My views are that evolution is a theory that can be backed up by science, but it is only a theory and it should not be taught as fact though I believe it is fact. Now for Intelligent Design can not be proven or disproven so I would classify this as philosiphy. Thus it should be taught in philosophy. Discuss.

Make evolution mandatory and intelligent design optional. It's the only rational comprise to this debate.

Intelligent design is a religious thing

so it should be taught in religious education

or whatever crazy equvilant america uses

quote:Originally posted by iSoape:

[B]My views are that evolution is a theory that can be backed up by science, but it is only a theory and it should not be taught as fact though I believe it is fact.[B]

Nothing in science is a absolute fact. For all we know the Flying Spageti Monster is personly holding everything on the Earth down with his noddly apendages so it looks like gravity.

Intelligent Design isn't science. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

It's that simple. Why don't more people get it?

intelligent design is not falsifiable, therefore it is not within the realm of science.

evolution theory is falsifiable, and also is accepted as a scientific theory. this means it is the closest thing science can ever come to a fact.

evolution is science, it should be taught in science classrooms. intelligent design is not science, it belongs in philosophy and religion classes.

evolution is as much scientific fact as the idea that the earth orbits the sun. It' suffered because stating it as any more that theory would be offensive and out of sync with unfounded intelligent design theories.

i already made a topic about this and it reached over 500 replies. Where were you?

It shouldn't be "taught" anywhere, because it doesn't make any sense.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004923.html

Thread got hijacked^ but still relevant.

Evolution is simply changes in gene frequency over time. This is a fact, and cannot be altered. You do not look exactly as your parents, nor their parents before them, nor their parents before them. It is quite valuable to the scientific field, and should therefore be continued to be taught in a scientific classroom. It is the discretion of the schools who teach science to include evolution.

Intelligent design must be ruled over, though, because of small things, such as the appendix, which has no use, and Huntington's disease, which is caused by genetic mutations. What god would create things that adversley affect those beings he loves?

Yeah all those microbiologist studying avian flu pandemic... they all believe in intelligent design, they are just waiting for the designer to mutate the virus so it can transmit human to human. Fuck evolution, ID is where its at.

At one point I believe the creationists/IDists here promised a thread providing yet to be refuted evidence that ID (and or creationism) was in fact valid science. The thread never materialized.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Nothing in science is a absolute fact. For all we know the Flying Spageti Monster is personly holding everything on the Earth down with his noddly apendages so it looks like gravity.

Interesting example you chose. Indeed you are correct, althrouoght history we've claimed things to be fact, and later disproved them. Even recently we've debunked previously thought truths about physics, therefore, science is not in fact truth. Science goes by Ockham's Razor until evidence is found that gives a suggestion to another possability. After the simplest explanation can be replaced with a more detailed and studied explanation- it is regaurded as fact, but it still isn't nessecerily true.

Evolution should be taught, but I believe darwin's theory should never be used. He even stated later in his lifetime he was wrong. I believe evoloution should be taught only from an observational standpoint, such as slowly transforming hermaphorditic snakes on an island off the coast of africa- or use darwin's example of the finches on the gallapogos islands.

We know evoloution to be infact, a real phenomina, but it should not be taught humans evolved from microbes or what have you. Leave it at the scientific fact that evoloution, rather adaption, takes place, and the degree to which this happened should be left to the student. Intelligent design, evoloution from some far related microbe that somehow nestled here on earth, instantaneous creation by some unconcious entity (chaos theory would allow for this explanation, any factor could have induced another set of events leading to the creation of a biological being), etc. etc.

Whens the last time you have a public school bio course? Teachers don't talk about the origin of life in evolution, just the things we know for sure.

quote:Originally posted by zebra head:



Evolution should be taught, but I believe darwin's theory should never be used. He even stated later in his lifetime he was wrong.

I agree, Darwin's theories aren't exactly right, they also aren't taught, evolution is.

No, he never stated later he was wrong, that's an urban legend perpetrated by some christians.

quote:Originally posted by zebra head:



We know evoloution to be infact, a real phenomina, but it should not be taught humans evolved from microbes or what have you.

Why not?

flying spaghetti monsterism

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Originally posted by zebra head:



Evolution should be taught, but I believe darwin's theory should never be used. He even stated later in his lifetime he was wrong.

I agree, Darwin's theories aren't exactly right, they also aren't taught, evolution is.

No, he never stated later he was wrong, that's an urban legend perpetrated by some christians.

quote:Originally posted by zebra head:



We know evoloution to be infact, a real phenomina, but it should not be taught humans evolved from microbes or what have you.

Why not?

He infact DID renounce his own theories; to be not accurate, but still applicable, as shown by a few prominent papers at the time.

People coming from microbes shouldn't be taught for various reasons in my own opinion, but the main reason I'll say here is simplt put: We don't know. While we know evoloution to infact take place, we do NOT know where we came from. Who's to say multicellular organisms weren't here already? Science doesn't know everything, and the past is just as hard to tell as the future (Einsten space mechanics not included :P). Sure, we can say SOME organisms evolved from a microbe, but not all. The most we've conclusively seen in our study of animals, is a slow transformation in very few species... I can't remember the name of the bird I am thinking of, but since it was first documented it HAS changed, some in bone structure, and I believe it's nasal passages. We have not been around long enough to say we evolved from microbes that by some weird chain of events lead to a biological creation, but we have been around long enough to say SOME evoloution takes place. Granted if you do not believe in intelligent design this is the logical explanation, it still isn't nessecerily true.

Can you cite the source for exactly what he renounced?



We also haven't been around long enough for pluto to make a revolution around the sun, should that also be removed from classrooms?

We have a huge amount of evidence of common ancestry, as it goes further back in time we end up being connected to single cell organisms. No evidence exists for any other theory.

Modern abiogenesis has shown pretty clearly that life from chemicals takes quite a few stepping stones, and that 'complex' organisms follow biogenesis, meaning at one point in the ancestry chain there will be single cell organisms.

What do you mean multicellular organisms may have been here already?

quote:Originally posted by Zay:

Make evolution mandatory and intelligent design optional. It's the only rational comprise to this debate.

Evolution IS optional, and intelligent design IS optional. You CAN teach the bible in class, though you cannot pray. Evolution is NOT required to be taught. Also the separation of church and state isnt even written in the constitution.....it was in a letter that Jefferson wrote

Legally you can't teach intelligent design in science class as a valid theory.

That phrase may not be in the constitution but the basic idea is in the establisment clause, which has since been supported and expanded by SCOTUS by the Lemon test among other cases.

what? do some american kids only find out about evolution when they get into university? the forbidden knowlege? the heretical theory? its like going to university to study maths without knowing about multiplication.

do the people who promote ID as science ACTUALLY think they are right? or do they see it as their duty to prop up LIES!

The Establishment Clause amounts to what the statute actually says.

The US government will not promote ANY religion that would undermine another. As well, no one practicing their faith will be interfered with by the State.

In other words, its to stop extremism, both left and right.

On the right, the US government does not want another Constantine who rules his nation under a banner of Christendom.

On the left, the US gov't does not want another Stalin who rules his nation under the suppression of any religion.

That's ALL that means... Why is everyone reading so far into it that the original context, written in plain English, is obscure to so many people?

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

Intelligent Design isn't science. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

It's that simple. Why don't more people get it?

Neither is evolution!!! There is no proof for it. It is a religion!

[This message has been edited by veggieskater (edited 02-23-2006).]

I think that explains a lot, most ID supporters are still living in 1787. No wonder they don't believe evolution.

I also see some here (who may just be parodies) are providing their usual quality rebutals.

Those that are living in this century might have heard of the supreme court rullings since then about the establisment clause such as the lemon test, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test

Which was validated as accurate by the supreme court in 2000, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_District_v._Doe

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I think that explains a lot, most ID supporters are still living in 1787. No wonder they don't believe evolution.

I also see some here (who may just be parodies) are providing their usual quality rebutals.

Those that are living in this century might have heard of the supreme court rullings since then about the establisment clause such as the lemon test, http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Lemon_ test

Which was validated as accurate by the supreme court in 2000, ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_District_v._Doe (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Santa_ Fe_Indepen dent_Schoo l_District _v._Doe)

I prefer to go with the ORIGINAL document, whether it was 1787 AD or 400 BC. What does the age of a document have to do with the viability of the principles of the document itself? Are you asserting that people living in 1787 were somehow less intelligent, or perhaps, less evloved, and therefore, less intelligent?

No, I'm suggesting you are less intelligent, because you obviously didn't read my post.

A break down for those who are slow,

•The constitution was written as a framework.

•The supreme court has expanded on the document since 1787.

•One must include those expansions into their brain if they wish to talk about modern law.

Tomorrow on update your brain, we investigate the use of constitutional laws by George Washington to support electronic wiretapping (which he did according to the bush administration).

I find it interesting that so many people are willing to consider the hypothesisof Intelligent Design to be a valid scientific theory.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predictions. It is not falsafiable. It depends on the false logic that if evolution were to be found invalid, then Intelligent Design would be correct. In reality, even if evolution theory were found to be false, Intelligent Design would not be valid through default. ID would have to stand on it's on merit.

Did any of you happen to take the time to read the transcripts of the Kitzmiller et al v Dover trial? Well I have. The proponents of Intelligent Design were given the opportunity (while under oath) to prove the legitimacy of the so called science behind Intelligent Design . They failed terribly in their attempt.

Intelligent Design is not science. It is Creationism hiding behind another name.It has no place in a high school science class.

By the way. Darwin did not renounce his theory. Check your sources.

Truck: A good point.

On a side I found it interesting that even with all of the creationist and IDist claims that evolution is destroying our childrens morals and that putting God back into school will restore them, it was the christians and IDists that lied and schemed to get their views taught. They were exposed and soundly hammered for it as well.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

No, I'm suggesting you are less intelligent, because you obviously didn't read my post.

A break down for those who are slow,

•The constitution was written as a framework.

•The supreme court has expanded on the document since 1787.

•One must include those expansions into their brain if they wish to talk about modern law.

Tomorrow on update your brain, we investigate the use of constitutional laws by George Washington to support electronic wiretapping (which he did according to the bush administration).

Congress shall make no law repecting a specific religion and they won't impede the free exercise, thereof.... That's it. You're intentionally manipulating the interpretation of the law so as to allow the conformity of your own views. The separation of church and state, which I happen to agree with to an extent, is NOT a legal document, but rather, a handwritten letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. And just so you know, the details of that letter were written to Baptists and the context of the letter was FOR their benefit. Jefferson was basicaly saying that they need not fear some sort of reprisal for their beliefs. So if anything at all, that phrase it more closely akin to religious persons.

Aside from the obvious, alot of secular people are using the very card that acquitted them at the Scopes Trial. They basically said, "You can't just silence us because we have the right of Freedom of Speech." And you know what, they were right! So how is it you are gonna turn it around on creationism and suppress what they have to say? Why do you think that creationsim has to equate to sitting around reading Genesis? Nobody says that we have to add a theological supposition to the science classroom. We could argue all day long what God is, or what a Creator is, but it bears no relevance and has no place in the science classroom. I agree that religion should not be placed inside the science classroom. All that creationism is saying, is, "Look at the facts... Nothing creates nothing, and intent is indicative of some sort of willful and cognizant action."

Once again, students can think whatever they wish on the theological aspects, but creationsim is asking to just look at the scientific aspects and their implications. Draw your own inference from it.

Even the simplified version doesn't work. How do you talk to someone who is too busy arguing against their own strawmen to read the posts here?

Notice, between the two of us you are the only one talking about 'separation of church and state.' I on the other hand am basing my opinions on multiple supreme court decisions relating to the establishment clause. PTFA. Break out of those preprogramed responses and read.

(When you say "you're" you are really talking to the supreme court and many other lower courts that have supported it).

No one is trying to stop creationists free speech. We are trying to prevent pseudo science from being taught in school.

Creationists and IDists claim they are saying "look at the facts, be fair" but that is BS. Creationist organizations readily admit that you should look at the facts through a literal bible and anything that disagrees with it should be thrown out.

IDists have no scientific argument and want to stick their complicated form of God of the gaps into science. They have also admitted the real goal is to get God back into the classroom.

Both groups know their theories can't stand up to proper science and evidence but neither group cares about science, this is about theology and cash.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Notice, between the two of us you are the only one talking about 'separation of church and state.' I on the other hand am basing my opinions on multiple supreme court decisions relating to the establishment clause. PTFA. Break out of those preprogramed responses and read.

(When you say "you're" you are really talking to the supreme court and many other lower courts that have supported it).

You DO believe in the separation of church and state because you've cited allegience to it many times. So stop pretending to have some other insightful reason.

What do certain Justices of the Supreme court have to do with what is actually written in black and white? If certain Justices distort what is CLEARLY written, then, most liberals wouldn't be throwing a hissy fit over Alito and Roberts, now would they? Obviously they believe that those two Justices will use partisanship as a basis to nullify what is actually written. Take it STRAIGHT from the horses mouth and opposed to some liberal or conservative spin. Just read what it says and tell me what it means. I don't need to hear your countless retorts and cases. I'm asking you what it means.

No one is trying to stop creationists free speech. We are trying to prevent pseudo science from being taught in school.

What is psuedo-science about it? It says that everything couldn't come from nothing, so let's have another offer of explaination, using science. Science is science, and you know damn well they use. Stop acting like they sit around and read Genesis all day long.

Creationists and IDists

Where did this distinction come from? It's always been understood by me that Intelligent Design is an argument made by Creationists. When did it become two separate entities and why?

claim they are saying "look at the facts, be fair" but that is BS. Creationist organizations readily admit that you should look at the facts through a literal bible and anything that disagrees with it should be thrown out.

Then they shouldn't be the authorities. But you don't need to abandon reason because a few guys said, "Hang on, this isn't adding up.' For as ridiculous as it would be for someone to say that nothing creates everything, it would be equally greivous for someone to say, "God did it,' and simply leave it at that. An answer of such brevity would completely emasculate science. But what creationist does and says that? Give me a break. You're demonizing something you know has some merit, whether you fully believe it or not.

IDists have no scientific argument and want to stick their complicated form of God of the gaps into science. They have also admitted the real goal is to get God back into the classroom.

They do have a scientific argument, evidenced by how frightened evolutionists are of them. If no one percieved a threat, then they wouldn't go out of their way to directly assualt them on thousands of radio shows, blogs, websites, articles, etc, to refute what they have to say. And while many of them are Christian, they don't need to apologize for that. God has been defamed, unduly, but that doesn't mean we have to set up shop in the science classroom. Look, I understand why you are leery of it, but for how much you say that creationists have an agenda to set up God, evoultionists have just as much reason to dethrone the Creator. So, one good conspiracy deserves another.

Both groups know their theories can't stand up to proper science and evidence but neither group cares about science, this is about theology and cash.

What groups? Creation and evolution?

Evolution makes absolutly zero claims concerning the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Evolution deals with changes in organisms over time.

The distinction between Intelligent Design and Creationists has actually been made by those supporting Intelligent Design. When Creation Science was ruled to be religion, they renamed it "Intelligent Design ".

The two groups referred to by Beta were the Creationists and ID supporters.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by truckfixr:

Evolution makes absolutly zero claims concerning the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Evolution deals with changes in organisms over time.

Never has an organism been known to circumvent its assigned speciation, except perhaps, a subspecie, which in essence, is actually a case of devolution. So why should we give any credence to a theory, that after almost two hundred years, still can't produce evidence?

Ok Hyro I am only going to say all of this once in the thread, so you better PTFA and read because if in the next post you say something that makes it obvious you didn't engage your brain all you will hear from me is laughing as you flaunt your ignorance. Got it?

First of all, you really should learn some things about a debate before diving in, it has become obvious you have not. Big mistake, so lets take you on a tiny educational course as I think I've forgotten more about this debate than you know.

Constitution

The constitution was written as a framework and was never meant to be read as the literal letter of the law like many think. Part of the supreme courts point is to expand on it as cases the founders couldn't have predicted come along. The Judicial branch interprets the laws.

The lemon test was created and validated as a way to see if something breaks the establishment clause. You can complain about it but it exists and has been validated so get used to it and stop with the 'separation of church and state doesn't exist' strawman.

Creationist groups

There are multiple groups of creationism. Creationism is a form of intelligent design but what is commonly refered to ID is a different theory.

Creationism:

OEC (old earth creationism): This is the belief that God created and evolution is false but that the earth really is billions of years old. The may see a gap between gen 1 and gen 2. Others accept modern geology but not biology.

YEC (Young earth creationism): This is the belief that God created literally and evolution is false and the earth is 12,000 - 6,000 years old. 12,000 comes from the belief that every day for God was 1000 years plus 6,000 years after adam and eve. Others stick to an even more literal version and believe the earth is 6,000 years old based on adding up dates in the bible. There is a bit of wiggle room because the dates don't always add up precisely (it is often hard to get two different creationist groups to agree on when Noah's flood was, some even have contradicting dates in their own group).

ID (Intelligent Design): What is often called intelligent design is the belief that an "intelligence" created life but doesn't define that intelligence. Generally it is based off of Behe and Dembski's claims and is based on Irreducible complexity and Specified complexity.

Pseudo-science of creationism

Creationism and ID are both pseudo science because they claim to be science but aren't. Creationist groups will only accept evidence if it supports their theory, quite a bit of evidence that supports their theory is false and God is often used as a mechanism.

ID falls into a Pseudo science because it is basically God of the gaps. It boils down to "We don't know thus God did it."

Ignoring evidence

Most if not all creationist groups have a statement of faith, to be part of the group and publish under them you must agree to it. Here is one statement of faith from a large organization, AiG, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

"6. By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

In other words the bible is right no matter what the evidence says.

Some creationist groups even have peer review journals. Of course to submit and article or review an article you must already agree creationism is correct.

Where is the evidence?

I hear it constantly. "They do have a scientific argument" or "Creationism is true" or "Evolution is a lie" etc. But where is the actual evidence? When asked most creationist come up with nothing or old refuted arguments. I know some creationists here have said they will provide evidence and I requested it not be something that rust has already refuted. They never went back to their claim.

The reason being the evidence is bogus and the majority of it is an attempt to falsify evolution. NONE of it can stand up to the same scrutiny put on other real science such as evolution. (there are a large number of PRaTT arguments (Points Refuted a Thousand Times) such as some oldies like the moon dust argument to carbon dating BS like mollusks dating to 5000 years or K/Ar Dating being faulty or no new 'information' etc.)

What does evolution really say?

It is a constant misconception that evolution says something came from nothing or that the beginning of life is even part of evolution. It is not. Evolution is the change in gene frequency over time. It says nothing about the very beginning of life (modern abiogenesis) or of spacetime (Big bang and first cause).

Are scientists afraid?

Of the evidence? Nope. Creationism is soundly flogged in most public and scientific venues. However most scientists know the general public doesn't have a firm grasp on evolution, creationism, or science and that when a large number of profesional scam artists and liars use religion to shaft the general public they will go along with it. They have the power to change things for the worse.



Yep that was long and only the tip of the iceberg.



Most recent post:

What the hell is an "assigned speciation" and do you do any research at all?

I'm way ahead of you, so I'll just give you the rough draft of something I wrote.



“We wish that science teachers would distinguish clearly between firmly established empirical facts concerning evolution and theories about mechanisms.

They forget the fact that any theory of the world has at most a provisional, pro tem value. It is only valid until it is falsified or a better model is proposed. When the current favorite theory leaves as much unexplained as Darwin does, students must learn that scientific alternatives exist. Failure to mention them is deceitful.”

-Brig Klyce-

The highly polarized debate of evolution, versus, creationism has gained a lot of fanfare, especially recently. In the United States, the scientific elite has felt the uncomfortable squeeze of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, as evidenced by the countless articles, news specials, websites, blogs, and debates. In response to this clear scientific exodus, rules are being rewritten under the misrepresented guise of Constitutional legality to prevent ID from being taught. (Consequently, this suppresion is the very thing that acquitted them during the Scope’s trial). A massive propaganda campaign has been underway to undermine any would-be defectors against evolution. The typical conjecture is that creationism in not a science. Instead, they derisively refer to the study as a ‘psuedo-science,’ likening it to phrenology, scientology, or paranormal research. What’s important to remember, is that the ID movement is nothing new. Prior, to Darwin, this was the only theory concerning the origin and sustainment of life. Thomas Aquinas, William Paley, and a host of other early pioneers saw the mind of Creator by looking at the creation. So, if anything at all, creationism is a revival of the oldest scientific beliefs. In this chapter, let us examine the critical aspects of creationism by first asking the all-important question: “What is truly the issue concerning the controversy?”

Evolutionists, or more explicitly, atheists, feel that creationism smacks of theology. This is understandable. If I were in their shoes, I might be leery of this theory as well. But I’m of the opinion that the real issue is that not that no one is willing to hear what creationists have to say, but rather, that they are systematically usurped. Instead, Creationists are being silenced at every opportunity and dismissed whenever they incline to make a rational claim that opposes the modern maxim. The athiestic community is using some rather underhanded tactics to regain the scientific focus sqaurely into their court alone. Creation scientists do not hide their faith and I commend them for that. At the same time, there is no covert or overt agenda to push religion, as if creationists are twisting their moustache, devising some diabolical scheme to brainswash children. This just further confirms the gross misconception that American society has unduly placed on the creationist. Even if this was the case, it could easily be said that evolutionists have an agenda to destroy religion altogether. There are volumes of documentation supporting this, some of which, I quoted in the previous chapter. Nontheless, I would not blame every evolutionist for the suppresion of creationist beliefs, simply by virtue of association. I wish the same amount of respect would be leant to us.

“For the sake of inquiry we are required to assume that God does not exist”

-Dr. William Dembeski,

“I don’t agree with creationism for theological reasons. I agree with it for scientific implications.” – Creationist and molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Behe

You might be surprised to know that I happen to agree with the separation of church and state to a very small degree, even though it is not an actual statute. I think that when you are in a science classroom, science should be taught and not theology. However, if there is a Creator, and He did create all that is, then we cannot get around speaking about the Creator, now can we? We shouldn’t be made to feel sorry over this either. No one is stating that Christianity needs to be taught alongside creationism. In fact, its best in the school system that theology play a limited role, if any, in the science classroom. We could argue over the semantics of theology all we wanted, but in a scientific setting, it bears little relevance. I want to make certain that this distinction is made known to the opposition. Having said that, I doubt this will placate my counterparts. For as much as they insist that ID has an agenda to place God in the public school system, they have all the more reason to expulse His Word and erase His name from existence. This hardly seems fair, being, that 80% of the American populace no longer agrees with Darwinism. The role of the Creator has been, unduly diminished significantly since Darwin’s theory was propelled to the forefront.

Written in the early 1900’s, Reverend William Williams, a staunch opponent to Darwinism, stated, “What is taught in the universities today will be truth, tomorrow.” How right he was. This is all beginning to change, after an arduous, one hundred and thirty six year battle. Models for creation science within the scientific realm are scarce, at best. There is no way of getting around this fact. No one can deny it. Even still, creationists are asking some important questions only to receive asinine answers that explain nothing worthy of bearing the title, ‘scientific.’ Nonetheless, as for my own personal beliefs, I happen to believe in the Judeo-Christian God for all the reasons I have written earlier. I happen to believe, based on the current evidence, that the Bible corroborates what we witness in nature and that the Biblical account is harmonious with creation. Is it true that perhaps most creationists are Christian? Probably. But they shouldn’t be made to feel sorry over this, either; this is the exception, not the absolute rule. Aside from this, if we were to look at nature for what it is, we could very easily deduce that there is something more than simply, ‘nothing.’ Every living organism has a function that leads to the operation of another function. The totality of these functions is purposeful. So, if everything that every living organism does is for a purpose, how then, should the entirety of it somehow be devoid of it? That would be a very illogical concept, but indeed, that is what’s being propogated to the youth.

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” –Romans 1:20

Everything in nature mimics its Creator, and its creator has a triune character.

1. Height + Width + Depth = Space (3 = 1)

2. Solid + Liquid + Gas = Matter (3 = 1) (1 + 1 + 1 = 3)

3. Past + Present + Future = Time (3 = 1)

• Space is unseen, yet omnipresent, as is the Father unseen, yet omnipresent.

• Matter is the manifestation of space, as is the Son, the manifestation of the Father.

• Time, while unseen, provides the means for experiencing matter, as is, the Spirit, while unseen, the means of expreriencing God.

You may have been hearing a lot about Intelligent Design lately, however, you may not understand the basic ideological premise behind it. When looking at nature, it is difficult, if not impossible to conceive that there is not a clear intent behind nature itself. New polls are showing that in the United States, most of the populace now believe that the Darwinian account of the origin of life is fallacious. This is very surprising to me, though I am pleased to hear it. Even when scientific creationism is scant, people are beginning to understand that huge amounts of complexity is highly indicative of intent, and intent, is indicative of a cognizant mind. Creationists must be careful in their approach, however. For as foolish as it may seem to me, to say, that ‘nothing creates everything,’ it is equally foolish to say, “God created everything,” and simply leave it at that. The offer of an explanation with such brevity would completely emasculate science. Knowing this, why is it that creationists believe in the creation account? What are some of their arguments? Looking at all the complexity of the universe, as well as our own body, loudly proclaim that there is a designer. Let’s take for example, the eye.

“To suppose that the eye with all it’s inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I frankly confess, absurd in it’s highest degree.”

-Charles Darwin

After testifying to how seemingly absurd it would be for the eye to develop all on its own, he goes on to speak about it as if it were certainly true. All proof is exhausted in the struggle to prove the possibility of such a marvelous eye, that to say nothing at all about the probability of such an occurrence, much less the certainty required by science, is insuperable. But for how amazingly complex the eye is, Darwinism attempts to explain it as having arose by chance. Evolutionists say that the first eye came by pigmentation in the skin, perhaps a freckle or a mole. Then, they say, rays of sunlight converged on this organism and caused a sun spot where it developed into a cluster of light sensitive cells. Then, they claim that the organism could feel the energy from the sun and so it turned towards the source. They purport that a nerve came out of it all, thus, evolving the first eye. What is really being said is, ‘guess, assertion, conjecture.’ This is an unsubstantiated claim founded on no empirical facts, whatsoever. It sounds somewhat plausible and so, they pawn it off as if it were some kind of scientific certainty. Where I come from, thats called ‘bull excrement.’ Consider this question: If evolution occurs through small gradations over time, how could the separate parts of the eye, such as the lens, retina, pupil, and whatnot, could have come about since none of these structures by themselves would have made vision possible? Without all of the mechanisms in place from the inception, vision is not possible. Ask anyone blinded from even the seemingly smallest accident how critical each component is to the overall function of the eye to allow vision to take place. In other words, what purpose would a partial eye serve and how should any organism benefit from it prior, to its full development? What enhanced its survival, that it should have developed, and thus, evolved this feature? Even supposing that the eye was able to develop all on its own for no good reason, they have only accounted for how one eye might have developed. We cannot make an accurate computation of how complex the eye truly is by using probability, but we can formulate an algorithm with the location of it. In fact, the same could be said of all the organs in the body. We can estimate that on the surface of the human body there is anywhere from 2,500 to 3,500 square inches of surface, depending on how short, skinny, fat, or tall we are. This space is roughly 3,000 times the space of the eye itself. The eye, by the laws of probability, could have developed arbitrarily anywhere on the body as opposed to where it is actually situated. Out of our abundant margin, we will say that it is one chance out of 1,000; hence, the probability is .001. The compound probability of the location of two things happening together can be ascertained by multiplying together their fractions of probability. So now, we have two eyes that just so happen to be inexplicably placed about the head region, in the front of our body. That is now .001 x .001, which equals .00001. Now let’s up the ante a bit. Now lets throw ears into the mix. The computation is the same in this equation. We have two ears that according to evolutionists, developed there for no good reason at all. Now, the equation reads .000,000,000,001. The two eyes and the two ears have one chance out of a trillion to be placed in the locality that we conveniently find them in. This does not even take into consideration the mouth, the brain, the esophagus, the stomach, the liver, the intestines or any other bodily component that is central to your survival. This feat is nothing short of miraculous, however, such a word is officially, stricken from the vocabulary of evolutionists.

As we’ve seen in the two previous chapters, cosmological and biological evidence does not support evolution as a viable hypothesis. The ontological and teleological argument suggests that for every result, there must be a cause, that is outside, of its own ability. Therefore, the cause of the universe, and by extension, all that is material, must be separate and distinct from the space, matter, and time domain. This is more than a mere philosophical argument. This is based on measurable evidence in many fields of study.

Looking at creatures that employ camoflauge as a defense or offense, I cannot see how anyone can miss the intent. Creatures, such as the Praying Mantis, chameleon or the ocptopus each have some sort of camoflauge ability. Lets start with the Mantis. This critter has a body shape that looks like some twigs from a bushel, blending in with an actual plant. Looking at this creature, how can anyone possibly think that this amazing feature came by way of happenstance? You would either have to figure out a way that any creature could develop this or concede that either the Mantis willed itself genetically or that nature has a mind. Similarly, the chameleon employs camoflauge by using chromatophores. Chromatophores are irregularly shaped melanin, called melanophores. The chameleon has these highly specialized cells that lie in two layers underneath the skin. The chromatophores contain a yellow and red pigment. Underneath this first layer are guanophores and they contain a colorless crystaline substance, called, guanin. These guanophores reflect light creating the illusion of incandescence. Octopi and other cephalopods are similar in that they can manipulate chromatophores by contraction and expansion as the result of controlling muscle fibers. They can terminate the color shift almost instantly with motor nuerons. As a result, these color changes can come about through the dispersal or aggregation of granules within the cell under hormonal control. If you assert that these instances are the result of a natural progresion of evolution, then you are going to have to explain the mechanisms and reasons for this occurance. Why did these creatures develop this distinct feature and no other, when all organisms could benefit from them as well? I don’t know about you, but I sure wouldn’t mind blending in with my enviornment. If you cannot logically answer this, then you will have to explain how the Mantis, chameleon or octopus granted itself these powers. We know they are able to manipulate their body, but how would they be able to create this in their offsprings genetic code? If you can’t answer that either, then you’re going to have to admit that nature has a mind and that it exhibits intelligence. If you cannot do that either, then we are inescapably driven towards an alternative answer. We would, out of all other options, concede that something else is the cause of this spectacular feat. Does this verify that God created this? Certainly not, however, we can greatly assume that something cognizant is the cause of these features, because as we’ve seen, there is nothing in nature, that would alone, account for these occuranes. What other choice do we have left? Now, we can argue on who or what the Creator is until we’re blue in the face and dripping with persperation, but it is at least a step in a logical direction.

How does this all fit into the Biblical view? For those wondering, the Bible is not a science textbook, nor should it be employed as one. The Bible tends to corroborate what we see in nature, but it is completely limited in the ‘how’s and why’s’ department. The Biblical account is historically, geographically, spiritually, and scientifically true, however, this is an abbreviated version of what has taken place. If God provided every minute detail of how He accomplishes what He has accomplished, the Bible would never end. The Biblical account is a brief synopsis of events that have, and will, occur. This is part of what adds to God’s mystique. It is up to us to find out how He does what He does, and to marvel at His creation. I suppose the scientist could thank Him for not divulging every detail, otherwise the scientist would be out of a job. It is mankind, in a shameless display of hubris that supposes he knows so much. The reality is, humankind is not nearly as intelligent as he makes himself out to be. If we were to undertake in an honest intropection of ourselves, we would have to admit, simply by default, that we are woefully inept to answer all of the questions. As well, we are so incredibly simple, compared to the conglomeration of nature itself.

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your path. Do not be wise in your own eyes.” –Proverbs 3:5-7

“We do not know a millionth of one percent.” –Thomas Edison

Tommy boy makes a good point here; and yet we can become so haughty in our own eyes. I’m willing to bet to this conservative and humble figure is much more accurate than the arrogance insinuated by so many elitists.

Now that I’ve attempted to clear up any misconceptions, perhaps we can engage in a thorough investigation of God’s Word and note the parallels from what is written, to what is seen. What evidence comes from the Word?

“And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate the water from the water.’ So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.” –Genesis 1:6-7

What might Moses be talking about here? Water above water, but separate? This is by no means, a scientific fact; this is theoretical. I believe God is referring to a vapor canopy in the upper-stratosphere, locking in moisture, creating an oxygen rich environment. This shouldn’t be too difficult a thing to perceive, being that we have something called, the ozone layer.’ The reason for this theory comes directly from archaeological discoveries and anthropological studies. For instance, the excavation of fossilized palm trees have been discovered on Vancouver island, British Columbia, is evidence that it was once a tropical region. As well, tropical forests have been uncovered on New Siberia island, north of Russia; subtropical marine life has been found on Spitsbergen island, north of Norway- both, are well in to the Arctic circle. Enormous trees have been uncovered at the South Pole, with trunks three feet in diameter. This is highly suggestive that the earth was once completely tropical, or at least, sub-tropical. Large fossilized plants in the same region have been found with hair-like roots, because in a world where surface mist could have watered all the vegetation, vast root networks would not be necessary. Animals, too, have been found that appeared to have died abruptly, in some form of cataclysm. Miners in Alaska extricated mammoths deep in ice and mire. They discovered that their skin was f intact and showed every evidence that they lived in a warm climate. As well, near Tallahassee, Florida, I have personally seen a huge graveyard of mammoth bones lying at the bottom of a lake. Evolutionary paleontologists and anthropologists suggest that mammoths went extinct in North America, some 3-12,000 years ago. Has Floridian weather changed so drastically in the last few thousand years, or, is it that mammoths lived in warmer climates at one time? The mammoths in Alaska had undigested contents in their stomach, as well, as in their mouths. This is suggestive that they died very, very suddenly and not gradually over millions of years of time.

