if they could find dino bones howcome they cant find the jesus bones......

Because you touch yourself at night.

Or maybe it has to do with the fact that there was millions of fucking dinosaurs spread over millions of years and only one Jesus?

On a related note, I had some religious kid in my class a few years ago claim that dinosaurs never really existed, and that the thousands of skeletons found all over the world are fakes.

I wanted to castrate him, right then and there, for being an idiot.

There are so many holes in religious peoples' claims and arguments that there is practically nothing left for them to go on except 'Because the Bible says so!'

technically if you beleive in god as illustrated in the bible the universe did not exsist past 10000 years ago.

so that means no dinosaurs

quote:Originally posted by ap0calypse88:

if they could find dino bones howcome they cant find the jesus bones......

Well only a very small number of all dinosaur bones are fossilized, let along actually found.

I think it is highly unlikely that one human's remains be found after such a long time.

Didn't you guys know that the earth used to be covered in a water canopy that blocked out the harmful rays of the sun, and that's why people were able to live to almost nine hundred years? Yeah, and then god made it collapse, and it rained four 40 days and nights, and all of the dinosaurs were quickly buried and fossilized.

...and this happened less than eight thousand years ago. Your dating methods are flawed. True story.

quote:Originally posted by SkyeBlue:

On a related note, I had some religious kid in my class a few years ago claim that dinosaurs never really existed, and that the thousands of skeletons found all over the world are fakes.

I wanted to castrate him, right then and there, for being an idiot.

There are so many holes in religious peoples' claims and arguments that there is practically nothing left for them to go on except 'Because the Bible says so!'

Damn straight, it's the Devil's trickery trying to test their faith! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

And anyway, there isn't really a way to identify a skeleton as Jesus, with the exception of carbon dating which will give the approximate time that the person lived/died. But even THAT isn't proven 100% trustworthy.

quote:Originally posted by SkyeBlue:

But even THAT isn't proven 100% trustworthy.



Of course it isn't! You people take your science on faith too, but is science going to get you to heavean?

quote:Originally posted by Gulielmus:

Didn't you guys know that the earth used to be covered in a water canopy that blocked out the harmful rays of the sun, and that's why people were able to live to almost nine hundred years? Yeah, and then god made it collapse, and it rained four 40 days and nights, and all of the dinosaurs were quickly buried and fossilized.

...and this happened less than eight thousand years ago. Your dating methods are flawed. True story.

You only make yourself appear stupid by making fun of the literal interpretation. Pretty much no one takes the bible literally anymore, so you're making fun of a small minority of people. Plus, it adds nothing to the discussion.

quote:Originally posted by SkyeBlue:

And anyway, there isn't really a way to identify a skeleton as Jesus

That went right over me when I was reading this topic. I didn't even think of how we'd prove it was Jesus to begin with.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Pretty much no one takes the bible literally anymore, so you're making fun of a small minority of people.

These people do htt p://www.an swersingenesis.org (http: //www.answ ersingenes is.org) , and the people who listen to him on the thousands of radio stations (including the one I work at) that air his program probably do too.

EDIT: ...and the reason I was able to quote the belief so well is because that's what my church of over 2,500 mebers taught me.

[This message has been edited by Gulielmus (edited 06-17-2005).]

And you're accomplishing what by mocking their beliefs over the internet?????

Edit: Last time I checked, 2500 members is a very small number.

Catholics don't believe in literal interpretation. Most protestants are the same way. There are some fundies that still believe that, but they are few, far, and inbetween. They also certainly do not post on this site.

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 06-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

And you're accomplishing what by mocking their beliefs over the internet?????



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

QUOTE Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Most protestants are the same way. There are some fundies that still believe that, but they are few, far, and inbetween. They also certainly do not post on this site. /QUOTE

(napoleon, i'm just using your comment as a segue. I'm not attacking your statement)

Actually, Lutheran teaching (which is protestant) does take the Bible literally.

Whether the members generally do or not is an individual thing. I think the reason for this is a way for them to make sense in their minds, what the Bible says and what science says can "get along".

In the old version of the absent minded professor (the one from the 60's.. although it might have been the nutty Prof..) there was a quick little comment (from the Prof's mom or grandma) reguarding 'millions-of-years evolution'. In the storyline, this had nothing to do with the story... it didnt help it one little bit.. and in fact, for the storyline, it was even out of place. There have been ton's of propaganda in media over the past 50 or so years, that that when a comment like that is given, it is hardly even noticed. The concept of evolutionary thought is so prevailent, that it is taken as "fact" by nearly everyone, without question.

So, as an individual that believes and trusts in God and his Word; how can those two ideas fit right in a person's mind? Something has to be compromised. (This is probably why that kid claimed that dinosaur fossils were fakes.. that GOD or Satan had scattered em all over the earth).

And to top off the difficulty for the average Christian, many church leaders dont believe in a literal interpretation (for many of the same reasons-- and a few other reasons that dont fit in the scope of this thread).

I mentioned Lutherans, of which i am. About a year ago, i had my first actual conversation with my Pastor (about a way to answer one of the arguements in TOTSE). The conversation got sidetracked, and we were discussing the literalness of the Bible. Ever since i had been a member of this church, i had absolutly no idea whether or not the pastor believed the literalacy of the Bible. You would think that the very first couple of times going to a church, that that should be able to be seen. (Maybe i hadnt been looking at his sermons from that perspective.. so it could be my fault). I was very pleased to find that he also felt as i did... and for more reasons and information than i had thought of

(one of his hobbies is 1st century history).

The point i'm trying to make is, if the clergy is either compromised or "not sure"/"not vocal" about the literalacy, how can the average christian do much more than "try to fit" their belief into science (science ultimately should confirm the belief.. not: "belief bend to fit science")? And how can the average christian have decent answers to the stumbling blocks of others, if those are also stumbling blocks to themselves? To give an idea what i mean when i say average christian, let me paralel it to "average person": the average person either doesnt want to know or take the time to know how a light switch makes light in the kitchen.. they just are happy it does.

Now, on to the question of Jesus bones. From the Christian belief, Jesus the Messiah was risen from the dead. Why would there be possibiliy of finding Jesus' bones? (And also, this highlights {rather, brings question to} the 1st century Jews arguement that, Jesus body was stolen by the disciples).

The water canopy theory: this is speculation. Not all creationist beleive this, but consider it just a possibility.

