First off, I believe in micro evolution. Each animal adapts to it's environment. However, I do not believe in the macro evolution: Evolve from one common ancestor. Here is why.

There is absolutely no evidence to support evolution and there are too many holes to believe in it without proof. Following are examples. Also check out www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com) if you have an OPEN mind. if you go one step further and watch his videos, you won't have too many questions.

All I am going to show, is that the galaxy can not be billions of years old. When I have time, I'll add other reasons. First, The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old. Second, Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old. Another, the existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. Here's another planetary fact: Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.

Here's some facts from earth:

1. The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions.

2. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions.

3. Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation

4. The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years

5. The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils.

6. The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years

7. The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com)

there are many more. something I remember being taught in highschool that I later found was fals was embrio's having gills. That was proven false in the late 1800's by the university of the man who proposed it. The 'gills' are simply the cochlea and other inner parts of the ear.

Well, I look forward to reading the replies. I apologize if I'm slow replying. I have limited internet access.

1. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html - That's a correction on one misrepresentation of science.

2. That would assume the rate at which they erupt is constant, can you prove it is?

3. During the ice ages, it is likely that many minerals were frozen on land, and could not escape into the ocean. Also, weather patterns would affect this, along with sea-life population, along with currents and their erosion of continents...it is near impossible for the rate to be constant, show some proof that it is?

4. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#helium - That kills the second misrepresentation of science.

5. Volcanos and tectonic movements takes care of that. Much of the eroded material is returned to the continents.

6. That depends greatly on the depth of the oil deposit, and the thickness of a rock encasing, and the shape of the oil deposit. Very few conditions arise in which the lack of a rock encasing would make any difference.

7. The Miss. River only being 30,000 years old has nothing to do with the Maximum age the earth can be, merely the YOUNGEST it could be: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD211.html

[This message has been edited by Optimus Prime (edited 08-10-2004).]

Here's another, the begining of the grand canyon is a hundred yards higher(maybe more, can't remember for certain) than then end. last time I checked, water did not run uphill.

your an idiot. try and learn some science from a scientific site.

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

Here's another, the begining of the grand canyon is a hundred yards higher(maybe more, can't remember for certain) than then end. last time I checked, water did not run uphill.

I can't really respond to this claim, as I can't even find a CREATIONIST website that talks about that.

lol! wow. amazing... wow

ok, now I'm going to state what should have been the obvious. Go to a website that shows... oh I don't know... maybe the ELEVATION OF THE GRAND CANYON???? Think perhaps that would be a good idea? After you do that, then we can talk.

What makes something a science website? That it discusses science correct? I'm not asking you to rate the websites and books I get my information. I'm asking to take the information that I've learned, and do your best to refute them. If you can, I suggest that you take Dr Hovind up on his offer to prove evolution right(you don't even have to prove creation wrong, just evolution right!).

That's just it; science doesn't prove anything, it uses evidence to come to an explanation of observed nature.

The only reason nobody can 'prove' evolution is that proofs are solid ONLY in the realm of the maths, which is a small part of science.

Also, I'm completely uninterested in proving evolution as true to others; my only interest concerning OTHERS when it comes to the sciences is that they don't misrepresent other's research, or spread half and mis-truths as fact. My largest concern with the sciences is obtaining the truth for myself; a selfish endeavor, I admit, but when it comes down to it, I could give a shit if anyone else finds the truth so long as they don't misrepresent good science.

ADDED: What makes a website a 'science website' is having an ACCURATE portrayel of the sciences, its processes, its theories, its laws...what makes a website pure crap is a misrepresentation of processes, theories, and laws...sadly, every last creationist website I've come across falls into the category of crap.

Creationism is a scientifically unsound hypothesis; it is not a theory as it has no evidence to support it, and plenty that has been tested against it.

[This message has been edited by Optimus Prime (edited 08-10-2004).]

creationism is so much bullshit that science does not bother with it. it is a fairly big thing for creationists to constantly talk about how wrong evolution is and all that, but people who know science don't bother with it. you can't argue with them, they will drag you down to thier level. you just ignore them, occasionally throw an insult thier way and get on actaully discovering things.

you can't entertain every crackpot theory that comes along. sometimes you just have to ignore it. ask a real biologist, geologist or anyone involved with this type of thing about creationism they will just tell you to fuck off and stop wasting thier time.

but, on this Dr hovind crap. evolution is a theory built on evidence. evolution wasn't made up for a joke, it is an idea that is based on a lot of discoveries and evidence. evolution is the end proof of the evidence, it is proven. would you think "Dr" fake would ever accept creationism false?

people arnet proving you wrong because your little theories are about as worthy of entertaining as a two bit japanese cult.

Ok, so... so far I've seen a couple of people tell me that creationist ideas suck. Well, I don't really give a flip about your feelings with creationist. I want you to disprove what I'm saying. That is all. I think the grand canyon question is pretty good.

So, if you want to squabble over how creationst suck big balls, then please make another thread. If you want to refute what I've said, then please do so.

Also, I can't be held accountable for what other individuals who hold to the creationist idea do... only to what I do. I, as of yet, have not thrown any insults out. So that does not apply to all creationists. Not all of us are unreasonable. I simply would like you to discuss the what has been stated.

I looked for a good 30 minutes trying to find a single website that talks about the elevation of the grand canyon, then I realized that the mother fucking thing has different RIM elevations that have no consequence whatsoever on the angle the river runs to the horizon; it doesn't run uphill.

Look closer. If nothing else look at a map

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

Saturn’s rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions of years old.

Who said that they are billions of years old. We have only been able to observe them for a few hundred years they could have formed any time between the creation of the solar system and then.

quote: Here's another planetary fact: Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old.

What makes you think that planets cannot produce their own energy? Jupiter and Saturn are made of constanly moving gases. This motion like all motion causes in friction which produces heat.



quote:

Here's some facts from earth:

1. The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions.

2. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions.



Give us an exact number. The Bible provides an age for the universe. Someone calculated the exact date and time of it's beginings as October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM. Saying anything else means that you thing That the writers of the Bible or God mad a mistake or lied.

quote:

3. Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate indicates only a few thousand years of accumulation



I want to see these calculations. Do they incorperate plate techtonics. Most so called "proofs" of creation only work if faulty math or science is used.

quote:

4. The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years



Do you know where we get helium for ballons? It is not exstrated from the atmosphere like Oxygen and Nitrogen, It is exstracted from natural gass. Very large amount of it remain trapped in gas pockets around the world. This is enough to throw off those calculations. I would also like to see the scientific papers that these calculations were published in.

quote:

5. The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000,000 years, destroying all old fossils.

Again I would like to see these calculations. They more than likley ingnore the fact that new land can be created and moving techtonic plates push up land masses.

quote:

6. The rock encasing oil deposits could not withstand the pressure for more than a few thousand years

Site some sources. This argument is strained at best because so many oil deposits are not encased in rock. A huge portion of the worlds oil is in the form of tar sands and oil shales.

quote:

7. The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com)

More blaphomy. Unless by Less than 30,000 years you mean 6008 years and three or so months you are contradicting the Bible.

quote:

there are many more. something I remember being taught in highschool that I later found was fals was embrio's having gills. That was proven false in the late 1800's by the university of the man who proposed it. The 'gills' are simply the cochlea and other inner parts of the ear.



You are right. People eho know what they are talking about do not use that argumnet anymore.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 08-11-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

your an idiot. try and learn some science from a scientific site.

Try learning how to utilize the English language properly before calling someone an idiot.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Please read the rest of the threads on this forum before posting. This conversation has been had, and the evidence, except for your Grand Canyon theory, has been refuted.

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/yeclaimsbeta.html

I am a Christian, but I stand on truth, and not on Creationist propaganda. If it is actual science, and cannot be disproved, then I am all for supporting it.

I've got this theory that the Ugly Fish created the world on a whim one tuesday afternoon between hanging the washing out and picking his ugly kids up from school, and I can copy and paste loads of shit from some random websites that seems to assume that most systems only have one factor involved. Why can't my religion be one of the biggest in the world. Some people get all the breaks.

Now choytw,

Are you going to tell us why we are all wrong or just come back in a week with more propaganda to show us?

All of that astronomy and geology don't have anything to do with evolution.

I'll argue evolution if you want to, lets start with environment; and whether or not it is the basis for Selection. You've stated that it is not, so why don't you explain what is then?

Your points in favour of creationism are based on the fact that you seem to think that the environment in which we live is changing very fast. If there is no such thing as evolution, does this mean all life will be dead in a few hundred years?

itd be cool if evolution only happened to those who belived in it. imagine a world without fear of any gods...

Evolution is a Religion, that hides behind PhD's... its conclusions are taken by Faith.

Wow...I actually agree with you, Sniper Piper ! *lol*

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Evolution is a Religion, that hides behind PhD's... its conclusions are taken by Faith.

When you prove beyond doubt the theory of special relativity, I'll stop laughing my ass off when you say that the theory of evolution requires a leap of faith.

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

Look closer. If nothing else look at a map

Jesus Fucking Christ; YOU look at a map. If you're going to make such outrageous fucking claims, back them up with evidence! I looked at maps, I checked a good 50 websites about the Grand Canyon and its elevations. Everything I found said the CONTRARY of what you said; you show me something that supports your claim or admit that it's a shitty claim.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

When you prove beyond doubt the theory of special relativity, I'll stop laughing my ass off when you say that the theory of evolution requires a leap of faith.

Nice response, that mustered a good laugh from me. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

How, exactly, would the grand canyon being higher at the top than at the bottom, prove the existance of god? what does that have to do with *anything*?

I'm not sure I understand that either.

http://www.kaibab.org/bc/gc_quad.htm

Here is a topographical map of the grand canyon.

You can see that there are high spots at both ends of the canyon. But the river is going around them.

Thanks, Python.

Sorry but I'm really dumb at geography but what does that have to do with Creationism??

He was probably arguing for the Grand Canyon not being a river produced over a long period of time by pointing out something that has absolutely no affect on whether or not it was a river.

Could you explain what you just said a little simpler?

>_< I feel so dumb

The elevations of the two ends of the Grand Canyon, were the river to run through them, would make the river run uphill, disproving it having been caused by a river. BUT, the path of the river doesn't go through them, so it's a moot observation that has no bearing on the cause of the Canyon's formation.

Someone said that for the grand canyon to form either God had to make it or water had to run uphill. It was an example of missusing data, something that you see quite often in creationist propaganda.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

creationism is so much bullshit that science does not bother with it. it is a fairly big thing for creationists to constantly talk about how wrong evolution is and all that, but people who know science don't bother with it. you can't argue with them, they will drag you down to thier level. you just ignore them, occasionally throw an insult thier way and get on actaully discovering things.

you can't entertain every crackpot theory that comes along. sometimes you just have to ignore it. ask a real biologist, geologist or anyone involved with this type of thing about creationism they will just tell you to fuck off and stop wasting thier time.

but, on this Dr hovind crap. evolution is a theory built on evidence. evolution wasn't made up for a joke, it is an idea that is based on a lot of discoveries and evidence. evolution is the end proof of the evidence, it is proven. would you think "Dr" fake would ever accept creationism false?

people arnet proving you wrong because your little theories are about as worthy of entertaining as a two bit japanese cult.

What do you mean when you say to people "your little theories are about as worthy of entertaining as a two bit japanese cult"? So what you are saying is that evolution is no longer a theory, it's now a law? Come on, you said that "evolution is a theory built on evidence." Hmm, man examines turtle, man analyses observations, MAN CREATES THEORY. Now I'm not saying that Darwin's observations should not be considered evidence, all I'm saying is that it seems more logical to me to follow the ancient text that millions were in attendance during it then to follow one man's observations. I mean I can observe that alot of Asians drive Hondas, and I can make a theory about the first Asian to drive a Honda in the world, but if I was to present my case to a scientist he/she would laugh at me, because the evidence is not strong enough to hold up in a scientific atmosphere.

