creationism took place, then explain to me how a divine creator is more plausible?

Think about it. I forget whom posted about how they could prove god's existence, but the basic argument was that you can prove it through everything around us. The fact that it exists. Ok, so let's try to apply this elsewhere. A divine creator cannot exist for the simpler reason that we exist. The argument must be presupposed by an argument proving we exist. Now, even then, the argument does not stand because of Cartesian Dualism.

So now you are probably saying: whats my point? Well my point is that just because evolution may have "flaws" does not mean that we have to revert automatically and say that we are a "divine creation". Its irrational. Furthermore, even if you do automatically assume creation you have no scientific proof that a creator exists. Its simply an assumption based on the unknown because it is much easier to just say a mystical being did it and we don't know why then to prove it scientifically. Blind faith? Go right ahead, just understand that you cannot use "blind faith" as a successful argument because it basically is the adsence of reason and rational...

SkinWalker
02-08-2003, 08:06 PM
Well put, Luke. It could also be said that 570 million years of evolution in a 4.6 billion year old planet is, in itself, a divine plan. I've seen no evidence to suggest divine intervention, but that makes more sense than other creation ideas I've heard/read.

SkinWalker

Lime-Light
02-08-2003, 08:32 PM
Ok, I'm for evolution. There's scientific evidence of it, and the idea of a divine creator seems ridiculous to me.

I'll go into the logic, or illogic, of "god". He's a perfect being. Screeeeetch. Wiat a minute, if he's a pefect being, why did he need us? Something perfect cannot lack anything, and therefore would have no need to create anything. We are created in god's image. Yeah, ok, so a perfect being spawns beings created as embodyments of him and are flawed. So some claim that adam and eve where perfect, but when they ****ed up (impossible for perfect beings) and betrayed god, and then spawned descendants through original sin, we've changed into flawed beings who sin and dont always believe. So how, if god is perfect, how could his little experiment screw up so royally? And who created god? And how can Earth be 4.6 billion years old when it was created only 5000 years ago?

These are questions I've never heard a creationist account for, and that is why I dont believe.

Religion can easily be explained as a human condition. The lack of knowledge breeds myth.

Kickwhit
02-08-2003, 10:15 PM
i, personaly, find that those who say that the 'idea of a divine creator/God is ridiculous' have to keep saying it, almsot as if they are trying to make themselves beleive it. And SkinWalker? Thanks for the noble introduction :p But saying that the only 'evidence' is the authors word, only goes to show ho unpublicized the real evidence is. Can anyone tell me about Lucia? the shroud of Turin? Our Lady of Guatalupe? These are miracles, pure and simple. If something could do that, why couldnt he create a petty existance?

and also, if we are created in Gods image, why are we flawed? Thats an oximoronic irrelevance. We are in his physical image, no one said a damn thing about his high state of being, what powers he might have or his intellect. And by the way, its 8000, not 5000 and, you love this part, i can proove it, too ;) but ill wait for tommorow night... im tired.

Psydan
02-08-2003, 11:00 PM
Ok, Don't have much time, but I just want to say that you can rant on and repeat yourselves as much as you want that creationism is "irrational", but evolutionary theory in itself is "irrational". Everything has to have a beginning by the scientific veiwpoints. That is logical, you can't have a universe of diversified energy and matter suddenly appear and then become incredibly dense, and hot, and then for some unexplained reason explode, creating all that we see around us, and after billions of years on some desolate rock, with just the right conditions for the life we see around us, some kind of "accident" happens that makes what we call life to suddenly spring into being. When you look at this Earth, how is it rational to say that it came from an explosion, from random coincidences, chance, and against all odds? I believe that there is a God, who has always been, and will always be here. I believe in the Creation found in the Bible. Either way, no matter what your veiw on God or religion is, it is rational (at least to me) to believe that some force, not bound to our rules of time, space, and physics, was able to create the universe, because if not, where did life come from, and where did all of the matter and energy here come from?

RpTheHotrod
02-08-2003, 11:21 PM
Well, what would you do in His "shoes"? You just exists, and always have.

I'd want some company, something to do.

How about create the human race.

SkinWalker
02-10-2003, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Kickwhit
And SkinWalker? Thanks for the noble introduction

You're quite welcome! Please accept this humble fruit basket as token of community acceptance (to have fruit basket FTD'd, simply email this to 10 of your friends then press F8) :p

Originally posted by Kickwhit
But saying that the only 'evidence' is the authors word, only goes to show ho unpublicized the real evidence is. Can anyone tell me about Lucia?