As to "Smug self satisfaction... ": atleast i can say that this is probably one of the most honest motives ive seen in this forumn. However, 2 questions remain:

If the literalacy of the Bible is true, is it still smug and satisfaction?

Where does one draw the line?(as to how the Bible is/should be taken)

I've never met a christian who didn't believe that the bible wasn't the infallible word of god. I've met plenty of people who are doubtful and searching for the truth, but if the bible isn't completely true then there isn't much of a reason to believe any of it. I thought that the original question was a joke (no offence), but if it isn't, then the things that have already been stated (how would you know whose bones are jesus', he doesn't have any because he ascended into heaven) I think answer it pretty well. As for my comment on the water canopy theory, it's called sarcasm. Sorry if I offended anybody, but I don't see how calling me stupid, attacking me, and trying to start an argument about it adds anything to the conversation either. Also, as it turns out, I do believe in a universal flood, I do believe that humans and dinosours lived at the same time, I don't believe in evolution outside of natural selection (no big band, species evolving into other species, so forth), and I do believe that dating methods are flawed and unscientific (not because I was told that they are, but because I've studied them and believe for myself that they are).

EDIT: Big band? I bet I meant bang.

[This message has been edited by Gulielmus (edited 06-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Gulielmus:

I've never met a christian who didn't believe that the bible wasn't the infallible word of god. I've met plenty of people who are doubtful and searching for the truth, but if the bible isn't completely true then there isn't much of a reason to believe any of it. I thought that the original question was a joke (no offence), but if it isn't, then the things that have already been stated (how would you know whose bones are jesus', he doesn't have any because he ascended into heaven) I think answer it pretty well. As for my comment on the water canopy theory, it's called sarcasm. Sorry if I offended anybody, but I don't see how calling me stupid, attacking me, and trying to start an argument about it adds anything to the conversation either. Also, as it turns out, I do believe in a universal flood, I do believe that humans and dinosours lived at the same time, I don't believe in evolution outside of natural selection (no big band, species evolving into other species, so forth), and I do believe that dating methods are flawed and unscientific (not because I was told that they are, but because I've studied them and believe for myself that they are).

Just for the record, i wasnt attacking you (i realize you were not refering to me)

Also, for the record, i agree with you.

As to "I've never met a christian who didn't believe that the bible wasn't the infallible word of god." There are many Christians that believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but do not interpret it literally. They take much, if not all, metaphorically.

You said that you've studied them (dating methods). May i ask to what extent? I agree that they are flawed, but my agreement stems from my starting point of young-earth creation as the origin. And the studies i've made (reguarding dating methods) have been 95% from creationist books.



edit; changed "were" to "were not" and italicize the change

[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 06-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

You only make yourself appear stupid by making fun of the literal interpretation. Pretty much no one takes the bible literally anymore, so you're making fun of a small minority of people. Plus, it adds nothing to the discussion.

Wrong. The majority of Christian regulars in this board DO take it seriously. Moreover, the majority of Christians in the U.S. DO take the bible as literal. You're also wrong that the majority of catholics don't believe it to be the literal word of god.

http://tinyurl.com/7h6u8

So, to use your logic, did you just make yourself appear stupid?



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Just for the record, i wasnt attacking you (i realize you were not refering to me)

Also, for the record, i agree with you.

As to "I've never met a christian who didn't believe that the bible wasn't the infallible word of god." There are many Christians that believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but do not interpret it literally. They take much, if not all, metaphorically.

You said that you've studied them (dating methods). May i ask to what extent? I agree that they are flawed, but my agreement stems from my starting point of young-earth creation as the origin. And the studies i've made (reguarding dating methods) have been 95% from creationist books.



edit; changed "were" to "were not" and italicize the change



http://tinyurl.com/9emup http://tinyurl.com/co6l5 http://tinyurl.com/a84ht http://tinyurl.com/5h7zu http://tinyurl.com/9wuo5

...I called it unscientific because it doesn't meet all the requirements of the scientific method http://tinyurl.com/p8r0

I'm an agnostic Buddhist, so I don't think this way because I want the world to wrap around my belief system. I just see actual problems with it.

quote:Originally posted by Gulielmus:



...I called it unscientific because it doesn't meet all the requirements of the scientific method http://tinyurl.com/p8r0



I ignored the rest, because you're simply stating what you belive in; that's fine by me. But THAT, on the other hand, is a claim, and thus not only your belief, but something that must be proven.

You either have not studied dating methods at all, or don't know what the scientific method is.

Please explain to me why it doesn't follow the scientific method; which you must do in order to support that outrageous allegation.

[If you want, you can create another thread, (let's say in Mad Scientists) to deal with this.]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I ignored the rest, because you're simply stating what you belive in; that's fine by me. But THAT, on the other hand, is a claim, and thus not only your belief, but something that must be proven.

You either have not studied dating methods at all, or don't know what the scientific method is.

Please explain to me why it doesn't follow the scientific method; which you must do in order to support that outrageous allegation.

[If you want, you can create another thread, (let's say in Mad Scientists) to deal with this.]

quote:There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

If you read some of the links I posted I'm sure you'll be able to tell what I mean. The ratio between C-14 & C-12 hasn't been static throughout history. It's not observable or repeatable.

quote:There are five main problems with this instrumental technique:

1. If the sample died more than 50,000 years ago, it would have no measurable C14 left today. Thus, the analysis technique cannot differentiate between samples which are 50 millennia or 100 millennia BP.

2. The ratio of C-14 to Carbon-12 in living matter has not been absolutely constant over the past 50,000 years:

bullet The ratio was higher before the industrial era started to release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The measured age of any samples which died after the start of industrialization circa 1850 CE would appear older than they really are. This, of course, would not affect the C-14 dating of the shroud of Turin, which is the subject of hot debate between some scientists (who believe that the shroud was created in medieval times) and some conservative Christians (who date the shroud to the 1st century CE).

bullet Testing nuclear bombs in the atmosphere in the 1950s increased the amount of C-14 in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The measured age of samples from that time would appear younger than they really are. This has no impact on the Shroud of Turin dating either.

bullet The quantity of cosmic rays bombarding the earth affects the amount of C-14 that is created in the upper atmosphere. The level of cosmic rays varies with the sun's activity, the strength of the Earth's magnetic field, and any magnetic clouds traversed by the solar system as it proceeds around our galaxy.