[This message has been edited by Just The Facts (edited 08-13-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Just The Facts:

What do you mean when you say to people "your little theories are about as worthy of entertaining as a two bit japanese cult"? So what you are saying is that evolution is no longer a theory, it's now a law? Come on, you said that "evolution is a theory built on evidence." Hmm, man examines turtle, man analyses observations, MAN CREATES THEORY. Now I'm not saying that Darwin's observations should not be considered evidence, all I'm saying is that it seems more logical to me to follow the ancient text that millions were in attendance during it then to follow one man's observations. I mean I can observe that alot of Asians drive Hondas, but and I can make a theory about the first Asian to drive a Honda in the world, but if I was to present my case to a scientist he/she would laugh at me, because the evidence is not strong enough to hold up in a scientific atmosphere.



I drive a Toyota.

WRONG BIOTCH!

hahah.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:



I drive a Toyota.

WRONG BIOTCH!

hahah.

Ok, fine. Replace it with [Insert Vehicle Manufacturer Here]. Happy.

quote:Originally posted by Just The Facts:

Ok, fine. Replace it with [Insert Vehicle Manufacturer Here]. Happy.



haha, I was just being a smartass. I'm asian, my pops drives a toyota, my moms drives a nissan, I drive a toyota. My Uncle down the street drives an acura, my aunt drives a mazda, my older cousin drives an acura, my middle cousin drives a toyota. It's true, you should have just said a japanese car. But it's only because we know american cars are pieces of shit. The new ones anyway, the economy level ones.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:



I drive a Toyota.

WRONG BIOTCH!

hahah.



You're Asian ?

I'm white. I drive a Honda.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:



haha, I was just being a smartass. I'm asian, my pops drives a toyota, my moms drives a nissan, I drive a toyota. My Uncle down the street drives an acura, my aunt drives a mazda, my older cousin drives an acura, my middle cousin drives a toyota. It's true, you should have just said a japanese car. But it's only because we know american cars are pieces of shit. The new ones anyway, the economy level ones.

You're right. American cars pretty much suck.

Oh, and to keep this true to religious debate, God drives a Toyota.

*lmao*

Just as long as we all got the point. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by Just The Facts (edited 08-13-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



You're Asian ?

I'm white. I drive a Honda.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



ahh, she knows her judeo-money-saving roots!

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Just The Facts:

all I'm saying is that it seems more logical to me to follow the ancient text that millions were in attendance during it then to follow one man's observations.

What do you mean millions in atendance? Yes millions of people were living when it was written but very few of them were around to wittness any specific events. If you belive the Bible you know that the story of Adam and Eve was observed in it entirty only by God. The Last Supper was observed by Jesus his deciphiles and maybe a few sevants. These two stories are of vital importance to the Christian faith but have few if any actual witnesses. One is the origin of humanity and all its problems the other is the basis for a rite that is enacted every day by thousands. Unless you lived in the middle east you had no chance what so ever of seeing any event descibed in the Bible, this rules out a large portion of humanity.

As for evolution being based on one mans observation, it started that way but many men have made observation since then. And when new observations are made they are scrutenized and argued by many more.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

What do you mean millions in atendance? Yes millions of people were living when it was written but very few of them were around to wittness any specific events. If you belive the Bible you know that the story of Adam and Eve was observed in it entirty only by God. The Last Supper was observed by Jesus his deciphiles and maybe a few sevants. These two stories are of vital importance to the Christian faith but have few if any actual witnesses. One is the origin of humanity and all its problems the other is the basis for a rite that is enacted every day by thousands. Unless you lived in the middle east you had no chance what so ever of seeing any event descibed in the Bible, this rules out a large portion of humanity.

As for evolution being based on one mans observation, it started that way but many men have made observation since then. And when new observations are made they are scrutenized and argued by many more.

The only thing of real importance to the Christian faith is the resurection of Christ,which many were in attendance for when Christ appeared before them. And yes it is true that Darwin was not the only person to make observations, I should have made that clear.

quote:Originally posted by Just The Facts:

The only thing of real importance to the Christian faith is the resurection of Christ,which many were in attendance for when Christ appeared before them. And yes it is true that Darwin was not the only person to make observations, I should have made that clear.

It's true that a lot of people were said to have witnessed the resurrection of Christ in the gospels, but am I right in saying that the fact that they witnessed it is recorded only in the gospel? 'Saints' are capable of lying too y'know. Also it could've been Jesus' followers lying about it to make it seem more likely that he was the son of God, after all they devoted their lives to that fact, and enhancing the liklihood of people believing them is in their best interests. Another possibility is that it could be a mixture of an early magic trick, people's willingness to believe what they want to be true, and exaggeration (as I suspect a lot of Jesus' "miracles" may have been).

More relevant to the topic, what bearing does the resurrection of Jesus have on creationism? None. No one witnessed the Earth's creation.

just the fatcs, you believe that its better to just be a sheep and believe what a certain group of people have been believeing for years? most people thought the world was flat, this went against what the church dictated and anyone who believed otherwise was a heretic. evolution is the same

quote:

Evolution theory is a religious belief that fundamentally requires adherence to the religion of atheism and/or the religion of pantheism. “Evolution” is a hypothetical, unobserved process (without any known scientific mechanism) by which all things in the universe are said to have created themselves from nothing without needing the existence of a Creator. Evolution is a hypothetical process of onwards-and-upwards self-improvement where all things somehow create themselves and somehow increase their complexity of their own accord (http://www.sloppynoodle.com/csotalk2.shtml)

"without any known scientific mechanism"....They dont even know what makes an animal evolve!

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:



"without any known scientific mechanism"....They dont even know what makes an animal evolve!



Ok, listen, this pisses me off and has done so before. Just because we don't know why things happen doesn't mean they don't happen. Creationist websites do the same thing, except they conveniently leave out the bit where they say it's a thoery. Here's a good example - 'God did this, or God did that', or 'there was a worldwide flood.' What they mean is 'I, personally, believe that there was a worldwide flood, based on evidence I have twisted to meet my criteria.'

Creationist sites present theories as truth, and it gets taken in by a million gullible little idiots like yourself as irrefutable proof of whatever crap the author is spouting. Yes, scientific theories are just that, but they are backed up by a huge amount of evidence. At least scientific websites say that there's no definitive proof.

There are hundreds of questions about God I could ask you, you'd give answers with no real proof. Prove to me there was a worldwide flood. Prove to me God exists. Prove to me that Noah loaded an ark with two of every kind of animal and survived on it for 40 days and nights.

Not that scientists can prove everything, but usually it's the most likely explanation backed up by evidence.

Theres this sucker fish that has a sucker on top of its head...this sucker fish hitches a ride on Sharks...when it sees food it detaches itself from the shark and feeds...then waits for another shark to swim by so it can hitch another ride....

My Question:

How many times did the sucker fish have to bump its head against the shark to form its sucker?

The Joke is on you!!!!

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Theres this sucker fish that has a sucker on top of its head...this sucker fish hitches a ride on Sharks...when it sees food it detaches itself from the shark and feeds...then waits for another shark to swim by so it can hitch another ride....

My Question:

How many times did the sucker fish have to bump its head against the shark to form its sucker?

The Joke is on you!!!!

Calm down. When I read that I had a picture of some southern evangelist standing on a stage in front of 1000 idiots believing that what they're saying is inarguably correct and that they're the cleverest person ever born. The sort of person that doesn't really understand the process of reasoning because they're usually not listening.

The remora's sucker is just a modified dorsal fin. It wasn't nessecarily originally used for attatching the fish to sharks, but just mutated to be flat... mutations don't happen to fulfill a need - there's no causality - it's just when a need is fulfilled coincidentally by a mutation, that animal has a survival advantage and is more likely to reproduce. So some proto-remora somewhere mutated to have a dorsal fin parallel with it's body which it passed on to it's children, and those among it's decendants that used it to hitch rides on bigger fish had an advantage.

The organ didn't nessecarily have to be an efficient shark-grabbing machine right away, just somthing with some suction ability, which can evolve further for more efficient suction etc.

There's no way to tell how evolution happens, but there are always hundreds of concievable possibilities.

sniper piper, use your fuckin brian before posting, you arrogant imbecile

quote:Originally posted by megalomaniac:

sniper piper, use your fuckin brian before posting, you arrogant imbecile

Yeah, use your brain too, while your at it.

quote:Originally posted by megalomaniac:

just the fatcs, you believe that its better to just be a sheep and believe what a certain group of people have been believeing for years? most people thought the world was flat, this went against what the church dictated and anyone who believed otherwise was a heretic. evolution is the same

Yes, it's true that people believed that the world was flat, but people stoped believing in that when it was able to be proven that it was round. Now I'm not saying that I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone that God existed, but on the other hand no one else has been able to prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist. And if you think that you can, I will listen to what you have to say.

I don't believe the world is round, I mean, I haven't been in space, all I have to go on is hearsay...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Just The Facts:

Yes, it's true that people believed that the world was flat, but people stoped believing in that when it was able to be proven that it was round. Now I'm not saying that I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone that God existed, but on the other hand no one else has been able to prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist. And if you think that you can, I will listen to what you have to say.

By the same logic, people believe that God exists, but it might be proven beyond all doubt that God doesn't exist.

Both evolution and God are impossible to prove; one happens over massive timescales and the other... well, if no proof is ever found then God could still exist.

You should have named your topic, "3 Pages of Shit".

If you care to have a discussion on evolution, then I reiterate:

quote:Originally posted by user X:

All of that astronomy and geology don't have anything to do with evolution.

I'll argue evolution if you want to, lets start with environment; and whether or not it is the basis for Selection. You've stated that it is not, so why don't you explain what is then?

quote:Originally posted by user X:

You should have named your topic, "3 Pages of Shit".

If you care to have a discussion on evolution, then I reiterate:



Shut up.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

On what are you basing youself you? On a creationist article! Idiot. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The "scientific mechanism" is 'need'. Things evolve and adapt out of need.



Just curious, but what would the "need" for a plant evolving to have tendrils... in other words, did a weak "body" structure create the "need" for tendrils, or did the growth of tendrils create the lack of need for a more firm stem, but if it were the "lack of need" for the firm stem, why would it evolve tendrils in the 1st place?

This isnt an arguement, this is a question that a leading (non-christian) botanist asked.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

.. mutations don't happen to fulfill a need - there's no causality - it's just when a need is fulfilled coincidentally by a mutation,

this is what Rust said just before your post:

Rust posted 08-14-2004 19:23

Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

"without any known scientific mechanism"....They dont even know what makes an animal evolve!

On what are you basing youself you? On a creationist article! Idiot.

The "scientific mechanism" is 'need'. Things evolve and adapt out of need.

Could you please explain which one of you is right and why?



quote:The organ didn't nessecarily have to be an efficient shark-grabbing machine right away, just somthing with some suction ability, which can evolve further for more efficient suction etc.

There's no way to tell how evolution happens, but there are always hundreds of concievable possibilities.

Some organs, like the eye, needed to evolve 100's of things simutaniously, for them to work.

The curent theroy is that evolution is not a product of need. It happens when random mutations are benificial.

MasterPython (and thus sporkius) is correct.

I was wrong in my original statement.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Some organs, like the eye, needed to evolve 100's of things simutaniously, for them to work.



Actually, this isn't a correct assumption.More primitive life forms merely have light sensitive cells. The eye had many millions of years to develop/evolve as did the early lifeforms.Eyes didn't just pop into existance one day,fully functional,in the complex form they have today.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Actually, this isn't a correct assumption.More primitive life forms merely have light sensitive cells. The eye had many millions of years to develop/evolve as did the early lifeforms.Eyes didn't just pop into existance one day,fully functional,in the complex form they have today.



To bad Truckfxr and "Scientists" dont have any proof to back this statement up....its taken by faith!

THE HUMAN EYE: The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it works. The eye completes 100,000 separate functions in a single day. While we sleep the eye conducts its own maintenance work. Considering the number of complex structures in the eye, as well as the highly integrated synchronization, it is difficult to understand how the evolutionist can believe that the eye emerged from a natural trial-and-error process. Darwin himself was troubled by the design shown in this marvelous organ. The eye is known to be useless unless fully developed. It either functions as an integrated whole or not at all. Interestingly, the evolutionist has a deeper problem with the eye. Five different types of eyes exist: man, squid, vertebrate, arthropod, and trilobite. Are we to assume that chance mutations created not one, but five separate viewing systems? (http://www.youngearth.org/evowontfly.htm)

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

To bad Truckfxr and "Scientists" dont have any proof to back this statement up....its taken by faith!