It would seem that the antediluvian (pre-flood) world was vastly different from that of today. The greenhouse canopy could have filtered ultra-violet light and caused the atmosphere to be highly oxygenated. This gave rise to monstrously big plants and animals, such as: asparagus stalks, forty feet high; Clams the size of cars; Rhinoceros’ 18 feet tall; pigs the size of cattle; dragonfly with a wingspan of three feet; bats with a 15 foot wingspan, sharks, such as Megalodon, 80 feet long. All of these have been found. We know that reptiles, for instance, never stop growing. Hypothetically, if they lived in an oxygen saturated enviornment, they could survive much longer than their current rate. There has been no other explanation as to why organisms would grow so large. We know, however, that if there was a vapor canopy, it would have to be very thin. If it were thick, radiant heat could have reached 220 degrees Fahrenheit, which of course, would not sustain life. Aside from this, if it were a very thick canopy, the atmospheric pressure would be so great that oxygen and nitrogen would become toxic to animals. Nonetheless, a thin canopy spanning the entire earth could hypothetically create a very warm and lush environment, much like we see in modern-day rainforests. “But wait! What happened to this world? Where did these enormous creatures go?”

“So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” –Genesis 6:12-13

The DELUGE: Mankind in those days was full of violence and disregard. All of his thoughts were continually evil. The most reprehensible behavior we might associate with today was commonplace in those days. After giving warning for 120 years, mankind’s days were numbered. Eight people would heed the warning and prepare for the floodgates to open. The most profound question for those who had rebelled would be, “How long can you tread water?”

The flood epic is not simply a tale from ancient, Jewish mythology. The flood story has been circulated by an estimated, thirty-three civilizations, bearing a striking consistency. Most of the stories are slightly different, however, all of them have a righteous man spared, a vessel of some kind, world-wide inundation of water, and the that it’s cause was supernatural. Twenty five of the thirty three cultures describe ‘the ark’ coming to rest on a mountaintop, as the waters began to recede.

“Now, all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: ‘It it said there is still some part of the ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischief’s’…. Upon which it is reported that who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came upon shore on the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote.”

–Flavius Josephus

Should we believe in the account based solely on the stories? Certainly not, so lets look at some tangible evidence. If the alleged floodwaters covered the whole earth, even up to the highest mountains, we should see evidence of that. That’s exactly what we find all over the world; including the Himalayas. Even on the worlds largest peak, Mt. Everest, sea shells can be found, as well as other small aquatic life. The Bible tells us that the Ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat, which is in modern day Turkey. The seventeen thousand foot tall mountain has a plethora of marine fossils. It also contains a multitude of pillow lava, a very dense rock that typically form underwater. In the four thousand foot high hills of Delhi, India, the fossil beds are abounding with animals, from mastodons, hippos, oxen, and a variety of trees. Because these fossils do not conform to any kind of evolutionary development, geological pattern, and are so randomly dispersed, only a world-wide flood seems plausible. To produce such a vast array of organisms, preserved in sandstone, a sudden burial would have to have been required. In fact, an Ichthyosaur was found fossilized giving birth, suggesting that it was buried very suddenly. As well, hundreds of shark remains have been found under hundreds of tons of sedimentary rock. All of them died in the natural swimming position. That is to say, when fish die, they go belly-up. So, how and why would these sharks be upright as if they were simply swimming? The sharks appear to have died instantly, buried very quickly, keeping their bodies in the anatomical swimming position. For many of them, the weight was so great that their bodies were squashed as thin as a quarter of an inch thick. This doesn’t fit the evolutionary paradigm that sediment deposits over thousands of years. Similarly, excavated duck-billed dinosaurs were discovered in swimming positions. Other dinosaurs were found with broken vertebrates and tails, indicating that a heavy flow of water must have pummeled them. As well, their bodies were oriented in the flow of water that apparently held them down to drown. Near Gainesville, Florida, a plot of land, 120 feet long x 60 feet wide, and 15 feet in depth, contains millions of fossil remains. Hundreds of different species are packed so tightly that nearly 50% of the ground itself is composed of fossil remains. Whales, manatees, alligators, turtles, raccoons, four species of wolves, Saber-toothed Tigers, elephants, rhino, seven types of horses, and three species of camels, were all found in Florida, on a relatively tiny piece of land. Only a massive run-off could have caused all these creatures to accumulate into one grave, simultaneously, and at such close proximity to one another. Likewise, petroleum-based products, such as oil, come from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels come directly from carboniferous forests and decayed flesh from organisms, that are later refined for human usage. For there to be as much oil in one place, large volumes of fossils would have to be centrally located to cause the compression of these organisms. Only the Flood seems plausible to cause this. Why else, and how else would there be so much oil? One or two dead trees or bodies, does not create oil. This seems concurrent with the Flood, because animals and trees would run-off into a central location where they would would decay, and eventually form, oil. In the average oil wells, 20,000 pounds per square inch are contained, therein. Interestingly enough, geologists say that rocks could not have contained that kind of pressure for more than 10,000 years. We know from the Bible and other extra-biblical documents that the Flood occurred well before 10,000 years which further supports the Flood theory.

When God collapsed the canopy and brought water from underneath the earth, the greenhouse world would have changed abruptly. The once tropical regions of the north, then become polar regions in this cataclysmic event. You may be asking, ‘but where did all that water go, when the flood ended?’

“You covered it with the deep as with a garment, the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the whole earth.” –Psalm 104:6-9

Water, flowing at a terrific speed cut deep into the earth, carving out huge canyons along the way, radically altering the landscape. One can imagine the deafening sound of rushing water, like peals of thunder, as the earth gave way to the sheer force. The water collapsed millions of tons of rock, forming subterranean caverns. It isn’t impossible to concieve that the oceans in the antediluvian world were miles down as they are today. It’s possible that they are as deep as they are because of the Flood. In fact, huge underwater caverns can be found in much of the world’s oceans today, much like the Marianna’s Trench in the Pacific ocean. As well, many geologists have been studying the Grand Canyon in Arizona, making some incredible discoveries. These finds are highly suggestive that much of the canyon we see today was the formation of millions of tons of water, blasting through rock.

Young Earth- Cosmological evidence: As in earlier chapters, we have seen that there is much evidence that the earth is much younger than the 4.5 billion year old model purports. What are some of the evidences to support a young-earth model?

• The earth is so perfectly situated that one has to lean towards a designer to implement such perfection. The earth’s distance from the Sun is perfectly aligned to support life. If the earth was 5% closer, the oceans would boil and all water on earth would evaporate. If the earth were 10% further than it is, the lakes and oceans would freeze.

• Evolutionists believe that the entire solar system was formed from clouds of gas and dust. If so, then the Sun, planets, and moons would be made of the same elements. The Sun, however, is 98% Hydrogen/Helium. The earth, moon, Venus, and Mercury- all contain less than 1% Hydrogen/Helium.

• If the solar system evolved, all planets should be spinning in the same direction: Pluto and Venus rotate backwards and Uranus is tipped on it’s side.

• If the solar system evolved, all the moons should orbit their planets respectively in the same direction. At least six planets have moons that rotate counter to their planets orbit. Neptune, Saturn, and Jupiter have moons that orbit in either direction.

• Large gaseous planets like Jupiter and Saturn’s gases have not dissipated into the vacuum of space. In 4.5 billion years this should not be so, measuring the current rate of dissipation.

• The Moon is comprised of elements that differ from that of Earth. If both the moon and the Earth were the result of the same explosion, surely their contents would be identical.

• The Moon is incrementally going farther away from Earth at a measurable rate. If the universe is as old as some say, the moon would not be anywhere near us which would radically alter our tides.

• Lunar activity controls the terrestrial tides. The closer the Moon is, the higher the tides on Earth. This is the cause of the ‘Inverse Square Law.’ Therefore, if the Moon were 2 billion years old, the tides would be so high that everything on Earth would have drowned, twice a day.

• Stellar dust accumulates on the surface of the celestial bodies as they burn out. In 1955, NASA believed that the Moon was at least 2 billion years old. In response, they warned their astronauts that their lunar landing craft might become enveloped by dust. What they found was ½ an inch of dust covering the whole Moon, suggesting that it is not even close to being 2 billion years.

• The Earth’s magnetic field is weakening with time. Measuring from the same rate that it is decreasing, the Earth then, cannot be billions of years old, otherwise, it would have no magnetic field at all.

• The Earth’s rotation is slowing down at the equator. The Earth currently revolves at a rate of approximately 1,000 mph, slowing down 1/1,000 seconds per day. Because the Earth used to spin much faster than it is now, just in the time that humans have been observing this phenomenon, leap seconds have to be added every 18 months in order to keep the current time at Greenwich, England, accurate.

• If the Earth was billions of years old, the Earth would have had revolutions so fast, due to the Corealis Effect, the centrifugal force would have produced 5,000 mph winds and would have hurled it’s inhabitants into space.

Young-Earth- Terrestrial evidence:

• The Mississippi river deposits approximately 80,000 tons of sediment every hour at the New Orleans Delta. Even secular geologists say that the delta could only have been accumulating mud for no more than 30,000 years. If the Earth were 4.5 billion years old, the Gulf of Mexico would a giant mud heap by now.

• The oldest known tree, named, ‘Methuselah,’ is 4,400 years old. Using Dendrochronology (the tree ring analysis method), it shows that the Genesis account is perfectly consistent with the re-population of the Earth for vegetation.

• Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is estimated at 4,200 years old, also consistent with the Genesis account.

• Niagara Falls, in New York state, is eroding at a measurable rate of 4.7 feet per year. It has moved only 7.5 miles from whence it began. If the earth were billions of years old, it would have eroded to Lake Eerie, if not much further in that time span. Contrastly, if the post-flood world were 4,400 years old, this should be a very accurate estimate.

• Ocean salinity is perpetually increasing. When it rains, 70% of rainwater evaporates or soaks into the soil. 30% of rainwater finds its way back into the oceans. When it returns, the rainwater deposits mineral salts washed out of the ground into the oceans. This is constantly making the ocean saltier with time. Today, the oceans are estimated to be 3.6% salt. If the Earth were billions of years, then the sea should no longer be a sea at all, but rather a huge salt dome.

• A 1995 study of 38 men from various countries and ethnicities indicate that we all descended from one man (Adam). The (Y) chromosome, being passed from father to son. Likewise, females possess mitochondral DNA (mDNA) passed from mother to daughter. Mankind can also be traced back to one female (Eve). DNA mutation rates would reveal that Eve could have only lived several thousands of years ago, not millions.

As evolutionists vie for control, they have attempted to impugn young-earth creationism. This invective is typical, but their remarks are sounding more like platitude, and it is easily, overcome. They have used an argument, employing the assistance of dinosaurs, geared towards thwarting the young earth theory. The argument is that if the earth is as young as creationists say, then humans and dinosaurs lived among each other. This argument is ineffectual, because there is much evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, that give all indication that they existed contemporaneously. Of the Biblical account, there are some verses that contain the insinuation of dinosaurs. Evolutionists claim that these verses are obscure passages, but I will let the reader decide for themselves.

“Look at the Behemoth, which I made along side you; He eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength in his hips and the power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like brass rods, his ribs are like iron. He is first among God’s creation; but his Maker can approach him with the sword.” –Job 40: 15-19

We know by the description that this is an immense beast. He is an herbivore with great strength. His tail is powerful and thick, like the circumference of Cedar tree. His legs are enormous and powerful, like that of brass and iron. What animal that lives on the earth today would qualify for this description? An elephant is a large animal that eats grass, but its tail is very small. A crocodile is relatively large with a very thick tail, but it is a carnivore. Think about it deeply. Only a Brachiosaur or a Brontosaur or Diplodocus would qualify. And moreover, the last verse I quoted states that his Maker (God) can approach him with the sword; meaning God can cause him extinction. Likewise, in Isaiah 13:22, we read that “And the dragons in their pleasant palaces. Her time is near to come. And her days will not be prolonged.” In the same chapter of Job, and also in the Psalms, it goes on to describe the “Leviathan,” which bears a striking resemblance to perhaps an extinct aquatic creature. But even supposing that these verses are too obscure for you to believe it wholeheartedly, there is still much evidence that humans and dinosaurs did interact. The word, ‘dinosaur,’ was invented by Sir Richard Owen in 1841. Prior, to this time, everyone referred to dinosaurs, as dragons. In fact, even in a 1946 edition of the Webster’s dictionary, the definition of a dragon, reads as, “Now rare, huge serpent; a fabulous animal; generally a huge lizard.” Most people today think of dragons as being mythical creatures found in folklore. While, I do believe that many of the depictions are, greatly exaggerated in many cases, this still does not explain why they resemble dinosaurs as much as they do. Virtually every civilization in Europe and the Eastern and Western hemisphere tell stories of dragons. In fact, during his conquest, Alexander the Great visited India in 326 BC. He tells of huge dragons living in the caves of India. Marco Polo, in 1271 AD, made his acclaimed journey to the East. Among other notable things, he reported that the Emperor of China at that time raised dragons to pull his chariots. The town of Nerluc, France was renamed in honor of a dragon slain in the city. It was described as being bigger than an ox, with long, sharp pointed horns. Even in the Americas, petraglyphs and pictographs illustrate animals that very much resemble dinosaurs. If dinosaurs were extinct, millions and millions of years ago, how is it possible for all these people to know what they looked like? What apparently resembles a Plesiosaur has been found on several occasions within the last one hundred years. Most notably, in the early 1920’s, there was a picture taken of a creature that looked exactly like a Plesiosaur. In 1977, Japanese fisherman hauled aboard a badly decomposing creature from their nets. The frame of the creature was approximately 30 feet long, with an elongated neck. The pictures bear a striking resemblance to a Plesiosaur.

Much of the fables about dinosaurs depict them as fire-breathing. This, of course, sounds ridiculous. But, given the amount of accounts reported, it may be worthy of a little investigation. As well, there is one animal that can emit something akin to fire. The Bombardier beetle has a unique defensive weapon. This beetle has two separate chambers that contain two different chemicals, Hydroguinone and Hydrogen Peroxide. When the animal feels threatened, it can emit the chemicals. When the two chemicals unite, they fuse to make a noxious gas. The noxious chemical adds an inhibitor to prevent oxidation, just prior to the release. The bi-product of chemicals heat up to 212 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the exact temperature of boiling water. While this may not truly be fire, the reaction to the aggressors body acts the same as it would, had it been burned by a literal flame. Likewise, while there is no direct evidence that fire was emitted by dragons, perhaps the heat was sufficient enough to act as a firebrand, setting villages, mostly made of wood, ablaze. The population in those days likely would not have known what these chemicals were, but if its true, they certainly would have associated it with fire.

While much this latter portion of this chapter is not based on empirical evidence, it is interesting to think of the possibility. One thing we do know with certainy is that evolution does not add up. There is too much that has been falsified and much more that is based solely on inference. All evidence of a Creator is becoming more, and more, clear in a world that is dying for truth. Creationism has a long way to go, as much of itself, leaves certain aspects unexplained. Despite this, there is still much more that has been proven, on the merit of true science, and not science falsely-so-called. In a scientific realm that is dominated by secularists, the demand is high for reputable scientists who know that the evolutionary model is simply inadequate. Any rational human being can see that life is not the product of chance, but rather, intent. And so, no longer should the Godly acquiesce out of a fear of reprisal from the secular world. Rather, we should actively seek Him with a heart of servitude and alacrity, marveling at His creation.

"Earlier chapters"

Hahaha yeah sure you wrote that.

Nice Copy and paste, don't plagerize, it is almost like stealing. I love the PRaTT BS. This is the reason scientists are worried about creationism, they just shotgun shit everywhere and their followers just mindless repeat it and then refuse to do any research on their own.

So much for the assumption you could learn.



Challenge:

If you can make a new post taking four of your favorite points from the bullet list and expand them using your own words providing supporting evidence and explaining why they are valid points I promise I will no longer call you a fucking Dumbass. (Doesn't mean I wont shred the points.)

Deal?

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 02-23-2006).]

Syllabus:

Forward: The inexplicable revealed

Chapter 1: REALITY- The state of being real

Chapter 2: I AM- The self-existant one

Chapter 3: AXIOM- The human condition

Chapter 4: COSMOS- Beyond space, time and matter

Chapter 5: ORIGINS- The evolution of a lie

Chapter 6: CREATION- In the beggining God…

Chapter 7: REBELLION- Assassination of the conscience

Chapter 8: INERRANT- Divine Inspiration

Chapter 9: MESSIAH- The annointed One

Chapter 10: END OF DAYS- The Revelation

Conclusion: Seeds along the path



Chapter 6 of the book I'm writing.

Hahaha

funniest joke all day.

If you are serious I feel sorry for you and my challenge (edit in the last post) stands.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Hahaha

funniest joke all day.

If you are serious I feel sorry for you and my challenge (edit in the last post) stands.



The challenge lies with you.. That's why I wrote it and why I haven't been on Totse for over two months. In fact, expounding on a previous argument that you made, prompted me to write the whole thing.... (Well, that, and for the fact that alot of my friends don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah). You asked me (two or three months ago) to provide all the reasons why I think creationism has a valid stance. Well, now that I did that, you still don't like it... Not that I'm surprised. As I wrote, "I doubt this will placate my counterparts." I guess I was right in my assessment.

All my points, about the complexity of the eye, to animals with camoflauge, to the rotation of the earth slowing down, etc, etc, can all be found as truths studied by secular science. So if you don't like it, then get their spin on it. I'm sure they have some elaborate excuse for all of them. This book has taken months for me to research and to write and I did my homework... Now it's your turn to do yours.

You need to throw away your source material. What did you use anyway? Did you do any of your own research?

If you did write that I commend you but you are using incorrect facts. I ask you to expand on the arguments because they are commonly thrown around by people who don't really understand them and did zero research into them. Most of your claims are repeated by creationists like Hovind and a lot come from a book from the 70's.

My original challenge was to give evidence that hadn't been refuted by rust, I believe a number of these have.



Rotation of the earth

You provide zero evidence or math that shows the corealis effect will cause what you say or that the earth will "fling people off"

You provide no evidence for any of your parroted claims. Why should all the planets rotate the same direction? Why should the gasses of two massive planets bleed off into the solar system? Do you even know what the 'surface' of jupiter is made of?

You make false assumptions and provide false data. The Mississippi river is not 4.5 billion years old, why are you saying evolutionists claim it is? Methuselah is not 4,400 years old but around 4,768, but thanks for saying you accept tree ring dating as a valid dating method. Niagara falls is not billions of years old.

Do you understand anything that you posted at all? Can you show you know what you are talking about?

For example, can you give an in depth explanation of the shells 'on' Mt Everest (On is in quotes because they are actually in the mountain) and why there are no modern sea creatures with those shells?

Etc.

Sorry but you are a long way away from anything more than parroting old and false information.

You even parrot the moon dust argument. I bet you didn't even do enough research to realize it was based on bad math and NASA corrected the error long before they went to the moon.

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

Intelligent Design isn't science. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

It's that simple. Why don't more people get it?

What studies have you done on Intelligent Design to make this unfounded assertion ?

Go to www.icr.org (http://www.icr.org) if you want to find out exactly how science supports the theory of Intelligent Design.

If you can't even bring yourself to do that, you don't need to be sharing your opinion, since it is based on nothing more than ignorance.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

You need to throw away your source material. What did you use anyway? Did you do any of your own research?

If you're asking whether or not I personally drove to California to examine the Methuselah tree, no I did not, nor would I expect you to either. All of the evidence comes from other sources, of course.

If you did write that I commend you but you are using incorrect facts. I ask you to expand on the arguments because they are commonly thrown around by people who don't really understand them and did zero research into them.

The only reason why I didn't expand on them is because I'm writing a book on many different topics. Only three chapters are devoted to science. Me citing every detailed analysis would be a book in itself. Maybe one day I will write a book devoted to that. Look, the book is not something I'm going to publish and make money off of. I wrote it for those that don't know any better, namely some friends and family. I think they should get another perspective on things. You know as well as I do that the media and fields of science are dominated by the secualr market. With having said that, I feel that there are other options out there that aren't being expressed.

Most of your claims are repeated by creationists like Hovind and a lot come from a book from the 70's.

I don't own any of Hovind's books, but from what I do know of him and his arguments, I agree that some of them are worthy of further investigation. I'm not claiming that I'm a molecular biologist who personally examined the inner-workings of a cell, but I'm elucidating for people that research has been made that is contrary to the prevailing wisdom, and I'm saying, 'Here it is, make your own deduction.'

My original challenge was to give evidence that hadn't been refuted by rust, I believe a number of these have.

I haven't seen Rust post all day....? I'll look again, but I didn't see anything. I would respond to his posts as I always do.



Rotation of the earth

You provide zero evidence or math that shows the corealis effect will cause what you say or that the earth will "fling people off"

Its an inference. Its saying, judging by the amount of time that we have been witnessing this effect, if were to extrapolate backwards, then the earth must have been rotating at a riduculously hgh speed that would obviously not allowed for any life to thrive, much less, survive.

You provide no evidence for any of your parroted claims.

As I stated above, I'm not claiming that I went out and did the research, though I do aspire to, perhaps when my children are older. But I don't just get my information from creationists. I look at the secular arguments as well. I don't like alot of the creationist models because I think some it is fanciful. With having said that, I like others that are very plausible and worthy of some further investigation.



Why should all the planets rotate the same direction? Why should the gasses of two massive planets bleed off into the solar system? Do you even know what the 'surface' of jupiter is made of?

The reason i say this is because a very common pro-evolution model of the big bang shows that after Planck's Time, they state that there was an orbit established from the begginning, and that's why the planets have a sphere shape. I obviously think that's ridiculous, but that's just me. I think a perfect circle is more indicative of a perfect being, but again, that's just me.

You make false assumptions and provide false data. The Mississippi river is not 4.5 billion years old, why are you saying evolutionists claim it is?

I never said that. What I said was that in the time we've been watching this occurance, alot of sediment has been forming. So, logically, if we could expect that the same amount of sedimentary dispersion was the same in the past, it couldn't be hundreds of thousands of years old, because the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't be a body of water anymore, it would be a huge mound of mud.



Methuselah is not 4,400 years old but around 4,768, but thanks for saying you accept tree ring dating as a valid dating method. Niagara falls is not billions of years old.

Yeah, I think dendrochronology is a good method. It's not 100% accurate, but I think it gives a better ballpark figure than other techniques.

Do you understand anything that you posted at all? Can you show you know what you are talking about?

Yeah, but that's going to take a long time and I'm gonna have to go pick up my kids and wife in like half an hour. Plus, my only days off at work are Wed and Thur and I don't have internet access at work. Bastages! But I will write a little article. Just don't wait up all night because it won't be tonight.

For example, can you give an in depth explanation of the shells 'on' Mt Everest (On is in quotes because they are actually in the mountain) and why there are no modern sea creatures with those shells?

I can tell you what secular scientists have to say about that... They say that mountains were formed from earthquakes... Which is true. So, they say that Mt. Everest must have been underwater at one point in time, so the sea shells got there before Everest was a mountain. But I'll go in to that too later.

You even parrot the moon dust argument. I bet you didn't even do enough research to realize it was based on bad math and NASA corrected the error long before they went to the moon.

No, I've never read an article on that, but let's use some reasoning here... Obviously if stellar dust is falling all the time, it would be reasonable that large amounts would accumalte over a large period of time, right? Obviously NASA believes that the moon is a few million years old or they wouldn't have bothered tabulating those figures. So either way, why is there a very small amount of star dust on the moon?

Anyway, I gotta roll... But hopefully I can do a little research on my days off. I'm almost done with the last chapter of the book, (which is kicking my ass), but when I'm done it should free up some time for me.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What studies have you done on Intelligent Design to make this unfounded assertion ?

Go to www.icr.org (http://www.icr.org) if you want to find out exactly how science supports the theory of Intelligent Design.

If you can't even bring yourself to do that, you don't need to be sharing your opinion, since it is based on nothing more than ignorance.

^^Propaganda alert. Studying the 'improbability' of evolution (based on false assumptions BTW), does not indicate a designer. ID is a non-falsifiable theory and is thus NOT science. There is no way areound that.

Hyro:

The only reason why I didn't expand on them is because I'm writing a book on many different topics.

It is important to do the research and expand on things even if only in your head. Partly so you can defend the claim or expand on it if asked. Also so you can double check the fact, there are tons of facts about virtually everything floating around that are wrong.

When it comes to both evolution and creationism I have done my own research on things that I say. It is just as easy to parrot talk origins as it is to parrot creationist claims, but an understanding of the topic really makes a difference.

I haven't seen Rust post all day....? I'll look again, but I didn't see anything. I would respond to his posts as I always do.

I don't know if it is still there but he had a creationist refutation thread in Mad Scientist that is probably pretty old by now but it was new when I proposed the original question.

Its an inference. Its saying, judging by the amount of time that we have been witnessing this effect, if were to extrapolate backwards, then the earth must have been rotating at a riduculously hgh speed that would obviously not allowed for any life to thrive, much less, survive.

Except that it is wrong. (A good reason to double check all the claims).

Based on the current slow down rates (which are thought to be a bit faster today than in the past) you can easily do the math (seen bellow) and it shows the days were almost half the length they are today and that the earth was rotating almost twice as fast. This might be odd to us but it it wont fling things off the earth. The escape velocity of the earth is a staggering 25,000 MPH.

(math:

The earth is slowing about 0.005 seconds per year per year.

((0.005 sec/yr) x (4,500,000,000 years))/year = (22,500,000 sec)/year or (260.42 days)/year.

So, 4.5 billion years ago, the Earth had 260.42 extra days for a total of 625.7 days.

(8766 hrs/year)/(625.7 days/year) = 14.02 hrs/day.)

The reason i say this is because a very common pro-evolution model of the big bang shows that after Planck's Time, they state that there was an orbit established from the begginning,

That is incorrect, the solar system formed 9.2 billion years after the big bang. The big bang has no real effect on how our planets orbit or rotate. One planet that rotates backwards, Venus, does so very very slowly and is most likely a result of an impact and/or friction and solar heating. All the planets that rotate backwards do so with characteristics that suggest something happened to them.

Obviously if stellar dust is falling all the time, it would be reasonable that large amounts would accumalte over a large period of time, right?

I should correct myself here and expand on it. The dust was never a problem for Nasa who had figured there would be little. The math error was really the assumptions of how much dust would accumulate on the moon based on poor readings on earth.

Reading is good, questioning everything is good, you just aren't reading the right material or questioning everything.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 02-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

"Earlier chapters"

Hahaha yeah sure you wrote that.

Nice Copy and paste, don't plagerize, it is almost like stealing. I love the PRaTT BS. This is the reason scientists are worried about creationism, they just shotgun shit everywhere and their followers just mindless repeat it and then refuse to do any research on their own.

He did write it. I was sitting right next to him when he did it, and I have edited it for him many times.

You really are an asshole, you know that ?

quote:Challenge:

If you can make a new post taking four of your favorite points from the bullet list and expand them using your own words providing supporting evidence and explaining why they are valid points I promise I will no longer call you a fucking Dumbass. (Doesn't mean I wont shred the points.)

Deal?

He presented valid arguments, with valid references.

Why don't you get off your lazy, antagonistic ass and refute his piece yourself ?

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

^^Propaganda alert. Studying the 'improbability' of evolution (based on false assumptions BTW), does not indicate a designer. ID is a non-falsifiable theory and is thus NOT science. There is no way areound that.

Did you even look at it ?

This is a federally accredited college with REAL scientists and REAL professors that STUDY the universe on all different levels and submit their results to peer review journals.

Sound like any other people you know ?

Yeah, they're called scientists.

If you think THESE guys aren't scientists, then no one really is.

whoa whoa whoa what the fuck is this shit about NASA and space dust? what the fuck does any of that have to do with evolution? Hyro's 'valid arguments' had no validity whatsoever. I don't even know where to begin. Where did you get those 'facts' anyway?

"If the earth was 5% closer, the oceans would boil and all water on earth would evaporate. If the earth were 10% further than it is, the lakes and oceans would freeze. "

No, just no.

"Evolutionists believe that the entire solar system was formed from clouds of gas and dust. If so, then the Sun, planets, and moons would be made of the same elements. The Sun, however, is 98% Hydrogen/Helium. The earth, moon, Venus, and Mercury- all contain less than 1% Hydrogen/Helium."

Evolutionists believe in nothing more than evolution. You destroy you're own credibility making outrageous claims. Astronomy and biology are very different fields. I think by evolutionists, you must have meant astronomers. The solar system doesn't evolve, organisms do. Where's any science that supports ID? Where's anything refuting evolution?

And there is plenty of verifiable reproduceable evidence of evolution. If only you bothered to read any of it.

From the ICR FAQ:

quote:What does ICR mean by Scientific Creationism?

ICR holds to certain tenets. By Scientific Creationism, ICR believes:

The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.

The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.

Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).

The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.

The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.

Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates, but since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.

The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.

Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.

Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally, scientifically, and teleologically.



Sorry Digi,but when their research depends on pre determined assumptions that are based on the supernatural, it's not science. It is pseudo - science. Whether the person has a legit degree or not is irrelevent.

Except evolutionists start with an assumption: life began.

They don't know that any more than we do.

1. It being an assumption is not the problem, it is the fact that it uses a supernatural explanation which is the problem. The scientific method, by definition, does not use the supernatural in its explanations.

The scientific method is, in essence, a naturalist approach. It assumes the supernatural does not exist (or at the very least that it does not influence the natural at all), and then proceeds to explain phenomena with explanations rooted in the natural and the material.

2. "Life began" isn't an assumption. It's a fact. Unless of course you're arguing that life didn't have a beginning.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-24-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Except evolutionists start with an assumption: life began.

They don't know that any more than we do.

Ummm no that is not an assumption, its a theory (based on a considerable amount of evidence).

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. It being an assumption is not the problem, it is the fact that it uses a supernatural explanation which is the problem. The scientific method, by definition, does not use the super-natural in its explanations.

To study cavitation to prove that the weight of the water during the flood is what caused the formation of the Grand Canyon is using a spiritual explanation ?

If you just look at the science, it suggests no such thing. It presents a DIFFERENT theory about how the Grand Canyon was formed than the one we currently accept (millions of years of erosion).

Also, there have been many supernatural things witnessed since the dawn of time. Are you denying that, regardless of the source ?

quote:The scientific method is, in essence, a naturalist approach. It assumes the supernatural does not exist (or at the very least that it does not influence the natural at all), and then proceeds to explain phenomena with explanations rooted in the natural and the material.

And we believe that God is natural. God is nature. God is science. He created all things, therefore it is not illogical to believe that He is all those things.

The kind of science you are talking about is dependent upon the 5 senses ONLY. But we know for certain that our 5 senses are not all that we are governed by. Intuition, for example, is not based on any of our 5 senses.

quote:2. "Life began" isn't an assumption. It's a fact. Unless of course you're arguing that life didn't have a beginning.

It is logical to assume that life began. There is NO PROOF. Nothing empirical. Nothing we can stick in a jar. Nothing we can test.

There is no evidence that there was a "beginning". What evidence there was is long gone.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Ummm no that is not an assumption, its a theory (based on a considerable amount of evidence).

Theories are based on assumptions ! *lol*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

To study cavitation to prove that the weight of the water during the flood is what caused the formation of the Grand Canyon is using a spiritual explanation ?

If you just look at the science, it suggests no such thing. It presents a DIFFERENT theory about how the Grand Canyon was formed than the one we currently accept (millions of years of erosion).

Also, there have been many supernatural things witnessed since the dawn of time. Are you denying that, regardless of the source ?

You're making a strawman.

I didn't say that there were absolutely no scientific claims; there are some, they have no credible evidence supporting them, but there are some. The point is that they also use supernatural explanations. The moment something uses just one supernatural occurrence as an explanation for a phenomenon, is the moment it ceases to be science. The very article truckfixr quote shows how they do in fact use the supernatural, and thus it refutes the claim that it is somehow science. It is not.

quote:And we believe that God is natural. God is nature. God is science. He created all things, therefore it is not illogical to believe that He is all those things.

The kind of science you are talking about is dependent upon the 5 senses ONLY. But we know for certain that our 5 senses are not all that we are governed by. Intuition, for example, is not based on any of our 5 senses

No. You believe that he is supernatural. You believe god is supernatural since you believe he is capable of transcending the laws of nature. You're just playing semantics in order to justify the ridiculous belief that creationism is science.

quote:It is logical to assume that life began. There is NO PROOF. Nothing empirical. Nothing we can stick in a jar. Nothing we can test.

There is no evidence that there was a "beginning". What evidence there was is long gone.

There is life. That is a fact. Now there are two possibilities:

1. Life has always existed. Great. The theory of evolution would still work since the theory of evolution does not deal with the creation of life, but what happens when there is life present.