This means that the C-14 to C-12 ratio in a sample might be slightly higher or lower at the time that it died than the present value. Thus it was necessary to calibrate the technique. Samples whose ages are known are measured using C-14 dating, and a calibration curve was created. This makes minor corrections to the measured age, producing a more accurate answer than would be obtained by using the theoretical calculations alone.

3. Libby's original estimate of the t 1/2 of C-14 was slightly in error at 5,568 years. This means that date estimates made in the early years of the technique were 3% low.

4. In rare cases, a "reservoir effect" will give C-14 dates which are much older than the true age of the sample. Some plants and animals live in very unusual environments whose C-14 content is much lower than normal. For example:

bullet It is possible for snails to live in water that contains carbon leached out of ancient limestone which has no measurable C-14 left. As a result, the snails' shells will also be deficient in C-14 and test older than their true age.

bullet In a few areas of the world, seals dine on fish that in turn eat other fish and plants who live in sea water that has been traveling along the bottom of the ocean for thousands of years, gradually losing its C-14 content. Again, the quantity of C-14 in their environment is deficient. They would also test older.

"The problem caused by the reservoir effect is well known by archaeologists, geologists, and anybody else who use radiocarbon dates; they test for it and take it into account when interpreting radiocarbon data." 4

5. Contamination of the sample can include sufficient C-14 to make it seem newer than it really is. Porous samples can contain recently living material with a full "charge" of C-14. Sample cleaning and proper laboratory technique are critical.



...and I'm just talking about carbon dating. There are other, better methods that scientists use.

EDIT: ...and you don't have to be so agressive about it. I'm here to converse, not argue.

[This message has been edited by Gulielmus (edited 06-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Gulielmus:

If you read some of the links I posted I'm sure you'll be able to tell what I mean. The ratio between C-14 & C-12 hasn't been static throughout history. It's not observable or repeatable.

If I had read your links, I would have still arrived at the same conclusion: you were wrong.

In response to the article:



1. This is unimportant. It is a reason why we should not use carbon-14 dating methods in specimens that are older than the scope of the method, not why the method is flawed when used correctly.

It has limitations; that in no way means it is unscientific or not valid.

2. This is a non-issue, since the C-14 dating method already takes this into consideration, by calibrating it based on the varying ratios of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

http://tinyurl.com/c55gu

3. Again, a non-issue since it has been calibrated. Nobody ever claimed the method would be perfect the moment it was first used. It has been calibrated since Libby; calibrations which have been accurate to a 1% margin of error, by the 1960s.

Not to mention that absolutely none of the dating methods are used to know the date of the object, within an exact year; that is not their purpose.

4. These "reservoir effects" can be overcome, just as contamination, by proper usage of the method, and proper examination of the specimen.

http://tinyurl.com/9v7ab

http://tinyurl.com/7o93p

5. See 4. Contamination can be overcome by proper usage of the dating method, and by proper examination of the specimen.

It having limitations does not mean it is incorrect, or unscientific.

http://tinyurl.com/25vsd

quote:

...and I'm just talking about carbon dating. There are other, better methods that scientists use.

Fine. You should make it more clear next time, yet you're still incorrect: the C-14 method is completely scientific, and very accurate. It may have limitations, but that in no way makes it wrong, invalid, or unscientific.



quote:...and you don't have to be so agressive about it. I'm here to converse, not argue.

1. How in the world am I being aggresive? I asked you to back up your claim, nothing else.

2. Regardless of what you're here for, you made a claim, something which is undeniably an argument and subject to being argued.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong. The majority of Christian regulars in this board DO take it seriously. Moreover, the majority of Christians in the U.S. DO take the bible as literal. You're also wrong that the majority of catholics don't believe it to be the literal word of god.

http://tin yurl.com/7 h6u8 (http: //tinyurl. com/7h6u8)

So, to use your logic, did you just make yourself appear stupid?





What is the sample size on that poll?

1,000. Done by Rasmussen Reports.

Another one by ABC collaborates it:

http://tinyurl.com/6y8es

Seems kind of small though. Whatever, guess I was wrong.

Not really, many polls take sample sizes of 1,000 since increasing the sample size further does not decrease the margin of error significantly. The gains actually decrease as you get higher. A sample of a 1,000 will have around 3% margin of error.

http://tinyurl.com/99xqo

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-17-2005).]

I know, but when you only do 1000 out of 250 million, I tend to think the numbers would be skewed.

I don't even know if 1000 people would be sufficient to cover all protestants in America, let alone all religious people on how they take the bible.

Edit: Doesn't really matter to me though.

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 06-17-2005).]

As the link shows, the population size is taken into consideration in the calculations; that's exactly how we can determine margin of error in the first place.

It just so happens that to have a margin of error of 3%, and a sample size of 1,000, the population size must be... that of the U.S.

quote:Originally posted by Gulielmus:

Didn't you guys know that the earth used to be covered in a water canopy that blocked out the harmful rays of the sun, and that's why people were able to live to almost nine hundred years? Yeah, and then god made it collapse, and it rained four 40 days and nights, and all of the dinosaurs were quickly buried and fossilized.

...and this happened less than eight thousand years ago. Your dating methods are flawed. True story.



Proof? Proof of our flaws and hard proof (not biblical bull) that it was like that?

If jesus was real, and we found some bones we thought were his, couldn't we just sprinkle holy water on them and see if they glow, or hold them to some satanic freaks head and if it blows up they're jesus's?

So everyone- Go dig up some human bones, sprinkle some water on em, and hit satanics in the head with em.

quote:Originally posted by SkyeBlue:

On a related note, I had some religious kid in my class a few years ago claim that dinosaurs never really existed, and that the thousands of skeletons found all over the world are fakes.

It's true you know, the devil planted hundreds of thousands of dinosaur bones to tempt us into not believing in G-d.

He resurrected.

You might want to consider reading the Bible.

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

quote:Originally posted by The Marksman:

technically if you beleive in god as illustrated in the bible the universe did not exsist past 10000 years ago.

so that means no dinosaurs

Technically, you are only partially right.

The earth has been calculated to be no older than 12,000...according to Creationists.

However, since we (Christians) don't believe in macroevolution, we agree that dinosaurs did exist, but that they existed at the same time as humans did.