Never heard of it.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
the shroud of Turin?

It was a hoax.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
Our Lady of Guatalupe?

Not sure about her either.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
These are miracles, pure and simple. If something could do that, why couldnt he create a petty existance?

Indeed.

The shroud of Turin was found to be created in 14th century and the image to be made up of "billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium." In laymens' terms: paint. See sources at bottom of post.

Originally posted by Kickwhit
And by the way, its 8000, not 5000 and, you love this part, i can proove it, too ;) but ill wait for tommorow night... im tired.

I'm still waiting for this one... :) *cracks knuckles*

Sources mentioned.
Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19
Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50
Accounts of Chemical Research 1990, 23, 77-83.
McCrone Research Institute (http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html)

SkinWalker
02-10-2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Psydan
When you look at this Earth, how is it rational to say that it came from an explosion, from random coincidences, chance, and against all odds?

It's at least as rational as saying, "some old dude was lonely and said let there be light."

Originally posted by Psydan
where did life come from, and where did all of the matter and energy here come from?

Where did this deity come from? What was his/her/it's origin? Is there a god for god?

Of course questions about the origin of the universe cannot be answered. Not at this plane of existence. There, undoubtedly, is more to the physics of the universe than we now know. In terms of understanding how the universe works and is made up, we are but infants, barely able to crawl.

Not having any ability to observe creation, it is impossible for any one person to say, unequivicably that they know how it occured. We can only observe the universe around us, make hypotheses, see if additional observation supports or disproves an individual hypothesis, then create a theory. A theory based upon several hypotheses that compliment each other and are the best explaination.

If we are infants now, then man was but a mere blastula during the period in which the idea of creation was first told. We did not have the benefit of advanced knowledge and technology that would allow us to make informed hypotheses.

SkinWalker

SkinWalker
02-10-2003, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'd want some company, something to do.

How about create the human race.


I'd argue that that's how man created his gods. "How can it be that we are the most intelligent life? Who made us?" These are the questions that have been asked perhaps since man came into existence 2.5 million years ago. Without benefit of informed observation, the best explanaition was a supreme being.

Religion has served many purposes throughout history. It's kept people in line, given common purpose, redistributed wealth (sometimes even in a fair manner), an provided ethical conduct for followers.

I suggest that man created religion (many, many religions... not just christianity) because he was lonely.

SkinWalker

TheWhiteRaider
02-10-2003, 02:52 AM
May I clear somethings up?

1. I say some Catholics are Christains. Ok? MY Grandma is a Catholic. Some people though think that going to church makes them a Christain.

2. A FYI all of you are Neo-darwinist not Darwinist.

Darwinists adhere to *Darwin’s idea that natural selection is the sole mechanism (although in a later book, *Darwin rejected it—and returned to Lamarckism, the inheritance of acquired characteristics).

Neo-Darwinists declare that the mechanisms by which evolution occurred and are now occurring are mutations, which are then refined by natural selection.

Hopeful monster advocates(PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUMIST) pin their hopes on sudden, massive mutations, producing a new species all at once. Their view is that a billion-billion beneficial mutations occurs every 50,000 years in two newborns—a male and a female—located a short distance apart.

But all are evolutionist. :)

3. Please both sides no flaming. You get your point through better when you don't flame.


Where did this deity come from? What was his/her/it's origin?

Who says it had to have a origin? May I define eternal?

eternal- ...with out begining or end

May I remind you all what the word Super-Natural means.

Super-Above, Greater than...

So there for

Super-Natural means "Above Nature"

And tell me if God is super-natural why must he live in the laws of the universe?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kickwhit
the shroud of Turin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was a hoax.

True it was.

---------

Also here is something about proteins I found in a book I have been reading.

"BLUE GENE—As we near press time on this paperback, announcement has been made that IBM has begun work on their largest computer to-date. It is called "Blue gene"; and it must be powerful, for they have been building ever larger supercomputers since the 1940s. This one will be 100 times more powerful than Big Blue, the computer used to defeat Kasperson in chess several years ago.

They are trying to figure out something which is so utterly complicated that no lesser computer can handle the task. No, not something simple like computing a trip to Saturn and back. Their objective is solving something far more complicated. —It is figuring out how a protein folds!