2. Life didn't always exist, it began at some point in time. Great. Evolution would be taking place after that point in time, since evolution does not deal with the creation of life, but what happens when there is life present.

Either case, it does not serve as an argument against evolution at all.

More importantly, this is irrelevant. Like I already said, the problem is not the assumption in and of itself, but the supernatural "explanations" they give, which automatically preclude creationism from being Science.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-24-2006).]

Where's anything refuting evolution?

And there is plenty of verifiable reproduceable evidence of evolution. If only you bothered to read any of it.[/QUOTE]



ORIGINS:

The evolution of a lie





“There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility.”

–Theodore Roosevelt

In most classrooms across the globe, evolution, at least by implication, is subtly, presented as an unassailable fact. To question this paradigm has often proved to be career suicide for many university professors, as well as any students who might aspire to lofty goals in the fields of science. In times present, the theory has been under a major assault by a lesser-known scientific community in recent years. This revived community is forcing those who would still blindly follow evolution to face some of the many obvious flaws within the theory. The existing Darwinian account of evolution does not adequately explain sustained macroevolutionary progress, let alone the origin of life. This inadequacy must continually be discussed until a satisfactory relationship between evidence and theory is established. The theory of evolution is finally being exposed as the pernicious theory it’s always been. Despite this, most biologists are so committed to Darwinism that they treat any alternative as unscientific. In this way, Neo-Darwinism behaves very much like the most pious of religions. This extreme bias offers nothing to the scientific community, consequently, the very community they swore to uphold. In this chapter, I am going to break down the theory of evolution by using three critical arguments against it.

The theory of evolution is utterly dependant on three distinct criteria’s. Liken the criteria to the fire tetrahedron, taught throughout Fire Science courses. Fire, like evolution, requires three elements: Fuel (spontaneous generation), oxygen (mutations), and an adequate heat source (time). If any one of these elements is missing, the fire cannot continue or begin, what ever the case may be. Similarly, if any one of these elements are discontinued or unable to to begin altogether, evolution is simply an impossibility.

Before I continue, it is of great importance that we clarify any misgivings or misconceptions regarding evolution. In evolution, there are answers to two very different questions. First, evolutionary theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity can develop in already existent, complex life forms. For example, if a small, contingent of birds migrate to an isolated island, a combination of inbreeding, mutation, and natural selection may cause these birds to develop distinct features, not seen in the ancestral population. When viewing the theory in this limited sense, evolution is uncontroversial. Evolutionary biologists are not content, however, on merely explaining how variations occur, but aspire to answer a much broader question. They seek to explain how all of life began in the first place. In this endeavor, they took small pieces of a puzzle and attempted to configure and fashion their own version of events. The question is: How did this theory first develop?

The theory of evolution was undoubtedly first popularized by the famous naturalist, Charles Darwin. Charles, however, was not the originator of the theory. A great deal, of Charles’ thesis, was extrapolated from the works of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. Even well before this time, a small Greek sect had dabbled with the idea that all organisms are directly related to one another. Greek philosophers and mathematicians, such as, Pythagoras (inventor of the Pythagorean theorem) had toyed with the notion in the 4th century BC. The premised idea of evolution, in those days, was rejected by another great philospher, Aristotle. It subsequently faded into obscurity and would not be regaled again for thousands of years later.



Suffice it, to say that I have a genuine respect for Darwin and appreciate his works. Placing my faith aside and basing my opinion of him solely on his works, I believe he was a very intuitive man that was enraptured with science. His study of finches and tortoises on the Galapagos island, and elsewhere, clearly portrayed his aptitude for naturalism. Most unfortunately, his desire for truth took on a much more insidious role by his predecessors. I think Darwin’s theory is an interesting one, and one based on some very good observations. Simply put, on paper, it is a very appealing theory. However, placed under scrutiny in the field, it leaves me undesired. Perhaps if Darwin had read Gregor Mendel’s 1866 paper describing the results of his experiments on the possibilities and impossibilities of heredity, he might not have come to some of his conclusions. Undoubtedly, we have learned a great deal about heredity by both Darwin and Mendel, however, for all the good observations Darwin made, he often came to some very bad conclusions. In his defense, for all of the assumptions he made, he understood well that his theory was a work in progress. He was able to point out many anamoles and inconsistencies within his own theory. It seems that it is the Neo-Darwinist that seeks to make the impossible, possible, and not so much Darwin himself.

Based on the evidence, it is essential that people understand the facts concerning evolution, because there are two very different types that need to be addressed: They are known as “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” Many opponents have referred to these two descriptions as Creationist psuedo-science, but the terms are widely used among their own disciplines; the only difference between the two, being the terms. They prefer “transspecific evolution,” rather than macroevolution. In any case, it has proved to be a cumbersome problem for the evolutionist to overcome.

Microevolution: A commonly accepted belief among evolutionists and creationists, that all organisms have a terrific capacity for diversity of DNA variation within a species. This is to say, that, any given specie has a wide array of genetic variability for small adaptations. This belief, however, states that no new genetic information will ever allow for the reproduction of any other phylogenic organism separate from their own kind.

Macroevolution: A commonly accepted evolutionist belief that different species via genetic mutation, time, and spontaneous generation will introduce completely new species. (Essentially, it is microevolution on a massive scale).

Earnst Mayr, who is likely the dean of living Neo-Darwinists postulated,

“transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within a population.”

Unfortunately, the facts are irreconcilable with the conjectures made by Mayr and other evolutionists. As I alluded to in the previous chapter, life cannot come from non-life. This is a violation of the Law of Biogenesis. Evolutionist, Dr. Stanley Miller, experimented under controlled laboratory conditions to produce eight of twenty amino acids necessary to create a single protein. This experiment, from the outset, was performed in order to prove that life can form spontaneously. More precisely, it served to confirm that it is impossible to formulate even twelve of the necessary amino acids, no matter how hard we might try. Moreover, his partial success gives us no reason to assume that his pristine laboratory resembled conditions that have ever existed on earth. What Dr. Miller actually created was 85% tar, 3% carboxylic acid, and 2% non-living amino acids. Even supposing, in the most unlikely event that someone can force a cell to completion, they still would have to find a way to inject life into it, making it viable organism. As well, there still presents itself the serious dilemma of how any of this would even be possible. To link two amino acids together requires the removal of a water molecule and the supply energy greater than at least 150 times the amount of heat in the Earth’s oceans. The joining of these enzymes would need a large flux of ultraviolet light, greater than that seen on earth presently. From this standpoint alone, we can easily deduce that life is not the product of chance, but rather, intent. Life did not just happen. In lieu of this, why do so many people attempt to defy this basic principle?

The second evolutionary conjecture is that some mutations are beneficial. Evolutionists, by necessity, rest their claims on the transfer and mutation of genes. The reason they are so adamant on this point is that the theory would collapse without it. Mathematician and molecular biologist, Harold Morowitz, calculated the odds that just one paramecium (single-celled amoeba) arranging DNA by chance, is: 1 in 10 to the billionth power. To help aggrandize the enormity of this improbability, 10 to the 50th power is considered, ‘absolute zero.’ When you reach absolute zero, it is so improbable that we might as well say that it is impossible. The figures do not lie, even at the demand of liars. The fact is, most mutations are silent. They are mostly benign deletions from copying errors in the genes. Its important to note, however, that the only reason most mutations are benign is because of specific cells that serve to repair mutations. In fact, it is their only function. So, in all actuality, all mutations are truly harmful, especially if these specific cells, themselves, are the product of a mutation.

We now know that genes are composed of DNA strands, a magnificently complex molecule. DNA is an encoded message, or language. The language has four letters, which form 64, three letter words. The function of the gene is a blueprint to tell the cell how to build a particular protein. The genes are provided instructions for creating protein insulin, myoglobin, hemoglobin, etc. Though most mutations are neutral, a very large percentage is devastatingly harmful. A prime example of a harmful mutation, would be, cancer. In the most rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial. This kind of mutation is not truly advantageous, however. For instance, many evolutionists use Sickle Cell Anemia (SCA) as a prime example of a good mutation. It’s premised upon the idea that the disease effects mostly the Negro population. Because the Negro population is greatest in the Malaria stricken continent of Africa, it has served to benefit their survival, as SCA can act as a barrier to Malaria. They also cite that SCA only effects people adversely when it is carried through both the female and the male’s chromosomes. So, if the mutagen is found in only one host, the individual is known as a ‘carrier.’ He or she carries the gene and it serves as immunity. But what they fail to realize is, the more individuals that procreate, the greater and more frequent the disease will be, and the less the immunity will be. Aside from this, evolutionists do not take into consideration how terrible this disease really is. So, you don’t have Malaria, but now you have Sickle Cell Anemia. Forgive me, but, I just don’t see how that is any better, being that, SCA is a degenerative disease that prevents the proper oxygenation of cells. The red blood cells become deformed, taking the form of a cresent moon, and thus, prevents hemoglobin from properly oxygenating the body. If your cells don’t receive the proper amount of oxygen then they will become ischemic. If the cells starve for oxygen, they die. If your cells die, you die; its as simple as that. Aside from this, if this example is the crown jewel for evolutionists proving the abundance of good mutations, then please excuse me for not starting a slow clap over it.

It’s been well documented that successive copying errors would accumulate more errors, and more errors. Clearly, we see much evidence of this. My contention is that the average of this occurring phenomenon would lead to the steady degradation of information and not the creation of new information within the genetic code. It is incredibly hopeful for the evolutionist to suppose that a single primitive bacterium would somehow, upgrade itself in complexity from copying errors. A similarly ridiculous proposition would be like supposing if the first page of Genesis were copied a billion times, it would somehow eventually accumulate enough copying errors to produce enough varieties that the end result would be the entire Bible. Here is the fact of the matter: Life does not organize itself in this fashion, but rather is required of a programmer to input information.

Another notion used by evolutionists is gaining something by losing something else. In the realm of the genome (the totality of genes), it doesn’t happen. For instance, let’s use a mule as an example. A mule is a hybrid offshoot of a horse, in the equine family. The mule is the product of mutation, however, it is sterile. If then, the animal is sterile, this is preventing it from producing offspring. If it cannot perpetuate the species, then there is no way for evolution to succeed, much less, survive past one generation. Therefore, this could never be an example of evolution, but rather, devolution as it relates to mutation. We see similar results in crossbreeding. What do you get when you cross an alligator with a chicken? You get to see an alligator eat a chicken and nothing else. Why? Its because their genetic code is not the same. The sperm of one creature can’t fertilize the egg of the other. There are instances of ‘chimeras’ (animals with different genes) being created in a lab, however, the genetic code is not altered radically in the way that it must be for all creatures in macroevolution.

Evolutionists enjoy prominently displaying articles and models on the evolution of horses, whales, and hominids. They confuse the possible with the impossible every chance they get. This is where evolution gets hazy and it is no accident, and so, as a result, you have the majority of the scientific community as well as the media in agreement simply out of ignorance. How is it that individuals who pride themselves on their pragmatism and empiricism, continue to follow such an unempirical theory? Undoubtedly, there are powerful alliances with a vested, interest in the propulsion of this untenable theory. They would prefer that you don’t challenge or question them, much less, understand all of the facts. Take for example the canine family. We all know there are many breeds of dogs and that their unique characteristics were the product of microevolution. This is unquestionable. You can breed all kinds of dogs with amazing variation because the DNA will permit this. But in the end, a dog is still a dog and will always be a dog. Nothing in the known universe has ever presented a shred of evidence to the contrary. Likewise, botanists have breed many different types of roses, varying in size, shape, and color; but, as the saying goes, ‘a rose is still a rose by any other name.’ The reason for this is because of the DNA code barrier. You can sort or lose existing information, but you can never add what is not there to begin with. To solidify the notion that mutations are never able to produce new organisms, stems from an on going experiment from the early 1900’s that has been performed on fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster). Numerous scientists have bombarded these fruit flies with X-ray radiation, among other techniques, in order to mutate them. Guess what? It worked. In fact, it worked remarkably well. They were able to produce offspring with eyes missing and wings growing out of their heads. Here’s the point: No bionic fruit fly was ever the bi-product of these experiments. (No dragonflies, houseflies, horseflies, butterflies, were ever bioengineered…. Just fruit flies and lot’s of them). Of those that actually survived essentially produced monstrosities with horrible deformities that certainly would have eliminated them in the wild. Even more damning, the fruit fly is molecularly very simple in relation to that of a human. What’s worse, their lifespan isn’t even a thousandth to that of the average human lifespan. What does this mean? Essentially, it means that the fruit fly has the physical ability to evolve more readily than that of a human being. The fruit fly is relatively simple with a genome, composed of four pairs of chromosomes of about 13,000 genes. Aside from this, they breed at a much quicker rate. So then, surely in 80 to 90 years of experimentation, their generations would be into the hundreds of thousands. Compare that figure to humans. In 80 or 90 years, how many generations have come out of your immediate family? Most likely, in your family, three generations and maybe four generations in that amount of time five. If ever there were a prime candidate for macroevolution, the Drosphilia would be it, and yet, nothing even comparable to a new specie has ever evolved. It is unsurprising that their tests are still inconclusive, at best. Something tells me that these ‘experts’ no little about their own theory, when someone makes a comment, such as, “Biologists now believe that appendages like the insect wings and the proboscis of a mosquito must have evolved from a spare leg.” For starters, a ‘proboscis’ on a mosquito is the needle-like structure that jabs the host to extract blood. (I’m sure many of you are intimately acquainted with the proboscis of a mosquito). They somehow have just guessed that a ‘spare leg’ can become a proboscis. That is so unfounded that it isn’t even worth a retort. I’ll just leave this one at that.



Since the inception of Hox protein and DNA research, it was hoped to be the bastion of evolutionary biology and geneticists. The US Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) announced it’s top-priority candidates for genome sequencing. The Rhesus Macaque, which is the most widely used primate in biomedical research, was passed up for the Chimpanzee. Given that the Rhesus monkey is a very important model in the fields of neuroscience and HIV research, few understood why the NHGRI would have rejected it. When they discovered that humans shared 98% DNA similarity, they were ecstatic. Surely this would be the veritable, stake in the heart to any evolutionary naysayers. They’d later come to find, however, that humans share 97.5% biochemical similarity with that of a field mouse and 57% similarity with that of a banana! “Anyone here, evolve from a fruit? Going once, going twice, three times. No takers?” As it turns out, the size and structure of the DNA molecule is determined mostly by its complexity as an organism.

Evolutionists also view physical characteristics as a determinant of ancestral lineage. But this is little more than a pervasive myth.

“Although apes and man admittedly have much in common, biochemically, anatomically and physiologically, they are at the same time a world apart. We cannot accept that the genes for producing great works of art or literature or music, or developing skills in higher mathematics emerged from some chance mutations of monkey genes long ahead of their having any conceivable relevance for survival in a Darwinian sense… If the Earth were sealed off from all sources of external genes: bugs could replicate till doomsday, but they would still be bugs: and monkey colonies would also reproduce but only to produce more monkeys. The Earth would be a dull place indeed.” –Chandra Wickramasinghe

If physical characteristics are a determining factor, then consider this: The human eye is closest to that of the octopi. Human skin is closest to that of pigs. Human hemoglobin is closest to that of root nodules. ‘Anyone here related to a root nodule? Going once, going twi-, ah forget it.’ So why was the Chimpanzee chosen over the Rhesus? Let’s ask a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, in Leipzig, Germany.

“It was a choice for philosophy and evolution, against current trends towards biomedical application.” –Svante Paabo

Oh, I see. AIDS research needs to take a backseat when it comes to bringing evolution back into the limelight? I’m sure the millions of AIDS patients would be pleased to know that something as trivial as evolution has surpassed, legitamate research out of morbid curiosity. I guess, at the very least, we can at least thank him for his honesty when it comes to the level of bias. Perhaps, at this point, you still don’t believe that good mutations are basically non-existent. Then, please, don’t take my word for it. Listen to what evolutionist, Dr. L. Luvtrup admitted to.

“Micromutations do occur, but the fact that these alone account for evolutionary change is a metaphysical theory. It is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to false theory. But that is what happened in biology. One day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greatest deceit in the history of science.”

Another instance, given a reckless moment, evolutionist and Harvard professor, Stephen J. Gould, stated that evolution was “effectively dead.” Nonetheless, Gould continued to support evolution until his death, presumably because abandoning the theory would force him to concede to the obvious alternative. I suppose they refuse to disavow their relationship with the theory because they have one more trick up their sleeve. Time: Millions and billions of years of time to make the impossible, possible and the illogical, logical.

The tertiary example of the fire tetrahedron is time. The assertion is that the earth is billions of years old. More specifically, 4.5 billion years old, depending on which day of the week it is. For the evolutionist, time is the hero in the story of life. Time has replaced a kiss from a prince in order to change a frog into princess. Time is the magical ingredient in the fairytale of evolution. Why do you suppose this is so critical to the evolutionary model? Think of it this way: The probability that you can flip 16 coins in succession and have them all come up ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ is 1 in 65,536. If you try it once, you’ll more than likely fail. If you test the experiment 10 million times, however, you will certainly succeed. In fact, you’re then likely to succeed 150 times out of that many tries. Therefore, the evolutionist must rely and hope that the commencement of life isn’t impossible, just very, very improbable. The rationale is if billions of years of time elapsed, it will provide enough opportunities for these anomalous occurrences to commence. Is there any evidence that the earth is billions of years old?

To answer this question, it’s first important that we ask how these figures have come up to begin with. There are many ingenious methods used to date the earth. Most notably, is radiometric and isochron dating. The methodology for ascertaining age estimates result in the measuring of the amount of radioactive isotopes in any given specimen. You measure the amount of each isotope, plus the assumed initial concentration of each isotope. From that, a calculation is made for an age estimate. The operative word in the aforementioned statement, however, is ‘assumed.’ When the advent of this testing came to be, scientists gathered fallen meteorites and produced from them an algorithm. All of this was based solely on the inference that the meteorite itself must have been billions of years old! And so, we see a flawed premise from the get-go. Then they measured the amount of radioactive isotopes in the experimented specimen. All radioactive material has a half-life. The half-life is the depletion of that radioactive element found in the material they wish to date. For example, in Thorium .230 dating, the ‘parent’ isotope (Thorium) decays into the ‘daughter’ isotope (Lead). If you want the rock, for instance, to be old, simply assume a small initial value for the daughter isotope. If you want the rock to be young, simply assume and assign a high initial value to the daughter isotope. Most assuredly, you will get whatever age you so desire. Catch my drift? This is a bad case of garbage-in, garbage-out, as it uses circular reasoning in its premise. Aside from this, how is it that rocks should be younger or older if they allegedly spawned from an initial explosion? Since when do rocks procreate, that one should be older than another? There are only a few types of rock, metamorphic and igneous rock that form due to volcanic activity. All the other types of rock were there at the beginning and are the exact same age as one ten thousand miles away. It really is stultifying, isn’t it? The ignorance is almost unforgivable……almost.

When Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, the lava flowed down the mountainside, cooled and encrusted. The ‘fresh’ lava was dated at 2.8 million years using the Potassium-Argon method (Potassium decays into Argon). Had they not just watched the lava flow in a single day, this would have stood unchecked and unchallenged as a fact. These discrepancies are what typify the argument against many evolutionary geologists and paleontologists. Another common misnomer is to date a fossil by a rock laying adjacent to it. (The logic being that you will be able to tell roughly how old the fossil is. ‘Well, how old do you know the rock is by using this method?’ You date the rock by the fossil. ‘Huh? Isn’t that circular reasoning?’ Quiet you!

Another popular method is the Carbon-14 (C14) method. During photosynthesis, plants intake carbon dioxide. So if an animal ingests a plant, the C14 will enter the body of the animal that ate it. When the animal dies no new carbon should enter the animal. So, in theory, we should be able to tell how old the animal is by making notations on how much carbon remains. What’s interesting to note is that the estimated half-life of carbon is concurrent with Genesis account. Nonetheless, this seems like a reasonable theory except that the inventor, Nobel winner, Willard Libbey, calculated that the atmospheric C14 had not yet reached equilibrium. Furthermore, he states that it would take up to 30,000 years to reach equilibrium. It’s also been noted in more recent times that extremely large changes have occurred in the earth’s atmosphere due to atomic testing, as well as overall pollution. In lieu of this, living penguins have been dated at 8,000 years old. The shell of a living snail was dated at 27,000 years old. A frozen mammoth was found and different portions of it’s body were sent to different labs at different intervals to detect any discrepancies. One leg was dated at 40,000 years, while another was dated at 26,000 years. The surrounding wood, directly adjacent to the mastodon was dated at 10,000 years old. In response to these abnormalities, as well as a host of others, a premier Canadian science journal reported,



“The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious... Half of the dates are rejected… These gross discrepancies are nothing more than selected dates.”

Selected dates? That hardly sounds like unobjective research to me. In the realm of science, there is no room for bias. Like the evening news, we expect a news anchor to simply ‘report’ factual events that took place. We do not need to hear opinions or a distortion of events to suit the agenda of those presenting it. But, alas, this is commonplace within many fields of science, especially in the fossil record. The point is that half of the dates are rejected because it does not fit the profile of the man-made geologic column. A deplorably biased tract record for evolutionists can be found in the study of the fossil record. For instance, trilobite, are index fossils said to be 650 million years old. They allege that man has evolved within the last 2 to 3 million years, depending on who you talk to. To the dismay of certain paleontologists, a human footprint was found fossilized on top of a trilobite. The sediment that the trilobite was encased, dated at 570 million years. Amazingly, a 650 million year old creature was stepped on by a man 648 million years earlier, in soil that was 8 million years younger. Wow!

A human skull was found fossilized inside a 230 million year old rock formation. Did they admit that their dating methods were horrifically flawed? No. Instead, they simply changed the dates to conform to the geologic column. This time around, the fossil was dated at 2.9 million years. This still didn’t fit the evolutionary profile, so it was again dated, this time at 1.8 million years. That is an enormous discrepancy. That is a 228 million year old difference. Why, then, should believe anything they say? I think it’s interesting to see just how many people are indoctrinated with the theory of evolution and how calloused they’ve have become in relation to time. People just cannot accurately concieve, millions and billions of years because it’s spoken about so flippantly. And yet, here we have a host of people that dare to mock God’s eternity by using ridiculously long epochs and aeons of time. Man can hardly conceptualize billions of years any longer because it’s used so casually in scientific literature these days. I think its sad to see children spoon-fed this nonsense and growing up to be lemmings who do not question the principles or the integrity of the theory…. And yes, it is still very much a theory.

You have no doubt, been exposed to the tale of the ‘evolution of man series’ at some point in your life. It portrays the gradual progression of hominids throughout the millennia from lemurs and small primates, to homo erectus, al the way up to a modern-day evolutionist. What you may not know is that much of the compiled data has already been proven false, in several separate cases.

Piltdown Man: This guy was used at the infamous ‘Scopes trial’ of 1925. It was initially discovered in 1910. It wasn’t until 1955, upon closer inspection, that the remains were deemed fraudulent. The founders had crudely fashioned a humanoid skull out of a mandible of an ape and the cranium of a human. They filed down the teeth, acid treated the bones, and threw into a rock quarry for two years to create the illusion of aging. Piltdown Man was the evolutionary messiah for fifty years. Who knows how many people abandoned their faith over this outright lie.

Nebraska Man: This was also used as ‘proof’ in the Scopes trial. He was comprised by little more than a few bones and what was evidently a pig’s tooth. From the few bones they gathered, an artists depiction were drawn, illustrating Nebraska Man and his entire slope-headed family. All of this was propagated from a few bones and a pig’s tooth, said to have been carried in a small basket.

Ramapithecus: In 1932, famed evolutionist, Louis Leaky, discovered some teeth and jaw fragments. From this, he fashioned a jaw that appeared distinct from that of any known human or primate. Leaky pawned this ‘discovery’ off as genuine. It wasn’t until 1977 that it was dubbed, by reputable scientists, to be nothing more than the shattered mandible of an orangutan.

These are just three examples of many embarasments that have been propagated through the years by evolutionists. In similar fashion, the very recent discovery of a hominid found on the island of Flores in Indonesia, will no doubt tell a similar story. The remains of humanoids found in a cave caught world headlines as National Geographic, Nature magazine, PBS, and a host of others were all too willing to write the articles. The human-like creatures are said to be of a very small stature, approximately a meter tall. Given the tract record, I simply cannot believe wholeheartedly what any evolutionist claims. Nonetheless, it shouldn’t be too difficult to surmise that isolation can affect humans in the exact same way as any other organism. If a group of humans find themselves marooned on a remote island, a series of mutations and natural selection could easily cause this diminutive feature that is not found in other population. They claim that this hominid, (homo floresiensis), was not a homo sapien. Anthropologically, this hominid was certainly different from the rest of the current Indonesian populace, however, there is nothing to suggest that they were not fully human. These were not some evolutionary throwback to the stone age; they were humans. On Flores, the indigenous peoples tell stories about the ‘Ebu Gogo.’ The Ebu Gogo were said to be a race of humans, about a meter or two, tall and covered with hair, that their ancestors discovered on the island hundreds of years ago. All of the Indonesian aborigines describe the exact same hominid that paleontologists have uncovered. Modern scientists state that they went extinct 13,000 years ago, but the Indonesians claim that they lived 2-300 years ago, before their ancestors slaughtered them. Danish sailors of that era, trading in those regions tell a similar story about the Ebu Gogo. Similarly, the Spanish conquistadors claim to have visited the Canary islands in the 1500’s. They claimed that they were greeted by giants, some standing 10 feet tall, whom they called, the ‘Guanches.’ The Guanches were described as being perfectly human, though they did not have the delicate sensibilities we might associate with the civilized world. It’s believed that they were distant relatives of the Berbers of North Africa. Even supposing that these are instances of some sort of primate living on these two island chains, means very little. Here’s the fact: There are well over 300 different types of primates today, not including those extinct. Finding their bones does not prove evolution. It proves that primates have bones! (Emphasis added).

Chinese paleontologist, Dr. C.E. Yu, called Western scientists close-minded bigots for their refusal to concede that evolution is in distress. He went on to say, “In China, we can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government, but Darwin.” You know, that when a Chinese Communistic, evolutionary paleontologist can justifiably refer to his western counterparts as, ‘close minded-bigots,’ one gets the feeling something has seriously gone awry within the scientific community.

Other problems with the geologic column stand out just as clearly. Do to erosion, layers of sediment build up over time, covering the silt that was once exposed. The closer you dig to the surface, the younger the period must have been. The further down one digs, the older the exploration site must have been. I have no quarrel with this, as it is both logical and concurrent with archaeological discoveries. The geologic column has a series of layers to differentiate between different epochs. You might already be familiar with this: (Jurassic period, Mesozoic period, Paleozoic period, etc). A problematic situation emerges, however, in many of the case studies out in the field. The deeper you dig the older the extinct creatures should be. As it is, 650 million year old trilobite, are routinely intermingled with the 325 million year old, lobe-finned fish, the Coelacanth (see-la-kanth). What’s worse, still, sometimes supposedly much younger organisms are found to be lower in the strata layer than the older ones. How can this be? Surely, the most damning of all the evidence comes from the Coelacanth itself. The Coelacanth has been found very much alive, swimming off the African coast, in the Indian Ocean. Now that is a resilient fish! You might say, “Well, obviously they made a mistake, being that it is not extinct.” Yes, clearly they did make a big mistake- a 325 million year old mistake. That is not what presents the biggest problem. The fossilized contemporary has not changed whatsoever from the living Coelacanth. I guess in 325 million years, the Coelacanth simply forgot to evolve. To counter this truth, and many , many others, rabid evolutionist, Niles Eldridge stated, “It’s a startling fact that most species remain unrecognizably unchanged throughout their occurrence in the geologic sediment of various ages.” No Niles, it isn’t surprising in the least.

Perhaps the biggest shock came recently when a Tyrannosaurus Rex was discovered with soft tissue still attached to bone. In fact, the specimen was so, well preserved, that red blood cells could still be viewed under a microscope. T-Rex were said to have gone extinct 75 million years ago. That means the T-Rex that they found was at least 75 million years old, if not much older. But, please tell me how any logical person can think that unfossilized bone, much less soft tissue, can survive past a few hundred years? Given the fact that countless examples of many human skeletal remains rarely surviving decay past 50 years, indicates that in 75 million years, nothing could survive past this unbelievable length of time. Oxygen accelerates the rate of putrefaction and overall decomposition, greatly. However, despite being in an airtight coffin, buried six feet under ground, many human remains rarely survive decay past half a century without the intervention of embalming techniques. Many instances where a body had been exhumed for legal cases of suspected homicide were found without any soft tissue, and sometimes, no bones survived decay altogether. Have evolutionists made a note of this? Of course not. They willed it away with a plethora of poor excuses in hopes that it will detract from the initial argument.

Another serious deficiency has been noted with the use of Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) testing. Using the AMS method, various portions of the geologic column shows amino acids in every strata layer tested. The earth cannot be billions of years old because these amino’s could only survive 10,000 years at the most; and this is a most generous figure.

“If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties must assuredly have existed.” –Charles Darwin

Charlie, I couldn’t agree more, if, your theory be true. There is not one intermediary, transitional form that has ever been presented with any semblance of validity. A transitional form is a link in the chain. If all species are inter-related, then surely there should be unquestionable evidence of it. We should see the evidence of this occurance abounding in the fossil record as well as overwhelming evidence walking around right now. We should see organisms that are a quarter of this, and a quarter of that, half-this, and half-that. Nothing has been discovered that is even remotely comparable to this very necessary evolvement. We aren’t merely speaking about ‘the’ missing link, we are talking about ‘all’ of the missing links from every kingdom, phylum, genera, species, etc. Moreover, we aren’t talking about one link in the chain, we are talking about a large number of chains necessary to compel an amoeba to a man. Changes would have to be so radical and so vast, stretching through so many ages, it would require millions of connecting links. If reptiles became mammals or birds, then there should be some evidence of it. Archaeopteryx has been dubbed a transitional form by nearly all evolutionists. Even supposing that this is a genuine intermediary creature, this example would be one instance out of millions. That’s a far cry from proving evolution. The theory alleges that reptiles are most closely related to birds. For starters, avians are endothermic (warm-blooded) and reptiles are ectothermic (cold-blooded). Avians have temperatures upwards of 105 degrees, whereas, reptiles as low as 40 to 60 degrees. Reptiles have a 3 chambered heart, whereas Avians have a 4 chambered heart. Avians have hollow bones and saurians have solid bones. The lungs, heart, nervous system, digestive tract are completely different from birds and reptiles. Aside from this, evolutionists don’t claim that Archaeopteryx is one link in the chain between reptiles and birds, rather, they claim that Archaeopteryx ‘is’ the missing link. Please tell me, though, how this creature developed wings, a beak, feathers, a completely different heart, lungs, digestive tract, etc, in one felled swoop. How is it that this creature was able to survive natural selection with stump-like appendages as its ancestors were changing from reptile to bird? The contrivances of the wing must have been totally useless in the earliest stages of development, which should make us wonder what prompted these supposed changes to occur at all. How would this be advantageous as opposed to inhibiting its survival? What would prompt it to develop feathers? What prompted it to develop an elongated beak? Tell me: What advantage did this animal have while it was going through these changes? Answer: It wouldn’t. Natural selection would have gobbled up this critter faster than a fat kid at a buffet. The fact is, Archaeopteryx was not a bird-like dinosaur; Archaeopteryx was a bird; a perching bird. Period.

“The absence of fossil evidence has been a persistent problem for evolution.” –Dr. Steven J. Gould

I would say that it is more than a persistent problem. In defense of this obvious flaw, Dr. Richard Goldshmidt came up with the ‘Hopeful Monster’ theory. He basically stated that it might be possible that one specie could mysteriously and inexplicably birth another entirely new specie, thus, not leaving any evidence of evolution (i.e. a pig, birthing a litter of foxes). Subsequently, after being laughed at by his own colleagues, Gould and Niles came up with a new theory that might actually seem plausible, known as ‘punctuated equilibrium.’ The premise behind this theory is similar from the Hopeful Monster, in that, there is conveniently no trace of evolution. This dynamic duo stated that evolution happened in short bursts of time, thus, we are unable to see the changes. However, once again, this event would not have happened to one specie or even one type of species. This would have to happen to all species that have ever swam, slithered, flown, hopped, or walked the earth. Aside from this, looking at fossils and the same kinds of animals living today, show no signs of gradation, at all. This is yet another poor excuse and yet another example of evolutionists grasping at straws. Do you see a pattern ‘evolving’ here? They are making excuses for other excuses. In respect to this, I then direct you to heed the wise words of Fred Hoyle: “Be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypothesis are needed to support it.”