Understanding the laws of entropy completely shatters the fantasy of the theory of evolution in such obvious, damaging ways, that I cannot concieve of how someone could still say something like, "These bones are 77 million years old !"

*sighs*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Understanding the laws of entropy completely shatters the fantasy of the theory of evolution in such obvious, damaging ways, that I cannot concieve of how someone could still say something like, "These bones are 77 million years old !"

*sighs*



This very same argument uttered by you, has time and time again been entirely, completely, and utterly refuted by me, and others in this very forum. I suggest you either reply to those refutations, or kindly not make the very outrageous claims that have been refuted by us, again.

You leave totse when there is material for you to refute, and then come back to once again make more of the same allegations which you cannot substantiate and will not substantiate, only to leave, and then come back again... ad nauseaum. My patience for your antics is running thin.

For ANYONE who even for one infinitesimal fraction of a second believed the bullshit this woman claimed:

http://tinyurl.com/d3nzb

http://tinyurl.com/6bdj9

http://tinyurl.com/c7hma

http://tinyurl.com/af5u8

http://tinyurl.com/dwtec

http://tinyurl.com/78dfp

I moved three states away, Rust.

Should I have telepathically responded to your hostile, unoriginal rhetoric, just to avoid wearing thin your patience ?

If I am so daft, and therefore so incorrect, why bother responding to me at all ? You obviously have something to fear from the possibility of others entertaining my ideas ("if ANYONE listens to her, I must interject !").

The ways that entropy destroys the theory of macroevolution have NOT been refuted. Just because you choose to believe something that is completely false does not mean it is good enough to refute the obvious.

Nice to be back.

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

Ahhh...Talk Origins. Your best friend, Rust !

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it you who used to cry out that posting sites that were biased for the Christian perspective were inadmissable, and ignorant at best ? (It's not science if a Christian says it !!)

Yet you survive on the hinges of this website whose sole purpose for existence is to refute Christianity/Creationism.

Why is it ok for YOUR sources to be biased, but not mine ?

Can you find this science outside of Talk Origins ?

Mind you, I am not specifically dealing with any of the facts on the site...just the premise under which you post from there relentlessly.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ahhh...Talk Origins. Your best friend, Rust !

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it you who used to cry out that posting sites that were biased for the Christian perspective were inadmissable, and ignorant at best ? (It's not science if a Christian says it !!)



I'll correct you then: YOU ARE TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, 100%, WRONG.

I NEVER, NOT ONCE, said that what your sources stated was wrong simply because they were biased. I may have stated they were biased as a sidenote, but certainly not that they were wrong because of that bias.

---

So are you going to refute the claims or not? Are you going to make more accusation of my persona while ignoring the matter at hand? Or are you going to flee like always, and then wait till everyone has forgotten and make the ridiculous claims again? How about the always classic, "I don't have to provide evidence since you can do a quick search for yourself"?

I'd like to know in advance this time. Thanks.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I moved three states away, Rust.

Should I have telepathically responded to your hostile, unoriginal rhetoric, just to avoid wearing thin your patience ?



The refutations happened long before you moved away, so you have absolutely no point. It happened so long ago that the thread is even now long gone.

quote:

If I am so daft, and therefore so incorrect, why bother responding to me at all ? You obviously have something to fear from the possibility of others entertaining my ideas ("if ANYONE listens to her, I must interject !").



I never claimed that nobody would take your ignorance on thermodynamics as true. That's exactly why I reply: because your obviously wrong argument could convince someone who doesn't know it is obviously wrong; be it because he hasn't studied on the subject or whatever other reason.

quote:

The ways that entropy destroys the theory of macroevolution have NOT been refuted. Just because you choose to believe something that is completely false does not mean it is good enough to refute the obvious.



Completely wrong. Either refute the links I provided, or admit that you cannot, and abandon your argument.

I have posted this all before, which clearly shows how entropy refutes macroevolution to the very core, but I will do it again, since you seem to have forgotten it.

I am saving these from now on, Rust, since it is easy for you to say I never posted something which I cannot go back and reference, when we both know damn well that I did. I am also sick of wasting my time posting and reposting things, so now I will have an easy reference.

ENTROPY

First, let's start with the dictionary's definition of what entropy is:

1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.

2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.

3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.

4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

I want to make sure everyone gives enough attention to number 2. Why ? Because evolutionists try to claim that us "stupid Christians" misinterpret the Second Law of Thermodynamics as being about disorder. According to the definition given in the dictionary, it IS about disorder. So, we stand correct in our understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Evolution claims that we experience increasing levels of order, while Creationists claim that we are experiencing increasing levels of disorder.

"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust. Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.

Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves." http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

The rate in which flesh and bone decays is nominal in comparison to the fallacious claims of Evolutionists, who require millions of years for their theory to work. The math is simply against them on this topic.

What about the nature of the system we reside in ? Closed, or open ? Do either of these conditions change the relevance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in relation to evolution ?

The earth is an open system - a fact agreed upon by Evolutionist's and Creationist's alike.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is said to only apply to CLOSED SYSTEMS.

If this is the defense of Evolutionist's, how then can the same laws be used to PROVE Evolution, if it cannot be used by Creationist's to disprove it ?

I don't believe that because our system is "open", the Second Law does not apply to us, and therefore proves Evolution.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization.

To quote one anti-creationist, Boyce Rensberger:

If the Second Law truly prohibited local emergence of increased order, there would be no ice cubes. The greater orderliness of water molecules in ice crystals than in the liquid state is purchased with the expenditure of energy at the generator that made the electricity to run the freezer. And that makes it legal under the Second Law.

Rensberger is ignorant of the creationist responses to this argument. An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way. The ice cubes of his example would not form if the electrical energy was just wired into liquid water! Instead, we would get lots of heat, and the water breaking up into simpler components, hydrogen and oxygen.

The ice example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life. When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature.

Rensberger also fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only ‘AB’, and ‘print 6 times’.

A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions ‘more of the same’ x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts.

A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Random signals, e.g. WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY, are not ordered, but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information. A non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signal — specified complexity — e.g. ‘I love you’, may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless the receiver of the information understood the English language convention. The amorous thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the letter sequence.

Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes.

Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesn’t occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence. See Q&A: Origin of Life.