Creationist's have no proof that God has any influence on earth, they can't even proove he exists.

For creationism to be true you need to belive that.

quote:George Carlin this quote is stolen without his permition:

"there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!"



But He loves you

Evolution is based on observable phenonminom. Given time and money you can even create new species of plants, fruit flies and other lower life forms. Sure there is some faith involved but it is not nearly the same level needed to believe in devine creation.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 08-16-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

To bad Truckfxr and "Scientists" dont have any proof to back this statement up....its taken by faith!

I would consider evidence supported by microbiology far better proof than the obvious misrepresentations of science provided in your link.



http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/92/921201Arc2024.html

".....At the molecular level, however, the photon-capturing opsins all consist of seven transmembrane helices with short loops on each side, Fernald said. The loop between helices 1 and 2 and the attachment location of the chromophore in helix 7 are similar[b] from all examined species of vertebrates, insects and octopuses, whose ancestors diverged 500 million years ago.

"Based on the degree of similarity in their DNA, they must share a common ancestry," he said......."





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-17-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

To bad Truckfxr and "Scientists" dont have any proof to back this statement up....its taken by faith!

Too bad you don't have any proof to back up the existence of God... it's taken by faith!

Someone said on the second page if I was going to come back a week later with more rhetoric or discuss what was said. Well, unfortunately, I do not have reliable access to the internet. I must travel... so sometimes I can be gone for a while. As soon as I gather the information, I'll post.

Also, someone asked what the things I was saying had to do with evolution. If you'll stop and think for a second, you'll realize that evolution needs a very very long time to manifest. All one needs do is to prove the universe is not billions of years old, and evolution(as it is now stated) is out the window.

It was said earlier that it was heresy/blasphemy for me to say that something put a time limit of 30,000 years max. those numbers were without the aid of the flood. So, if you do not believe in the flood, the mud gathering in the mississippi delta still equates to much less than 30,000.

Like I said, I will gather the info and post later.

quote:

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

Here's some facts from earth:

1. The decaying magnetic field limits earth’s age to less than billions.

2. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions.

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

Give us an exact number. The Bible provides an age for the universe. Someone calculated the exact date and time of it's beginings as October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM. Saying anything else means that you thing That the writers of the Bible or God mad a mistake or lied.



Ok, this is what is happening here. You are turning this around to make it look like I have a problem with the time. I do not and here is how I don't.

by the way, the source for the decaying magnetic field is:

On page 157

Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, April 1985(other sources are available upon request).

As you can see in my above post, all anyone needs to do to disprove evolution is to put a date on the earth/galaxy that is younger than they need for their theory. So regarding your statement, I did say that this puts a limit in the few millions. So, unless you can disprove this, you have to look to a theory that takes less than billions of years to explain the earth. one such theory is creatoinism. we can explain the excess by quoting events that happen in the bible(i.e. the flood)

I feel that with the information provided it's pretty self-explanatory. looking forward to your posts

I have another question for evolutinists. I assume most of you are familiar with the law of conservation of angular momentum.

From my understanding of evolution, it is stated that all of the matter in the universe(universe means "spoken line") was squeezed into a tiny spot. Then this tiny ball(which by the way come from nothing) or bundle of energy started spinning extremely fast. Then it burst resulting in what we have today. My question is this: If all matter in the universe cam from that tiny point... why isn't everything (i.e. spiral galaxies, stars, moons etc.) all spinning the same direction?

another question is how do evolutionists explain petrified wood being perfectly intact resting through geologic columns? another curious fact about trees is that the oldest tree is roughly 4600 years old. Something else about the gelogic column is that it is not identical throught the world. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the posts about the tree through column bit.

I will try to stop doing this(leaving bits out)

something even more amazing is trees buried upside down in the geologic columns. Thus pointing to a rather quick burial. I think you all know how I think it came to rest like that. I'd like to see what you all think.

Has anyone mentioned the fact that we have found galaxies that are millions and billions of light years away? How could light have traveled 5 billion light years if not for 5 billion years of existence?

The universe itself has been evolving for about 13.6 billion years now (going back no farther than the big bang, of course), as scientists recently discovered.

Why shouldn't living organisms have evolved in it ?

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

That's just it; science doesn't prove anything,

If you observe something with your own eyes, would you accept that as proof ?

Example : you can observe Saturn and its rings through a telescope.

The trees can be buried in several strat because wood can last for years in the open air or even underwater. It has time to be buried by many difernt layer of sediment before it rots. I have seen the bottoms ends of trees sticking up out of the river bed before so there is no reason why they can be fosilised upsidedown.

That's the thing lol they were buried upside down in dirt/rock, not in a river bed

As to light from stars... this is an indepth response, so read the whole thing instead of reading a bit then assuming.

Like I said earlier, all you need to do is prove one thing in nature that limits the age of the earth/galaxy to disprove evolution. A good example is if you find a ship at the bottom of the ocean with a chest of coins, you can date the earliest time the ship could've sunk by finding the oldest coin in the box. The ship could not have sunk any earlier than the latest coin.

Likewise with evolution, all one needs to do is put one limitting factor.

Now, you may be saying to yourself, "he's trying to squirm his way out of answering the question!" well, like I said.... read further.

Ok, now that we've set a limiting factor on the age of the earth so now we turn to trying to explain the other phenomena. Once time has been shown not to be on the side of evolution, other sources have to be searched in order to answer these other questions. I obviously rely on the Bible as my truth and this is how I see a solution.

God made everything.... form the sun, moon, stars man.... everything. Everyting he made, was made to interact with his other creations. Also, everything was made complete, i.e. fullgrown man - Adam and fullygrown woman - Eve. He also made the moon to fit in the orbit perfectly to pull the tides in just the right way to benefit both land and ocean dwelling animals. He put the earth just the right distance from the sun so that we would not but to a crisp or freeze in our eliptical orbit. He also created the stars so they could be viewed from earth. If you look at everything as a whole, it makes sense.

Recap: First we put a time limit on the earth thus pointing our curious brains in other directions for answers. Then, we found those answers using the Bible.

hopefully i'll be back tomorrow. looking forward to talking some more.

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

That's the thing lol they were buried upside down in dirt/rock, not in a river bed

You know nothing about fosilization. Rivers are perfect for fosilizing things. Especialy when they silt up regularly.

quote:Originally posted by choytw:



God made everything.... form the sun, moon, stars man.... everything. Everyting he made, was made to interact with his other creations. Also, everything was made complete, i.e. fullgrown man - Adam and fullygrown woman - Eve. He also made the moon to fit in the orbit perfectly to pull the tides in just the right way to benefit both land and ocean dwelling animals. He put the earth just the right distance from the sun so that we would not but to a crisp or freeze in our eliptical orbit. He also created the stars so they could be viewed from earth. If you look at everything as a whole, it makes sense.

Recap: First we put a time limit on the earth thus pointing our curious brains in other directions for answers. Then, we found those answers using the Bible.

According to the Bible God did not make light. Everytime God said "let there be" something, Moses says that he created it on the next line. Everything except plants and light. The plants were made by the land and the light just was. Its in the Bible (NIV) check it for yourself.

The only limiting factor in the Bible is the age of the universe. This age is derived by adding up all the ages of the diferent characters. The only problem with this is that the Bible says it only took six day to make the universe. If you like this version you must belive that God created the light of stars for man. The only problem with this is God did not create light.

So, do you belive that Moses took some liberties in his writing to keep from being boring? This option makes the Bible a much less reliable reference. The other Option is that God took alot longer to make the universe and just simplified the story so that a bronze age man could understand it. This makes alot more sense concidering most physical evidence does not point to a young earth. I am not even getting into the options that do not include God or God not being all powerfull. Further reading of scripture give more examples of God's non-omnipotence.

This is my interpretation of the scripture and I chalenge other to form their own opinions and make them known.





[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 08-18-2004).]

So, you believe that God, in all His omnipotence, did not create "everything", simply because the Bible doesn't go into it ? What benefit would it be for the readers of this earth to know that God [i]specifically[/b] made light ? What purpose would that serve, when (by extension) God is the creator of everything ?

It doesn't specifically say that God made colors either, but He did.

The Bible doesn't give specifics on the actual combination of complex cell structures or DNA...but we know that He created cells, because He created everything.

(we = Christians)

By the way, I know the Bible fairly well, and I don't believe it says that, "God didn't create light." anywhere in the text.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-18-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Actually, this isn't a correct assumption.More primitive life forms merely have light sensitive cells. The eye had many millions of years to develop/evolve as did the early lifeforms.Eyes didn't just pop into existance one day,fully functional,in the complex form they have today.





Can you explain how it is even possible, over millions of years ?

Where is the evidence ? Where is the explanation of how such a complex organ can form ? (the actual process)

This is all hypothesis...I haven't seen any "science" that would support this assumption.

And I think that the "need" to see would necessitate the formation of the eye, from your standpoint. Don't you ?

What is seeing ? How would ANY organism, at ANY stage in it's evolution, innately know that it needed to "see", if it had never seen before ? (I am not referring to decisions. Rather, the body's natural inclination towards mutation for the benefit/survival of itself)

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

I would consider evidence supported by microbiology far better proof than the obvious misrepresentations of science provided in your link.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/92/921201Arc2024.html

".....At the molecular level, however, the photon-capturing opsins all consist of seven transmembrane helices with short loops on each side, Fernald said. The loop between helices 1 and 2 and the attachment location of the chromophore in helix 7 are similar from all examined species of vertebrates, insects and octopuses, whose ancestors diverged 500 million years ago.

"Based on the degree of similarity in their DNA, they must share a common ancestry," he said......." [This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-17-2004).]

And what dating method has been used that accurately indicates the earth was even existent 500 million years ago ? (I would honestly like to read something on this, and since you seem to believe it, I would assume you have this information referencable, and available upon request)

How do these scientists know what occured 500 million years ago, assuming the earth is that old ?

It's guesswork. If this planet was around back then, it is heresay to make such claims. NO ONE would know.

"Based on the degree of similarity in their DNA, they must share a common ancestry..."

He is right...more than he could possibly fathom with his limited human scientific knowledge.

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

I have another question for evolutinists. I assume most of you are familiar with the law of conservation of angular momentum.

From my understanding of evolution, it is stated that all of the matter in the universe(universe means "spoken line") was squeezed into a tiny spot. Then this tiny ball(which by the way come from nothing) or bundle of energy started spinning extremely fast. Then it burst resulting in what we have today. My question is this: If all matter in the universe cam from that tiny point... why isn't everything (i.e. spiral galaxies, stars, moons etc.) all spinning the same direction?

Expounding on this, what created the universe, and all of the matter contained in it ?

quote:Originally posted by KikoSanchez:

Has anyone mentioned the fact that we have found galaxies that are millions and billions of light years away? How could light have traveled 5 billion light years if not for 5 billion years of existence?

Because you are limiting the speed of light by human perception.

WE have decided what the speed of light is...ever consider that our measurements for it aren't accurate ? Or that perhaps light is not even measurable (truly) ?

We can bend it. We can turn it on and off...but do we TRULY know what it is ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

So, you believe that God, in all His omnipotence, did not create "everything", simply because the Bible doesn't go into it ?

No, I am not basing my belief on a single part of the Bible that is probly mistranlated. I have seen no evedence that God created anything or that he even exists. Even if you use the Bible as evedence yoo can tell by looking at the world around you that some things described in it could not have happened the way they were described.

quote:

What benefit would it be for the readers of this earth to know that God [i]specifically made light ? What purpose would that serve, when (by extension) God is the creator of everything ?

[/B]

What benifit was it to say that He specificly created earth, the sun, man, animals and all that other stuff? I am not basing my claim on the fact that not everthing in the universe was described, I am basing it on the fact that of all the things decribed two of them were not described as being created.

quote:Some organs, like the eye, needed to evolve 100's of things simutaniously, for them to work.

Heh, that's a classic, and classically easy to refute. If you want to be pwned, read "the science of the discworld", I copied out the pwnership onto this site once before, but I can't be bothered to do it again. If you ever wanted convincing of evolution though, that book is highly recommended (don't be put off that it appears to be based on science fiction... Terry Pratchett is a genius).

quote:To bad Truckfxr and "Scientists" dont have any proof to back this statement up....its taken by faith!