As we go back to our fire tetrahedron, we see that no fuel, no oxygen, and not enough heat will extinguish even the mightiest inferno. In the same way, life does not emerge spontaneously, there are no worthy examples of good mutations, and evolution did not have the amount of time needed to bring it to fruition. All that was needed in order to falsify the theory was prove that one, out of the three tiers was false. We now see that all three are falsifiable to the highest degree. This is the vanguard of its demise as the evolutionary theory is fighting for its very life. In an age of scientific enlightenment, macroevolution is proving to be no longer a tenable theory. Having to defend a dying theory tooth and nail must be exhausting and hardly satisfying. There is no wonder why so many lash out at people such as myself who expose this fraudulent theory. I think, though, I would have a higher regard for them if they would only concede to the obvious, self-evident truth. The tragedy of it is that they refuse to admit the clear implications of this discipline without effectively resigning from the fields of science altogether. Neo-Darwinian evolution is proving, more and more that it is no longer the juggernaut that once claimed to be the ‘death-knell of Christianity.’ Macroevolution is an antiquated theory that, in the cruelest sense of irony, is evolving itself right into extinction. There is one correlation, however, that makes me wonder if evolution is true. I’ve noticed that the evolutionary model bears a striking resemblance to something else. The way I see it, evolution and swiss cheese must have shared a common ancestor; both are full of holes.

In 1874, the theologian, Charles Hodge, asked his congregation a question. He asked, “What is Darwinism?” After a careful and thoroughly fair-minded evaluation, his answer was unequivocal. “It is Atheism.”

To summarize: Lots of bullshit that has already been refuted before, yet you unabashedly, and immorally, decide to peddle anyway. Pathetic.

And to preempt your ineviatable quips: Yes, I am personally going to reply to these passages in time. I invite you to post your whole "book" online, send it to me, and/or provide me with a link where I can buy it (if you manage to publish it if you ever decide to do so).

Who are YOU to define morality ?!

ROFL

P.S. Once he gets it published, he will send you a copy, free of charge. I will make sure of it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

OMGZ!!!11!!!11!!1 An atheisth tlking about mroality :LOOLOLLOLL

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

P.S. Once he gets it published, he will send you a copy, free of charge. I will make sure of it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Like the seminars you were going to send me... which never got here?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He presented valid arguments, with valid references.

Why don't you get off your lazy, antagonistic ass and refute his piece yourself ?



haha, maybe he did write it, it reads a lot like many other creationist papers I have read. You will have noticed I commended him for writing it if he did.

Valid arguments? You mean the unsupported claims?

you mean like the refutations I just gave and the ones that I have given in the past that get completely ignored? Ok i'll get right on that.

Still you provide no sound evidence. Old sound bites without an understanding behind them aren't evidence.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Like the seminars you were going to send me... which never got here?

I'm not going to publish it. This info is free of charge. If I was going to publish it, I would have never sent two chapters online.

So many errors it's sad, did you research anything?

My challenge still stands, show you know what you are talking about and aren't just regurgitating old claims.

Did you read the post I made showing a couple errors or was that ignored?

Tell me, do you actually care about truth and facts?

If I provided some would you change your 'book' or will you just sit on the false information with fingers in ears?

I expect most of these questions and my challenge to be ignored.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

So many errors it's sad, did you research anything?

My challenge still stands, show you know what you are talking about and aren't just regurgitating old claims.

Did you read the post I made showing a couple errors or was that ignored?

Tell me, do you actually care about truth and facts?

If I provided some would you change your 'book' or will you just sit on the false information with fingers in ears?

I expect most of these questions and my challenge to be ignored.

Are you hyperventilating? Don't breath into a paper bag, that is a misnomer.

Dude, relax...... I think I've answered most of your questions, and in a timely manner. I have other things going on presently. If I missed one of your posts, sorry. Half of my arguments we went over at great length in the past.. i.e. Archaeopteryx. Do you remember that convo? It was like three moths ago, but we were at it for like a week straight.

Here's the thing Beta, I'm beggining to think that nothing I say will ever be good enough for you. You'll find some reason to invalidate whatever I present. And what's worse, you're speaking to me with a condescending tone when we're just having a discussion. I'm providing the reasons why I believe as I do. If you don't like it, then post a rebuttle.

I never said that these claims have not already been discussed by other creationists. I FULLY admit that I did not come up with all of the theories purported, with the exception of creatures with camoflauge ability. I came up with that one all on my own. When I thought about it, it amazed me that no one ever considered that before... Or at least that I know of. But here's the thing: All of your info comes directly from TalkOrigins, so who are you to say such a thing... That is, unless, you personally went out in the field, studied, observed certain phenomenon, and then wrote a dissertation on it. (If so, I'd like to read it).

Anyway, calm down... I'm not trying to incite a riot. We're doing that people do on a forum. We're talking. Let's keep it semi-professional. I know we're gonna argue, because we disagree, but it can be cordial, nonethless.

DISCLAIMER: Before anyone here thinks I'm dodging certain questions, just know that I'm going to pick up my wife and then I'm going to bed. *I figured I might need to say that before I'm accused of not being able to answer a certain question.*

And yet you didn't answer any of my questions. Go figure. (These are not hard or complicated questions, they are basic, will you listen, do you want truth and facts, will you change blatant errors, if these require long thought then I think there are bigger questions you should be asking yourself).

I have explained to you what I would like to see, you seem to interpret this as "nothing is good enough" I'm sure you can interpret it that way.

I have mentioned I use multiple sources and often double check talk origins to make sure they are right, you interpret that as only using TO. Makes sense.

The condescending tone comes from talking to a good couple hundred (not an exaggeration) creationists and hearing the exact same things from most of them, the exact same false data, the exact same unwillingness to expand, the exact same lack of research, who refuse to listen and present their old arguments as the ultimate death of evolution and all atheists should bow before them.

If you don't want to be talked down to, answer the questions, be willing to listen and do the research.

I would gladly provide you with even worded information about some of the errors in your book if you show you are willing to listen. If not, why waste my time?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Who are YOU to define morality ?!

ROFL

ROFLOLMAO, AN ACTIVE MORAL AGENT DECIDING MORALITY??! OMG THASO DUMB YOU HAVE TO GET IT FROM A BOOK

The fact is (or I would be extremely, extremely surprised if it wasn't), that "scientists", who support intelligent design, allready have an idea of what their conclusion will be before they make hypothesis and theories to test. Because they were most likely influenced by their religion to begin with, they're not using proper scientific method, it's that simple.

I don't think those who argue for evolution do so for the purpose of disproving intelligent design, it just so happens that real scientific method leads them to that conclusion.

[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 02-24-2006).]

too much copying and pasting, yet lots of responses are intriguing.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Also, there have been many supernatural things witnessed since the dawn of time. Are you denying that, regardless of the source ?

Name a single supernatural event that has been witnessed and recorded anywhere other than in a religious text.

Natural occurring phenomenon are given supernatural explanations due to the ignorance of the observer(earthquakes, thunder, lightning, etc.).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Theories are based on assumptions ! *lol*

So theory = assumption, in your mind? *ROLFMAO*

hyro, what is this "much" that the theory of evolution has failed to explain?

A rather humerous cartoon once depicted something along these lines:

Scientist: Heres the facts, lets see what conclusions we can draw from them.

Creationists: Here's the conclusion, lets see what facts we can draw from it.

A couple of assorted corrections.

Although Hydro hasn't gotten back to me about being willing to correct false statements in his book with a couple people apparently reading this I thought I would post a small bit of correction, I've posted similar here before so it wont take me long to write. (yes it is long because I explain why the book is in error).

First of all if you are serious about any of these claims you need to make specific statements and maybe even cite material. Saying x as if it was truth without any support what so ever is pretty pointless.

K/Ar dating

You say,

quote:The ignorance is almost unforgivable……almost.

(Careful what you say). http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:"When Mount St. Helen erupted in 1980, the lava flowed down the mountainside, cooled and encrusted. The ‘fresh’ lava was dated at 2.8 million years using the Potassium-Argon method (Potassium decays into Argon). Had they not just watched the lava flow in a single day, this would have stood unchecked and unchallenged as a fact. These discrepancies are what typify the argument against many evolutionary geologists and paleontologists."

K/Ar dating, just like all other dating methods is a tool, and just like any tool if you use it wrong it will often produce bad results. If you drive a car off a cliff because you think it can fly, don't blame the car or the car company when it smashes to the ground. Just the same, if the errors in K/Ar dating are a result of misuse, it isn't the dating methods fault.

K/Ar dating is not meant for young rocks. The decay process is rather slow (making it great for older objects). The slow decay means at the beginning even a small amount of contamination can greatly effect the date. Certain rocks can also contain more contamination than others. Creationist groups admit they know this and that the Mt St Helen dating was off because of contamination. So the big question is, how do we know if the sample is contaminated?

One way is through Ar/Ar dating (something rarely mentioned by creationist groups). This method works by irradiating the sample to turn the K39 into Ar39. The sample is incrementally heated and the two types of Ar (Ar39 and Ar40) are measured at each heating step. The ratio is checked. If the Ar40 comes from the K39 then both Ar39 and Ar40 should come out at the same ratio. If not the ratios should be off. Providing a way to check for contamination.

Thus we know it's the creationist users of K/Ar and not the method itself that is in error.

Read more about dating methods here, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html



Index fossils

quote:"Another common misnomer is to date a fossil by a rock laying adjacent to it. (The logic being that you will be able to tell roughly how old the fossil is. ‘Well, how old do you know the rock is by using this method?’ You date the rock by the fossil. ‘Huh? Isn’t that circular reasoning?’ Quiet you!""

You aren't making any sense here, maybe you shouldn't have stuck this right after a dating method that dates the rocks.

What you are really talking about is Index fossils and it's quite common for creationist organizations to try and confuse their readers about it. There is no circular logic. Sometimes a kind of fossil is found that constantly appears in the same strata ever time. The fossils are first dated using standard methods such as radiometric dating (like K/Ar). After that they can be used as a quick guide to the strata's age. When found at a dig site the scientists can get a rough estimate of the age right then and there.

Ironically it was a creationist that first discovered and used an early version of Index fossils, starting both modern geology and the down fall of the flood theory.

Carbon Dating

quote:Nobel winner, Willard Libbey, calculated that the atmospheric C14 had not yet reached equilibrium. Furthermore, he states that it would take up to 30,000 years to reach equilibrium.

Really? Where did he say that? Can you give me a source?

I've found two sources that say it was really Cook and not Libby that said this.

Equilibrium is not a problem, we know the atmosphere rates of C-14 fluctuate. The idea of equilibrium is based on the assumption that the rates stay the same. C-14 has required calibration because of this (something done through tree-ring dating, ice cores and a couple other methods). The calibration needed wasn't huge but it helped.

quote:It’s also been noted in more recent times that extremely large changes have occurred in the earth’s atmosphere due to atomic testing, as well as overall pollution. In lieu of this, living penguins have been dated at 8,000 years old.

Yep, changes have occurred making carbon dating of modern samples more complicated (it does not effect older samples) however that is not the reason Penguins would date at 8,000 years.

Carbon-14 dating is based on the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere, thus a sample must get its carbon from the atmosphere to be dated correctly. Penguins eat fish, who get their C-14 from the sea which not only has a different ratio but has a number of issues that make C-14 dating more complicated. Using the atmospheric ratio to date ocean life is a user mistake and not a dating error.

quote:The shell of a living snail was dated at 27,000 years old.

One must be careful dating shell creatures because they often get the carbon from their shell from none atmospheric sources. In this case the snail built a lot of its shell using very old limestone, thus the shell is rather old. Creationists also report mollusk shells being dated old as well.

This is known as the reservoir effect and again it's a user error not a dating error. Creationists really should learn how to use these tools correctly before complaining.

quote:A frozen mammoth was found and different portions of it’s body were sent to different labs at different intervals to detect any discrepancies. One leg was dated at 40,000 years, while another was dated at 26,000 years. The surrounding wood, directly adjacent to the mastodon was dated at 10,000 years old.

As far as I can tell this isn't true. Dima (the baby mammoth) was dated at 40,000 years, where the other dates come from I don't know.

Walt Brown (a creationist that mentions Dima) cites a paper from 1975 which can't be accurate as Dima wasn't discovered till 1977. He either got confused or made up dates.

Quotes

quote:In response to these abnormalities, as well as a host of others, a premier Canadian science journal reported,

“The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious... Half of the dates are rejected… These gross discrepancies are nothing more than selected dates.”

I would cation the use of quotes that don't provide evidence, they are often nothing more than sound bites. Ever notice that no matter how bad a movie is they still often have "Amazing, best movie of the year" on the outside of the box? That's because not all quotes are created equal. At the very least you need to source your quote. As it stands how do we know the quote is valid? Is it in context? Did the person who said it then soundly get bashed with evidence against their statement? etc.

I've found the larger version of this quote on a number of creationist sites, it's by a Dr. Robert Lee in 1981, supposably published in the anthropological journal of canada which Robert was the editor for (so whether it went through proper review is unknown, it was later published in a creationist 'peer review' journal (the same CRSQ journal requires you to accept creationism as fact before they will publish your work). Not exactly a good source for a scientists opinion. Carbon dating has also come a long way since 1981.

This is why quotes aren't a good idea.

The short of it

The short of it is the errors listed are based on misuse and misunderstanding and are not actual problems with the dating methods.

pwned

http://tinyurl.com/htg5t

'oh once happy bauble, twisting on the bliss-twig of ignorami'

[This message has been edited by TerminatorVinitiatoR (edited 02-27-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Some Old Drunk Guy:

i already made a topic about this and it reached over 500 replies. Where were you?

Not here, I guess.

PART1:

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



“We wish that science teachers would distinguish clearly between firmly established empirical facts concerning evolution and theories about mechanisms.

They forget the fact that any theory of the world has at most a provisional, pro tem value. It is only valid until it is falsified or a better model is proposed. When the current favorite theory leaves as much unexplained as Darwin does, students must learn that scientific alternatives exist. Failure to mention them is deceitful.”

-Brig Klyce-

The highly polarized debate of evolution, versus, creationism has gained a lot of fanfare, especially recently. In the United States, the scientific elite has felt the uncomfortable squeeze of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, as evidenced by the countless articles, news specials, websites, blogs, and debates. In response to this clear scientific exodus, rules are being rewritten under the misrepresented guise of Constitutional legality to prevent ID from being taught. (Consequently, this suppresion is the very thing that acquitted them during the Scope’s trial). A massive propaganda campaign has been underway to undermine any would-be defectors against evolution. The typical conjecture is that creationism in not a science. Instead, they derisively refer to the study as a ‘psuedo-science,’ likening it to phrenology, scientology, or paranormal research. What’s important to remember, is that the ID movement is nothing new. Prior, to Darwin, this was the only theory concerning the origin and sustainment of life. Thomas Aquinas, William Paley, and a host of other early pioneers saw the mind of Creator by looking at the creation. So, if anything at all, creationism is a revival of the oldest scientific beliefs. In this chapter, let us examine the critical aspects of creationism by first asking the all-important question: “What is truly the issue concerning the controversy?”

Evolutionists, or more explicitly, atheists, feel that creationism smacks of theology. This is understandable. If I were in their shoes, I might be leery of this theory as well. But I’m of the opinion that the real issue is that not that no one is willing to hear what creationists have to say, but rather, that they are systematically usurped. Instead, Creationists are being silenced at every opportunity and dismissed whenever they incline to make a rational claim that opposes the modern maxim. The athiestic community is using some rather underhanded tactics to regain the scientific focus sqaurely into their court alone. Creation scientists do not hide their faith and I commend them for that. At the same time, there is no covert or overt agenda to push religion, as if creationists are twisting their moustache, devising some diabolical scheme to brainswash children. This just further confirms the gross misconception that American society has unduly placed on the creationist. Even if this was the case, it could easily be said that evolutionists have an agenda to destroy religion altogether. There are volumes of documentation supporting this, some of which, I quoted in the previous chapter. Nontheless, I would not blame every evolutionist for the suppresion of creationist beliefs, simply by virtue of association. I wish the same amount of respect would be leant to us.

“For the sake of inquiry we are required to assume that God does not exist”

-Dr. William Dembeski,

“I don’t agree with creationism for theological reasons. I agree with it for scientific implications.” – Creationist and molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Behe

You might be surprised to know that I happen to agree with the separation of church and state to a very small degree, even though it is not an actual statute. I think that when you are in a science classroom, science should be taught and not theology. However, if there is a Creator, and He did create all that is, then we cannot get around speaking about the Creator, now can we? We shouldn’t be made to feel sorry over this either. No one is stating that Christianity needs to be taught alongside creationism. In fact, its best in the school system that theology play a limited role, if any, in the science classroom. We could argue over the semantics of theology all we wanted, but in a scientific setting, it bears little relevance. I want to make certain that this distinction is made known to the opposition. Having said that, I doubt this will placate my counterparts. For as much as they insist that ID has an agenda to place God in the public school system, they have all the more reason to expulse His Word and erase His name from existence. This hardly seems fair, being, that 80% of the American populace no longer agrees with Darwinism. The role of the Creator has been, unduly diminished significantly since Darwin’s theory was propelled to the forefront.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> To discuss the "underhanded" tactics of a small portion of the scientific community and not to discuss the underhanded tactics of the BC and ID proponents is itself an underhanded tactic! You have absolutely no claim to the moral high ground if you do not, within these pages, also include the rampant misquotations, lies and just blatant dishonesty that some BC and ID proponents use as well.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/04/dembskis_curiou.html

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/back_to_the_quo.html

These are merely two examples. There are many, many more.



<LI> Your convenient omission being resolved, lets discuss the inherent theological arguments of ID and BC.

Allow me to quote Judge Jones - a life-long Christian appointed by George W. Bush to the bench - who so expertely explains the history of biblical creationism in the classroom

"The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter "IDM") and the development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which the Dover School Board acted in adopting the challenged ID Policy. As a reasonable observer, whether adult or child, would be aware of this social context in which the ID Policy arose, and such context will help to reveal the meaning of Defendants' actions, it is necessary to trace the history of the IDM.

It is essential to our analysis that we now provide a more expansive account of the extensive and complicated federal jurisprudential legal landscape concerning opposition to teaching evolution, and its historical origins. As noted, such opposition grew out of a religious tradition, Christian Fundamentalism that began as part of evangelical Protestantism's response to, among other things, Charles Darwin's exposition of the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation for the diversity of species. McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1258; see also, e.g., Edwards, 482 U.S. at 590-92. Subsequently, as the United States Supreme Court explained in Epperson, in an "upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor of the twenties," 393 U.S. at 98 (citations omitted), state legislatures were pushed by religiously motivated groups to adopt laws prohibiting public schools from teaching evolution. McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1259; see Scopes, 289 S.W. 363 (1927). Between the 1920's and early 1960's, anti-evolutionarysentiment based upon a religious social movement resulted in formal legal sanctions to remove evolution from the classroom. McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1259 (discussing a subtle but pervasive influence that resulted from anti-evolutionary sentiment concerning teaching biology in public schools).

As we previously noted, the legal landscape radically changed in 1968 when the Supreme Court struck down Arkansas's statutory prohibition against teaching evolution in Epperson. 393 U.S. 97. Although the Arkansas statute at issue did not include direct references to the Book of Genesis or to the fundamentalist view that religion should be protected from science, the Supreme Court concluded that "the motivation of the [Arkansas] law was the same . . . : to suppress the teaching of a theory which, it was thought, 'denied' the divine creation of man." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 590 (quoting Epperson, 393 U.S. at 109) (Arkansas sought to prevent its teachers from discussing the theory of evolution as it is contrary to the belief of some regarding the Book of Genesis.).

Post-Epperson, evolution's religious opponents implemented "balanced treatment" statutes requiring public school teachers who taught evolution to devote equal time to teaching the biblical view of creation; however, such statutes did not pass constitutional muster under the Establishment Clause. See, e.g., Daniel, 515 F.2d at 487, 489, 491. In Daniel, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that by assigning a "preferential position for the Biblical version of creation" over "any account of the development of man based on scientific research and reasoning," the challenged statute officially promoted religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Id. at 489.

Next, and as stated, religious opponents of evolution began cloaking religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting "creation science" or "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First Amendment. "Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man." McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1259. In 1982, the district court in McLean reviewed Arkansas's balanced-treatment law and evaluated creation science in light of Scopes, Epperson, and the long history of Fundamentalism's attack on the scientific theory of evolution, as well as the statute's legisl ative history and historical context. The court found that creation science organizations were fundamentalist religious entities that "consider[ed] the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry." Id. at 1260. The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. Id. at 1266. The court concluded that creation science "is simply not science" because it depends upon "supernatural intervention," which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable. Id. at 1267.

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that Arkansas' balanced-treatment statute coul d have no valid secular purpose or effect, served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 1264, 1272-74."

In his the decision on the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html)

It is clear that the history of creationism is nothing but dressing up religion in a facade of science! The Judge, a Christian, understands this fully.

And when these tactics failed as well, the creationists yet again attempted to dress up their religion with pseudo-science in order to get it taught in the science classroom. In a sense, the image you present of creationists twisting their mustaches in delight, as their they attempt to infiltrate real science, with pseudo-science, holds true. The creationists, having been defeated, again proceeded with their dishonest tactics, but now under a different guise: "Intelligent Design".



The Judge continues:

"Five years after McLean was decided, in 1987, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's balanced-treatment law in Edwards for similar reasons. After a thorough analysis of the history of fundamentalist attacks against evolution, as well as the applicable legislative history including statements made by the statute's sponsor, and taking the character of organizations advocating for creation science into consideration, the Supreme Court held that the state violated the Establishment Clause by "restructur[ing] the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 593.

Among other reasons, the Supreme Court in Edwards concluded that the challenged statute did not serve the legislature's professed purposes of encouraging academic freedom and making the science curriculum more comprehensive by "teaching all of the evidence" regarding origins of life because: the state law already allowed schools to teach any scientific theory, which responded to the alleged purpose of academic freedom; and if the legislature really had intended to make science education more comprehensive, "it would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind" rather than permitting schools to forego teaching evolution, but mandating that schools that teach evolution must also teach creation science, an inherently religious view. Id. at 586, 588-89. The Supreme Court further held that the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint and that the Act at issue "advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety." Id. at 591, 596. Therefore, as noted, the import of Edwards is that the Supreme Court made national the prohibition against teaching creation science in the public school system.

The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID"), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer "everyone understands to be God." Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase "purposeful arrangement of parts."

Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).

Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants' expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas' rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy." (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)).

A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses, is the author of the book Creationism's Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID's religious, philosophical, and cultural content. The following is a representative grouping of such statements made by prominent ID proponents.5" - Ibid.

It was quite obvious to the court, after hearing all of the testimony, that ID was nothing but another attempt by creationists to get their religious views taught in the science classroom.

We should note that the Judge mentions the "Wedge Strategy". What is the "Wedge Strategy"? It is the purpose of intelligent Design. In the very own words of one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design:

"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,...We call our strategy the "wedge." Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds Phillip Johnson. 1997.

It is, in other words, exactly what Judge Jones understood Intelligent Design to be: a way of disguising religious beliefs, in order to attack real science.

To claim that ID is not an attempt to get religious dogma taught in the science classroom, where it undoubtedly does not belong, is ludicrous. It is dishonesty to the point of intellectual negligence.

<LI> Whether a god created the universe or not, is not dealt with in science. As such, we both can and must 'get around speaking about the Creator' in the science classroom. If theists want to discuss the existence of gods, then you are free to do so in classes that deals with matters theological, not matters scientific, as the existence of a god is a supernatural matter, and not scientific by definition.

</UL>

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-27-2006).]

PART 2:

quote:Written in the early 1900’s, Reverend William Williams, a staunch opponent to Darwinism, stated, “What is taught in the universities today will be truth, tomorrow.” How right he was. This is all beginning to change, after an arduous, one hundred and thirty six year battle. Models for creation science within the scientific realm are scarce, at best. There is no way of getting around this fact. No one can deny it. Even still, creationists are asking some important questions only to receive asinine answers that explain nothing worthy of bearing the title, ‘scientific.’ Nonetheless, as for my own personal beliefs, I happen to believe in the Judeo-Christian God for all the reasons I have written earlier. I happen to believe, based on the current evidence, that the Bible corroborates what we witness in nature and that the Biblical account is harmonious with creation. Is it true that perhaps most creationists are Christian? Probably. But they shouldn’t be made to feel sorry over this, either; this is the exception, not the absolute rule. Aside from this, if we were to look at nature for what it is, we could very easily deduce that there is something more than simply, ‘nothing.’ Every living organism has a function that leads to the operation of another function. The totality of these functions is purposeful. So, if everything that every living organism does is for a purpose, how then, should the entirety of it somehow be devoid of it? That would be a very illogical concept, but indeed, that is what’s being propogated to the youth.

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” –Romans 1:20

Everything in nature mimics its Creator, and its creator has a triune character.

1. Height + Width + Depth = Space (3 = 1)

2. Solid + Liquid + Gas = Matter (3 = 1) (1 + 1 + 1 = 3)

3. Past + Present + Future = Time (3 = 1)

• Space is unseen, yet omnipresent, as is the Father unseen, yet omnipresent.

• Matter is the manifestation of space, as is the Son, the manifestation of the Father.

• Time, while unseen, provides the means for experiencing matter, as is, the Spirit, while unseen, the means of expreriencing God.

You may have been hearing a lot about Intelligent Design lately, however, you may not understand the basic ideological premise behind it. When looking at nature, it is difficult, if not impossible to conceive that there is not a clear intent behind nature itself. New polls are showing that in the United States, most of the populace now believe that the Darwinian account of the origin of life is fallacious. This is very surprising to me, though I am pleased to hear it. Even when scientific creationism is scant, people are beginning to understand that huge amounts of complexity is highly indicative of intent, and intent, is indicative of a cognizant mind. Creationists must be careful in their approach, however. For as foolish as it may seem to me, to say, that ‘nothing creates everything,’ it is equally foolish to say, “God created everything,” and simply leave it at that. The offer of an explanation with such brevity would completely emasculate science. Knowing this, why is it that creationists believe in the creation account? What are some of their arguments? Looking at all the complexity of the universe, as well as our own body, loudly proclaim that there is a designer. Let’s take for example, the eye.

“To suppose that the eye with all it’s inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I frankly confess, absurd in it’s highest degree.”

-Charles Darwin

After testifying to how seemingly absurd it would be for the eye to develop all on its own, he goes on to speak about it as if it were certainly true. All proof is exhausted in the struggle to prove the possibility of such a marvelous eye, that to say nothing at all about the probability of such an occurrence, much less the certainty required by science, is insuperable. But for how amazingly complex the eye is, Darwinism attempts to explain it as having arose by chance. Evolutionists say that the first eye came by pigmentation in the skin, perhaps a freckle or a mole. Then, they say, rays of sunlight converged on this organism and caused a sun spot where it developed into a cluster of light sensitive cells. Then, they claim that the organism could feel the energy from the sun and so it turned towards the source. They purport that a nerve came out of it all, thus, evolving the first eye. What is really being said is, ‘guess, assertion, conjecture.’ This is an unsubstantiated claim founded on no empirical facts, whatsoever. It sounds somewhat plausible and so, they pawn it off as if it were some kind of scientific certainty. Where I come from, thats called ‘bull excrement.’ Consider this question: If evolution occurs through small gradations over time, how could the separate parts of the eye, such as the lens, retina, pupil, and whatnot, could have come about since none of these structures by themselves would have made vision possible? Without all of the mechanisms in place from the inception, vision is not possible. Ask anyone blinded from even the seemingly smallest accident how critical each component is to the overall function of the eye to allow vision to take place. In other words, what purpose would a partial eye serve and how should any organism benefit from it prior, to its full development? What enhanced its survival, that it should have developed, and thus, evolved this feature? Even supposing that the eye was able to develop all on its own for no good reason, they have only accounted for how one eye might have developed. We cannot make an accurate computation of how complex the eye truly is by using probability, but we can formulate an algorithm with the location of it. In fact, the same could be said of all the organs in the body. We can estimate that on the surface of the human body there is anywhere from 2,500 to 3,500 square inches of surface, depending on how short, skinny, fat, or tall we are. This space is roughly 3,000 times the space of the eye itself. The eye, by the laws of probability, could have developed arbitrarily anywhere on the body as opposed to where it is actually situated. Out of our abundant margin, we will say that it is one chance out of 1,000; hence, the probability is .001. The compound probability of the location of two things happening together can be ascertained by multiplying together their fractions of probability. So now, we have two eyes that just so happen to be inexplicably placed about the head region, in the front of our body. That is now .001 x .001, which equals .00001. Now let’s up the ante a bit. Now lets throw ears into the mix. The computation is the same in this equation. We have two ears that according to evolutionists, developed there for no good reason at all. Now, the equation reads .000,000,000,001. The two eyes and the two ears have one chance out of a trillion to be placed in the locality that we conveniently find them in. This does not even take into consideration the mouth, the brain, the esophagus, the stomach, the liver, the intestines or any other bodily component that is central to your survival. This feat is nothing short of miraculous, however, such a word is officially, stricken from the vocabulary of evolutionists.



This second part is riddled with logical fallacies:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>

You're employing various fallacies when you argue that the universe must have “something”.

a) You have not proven that conclusion at all. You arbitrarily arrived at that conclusion simply by choosing some examples. That proves nothing.

b) You're assuming that this has something to do with the theory of evolution at all. Evolution does not deal with the creation of the universe or any possible purpose the universe itself might have; only with what has happened after life has appeared.

c) You are also assuming that the theory of evolution is not compatible with that "something"/"purpose existing which is false. The theory deals with what has happened after life began, not before; hence, any possible purpose imbued by a creator or the creation of the universe itself being done by a creator – might have happened before evolution took place.

<LI> You commit yet another logical fallacy when you invoke the argument of the “triune” nature of god. (cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to be exact).

Just because there might be a number which we can observe in some ( a very, very small) quantity of properties in the universe, does not mean that the Jude-Christian god is responsible for the universe, or that it somehow points to him. You must prove that these properties are the result of the Jude-Christian god before you make such assertions, and it is quite obvious you have not done so.

Moreover, you wrong in that list when it comes to the properties of matter - there are actually four of them (solid, liquid, gas, and plasma). By your logic (i.e. That somehow the number of the properties of matter somehow show the nature of god) the actual properties of matter (i.e. Four, nor three as you erroneously claim) would then point to the nature of god not being triune! You have, inadvertently, refuted your own argument.

Either these four properties show how the Judeo-Christian god does not have a triune nature, or we conveniently ignore these properties when they suddenly do not fit your religious views. Which is it?

Can I use other properties we find in the universe to disprove your baseless assertion? Can I use pi (which represents a fundamental properties of circle, wave, and amyriad of other things) in order to prove that god's nature isn't triune, but a bit more than triune, .1415... more to be exact? The vacuity of your statements should be clear by now. To claim that some minuscule properties that we observe somehow point to the Judeo-Christian god is self-refuting and ridiculous to say the least.



<LI> Your argument about the eye is, yet again, another logical fallacy. It is an argument from incredulity. Just because you believe the eye would be an impossible feat to be achieved by evolution, does not mean that it is not so. Your argument is therefore, rendered completely useless. This, while ignoring, what I can only assume is, a deliberately misinterpreted the position of scientists on the “eye”. Scientists do not claim they developed there for absolutely no reason, that is a bold face lie on your part. The same applies to ears.

Furthermore, you ignore the sub-optimal qualities of the eye itself. Human eyes have blind spots; but not just regular blind spots, blind spots which could have easily been corrected had the retina on vertebrate animals (yes, this applies to virtually all vertebrates) would not have been “backwards” as it is now. Because it is backwards, and not the other way around, we vertebrates have less visiual actuity, and even blind spots. This is easily explained with evolution, but not with a intelligetn designer as this sub-optimal design shows no sign of intelligence. ID proponents would have us believe that there exists a god which created us humans, one which is intelligent, yet is so idiotic that he knows less about the eye that he himself created than scientists. That is a preposterous explanation at best.

</UL>

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-27-2006).]

hyroglyphx: I'll reply to the rest of the first chapter you posted, later tonight when I get more time.

Speaking of the triune thing none of them are accurate.

Space. Thanks to Einstein we know space and time are combined so it's really,

1. Height + Width + Depth + Time = Spacetime (4 = 1) (if some quantum theories are true there might a whole bunch of other dimensions that are roled up and never seen yet they still have an effect on the universe).

Mater

As you mentioned there are 4 common phases of matter but a good number more if you take into account exotic forms such as superfluids, supersolids, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc.

Time

Thanks to Einstein (again) we know that past, present and future are all relative and your present might be someones past or future. So they are really only imaginary concepts that can be applied to our local area in a general way.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Speaking of the triune thing none of them are accurate.

Space. Thanks to Einstein we know space and time are combined so it's really,

1. Height + Width + Depth + Time = Spacetime (4 = 1) (if some quantum theories are true there might a whole bunch of other dimensions that are roled up and never seen yet they still have an effect on the universe).

Mater

As you mentioned there are 4 common phases of matter but a good number more if you take into account exotic forms such as superfluids, supersolids, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc.

Time

Thanks to Einstein (again) we know that past, present and future are all relative and your present might be someones past or future. So they are really only imaginary concepts that can be applied to our local area in a general way.

I haven't been around much and I have to go do laundry in a minute here and then go to work. I will rebutt some of your and Rusts' points when I get a moment. As far as Einstein goes, I'm quite familiar with his works, especially when they come to space-time-matter. Since I don't have time to thouroughly respond, I'll just post chapter 4 which goes into that.