The evolutionary origin-of-life expert Leslie Orgel confirmed that there are three distinct concepts: order, randomness and specified complexity:

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, 1973, p. 189]

Even the simplest known self-reproducing life form (Mycoplasma) has 482 genes, and it must parasitize more complex organisms to obtain the building blocks it cannot manufacture itself. The simplest organism that could exist in theory would need at least 256 genes, and it’s doubtful whether it could survive. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp

The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex — the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow though an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

(As a side note, how can a universe with a tendency towards order and sublime complex patterning be "meaningless" ? Is mathematics meaningless ? Either way, Evolutionist's prove God with their theories...whether they like it, or not.)

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life."(Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Answers to critics:

~ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp

~ http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

Just a reminder, I am not a scientist, nor do I have a scientific mind. I don't claim to understand every facet of the Laws of Thermodynamics, but I do recognize the logic behind the Creationist point of view.

Eloquence lacking, the explanation is obvious, and a Creationist standpoint is arrived at easily.

quote:Posted by Rust:

The refutations happened long before you moved away, so you have absolutely no point. It happened so long ago that the thread is even now long gone.

No, Rust. As we both know, I was referring to your false interpretation of when I am here, and when I am not.

I do not hide from adversity. I am here when I can be, and disappear when I cannot.

You cannot prove your assertion, so I suggest you surrender it to the closet of "Things Not To Be Uttered Again".

These supposed refutations you are referring to were countered, by me and several others. You seem to have an affinity for misplacing facts like that.

quote:I never claimed that nobody would take your ignorance on thermodynamics as true. That's exactly why I reply: because your obviously wrong argument could convince someone who doesn't know it is obviously wrong; be it because he hasn't studied on the subject or whatever other reason.

And the horror of that would be ?

You think I am wrong. Why is someone else thinking I am right so terrible to you personally ?

Still sounds like you fear something in what I am saying...and nothing you can present henceforth will convince me otherwise.

quote:Completely wrong. Either refute the links I provided, or admit that you cannot, and abandon your argument.

I was refuting you, even as you wrote. It takes time to post something with thought and subtance, Rust. The quickness of your responses only shows the level of effort and reflection spent.

I will never abandon this argument, since I am not wrong. So, save yourself some time, and stop asking me to cease.

I hope you are proud of your ability to stand as the leading poster child for Talk Origins.

Cut and paste...cut and paste...

*IMPRESSED !*

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 06-20-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have posted this all before, which clearly shows how entropy refutes macroevolution to the very core, but I will do it again, since you seem to have forgotten it.

I am saving these from now on, Rust, since it is easy for you to say I never posted something which I cannot go back and reference, when we both know damn well that I did. I am also sick of wasting my time posting and reposting things, so now I will have an easy reference.



That's a bold face lie. You have never, not once, posted that, at least not in a response aimed at me. I cannot know what other responses you might have done to anyone else, but I can assure you that you have never included anything of the sort in a reply to me.

Nevertheless, lets ignore this. Let's say that you have, and that I've simply been mistaken; I'm refuting it now then.

quote:

I want to make sure everyone gives enough attention to number 2. Why ? Because evolutionists try to claim that us "stupid Christians" misinterpret the Second Law of Thermodynamics as being about disorder. According to the definition given in the dictionary, it IS about disorder. So, we stand correct in our understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Completely false. Quote me ANY evolutionist ever claiming that Christians are wrong for believing "it is about disorder". You'll find none because that is a bold face lie... since thermodynamics DOES deal with disorder!

What evolutionists DO say is that you are wrong in claiming that thermodynamics makes evolution impossible, not that you're wrong about it "being about disorder".

quote:

Evolution claims that we experience increasing levels of order, while Creationists claim that we are experiencing increasing levels of disorder.

Wrong. Disorder, in a CLOSED system, MUST increase; nobody claimed otherwise. What evolutionists claim is that order CAN arise in a disordered state; which is a scientific fact.

quote:

"

[...]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

[...]



Thank you for that quote but no evolutionists denies anything that has been said in it.

quote:

The rate in which flesh and bone decays is nominal in comparison to the fallacious claims of Evolutionists, who require millions of years for their theory to work. The math is simply against them on this topic.



Wrong. Please back that up or admit that you cannot.

Provide the "math", please.

quote:

What about the nature of the system we reside in ? Closed, or open ? Do either of these conditions change the relevance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in relation to evolution ?

The earth is an open system - a fact agreed upon by Evolutionist's and Creationist's alike.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is said to only apply to CLOSED SYSTEMS.

If this is the defense of Evolutionist's, how then can the same laws be used to PROVE Evolution, if it cannot be used by Creationist's to disprove it ?

I don't believe that because our system is "open", the Second Law does not apply to us, and therefore proves Evolution.

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization.

Wrong. You cannot make any definite claims of the "tendency" of a opened system, by the very nature of it being OPENED! It is open to outside stimulus, and outside exchanges of energy; which make any predictions on the "tendency" moot. The "tendency" would depend completely on the exchanges in energy it has, and if you consider every single one of them, guess what... it becomes closed!

quote:

If the Second Law truly prohibited local emergence of increased order, there would be no ice cubes. The greater orderliness of water molecules in ice crystals than in the liquid state is purchased with the expenditure of energy at the generator that made the electricity to run the freezer. And that makes it legal under the Second Law.

Rensberger is ignorant of the creationist responses to this argument. An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way. The ice cubes of his example would not form if the electrical energy was just wired into liquid water! Instead, we would get lots of heat, and the water breaking up into simpler components, hydrogen and oxygen.

The ice example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life. When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature.



They obviously miss the point completely. Boyce Rensberger is refuting the assertion that evolution cannot take place since it implies order coming from disorder, in a natural process. The example of ice forming, in a natural process of nature (temperature and weather) proves that it CAN.

As for the increase in entropy, again the system is OPENED and hence any discussion on its entropy is moot. Not to mention that they refute themselves, for example if they claim "When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings" then it would mean that order DID come from disorder, and that it DID bring about an increase in the overall entropy, which is completely consistent with the Second law of thermodynamics!

quote:

Rensberger also fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only ‘AB’, and ‘print 6 times’.

A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions ‘more of the same’ x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts.

A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Random signals, e.g. WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY, are not ordered, but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information. A non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signal — specified complexity — e.g. ‘I love you’, may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless the receiver of the information understood the English language convention. The amorous thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the letter sequence.

Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes.

Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesn’t occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence. See Q&A: Origin of Life.