I don't like to say this without argument, but Sniper, shut the fuck up. Everything you say is misconcieved, and we can't be bothered to argue any more. Give it a rest.

POST ONCE, THEN EDIT THAT POST IF YOU'RE TOO DUMB TO THINK OF THINGS ALL AT ONCE. THANK YOU.

quote:My question is this: If all matter in the universe cam from that tiny point... why isn't everything (i.e. spiral galaxies, stars, moons etc.) all spinning the same direction?

It may be. But we're all doing it, so the relative velocity is 0. The Earth is spinning at thousands of miles an hour (can't remember the exact figures), but we don't feel the momentum because relative to everything else directly surrounding us our velocity is 0. If you knew anything about science (it's in A Brief History of Time FFS) you'd know that there is no such thing as stationary, all velocity is relative (hence "relativity"? Actually, I may be horribly wrong in linking that, but I don't think so).

Besides, who's to say the universe was spinning? And again, relative to what? If all spacetime was infinately small, how the hell would you define "spinning"?

Are there any people here that know anything about geology? I can't really answer all these rocky/sedimentation/lava turning into things questions. That stuff bores me.

quote:I will try to stop doing this(leaving bits out)

something even more amazing is trees buried upside down in the geologic columns. Thus pointing to a rather quick burial. I think you all know how I think it came to rest like that. I'd like to see what you all think.

In an old Earth, things can still happen quickly, but in a new Earth things can't happen slowly, like the formation of fossil fuels.

quote:Has anyone mentioned the fact that we have found galaxies that are millions and billions of light years away? How could light have traveled 5 billion light years if not for 5 billion years of existence?

Heh, nice one... but Christains have the ultimate get-out clause.. "God created that light a few thousand light years away from us. I imagine the same sort of argument will be applied to my fossil fuels one.

quote:Ok, now that we've set a limiting factor on the age of the earth

No we haven't? When did that happen? Did someone with some fantastic revelation delete their post? No! So there was no need for all that mystical "so, according to some dead hebrews god created the earth, then he created the stars, then he created full grown man and woman... and for some reason this cute little fairly tale proves that you should all turn against your evil, rational 'science'".

quote:The other Option is that God took alot longer to make the universe and just simplified the story so that a bronze age man could understand it.

lol, or that bronze age man couldn't work it out and did the simplifying for himself.

quote:Where is the evidence ?

There are actually sea creatures with many stages of light-sensitive cells, varying degrees of resolution and colour sensitivity, probably even focusing devices. I can't be bothered to find a link because internet searches aren't my forté, it's 2 am, and this discussion really isn't that important to me.

quote:What is seeing ? How would ANY organism, at ANY stage in it's evolution, innately know that it needed to "see"

An organism can't see. It only knows to escape a predator when they predator physically touches it. Hmm, not a great survival rate, only those that are lucky survive. A few of these organisms develop light-sensitive patches of skin that, when detecting a significant drop in the light level, trigger a reflex of some kind, any kind. Instantly, the predator feels threatened, or is caught by a defence mechanism, or is just less able to get a hold of the organism. Instantly there is a clear evolutionary advantage and the road to proper eyedom is embarked upon.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And what dating method has been used that accurately indicates the earth was even existent 500 million years ago ? (I would honestly like to read something on this, and since you seem to believe it, I would assume you have this information referencable, and available upon request)



http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/contents.html

That is a good exspalnation of the geological timeline and dating methods used. Even though you will come up with some arbitrary reason to proove to yourself that it is invalid it is there. Alot of the work in this feild was started before Darwin wrote his books so you can't say that it ws made up to suport evolution.

I am aware that the idea of evolution was around before Darwin. I wish you all would stop assuming I am against logic, simply because I am Christian.

I am a Christian, because with the logic I have, I have systematically annihilated any other possibility of creation, other than by God.

The dating methods (all of them) have been proven to be inconsistent, at best. Why ? Because all of them are affected by our changing environment. To me, it is illogical to place a belief in a system that I am hoping scientists will eventually get right, in order to prove that what I have been saying all along is truth.

That's a gamble, and I don't see how that couldn't be construed as "faith", which is what Christians are chastised for.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Because you are limiting the speed of light by human perception.

WE have decided what the speed of light is...ever consider that our measurements for it aren't accurate ? Or that perhaps light is not even measurable (truly) ?

Hilarious. Nope, its not your belief that's wrong, its the laws of physics! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

In order for the speed of light to be wrong, in any significant way, orbits and they way gravity affects them must be wrong, our perception of distance, our knowledge of circles, must be wrong and our concept of time, along with the countless of things these knowledges have brought us.

Not to mention that, to benefit your belief, light must be faster (so it wouldn't take millions of year to get here).

That's easily refuted by standing the necessary distance in order to time a lapse in light and calculating how much speed would be needed to cover that much distance in that amount of time.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



The dating methods (all of them) have been proven to be inconsistent, at best. Why ? Because all of them are affected by our changing environment. To me, it is illogical to place a belief in a system that I am hoping scientists will eventually get right, in order to prove that what I have been saying all along is truth.

Could you show us this "proof"?

Commonly, this "proof" is a classic example of people doing it wrong.

The sample must not be contaminated, it should be the right size, it should not be close to the method's maximum age, and finally it should be cross referenced with other dating methods.

That's precisely my point. You are saying that the specimen being tested (or it's environment, for that matter) must be tested under "perfect"/optimal conditions in order for the dating methods to be accurate.

This is impossible.

I have a question...why is it that you only seem to come out of the woodwork whenever I post something ? I have been reading the threads that are currently being debated, and I don't see much of anything from you. As soon as I start posting again, you appear.

Care to share that with me ? (this is not an attempt at stroking my own ego...rather, I am thinking you have some sort of vendetta, because you feel the need to defend abortion, based solely on the fact that you yourself experienced it...just a theory. Hey ! Maybe if I accuse you of being a bigot long enough, say a couple million years, it will become true !)

Also, if you said anything on the abortion thread, I didn't get to read it. Was out of town for the past 4 days.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The dating methods (all of them) have been proven to be inconsistent, at best. Why ? Because all of them are affected by our changing environment.

If they were disproven they would not be used so widely. There is no conspiracy to supress creationist ideas. There is a public battle being fought to discredit anyone who contradics one view of the Bible.

What is often left out when a creationist disscredit a dating method because of a anomoly is the reason for the anomoly. If the reason the reading was wrong for a known reason or the reason is determine later it does not mean the dating method is flawed, it means that the test can be used in all instances.

So far I have only seen people try to discredit carbon 14 dating. The really really old seal case can be explained by the arctic enviroment. If the world was not very old that anomaly would not have happened.

quote:Commonly, this "proof" is a classic example of people doing it wrong.

I find this convenient for YOU...I don't see why this logic doesn't apply to Christianity.

Just because there are people who call themselves Christian that "do it wrong", doesn't mean God isn't right.

And I have posted plenty of links showing the fallibility of these testing methods. You can find some of them under the Mad Scientists forum, and some here. Be diligent to find them, if you are truly curious.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

If they were disproven they would not be used so widely. There is no conspiracy to supress creationist ideas. There is a public battle being fought to discredit anyone who contradics one view of the Bible.

What is often left out when a creationist disscredit a dating method because of a anomoly is the reason for the anomoly. If the reason the reading was wrong for a known reason or the reason is determine later it does not mean the dating method is flawed, it means that the test can be used in all instances.

So far I have only seen people try to discredit carbon 14 dating. The really really old seal case can be explained by the arctic enviroment. If the world was not very old that anomaly would not have happened.

These dating methods are used so widely because scientists are generally egotistical in their approach to life (this is not an opinion...I work with doctors and scientists on a daily basis, and have witness this personally), and this egotism does not support the inclusion of God in their lives. To this end, the un-uttered motto becomes "anything but God !".

It is NOT a conspiracy...in essence, it is rebellion.

To say the "idea" of God is fallible, and then turn around and wholeheartedly believe in dating methods that are fallible is illogical.

The other dating methods HAVE been discreditted, based on their varying results. I have posted links for this...surely you did not miss those ?

I am not saying that the potential is not there...I am saying that the environment has such a variable factor on the testing, that it is impossible for them to ever become indefectible.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That's precisely my point. You are saying that the specimen being tested (or it's environment, for that matter) must be tested under "perfect"/optimal conditions in order for the dating methods to be accurate.

This is impossible.

It is certainly not impossible.

Picking the right size is impossible? Taking precautions so it doesn't contaminate is impossible? Cross examining it is impossible?

You must be a vegetable if you think that's impossible...



quote:

I have a question...why is it that you only seem to come out of the woodwork whenever I post something ? I have been reading the threads that are currently being debated, and I don't see much of anything from you. As soon as I start posting again, you appear.

I 'come out of the woodwork, whenever I see something I don't agree with. Me being a materialist, its obvious to see why that could seem to be always with you. But, I've discussed things here with many others.

quote:

Also, if you said anything on the abortion thread, I didn't get to read it. Was out of town for the past 4 days.

I did. A pity it is now gone.

quote:I find this convenient for YOU...I don't see why this logic doesn't apply to Christianity.

Just because there are people who call themselves Christian that "do it wrong", doesn't mean God isn't right.



Huh? I never claimed that only Christians do it wrong, or that them doing it wrong somehow proves that a god doesn't exist, or isn't right.

It proves they did it wrong, hence their "proof" is no proof at all.

quote:And I have posted plenty of links showing the fallibility of these testing methods. You can find some of them under the Mad Scientists forum, and some here. Be diligent to find them, if you are truly curious.

I've seen some here. Once again, they were mainly contamination errors.

I actually posted a link for you, showing errors in procedure the ICG has done in the past, when dealing with dating.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-18-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



To say the "idea" of God is fallible, and then turn around and wholeheartedly believe in dating methods that are fallible is illogical.

The other dating methods HAVE been discreditted, based on their varying results. I have posted links for this...surely you did not miss those ?



There's a huge difference between something that is false, and something that is fallible. One means something cannot be or is not true, and the other means that it can have errors.

Science has never claimed that experiments or tests cannot have errors. Obviously they are fallible. That just means that many tests or experiments are used, not that they should not be used.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Can you explain how it is even possible, over millions of years ?

Where is the evidence ? Where is the explanation of how such a complex organ can form ? (the actual process)



There are quite a few good sites with very detailed explanations of the eyes evolution.A quick Google search will provide several.It's been a very long day so I'll let you look for yourself. If you prefer, I'll post a linl or two tomorrow.



This is all hypothesis...I haven't seen any "science" that would support this assumption.



No offense intended, but if you haven't seen any, you haven't looked very hard.

And I think that the "need" to see would necessitate the formation of the eye, from your standpoint. Don't you ?

What is seeing ? How would ANY organism, at ANY stage in it's evolution, innately know that it needed to "see", if it had never seen before ? (I am not referring to decisions. Rather, the body's natural inclination towards mutation for the benefit/survival of itself)

I find it incredible that anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence can fail to understand something so obvious.The eye didn't form from an organism's need to see. Organisms that developed eyes (even a simple light sensing ability)found an advantage over organisms without the ability.Thus they had a much greater chance of survival and reproduction.Complexity of an organism evolved along with the eye.The organism didn't evolve and then find a need for eyes.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:



"without any known scientific mechanism"....They dont even know what makes an animal evolve!





The funny thing is that that particular paragraph that you quoted was written by a creationist. So by "they" you must mean creationists. You are inadvertently saying that creationists don't know anything about the theory of evolution and natural selection.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Just curious, but what would the "need" for a plant evolving to have tendrils... in other words, did a weak "body" structure create the "need" for tendrils, or did the growth of tendrils create the lack of need for a more firm stem, but if it were the "lack of need" for the firm stem, why would it evolve tendrils in the 1st place?

This isnt an arguement, this is a question that a leading (non-christian) botanist asked.

My guess is that the tendrils can gather more sunlight (thus more energy for the plant) because as a whole they have greater surface area than just a stalk.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Can you explain how it is even possible, over millions of years ?

Where is the evidence ? Where is the explanation of how such a complex organ can form ? (the actual process)

This is all hypothesis...I haven't seen any "science" that would support this assumption.