In every cell in your body, brainless proteins assemble more proteins from amino acids. They put them into their proper sequence (!), and then, as soon as the task is ended, the new protein automatically folds down into a clump, as complicated as a piece of steel wool. IBM is trying to figure out the fold pattern instantly made by this microscopic piece of mindless, newborn protein!

The computer will cost $100 million, and Stanford University is trying to get people to let them use their home computers to help with the task (go to standford.edu for details). They say they need the information to figure out drugs to counteract HIV and other viruses. So far, they can only get the protein to wiggle; they cannot get it to fold (NPR, Wednesday evening, September 27, 2000).

As we go to press: It has recently been discovered that the terrible plague of Mad Cow Disease, (initially brought into existence by cannibalism) is caused by protiens that do not fold correctly."

This is only to find out how these things fold.
-------
Oh and Cjais. I have something about those Bacteria for you.

"(RESISTANT STRAINS—But soon hopes ran high again. It was discovered that strains of bacteria resistant to penicillin, aureomycin, or chloromycetin appeared when these drugs were given for various diseases. Could it be that here were the "beneficial mutations" that science had been searching for, which natural selection was favoring?

These hopes were dashed when it was discovered that those variations did not arise because of exposure to antibiotics, but instead occurred spontaneously at a constant rate—regardless of whether or not antibiotics were present.

"Certain strains of bacteria and flies seemed to be induced which were resistant to penicillin and DDT, after exposure to these chemicals. As will be shown later they already existed and it only seemed that the fittest were surviving."—Walter E. Larnmerts, book review, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1977, p. 75.

Most resistant strains were actually natural unmutated varieties. They had always been there, but as the unresistant strains were reduced, the naturally resistant types increased in number for a time.

But then came even worse news: A few resistant strains were found to, indeed, be mutants. But it was obvious that these were always weaker and soon died out from natural causes other than the antibiotics.

In regard to the mutated form: Doses of antibiotic reduce the number of the natural strain, and the mutated form takes over. Then when the antibiotic treatment is stopped, the natural strain increases and the resistant strain soon dies out—because, as a mutated form it never was strong.

So both normal variants and occasional mutated forms can be involved. *Georghiou explains the resistance of houseflies to DDT and certain other chemicals, a resistance which is parallel to that of resistant bacteria. He says it is due to normal variant strains, not mutated forms:

"It is now well established that the development of increased ability in insects to survive exposure is not induced directly by the insecticides themselves. These chemicals do not cause the genetic changes in insects [therefore they are not mutation-inducing agents]; they serve only as selective agents, eliminating the more susceptible insects and enabling the more tolerant survivors to increase and fill the void created by the destruction of susceptible individuals."—*C.P. Georghiou, et. al., "Housefly Resistance to lnsecticides," in California Agriculture, 19:8-10.

The resistance of certain strains of bacteria, flies, Indian meal moths, and Anopheles (malaria) mosquitoes to DDT and other pesticides is not evolution, any more than the breeding of new varieties of dogs and cats is evolution.)"


--------
Nice job RP. My eyes hurt now, but nice job anyways.

Oh Skin did I ever send you the thing about the guy eaten by the whale? I finaly got a scanner. I think I still got it in my room some where.

Kickwhit
02-10-2003, 01:57 PM
no, the shroud of Turin was dated (via Carbon Dating ;)) as a 14th century work. Carbon Dating also has this thing about dating to within 5 millenia. So it could ahve been made 300 years from now, if you relate to Carbon Dating; so its still not a hoax. Our Lady of Guadalope was the large painting of Our Lady on St... cant remember his names... robe when he found flowers blooming in the snow in 1642. Most people will look at it and say 'aww, its jsut a painting!' but theres sotmhing interesting about it. If you look into someones eye, you see a refection of yourself or whatever it is they're looking at. If you take a microscope and examine the eye of Our Lady on this painting, you can see photorealistic depicture of the estonishment on the peoples faces' that were present for its original reveilment. That was not possible in 1642

C'jais
02-10-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Kickwhit
Carbon Dating also has this thing about dating to within 5 millenia. So it could ahve been made 300 years from now, if you relate to Carbon Dating; so its still not a hoax.

Ridiculous. Do you even know what a half-life is? Do you even know how carbon dating is done, and how it works?

No, it doesn't have "this thing to within 5 millenia". It's very accurate, but it does have it limits - it can only go back 50.000 years, which conveniently would be enough to collapse the entire young earth theory. How pathetic.