COSMOS:

Beyond time, space and matter



Perhaps you are a lot like me in that you have an aptitude or an affinity towards the matters of science. If so, allow me to appease these natural inclinations as we take a comprehensive look into the cosmos and the origin of life. In so doing, I am going to appeal that not only can God and science coexist, but moreover, they coincide in every conceivable way. God is science. God is the Great Protagonist in the play of life. Not only is He the central Character, but He is also the supporting Actor, the Playwright, and the Director. God should win an Emmy.

In this chapter, we will be going over some complex theories and some confusing jargon. Throughout this chapter, keep three questions in the back of your mind. Answering these questions will help you to separate the real from the abstract.

1. Did the universe have a beginning, or is it a timeless expanse?

2. If the universe had a beginning, was it caused or uncaused?

3. If it had a cause, was that cause the product of intent or chance?

BIG BANG: Throughout centuries, man has composed various theories concerning the origin of life, ranging from the fanciful and bizarre to the practical and logical. Often times, they are not in any sense synonymous with one another. In times prior, many scientists, as well as theologians, displayed an aversion towards the universe having a beginning. Many seemed to rather believe that the universe has always existed in a timeless portrayal of infinity. In modern times, the theory of the ‘Big Bang’ has been popularized and up until recently was the only serious model proposed. This is due, in part, because the Big Bang has thus far, been supported by observation, with an explanatory power unrivaled to that of other theorems. The premise behind the theory is that life must have begun in singularity. Singularity, otherwise known as ‘Planck’s time’, is 10 to the negative 43 seconds after the universe began. Consider singularity as the point in the space-time continuum at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume. Accordingly, space and time has become infinitely distorted. To expound on this, think of an empty hand. What is inside of an empty hand? There is nothing, right? Actually, there are millions and possibly billions of atoms swirling about, rife with oxygen molecules and whatnot. Nevertheless, at the singularity, there literally was nothing, in the truest sense of the word. This, however, is a distressing truth that has brought the greatest minds to exhaustion. As compelling as the theory is, it still does not offer any explanation as to why matter exists at all. Conventional wisdom simply cannot account for it. The casual inference of man in his understanding is based on the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from absolutely nothing. A pure potentiality cannot, in it’s own right, actualize itself. In the case of the universe, whether we speak of boundary lines, fixed points or the infinite, there was not anything prior to the singularity. Virtually all cosmologists and astrophysicists, whether theistic or atheistic, agree on this point.

“In the beginning God created the heavens (universe) and the earth. The earth was without form and void; and darkness was over the face of the deep.”

-Genesis 1:1-2

A Russian-born scientist, George Gamow, purported a theory to support the singularity of the Big Bang. The premise was that a primeval concentration of energy was the source of the universe, as we now know it. The theory stated that galaxies are rushing away from one another at terrific speeds. All matter and energy of the four dimensions of time and space caused a fissure of it’s own fabric. From the fissure, matter, energy, time, and space ruptured into a state of infinite, or near infinite, density, temperature, and pressure. This sounds like a wonderful theory, however, it still does nothing to explain how energy and matter actualized itself. Skeptics of the Big Bang, and of cosmology as a whole, often object to such theories. They feel that it is too tentative of a discipline from which to draw empirical conclusions. They are right to be leery. Cosmology is a work in progress, as it gathers new information from which to draw some conclusions. Nevertheless, as of now, it should be far removed from being viewed in absolute terms because so much of it is easily falsifiable.

Albert Einstein noted that time and space are conjoined as homolguous and inseparable. Even time and space, though not tangible, can still be manipulated. If then, they can be manipulated, then even time and space have original properties. Somehow, we are expected to believe this theory of ‘Spontaneous Generation’ even though it is in direct contravention with the Law of Conservation and Energy. Astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose, have all confirmed Einstein’s General and Special theory of Relativity. We know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that time and space had a finite beginning. We know that explosions do not cause spontaneous generation. In fact, it is the exact opposite; they cause spontaneous degeneration, because they decrease the complexity and order of structured, living material. You cannot blow up a jet factory and magically produce a jet airplane out of the rubble. Likewise, ‘nothing’ cannot blow up and magically a universe with unbelievable complexity is going to emerge from the ashes. Consequently, spontaneous generation violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The 1st Law states that the sum kinetic energy, potential energy, and thermal energy remain constant in a closed system, such as we see in the universe. Matter, or its energy equivalent, cannot be created or destroyed by ‘natural’ means. Therefore, it stands to reason, that an outside agent must have created all that there is. To put it in the simplest terms possible, there was a lack of anything. The potential for the universe could not have then lain itself, since it was non-existent before the singularity. Of the theistic hypothesis, the potential for the universe lay wholly on the omnipotence of a Creator to create both the possibility and to bring it to fruition. Of the atheistic hypothesis, there did not even exist the potentiality of existence. It then seems inconceivable that the universe should become actual if no potential even existed! Even on the most mundane level, we all know innately that matter and even energy must come from somewhere. Nonetheless, we read from a college textbook, that, “In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.” So allow me to clarify: Nothing exploded, and here we are. When you get passed all of the fluff, that is exactly what was said. Now, is that supposed to explain something? Is that something that should honestly be taught as ‘science?’ This is rather fanciful belief is perfectly concurrent with Gamow’s theory. In another excerpt, we read, “In the beginning all the energy condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck. That speck began to expand. The space-energy speck, now the size of a baseball, began cooling off and matter condensed from energy. By three minutes, atomic nuclei appeared.” The illustration you’ve just read is known as ‘Cosmic Inflation,’ and it is a complete assertion. The vast number of cosmologists and astrophysicists can’t agree whether or not the universe is 20 billion years old or 6 billion years, but now they are going to tell us what happened at the three minute mark?

SCIENCE: “the knowledge derived from the observation, study, and testing of evidence”

This is the very definition of science. To step outside of this criterion is to step into a world of conjecture. If any of the three steps are dismissed, then it is little more than a guess, no matter how appealing it might sound. Any, and all, hypotheses must go through a battery of tests in order to be empirically proven as an empirical science. First, a scientific theory is proposed. From this hypothesis, the test must show that it is even possible, then probable, and finally credited as a certainty. This is the criterion for all scientific theory. To be a possible theory, a hypothesis proposed and it must be reconcilable with many already well-established facts. To be considered probable, it must be reconcilable with virtually all of the previously established facts. To be classified as ‘science,’ the theory must be reconcilable with all of the facts, establishing a predictable outcome. If there is any discrepancy, irreconcilable with any fact, the theory needs reproof. Up until revision is made, it should be rejected and certainly not taught to pupils as truth. What I find interesting is this essentially a description of Creatio Ex Nihilo, which in Latin, means, Creation out of nothing. They refer to this as a religious belief, but, the difference between the two would be, what, exactly? I think some much-needed clarification should be offered at this point. Because no one was there at the beginning, both theories should remain just as that….. theories. The issue I have is for the vast preponderance to less than subtly refer to something as fact, and call it science, when it flies in the face of the very definition. We simply cannot call it factual, otherwise.

The power of the cosmologist, perhaps, lies in his own grandiose image of superior intellect. Its rather typical that a laymen be bombarded with rhetoric and postulates in order to direct them away from what he is really saying. If you can manage to sift through the rhetorical banter, the underlying message is: 0 + 0 = everything. Because he cannot account for this inequality he must ultimately rely on his jargon to divert your attention elsewhere. Despite the obvious brilliance of many of them, they seem to gleefully overlook enormous gaps in the theories. Among such men, is astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking. He is probably the most renowned living scientist today. As well, he is a recipient of the distinguished Nobel Prize by formulating some brilliant theories concerning vacuum fluctuation and black hole research. Though he is a highly intelligent man with some hard won credentials in the field of quantum mechanics, even he cannot tell you why 0 + 0 should equal, everything. He nimbly avoids such problems of ‘Planck’s time’ by simply stating, “What’s north of the north pole?” In essence, he is saying that anything before the singularity is inconsequential. Is that really the case? I think to state with a straight face that something comes from nothing is scientific heresey. Now, in his defense, I agree that quantum indeterminacy is a given because no one was there to view it. We cannot know with Newtonian precision what happened prior to Planck’s time. My issue, however, is not that we cannot know what happened. My issue is that to disregard it and view it as unimportant is extremely neglectful. Why do you suppose this aversion occurs in the minds of the great scientific minds? My guess is that they have to consider the possibility of a Creator. This idea makes for some very uncomfortable scientists who shudder at the very thought of something greater than the mind of a human being. Its as if they acknowledge that, 1 + 1 = something, but they have taken the option of there being a number 2, in which to solve the equation. They cleverly invent ways in which to place the number 3 or 4 or 5 to solve the seeming dichotomy. That is unfair and deceitful. Nevertheless, Hawking has made references to God all throughout his critically acclaimed book, ‘A Brief History of Time.’ Likewise, the genius mind of Einstein, who once stated that ‘God does not play dice,’ also declared himself ‘satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence.’ Though this may sound appealing to a believer, neither Hawking, nor Einstein believed in a ‘personal God,’ who interacts with His creation. These comments were made more as the embodiment of reason within nature. I think an honest quest for the truth might lead the mind to the inevitable question about God. Even still, this thought has met some resistance by some other acclaimed scientists. Sir Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein’s General theory of Relativity, stated, “philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a general loophole.” Einstein’s’ reactions to his own theory appeared to acknowledge a threat of an encounter with a higher power. Even still, Einstein very begrudgingly accepted the notion, to which he called, ‘the necessity for a beginning.’ The message I am trying to convey is that many great minds have come to similar conclusions based solely on the inferences of science. I think it would be well with us to follow suit in similar fashion even if we drag our feet the entire way.

Among some of the dissidents of the Big Bang theory, most noteworthy is likely to be, Sir Fred Hoyle. The late Fred Hoyle is a very distinguished astrophysicist. He called for radical revision of the inflationary big bang model, even though he was the one who first coined the phrase, ‘the Big Bang.’ Hoyle believed in a static universe, not an ever-expanding one. It seems then, that there is room for revision given by some strict naturalists. Perhaps in the very beginning, a stretching or expanding did take place in the fabric of space and time. God does tell of a ‘stretching of the heavens’ in His Word, but this does not equate necessarily to enormous epochs of time. Whatever event took place in the beginning we are obliged to refer to them as ‘supernatural.’ Challenging orthodoxy of the Big Bang is merely the beginning of sorting through a lengthy laundry list of conundrums. Even the quantum mechanics that have stood undisputed for centuries are coming in to question. The quantum theory is an excellent model producing some well-known advances in the fields of science, but up until now, it has been strictly a mathematical model unseen outside of a written dissertation. It seems, though, even Einstein and his well-established theories are no longer safe from being challenged.



I believe that we are in urgent need of a paradigm shift. We have reached an impasse. It seems, then, we are living in an abyss between two incommensurate unions that cannot coexist. I believe we are justified to re-evaluate and to question the academic elite. Unfortunately, there are only a few trailblazers in times past, who might dare such an unthinkable act, as challenging the longstanding authority. It is time break away from established paradigms, and to challenge the prevailing wisdom. It is time that we entertain breakthrough ideas, even at the risk of being called some sort of dangerous maverick. Carver Mead of MIT, declared, “physics that does not make sense, that defies human intuition, is obscurantist; it balks thought and intellectual progress.” Perhaps, then, we should not feel threatened by the intelligentsia, but to feel secure in our suspicions, recognizing them as prudent. Of all the evidence to counter any belief that the universe is younger than what most naturalists assert, light-years have presented the biggest obstacle to Young Earth Creationists. It has thus far been the crux of the argument. However, we should not assume that it is insoluble.

LIGHT-YEARS: A light-year is the distance that light can travel through in a vacuum for one Julian year. Light in a vacuum travels at approximately 186,000 miles per second (mps). It should be noted that light-years are not a measurement of time, but distance. A typical argument against Creationism might sound, something like, “If the universe is younger than billions of years old, then how is it that it takes starlight millions or billions of years to reach us?” This is an excellent question, and it deserves a reasonable answer. One thing that is important to consider, is that we should remember who is telling us this. We may find ourselves comfortable with the old system of things. But, this old system is an account of an old universe that is directly linked with evolution and all its baggage. Early in the 1900’s, famed astronomer, Edwin Hubble discovered that light from distant galaxies is red-shifted, implying that the universe is expanding from an initial explosion. This event took place at a finite time. Although scientists have challenged the interpretation of the red-shift, it has been clearly observed. Countering Hubble’s initial argument, astrophysicist, Robert Newman writes,

“If there is any process which causes our universe to lose energy at a non-zero rate, then an oscillating universe would have run out of energy, and so ceased oscillating, long ago.”

This means that it is improbable that the universe as we know it is one universe in an infinite series of expanding and contracting universes. Paul Davies, professor of natural philosophy at Macquire University, wrote, “According to London-based Joao Magueijo, cracks are appearing in Einstein’s theory of relativity, the cornerstone of our present understanding of space, time, and gravitation.” Davies was commenting on Magueijo’s satellite observations of Cosmic Background Radiation. Magueijo stated, “Perhaps light traveled much faster in the past.” If what some defectors from the common modality state are true, this offers a starting point of new thought; and one that young-earth creationists have always maintained. Is there any hard science that might provide a basis for believing that time could have traveled faster in the past? Yes, there is. Einstein stated that nothing could travel at a higher velocity than 186,000 mps. His theory of general relativity would crumble if it were incorrect. Theoretical physics would be in disarray, should anything counter this. Two experiments have demonstrated that it is entirely possible. A team at the NEC Institute of Princeton University sped light 300 times faster than the commonly accepted belief. A chamber was created that light would pass through, filled with cesium gas. It was described as ‘watching an event unfold, before it took place in real-time.’ It was further described as, “if we get a glimpse of the future.’ Similarly, a joint effort made by the Rowland Institute and Harvard University yielded impressive results. This team managed to bring light waves to a one mile per hour crawl, and then stop the beam entirely. The light was passed through a chamber filled with ultra cold sodium atomic particles. They could literally capture, and re-release light, at their whim. If man can achieve this, please tell me what problem the Creator would have accomplishing a feat, such as this?

CHAOS THEORY: There are only two viable hypotheses concerning creation, whether we maintain a theistic or atheistic view. Life is either intentional, or unintentional; there is no in-between. The atheistic view posits that the universe in it’s totality is self-existing and self-sustaining. They believe that it is a purposeless and directionless display of capricious disorder. From these alleged fortuitous happenstances, all life came to be. The theory, as referred to as, the butterfly effect, suggests that even a nominal amount of change can cause enormous, altering effects. Even a modicum of change starts a chain reaction of events that ultimately lead to a much greater event. This is the message propagated in the chaos theory. As it relates to biology, the premise suggests that from an unknown energy source, arose the basic building blocks for life. Adherents to the claim have deduced that simple chemicals formed randomly in a sort of ambiotic soup. From these chemicals, they again by chance formed twenty different amino acids. Again, in another amazing anomalous occurrence, these amino’s formed four different proteins. These proteins’s just so happened to turn themselves into complicated DNA/RNA molecules. From these molecules, they spontaneously and unintentionally became a nucleus, surrounded by cytoplasm and a nourishing membrane. Apparently, all of these actions were completely arbitrary. To produce life, all of these occurrences must take place in sequential order just to produce one cell. If any of the events I described, are missing, or in the wrong order, life cannot happen. I suppose this is a good of a time as any to ask: “Is there any evidence that disordered molecules can arrange themselves into beneficial formations?” No, absolutely not. The secular world would have us believe that life is nothing more than a series of haphazardous events. The proponents of the chaos theory assume that invariably, order will arise from disorder. Given enough disorder, a pattern will emerge on its own naturally. The belief is premised on the notion that life is continually getting better, as it sort of ‘works out it’s kinks.’ At first glance, this seems plausible enough to entertain, however, a monstrous problem emerges when you consider the vastness of the cosmos. For this to be true, this spectacular feat would have to repeat itself innumerable times just sustain the life of one atom! The chance that molecules can spontaneously generate and organize themselves into beneficial forms without an outside force necessitating the action, thereof, is astronomical. Actually, my description simply does not suffice. So, please allow the very distinguished Chandra Wickramasinghe’s quote, to solidify the preposterous notion of such occurrences taking place:



“In each enzyme a number of key positions are occupied by almost invariant amino acids. Let us consider how these enzymes sequences could have been derived from a primordial soup containing equal proportions of the 20 biologically important amino acids. At a conservative estimate, say 15 sites per enzyme must be fixed to be filled by particular amino acids for proper biological function. The number of trial assemblies needed to find this set is easily calculated to be about 10^40,000- a truly enormous, super astronomical number. And the probability of discovering this set by random shuffling is 1 in 10^40,000. This latter number could be taken as a measure of the information content of life as reflected in the enzymes alone. The number of shufflings needed to find life exceeds by many powers of 10 to the number of ALL the atoms in the entire universe.”

If my description fell short, I trust that Mr. Wickramasinghe’s description dispels any notion of random chaos, somehow benefiting the universe, repeatedly. It should be made known that he is, a creationist, nor an evolutionist. He is a unique figure that, thus far, has proven to me a well credentialed, yet, unbiased observer. The belief that order comes from disorder is falsifiable to the highest degree. This belief defies the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, more commonly known, as entropy. Entropy is expressed that all things, when left to themselves, tend to degrade. When left to it’s own device, all matter tends toward disorder. This is in direct polarity with the chaos theory. By all rights, the 2nd Law is immutable. It is a constant of physics, proving the scientific axiom undeniably. The results are testable, observable, and predictable, all the markings of scientific truism. To counter this contradiction, the adherents of such false science, excuse entropy, stating that it only occurs in a closed system. They cite, that earth, is an open system; meaning, earth derives its energy from the sun. The problem, to overcome for these naysayers remain the same, however. Even with our abundant source of solar energy, all things still tend towards disorder and decay. Organisms age and will die; buildings age, dilapidate and disintegrate. This is played out all throughout nature. What then, should this phenomena before referred to, if not entropy? No matter if we call it an apple or an orange, its evidence is overwhelming. Clearly, it is a natural law that everything adheres to.

Aside from this, let’s look at the obvious. One would have to reason that ‘chaos’ had/have/has to ‘get it right’ so often that it simply cannot be logically deemed as random at all. In fact, there is so much order at work that to call it disorder would actually nullify it’s own meaning. That is to say, disorder would have to create order so often, that for us to even cal it disorder violates its definition. If, you say, disorder invariably creates order, then why do you call it disorder at all? If disorder typically results in order, then it is not disorder at all. Isn’t it interesting that in all this alleged disorder creating order, how chaos never seems to live up to it’s name? Why is it that ‘chaos and disorder’ never seems to be, chaotic and disorderly? Why does it never seem to lend itself towards catastrophe? In fact, it is inconceivable that in the 16.5 billion years of the universe’ existence, that complete annihilation has not occurred. Yet, life continues. If the laws of physics remain constant, as most assuredly they do; that is why we refer to them a ‘Law’, then who or what governs that principle? Given all the instances in which life proves to be irreducibly complex, how is it that many refuse to recognize intent behind it?



1. The Cosmological argument: the effect of the universes’ existence must have a suitable cause.

2. The Teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose and a direction behind it.

3. The Rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to natural law and order, implies a mind behind the choreography.

I took an EMT course not too long ago, and part of the curriculum was to study the basics of human anatomy. The more I delved into the body, the more it proved to be an inner-universe. The greater it proved to be an inner-universe the greater proved that life was anything but accidental. If you were to lay the capillaries in your body alone, from end to end, it would circumvent the earth five times! Looking at all of the wonderful components of the body and their purposes clearly indicates intent. Each component, from the unicellular structures, to the operations of major organs, clearly portrays a purpose and intent, each having an integral function, serving the overall function of the body. Why then, do we suppose so hastily, that the universe should have no intent? Why should we blindly assume that the conglomerate of all life should have no purpose, when, every living organism has a purpose? The ant builds its community for a reason. He procreates for a reason. Likewise, if humans eat to regain spent nutrients, is that not indicative of purpose? If we sleep to regulate circulatory function and maintain neurological continuity, is that not indicative of a purpose? If you say, yes, then is not that indicating a purpose that exceeds the organism itself? Simply because we cannot fully perceive the totality of reason does not negate the purpose itself. Life could not be the aftermath of some cosmic accident not only on earth, but in the entire known universe as well. There are only two distinct conclusions from which to choose from. Life is either an act of deliberate creation, or an indelible permanence of a universe that is eternal and boundless. Nevertheless, as we shared in the beginning of the chapter, we know that life began in singularity. Therefore, if life did not occur through random occurrences, and it does not prove to be truly eternal, then we are inescapably driven to the latter alternative. Everything in view of you is a deliberate act of creation.

Occam’s Razor: “The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.”

If you have never heard this parable before, I hope that it will leave an indelible mark on you. I hope it will, as well, impress upon you the level of deceit that is being propagated. Read the questions, and then ask yourself, “Which is the best example of Occam’s Razor?”

1. Imagine you are looking at an automobile. You are admiring the streamlined body frame; marveling at its aerodynamics. You then pop the hood to have a look at the engine block. You take note of all the hoses and pulley’s that connect to this or that. The piston, the fans, and the chasse- it all seems to have a higher function. All the mechanisms harmoniously configured in a manner to lead to the central function of the car; which is to make it operable. Looking at the car, you surmise that:

A. a tornado ripped through a scrap yard, assembling all the components in an intricate fashion, so as to create the illusion of intent.

B. The car was designed and engineered by its creator, exactly the way it was intended.

2. Now, envision yourself in some posh, uptown art gallery. You are currently viewing this modern-art masterpiece. You are simply awestruck at the precision and attention to detail. You note how meticulous the brush strokes appear. From this, you surmise that:

A. a high wind blew over several paint cans of various colors, sloshing them onto the canvas in such a way as to create the illusion of intent.

B. The artwork was created by the beautiful mind of an artificer.

Engineering requires an engineer. Painting requires a painter. Music requires a musician. And creation requires a Creator.

Wake up……. You’ve fallen asleep.

Very interesting, skimming through it I see a number of errors but I'll read it later.

Instead of pasting more of your 'book' maybe you can actually reply to the criticisms thus far. Hell maybe you can even reply to my questions about whether you are even willing to correct errors or if you are happy passing on false information.

Or will we see a rather standard creationist response of being unwilling to talk about anything in detail, ignoring corrections, shotgunning a whole bunch of bad claims, claiming victory and then running away?

Ok hyroglyphx. I read through your entire rant. In short, for something to exist , it had to be created - Something cannot come from nothing.

Answer this (using the same standards you require for non-theistic creation):

Where did the Creator come from ? Who created God?

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

Ok hyroglyphx. I read through your entire rant. In short, for something to exist , it had to be created - Something cannot come from nothing.

Answer this (using the same standards you require for non-theistic creation):

Where did the Creator come from ? Who created God?

I AM:

The self-existant One

It has become evident to me that many people have a very warped understanding of who or what God is. Truthfully, no man by his understanding can ever truly understand all that God is. Speaking of God’s totality, in this essence alone, He is unknowable. This is a given, otherwise, there would be no controversy surrounding His existance or non-existance. Despite this, we can know of God through evidence of His creation and through personal revelation. So, who or what, is God?

Many people have attempted to describe God, but most assuredly, their descriptions cannot accurately convey the magnitutde of His being. Many have cited that God is a fat, bearded man in the clouds that casts unyielding judgement on unsuspecting souls. First off, allow me to make my own peace concerning my beliefs about God. I do not ascribe to the notion of an anthropomorphic God; that is to say, that I do not believe He has literal human features. While it is true that the Bible makes mention of human characteristics, it is purely metaphorical. When the Bible refers to God as a ‘He’ or ‘Him’, this is an allegorical approach of personifying that which has no physical personhood; or at the very least, that which has no need of a physical personhood. This is certainly not to say that God cannot manifest Himself in whatever way He sees fit. The message is, that God is a unique figure in all forms, and ‘who is like Him?’ Nothing has created God, because He is the self-existant One. He is the Creator. He is the ethereal. God is a Spirit- that which supersedes the physical and the material. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. God is the intangible Spirit that binds all things together. He is the platform from which all that is, emerges. He is the uncaused, cause, of all things; and much to my chagrin, this attempt to encapsulate His providence falls painfully short to His true glory. Amen.

Moses, His entrusted servant, once asked Him the question of who He was. I believe God’s answer unequivocally spoke of His awesome glory.

“And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Thus shall you say to the children of Yisrael, I AM has sent you.” –Exodus 3:14

Let me refrain from ambiguity and get right down to it. If you are hoping that God is going to come down, slap you upside the head, and shout, “Here I AM!”, then allow me to assure you that you will be waiting forever. Let me be equally unambiguous by stating that there is no empirical proof of God. Anyone that tells you that they can prove God exists, doesn’t know much about Him or His purpose. Now, this is not to say that there isn’t rational evidence of such a being or deity. Clearly, there is much evidence, as we wil see in later chapters. This also does not take in to consideration the personal revelation that has been bestowed on the one who seeks Him in truth. If I did not know Him, I would not be here spending countless hours professing His glory. What I mean to say is, there is not and will not be any direct evidence of God.

“A wicked and an adulterous generation will ask for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it.” –Matthew

God is completely distinct from His creation. God is not a social convention and even to say that He is some abstract force, could not sufficiently portray His limitlessness. Quite simply, God is not made of matter. Even the smallest element, like the subatomic particle, such as a ‘quark,’ is made of matter. Man, unfortunately, is limited by the material world. God, however, is the spiritual and the infinite. Though He creates the beginning and the end, He is not subject to it. Although there is no dimension of space, time, or matter devoid of Him, He is not composed of it or contained by it. He is the omnipotent and the omniscient. Therefore, the space-time continuum does not encapsulate or incorporate Him within the universe. For this reason, it is theologically and philosophically understood why God is given the appelation, “Makom”, (Hebrew, for ‘Place’). God dwells in the secret place of the human heart. It is there that He reveals Himself. This is a very, very difficult for man to understand because, for the most part, the human mind is only capable of grasping physical concepts. I won’t sit here and pretend like I completely understand God, because I don’t. Nonetheless, it is only by way of prophetic comprehension and personal revelation, ‘granted’ by God, that we may begin to understand His greatness. In other words, it is only by God, that we understand God. (Emphasis added).

Some people have asked me what I thought God looks like. As I stated earlier, I do not believe that God has physical features. When we read that God made man in His own ‘image,’ it speaks of the knowledge of righteousness and holiness. These attributes given to us, by God, were specifically given to man and no other creature. God’s image does not speak of His bodily form, or in this case, the lack thereof. This speaks of mental, moral, and spiritual attributes. No such image exists in other creatures. Moreover, for me to assume what God looks like would ultimately be a construct of my own mind. This would be idolatrous. What we understand is correlated, or rather, is manifested through our physical senses. But surely, life and the reality of it exceed our ephemeral bodies. Though we cannot see God, virtually everyone has a basic concept and a basic understanding of something beyond themselves. We cannot see God, and yet, we witness His effects in nature. In a similar way, I cannot physically see the wind, but I can see the effects of it as it blows through the trees. And so, the reality of God is understood, not so much in who or what He is, but rather what He does.

“while we do not look at the things which are seen, but the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are temporary, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” – 2nd Corinthians 4:18

Likewise, I cannot see gravity. Though I can’t see it does not negate its existance. And in the same way that we would not consider gravity to be a ‘thing,’ so also, we might conclude that God is not a thing. If anything at all, God and gravity are more of a phenomenon. But see, even this description is woefully inept. Perhaps God cannot be seen, not because He is too transcendental, but because there is no place devoid of Him. If you existed in all dimensions of space and time, what would distinguish you from one thing to the next? You would not be a thing; you would be everything. Again, perhaps it isn’t because he is just above all of creation, but maybe because that He is too immanent in the affairs of the universe. In lieu of this, we are only aware of God when He acts to manifest His presence. Maybe this is why the Hebrew word, “Ruach”, denotes both ‘spirit’ and ‘wind.’ I find it interesting that most of God’s names are used descriptively and relationally. For instance:

• El Shaddai = God is all sufficient

• Y’shua = Savior

• Kadosh = Holy One

• Y’hova M’kaddesh = The Lord who sanctifies

• Y’hova Shalom = The Lord of our peace

• Shaphat = Judge

• El’olam = Everlasting God

• Y’hova Tsidkenu = The Lord of our righteousness

• El’berith = God of the covenant

• Tsaddiq = Righteous One

Perhaps the most profound, is the ineffable name ascribed to God. Known best in Greek, as the ‘Tetragrammaton’, (word with four letters), it is typically, spelled in English, “YHWH” or “YHVH.” It is said to be the proper name of God, denoting His highest emanation. In the Hebrew, it is used in a verb tense, devoid of consonants, and its listed as, ‘Yod, Heh, Vah, Heh.’ Other Biblical scholars and philologists see it as something of a colloquial. The name is a set of vowels, allegedly sounding something akin to, ‘ee-ah-oo-eh,’ in the human tongue. Many scholars believe that this proper name for God is best transliterated as, ‘He Brings Into Existance Whatever Exists,’ however, scholars are not united on this point. Interestingly, the name is said to be innominate because the human tongue cannot profess His glory. In fact, in most Judaic circles its considered extremely taboo and disrespectful to even attempt to pronounce it. Out of respect many Jews refer to God, simply as, “Hashem,” meaning, “The Name.” Through a series of three major dispersions, the Jews, were repeatedly expulsed from their homeland and the definition has been lost. However, there is extra-Biblical evidence of God’s proper Name, written by Flavius Josephus, a prolific Jewish historian, who wrote this passage, circa AD 74-78. In one of his books, ‘The Jewish Wars,’ Josephus, speaking of the Arc of the Covenant, writes this:

“in which was engraven the sacred Name: It consists of four vowels.” -Flavius Josephus

Another Hebrew word for God, is, ‘Elohim.’ What is most interesting about this name is the fact that it is used in pluerisy. The Hebrew word ‘El,’ speaks of God, however, Elohim, is the plurality of El. The Biblical Hebrew word for ‘one’ is ‘Echad,’ which speaks of a corporate oneness, not merely a numeric count. God, then, is a plural personage, and yet, is still ‘one.’ The first evidence of such can be found in the very first book of the Pentateuch, Genesis.

“And God said, let US make man in Our own image, after Our likeness.”

-Genesis 1:26

Who is the ‘Us’ in this piece of Scripture? We know that angels do not have the power to create, so we can rule them out. We know that man hasn’t the power either, nor was he alive on earth to create himself; so they too, are ruled out. The ‘Us’ and ‘Our’, is connoting the Godhead; the Holy Trinity. Belief in the Trinity is one of many aversions that Judaism has with Christianity. They view this as idolatry, seemingly incapable of distinguishing the characteristics of God, and thus, equating them to polytheism. Interestingly enough, the psuedo-spiritual belief, ‘Kaballah,’ which is widely venerated by many Jews, describes God as having 12 characteristics composing one God. Many Christian scholars have attempted to point this out, as well as using the Old Testament and New Testament as a reference, but to no avail. The majority of Jews to this day reject Jesus as the Messiah and are still waiting the One who would place Yisrael above all nations. When Jesus stated that He and God are one, He was not merely stating that He was in the perfect will of God. Jesus is actually saying that He is God, and God is, Him. Jesus is God incarnate; something that is considered a heresy to all of the Abrahamic faiths, except Christianity.

“In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” –John 1:1-5

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him

the Name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. –Phillipians 2:5-11

The Apostle Paul explains in this verse that understanding the Trinity is not something that can be fully grasped, humanly speaking. Even so, I give you an illustration in nature to help us understand what God means, by God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. What is water? What is ice? What is vapor? They are forms of liquid, solid, and gas. What is their chemical compound? Do they biochemically differ from each? No. They are all forms of H2O. While its true that they each have separate characteristics, they are still the exact same thing. So truly, though they are separate, they are still, but one. Likewise, when the prophet Yeshayahu (Isaiah) declared, “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Name of the Lord,” he was not being redundant for effect. He was conveying the principle of the Trinity. The intimation given by Isaiah is explicit.

We could go on, and on, discussing the intricacies of religiosity, but I understand that it does very little for the one’s who do not know God personally. Although God is incomprehensible in His totality, He is not, unknowable. As I’ve shared elsewhere, numerous times, there is only one way to God; it is by faith. God, in his altruism, has made Himself available through His Sprirt that anyone can access at anytime, if they earnestly seek Him.

“Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you.” –James

The understanding of God has nothing to do with intelligence. It has nothing to do with merit. It has nothing to do with achievement. It has nothing to do with any human device or faculty. There is nothing that we can give to Him or nothing in which we can appease Him. It has everything to do with God and how we ‘choose’ to believe in Him.

“Father I praise You! For You have hidden these from the wise and learned, and revealed it to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.” –Matthew

What is it in man that causes him such doubt? Why is it that man boastfully assumes that he is the pinnacle of that which exists? Man looks down on the anthill and observes the ants as they busily go to, and fro. The ants give him no indication that they are aware of this human’s existance. He watches them peacefully from above, as they go about their daily routine. It seems, that it is only when man interferes with the affairs of the ants, that they become aware of his presence. If this is the case for the ant, how much more could we suspect of mankind, given the enormity of the universe? What else could be said in regards to this? There is so much that we do not understand about our own universe. There is so much we don’t understand about the human heart or the human mind. But what, then, is the compulsion in man for him to arrogantly assume that he has all of the answers? What are we going to do? What would you be willing to give up to know the truth? What do you think the cost is to obtain the information that all of mankind has been yearning for? Let me ask you something. What do you stand to lose? What do you stand to gain?