And I think that the "need" to see would necessitate the formation of the eye, from your standpoint. Don't you ?

What is seeing ? How would ANY organism, at ANY stage in it's evolution, innately know that it needed to "see", if it had never seen before ? (I am not referring to decisions. Rather, the body's natural inclination towards mutation for the benefit/survival of itself)

Mutations do not have anything to do with the environment and have no "natural inclinations". Mutations are small random/psudeorandom changes in DNA. Millions of these tiny changes occur over the years. The ones that benefit the organism are more likely to be passed on to its offspring(because it gives the organism a better chance at survival and thus reproduction). Learn at least the basics of natural selection before you challenge it.

quote:Originally posted by techemer:

My guess is that the tendrils can gather more sunlight (thus more energy for the plant) because as a whole they have greater surface area than just a stalk.



I am not sure what you mean by tendrils. Tendrills are the little clingy thing that help vines climb. They help the plant get more light by allowing it to climb up trees and walls.

This is not how they were formed though. Acording to evolutionary theroy they were formed by a random mutation and just happened to help out the plant. This is not as far out as it sounds because tedrils are very similar to roots. Roots grow out of them stems of vines all the time. It is not a big strecch to specialized roots being foremed above the ground. But I am not a botanist for all I know they could be specialize leaves.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 08-18-2004).]

quote by sp0rkius:

______________________

quote: by me lol

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

Ok, now that we've set a limiting factor on the age of the earth

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

(end quote by choytw)

No we haven't? When did that happen? Did someone with some fantastic revelation delete their post? No!

_____________________

actually I DID put a limit to the age of the earth(2. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions) that you did not want to address. if you remember you said, "Are there any people here that know anything about geology? I can't really answer all these rocky/sedimentation/lava turning into things questions. That stuff bores me." Just because you do not know about the subject does not mean it is lack of evidence.

ok, about this business of things not being used because they were proved wrong.... well,I've seen many debates where the 'fact' that human embryos have gills is a sure sign of evolution. Well, we all(I hope) know this to be incorrect, yet it is still in school books and being quoted as proof. There are others like the piltdown(sp?) man and a few more. I can't post if need be.

so basically, falsifide material can and is still used. And, before anyone says, "gotcha!" I KNOW that known bad facts are used in both sides(for those of you lost out there, that is creation and evolution).

you guys have really got to stop posting so much at night! takes me forever to reply lol

quote:originaly posted by choytw:

actually I DID put a limit to the age of the earth(2. The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions) that you did not want to address. if you remember you said, "Are there any people here that know anything about geology? I can't really answer all these rocky/sedimentation/lava turning into things questions. That stuff bores me." Just because you do not know about the subject does not mean it is lack of evidence.

You never sited your source of where you found that out from. And if it is a blurb on some creationist website that is hardley a valid source. All of them contain made up information that happens to suport their point.

And I though we decided that giving the earth an age of a few million years was blaphomy. After all the Bible does say it was made on October 22 4004 bc at 9:00 am. Unless you are saying the Bible is wrong.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 08-18-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

ok, about this business of things not being used because they were proved wrong.... well,I've seen many debates where the 'fact' that human embryos have gills is a sure sign of evolution. Well, we all(I hope) know this to be incorrect, yet it is still in school books and being quoted as proof. There are others like the piltdown(sp?) man and a few more. I can't post if need be.

so basically, falsifide material can and is still used. And, before anyone says, "gotcha!" I KNOW that known bad facts are used in both sides(for those of you lost out there, that is creation and evolution).

you guys have really got to stop posting so much at night! takes me forever to reply lol



The gill/embryo issue was proven incorrect by sciece , not by creationists.Scientists have not promoted this idea scince it was proven wrong. The only people who keep bringing it up are creationists.It's just more misrepresentation of the truth.

This is where you are incorrect. Go to www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com) to his downloadable debates. It is used in a couple of those.

Second, what makes you think that the scientists were not creationists? I know several scientists who are creationists. Very few do I know who are not(creationists). I don't have statistics, and wouldn't believe any that were given. All I can quote from is my own experiences. I know more creationist scientists than evolutionist scientists.

I've known several doctors who become christian when studying the body to prove evolution. There are so many things that must evolve at the SAME time in order for our bodies to function to put it to chance. Evolution of one body part can and does happen frequently, but multiple mutations - each depending on the other in order for the entity to survive.... has never been observed and the statistics (there's that word again) are phenomenal.

quote from masterpython:

You never sited your source of where you found that out from

_________________________________________

here is the source:

Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, April 1985.

page 156

I have answered your request. This does put a limit to the age of the earth

quote:The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions

Sorry, I thought someone already addressed this. My guess would be that most of the "lava" has been eroded away and reformed as sedimentary rocks.

quote:This is where you are incorrect. Go to www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com) to his downloadable debates. It is used in a couple of those.

choytw, look at some non-creationist material for a change. Really.

Those debates could so easily be scripted, and even if they weren't, how is one scientist being wrong proof of creationism?

If it makes you feel good, no I don't think embryos have gills.

quote:here is the source:

Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, April 1985.

page 156

I have answered your request. This does put a limit to the age of the earth

Does it say where the figures for "amount of 'lava' on the earth" come from? And how rate of efflux is measured?

EDIT: Changed "we don't think embryos have gills" to "I don't think embryos have gills", just in case someone here thinks they do.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 08-18-2004).]

choytw,

Why do you disagree with the age of the earth in the Bible? Anyone with a Bible and a calculator can figure out when the universe was formed. Is the Bible not inspired by God and infalible?

excuse me sporkius, but you said that the gill theory was never used by evolutionists because it is known wrong. I simply related the first instance I could think of which would corroborate what I said. By the way, I've read hawking's brief history of time, and his companion to the same as well as a theory to everything along with a hundred other books. I've taken classes... many classes. I do not only look at creationist websites. Also, I think that you'll realize that most of the things that I'm suggesting are put forth as questions as evolutionists do to creationists.

also, why does it matter what someone else may thing about the gills? if they're wrong they are wrong. It has been proven that it is the ear and all it's associated parts. If anyone believe in the gill theory, then they are ignorant as I am ignorant in cooking. They are uninformed and wrong.

MasterPython, I do not believe that I said I disagreed with the age in the Bible. But, what I think you're trying to lure me into saying that I think 30000 years is valid thus disproving the Bible(as if the validity of the Bible depends on me believing it).

Well, If you'll read my other posts (ON THIS THREAD) what I said is, some creationists try only to disprove the billion of year theory thus disproving evolution. Once evolution has been disproved, you can then look to other sources for answers, i.e. creationism. Once you look to creation, answers can be explained. The ONLY obstacle to some believing in creation is the theory of evolution. Thus the importance placed on disproving the length of time. Do you see better now my son? lol

I think I'm out of here. I may be able to get one more post in. Have a good night all.

Python, as far as the planets go, this is my understanding.

When you have a planet made fully of gas, it does move and thus heats itself up(to a minimum degree for example gases rubbing together produces much less friction or excites the electrons of the gas much less than solids do when the same action is produced.) So, a planet starts out with a certain amount of energy. This energy is then depleted in loss of heat and movement of the gas. This can only be reversed with the addition of heat for example the sun. However these two planets are far enough away from the sun that the addition is less than the loss.

This is what I have gathered from reading on both sides of the fence.

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

MasterPython, I do not believe that I said I disagreed with the age in the Bible. But, what I think you're trying to lure me into saying that I think 30000 years is valid thus disproving the Bible(as if the validity of the Bible depends on me believing it).



If you don't believe the Bible or some other religion why would you believe in creationism?

The whole young earth/old earth conflict came from the fact that the age that geologists estimated did not fit in with the age taken from the Bible. At the time the idea that the Bible could be wrong was a horrifing prospect, people were theatened with death and all manner of terible things if they did not renounce their claims.

I have heard several Bible Literalist's use the argument that Noah could have fit enough animals on the ark if he just took reprentitives of the major families of modern animals. That would involve macro evolution. This is one of many examples of people who can't remeber what they are fighting for and just want to be right. Even if definitive proof that the universe is a few million years old is found it still does not support the Bible.

If this really is a scientific matter why is it being argued in a religion forum with christians taking one side and athiests taking the other.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 08-18-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:

Evolution is a Religion, that hides behind PhD's... its conclusions are taken by Faith.

I don't need faith to beleve in logic. You, I have no doubt, need faith to beleve in your magical all powerful fatherly god who apperently let his kid get crucified by people who beleved in a much older religion. Now if we are all adam and eve's decendents, why aren't we all christians? Feel free to let your faith inflate your ego, and shut up unless you know what you are talking about.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper Piper:



"without any known scientific mechanism"....They dont even know what makes an animal evolve!



This proves that you are an idiot. So are you suggesting that nothing will happen until it is understood, or that people much smarter than you are stupid?

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Just curious, but what would the "need" for a plant evolving to have tendrils... in other words, did a weak "body" structure create the "need" for tendrils, or did the growth of tendrils create the lack of need for a more firm stem, but if it were the "lack of need" for the firm stem, why would it evolve tendrils in the 1st place?

This isnt an arguement, this is a question that a leading (non-christian) botanist asked.

The thing that really gets me, is that creationists act like evolution is somehow sentient, and "reacts" to changes, instead of genetic mutations being passed on to the next generation if the species lives. Creatures don't react to the environment, creatures mutate and most die, and the ones that live pass on there personal mutation.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

According to the Bible God did not make light. Everytime God said "let there be" something, Moses says that he created it on the next line. Everything except plants and light. The plants were made by the land and the light just was. Its in the Bible (NIV) check it for yourself.

I'm not quite following you here because this is what God says in Gen 1:3 (NIV):

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

As far as the plants, you are sort of right--

God still made the plants by "Letting" the land produce vegetation.

quote:The only limiting factor in the Bible is the age of the universe. This age is derived by adding up all the ages of the diferent characters. The only problem with this is that the Bible says it only took six day to make the universe. If you like this version you must belive that God created the light of stars for man. The only problem with this is God did not create light.

Isnt it interesting that God created the light on day one, but He made the light "producers" (stars and such) on day four? The way i see it, if the bible was made without the inspiration of God, man would have put the light "producers" before the product of light.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Isnt it interesting that God created the light on day one, but He made the light "producers" (stars and such) on day four? The way i see it, if the bible was made without the inspiration of God, man would have put the light "producers" before the product of light.



That can be easily explained by acknowledging the authors of the bible had no clue what really omnipotence entailed. To them, creating things without light, was not possible.

Agreed

al·go·rithm A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.

Natural selection as an algorithmic process. BAM! There goes your need for a designer.

MasterPython, what I meant by saying, "as if the Bible depends on me believing it" was no matter if I believe it or not(and I do) has no account on the truth of the book. Now that that's settled let's move on.

Microevolution - changing of a species to accomodate their environment. (poor definition I know but meaning is there)

I believe in microevolution. The 5 other definitions(macro is the big one) I do not believe in. Often times(like what happened with you) all definitions are packed up together and if one denounces on(i.e. macro) he can't believe in any of them. This view makes christians wrong because microevolution DOES happen. See how this assumption is very deceiving? Christians can believe in microevolution(and should!).

"If this really is a scientific matter why is it being argued in a religion forum with christians taking one side and athiests taking the other." - MontyPython

well, that's easy to answer. if you believe in the Bible you look for answers supporting the Bible. If you believe in Evolution, you CAN NOT find evidence to support the Bible because if the Bible is true, you are in a world of hurt. by-the-way, I have evidence for some(not all, I don't know everything) scientists refusing to look at evidence or drawing crazed conclusions based on belief and not evidence.

[This message has been edited by choytw (edited 08-19-2004).]

Let me ask another question of you folds.

How can the sunlight be destructive to everything on earth now(save plants)... but something that took million of years to develop was not baked by the sun?

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

When, why, and how did Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

When, why, and how did Fish change to amphibians?

When, where, why, and how did Amphibians change to reptiles?

When, where, why, and how did Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

How did the intermediate forms live?

How did plants survive without the insects there to pollinate them?

and the big one, Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

quote:Originally posted by choytw:



How can the sunlight be destructive to everything on earth now(save plants)... but something that took million of years to develop was not baked by the sun?