It's a hoax.

Sorry for not being so active in this debate, but I have a lot of work to do currently, and don't have the time to read up on this stuff (no, I don't simply copy/paste from websites) -C'jais

Mandalorian54
02-10-2003, 06:18 PM
how do you know carbon dating is accurate?:rolleyes:

Reborn Outcast
02-10-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
how do you know carbon dating is accurate?:rolleyes:

I hope you weren't serious because there was about a page about this...

TheWhiteRaider
02-10-2003, 06:40 PM
I think for Reference I better put down the C-14 method.

C-14 is made when radiation enters the atmosphere(I don't know what the exact chemical reaction is, but We don't need the details there) The ratio of C-14 to C-12 is 1-1,000,000,000,000
Plants absorb C-14 and C-12 and animals get C-14 and C-12 from eating other plant and animals. When the plant or animal dies the C-14 starts it's radio-active decay. They compair C-14 to C-12 in order to get a date.

THe limits on C-14 dating is that

1. It may only be used on once living things

2. C-14's full-life(Time it takes for almost no useable C-14 is left) is 50,000-60,000 years.

(And please anyone if I forgot anything about this pleaes correct me.)

It's very accurate

Read a quote by J.Gordon Ogden,who is a director of a radiocarbon lab.

I find myself increasingly distressed that users of Radio Carbon dates fail to understand or appreciate what the quoted figures realy mean... all that a date represents is a "best estimate" of radiocarbon content of the sample received by the laboratory. It includes none of the sampling or physical and biological errors sources mentioned earlier... It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as "acceptable" by investigators.[b]-"The use and Abuse of RadioCarbon dating" Annals of the New york Academy of science 288(1977): 173

-I got more, but I have to go with my brother to a doctor apointment so I can't finish it now.

C'jais
02-10-2003, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Mandolorian54
how do you know carbon dating is accurate?:rolleyes:

Isotope dating is very accurate, given the timescale. Granted, they may be a few millions years off the scale when they're into the billions but this is to be expected, and is of no matter really.

Isotope dating is used in conjunction with each other, to even out the results, and decrease the chance of getting haywire results by a huge margin. Basically, when using several different isotope dating methods, they're never wrong about the age, as they give the same result. Sure, dig up some half-true evidence of where several differents method were wrong about the same material - it is completely irrelevant given the record of its fantastic prediction power.

Now, isotope dating methods aren't used alone by themselves, either. They're also used in conjunction with the counting of the annual layers of ice cores from greenland - something which has nothing to do with radioactivity. And not only that, but also in conjunction with dendrochronology - the annual layers in tree rings.

They can be used to predict results. Say we found this sample in strata from a certain layer in the earth. Everything from this layer must be within, say, 1 million to 300.000 thousand years old. Several isotope dating methods are run on it, and to top it off, we compare the results from a dendrochronological sample from the same layer. They all give the same result. Which means they're accurate and do not produce weird ass results at random. Which means they can be used for dating the earth.

The oldest rock on earth has been dated by several isotope dating methods, and their results vary very little, no matter how many times it's tested. It all points to be several billion years old.

Did you get all this? By now, I want some clear cut evidence that these dating methods simply do not work. Whatever that evidence may be. If you can't dig up this one irrefutable evidence that the isotope dating methods are useless, then you're facing overwhelming proof of a very old Earth.

If you wish, I could likewise present overwhelming proof that there's no way for a huge, global flood to have occured, but I'm saving that for now. I want to see you twitch on this for a while.

SkinWalker
02-11-2003, 03:17 AM
For the shroud of Turin, scientists sent samples to three different labs along with three control samples of known age (they were several centuries old).

All three labs correctly identified the ages of the control samples within acceptable margins of error. Neither lab knew the control samples from the shroud's.

The shroud samples each dated with a 95% confidence level, that the flax plants used to create the Shroud of Turin had only come in to existence between AD1260 and AD1390.

In general, its accepted that Carbon dating of recent objects (a few thousand years old) is more accurate than earlier objects (more toward the 30, 000 year limit... 70, 000 years with a particle accelorator). C-14 has a half life of 5730 years. When dealing with objects of only a few thousand years old, +/- 200 years is a margin for error that is not uncommon. Thus you have the above date range, since +/- 130 years was the expected margin for error in this test.