It is obvious they know NOTHING about thermodynamics.

"Complexity" is IRRELEVANT to thermodynamics. I repeat... IRRELEVANT. It is unimportant to thermodynamics whether one thing is complex or simple.

To quote the articles I cited, which you obviously did not even bother to read:

"

Here's a quick quiz. Which of the following patterns is more "ordered" in the thermodynamic sense?

ABAABBABBBBBABBAABABB

ABAABAABAABAABAABAABA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

ABABABABABABABABABABA

Answer: the question is meaningless, because none of the patterns is an ensemble; all are possible individual microstates of some unspecified ensemble. Statistical mechanics, and by extension thermodynamics, has exactly nothing to say about the kind of order we think about intuitively in everyday life."

http://tinyurl.com/7znu6

Here, I'll quote a Christian with a Ph.D in Chemical Engeneering, concentrating on molecular thermodynamics:

"Since their arguments do not work in terms of thermodynamics, some anti-evolutionists turn to information theory, which contains a quantity called "entropy." While I am no expert in information theory, I can offer some relevant comments.

As a preliminary, we must talk about the definition of entropy from statistical physics. This definition is mostly due to Boltzmann, and is even engraved on his tombstone. He defined the entropy of a system in terms of the number of different states available to it. So, for example, the expansion of a gas into double its original volume at constant temperature would represent an increase in entropy, because each molecule would have twice as much volume (and therefore twice as many "states") accessible to it. It is this definition that causes entropy to be thought of in terms of "disorder," because a highly ordered system like a crystal has fewer available states. Boltzmann's identification of this quantity with the thermodynamic entropy is now universally accepted.

More recently, a field has arisen called information theory. This deals with, among other things, quantifying the "information content" of various systems. Some of the results of information theory resemble the results of statistical physics, so much so that in certain well-defined conditions a quantity can be defined that is labeled "entropy" and that obeys something analogous to the 2nd law. While the identification of the information entropy with its thermodynamic counterpart is controversial, it is plausible enough to be taken seriously.

So some creationists, recognizing that their argument fails for the thermodynamic entropy, assert it in terms of the information entropy, which talks about things related to "complexity" and "disorder." It still doesn't work. First, there are real problems, without satisfactory solutions thus far, in quantifying the information entropy of living things. Someday this may be do-able, but right now science is not sufficiently well-developed to make definitive statements with regard to information entropy and life. Second, the first flaw mentioned above still applies in that the systems under consideration are not isolated. This means that, even if one can apply a "second law" to them, it will not be in the simple "entropy must increase" form valid for isolated systems. Finally, I can mention that, contrary to statements one finds in the creationist literature, cases are known in which genetic "information" (by some reasonable definition of the term) in living creatures can increase via natural processes. "

http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html



quote:

The evolutionary origin-of-life expert Leslie Orgel confirmed that there are three distinct concepts: order, randomness and specified complexity:

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, 1973, p. 189]

Even the simplest known self-reproducing life form (Mycoplasma) has 482 genes, and it must parasitize more complex organisms to obtain the building blocks it cannot manufacture itself. The simplest organism that could exist in theory would need at least 256 genes, and it’s doubtful whether it could survive.



Another irrelevant remark that has nothing to do with thermodynamics, and is once again refuted:

http://tinyurl.com/apgbm

http://tinyurl.com/chs3o

quote:

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex — the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow though an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.



The exact mirror of the above, and thus the exact same pathetically wrong bullshit.

Again, complexity is IRRELEVANT to thermodynamics.

I find it funny that YOU decide to start the post with a definition, and then stray so far from it that we're talking about completely unrelated things. Did you even read what you are quoting?



quote:(As a side note, how can a universe with a tendency towards order and sublime complex patterning be "meaningless" ? Is mathematics meaningless ? Either way, Evolutionist's prove God with their theories...whether they like it, or not.)

Well, given that NO EVOLUTIONIST claims that the universe has a tendency to order, then I guess you're completely wrong.

quote:

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life."(Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Duane Gish says that? Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research? What a surprise!

Gish being refuted:

http://tinyurl.com/a5kxh

And while I'm dealing with Gish, lets deal with Sarfati who is the author of one of the two sources you provide:

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie013.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/#s2-2

His credibility is shattered.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-21-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, Rust. As we both know, I was referring to your false interpretation of when I am here, and when I am not.

I do not hide from adversity. I am here when I can be, and disappear when I cannot.

You cannot prove your assertion, so I suggest you surrender it to the closet of "Things Not To Be Uttered Again".

These supposed refutations you are referring to were countered, by me and several others. You seem to have an affinity for misplacing facts like that.

Please don't lie. You most certainly did not post ANYTHING of the sort in reply to me, had you done so, I would have refuted it as easily as I did here.

quote:

I was refuting you, even as you wrote. It takes time to post something with thought and subtance, Rust. The quickness of your responses only shows the level of effort and reflection spent.

I replied to this because I at first had not noticed that first post of yours. I had provided a response to the second one, and not the first, since you decide to make two posts when one was more than enough. So, after seeing that I had not replied to it, I did.

But your theories and rushes to judgments are highly amusing, so please keep them up!

quote:

I will never abandon this argument, since I am not wrong. So, save yourself some time, and stop asking me to cease.

Ahh, the self-martyrdom! I was wondering when you were going to start.

I'm not asking you to stop, I'm asking you to back up your bullshit. Big difference.

quote:

I hope you are proud of your ability to stand as the leading poster child for Talk Origins.

Cut and paste...cut and paste...

*IMPRESSED !*



Yes, because I REALLY want to impress you! That's all I want to do.

Sorry, but if you didn't get an award winning reply its because you don't deserve it. Like I said, I find your childish tacticts tiring and as such the bare minimum to refute your ignorance is all I can muster.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

it adds nothing to the discussion.

There is no discussion. This forum is a way for atheists to jack each other off.

edit: and Digital_Saviour to make an ass of himself.

[This message has been edited by railroad wino (edited 06-20-2005).]

I am a woman...and since you didn't even know that minute detail, I would venture to say that you don't know me well enough to formulate an educated opinion.

But you really did hurt my feelings. *blinks* Really !

There...feel better now ?

DS:

I took the liberty of editing my post above, since you have not replied.

I am making this post simply to avoid any accusations, from whomever, that I edited my post after you had replied, and to get you to notice that I did in fact make some minor changes, so as to facilitate you being able to reply accordingly.