It is "destructive to everything on earth" (a exageration), because the ozone layer has been diminishing.

Moreover, shade exists...

quote:

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

I don't quite get the question...

What did it reproduce? The organism that produced the cell in the first place!

quote:

When, why, and how did Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

When, why, and how did Fish change to amphibians?

When, where, why, and how did Amphibians change to reptiles?

When, where, why, and how did Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

How did the intermediate forms live?

All of this is what Science is trying to answer. Search google for many theories dealing with this.



quote:How did plants survive without the insects there to pollinate them?

Wind and animals.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-19-2004).]

It is "destructive to everything on earth" (a exageration), because the ozone layer has been diminishing.

____________|end quote|_____________

you're telling me the ozone used to be so thick that it blocked all uv, x, gamma, and you-name-it rays?

___________|start quote|______________

Moreover, shade exists...

____________________________________

you don't understand what I'm saying. It's not only the sun's light that is destructive(shade is not for the full day). There are gamma rays, x-rays, uv rays, and many more that go through buildings and through each individual all day everyday. This is what causes free radicals in the body which degrades the reproduction of tissue which eventually leads to cancer. This is the most harmful aspect. It's bad enough over our lifespan... imagine the soup being bombarded by this over millions of years. It is a destructive agent pure and simple.

I asked, "With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?" and you said you had no clue what I was asking. The first life form emerged from the soup, but there was only one. How did it reproduce?

______________|start quote|_________________

All of this is what Science is trying to answer. Search google for many theories dealing with this.

__________________________________________

My point is, evolution has no proof this happened and no clue how it happened. This is a major problem as well as all the intermediaries. It is extremely amazing that no fossils can be found to fill the 'missing link'.

______________|short quote|_________________

Wind and animals

__________________________________________

plants came first according to evolution.... so animals are out of it. now wind... how assinine is that? bees have to dig into the plant to get pollen to carry to other plants that it digs into. there's not enough pollen

generated that could account for the inaccuracy of being spread by the wind. So this also is still unanswered.



I still don't believe that anyone has addressed how upside down trees cam to rest through several strata in elevated regions(not around water).

[This message has been edited by choytw (edited 08-19-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by choytw:



Macroevolution - changing of a species to accomodate their environment. (poor definition I know but meaning is there)



Macroevolution is when an population of organisms changes to the point of being a diferent species.

Microevolution describes small changes in a population of organisms that do not result in a new species.

The definition of species is able to produce fertile offspring. ie: horses can mate with horses and produce fertile horses. Donkeys can mate with horses and produce mules and hiney's but mules and hineys are sterile. So horses and donkeys are diferent species.

You are right. I screwed up and used the wrong one. Shows how easy it is to assume someone believe the whole evolution when one is used.

Thank you I will edit post

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

Let me ask another question of you folds.

How can the sunlight be destructive to everything on earth now(save plants)... but something that took million of years to develop was not baked by the sun?

Water is good at stoping all kinds of radiation. If life began in the oceans it would not need to have any natural protection. When life started washing up on land I am sure alot of it did fry. The stuff that didn't is the only stuff that reproduced.

quote:

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Curent theroys say that sexual reproduction was either the result of cells eating other cells, cells consuming other cells for spare parts and there probly is another one that I can't remember.



quote:

When, why, and how did Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

Even today there are single celled organisms that attach together in clusters. These are not multie cell organisms because none of the cells are specialized. The first multy celled organisms would be produced when some of the cells in a colonie developed a mutations that benifited the others in the colonie.

quote:

When, why, and how did Fish change to amphibians?

There is a fish with primitive lungs today. It probly developed in a place with variable water levels. As far as I know there is only one species of lungfish today. It may be the intermediate between fish and amphibians or it may be an offshoot of the true intermediate.

I don't know about the specifics about the transition from amphibian to reptile or reptile to bird.

quote:

How did the intermediate forms live?



They probly lived the same way that thier ancestors live but a little easyer. I get what you are saying "what good is half a wing" But if it didn't do them any good the mutation woul be no benifit and not be passed on.

quote:

How did plants survive without the insects there to pollinate them?

Same way they do now. A-sexual reproduction, self polination, polination by wind. Flowering plants devoloped ater insect anyways.

quote:

and the big one, Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

No,

You can't be sure that God created the universe just like I don't know that he didn't. If it was not God something had to do it we just don't know what. Someone will figure it out eventualy.



[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 08-19-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

you're telling me the ozone used to be so thick that it blocked all uv, x, gamma, and you-name-it rays?

I'm telling you it used to be much more thicker, hence blocked alot more thant it blocks now.

quote:you don't understand what I'm saying. It's not only the sun's light that is destructive(shade is not for the full day). There are gamma rays, x-rays, uv rays, and many more that go through buildings and through each individual all day everyday.

you don't understand what I'm saying. It's not only the sun's light that is destructive(shade is not for the full day). There are gamma rays, x-rays, uv rays, and many more that go through buildings and through each individual all day everyday. This is what causes free radicals in the body which degrades the reproduction of tissue which eventually leads to cancer. This is the most harmful aspect. It's bad enough over our lifespan... imagine the soup being bombarded by this over millions of years. It is a destructive agent pure and simple.

A simple sun screen is enough to counter the cancer producing uv rays, which to me means that a much thicker ozone would do exactly the same.

quote:The first life form emerged from the soup, but there was only one. How did it reproduce?

That's what threw me off. You said sexual reproduction, which implies "sexual cells" (the official term eludes me now), for example, sperm.

Cells reproduced by dividing themselves. Hence, they did not need anything else to reproduce.

quote:My point is, evolution has no proof this happened and no clue how it happened. This is a major problem as well as all the intermediaries. It is extremely amazing that no fossils can be found to fill the 'missing link'.

My point is there are many theories, which do have a "clue". They are supported by evidence. Just look at google. I don't post them myself partly because I don't know them entirely and partly because I'm lazy http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



As for the "missing links", just now in Augusts issue of National Geographic, one such missing link is thought to be found.

quote:plants came first according to evolution.... so animals are out of it. now wind... how assinine is that? bees have to dig into the plant to get pollen to carry to other plants that it digs into. there's not enough pollen

generated that could account for the inaccuracy of being spread by the wind. So this also is still unanswered.





It is certainly not "assinine" apparently you missed basic biology.

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio106/pollinat.htm

Moreover, many plants can self pollinate. Just like Master Python says, a-sexual reproduction.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-19-2004).]

I'm out for the day. Get back to you guys tomorrow.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



That can be easily explained by acknowledging the authors of the bible had no clue what really omnipotence entailed. To them, creating things without light, was not possible.

I think you are missing the point. What i was saying is that eary man would have a very hard time imagining light without it coming from a light source. They would look around and see that fire, the sun, the moon etc. all produced light (they wouldnt realize that the moon reflects light). So, what is interesting, is that with all they observed, they still wrote that there was light on the first day, but wrote that things that make light were made 3 days later. If it was not Divine inspiration, then they were tons better at fiction than s. king.

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Just curious, but what would the "need" for a plant evolving to have tendrils... in other words, did a weak "body" structure create the "need" for tendrils, or did the growth of tendrils create the lack of need for a more firm stem, but if it were the "lack of need" for the firm stem, why would it evolve tendrils in the 1st place?

This isnt an arguement, this is a question that a leading (non-christian) botanist asked.

quote:Originally posted by Duck:

The thing that really gets me, is that creationists act like evolution is somehow sentient, and "reacts" to changes, instead of genetic mutations being passed on to the next generation if the species lives. Creatures don't react to the environment, creatures mutate and most die, and the ones that live pass on there personal mutation.

Sorry, i left the book i got that from at work, but i want to reiterate that the botanist that said this is a non-christian. And if memory serves, he is also an evolutionist.

I will try to remember to bring home references tomorrow, and then i'll post more thoroughly.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

al·go·rithm A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.

Natural selection as an algorithmic process. BAM! There goes your need for a designer.

And what designed the algorithmic process of natural selection? Chance?

Doesnt evolutional theory preclude that, given enough time and attempts, anything is possible. That eliminates the "finite number of steps" part of the definition.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I think you are missing the point. What i was saying is that eary man would have a very hard time imagining light without it coming from a light source. They would look around and see that fire, the sun, the moon etc. all produced light (they wouldnt realize that the moon reflects light). So, what is interesting, is that with all they observed, they still wrote that there was light on the first day, but wrote that things that make light were made 3 days later. If it was not Divine inspiration, then they were tons better at fiction than s. king.

1. That is hardly evidence of Divine Inspiration.

2. The same thing still applies.

They had no realy grasp of omnipotence, hence to them, it was impossible to create things without light. They also thought the earth was god's center of attention, hence created it first.

quote:And what designed the algorithmic process of natural selection? Chance?



Yes.

^ Prove it, Rust.

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I think you are missing the point. What i was saying is that eary man would have a very hard time imagining light without it coming from a light source. They would look around and see that fire, the sun, the moon etc. all produced light (they wouldnt realize that the moon reflects light). So, what is interesting, is that with all they observed, they still wrote that there was light on the first day, but wrote that things that make light were made 3 days later. If it was not Divine inspiration, then they were tons better at fiction than s. king.

1. That is hardly evidence of Divine Inspiration.

2. The same thing still applies.

They had no realy grasp of omnipotence, hence to them, it was impossible to create things without light. They also thought the earth was god's center of attention, hence created it first.

quote:And what designed the algorithmic process of natural selection? Chance?

Yes.

..........................................

i didnt say that it was evidence, i said that it was interesting.

if it was impossible to create things without light, dont you think that they would have editted Genesis to read "light makers come first...then light".

As far as your yes answer to chance, it is against the definition that AngryFemme supplied, which by the way, is what my dictionary says too.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



i didnt say that it was evidence, i said that it was interesting.

Fine. It was still an argument for Divine Inspiration.

quote:

if it was impossible to create things without light, dont you think that they would have editted Genesis to read "light makers come first...then light".

Read that again. "Light makers" are something. Hence, if we follow what I said, the wouldn't "edit" it to say that, because they would be creating something without light!

quote:

As far as your yes answer to chance, it is against the definition that AngryFemme supplied, which by the way, is what my dictionary says too.

You mean, this definition:

"A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps."

I don't see what the problem is, care to point it out to me?

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

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Saviour:

^ Prove it, Rust.

That it happened by chance? I can't.

As if you had any problems believing things without proof...

Moreover, what do you think caused it? God? Prove it! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-20-2004).]

The "finite number of steps" would only apply, as the definition stated, ...especially in the computational sense of an algorithm.

An algorithm such as that which drives the process of natural selection is (again, by definition) the step-by-step problem solving procedure.

Goddamn it. My ISP fizzed out. My point was:

Design does not need to have an intentional stance, or motivation, or a purpose.

In a review of Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Ideas":

Dennett underscores the mindlessness of natural selection by defining it as an algorithmic process. "Here, then, is Darwin's dangerous idea: the algorithmic level is the level that best accounts for the speed of the antelope, the wing of the eagle, the shape of the orchid, the diversity of species, and all the other occasions for wonder in the world of nature" (p. 59). At the algorithmic level of analysis, design procedures are "broken into bits so tiny and stupid" that they no longer count as intelligence (p. 133). An algorithm is a recipe prescribing an exact sequence of steps that are utterly simple and guaranteed to produce results. The power of the procedure is found in its logical structure, not in the materials used to execute it -- long division works with pencil and paper, a calculator, or a stick in the sand. Unlike mathematical algorithms that usually involve procedures for computing specific functions, the algorithms that govern the winnowing work of evolution are, strictly speaking, not for anything. These foolproof, rote, mechanical procedures have no goal.

Carl Hester

Department of Religion

Randolph-Macon Woman's College

Lynchburg, Virginia 24503

Full review here: http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/bookreviews/11-2/dennett.html



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 08-20-2004).]

Originally quoted by choytw:

quote:

This is where you are incorrect. Go to www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com) <http://www.drdino.com> to his downloadable debates. It is used in a couple of those.

choytw,I'll let you in on a little secret....Referring to drdino as a source of "proof" does very little to aid your arguments.Obviously you are so eager to present "evidence" that you failed to verify the validity of your so called "evidence".