From all that I have written about, I am not suggesting that you fall on your face right now, because I wrote a book, whether you think its insipid or interesting. I cannot save you. You cannot save yourself. Only God saves. Meeting God is an individual choice. Through prayer and steadfast faith, me may have a deep and fulfilling walk with the Almighty. And if, and when, you meet the ‘Ruach Hakodesh’ (Holy Spirit), there is no amount of doubt, no amount of skepticism, no amount of deterence that can sway an intimate relationship with Him. I entreat that, each, and every one of you encounter God. I pray that all may enter into a covenant relationship with Him.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Very interesting, skimming through it I see a number of errors but I'll read it later.

Instead of pasting more of your 'book' maybe you can actually reply to the criticisms thus far. Hell maybe you can even reply to my questions about whether you are even willing to correct errors or if you are happy passing on false information.

Or will we see a rather standard creationist response of being unwilling to talk about anything in detail, ignoring corrections, shotgunning a whole bunch of bad claims, claiming victory and then running away?

Quoted for Hyro.

Why do I get the feeling all corrections will be completely ignored. (I will actually be a bit amazed if he responds to them and even more amazed if he actually makes the corrections that he should if he wants to remain honest and truthful).

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I AM:

The self-existant One...

.... Nothing has created God, because He is the self-existant One. He is the Creator. He is the ethereal. God is a Spirit- that which supersedes the physical and the material. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. God is the intangible Spirit that binds all things together. He is the platform from which all that is, emerges. He is the uncaused, cause, of all things; and much to my chagrin, this attempt to encapsulate His providence falls painfully short to His true glory. Amen....



So He is the Creator. For something to exist, it had to have a beginning. Something that does not exist cannot create itself into existance. Your answer is illogical and does not meet the same requirements you impose on non theistic creation.

Again: Who created God?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Quoted for Hyro.

Why do I get the feeling all corrections will be completely ignored. (I will actually be a bit amazed if he responds to them and even more amazed if he actually makes the corrections that he should if he wants to remain honest and truthful).



I told you that I only have Wed and Thur off and that I don't have internet access at work. I'll get to your posts in the meantime. If you read what I wrote, I said that I'll just post what I already written so it can go into some of the things that you rebutted. I'll get to it when I can get to it. As it is, I just did laundry and now I have to go to work.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

So He is the Creator. For something to exist, it had to have a beginning. Something that does not exist cannot create itself into existance. Your answer is illogical and does not meet the same requirements you impose on non theistic creation.

Again: Who created God?



Look, I'm sorry that some of this stumbles you, but its not my fault that you can't climb a curb 2 feet high. In summary, we KNOW, both theists and athiests alike, that there was a definite beginning and matter cannot actualize itself. Therefore, by necessity, 'something', (God/god/gods/goddess/godesses/flying-purple elphants), I don't care what you call the Creator, but something has to be above it. And we know that all things material perish, so something has to be immortal. That which is immortal does not suffer from entropy and cannot be destroyed, because it was also not created. If you can conceptualize a universe that is self-existing, then what stumbles you about a Creator that is self-existing? Bear in mind that we already went over how we ALL know that universe had a definite beginning. So the logical conclusion would be........?

How about we stop here with your book and discuss what has already been posted, there is quite a bit.

If you want to be honest and truthful then after that discussion you might want to go and re-research a lot of your claims, for example in one of the most recent posts you made a claim about the second law of thermodynamics that suggests Ice and snow can not form. You may want to do more research into that.

Although I'm not sure, you still have yet to answer my very basic question about whether you are even willing to correct errors or even want to present truth. Which in my mind doesn't bode well for this discussion.

God creates life to evolve into God's own likeness.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Look, I'm sorry that some of this stumbles you, but its not my fault that you can't climb a curb 2 feet high.



I have no trouble understanding what you are trying to say. I simply reject your logic as being sound.

quote: In summary, we KNOW, both theists and athiests alike, that there was a definite beginning and matter cannot actualize itself.

We KNOW that all evidence points to the universe having a beginning.I have no problem accepting this as truth.We have no reason to believe that matter actualized itself. To the best of our knowledge , all matter in the universe has always existed(at least since time as we know it has existed).

quote:Therefore, by necessity, 'something', (God/god/gods/goddess/godesses/flying-purple elphants), I don't care what you call the Creator, but something has to be above it.

Nonsense. How can you, in all honesty , believe that the physical universe, filled with matter,(which obviouslydoes exist, by the way),requires the intervention of a supernatural diety (which we have absolutly zero physical evidence in support of)in order to exist.

quote: And we know that all things material perish, so something has to be immortal. That which is immortal does not suffer from entropy and cannot be destroyed, because it was also not created.

ALL things perish. There is no evidence to suggest that anything at all is immortal.

quote: If you can conceptualize a universe that is self-existing, then what stumbles you about a Creator that is self-existing?



A self -existing universe is made up of matter/energy that has always existed. It didn't just pop into existance from nothing.All matter in the known universe was compressed into a small point. Small does not equal non-existant.

A self-existing Creator, responsible for the creation of all matter/energy in the universe, would have to exist from nothing, since matter/energy could not exist until being created from nothingby said Creator.

quote:Bear in mind that we already went over how we ALL know that universe had a definite beginning. So the logical conclusion would be........?

The logical conclusion would be that time/the universe began with the Big Bang. We can only speculate what, if anything , existed before.The universe as we know it is a physical thing whose attributes can be verified. Natural phenomena are best explained by natural causation.

To add to that, as you go back in time and get very close to the big bang the majority of laws break down. So saying X can't occur because Y law doesn't allow it is meaningless.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Like the seminars you were going to send me... which never got here?

Ummm...I gave the link to you...I offered you the DVD's before they were available on the web.

You've seen them already, or so you said.

I didn't fall through.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ummm...I gave the link to you...I offered you the DVD's before they were available on the web.

You've seen them already, or so you said.

I didn't fall through.

You said you were going to send them to me via snail-mail. Nothing was said of you not sending them to me if I had already seen them. More importantly, I had not seen them when you said you were going to send them; thus this is moot anyways.

So yes, you did "fall through".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-28-2006).]

For example, can you give an in depth explanation of the shells 'on' Mt Everest (On is in quotes because they are actually in the mountain) and why there are no modern sea creatures with those shells?

Marine fossils have been discovered on virtually all of the mountain ranges in the world, including even the highest peak, Mt. Everest. Why should this be, considering that Everest is landlocked in the Himalaya mountian range in Nepal? It's nowhere near the ocean. So how is it that marine life should be in Nepal at all, let alone, 27,000 feet above sea level? The secular argument is that its inferred the separation of the continents with time was accepted that plate tectonics then postulated continents skating aimlessly about on a soft upper layer of the mantle. But there is no direct evidence that Pangea existed. All we know is that the plates shift, at about a rate of one whole inch a year. But if they say the earth is billions of years old, then one inch in a year is billions of inches, which equates to thousands of miles. I'm not saying that Pangea is not possible. I'm just saying there is no true evidence for it. Its purely theoretical. Aside from this, there are marine fossils on virtually all of the mountian ranges. Are they asserting that every single mountain was formed by the seashore? What evidence is there of such an occurance. For instance, Trilobite have been found in Oklahoma and in the middle of Russia, nowhere even remotely close to any oceans. We're they all by the sea too? There is no evidence that significant subduction of one continental plate under another had occured every place on earth where we find aquatic creatures. Its as if they say, "Well, if there are aquatic organisms found in certain places that are landlocked, then that must be evidence that they lived by the water. Screw the flood theory, even though virtually every civilization speaks about it. Case closed."

Aside from this, there has been more seismic activity going on right now than ever recorded in either the distant past or the near past, and yet, no new mountain ranges have formed. Why not? We should have new mountain ranges being formed and yet, not so much as a mole hill has been found due to subduction. Yes, subduction occurs. In fact, that's what caused the latest tsunami in southeast asia, but I think that is something to consider when viewing the secular theory that no new mountains are forming, especially when we have quakes that fly off the Richter scale.

As for the aquatic organisms that were discovered are extinct, I've never seen any evidence of it. But even if they were extinct, the antediluvian world was a long time ago and countless animals have become extinct. So what would that prove to me, other than what I already know... The Flood was a long time ago.

Another thing for you to consider is that of the shelled invertebrates discovered, virtaully all of them died in the closed position. What does that mean? What it means is, when a clam for instance dies, its shell opens because when living, its held shut by its muscles. If the organism dies, the musclar activity ceases and it lets go. So how can it die with a shell still closed going by a secular theory? The theistic theory is that sediment, (such as you would see with massive inundation of a flood), covers the existing animals. All that weight forces the shell to remain shut. It can't leave becasue clams obviously don't have the greatest power of locomotion. And it can't eat because it can't open its shell or it suffocates. After the water recedes, the mud and silt hardens in the sun, encasing the creature, until discovered by an evolutionist who will come up with some other fantastic theory about his death.

Was that in depth enough for you?

Interesting how all the continents can fit together nicely and mineral and fossil deposits on the edges are similar to how they fit.

You really havent studied platetectonics at all, have you? Only regurgitated creationist propaganda...

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 02-28-2006).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Interesting how all the continents can fit together nicely and mineral and fossil deposits on the edges are similar to how they fit.

You really havent studied platetectonics at all, have you? Only regurgitated creationist propaganda...

So we are supposed to judge things by how they appear? Is that why you think monkeys are the progenitors to man? Because they have a similar bodily form? South America looks as if it could fit into Africa, so that's your proof? Give me a break... Have you ever seen the actual model they present? They just cut and paste land masses in any way possible to make it fit. That's hardly objective science and its a far cry from some sort of empirical proof. That is not science, and yet, you have the audacity to malign a creationist and call them psuedo-science????

As far as your mineral deposits are concerned, please tell me: If all matter, which includes minerals and their most basic compound elements, were formed simultaneously from an initial explosion, how they should differ so radically, from say, South America and Africa??? If they do differ, then you're going to have to explain to us, out of your abundant scientific know-how, why the elements should differ from one continent to the next, especially when you claim that they originated out of the big bang and were initially one continent! You walked right into that one... All I did was open the door.

I'm hanging on in anticipation... I'll respond to your diatribe when I get home from work.

So I am still curious, will you correct errors in your book?

Why are you avoiding that question?

Mt Everest

quote:I'm just saying there is no true evidence for it [pangea]. Its purely theoretical.

Except things like plates being able to fit together, similar fossils found along plate boundries of continents that are now seperated but used to be together in the past.

Here is an animation of how the continents fit together and move apart (there are plenty of them out there), as you see it took very little effort to make them fit,

[see next post for link]

quote:Its as if they say, "Well, if there are aquatic organisms found in certain places that are landlocked, then that must be evidence that they lived by the water. Screw the flood theory, even though virtually every civilization speaks about it. Case closed."

I assume we should ignore the fact that many flood myths don't match and often the only thing similar is a flood. This makes sense as most civilizations started next to bodies of water. The egyptians built their civilization around annual flooding. The only flood myths that match the biblical one outside of its region are either fakes or only became legends after being visited by christians looking to convert the inhabitants.

Many legends include talking animals, does this mean animals can talk?

quote:Aside from this, there has been more seismic activity going on right now than ever recorded in either the distant past or the near past, and yet, no new mountain ranges have formed. Why not?

Actually that is incorrect, there is about as much seismic activity going on today as there was in the past. We often hear more about it though.

"A: Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant throughout this century and, according to our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent years. A partial explanation may lie in the fact that in the last twenty years, we have definitely had an increase in the number of earthquakes we have been able to locate each year. This is because of the tremendous increase in the number of seismograph stations in the world and the many improvements in global communications. "

[see next post for source]

You seem to be confusing earthquakes with mountain growing. An earthquake is created when a fault line slips and sticks in a number of different ways. A fault line wont always build a mountain.

You talk as if mountains form overnight. Many large mountain ranges form by plates running into each other. There are no new events of plates runing into each other. However the old events are still occuring, Mt Everest is growing at about an inch a year.

quote:As for the aquatic organisms that were discovered are extinct, I've never seen any evidence of it.

I think you misread what I said.

If the shells were deposited by the flood, or if all animals lived together at one time, how come all the shells found are from old periods (based on secular science), why don't we find modern animals mixed in with these shells.

If creationism is correct then we should see a mixture of animals and not something that oddly matches the supposably incorrect idea of an old earth and evolution.

You also seem to be forgetting that the shells are not on top of mountains but actually inside them, something a bit hard for a flood (which normally erodes mountains and washes the erosion into valleys.

quote:Another thing for you to consider is that of the shelled invertebrates discovered, virtaully all of them died in the closed position.

It should be noted that clams often burrow into the ground. If they die in their burrow their shells stays closed, no massive flood required.



Super crazy tangent

quote:As far as your mineral deposits are concerned, please tell me: If all matter, which includes minerals and their most basic compound elements, were formed simultaneously from an initial explosion, how they should differ so radically, from say, South America and Africa???

Um, just, wow.

The big bang was not an explosion. It was almost 14 billion years ago and a lot of mattered formed long after it. The minerals on earth are in different locations because of how the earth has changed in it's 4.5 billion years of existence and it has NOTHING to do with the big bang.

Edit to add: (hope this doesn't break the links) Pangea was rather recent (breaking up about 180 mya) and there is evidence of a couple of supercontinents before it, and those are all youngish compared to the earth as a whole.

Overall

You have not provided any evidence that says shell fossils in mountain tops is evidence for the flood as there are a number of details still to be worked out. I do find it ironic that you claim evolutionists come up with fantastic tails but jump to 'it must be the flood' without solid evidence.



[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 02-28-2006).]

Of course thanks to the quality forum software an edit would break the links given,

So if you want clickable versions here they are,

Pangea animation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pangea_animation_03.gif

Earthquake data: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/faq.php?categoryID=6&faqID=110

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If all matter, which includes minerals and their most basic compound elements, were formed simultaneously from an initial explosion, how they should differ so radically, from say, South America and Africa??? If they do differ, then you're going to have to explain to us, out of your abundant scientific know-how, why the elements should differ from one continent to the next, especially when you claim that they originated out of the big bang and were initially one continent! You walked right into that one... All I did was open the door.



You are a moron. The big bang theory does not in any way postulate that the earth as we know it was inexplicably projected out into the universe from the intitial singularity in any recognizable form--much less already containing pangea. The elements and compounds found in various continents were not born of the big bang, either. The the only element that came as a result of the big bang is hydrogen--all other elements have since been formed by fusion in the cores of stars all over the universe. When large enough stars super-nova, they send incomprehensibly huge amounts of the elements they had been fusing hurtling out into space to form anomalous clouds of gas and dust having robustly varied compositions; over time, gravitation between the particles in these clouds or other initial groupings causes objects to begin to be built up (at an exponentially increasing speed, the gravitational pull of these objects obviously increasing as their mass does). Depending on the chemical compositions of these formative objects, they can become terrestrial or jovial planets, or new stars, or a number of other things. Earth likely formed just this way, and was composed of a magnificent variety of elements and compounds that, for all we know, came from every corner of the universe--its quite amazing really to see a gold ring on someone's finger and consider that the gold must have come from a super-nova somewhere far off in space.

Our friend here didn't walk into anything, you just arrogantly thought you had gained a rhetorical edge on him when in reality you just exposed how little you actually know of what you try to talk about, and how what you've allowed yourself you learn has been learned under the assumption of a creator and thus been twisted beyond recognition.

You try to make this a battle of mainstream science versus so-called "creation science" by playing the ad-hom game and complaining about how unscientific a passing theory that the world once consisted of one continent because of the observable coincidence that certain continents fit together in shape. Either you've again prevented yourself from gaining knowledge that would make your delusions possible, or you've done a poor job of purposefully omitting information to try and make an idea seem less credible. If the former, you can get started here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea and discover that there is a bit more to this theory than someone having decided to move paper-cutouts of the continents around until they all fit.

You have to keep in mind that a lack of understanding, or ability for understanding, on your part does not the constitute implausibility of an idea or theory. Another thing that you seem to be missing is the level of theory involved in science--especially when you and the like scream that science is all beliefs, in an insecure backlash to the idea that creationism is based solely upon faith, is that the vast majority of science is only theory. Very simply, there are limits upon the empirical penetration of mankind into the universe and even our own planet, so we are forced to reason and theorize our way through many of the "big questions". If someone takes the ideas and theories born of science as personal beliefs, it is out of personal choice or unfortunate confusion, not because they are taught to do so. To say that people should not be taught of things because they are theoretical is an absurd attack on the free exchange of information and ideas. Take issue with the idea of the big bang? Notice that what branch of the sciences the idea came from: Theoretical Physics.

Of course there is politics when it comes to any branch of the sciences, but any pitfalls resulting can, because of the nature of science, be overcome with the employment of reasoning and logic on the part of the competant observer. The political pitfalls of fields that ultimately involve faith, however, are not so easily avoidable. I would rather have groups of children with greatly varying ethic and theological backgrounds be taught the current "best-guess" of the more competant minds of mankind, regardless of how many times this best-guess will change based on new information, than be the taught the absurd notion of young-world creationism that people like you will tirelessly engage in rhetorical battles over rather than spending that time teaching themselves any pertinent information, or the insubstantial theory of Intelligent Design that is apparently very easily logically dismantled (see: http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004923.html )

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

So we are supposed to judge things by how they appear? Is that why you think monkeys are the progenitors to man?

This is not related but I'll respond anyway. The other option being that God created man... But monkeys do look like man, that is one piece of the evidence, then we have fossils to show tranistionary forms and common ancestors, and DNA to show our relatedness on the molecular level.



quote:Because they have a similar bodily form? South America looks as if it could fit into Africa, so that's your proof? Give me a break... Have you ever seen the actual model they present? They just cut and paste land masses in any way possible to make it fit. That's hardly objective science and its a far cry from some sort of empirical proof. That is not science, and yet, you have the audacity to malign a creationist and call them psuedo-science????

No, that isn't the 'proof.' It's one piece of evidence for a falsifiable theory. If the theory is correct then we should be able to decipher the original orientations of the continents. So that's ONE piece of the evidence.



quote:As far as your mineral deposits are concerned, please tell me: If all matter, which includes minerals and their most basic compound elements, were formed simultaneously from an initial explosion, how they should differ so radically, from say, South America and Africa???

Huh? That's not the theory on how the elements were formed. Go read up on nucleosynthesis.

quote:If they do differ, then you're going to have to explain to us, out of your abundant scientific know-how, why the elements should differ from one continent to the next, especially when you claim that they originated out of the big bang and were initially one continent! You walked right into that one... All I did was open the door.



1) The elements did not originate out of the big bang. See nucleosynthesis.

2) Notice how different planets are made of different elements? This is due to the physics of how planets are formed.

3)Who claimed that elements should differ from one continent to the rest? According to platetectonics all continents used to be one! However specific geological structures and events (such as volcanic activity) will create areas with unique compositions.

4) You neglected the fossil evidence of extinct species that had no way to swim or fly accross the continents. Of course, your answer is that god put the fossils there just to create the illusion of platetectonics.



[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-01-2006).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beta69:

So I am still curious, will you correct errors in your book?

Why are you avoiding that question?

You've given me nothing to indicate that there was an error. I answered all of your other questions. Its just that you don't like my answers, and you won't like my answers until I dethrone the Creator. Nothing I say will suffice for you.

Except things like plates being able to fit together, similar fossils found along plate boundries of continents that are now seperated but used to be together in the past.

And I'm saying that it is purely theoretical. Its an interesting theory, and if you think about it, it would surely give the flood story more credence. I don't have an aversion to the theory, I'm saying that as of now, its theoretical because there isn't much evidence to suggest it. I listed those already.

Here is an animation of how the continents fit together and move apart (there are plenty of them out there), as you see it took very little effort to make them fit.

Yeah, I've seen it before. And I can make a claymation video to show how Mars was once apart of Pluto. (A video proves nothing, whatsoever).

I assume we should ignore the fact that many flood myths don't match and often the only thing similar is a flood. This makes sense as most civilizations started next to bodies of water. The egyptians built their civilization around annual flooding. The only flood myths that match the biblical one outside of its region are either fakes or only became legends after being visited by christians looking to convert the inhabitants.

Many legends include talking animals, does this mean animals can talk?

I'm aware that many of the stories are completely the same. But 33 civilizations speak about some sort of worldwide inundation, a vessel of some kind, a righteous man spared for his righteousness, and that its cause was supernatural. How is that Mayans, who should have never seen or known what a Scythian is, have similar stories? Do humans innately think that the world was flooded? Or is that, the world really was flooded and the stories have altered as they were passed down from generation to generation?

Actually that is incorrect, there is about as much seismic activity going on today as there was in the past. We often hear more about it though.

We couldn't know if there were more earthquakes in distant past (by that, I mean many thousands of years ago) but we can, and do know that there have been more earthquakes in the last century. There have been more earthquakes since 1914 than ever before since the time we've been recording them. The true premise is, why are they no new mountains?

You seem to be confusing earthquakes with mountain growing. An earthquake is created when a fault line slips and sticks in a number of different ways. A fault line wont always build a mountain.

Its not my confusion. All geologists seem to agree on that. So I'm asking why we never seem to see new mountains forming? An earthquake is a shifting of the plates and if they compress, its going to cause an uplift. The only way that there won't be an uplift is if the plates are moving away from one another. So are none of the plates moving into one another? Are they all moving away from each other? It seems unlikely, and so I'm pointing that out.

You talk as if mountains form overnight. Many large mountain ranges form by plates running into each other. There are no new events of plates runing into each other. However the old events are still occuring, Mt Everest is growing at about an inch a year.

No, I'm not suggesting it happens overnight. How many earthquakes and overall plates are shifting all the time? In the 300 years we've been actively observing it, why have no new ranges formed? That isn't overnight. So again, why are no new mountains forming?

If the shells were deposited by the flood, or if all animals lived together at one time, how come all the shells found are from old periods (based on secular science), why don't we find modern animals mixed in with these shells.

We do. In the manmade geologic column, we see organisms intermingled with other creatures that were said to have been extinct for millions of years. How could that possibly be the case? Obvioulsy they lived together.

You also seem to be forgetting that the shells are not on top of mountains but actually inside them, something a bit hard for a flood (which normally erodes mountains and washes the erosion into valleys.

And I gave you an explanation. When loose sediment comes in contact with water, it creates mud that will dry up and harden, becoming solidified and apart of the mountain. Natural erosion will occur and all those organisms are underneath the top layer of sediment.

It should be noted that clams often burrow into the ground. If they die in their burrow their shells stays closed, no massive flood required.

Um, clams don't bury themselves hundreds of feet deep, and thus, trapping themselves. If that were the case, then most of the clams on earth would be killing themsleves. That's obviously not the case.



Super crazy tangent

Um, just, wow. The big bang was not an explosion. It was almost 14 billion years ago and a lot of mattered formed long after it. The minerals on earth are in different locations because of how the earth has changed in it's 4.5 billion years of existence and it has NOTHING to do with the big bang.[/b]

Its not a tangent. Its completely applicable to what were discussing. And what part of 'Bang' don't you understand? A gun goes 'bang' because of a controlled explosion. And they say the same thing about the universe, minus the 'controlled' portion. When you get passed all of the fluff, that is exactly what they're saying. Here's the problem: If the universe came from a big bang without a Creator necessitating that, then matter should be evenly distributed. There is still empty space, in space. What we see is that galaxies are clustered that goes beyond an empty void. This dark matter is much larger than what is actually material in space. So the issue is, how can nothing create matter, when virtually every cosmologist says that the other elements came from stars? By their words, they say that helium and mostly hydrogen was the product of the big bang and that stars formed the other elements we have today on earth. But helium can't form molecules at all. So that leaves us with Hydrogen molecules. But Hydrogen is quickly destroyed by ultra-violet light. The Big Bang's nuclear burning would have proceeded past helium to iron, making fusion-powered stars impossible. But if it had been much weaker, then we should have had a universe entirely of helium. And as I said, Helium doesn't do much by itself. So, how can there be other elements on earth?

Pangea was rather recent (breaking up about 180 mya) and there is evidence of a couple of supercontinents before it, and those are all youngish compared to the earth as a whole.

Okay.... The time table does nothing to prove the plausibility of Pangea. (not sure what that has to do with anything).



You have not provided any evidence that says shell fossils in mountain tops is evidence for the flood as there are a number of details still to be worked out. I do find it ironic that you claim evolutionists come up with fantastic tails but jump to 'it must be the flood' without solid evidence.

You've said nothingthat would compel us to believe that the continents were the product of a supercontinent. It's a guess and I think it would be cool if was. But once again, there really is no solid foundation for why we should assume it. Evolutionists need Pangea, ice bridges, and the lowering of the sea in order to propel the theory. I see why you have a vested interest in it, but I have no reason to assume that it were true.

I've explained ervything you've presented in a very logical manner that coincides with science. You gave me some disconfirming, asinine excuses for why I should believe as you do.

Hyro:

quote:You've given me nothing to indicate that there was an error.

I am going to give you one benefit of the doubt here. Please go back and read my earlier threads especially #73.

If after doing so (if you even bother) you still claim there are no errors in your 'book' then it confirms you could careless about truth or honesty.

quote:Its just that you don't like my answers, and you won't like my answers until I dethrone the Creator.

I think this is at least the second time you have made false statements about me. Maybe you can set asside your prejudice for a second and think, would jesus lie about the people he is argueing against?

Nope I do not want to "dethrone the creator" matter of fact I have fought for theism a number of times against false statements.

quote:Yeah, I've seen it before. And I can make a claymation video to show how Mars was once apart of Pluto. (A video proves nothing, whatsoever).

PTFA it was meant to show it doesn't take much effort to get the continents to fit.

Now, can creationism explain why they fit so well? Can it explain why the edges that fit share similar geographic features and fossils? "God did it" perhaps?

quote:But 33 civilizations speak about some sort of worldwide inundation, a vessel of some kind, a righteous man spared for his righteousness, and that its cause was supernatural. How is that Mayans, who should have never seen or known what a Scythian is, have similar stories?

PTFA again. Here is a list of flood myths around the world, yep they all sound similar to me, http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/floods.htm

Where are those mayan myths you are talking about?

Keep in mind sources need to be double checked (like you even check them in the first place) to see when the myth was recorded. When the spanish got to south american they forced christianity on the Mayans and persecuted anyone who didn't convert. So a mayan belief in a noah like flood after christians got there is no surprise.

You never answered my question, plenty of myths have talking animals. Does this mean talking animals exist?

quote:but we can, and do know that there have been more earthquakes in the last century. There have been more earthquakes since 1914 than ever before since the time we've been recording them. The true premise is, why are they no new mountains?

You didn't even bother to read what I wrote did you. Yes we are recording more earthquakes because our instruments are better, however the data says large earthquakes are about the same. PTFA.

Again, earthquakes don't mean mountain building. PTFA.

quote:So are none of the plates moving into one another? Are they all moving away from each other? It seems unlikely, and so I'm pointing that out.

You seriously didn't read anything I wrote. Yes plates are moving into each other that's why Mt Everest is still growing. PTFA.

quote:And I gave you an explanation. When loose sediment comes in contact with water, it creates mud that will dry up and harden, becoming solidified and apart of the mountain. Natural erosion will occur and all those organisms are underneath the top layer of sediment.

So the flood which was destructive enough to carve the grand canyon was also calm enough to lay down tons of sediment on tops of mountains and then not wash it away as the flood receded.

quote:Um, clams don't bury themselves hundreds of feet deep, and thus, trapping themselves. If that were the case, then most of the clams on earth would be killing themsleves. That's obviously not the case.

PTFA sediment covered the clams after they died (in both 'theories'). The fact that a clam dies in the closed position does not mean global flood.

quote:Its not a tangent. Its completely applicable to what were discussing. And what part of 'Bang' don't you understand? A gun goes 'bang' because of a controlled explosion.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(I'm trying very hard to be nice but when you can't bother to do any learning I just can't help it)

And here Adorkable went through all that trouble of writing a good explanation for the big bang and you obviously don't read it. Are you proud of your self inflicted ignorance or something?

History lesson: Hoyle (an opponent of the big bang who lost credibility in astrophysics because he dogmatically held onto the steady state theory creating his own "god of the gaps" beliefs to pretend his theory was still correct) coined the term 'big bang' as a jab at the theory.

Now here you have decided to mass your belief on 1) creationist liars and 2) the name of the theory. Wow, good job.

quote:But helium can't form molecules at all. So that leaves us with Hydrogen molecules. But Hydrogen is quickly destroyed by ultra-violet light.

I don't think I can think of anything else to say but lay off the pot and read a book.

And yet you still haven't answered the basic question "are you willing to change your book if errors are show?"

Go read Post #73, among many earlier ones (such as the one about your weird planetary claims and the earths rotation, etc). Or will you ignore them so you can pretend no errors exist?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

[b]Hyro:

[QUOTE]You've given me nothing to indicate that there was an error.

I am going to give you one benefit of the doubt here. Please go back and read my earlier threads especially #73{/b]

Okay, I'll look again. I'm pretty sure I answered that post the same day you posted it.

I think this is at least the second time you have made false statements about me. Maybe you can set asside your prejudice for a second and think, would jesus lie about the people he is argueing against?

Beta, you and Rust have been the most opposed to anything associated with theism, by far! All the other kids really don't say anything, other than, "You're stoopid! There is no God." That's not even worth responding to. I just leave it at that.

PTFA it was meant to show it doesn't take much effort to get the continents to fit.

Now, can creationism explain why they fit so well?

They don't fit together at all without some serious contortion which is not verifiable by anything presently. Look at Antarctica. Look at India. Look at the Meditteranian. Look at the Gulf of Mexico. Look at Western Europe in relation to North America. Look at Asia in relation to North America. Only Greenland and Canada, and South America and Africa look like puzzle peices. Aside form this, come on man, you have an aptitude for science. I don't deny that. So why are you hastily hanging your coat up on a theory that rests its evidence on the way land masses look? http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_htm/world.htm



PTFA again. Here is a list of flood myths around the world, yep they all sound similar to me, http://hom e.earthlin k.net/~mis aak/floods.htm (http: //home.ear thlink.net /~misaak/f loods.htm)

Like I said: Righteous man spared, supernaturally caused, worldwide flooding, and a vessel of some kind. What are the odds that all of these cultures, who didn't know each other, can all have the same theme? Think about it.

Where are those mayan myths you are talking about?

Keep in mind sources need to be double checked (like you even check them in the first place) to see when the myth was recorded. When the spanish got to south american they forced christianity on the Mayans and persecuted anyone who didn't convert. So a mayan belief in a noah like flood after christians got there is no surprise.

Yeah, except that their myth story is one of their beliefs that have nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity whatsoever. So, so much for their forced conversion having a role in it.

You never answered my question, plenty of myths have talking animals. Does this mean talking animals exist?

You're detracting away from the main point, which is that many, many cultures who are separated by oceans, all have a similar theme. Talking animals bears no relevance to the central theme, which, the world was flooded. They ALL agree on that point. So, once again, how would that be possible if they were separated from one another?

You didn't even bother to read what I wrote did you. Yes we are recording more earthquakes because our instruments are better, however the data says large earthquakes are about the same. PTFA.

Again, earthquakes don't mean mountain building.

I did read it... Since when do you need a device to know that earth has picked you up and thrown you to the ground??? You think ancient people, let alone, people living 300 years ago needed some sort of a device to realize that the earth is shaking violently? If my argument was that earthquakes are intensifying, then I would agree that a device would be necessary to measure that. But I didn't. People have been recording earthquakes for a long time because it is a special and catastrophic event. Its worthy of mentioning.

You seriously didn't read anything I wrote. Yes plates are moving into each other that's why Mt Everest is still growing. PTFA.

So the flood which was destructive enough to carve the grand canyon was also calm enough to lay down tons of sediment on tops of mountains and then not wash it away as the flood receded.

Initial water rushes in real, real fast creating alot of power and turbulence. Once there is no more rushing water because the rain stops, it sits calmly like it is on a lake until it evaporates. In that time that it is calm the sediment is floating down. When the water fully evaporates, the sun dries the moist soil and a thick crust is the end result. What is difficult about that to understand?

[PTFA sediment covered the clams after they died (in both 'theories'). The fact that a clam dies in the closed position does not mean global flood.

No, you're right... It doesn't mean that it was caused by a flood. But you're going to have to come up with another reason why the clams died in the closed position, which again, is an unnatural occurance. Something had to hold all those thousands of clams shut. So what are the odds that something was sitting on thousands of clams? There are too many of them to simply dismiss it as an anamole.

History lesson: Hoyle (an opponent of the big bang who lost credibility in astrophysics because he dogmatically held onto the steady state theory creating his own "god of the gaps" beliefs to pretend his theory was still correct) coined the term 'big bang' as a jab at the theory.

First of all, Hoyle was a naturalist. Give me a break. And what he posted proves nothing! That's just another one of evolutionist theories because they need it to stay afloat. Here's the bottom line: Hoyle's Steady State theory, is a theory. Gamow's Big Bang theory, is a theory. Both present some good arguments, and quite frankly, I'm undecided and apparetnly, so his even Hawking. Why? Because 1. No one was there to witness the event. 2. Because both saides have some things that need revision. 3.too much of Cosmology is not understood to draw some empirical proofs.