Please try to edit any reply you might be working on now, or working on in the future, to coincide with the new additions. Thank you.

The fact of the matter is that neither side can provide concrete evidence to back up either claim.

Therefor a discussion on evolution between a Creationist and an Evolutionist can never amount to anything other than an arguement.

Each side has proof, which, though it may be crediable to them, is not to the other.

Each will claim the other source is biased.

That is the way of things.

Evolutionists tend to have more cold hard science to back up claims in my experience, at least more WIDELY accepted science. In my experience, and I live in the deep south, the majority of people now take evolution to be the truth.

The only reason it isnt a law by now is because it cannot be duplicated in a lab to provide complete proof. But you know what, neither can Creationism.

Why is it so hard for a compromise to be met, why cant you Creationists just learn to look past what you've been taught by the church (because that IS where Creationism comes from, the Bible and the church) and think that it's possible that God itself used evolution over that many millenia to create mankind?

The credibility of the Bible in my eyes is shattered because it IS the word of God, written by MAN. Yes by man, regardless of divine inspiration I cannot believe that a man is infallable.

If man were infallable in writing the Bible, or even just certain parts of it then it would put man on a level playing field with God, at least in that aspect.

Now, as for those who DON'T take the Bible literally, but metaphorically, there's really no reason evolution cannot be true from that stand point.

The only people who attempt to disprove evolution are Creationists, and though this makes sence it is certainly not scientific. In Science one must look objectively upon all issues, and in my experience I've never met a person with a bias against Creationists, though I've met MANY Creationists with biases against Evolutionists.

The problem arises because with Creationists it's a matter of faith and with Evolutionists it's a matter of science, never should science and religious faith be mixed because it places a blinder on the issue at hand.

That being said, this arguement will go nowhere.

-Val

quote:The fact of the matter is that neither side can provide concrete evidence to back up either claim.

Please, do not make any more of thise stupid claims. There are a million pieces of evidence in genetics, anthropology, geology, botany, zoology and astronomy (to name a few), all supporting evolution; NONE supporting creationism.

I suggest you read something on the subject before spewing this bullshit:

Concrete evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html

Speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Please, do not make any more of thise stupid claims. There are a million pieces of evidence in genetics, anthropology, geology, botany, zoology and astronomy (to name a few), all supporting evolution; NONE supporting creationism.

I suggest you read something on the subject before spewing this bullshit:

Concrete evidence:

http ://www.tal korigins.o rg/faqs/co mdesc/ (http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/com desc/)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://ww w.talkorig ins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html (http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/evo lution-res earch.html )

Speciation:

htt p://www.ta lkorigins. org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/faq -speciatio n.html)

Evidence is not concrete proof.

I have done my reading, believe me.

Edit: The fact of the matter is that neither side will admit defeat until the other proves themselves completely and totally indesputabely.

And for the record I agree with you on your position.

-Val





[This message has been edited by Valmont (edited 06-21-2005).]

No. You said "concrete evidence" NOT "proof". If you now want to change it, then don't fault me, fault yourself for not writing what you mean.

Not that it matters, because that IS scientific proof. Science must hold that everything it believes is falsifiable, and thus, never proven 100% true in 100% of all cases. So, either this IS what is normally called "scientific proof" (which is basically something proven beyond a reasonable doubt), or you're just putting a requirement on Science that it will never meet, which would mean you're being unreasonable.

Then what is the difference between a theory and a law?

If evolution has so much in its favor and nothing plausable against it then why isn't it a law?

-Val

Both Laws and theories must remain falsifiable. If we tomorrow find out thermodynamics was wrong, then even if its called a "law" we abandon it, or change what needs to be changed in order for it to be correct.

The difference is that "laws" are axioms. They are priori pieces of knowledge. They are taken as true without extensive experimentation. That isn't to say that experimentation doesn't support them, of course, but they were taken as true because they coincide with what was already easibly observable.

Theories are basically "laws" that were arrived at after extensive scientific research, and that are not completely self evident (i.e. are not axioms).

---

It being a "theory" has nothing to do with the amount of evidence supporting it. Heliocentricism (i.e. "The Earth revolves around the Sun") is a theory!



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-22-2005).]

umm..

read the bible!..

it says, jesus went to heaven?

which means he didnt die, on earth.

Not to long ago I watched a religious program in which the question of how dinosaurs fit into the bible. The host of the show tried to suggest that there were dinosaurs on the ark, but that they couldn't control them so they let them die, by either throwing them over board, or letting them starve to death.

Seems to me like someone was really grasping for an explanation, but that seems to be par for the course with alot of the more hardcore believers. Either that or they tell you, your not suppost to question God's motives, he does what he does for a good reason.

quote:Originally posted by ck_psy_sjk:



umm..

read the bible!..

it says, jesus went to heaven?

which means he didnt die, on earth.

LMAO

Yeah, he did.

The Bible says that, too.

Please provide a verse that says Jesus never physically died, but went to Heaven (raptured) in the same manner that Elijah did.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am a woman...and since you didn't even know that minute detail, I would venture to say that you don't know me well enough to formulate an educated opinion.



Sorry I'm not producing your biography you self-righteous bitch. Go pray for me.

edit: so will you post some pics of your tits or something?

[This message has been edited by railroad wino (edited 06-24-2005).]

Not for you...

That is reserved for my paying customers, ONLY.

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

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Not for you...

That is reserved for my paying customers, ONLY.

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

Because that's a good christian thing to do.

-Val

Bump # 1

"I will never abandon this argument, since I am not wrong."

--Digital_Savior

*grin*

You da man, Rust.

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

quote:Originally posted by Valmont:

Because that's a good christian thing to do.

-Val

It's called a JOKE.

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

quote:Originally posted by The Marksman:

technically if you beleive in god as illustrated in the bible the universe did not exsist past 10000 years ago.

so that means no dinosaurs

what?, no it doesnt..it mentions dinosaurs in the bible.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

DS:

I am making this post simply to avoid any accusations, from whomever, that I edited my post after you had replied, and to get you to notice that I did in fact make some minor changes, so as to facilitate you being able to reply accordingly.



I noticed...but thank you for making sure I had seen it.

All of yall quoting that tinyurl site know its a joke site right?? Look at the adds.

Edit- Sorry I realized that was a different site someone said had the same URL i recant that previous statement.