Hovind has No education in the fields of geology,biology,or physics.He acquired a religious based PhD in "Christian Education"( entirely different from a degree in Education) from Patriot University http://www.patriotuniversity.com . "Christian Education" is an evangelism course. Patriot University is an unaccredited correspondence school (note '.com' not '.edu'). He is by no means a Scientist. Each and every "evidence" he has presented has been debunked by Qualified scientists who present falsifiable evidence to support their positions.



quote:Second, what makes you think that the scientists were not creationists? I know several scientists who are creationists. Very few do I know who are not(creationists). I don't have statistics, and wouldn't believe any that were given. All I can quote from is my own experiences. I know more creationist scientists than evolutionist scientists.

I've known several doctors who become christian when studying the body to prove evolution. There are so many things that must evolve at the SAME time in order for our bodies to function to put it to chance. Evolution of one body part can and does happen frequently, but multiple mutations - each depending on the other in order for the entity to survive.... has never been observed and the statistics (there's that word again) are phenomenal.



I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as to whether the debunkers of the gill issue may have been creationists since I am unsure of whom disproved it.The point I was trying to make was that Science disproved the gill slit hypothesis.Once the hypothesis was debunked, scientists Do Not promote the claim.And yet , Creationists continue to present the hypothesis as though it is still widely accepted.

If you know more "Creationist scientists" than" Evolutionist scientists",you obviously depend on Creationist websites and books for the vast majority of your information.



quote by choytw :"I've known several doctors who become christian when studying the body to prove evolution".

I find this statement very difficult to believe .If you actually meant it in the way it was stated, your own integrity is questionable. Doctors study the body to gain a better understanding of the body and its intricate systems and components.Better education results in improved medical ability. Doctors do not make a habit of studying the body to prove evolution. The vast majority of doctors, even Christian doctors, already accept evolution as a fact, and find no need to prove it.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 08-20-2004).]

I have duty today and then my wife is due to have our baby soon so I may not be able to post for the next couple of days.

Just want to let you know I have some good stuff for you all when I get back.

sorry, I saw this and had to reply to it.

__

quote by truckfixr:

The vast majority of doctors, even Christian doctors, already accept evolution as a fact, and find no need to prove it.

__

So what you are saying is that they take other people's word for what they're saying? You're saying most evolutionsts are guilty of what most people accuse christians of? Blind faith? Doesn't matter who tells you facts, you do not know if they were misrepresented until YOU yourself go to verify.

Thought it was kind've funny you made this comment.

I'll be back soon I hope.

quote by truckfixr

choytw,I'll let you in on a little secret....Referring to drdino as a source of "proof" does very little to aid your arguments.Obviously you are so eager to present "evidence" that you failed to verify the validity of your so called "evidence".

Hovind has No education in the fields of geology,biology,or physics.He acquired a religious based PhD in "Christian Education"( entirely different from a degree in Education) from Patriot University http://www.patriotuniversity.com . "Christian Education" is an evangelism course. Patriot University is an unaccredited correspondence school (note '.com' not '.edu'). He is by no means a Scientist. Each and every "evidence" he has presented has been debunked by Qualified scientists who present falsifiable evidence to support their positions.

__

This is all sorts of messed up. I was quoting his(drdino) website to 'prove' that EVOLUTIONISTS still use the gill slit. gotta go sorry

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

This is all sorts of messed up. I was quoting his(drdino) website to 'prove' that EVOLUTIONISTS still use the gill slit. gotta go sorry

what truckfixr meant was that you could ask a priest instead of drdino because they basically received the same education: the bible.

try to find a scientist who graduated at e.g. the mit, oxford, etc. try to find international scientists.

how do you guys explain the archaeopteryx? why are stars and galaxies millions of lightyears away? remember: speed of light... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

and why am i wasting my time with you?

Cougar

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

sorry, I saw this and had to reply to it.

__

quote by truckfixr:

The vast majority of doctors, even Christian doctors, already accept evolution as a fact, and find no need to prove it.

__

So what you are saying is that they take other people's word for what they're saying? You're saying most evolutionsts are guilty of what most people accuse christians of? Blind faith? Doesn't matter who tells you facts, you do not know if they were misrepresented until YOU yourself go to verify.

Thought it was kind've funny you made this comment.

I'll be back soon I hope.

That's rediculous. ALL of the claims put forth by scientists are subject to intense review by other scientists. If the claim is falsified, it is rejected.All claims must be falsifiable.This is not "blind faith".

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

quote by truckfixr

choytw,I'll let you in on a little secret....Referring to drdino as a source of "proof" does very little to aid your arguments.Obviously you are so eager to present "evidence" that you failed to verify the validity of your so called "evidence".

Hovind has No education in the fields of geology,biology,or physics.He acquired a religious based PhD in "Christian Education"( entirely different from a degree in Education) from Patriot University http://www.patriotuniversity.com . "Christian Education" is an evangelism course. Patriot University is an unaccredited correspondence school (note '.com' not '.edu'). He is by no means a Scientist. Each and every "evidence" he has presented has been debunked by Qualified scientists who present falsifiable evidence to support their positions.

__

This is all sorts of messed up. I was quoting his(drdino) website to 'prove' that EVOLUTIONISTS still use the gill slit. gotta go sorry

The majority of arguments you have presented in this thread come straight from drdino.

quote:That it happened by chance? I can't.

As if you had any problems believing things without proof...

Moreover, what do you think caused it? God? Prove it!



Weren't you the fellow that stated it was the responsibility of the party MAKING the positive affirmation that had the burden of proof ?

How easy it was to say that you couldn't prove what you are conveying to be fact. (yet you still believe it) Sounds like faith to me !

I never once conveyed it as fact, nor did I never once claimed that the burden of proof was not on me. I already answered you, I cannot possibly prove that belief.

But there's a difference. I cannot possibly prove it because "chance" is something intangible. On the other hand, you could prove that a god created it. You would only have to bring forward that god and you would have proved it.

So you see, it is you who can actually prove it, but hasn't, not me.

Moreover, where have I once said I did not believe things out of faith? I must believe some things out of faith, since I believe I'm communicating with you, even if I have no proof that you exist.

quote:Read that again. "Light makers" are something. Hence, if we follow what I said, the wouldn't "edit" it to say that, because they would be creating something without light!

Alright, let's start at the begining, and show that "they" would be "creating" something without light:

Gen 1:1-3

(1)In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.(2)Now the earth wasw formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

(3)And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

(This is from NIV but if you want i will use the literal (with strongs) and go word by word with each meaning of each word. I'm saying this only because the translation leaves out the feeling and intensity that the literal gives.)

In verse 3, the word "and" implies that this is after. So, Whomever wrote the Bible, was capable of creating something without light.



quote:You mean, this definition:

"A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps."

I don't see what the problem is, care to point it out to me?

Not at all.

First of all, the "problem-solving procedure" implies intelligence. Not to mention, "computational procedure".

But the thing that got me the most was "recursive"~~ (1)pertaining to or using a rule or procedure that can be applied repeatedly. (2)pertaining to or using the mathematical process of recursion

"recursion"~~ the process of defining a function or calculating a number by the repeated application of an algorithm

the whole idea (definition) goes against "chance" and "randomness", and implies purpose and thought to SOLVE a problem.

quote:Moreover, what do you think caused it? God? Prove it! Yes i THINK (believe) God caused everything.

<<rhetorical question>> Are you saying to prove my thought that God caused it, or that you want me to prove God (to you)?

<< /rhetorical question>>

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

In verse 3, the word "and" implies that this is after. So, Whomever wrote the Bible, was capable of creating something without light.

And if you read, you would see I aleady dealt with that. Like I said, they also couldn't grasp creating something, without create a form of space first.



quote:

Not at all.

First of all, the "problem-solving procedure" implies intelligence. Not to mention, "computational procedure".

1. It "implying" something, does not mean its a requirement.

2. "Computational procedure" is not a requirment for algorithms. Read Angry Femme's reply. "computational procedures" is and addition to the main definition.

quote:

But the thing that got me the most was "recursive"~~ (1)pertaining to or using a rule or procedure that can be applied repeatedly. (2)pertaining to or using the mathematical process of recursion

"recursion"~~ the process of defining a function or calculating a number by the repeated application of an algorithm

the whole idea (definition) goes against "chance" and "randomness", and implies purpose and thought to SOLVE a problem.



1. Your first definition already refuted you! It can be applied repeatedly.

2. Chance does not preclude problem solving.

quote:

Yes i THINK (believe) God caused everything.

<<rhetorical question>> Are you saying to prove my thought that God caused it, or that you want me to prove God (to you)?

<< /rhetorical question>>

It was a rehtorical question aimed at DS to show her that that the alternative, that is, that a god did it, is equally unproven.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm: Sorry, i left the book i got that from at work, but i want to reiterate that the botanist that said this is a non-christian. And if memory serves, he is also an evolutionist.

I will try to remember to bring home references tomorrow, and then i'll post more thoroughly.

Ok, i know there may be some up to date answers to this, but anyway:

This is in reference to Cambridge University Press 1940 J.C. Willis

"The Course of Evolution"

And to be fair (not trying to mislead or hide where i got this info from) , i am quoting from "Creation and Evolution" by Alan Hayward, although i will leave some stuff out to keep this kinda short. pp30-31

"Willis cites the cases of climbingf plants & parasitic plants. Because these are more specialized it is generally agreed that they must have evolved from their more ordinary relatives.

Climbers differ in 2 ways from their upright relatives: they have weak, flexible stems, and they have tendrils, or some other climbing device. Which evolved 1st? If the weak stems came 1st, how did the floppy-stemmed plants escape being smothered by other vegetation while their tendrils were evolving? And if the climbing organs evolved 1st, what made such organs evolve when they were not needed?

INstead of roots, parasitic plants have suckers that can penetrate the outer skin of other plants, or even the bark of trees. How could a plant with roots evolve by gradual stages into a parasite? Willis claims that the only way a parasite or a climbing plant could have evolved is in a single, huge leap. The Darwinian idea pf evolution by many little steps has never been proprly thought through, he says. It simply does not fit the facts, so far as the plant world is concerned."

if Willis is right, then the "chance" "algorithm" method of evolution just aint so.

Could'nt the floppy stems evolve first. A stiff stem that can stand upright is not necessary even without tendrils. They are called creeping plants and are found in many diferent plant families.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 08-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Could'nt the floppy stems evolve first. A stiff stem that can stand upright is not necessary even without tendrils. They are called creeping plants and are found in many diferent plant families.

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 08-21-2004).]

Sure, i suppose,i'm not a botanist so i'm only going by what i read, which i did mention.. quote:Because these are more specialized it is generally agreed that they must have evolved from their more ordinary relatives.

I was picturing wild grapes. Willis said that if they were creeping, as you stated, they would get smothered (not get sunlight) while they were evolving. But look at where wild grapes grow. Trees all around, so it doesnt matter that they go up the tree alittle ways. So i was picturing them getting tramped on by passing animals (deer trail?), while evolving. It is no secret that i dont believe in macro-evo., i'm just trying to look at both sides of the coin.

Anyway, read "The Course of Evolution". Willis has many disagreements with the current view of evolution, from a botanist POV, and makes some interesting, mathematical points to back it up.

Evolution loves the cock.

So does creation.

not that i'm a creationist (fuck no)

but speaking from a scientific standpoint... evolution is not a science, as it cannot be tested or experimented with using the scientific method (i.e. controlled experiment, manipulation of only one variable at a time in a closed system)

We examine biology and botany, trace it's paths, and pick apart it's design, construction and operation. "The Birth of Function".

Then, we attempt to analyze the Engineer/Designer/Creator behind it all, and what it's intentional stance must have been. "The Birth of Meaning".

( ^Because we can't quite grasp that it's initial *push* was non-intentional. yes! we are that damned self-important!)

We see artifacts of design and tiny miracles (like us!), and we observe stuff like the creeping vine and other oddities of function.

And I think we're all right to sort of use reverse engineering tactics to figure out the how-come's and why-for's of it all. We yearn to know what God, or Mother Nature, had in mind.

I just wondered (and I know it's way abstract and sort of off-topic, but not really) - what is it about accepting that our design, or - our purpose in life is of pure randomless meaning that makes some people feel so worthless and empty inside?