It must be noted that for a date to fall out of this margin is extremely unlikely. C-14 testing is based upon many years of data gathering and comparisons from various other sources, such as tree ring dating, ring varve comparison, etc. Carbon levels have been analyzed using stalagmites and stalagtite formations worldwide, which are formed by calciumcarbonate deposition (note that this compound is comprised of calcium and carbon).

I realize that this type of science is above the heads of many who have not studied it... I've studied it a bit, and still find it quite complex.

But the same ethical and scientific method goes into dating research and procedure as goes into the scientific disciplines that give us such wonders as Pentium processors. I think we can all agree that these are accurate and work. I'm always amazed that one can trust science for the material things that we "covet" but not to explain the things that go contrary to established, religious dogma. Perhaps this is the same feeling Copernicus and Galilei had when they attempted to tell the church they were wrong.

SkinWalker

ShadowTemplar
02-11-2003, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
C'jais, we could all agree that in this universe there is a beginning and a end, correct?

[...]

What are your views on the pre-big bang situation?

Big Bang is an extreme situation. Basically the laws of Physics are up for grabs (at the moment). Pre-Big Bang? There are currently no models to describe that (or rather there are too many models).

But, seriously, that question is tantamount to asking: What time was it before time began? What if there was simply nothing? Why is it easier to believe that there was a god, than that there was only an infinite, pitiless nothing?

Still, like I said before: No theories at the moment, only hypothesises, as far as I know.

But we can rule out God, because It would not have disappeared afterwards, and It is clearly not present in the present universe.

Pnut_Man
02-11-2003, 07:47 AM
That's why some people believe in a god, that cluster of gas and elements didn't pop up out of nowhere.. If you're not religious don't call it a God, call it a "higher power" :P

C'jais
02-11-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
That's why some people believe in a god, that cluster of gas and elements didn't pop up out of nowhere..

What if it did?

In quantum physics, particles pop into existence from nothing all the time. There is no cause behind them. It's very likely that it was a sudden influx of these particles from nothing that triggered the Big Bang from a vacuum of nothing.

Religious people always attribute God to the unknown. There was a time when people didn't know what caused thunderstorms and natural disasters, so they attributed God to it, or even invented specific gods to take care of the explanation. Same story with stars and other objects in the sky - God made because he could, and because it looks pretty. Then we found out what they really were, and God could take a hike again.

And let's not forget diseases - they're God's punishment for our sinful living, right? Yes, until we discovered they were just natural results of natural causes. No magic behind them.

When we stare at the great unknown beyond death, God is once more invoked to explain what we cannot understand. When we try to understand and come to terms with that which we can't, the beginning of the universe, God is called into service yet again. But he will always be retreating. Science is taking his place, filling the gaps of our understanding with ever more knowledge, and forcing God to occupy ever less territory of our comprehension.

In the end, God will die a slow, natural death. Through sheer rationality, people will realize that God is a codex of morals designed to keep you in line with the age old "carrot-and-stick" technique - a system of hope and fear to make you accept the things you can't comprehend.

God has meaning and relevance only if you want him to. If you can picture a world without God, it'd function the same way as ours, only there wouldn't be the "God-factor" in your mind to watch over you, to grant you hope and fear, and to take away the burden of getting to grips with the world.

God is useless. It is very possible to have healthy morals without him. The world won't be a worse place to live, objectively. Of course, there won't be any afterlive in your mind if you don't believe. But I can live with that. Immortality is a childish, immature fantasy, and I won't regress to the stage of a school bully who thinks it's cool to go around and scare his subjects into following him, "cuz you'll get cool extra life this way, and if you don't, you'll burn forever! hahahah!". Pathetic excuse. Pathetic bully. A cheap trick I can't believe somebody would fall for. Desiring immortality is about as selfish as it gets. There is no lower form of wanting to look superior to others, and none more childish. Eternal damnation is about the most ridiculous trick to make you look above and beyond others, and to reassure and affirm your choices to yourself. It's the most inane guilt trip I've ever witnessed.

There are no servants of God to me. There are only slaves to mental constructs and abstract illusions designed to hold the masses in line with hope, fear and immortality.

I want none of it.

SkinWalker
02-11-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by C'jais

God is useless. It is very possible to have healthy morals without him.

I would have to disagree with the first sentance but agree with the second.

Anthropologically speaking, god(s) do serve a purpose (I intentionally omit referrance to the christian "God"): a deity can unify people to a common culture, give them a common purpose, provide social identity, construct value and ethics systems, etc.