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is the universe exists."

-Stephen Hawking

And yet you still haven't answered the basic question "are you willing to change your book if errors are show?"

Go read Post #73, among many earlier ones (such as the one about your weird planetary claims and the earths rotation, etc). Or will you ignore them so you can pretend no errors exist?

Did it ever occur to you that you only think there are errors because evolutionists have something to gain by attempting to discredit it? And before you ask, yes, I've considered the very same thing from Creationists. I've answered your questions, only to have you post more questions. There are hundreds of points that I've posted. You've only responded to about five, and we've been going around in circles ever since with those.

I did answer your questions.

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

Originally posted by Beta69:

You need to throw away your source material. What did you use anyway? Did you do any of your own research?

If you're asking whether or not I personally drove to California to examine the Methuselah tree, no I did not, nor would I expect you to either. All of the evidence comes from other sources, of course.

If you did write that I commend you but you are using incorrect facts. I ask you to expand on the arguments because they are commonly thrown around by people who don't really understand them and did zero research into them.

The only reason why I didn't expand on them is because I'm writing a book on many different topics. Only three chapters are devoted to science. Me citing every detailed analysis would be a book in itself. Maybe one day I will write a book devoted to that. Look, the book is not something I'm going to publish and make money off of. I wrote it for those that don't know any better, namely some friends and family. I think they should get another perspective on things. You know as well as I do that the media and fields of science are dominated by the secualr market. With having said that, I feel that there are other options out there that aren't being expressed.

Most of your claims are repeated by creationists like Hovind and a lot come from a book from the 70's.

I don't own any of Hovind's books, but from what I do know of him and his arguments, I agree that some of them are worthy of further investigation. I'm not claiming that I'm a molecular biologist who personally examined the inner-workings of a cell, but I'm elucidating for people that research has been made that is contrary to the prevailing wisdom, and I'm saying, 'Here it is, make your own deduction.'

My original challenge was to give evidence that hadn't been refuted by rust, I believe a number of these have.

I haven't seen Rust post all day....? I'll look again, but I didn't see anything. I would respond to his posts as I always do.



Rotation of the earth

You provide zero evidence or math that shows the corealis effect will cause what you say or that the earth will "fling people off"

Its an inference. Its saying, judging by the amount of time that we have been witnessing this effect, if were to extrapolate backwards, then the earth must have been rotating at a riduculously hgh speed that would obviously not allowed for any life to thrive, much less, survive.

You provide no evidence for any of your parroted claims.

As I stated above, I'm not claiming that I went out and did the research, though I do aspire to, perhaps when my children are older. But I don't just get my information from creationists. I look at the secular arguments as well. I don't like alot of the creationist models because I think some it is fanciful. With having said that, I like others that are very plausible and worthy of some further investigation.

Why should all the planets rotate the same direction? Why should the gasses of two massive planets bleed off into the solar system? Do you even know what the 'surface' of jupiter is made of?

The reason i say this is because a very common pro-evolution model of the big bang shows that after Planck's Time, they state that there was an orbit established from the begginning, and that's why the planets have a sphere shape. I obviously think that's ridiculous, but that's just me. I think a perfect circle is more indicative of a perfect being, but again, that's just me.

You make false assumptions and provide false data. The Mississippi river is not 4.5 billion years old, why are you saying evolutionists claim it is?

I never said that. What I said was that in the time we've been watching this occurance, alot of sediment has been forming. So, logically, if we could expect that the same amount of sedimentary dispersion was the same in the past, it couldn't be hundreds of thousands of years old, because the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't be a body of water anymore, it would be a huge mound of mud.

Methuselah is not 4,400 years old but around 4,768, but thanks for saying you accept tree ring dating as a valid dating method. Niagara falls is not billions of years old.

Yeah, I think dendrochronology is a good method. It's not 100% accurate, but I think it gives a better ballpark figure than other techniques.

Do you understand anything that you posted at all? Can you show you know what you are talking about?

Yeah, but that's going to take a long time and I'm gonna have to go pick up my kids and wife in like half an hour. Plus, my only days off at work are Wed and Thur and I don't have internet access at work. Bastages! But I will write a little article. Just don't wait up all night because it won't be tonight.

For example, can you give an in depth explanation of the shells 'on' Mt Everest (On is in quotes because they are actually in the mountain) and why there are no modern sea creatures with those shells?

I can tell you what secular scientists have to say about that... They say that mountains were formed from earthquakes... Which is true. So, they say that Mt. Everest must have been underwater at one point in time, so the sea shells got there before Everest was a mountain. But I'll go in to that too later.

You even parrot the moon dust argument. I bet you didn't even do enough research to realize it was based on bad math and NASA corrected the error long before they went to the moon.



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

No, I've never read an article on that, but let's use some reasoning here... Obviously if stellar dust is falling all the time, it would be reasonable that large amounts would accumalte over a large period of time, right? Obviously NASA believes that the moon is a few million years old or they wouldn't have bothered tabulating those figures. So either way, why is there a very small amount of star dust on the moon?

Hyro, it's extremely obvious to anyone that reads your post that you're either not reading what is being said correctly, or deliberately trying to evade what is being said.

An example:

You were arguing that the Big Bang was literally an explosion. You said, "And what part of 'Bang' don't you understand? A gun goes 'bang' because of a controlled explosion. And they say the same thing about the universe, minus the 'controlled' portion."

Beta replies with "History lesson: Hoyle (an opponent of the big bang who lost credibility in astrophysics because he dogmatically held onto the steady state theory creating his own "god of the gaps" beliefs to pretend his theory was still correct) coined the term 'big bang' as a jab at the theory."

In other words, the word "bang" wasn't a word that literally describes what occurs, but a joke/insult Hoyle was making against the theory itself.

You reply with:

"

First of all, Hoyle was a naturalist. Give me a break. And what he posted proves nothing! That's just another one of evolutionist theories because they need it to stay afloat. Here's the bottom line: Hoyle's Steady State theory, is a theory. Gamow's Big Bang theory, is a theory. Both present some good arguments, and quite frankly, I'm undecided and apparetnly, so his even Hawking. Why? Because 1. No one was there to witness the event. 2. Because both saides have some things that need revision. 3.too much of Cosmology is not understood to draw some empirical proofs.

"

What the fuck does that have to do with what Beta was saying? Nothing. You either didn't read what he said, or deliberately decided to ignore the point that the Big Bang is not literally an explosion and that you cannot use its name (which was coined as joke/insult) to "prove" that it is an explosion.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-01-2006).]

Taken straight from the Origins website:

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

The Big Bang was like no explosion you might witness on earth today. For instance, a hydrogen bomb explosion, whose center registers approximately 100 million degrees Celsius, moves through the air at about 300 meters per second. In contrast, cosmologists believe the Big Bang flung energy in all directions at the speed of light (300,000,000 meters per second, a hundred thousand times faster than the H-bomb) and estimate that the temperature of the entire universe was 1000 trillion degrees Celsius at just a tiny fraction of a second after the explosion. Even the cores of the hottest stars in today's universe are much cooler than that.

Hoyle didn't need to say it. I don't need to say it. Secular cosmologists say it and they live by it.

Thank you for proving my point exactly.

Instead of replying with that, which was an actual reply to his statement, you said something completely and utterly irrelevant. Thus, you either did not read what he said (which I'm leaning towards judging by your reply) or you did read, but deliberately decided not to reply.

P.S. You did it right here again. My post dealt with wether or not you actually replied to what Beta said. If the big bang was or was not an explosion is not important to me - I was merely pointing out Beta's argument.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-01-2006).]

what part of 'Bang' don't you understand? A gun goes 'bang' because of a controlled explosion. And they say the same thing about the universe

Um, obviously its you who doesn't pay attention. My point, my only point, was that explosions cause 'bangs', which is exactly what I said, and which is exactly what they say. I'm just repeating the theory. Read our entire dialogue so you can understand the gist of it... Not just one post.

quote:Beta, you and Rust have been the most opposed to anything associated with theism, by far!

Prove it.

Remember against creationism is not against theism.

quote:They don't fit together at all without some serious contortion which is not verifiable by anything presently.

quote:Like I said: Righteous man spared, supernaturally caused, worldwide flooding, and a vessel of some kind. What are the odds that all of these cultures, who didn't know each other, can all have the same theme? Think about it.

You so didn't read that link.

quote:Yeah, except that their myth story is one of their beliefs that have nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity whatsoever. So, so much for their forced conversion having a role in it.

What myth story? Show me.

quote:You're detracting away from the main point, which is that many, many cultures who are separated by oceans, all have a similar theme. Talking animals bears no relevance to the central theme, which, the world was flooded.

Ahahahaha

Yep they have similar themes, one of them is talking animals. Nice dodge though.

quote:Initial water rushes in real, real fast creating alot of power and turbulence. Once there is no more rushing water because the rain stops, it sits calmly like it is on a lake until it evaporates. In that time that it is calm the sediment is floating down. When the water fully evaporates, the sun dries the moist soil and a thick crust is the end result. What is difficult about that to understand?

And that makes absolutely no sense. You should really think, read, then open your mouth.

Ok you are proposing the flood rushed in real fast creating the grand canyon, then it sat there, of course sediment that covered a tall mountain wouldn't fill in a new canyon. Then the water evaporated off even though the air can not hold that much water and would have rained it back down to earth.

quote:But you're going to have to come up with another reason why the clams died in the closed position, which again, is an unnatural occurance.

PTFA PTFA PTFA. it is a natural occurrence.

quote:First of all, Hoyle was a naturalist. Give me a break. And what he posted proves nothing!

Hoyle didn't post anything, he is dead.

What I posted proves that the name was created by someone who hated the theory and thus your stupid attempt to use the name "big bang" to imply an explosion is absurd and moronic. (BTW the big bang was an expansion of spacetime and energy, not a conventional explosion).

quote:Did it ever occur to you that you only think there are errors because evolutionists have something to gain by attempting to discredit it?

There are hundreds of points that I've posted. You've only responded to about five, and we've been going around in circles ever since with those.

I think they are errors because they are. I could care less who has what to gain (stop with the prejudice conspiracy theories, they cloud your mind).

Thanks for exposing your attempt to shotgun. This is exactly the reason I wanted to discuss each point in detail. Creationists never want to talk about the details, they seem to think that quantity is more important that quality. It isn't. If all your points are crap they mean nothing. If you think they are valid you should be able to defend them, that's how science works.

Yet you still haven't answered my question, are you willing to correct any errors in your book if they are exposed?

Why do you continue to avoid saying "Yes I accept truth over lies"

WWJD?



quote:I did answer your questions.

I see you really don't care about truth, or can you just not count. Post 73 about the dating methods You also stopped addressing the early post after the post you just quoted, I assume it's because I further supported the false information in your post such as posting the math showing the earth will not throw everything off, etc.

Hell I even corrected both myself and replied to the bolded part. Maybe you should read.

PTFA (btw that means Pay The Fuck Attention, something you need to do.)

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Um, obviously its you who doesn't pay attention. My point, my only point, was that explosions cause 'bangs', which is exactly what I said, and which is exactly what they say. I'm just repeating the theory. Read our entire dialogue so you can understand the gist of it... Not just one post.

You've just proven my point yet another time. What part of what I said even hints at me not reading that? The part in which I quoted it and told you how Beta already replied to that? The part in which I specify that the problem was how you didn't reply to what Beta said about that very statement? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I'll explain myself again for your sake. Yes, you did say, "what part of 'Bang' don't you understand? A gun goes 'bang' because of a controlled explosion. And they say the same thing about the universe" TO WHICH BETA REPLIED: "Hoyle... coined the term 'big bang' as a jab at the theory." In other words, you cannot say that simply because it is called 'Big Bang' it requires an explosion, which is exactly what you were saying.

After Beta pointed out how you cannot base your argument on the fact that it is called "Big Bang" you replied with something irrelevant. Thus, you either deliberately did so for some reason, or you didn't read what he said.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-01-2006).]

Ok, let's get organized here.

Hyroglyphx says,

"You've given me nothing to indicate that there was an error."

However I see a number of posts exposing errors that have yet to be addressed let alone those that have been addressed ineffectively. (Note, post numbers come from the edit link for that post, starting with the opening post which is post #0)

Error, then the post it was exposed in.

Page 1:

•Missisipi river deposits show earth is young, Post #39

•Niagara falls shows the earth is young, Post #39

•rotation of the earth shows it to be young, post #43

•Big bang establishes planetary orbits, post #43

•Moon dust shows the moon young, Post #43

Page 2:

•K/Ar dating errors shows it to be ineffective, Post #73

•Fossil dating is circular, Post #73

•C-14 dating errors show it to be ineffective, Post #73

•Quote showing dating flawed, Post #73

•Creationism does not push religion, Post #77

•Mater is triune, Post #78, post #80

•space is triune, Post #80

•Shells on everest are evidence for the flood, Post #98

This list is of only factual errors in your 'book' and doesn't include logical errors or errors in other posts that Rust and Adorkable have pointed out and corrected.

Edit: This list doesn't include errors in your 'book' that have yet to be addressed, which is the vast majority of them.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-01-2006).]

Part 3:

quote:Looking at creatures that employ camoflauge as a defense or offense, I cannot see how anyone can miss the intent. Creatures, such as the Praying Mantis, chameleon or the ocptopus each have some sort of camoflauge ability. Lets start with the Mantis. This critter has a body shape that looks like some twigs from a bushel, blending in with an actual plant. Looking at this creature, how can anyone possibly think that this amazing feature came by way of happenstance? You would either have to figure out a way that any creature could develop this or concede that either the Mantis willed itself genetically or that nature has a mind. Similarly, the chameleon employs camoflauge by using chromatophores. Chromatophores are irregularly shaped melanin, called melanophores. The chameleon has these highly specialized cells that lie in two layers underneath the skin. The chromatophores contain a yellow and red pigment. Underneath this first layer are guanophores and they contain a colorless crystaline substance, called, guanin. These guanophores reflect light creating the illusion of incandescence. Octopi and other cephalopods are similar in that they can manipulate chromatophores by contraction and expansion as the result of controlling muscle fibers. They can terminate the color shift almost instantly with motor nuerons. As a result, these color changes can come about through the dispersal or aggregation of granules within the cell under hormonal control. If you assert that these instances are the result of a natural progresion of evolution, then you are going to have to explain the mechanisms and reasons for this occurance. Why did these creatures develop this distinct feature and no other, when all organisms could benefit from them as well? I don’t know about you, but I sure wouldn’t mind blending in with my enviornment. If you cannot logically answer this, then you will have to explain how the Mantis, chameleon or octopus granted itself these powers. We know they are able to manipulate their body, but how would they be able to create this in their offsprings genetic code? If you can’t answer that either, then you’re going to have to admit that nature has a mind and that it exhibits intelligence. If you cannot do that either, then we are inescapably driven towards an alternative answer. We would, out of all other options, concede that something else is the cause of this spectacular feat. Does this verify that God created this? Certainly not, however, we can greatly assume that something cognizant is the cause of these features, because as we’ve seen, there is nothing in nature, that would alone, account for these occuranes. What other choice do we have left? Now, we can argue on who or what the Creator is until we’re blue in the face and dripping with persperation, but it is at least a step in a logical direction.

How does this all fit into the Biblical view? For those wondering, the Bible is not a science textbook, nor should it be employed as one. The Bible tends to corroborate what we see in nature, but it is completely limited in the ‘how’s and why’s’ department. The Biblical account is historically, geographically, spiritually, and scientifically true, however, this is an abbreviated version of what has taken place. If God provided every minute detail of how He accomplishes what He has accomplished, the Bible would never end. The Biblical account is a brief synopsis of events that have, and will, occur. This is part of what adds to God’s mystique. It is up to us to find out how He does what He does, and to marvel at His creation. I suppose the scientist could thank Him for not divulging every detail, otherwise the scientist would be out of a job. It is mankind, in a shameless display of hubris that supposes he knows so much. The reality is, humankind is not nearly as intelligent as he makes himself out to be. If we were to undertake in an honest intropection of ourselves, we would have to admit, simply by default, that we are woefully inept to answer all of the questions. As well, we are so incredibly simple, compared to the conglomeration of nature itself.

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your path. Do not be wise in your own eyes.” –Proverbs 3:5-7

“We do not know a millionth of one percent.” –Thomas Edison

Tommy boy makes a good point here; and yet we can become so haughty in our own eyes. I’m willing to bet to this conservative and humble figure is much more accurate than the arrogance insinuated by so many elitists.

These are just even more examples of your logically erroneous arguments. To claim that because you yourself cannot fathom a way for camouflage to develop by means of evolution is an argument from incredulity. It holds no water. Similarly, to claim that because we might not be able to give a definite answer to how camouflage developed by means of evolution, it must mean that this idea is false, is also fallacious. By virtue of your arguments being so blatantly fallacious we can safely abandon them without reprise.

As for human beings not knowing everything there is to know, what does that have to do with anything? Neither science, nor scientists, claim to that humans know everything that we can possibly know. Why you bring this up as if that somehow showed any “elitism” from evolutionists, especially when you claim to follow the scientific method as they do, is beyond me.

quote:What might Moses be talking about here? Water above water, but separate? This is by no means, a scientific fact; this is theoretical. I believe God is referring to a vapor canopy in the upper-stratosphere, locking in moisture, creating an oxygen rich environment. This shouldn’t be too difficult a thing to perceive, being that we have something called, the ozone layer.’ The reason for this theory comes directly from archaeological discoveries and anthropological studies. For instance, the excavation of fossilized palm trees have been discovered on Vancouver island, British Columbia, is evidence that it was once a tropical region. As well, tropical forests have been uncovered on New Siberia island, north of Russia; subtropical marine life has been found on Spitsbergen island, north of Norway- both, are well in to the Arctic circle. Enormous trees have been uncovered at the South Pole, with trunks three feet in diameter. This is highly suggestive that the earth was once completely tropical, or at least, sub-tropical. Large fossilized plants in the same region have been found with hair-like roots, because in a world where surface mist could have watered all the vegetation, vast root networks would not be necessary. Animals, too, have been found that appeared to have died abruptly, in some form of cataclysm. Miners in Alaska extricated mammoths deep in ice and mire. They discovered that their skin was f intact and showed every evidence that they lived in a warm climate. As well, near Tallahassee, Florida, I have personally seen a huge graveyard of mammoth bones lying at the bottom of a lake. Evolutionary paleontologists and anthropologists suggest that mammoths went extinct in North America, some 3-12,000 years ago. Has Floridian weather changed so drastically in the last few thousand years, or, is it that mammoths lived in warmer climates at one time? The mammoths in Alaska had undigested contents in their stomach, as well, as in their mouths. This is suggestive that they died very, very suddenly and not gradually over millions of years of time.

It would seem that the antediluvian (pre-flood) world was vastly different from that of today. The greenhouse canopy could have filtered ultra-violet light and caused the atmosphere to be highly oxygenated. This gave rise to monstrously big plants and animals, such as: asparagus stalks, forty feet high; Clams the size of cars; Rhinoceros’ 18 feet tall; pigs the size of cattle; dragonfly with a wingspan of three feet; bats with a 15 foot wingspan, sharks, such as Megalodon, 80 feet long. All of these have been found. We know that reptiles, for instance, never stop growing. Hypothetically, if they lived in an oxygen saturated enviornment, they could survive much longer than their current rate. There has been no other explanation as to why organisms would grow so large. We know, however, that if there was a vapor canopy, it would have to be very thin. If it were thick, radiant heat could have reached 220 degrees Fahrenheit, which of course, would not sustain life. Aside from this, if it were a very thick canopy, the atmospheric pressure would be so great that oxygen and nitrogen would become toxic to animals. Nonetheless, a thin canopy spanning the entire earth could hypothetically create a very warm and lush environment, much like we see in modern-day rainforests. “But wait! What happened to this world? Where did these enormous creatures go?”

This argument is self-refuting. The creationist argument is that the Christian God created the beasts, and that the characteristics of these beasts were specifically created by him. If the pre-flood world was tropical, then that would preclude the existence of species which require a specific type of weather to survive. Not only that, but even among those species that would still be able to survive the tropical climate, the different adaptations they would have would be rendered meaningless, and sub-optimal. There would be absolutely no need for thick fur, blubber, and the like. Thus, this argument refutes biblical creationism. You simply cannot have a world-wide tropical climate while also preserving all the species on Earth, and the facade that these species were created by an intelligent being.

As for the various “examples” you cite, you will have to provide evidence. There are countless (that is an understatement) examples of faulty creationists claims and just plain bold faced lies when it comes to “findings”. I'll provide you with some examples:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part3.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part4.html

Even then, even if what you say was found is true, that still proves nothing. Not only were Earth's land masses distributed differently, but the successive melting and freezing of glaciers, coupled with their movements, can produce similar results.

quote:The flood epic is not simply a tale from ancient, Jewish mythology. The flood story has been circulated by an estimated, thirty-three civilizations, bearing a striking consistency. Most of the stories are slightly different, however, all of them have a righteous man spared, a vessel of some kind, world-wide inundation of water, and the that it’s cause was supernatural. Twenty five of the thirty three cultures describe ‘the ark’ coming to rest on a mountaintop, as the waters began to recede.

[...]

Should we believe in the account based solely on the stories? Certainly not, so lets look at some tangible evidence. If the alleged floodwaters covered the whole earth, even up to the highest mountains, we should see evidence of that. That’s exactly what we find all over the world; including the Himalayas. Even on the worlds largest peak, Mt. Everest, sea shells can be found, as well as other small aquatic life. The Bible tells us that the Ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat, which is in modern day Turkey. The seventeen thousand foot tall mountain has a plethora of marine fossils. It also contains a multitude of pillow lava, a very dense rock that typically form underwater. In the four thousand foot high hills of Delhi, India, the fossil beds are abounding with animals, from mastodons, hippos, oxen, and a variety of trees. Because these fossils do not conform to any kind of evolutionary development, geological pattern, and are so randomly dispersed, only a world-wide flood seems plausible. To produce such a vast array of organisms, preserved in sandstone, a sudden burial would have to have been required. In fact, an Ichthyosaur was found fossilized giving birth, suggesting that it was buried very suddenly. As well, hundreds of shark remains have been found under hundreds of tons of sedimentary rock. All of them died in the natural swimming position. That is to say, when fish die, they go belly-up. So, how and why would these sharks be upright as if they were simply swimming? The sharks appear to have died instantly, buried very quickly, keeping their bodies in the anatomical swimming position. For many of them, the weight was so great that their bodies were squashed as thin as a quarter of an inch thick. This doesn’t fit the evolutionary paradigm that sediment deposits over thousands of years. Similarly, excavated duck-billed dinosaurs were discovered in swimming positions. Other dinosaurs were found with broken vertebrates and tails, indicating that a heavy flow of water must have pummeled them. As well, their bodies were oriented in the flow of water that apparently held them down to drown. Near Gainesville, Florida, a plot of land, 120 feet long x 60 feet wide, and 15 feet in depth, contains millions of fossil remains. Hundreds of different species are packed so tightly that nearly 50% of the ground itself is composed of fossil remains. Whales, manatees, alligators, turtles, raccoons, four species of wolves, Saber-toothed Tigers, elephants, rhino, seven types of horses, and three species of camels, were all found in Florida, on a relatively tiny piece of land. Only a massive run-off could have caused all these creatures to accumulate into one grave, simultaneously, and at such close proximity to one another. Likewise, petroleum-based products, such as oil, come from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels come directly from carboniferous forests and decayed flesh from organisms, that are later refined for human usage. For there to be as much oil in one place, large volumes of fossils would have to be centrally located to cause the compression of these organisms. Only the Flood seems plausible to cause this. Why else, and how else would there be so much oil? One or two dead trees or bodies, does not create oil. This seems concurrent with the Flood, because animals and trees would run-off into a central location where they would would decay, and eventually form, oil. In the average oil wells, 20,000 pounds per square inch are contained, therein. Interestingly enough, geologists say that rocks could not have contained that kind of pressure for more than 10,000 years. We know from the Bible and other extra-biblical documents that the Flood occurred well before 10,000 years which further supports the Flood theory.



1. To claim that just because different societies have similar flood myths somehow vindicates the thought that the flood myth is true is beyond ridiculous. More importantly, to claim that out of all the gods, animals, spirits, and deities all those differing civilizations worshiped, only the Judeo-Christian god was correct is ludicrous. If you accept the flood story contained in the bible as some sort of evidence of the Judeo-Christian god, then you must accept (lest you be dishonest and hypocritical) that it also serves as evidence of the other gods, deities and spirits.

2. The shells in Mt. Everest can already be explained with the current scientific theory, thus you cannot claim that they serve as any conclusive evidence in favor of your assertions. This, even if we ignore the fact that Beta brought up, which is the lack of any fossils belonging to modern animals in the peek of Mt. Everest. That is not at all consistent with your claims.

3. The fact that we find animals fossilized in rapidly does not refute evolution at all. This is already explained away. You deliberately misinterpret science when you imply that rapid fossilization cannot occur; that is false. Rapid fossilization can and does occur. To find animals in positions which indicate such, is therefore, not a problem.

4. You're lying when you say that geologists say that rocks could not have contained the pressure found in oil deposits for more than 10,000 years. That is quite simply wrong. For pressure to build up in the first place, a tight seal would be needed. If we follow the creationist frame of thought, the pressure being leaked from the rocks would have never allowed for the pressure to build up in the first place. Moreover, there are various occurrences that could explain this as well, for example the shifting of rocks and sediments that lead into new reservoirs.

Intelligent Design 101

First Week of Class:

God or someone like God made it.

Second Week:

God did it.

Third Week:

God did it.

Forth Week:

God did it.

Midterm Exam:

Who did everything?

a. Jessica Simpson

b. Chuck Norris

c. God

d. Bill Clinton

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

If you can conceptualize a universe that is self-existing, then what stumbles you about a Creator that is self-existing? Bear in mind that we already went over how we ALL know that universe had a definite beginning. So the logical conclusion would be........?



If you say that God is an abstract concept because you aren't willing to look at what created "God" then you also have to acknowledge the possibility that living, breathing, and dying is also an abstract concept and thus it is also very logical for God not to exist.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beta69:

You say,

K/Ar dating, just like all other dating methods is a tool, and just like any tool if you use it wrong it will often produce bad results. If you drive a car off a cliff because you think it can fly, don't blame the car or the car company when it smashes to the ground. Just the same, if the errors in K/Ar dating are a result of misuse, it isn't the dating methods fault.

"Okay.... But its wrong ALOT of the time, and so, here is the problem: There are two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating. First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter. Such a practice is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be. Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.'

K/Ar dating is not meant for young rocks. The decay process is rather slow (making it great for older objects). The slow decay means at the beginning even a small amount of contamination can greatly effect the date. Certain rocks can also contain more contamination than others. Creationist groups admit they know this and that the Mt St Helen dating was off because of contamination. So the big question is, how do we know if the sample is contaminated?

Do you even know what they mean by a 'young' rock? Can you explain which rocks are can even be considered young and how its even possible? I'll give you a hint: There are 3 basic rock formations- igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary. I notice you keep mentioning Mount St. Helens and are trying to excuse the fact that they dated the lava into the millions of years, when they tested it the day after. Apparently, millions of years of a discrepency is not important to you, but it is to me, and should be to everyone. That is an enormous length of time that evolutionists use so flippantly, as if its of no consequence.

One way is through Ar/Ar dating (something rarely mentioned by creationist groups). This method works by irradiating the sample to turn the K39 into Ar39. The sample is incrementally heated and the two types of Ar (Ar39 and Ar40) are measured at each heating step. The ratio is checked. If the Ar40 comes from the K39 then both Ar39 and Ar40 should come out at the same ratio. If not the ratios should be off. Providing a way to check for contamination.

Why do ytou keep digging holes for yourself to fall into? I could care less what the reason is for the discrepencies. I know all about them already. All you are doing is just telling me why I shouldn't trust it wholeheartedly. I know there are gross discrepencies. That was the point of my argument. Here you are telling why there shouldn't be any, or if there is, why the discrepency came up. The point is, THERE ARE DISCREPENCIES, so how can you trust it? what if all or most of the dates are full of anamoles? How will you know which dates are good and which one's are bad?

Sometimes a kind of fossil is found that constantly appears in the same strata ever time.

I know that fossils are found intermingled that shouldn't be contemporaneous with another using the geologic column. Since creatures that were allegedly extinct for 350 million years are found with creatures that were allegedly extiinct for 200 million years, then one of two things has to happen. 1. You either have to admit that these animals are in fact contemporaneous, in which you have to throw out the geologic column. 2. You have to concede that the dating methods are innacurate, in which case you have to revamp the system and throw out the geologic column. Either way, modern evolutionists have to give up one, or both.

Really? Where did he say that? Can you give me a source?

I've found two sources that say it was really Cook and not Libby that said this.

"Three other laboratories accepted Kennewick Man - Beta Analytical in Miami, the University of California at Riverside and the University of Arizona in Tucson. Three of the four samples dated took much longer than expected to process because pieces of Kennewick Man that were selected by the government turned out to be very low in protein, the requisite for carbon dating.

Carbon dating isn't simple even under the best circumstances.

"The dating of bones is an enormous hassle," Stafford said. "There's innumerable problems, innumerable errors."

Radiocarbon dating resulted from nuclear bomb development at the University of Chicago, where Willard Libby determined atomically unstable carbon 14 had a half-life of 5,568 years, long enough to be useful for archaeology. Half-life is the time it takes for half of an element to disappear.

Libby won the 1960 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work. "When radiocarbon dating was developed, it revolutionized archaeology because it enabled (scientists) to ... build a more accurate picture of the human past," said Tom Higham, deputy director of the University of Waikato Radiocarbon Laboratory in New Zealand, who operates a radiocarbon Internet site."

"It is self evident that a contaminated sample will give an erroneous date, but it is frequently impossible to ascertain if a sample has indeed been contaminated."

R.S. Bradley, Quaternary Paleoeclimatology

"Relative ages are always subject to interpretation, and radiocarbon dates are often ignored or dismissed as a "bad date" if they do not fit an a priori hypothesis."

T.A. Thompson, G.S.Fraser and G. Olyphant

"In the light what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as a "proof" for their beliefs. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who based their argument upon the dates. The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. ’This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read’."

Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, Anthropological Journal of Canada

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague,

professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it as follows: "If a C 14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it. Few archaelogists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method, and many are still hesitant to accept C 14 dates without reservation."

T. Säve-Söderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, C14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology, in Ingrid U. Olsson (ed.) Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium.

"The Carbon-14 contents of the shells of the snails of Melanoides tuberculatus living today in artesian springs in

southern Nevada indicate an apparent age of 27,000 years." -Alan C. Riggs



Equilibrium is not a problem, we know the atmosphere rates of C-14 fluctuate. The idea of equilibrium is based on the assumption that the rates stay the same. C-14 has required calibration because of this (something done through tree-ring dating, ice cores and a couple other methods). The calibration needed wasn't huge but it helped.

I don't doubt that in theory Radio Carbon dating is interesting. I'm just pointing out that its unreliable.. So unreliable that any dates given are suspect. So how are we supposed to know which are the right ones and which are the false?

Carbon-14 dating is based on the ratio of C-14 to C-12 in the atmosphere, thus a sample must get its carbon from the atmosphere to be dated correctly.

And high changes in atmospheric Carbon have been detected with the advent of nuclear activity. That's another problem.

Penguins eat fish, who get their C-14 from the sea which not only has a different ratio but has a number of issues that make C-14 dating more complicated. Using the atmospheric ratio to date ocean life is a user mistake and not a dating error.

All organic material has carbon in it... So what is your point? Here's the real point: There are dating errors. There are. I promise you. Everyone knows it except you.



One must be careful dating shell creatures because they often get the carbon from their shell from none atmospheric sources. In this case the snail built a lot of its shell using very old limestone, thus the shell is rather old. Creationists also report mollusk shells being dated old as well.

First of all, you can only date specimens for carbon in living, or once living, well-preserved specimens. But yes, I would agree that anyone has to take that into consideration when testing the shell. Still doesn't tell me why we should trust Carbon-14 testing. In fact, it just adds to list of conundrums.

As far as I can tell this isn't true. Dima (the baby mammoth) was dated at 40,000 years, where the other dates come from I don't know.

Walt Brown (a creationist that mentions Dima) cites a paper from 1975 which can't be accurate as Dima wasn't discovered till 1977. He either got confused or made up dates.

Even supposing this some Creationist insertion, it still doesn't explain to you why many evolutionists have abandoned the C-14 method. It's unreliable, and the evidence of that, is undeniable... (except by you).

I would cation the use of quotes that don't provide evidence, they are often nothing more than sound bites.

All the quotes provided were ALL by proponents of evolution. Every last stinkin' one of them, just so no one could say that my research was biased.



As it stands how do we know the quote is valid? Is it in context? Did the person who said it then soundly get bashed with evidence against their statement?

Well, I guess we could say the same thing for anyone. Like I said, all of the quotes were from secular peer reviews and secular science journals. I barely quoted any creationists, and when I did, it was in reference to their being objective and submissive to science alone. In fact, I only have two quotes from creationists. Dembski and Behe.