[This message has been edited by JewDude (edited 06-26-2005).]

Hey Digital, you said earlier that you don't believe in Macroevoltion, what about Progressionism, in a nutshell its that eviolution existed in a manner that G-d slowly changed thing about the creatureds on Earth so they "evolved"-basically Evoultion caused by direct divine intervention.

That's a very good question...

I don't agree with that theory, since it goes against the timelines provided for us in the Bible.

God created the universe in SIX literal days.

From there, the genealogies are specific, and purposely written for various reasons, but the two most important reasons are to prove Christ's lineage, and to date our existence.

To say that we are millions of years in the making is to deny God's divinely inspired word.

You cannot be a lukewarm Christian, and remain in God's favor for long.

What do you think about it ? You practice Judaism, or ?? Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



God created the universe in SIX literal days.



How long is a day.

The length of a day to us is based on the time it takes the earth to rotate on it's axis.

How are you so sure exactly how long that rotation took when God was creating the universe?

-Val

quote:Originally posted by Valmont:

How long is a day.

The word "day" in Hebrew is Yom. That is the exact word used in the creation account.

Since the word Yom is used, I don't think it necessary to assume that it was simply metaphorical, when there is nothing else indicating that it was.

quote:The length of a day to us is based on the time it takes the earth to rotate on it's axis.

Yes, I am aware of that.

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

quote:How are you so sure exactly how long that rotation took when God was creating the universe?

God didn't create the earth first, yet the first day the "sun set".

There were already 24 hour days at that time, before the earth started rotating on it's axis.

Also, "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Exodus 20:9-11

Genesis 1 - 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was 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. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Here, a distinction is created between day and night. This tells me that the specific wording of "the first day" represents an actual, 24 hour day. The word Yom is given distinction.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. (this has been cross-referenced with The Complete Jewish Bible, translated by David H. Stern, by the way. It says the exact same thing. Who better to translate the Hebrew than a Jew ?

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. nd there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.

Now, if these were not literal days, why was it so important to specifically point out that there was evening, and then morning again, following each day of creation ?

You could say it is metaphorical if you want to, but I can't imagine why it would be.

There are also the pages upon pages of genealogies that give us a time reference for the age of the earth, following the creation account.

The ages of these people were listed, so that we could have a timeframe.

If we didn't have a timeframe, we couldn't read the prophecies properly.

If we couldn't read them properly, then there would be no point for them.

Everything points to a literal 6 day creation.

Over time languages change, and it was quite some time from when the Bible was written to when it was translated into the form we read it in now.

There is very little evidence that I've seen that proves that the Aramaic and Hebrew that the Bible was originaly written in didn't change drastically as the cultures changed.

This leaves quite a margin for error.

Perhaps the Hebrew word for day that was used to write the Bible does mean day NOW, but do you have any evidence that it meant that in the time of the Bible's original drafting, we must also consider that the Bible was written by man AFTER all of the events documented within had transpired.

I'm sorry but there's just very little probibility that it didn't loose something along the way, especially after Constantine had a hand in editing.

But I know that you wont agree, and that's ok.

We need people like you, so people like me have someone to argue with.

-Val

[This message has been edited by Valmont (edited 06-26-2005).]

I know that the Bible has retained it's accuracy because God promised it would, but even if He hadn't, what kind of omnipotence could He claim if He didn't ?

I agree that dialects have changed over time, but the stories in the Bible itself haven't.

You are assuming that the Bible was allowed to change (by God), though you have provided no evidence (merely speculation) to prove that it is any different now than it was when it was first written, so that assumption is invalid from the get go.

Also, I own a complete, unabridged version of the dead sea scrolls, so I at least have the direct translation from them.

I try to get as close to the original texts as possible, since I don't want to misunderstand a single letter of God's word.

It is possible to suggest the things you do, but you can't prove that these events (that discredit the infallability of the Bible) ever took place, so it's pure speculation.

I choose to believe in the all-powerful abilities of God, to include retaining the fullness of His original word.

Other than lacking true omnipotence, I don't see why He would be incapable of doing just that.

I hate when people post scripture after scripture to prove they're right. No one reads them because no one cares besides the poster.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I know that the Bible has retained it's accuracy because God promised it would, but even if He hadn't, what kind of omnipotence could He claim if He didn't ?

God promised? Really I never got the memo, what I did get was a book of stories handed down over countless years. I've never read anything to prove to me God's omnipotence.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You are assuming that the Bible was allowed to change (by God), though you have provided no evidence (merely speculation) to prove that it is any different now than it was when it was first written, so that assumption is invalid from the get go.

You've also not provided any evidence that it HAS in fact not been changed since it was written, when it comes to this debate everything is speculation and faith. Any standpoint you take is fueled by faith, not fact--and the opinions and "evidence" of those who believe like you.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Also, I own a complete, unabridged version of the dead sea scrolls, so I at least have the direct translation from them.

Also--there are no complete and unabridged versions of the dead sea scrolls, and the translations that the portions we DO have are also based on our current translations of old languages.

The fact is, no one can prove you wrong, but no one can prove you right. This has nothing to do with fact, but faith.

In all honesty I believe in God and Christ but I think to believe the Bible is literal is perposterous.

-Val

The one way I can acept in my own mind that we did not evolve from something else. It says in the bible that God created man, and he named that man Adam. After that he took a rib out of man, and created a women. Thats why women have one more rib then men. I believe this to be true, thus evolution from say monkeys to humans can not be true. I do believe some species evolve over time, however I dont not believe that humans evolved from monkeys. Antoher thing that i would like to discuss is how evolutionists get their theory on how old the world is. If they are referring to C-14 dating, that has been proven to be an inaccurate way of dating something, so if there is another way they are now doing it, I would like to know so I can do some research on it myself. One final thing to both sides is that evolutionist scientists are activly in pursuit trying to prove creationists wrong, and vice versa. They both have great moinds, however one thing to look at is how many evolutionists abandon their theory and take up their theory, and how many creationists abandon their theory and take up the evolutionists theory. I think that one would find the evolutionists are abandoning their theory more that the creationists.

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

I hate when people post scripture after scripture to prove they're right. No one reads them because no one cares besides the poster.

I beg to differ...

I have many people IM'ing me outside of Totse asking details about scripture I have posted.

There are many that read, and do not write.

That's the beauty of the internet !