Throughout history, societies have benefited (as well as perished) because of religious beliefs. Entire states have been created, based solely on religious heritage.

The problem in today's global system, is that religion is now one of the limiting factors in many nation-states (so is transnationalist corporations, but that might be another thread :) ). Judeism and Islam are head-to-head over a small bit of land and it isn't to secure its natural resources. Research in genetics and cloning is being impeded by religious ethics that aren't qualified to comment on the new sciences being developed. Ethics for this type of science doesn't yet exist.

But speaking from an objective perspective (I personally think christianity, islam, etc. is merely propaganda or societal indoctrination), I wonder if our societies are ready yet to accept that their brief existances in this universe are, indeed, limited. If it was common belief that it didn't matter what one did in this world, what would cause one to act within societal norms and ethics?

Hey... it's just my rambling.... I try to remain objective when looking at cultures. There's definately two distinct cultures here: a christian one and a non-religious one. I'm sure others exist and that many of those posting are members of more than one culture, but those two appear to dominate.

Like the android said, "Would you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intruiging." j/k :P

SkinWalker

PS..... if anyone was wondering, I recently switched from majoring in History, to majoring in Anthropology....

C'jais
02-11-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
I recently switched from majoring in History, to majoring in Anthropology....

...And a fine switch it was ;)

As you said, religion can both be a benefit to society as well as a hindrance (mostly to others). When looking at religion in the short time frame, it gives people hope, inspires them and makes them perform fantastic feats - though religion has no monopoly on this, as Der Führer could inspire the same things.

But when examining the last millenium, religion seems to have been a global plague, destroying nations and keeping people and science opressed. If there had been no religion present in the dark ages, no people would have been able to abuse it to their own ends, and wage wars on other nations. It doesn't matter that these people and the ones following them were not religious in the slightest - it matters that religion was there to be abused. It is such a powerful tool, yet so easily manipulated to sway entire populations into a frothing mass of vindictive crusaders.

If we were just as religious today as for 700 years ago, science would be all but extinct. No one would dare to research astronomy or genetics for fear of finding God, and realizing he's not even there. If Catholocism had had its way, we'd have either subdued most of the Asian continent, or destroyed ourselves in the attempt. Religion creates barriers, and people can react violently if a well-meaning missionary comes up and try to convert them.

In the long run, we'll have to abandon religion as the focal point for unification. With the discoveries in science, vastly increased population and overcrowding in huge but poor countries, we cannot afford to let our gods decide our fate as a species.

While religion certainly is an asset in many ways, in the grand perspective of things we cannot let it rule over an overcrowded earth with many different faiths and ethics. A single, unifying faith will lead to chaos as the dark ages proved when the Catholic church tore itself apart from built up stress and domination. Religion simply won't work looking at the future and its many towering ethical obstacles and poor living conditions for many people, and comparing with the past and its Hall-of-Shame for religions that terrorized, subdued and dominated entire populations in a mirage of God-given right, promised afterlives and dreadful mind torture of eternal punishment.

As for the individual, I say we adopt some strong, utilitarian morals without basis in any religion. I, myself, can proudly say I've had inspiration from both the Bible and Buddhist teachings in building up my own, personalized codex of morals. It works. I'm a good person, and treat others as I'd like to be treated myself. Yet God plays no part in this, and I realize trying to ram a skewed spriritual world view down another's throat is never going to be as effective as simply telling him how the morally best way to behave would be. Fanatical doctrine hurts people mentally - just take a look at these Christians in this thread, which have gone so far as to refuse to acknowledge fact because it inconveniently collides with their God's scriptures and they evidently have the right mindset for flying planes into buildings.

I don't hurt others - not because of God, but because I know through and through that it's a Bad Idea. I treat others well - not because God commands me to, but because I know through trial and error (and a visit from Captain Obvious) that it's the best course of action to take.

I come from a country completely devoid of God. Creationism is taken nation-wide as a joke and an example of just how nutty those 'Mericans really are. Not kidding, talking to Christians in this forum was the first run-in I had with religious people. Really, excepting the odd priest, I can safely say that I've never met any religious young people in my life. This is part of the reason why I seemingly make a bee-line for Christians whenever I can - the other being that they're so convinced creationism is true that I cannot bear to let their uneducation take the better of them.

'Peyce.