For me, it was liberating. And I have not always been an advocate of evolution and disbeliever of all things supernatural. Believing there is no cosmic gaurantee in human value works well for me, and really puts my consciousness in higher esteem.

I guess I just wondered what made it so unsettling to other people.



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 08-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I just wondered (and I know it's way abstract and sort of off-topic, but not really) - what is it about accepting that our design, or - our purpose in life is of pure randomless meaning that makes some people feel so worthless and empty inside?

For me, it was liberating. And I have not always been an advocate of evolution and disbeliever of all things supernatural. Believing there is no cosmic gaurantee in human value works well for me, and really puts my consciousness in higher esteem.

I guess I just wondered what made it so unsettling to other people.

I guess people don't want to accept it because they don't want to accept that there's no point to life, or that it's a chance happening. People want to believe that their life has a purpose and a meaning.

I like believing that there's no purpose to life, it means we can live life without feeling guilty about not doing this or that, it won't matter how you live in the end. I don't like the idea that we were created by God, or the idea of Heaven and Hell, I'd hate to think that everything I do is being judged by a higher power, and if I don't live me life correctly I could be doomed to an eternity of torture and pain.

quote:Originally posted by choytw:



There is absolutely no evidence to support evolution and there are too many holes to believe in it without proof. .

but u would rather believe a book, A BOOK, that tells u u have to bee good or u won't get a present(heaven)

your an idiot

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I never once conveyed it as fact, nor did I never once claimed that the burden of proof was not on me. I already answered you, I cannot possibly prove that belief.

But there's a difference. I cannot possibly prove it because "chance" is something intangible. On the other hand, you could prove that a god created it. You would only have to bring forward that god and you would have proved it.

So you see, it is you who can actually prove it, but hasn't, not me.

Moreover, where have I once said I did not believe things out of faith? I must believe some things out of faith, since I believe I'm communicating with you, even if I have no proof that you exist.



Well, you're not. It's time to call for some help. *laughs* http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Alrighty...*cracks knuckles* Here we go again, eh ?

The way you say things here on Totse would make you seem as though you are giving factual data, and that you are utterly convinced of such.

You say that chance is not tangible (and therefor not provable), yet you believe in it. My point was that God is intangible as well, and equally as unprovable (by human scientific standards). There really is no difference between your "faith" and mine, except for tha fact that you don't have to pay homage to "chance".

The point of my questioning whether or not you have faith, was to dispell the notion that Christians are ridiculous for having faith in God. Humans put their faith in sillier things every day.

In the end, is it so bad that I believe in God ?

Here is the part where you say I am "recruiting"...or trying to convert people by shoving my beliefs down their throats.

But consider this: if I believe in God, then I have to believe in His inerrant word, which clearly states that I am to love unconditionally, and make myself a disciple of Christ.

Spreading the gospel is doing just that...some take it too far, and some don't take it far enough. *shrugs*

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-24-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Mr.Happy:

I guess people don't want to accept it because they don't want to accept that there's no point to life, or that it's a chance happening. People want to believe that their life has a purpose and a meaning.

I like believing that there's no purpose to life, it means we can live life without feeling guilty about not doing this or that, it won't matter how you live in the end. I don't like the idea that we were created by God, or the idea of Heaven and Hell, I'd hate to think that everything I do is being judged by a higher power, and if I don't live me life correctly I could be doomed to an eternity of torture and pain.

Eloquent ! Give this man a brownie...

This is truly what it all boils down to, and I have pointed this out many times.

People simply don't want to be told what to do. Without guilt, we can do as we please, which is far EASIER than adhering to the laws of an unseen God.

Denying the flesh is the hardest thing that a human can do...so, why struggle ? Just pretend that God doesn't exist, leave it all to "chance", and hey...we'll all be happy ! Right ? Right ?!

Wrong.

It matters not whether you enjoy this life or not. What DOES matter is what will happen to your soul once your physical body departs from this earth.

If you are willing to stake that on your rebellious "I-wanna-so-I'm-gonna" attitude, so be it.

I will pray for you. (truly)

By the way, the "joy" that I have known since becoming a Christian far exceeds any earthly pleasures I have partaken in. Since you have not experienced this "joy", I think it would be hard for you to have a basis for comparison, thus rendering your opinion on the matter null and void.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

My point was that God is intangible as well, and equally as unprovable (by human scientific standards).

That is completely false. God could prove himself any second. The fact that he doesn't just supports my case.

quote: There really is no difference between your "faith" and mine, except for tha fact that you don't have to pay homage to "chance".

The difference being, that chance is intangible by nature, until the thing actually happens. When something happens you automatically prove that it had a chance of happening.

Your god isn't intangible by nature. He also has not been shown or proved before.

quote:The point of my questioning whether or not you have faith, was to dispell the notion that Christians are ridiculous for having faith in God. Humans put their faith in sillier things every day.

Well, it depends on what you consider silly. I don't consider believing in something which has been shown before, silly.

I myself, do consider the belief of an omnipotent and omniscient being that has not shown itself, ever, as silly.

quote:

In the end, is it so bad that I believe in God ?

To me, it is, yes.

quote:

Here is the part where you say I am "recruiting"...or trying to convert people by shoving my beliefs down their throats.

But consider this: if I believe in God, then I have to believe in His inerrant word, which clearly states that I am to love unconditionally, and make myself a disciple of Christ.

Spreading the gospel is doing just that...some take it too far, and some don't take it far enough. *shrugs*



Please don't put words in my mouth...

quote:Originally posted by anarchyadvance:

but u would rather believe a book, A BOOK, that tells u u have to bee good or u won't get a present(heaven)

your an idiot

Idiot

- A foolish or stupid person.

- A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

You obviously don't know anything about Christianity, because the Bible is merely our handbook on how to live our lives.

What solidifies our belief is the Holy Spirit, which is how we "feel" God's presence.

This is a very real experience, and cannot be denied. I doubt that anyone would be a Christian without this essential experience.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



because the Bible is merely our handbook on how to live our lives.



If that was true this whole creation/evolution thing would be a non-issue. Many people choose to treat it as a history or science text.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

If that was true this whole creation/evolution thing would be a non-issue. Many people choose to treat it as a history or science text.

Well, yes...but those are secondary purposes.

If you read the Bible, it becomes clear that it is a "how to".

The rest is for illustration, historical merit, and scientific placement.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Well, yes...but those are secondary purposes.

If you read the Bible, it becomes clear that it is a "how to".

The rest is for illustration, historical merit, and scientific placement.

so you admit that one should not take the bible literally in a scientific way but as an instruction/guide as how to live like "don't kill", "respect your parents", "no revenge" etc...? with that i would completely agree.

Cougar

P.S.

this topic has been started many times, anybody care to stay in one thread?

Ok, heres the deal.............

Many christians take the bible word for word, wholey true.

If people can prove creation wrong, they disprove part of the bible, therefore it's not the whole truth of God.

I don't take the bible literally at all. For example, in Dueteronomy it says to kill anyone who tries to convince you against god, obviously no one really does that anymore. Are they breaking the word of god? yes, but that's because common sense tells them it's wrong. Therefore creation vs. evolution makes no difference to me. But for all the christians who take the bible as 100% irrefutable truth, it could make a world of difference.

Sorry I've been gone so long. My wife is due to have a baby this Friday, but she's been going in and out of labor since last monday. It's been real hectic.

I said earlier that I had some new pretty cool info for you all, well, with the new baby, I haven't been able to get it organized yet, but it will happen soon.

While I'm here, I have some quick comments to make. First, an individual does not need to be a genious to present material or make educated deductions. This is obviously in reference to Dr. Kent Hovind. I believe he is more of a gatherer of information than an experimentalist himself. If the information he is proposing is false, someone should take him up on his challenge to a debate. He will come to you. Very convenient. He has even said he will debate up to five evolutionists at the same time.

Second, the rim elevations for the grand canyon. You're right about how the river does go around the higher areas. It does now anyway. If you hold to the evolutionists belief, It was completely carved out by the river. So, in the beginning it was flat and was subject to the rim elevations. Another point is that the grand canyon twists back and forth very tightly which is evidence of a slow moving river, but there is something(for the life of me I can't remember. this is what I was talking about when referring to information that was not organized).... anyway, something shows signs of a fast river. These two obviously contradict - it can't be fast and slow at the same time. I'll refind what it is that shows a fast river and post. Some of you might know what I'm talking about, if you do, please help lol. Something else along these lines, when mount saint helens erupted, it caused a formation very similar to the grand canyon in about five minutes because the ground was moist. Something else I need to get the names to.

Well, when my wife has the baby, I will be gone for a while, so please be patient. Until then, enjoy what's above.

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

If you hold to the evolutionists belief, It was completely carved out by the river. So, in the beginning it was flat and was subject to the rim elevations. Another point is that the grand canyon twists back and forth very tightly which is evidence of a slow moving river

Where did the idea that the ground was completly flat come from? There are hills now why would there no be in the past.

The idea that the twists in the canyon show that it was a old slow moving river sounds misguided. An old river will meander through its riverbed and floodplane but this is a diferent phenominon than water taking the path of least resistance. The twists in a old river are alot tighter that the grand canyon. It is easy to underestimate the size of the canyon on maps. When you look at the scale you see that the twists are not like that of a meandering river they are too wide.

the reason that it is believe(belief only since noone was there) is because the erosion marks are the same all the way up showing that it was caused by the same event.

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

Sorry I've been gone so long. My wife is due to have a baby this Friday, but she's been going in and out of labor since last monday. It's been real hectic......

.....

While I'm here, I have some quick comments to make. First, an individual does not need to be a genious to present material or make educated deductions. This is obviously in reference to Dr. Kent Hovind. I believe he is more of a gatherer of information than an experimentalist himself. If the information he is proposing is false, someone should take him up on his challenge to a debate. He will come to you. Very convenient. He has even said he will debate up to five evolutionists at the same time......



First off, I'd like to congratulate you on your pending new arrival.Best wishes for a long and prosperous life!

Now back to the subject at hand.Kent Hovind is a con artist.He does not make educated deductions, because he has no education in the subject matter he presents.

Also, concerning his so called "challenge",all evidence points to it being a total scam.The following link concerns people who have attempted to present their evidence to Hovind's board for review.

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/

Would you all please just shut up!!!



Shut up when I'm talking to you!!

Shut up!

Shut up!

SHUT UP!!

Shut up when I'm talking to you!!

Evolution is science.

Thank you and God Bless!! <A HREF="http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/fingers/fing31.gif">http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/fingers/fing31.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/fingers/fing31.gif" width="90" height="90)</A>

Jam.

Everyone had shut up, this thread was dead until you bumped it up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jamiroquai:

[B]Would you all please just shut up!!!

Evolution is science.

It sure is.

it's funny to watch creationists try to discredit evolution by labeling it unscientific and a religion onto itself.

the implication is that unscientific and religious is a poor quality for any claim possess... those adjectives exactly describe creationism.

creationism did not begin as a scientific effort to question how, when, and where humanity originated, and it most certainly is an offshoot of the christian religion.

Science: A method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Now, does that sound at all like creationism? No.

Panicked Spectator: "Hmmm... look! Someone died! Where did they go?"

Bullshitter: "Oh, don't worry, he went to heaven, because God makes sure good people go there."

Does it sound like Darwinism/evolution theory? Yes. Read 'The Origin Of Species' and tell me otherwise.

The reason science deems creationsism crap is because they cannot explain it. Scientists are quite narrow; the are especially good at ignoring evidence placed in front of their nose....

Try and imagine nothing, if you can imagine that, explain how we came from it.

quote:Originally posted by RvK:

The reason science deems creationsism crap is because they cannot explain it. Scientists are quite narrow; the are especially good at ignoring evidence placed in front of their nose....

Try and imagine nothing, if you can imagine that, explain how we came from it.



It 'deems it crap' because there is no evidence supporting it. Evolution doesn't automatically remove the possibility of the universe being created by a supernatural being. A supernatural being could have very well created time and space.

What science is against is making claims without evidence, which is exactly what creationism does.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. To deny evolution (as defined here) is on the same level of logic as to deny the fact that if someone jumps off the balcony of a high rise apartment and carries no special apparatus, she will fall towards the ground. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.