I've found the larger version of this quote on a number of creationist sites, it's by a Dr. Robert Lee in 1981, supposably published in the anthropological journal of canada which Robert was the editor for (so whether it went through proper review is unknown, it was later published in a creationist 'peer review' journal (the same CRSQ journal requires you to accept creationism as fact before they will publish your work). Not exactly a good source for a scientists opinion. Carbon dating has also come a long way since 1981.

This is why quotes aren't a good idea.

Yeah, they used it because it came straight from the horses mouth... If the horse implicates himself, then all the more reason to use it. TalkOrigins does this all the time to creationists. So what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander?

The short of it is the errors listed are based on misuse and misunderstanding and are not actual problems with the dating methods.

Hardly.... You can close your eyes and shut your ears, but truth is truth no matter what our opinions may be. I'll respond to the rest later.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, evidence that Hyro could care less about truth or honesty. Blatant errors without knowing better is ignorance which can be acceptable, but when you see the facts infront of you and still proclaim your errors as truth, that starts to become lying. Unfortunately creationist groups fully support lying while they claim moral superiority over evolutionists.

I am going to reply to the most recent post about dating but then that is probably it, why waste my time trying to correct someone who has admitted they don't want to listen. It's like trying to tell a brick wall to move.

quote:"Okay.... But its wrong ALOT of the time, and so, here is the problem: There are two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating. First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter.

Prove it.

Just more creationist garbage, misconstruing an acceptable practice because they know you will never do any research on your own.

In reality what happens is a number of samples are taken from a subject, they are all tested and graphed. Dates that sit alone away from all the others are often thrown out as they most likely had a problem such as contamination. The median of the grouped dates is taken as the date range for the object. This process is used in plenty of other areas of science and life to try and eliminate error.

quote:Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be.

Not a single real scientist worth their salt claims radiometric dating is an 'absolute' dating method. Just another creationist lie you fell for.

quote:impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.'

Except I just explained one way to tell from isotope information alone if a k/ar date is correct. You even quoted me.

quote:Do you even know what they mean by a 'young' rock? Can you explain which rocks are can even be considered young and how its even possible? I'll give you a hint: There are 3 basic rock formations- igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary.

When dealing with K/Ar dating 'young' (as in too young to expect a good reading from anything but the purest sample) can easily mean a good million years. The half-life for K40 is 1.2 billion years, which means it takes a long time to produce Ar40.

What are you talking about 3 types of rocks? Where did that even come from? Learn that in kindergarten today and feel you needed to share? K/Ar dating is done on igneous rocks and when used properly dates when the rock cooled and hardened.

quote:I notice you keep mentioning Mount St. Helens and are trying to excuse the fact that they dated the lava into the millions of years, when they tested it the day after.

I noticed you completely ignored the fact that they screwed up when claiming the dating method was at fault. They failed to make any attempt to check for contamination or give the dating method a chance to work. Although I thought I had covered things in general (which you didn't read) I should also mention the rock samples they took are very commonly known to contain more contamination than normal.

I would say your willingness to ignore anything I write that you don't like is astounding except it is quite common when talking to creationists.

quote:Apparently, millions of years of a discrepency is not important to you, but it is to me, and should be to everyone. That is an enormous length of time that evolutionists use so flippantly, as if its of no consequence.

1) You obviously didn't read the actual report or you would know the majority of samples tested at less than a million years old.

2) This is so ironic I love it. You originally wrote, " The ‘fresh’ lava was dated at 2.8 million years." After just attacking evolutionists for picking and choosing dates your source did just that. In reality most of the dates that came back were under 1 million. The highest date (by 1.1 million years (which you claim is a huge number)) is the 2.8 you cited. Your sources threw out the dates they didn't like. Busted

quote:Why do ytou keep digging holes for yourself to fall into? I could care less what the reason is for the discrepencies.

And here is what made me write that opening statement.

So you could care less what the reason for the errors are, I see, even though it is the creationist groups that were in error. Good job. That's like saying it's ok to cheat on a test as long as you get an A. Is that the kind of christian morality you are teaching your kids?

Yep there can be errors, scientists can also check and correct them. Why didn't the creationists use proper science and do this checking?

They screwed up and are now trying to lie to you and say it's the dating methods fault even though it was theirs.

quote:Since creatures that were allegedly extinct for 350 million years are found with creatures that were allegedly extiinct for 200 million years, then one of two things has to happen.

1) Prove it.

2) I'm not going to bother explaining fossilization, evolutionary changes and what the words "constantly appears" mean, we already know you don't care about the answers.

quote:[quotes and assorted facts about carbon dating]

All of that pointless crap and you never gave me a source showing where Libby said what you claimed.

It seems obvious from your previous threads that when you get caught providing false information you can't admit it but go on random tangents to distract from your error.

I don't trust most of your quotes as you have already shown you use bogus quotes but I wont bother tracking them down, you seem perfectly happy with bogus quotes.

quote:"The Carbon-14 contents of the shells of the snails of Melanoides tuberculatus living today in artesian springs in

southern Nevada indicate an apparent age of 27,000 years." -Alan C. Riggs

I already explained this, are you slow?

quote:First of all, you can only date specimens for carbon in living, or once living, well-preserved specimens. But yes, I would agree that anyone has to take that into consideration when testing the shell. Still doesn't tell me why we should trust Carbon-14 testing. In fact, it just adds to list of conundrums.

Limestone and coal can be carbon dated, they both used to be alive in a different form (there is a purpose for carbon dating coal but you probably don't care why unless it gets you evidence against the method).

Another reason I wrote the opening section. People should take ways they can use the method wrong into consideration, yet you still seem to accept creationists using the method wrong as an error with the method. Again, if you drive a car off a cliff thinking it can fly, don't blame the car when you hit the bottom.

This is what creationist groups are doing. They choose ways the dating methods produce errors, ignore the corrections for those errors and claim the dating method is in error, when in reality it is their assumptions that were in error.

quote:Even supposing this some Creationist insertion, it still doesn't explain to you why many evolutionists have abandoned the C-14 method. It's unreliable, and the evidence of that, is undeniable... (except by you).

Haha, another bogus creationist claim you bought into, they must be making a lot of money off you.

quote:All the quotes provided were ALL by proponents of evolution. Every last stinkin' one of them, just so no one could say that my research was biased.

Again, you can't get published in CRSQ unless you support creationism, the person who you quoted was published in CRSQ.

Another irony, with all your claims about evolutionists bias you neglect the fact that creationist groups have an extreme bias. If you don't believe me go read your beloved creationist sites. CRSQ will not publish anything that doesn't support creationism. The quote was not passed through a peer review, you gave no scientists replies to it (hate to hear what real scientists think when you have a precious quote) and it was published in the CRSQ.

Your use of quotes is bad at the least and blatantly dishonest at the most.

quote:Hardly.... You can close your eyes and shut your ears, but truth is truth no matter what our opinions may be. I'll respond to the rest later.

One of the few true things I have heard you say, yet it holds so much irony.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

All the quotes provided were ALL by proponents of evolution. Every last stinkin' one of them, just so no one could say that my research was biased...

...Well, I guess we could say the same thing for anyone. Like I said, all of the quotes were from secular peer reviews and secular science journals. I barely quoted any creationists, and when I did, it was in reference to their being objective and submissive to science alone. In fact, I only have two quotes from creationists. Dembski and Behe.



I only bothered to check up on a couple of your quotes.I felt it unnecessary to continue.How can you consider Creationist websites to be “proponents of evolution”?

I find it interesting that you omitted the dates(at least 15 years old) during your copy and paste from:

http://www.setterfield.org/RadiometricDating.htm

From ICR site:

“RATE is the Institute of Creation Research's acronym for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth. It is a group put together for the purposes of studying the geologic record in terms of radioisotope dating….

……”.The objective of the RATE research is to develop a model which is consistent with the radioisotopic data and with the Biblical record of a recent creation and catastrophic global flood”…….”

Sounds unbiased to me...

Source for so one of your so- called “proponent of evolution” quotes:

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/



You’ve convinced me. You have done honest research using unbiased sources to support your assertions. ..



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 03-03-2006).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beta69:

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen, evidence that Hyro could care less about truth or honesty. Blatant errors without knowing better is ignorance which can be acceptable, but when you see the facts infront of you and still proclaim your errors as truth, that starts to become lying. Unfortunately creationist groups fully support lying while they claim moral superiority over evolutionists.

LOL! You don't need to make yourself look worse by trying to cover up the fact that you know very little about any of this. You're a novice and it shows... And so, we see the last resort... AD HOM.

I am going to reply to the most recent post about dating but then that is probably it

That's a good idea.



Prove it.

Just more creationist garbage, misconstruing an acceptable practice because they know you will never do any research on your own.

Well, for meto prove it to you, would require you to come to my home, or I, to your home. Then we shoot down to the nearest reputable university where we can spend gobs of time looking at the evidence. My proof comes from your own people, not mine. Why not accept their testimony even if it runs counter to your claims?

In reality what happens is a number of samples are taken from a subject, they are all tested and graphed. Dates that sit alone away from all the others are often thrown out as they most likely had a problem such as contamination. The median of the grouped dates is taken as the date range for the object. This process is used in plenty of other areas of science and life to try and eliminate error.

Which is exactly why I said that I don't care. The point is that its unreliable. You providing a reason why it is unreliable only supports the claim all the more. You're still not getting that are you?

Not a single real scientist worth their salt claims radiometric dating is an 'absolute' dating method. Just another creationist lie you fell for.

http://www.kennewick-man.com/kman/series/story/3275030p-3304649c.html

They're evolutionists.................. And they're just reporting what they found. You should applaude them. They're just providing the evidence and nothing else.

What are you talking about 3 types of rocks? Where did that even come from? Learn that in kindergarten today and feel you needed to share? K/Ar dating is done on igneous rocks and when used properly dates when the rock cooled and hardened.

Just answer my question and stop resorting to ad hom.

I noticed you completely ignored the fact that they screwed up when claiming the dating method was at fault. They failed to make any attempt to check for contamination or give the dating method a chance to work. Although I thought I had covered things in general (which you didn't read) I should also mention the rock samples they took are very commonly known to contain more contamination than normal.

Who is, "they?"

1) You obviously didn't read the actual report or you would know the majority of samples tested at less than a million years old.

2) This is so ironic I love it. You originally wrote, " The ‘fresh’ lava was dated at 2.8 million years." After just attacking evolutionists for picking and choosing dates your source did just that. In reality most of the dates that came back were under 1 million. The highest date (by 1.1 million years (which you claim is a huge number)) is the 2.8 you cited. Your sources threw out the dates they didn't like. Busted

LOL! You still don't get do you? Okay, it dated under a million. That's fine by me. It could date at 100 years old and that would be fine with me. Tell me why either way it is very, very bad to your theory?

And here is what made me write that opening statement.

So you could care less what the reason for the errors are, I see, even though it is the creationist groups that were in error. Good job.[/b]

The dates were submitted by SECULAR SCIENTISTS and when certain creationists pointed out how its not possible, the SECULAR SCIENTISTS changed their tune and simply changed the dates to fit the pre-established mold of the geologic column. So, what I CLEARLY was pointing out, is, it really doesn't matter how you get so many bad dates. The only thing important is that YOU DO get bad dates, which makes it unreliable any which way you divide it. Do you understand now, or are you feigning ignorance to mask the fact that you still don't realize how you keep implicating yourself?

1) Prove it.

2) I'm not going to bother explaining fossilization, evolutionary changes and what the words "constantly appears" mean, we already know you don't care about the answers.

What? I didn't understand what you wrote.

[All of that pointless crap and you never gave me a source showing where Libby said what you claimed.

It seems obvious from your previous threads that when you get caught providing false information you can't admit it but go on random tangents to distract from your error.

I don't trust most of your quotes as you have already shown you use bogus quotes but I wont bother tracking them down, you seem perfectly happy with bogus quotes.[/b]

Bogus quotes? What was bogus? Show me which quote was bogus and I'll retract. Trust me, I wouldn't want to use a bogus quote, ever. As much as you'd like to think otherwise.

Limestone and coal can be carbon dated, they both used to be alive in a different form (there is a purpose for carbon dating coal but you probably don't care why unless it gets you evidence against the method).

Yes, it can be dated sometimes, because limestone was obviously once, living coral. But often times you can't. You can only carbon date living, or once living well-preserved specimens. It still doesn't tell us which dates are accurate and which are false. I really don't see why you are disagreeing with me on carbon dating. Everyone seems to be in agreement about it. There are alot of other ways, much more accurate radiometric dating that evolutionists can, and do, employ. For whatever reason, you chose to single out carbon dating to talk about.

Another reason I wrote the opening section. People should take ways they can use the method wrong into consideration, yet you still seem to accept creationists using the method wrong as an error with the method. Again, if you drive a car off a cliff thinking it can fly, don't blame the car when you hit the bottom. This is what creationist groups are doing. They choose ways the dating methods produce errors, ignore the corrections for those errors and claim the dating method is in error, when in reality it is their assumptions that were in error.

Beta, I'm merely reporting what scientists discover. They found that c-14 dating is not nearly as accurate as they'd hoped. And that's all I'm saying.

Haha, another bogus creationist claim you bought into, they must be making a lot of money off you.

Yeah, I'm rollin' in the dough, let me tell you. We live in the lap of luxury here in the ghetto, where my car gets broken into and there's a shooting every other week. Our home is a dumpy, little duplex of a whopping 760 square feet with four people living in it. If I face to the north, and do an about-face, I'm immediately touching the south wall.

Again, you can't get published in CRSQ unless you support creationism, the person who you quoted was published in CRSQ.

Another irony, with all your claims about evolutionists bias you neglect the fact that creationist groups have an extreme bias. If you don't believe me go read your beloved creationist sites. CRSQ will not publish anything that doesn't support creationism. The quote was not passed through a peer review, you gave no scientists replies to it (hate to hear what real scientists think when you have a precious quote) and it was published in the CRSQ.

Since when is 'Nature' or 'National Geographic' a creationist peer review?

Your use of quotes is bad at the least and blatantly dishonest at the most.

You'd like to think that. But see, all the quotes I use are genuine and taken in context of the article. Do they find some excuse for why what ever anamole occured? Yeah. But it still doesn't detract from the fact that they said it and the prevailing evidence doesn't support it. It's my fault that they dreamt up some fantastic claim in order to wish it away.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by truckfixr:



I only bothered to check up on a couple of your quotes.I felt it unnecessary to continue.How can you consider Creationist websites to be “proponents of evolution”?

All of those people are secular!!! All of them! This was at a time when there was no such thing as an ID movement. There were like 5 guys who said, 'wait a minute, this stuff isn't adding up.' They were fledglings in those days. But now, it's hard to get an evolutionist to implicate themselves, because they know that some scientist who doesn't think that life comes from a cosmic fart is going to refute the claims. Aside from that, I was speaking about the book that I wrote. I said only two of my quotes come from Creationists, Dembski and Behe, and its a blurb that says nothing about any scientific method. All of the quotes speaking about principles of science were specifically geared towards secular science.



……”.The objective of the RATE research is to develop a model which is consistent with the radioisotopic data and with the Biblical record of a recent creation and catastrophic global flood”…….”

So you're upset that they are objective instead of subjective? Objectiviity deals with actual evidence, not merely one's own preconcieved notions.



Source for so one of your so- called “proponent of evolution” quotes:

http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/

I've never even seen this website, let alone got my quotes from it. Even supposing I did, if somebody quotes an evolutionist, then that's what was said by the evolutionist. If it so happens to go along with creation because they've implicated themselves, how are you going to fault the creationist? They didn't say it, the evolutionist did. Aside from that, a plethora of pro-Darwin sites quote something careless that a creationist says. So how is it the fault of the Darwinist when a creationist says something that runs counter to their beliefs?

You’ve convinced me. You have done honest research using unbiased sources to support your assertions. ..

You can believe whatever you want to believe. Go look up the quotes yourself at the library or LexusNexus. Once again, don't get angry at me for something they said. I'm just quoting what they said.

Hyro, I think you do a better job than anyone at proving the emptiness of your evidence. You refuted exactly zero of my post and even misunderstood parts while maintaining your arrogant attitude.

The sad thing is that after it has been shown it's the creationist groups and not the dating methods at fault, the creationists here will still use this as evidence against 'evolution' and will still trust the same creationist groups that tried to deceive them. They will probably do so with arrogance that they see the truth and we do not. This type of brainwashing is just what creationist groups want and this is just another reason they can't be allowed to get a toe in the door of our science classrooms.

Hyro has provided a number of good examples of this, such as where he attacked evolutionists for supposably picking and choosing dates but brushed aside the fact that his source had done just that when reporting the creationist study on Mt St Helens (yes it was a creationist that chose the rock samples, not a secular scientist).

Like I said, trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore anything he doesn't like is a waste of time. Hopefully though I have shown others just how bad and hypocritical creationist arguments are.

Edit: it's Hyro not Hydro.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-03-2006).]

You refuted exactly zero of my post and even misunderstood parts while maintaining your arrogant attitude.

That's funny, because I thought the same of you.

The sad thing is that after it has been shown it's the creationist groups and not the dating methods at fault.

It comes straight from the horses mouth that radiocarbon dating is problematic; so much so that it's unreliable. It was designed as a tool for dating archaelogical antiquity. All of your contemporaries say that you can't date past 50,000 years because all the carbon would be depleted. So really, what is it that you are even arguing about?

truth and we do not. This type of brainwashing is just what creationist groups want

Yes, that's it! I'm over here twisting my moustache... Muahahahahaha! Little children beware!

Hydro There is no 'D' in my name.

he attacked evolutionists for supposably picking and choosing dates but brushed aside the fact that his source had done just that when reporting the creationist study on Mt St Helens

They do pick and choose their dates and even secular journals have pointed that out.



(yes it was a creationist that chose the rock samples, not a secular scientist).

LOL! Yes, you didn't know that in 1980 the US Geolgical Survey (USGS) routinely funded creation science???

Like I said, trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore anything he doesn't like is a waste of time. Hopefully though I have shown others just how bad and hypocritical creationist arguments are.

You've done a bang up job Beta. Huxley, Marx, Tse-Tung, Dawkins, and the rest of the gang would be proud. Well done, good and faithful servant.

quote:It comes straight from the horses mouth that radiocarbon dating is problematic; so much so that it's unreliable. It was designed as a tool for dating archaelogical antiquity. All of your contemporaries say that you can't date past 50,000 years because all the carbon would be depleted. So really, what is it that you are even arguing about?

Yep it came right from the creationists mouth that when you improperly use radiometric dating it's flawed. Who would have guessed. Of course they don't tell you they used it improperly.

Of course you seem to have no problem blaming the dating method for their mistakes.

Lucky for me we have other radiometric dating techniques than just carbon-14 dating. PTFA.

quote:Yes, that's it! I'm over here twisting my moustache... Muahahahahaha! Little children beware!

You can't even read properly. You misunderstand me, You are the brainwashed child.

quote:LOL! Yes, you didn't know that in 1980 the US Geolgical Survey (USGS) routinely funded creation science???

Further proof you never read the actual creationist report. But don't worry I believe you when you say you know what you are talking about and that evolution is false. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

The truth: The Mt St Helens sample you quoted as dating 2.8 million years old was taken from a 1986 lava flow by creationist Steven A. Austin of ICR in 1992, the paper was published in 1996 and can be read at ICR.org. The 2.8 million date was the oldest of the five and the only one you listed after you hypocritically attacked evolutionists for picking and choosing dates.

When you can't even get creationist claims right why should we believe anything you say?

I'd say that about ends it.

Any honest creationist who wants to try and defend these attacks on radiometric dating with proper evidence and understanding I wouldn't mind talking to you.

Remember if you can't defend these claims and want to remain honest and moral I would say you should stop using them.



[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-03-2006).]

Yep it came right from the creationists mouth that when you improperly use radiometric dating it's flawed. Who would have guessed. Of course they don't tell you they used it improperly.

Of course you seem to have no problem blaming the dating method for their mistakes.

Beta, stop trying to turn around your lack of knowledge into someone else's burden. You've been going around in circles trying to prove to me that radio-carbon dating is accurate, when it isn't. So how many times do they have to use it improperly? Have they been using improperly for years and years, specimen, after specimen? You're own people admit that it has problem after problem and that it is inacurrate and that you can't date it passed 50,000 years. So how are you going to date a creature that supposedly lived 200 million years? If you find carbon in it, that means it isn't that old.....

You can't even read properly. You misunderstand me, You are the brainwashed child.

Oh, I'm brainwashed? You believe that nothing creates everything. You think that the whole of nature is random and that chaos brings disorder, even though it is direct contravention with physical law. You think that everything that exhibits some sort of intent must be some fortuitous anamole. You still believe in macroevolution even when there is 0 evidence. 0%. You think that out of all this chaos, it never seems to lend itself to a disaster even though by all rights the universe should have destroyed itself many times over in 4.5 billion years. You think that soft tissue can remain unfrozen for 70 million years, even though if you dug up a man up 70 years ago, you might be able to still see fascial tissue. You believe that everything is relative when not everything is. Apparently you think that human beings have some sort of innate sense that the world flooded, and that explains why they have similar stories. You believe dinosaurs couldn't have existed with man, even though there are petraglyphs with dinosaurs, drawn by men... Unless of course you think bears drew them. You think that creationists are devisive and manipulative, even though evolutionists have been caught red-handed over and over again. Let me count the ways: Haekel's recapitulation, peppered moths, Java Man archaeoraptor, Ramipithecus, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, etc, etc, etc... Deliberate, outright lies and frauds in order TO brainwash you... And it worked. And you believe people who have lied for a fact and that don't believe that lying is a sin, but don't believe people who think lying is wrong. Yeah, I'm the lemming because I see a purpose greater than the human mind. You think I believe in some magical sky-fairy, but that's your misguided interpretation, not mine.

The truth: The Mt St Helens sample you quoted as dating 2.8 million years old was taken from a 1986 lava flow by creationist Steven A. Austin of ICR in 1992, the paper was published in 1996 and can be read at ICR.org. The 2.8 million date was the oldest of the four and the only one you listed after you hypocritically attacked evolutionists for picking and choosing dates.

No, it wasn't. That's the date the USGS read in their initial report. Even if it wasn't the case, what you seem to still be glossing over is the fact that it shouldn't even date under a million because they watched it in one day. Its fresh lava! And if no one was there to see it happen and some secular geologist ambled upon it, they would have accepted that date. Do you understand now?

Any honest creationist who wants to try and defend these attacks on radiometric dating with proper evidence and understanding I wouldn't mind talking to you.

Remember if you can't defend these claims and want to remain honest and moral I would say you should stop using them.[/QUOTE]

Oh, so I've lied to you? I've used secular material so you couldn't say that. My references were from secular sources, just so you couldn't say that I'm biased. I went out of my way to show that to you. You still won't accept it, because it runs counter to what you choose to believe. The evidence is staring you in the face.

I think we've said all that's going to be said. You're just being pig-headed because you don't like what you're hearing. Well, I'm sorry.... But I didn't say it, they did.

quote:No, it wasn't. That's the date the USGS read in their initial report. Even if it wasn't the case, what you seem to still be glossing over is the fact that it shouldn't even date under a million because they watched it in one day. Its fresh lava! And if no one was there to see it happen and some secular geologist ambled upon it, they would have accepted that date. Do you understand now?

Quoted to preserve any evidence I was wrong for calling you dishonest, which is slowly turning to liar.

Where is that report?

What you seem to be glossing over is the fact the date was never cross checked and it was the creationists who erred PTFA. Matter of fact the sample was dated at a lab that told Austen they didn't have the equipment to date rocks under 2 million. The fact most samples dated under their equipment limit should have been a major tip off the results needed to be double checked.

If I was another totse creationist I think I would be trying to distance myself from you right about now. You aren't exactly helping the image of creationism or the claim it's really science.

QED

Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

You believe that nothing creates everything.

You believe that nothing created god. You have absolutely no point as you're in the same, if not worse, boat, as truckfixr already showed.

You think that the whole of nature is random and that chaos brings disorder, even though it is direct contravention with physical law.

I assume you mean "chaos brings order" and you are wrong. That contradicts no law. We see order from disorder everyday. You've been shown this many times before. That you still use this as an argument shows your dishonesty.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html



You think that everything that exhibits some sort of intent must be some fortuitous anamole.

You'd have to show intent in the first place, which you have not. Logical fallacies on your part do not show intent.

You still believe in macroevolution even when there is 0 evidence. 0%.

Bold face lie. You've been shown the evidence for macro-evolution countless times. This is yet another example of your blatant dishonesty.

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

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

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

You think that out of all this chaos, it never seems to lend itself to a disaster even though by all rights the universe should have destroyed itself many times over in 4.5 billion years.

Who says there hasn't been disaster? Nobody. There has been. There just hasn't been any on a cosmic level, that we've seen since we've been alive, which is a very short time, and completely within the bounds of probability.

You think that soft tissue can remain unfrozen for 70 million years, even though if you dug up a man up 70 years ago, you might be able to still see fascial tissue.

This doesn't help your case. The fact that soft-tissue such as that was never found until now shows how much of a rare event it is. If the universe were as young as you claim it to be, then we would be finding this sort of soft tissue on virtually all dinosaurs. We don't. Moreover, the fact that it was unfrozen is meaningless. Preservation is not exclusive to freezing temperatures.

Apparently you think that human beings have some sort of innate sense that the world flooded, and that explains why they have similar stories.

Yet you dismiss the communications those civilization might have had, and more importantly, you somehow see this as evidence of your beliefs, and not theirs. That is a logical fallacy. To do so is to be dishonest.

You believe dinosaurs couldn't have existed with man, even though there are petraglyphs with dinosaurs, drawn by men...Unless of course you think bears drew them.

They are drawing of something. Nobody has proven them to be dinosaurs. It could very well imaginary beings, and the fact that they used hallucinogens, shows that we cannot conclude anything. To do so as you do is to be dishonest.



You think that creationists are devisive and manipulative, even though evolutionists have been caught red-handed over and over again. Let me count the ways: Haekel's recapitulation, peppered moths, Java Man archaeoraptor, Ramipithecus, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, etc, etc, etc... Deliberate, outright lies and frauds in order TO brainwash you... And it worked.

These are frauds that have been exposed by the very scientific community that you're chastising. You cannot say anything remotely similar to the creationists. They have lied, misquoted, mishandled evidence, and made erroneous/illogical conclusion and they themselves have not corrected any of this.

This only serves to vindicate the scientific method.

Rust said,

quote:If the universe were as young as you claim it to be, then we would be finding this sort of soft tissue on virtually all dinosaurs. We don't.

How much do you want to bet he will ignore the "virtually all" part and use the case of 'red blood cells' found in a dinosaur bone to show you are wrong. (as we know he knows about it).

The red blood cells case is quite good at showing creationist research and dishonesty. A couple years ago a bone was found with some tissue like features in it. The media jumped on it and someone was there reporting when one of the scientists doing preliminary studies shouted to the head scientist "We've got red blood cells" (IIRC the head scientist is famous Jack Horner who Crichton used as a template for the dino hunter in Jurassic park). The line was reported by the media and jumped on by creationists. Now the fun begins, the final report comes out and it shows no red blood cells, no hemoglobin, only what could be hemoglobin break down products (still an amazing find). The conversation in the lab was wrong. So you would assume creationists would drop the claim right? Nope. They still claim Red blood cells were found. Often saying things like 'well she said it' or 'their research was wrong.' They believe a comment reported in the media over the final scientific report, because it suits their beliefs. the final report can be read by anyone at pubmed.

quote:They are drawing of something. Nobody has proven them to be dinosaurs. It could very well imaginary beings,

I believe he is talking about the inca (sometimes spelled ica) stones. Frauds sold to tourists of old incorrect images of dinosaurs and man living and fighting together. One of the creators actually showed the BBC how he made them and was eventually arrested for fraud.

If so I know Hyro is a liar as I know I've thrashed him for using the inca stones as evidence before.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:



I believe he is talking about the inca (sometimes spelled ica) stones. Frauds sold to tourists of old incorrect images of dinosaurs and man living and fighting together. One of the creators actually showed the BBC how he made them and was eventually arrested for fraud.

If so I know Hyro is a liar as I know I've thrashed him for using the inca stones as evidence before.



I personally thought he meant the drawings that have been found in caves that were once used by Indians; somewhere around Utah if I'm not mistaken. On the walls of the cave there are drawings which creationists claim to be proof that the Indians drew the dinosaurs they were allegedly seeing.

Ah, possible, I know there are a number of them that appear on conspiracy theory sites.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



All of those people are secular!!! All of them! This was at a time when there was no such thing as an ID movement. There were like 5 guys who said, 'wait a minute, this stuff isn't adding up.' They were fledglings in those days. But now, it's hard to get an evolutionist to implicate themselves, because they know that some scientist who doesn't think that life comes from a cosmic fart is going to refute the claims. Aside from that, I was speaking about the book that I wrote. I said only two of my quotes come from Creationists, Dembski and Behe, and its a blurb that says nothing about any scientific method. All of the quotes speaking about principles of science were specifically geared towards secular science.

How do you know that they were all secular? The site you copied/pasted from merely lists them as quotes and makes no claims as to whether or not the source is secular or creationist.

quote:So you're upset that they are objective instead of subjective? Objectiviity deals with actual evidence, not merely one's own preconcieved notions.



"The objective of the RATE research is to develop a model which is consistent with the radioisotopic data and with the Biblical record of a recent creation and catastrophic global flood”

How do you determine that they are objectivewith their evidence? The statement merely states their objective.



quote:I've never even seen this website, let alone got my quotes from it. Even supposing I did, if somebody quotes an evolutionist, then that's what was said by the evolutionist. If it so happens to go along with creation because they've implicated themselves, how are you going to fault the creationist? They didn't say it, the evolutionist did. Aside from that, a plethora of pro-Darwin sites quote something careless that a creationist says. So how is it the fault of the Darwinist when a creationist says something that runs counter to their beliefs?

Simply a site I found by googling one of the quotes you presented. May or may not be your source.Not really important.



quote:You can believe whatever you want to believe. Go look up the quotes yourself at the library or LexusNexus. Once again, don't get angry at me for something they said. I'm just quoting what they said.



The problem with your quotes is that you copied/pasted them from a biased site and have no knowledge as to whether or not they were taken out of context, but you willingly present them as evidence for your case.



How about this:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html



It's actually from a creationist, who obviously knows a lot more about the subject than anyone on this forum.

To discuss the "underhanded" tactics of a small portion of the scientific community and not to discuss the underhanded tactics of the BC and ID proponents is itself an underhanded tactic! You have absolutely no claim to the moral high ground if you do not, within these pages, also include the rampant misquotations, lies and just blatant dishonesty that some BC and ID proponents use as well.

Give me a break dude! That is grasping at straws, especially when evolutionists fashion jaw bone togther, glue moths to trees, glue tails from one specie onto another, draw pictures of fetus that don't exist, and even after it being refuted in the early 1900's, it still being used in some textbooks today... But you want to talk about a creationist that misuses quotes, which is really your interpretation. It's always taken in context, and if the quotes said something like, "...the reason...evolution... is wrong... is because...we don't believe... actually, that evolution... is real."

You would have a point. But unfortunatley, the quotes don't say anything like that. It's clear, concise, and very much evident that they understand how big of a problem their gaps are. See, old evolutionists look for young bucks like you to revitalize them. They need that youthful energy and they seek someone to think of something they haven't thought of.

Your convenient omission being resolved, lets discuss the inherent theological arguments of ID and BC.

Allow me to quote Judge Jones - a life-long Christian appointed by George W. Bush to the bench - who so expertely explains the history of biblical creationism in the classroom

"The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter "IDM") and the development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which the Dover School Board acted in adopting the challenged ID Policy. As a reasonable observer, whether adult or child, would be aware of this social context in which the ID Policy arose, and such context will help to reveal the meaning of Defendants' actions, it is necessary to trace the history of the IDM.

Next, and as stated, religious opponents of evolution began cloaking religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting "creation science" or "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First Amendment. "Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man." McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1259. In 1982, the district court in McLean reviewed Arkansas's balanced-treatment law and evaluated creation science in light of Scopes, Epperson, and the long history of Fundamentalism's attack on the scientific theory of evolution, as well as the statute's legisl ative history and historical context. The court found that creation science organizations were fundamentalist religious entities that "consider[ed] the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry." Id. at 1260. The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. Id. at 1266. The court concluded that creation science "is simply not science" because it depends upon "supernatural intervention," which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable. Id. at 1267.

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that Arkansas' balanced-treatment statute coul d have no valid secular purpose or effect, served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 1264, 1272-74."

In his the decision on the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case.

It is clear that the history of creationism is nothing but dressing up religion in a facade of science! The Judge, a Christian, understands this fully.

And when these tactics failed as well, the creationists yet again attempted to dress up their religion with pseudo-science in order to get it taught in the science classroom. In a sense, the image you present of creationists twisting their mustaches in delight, as their they attempt to infiltrate real science, with pseudo-science, holds true. The creationists, having been defeated, again proceeded with their dishonest tactics, but now under a different guise: "Intelligent Design".

First of all, let the judge think as he will. You don't see me flame you over what someone else said, yet you feel the need to rush in to the defense of Gould and others that already implicated themselves. This isn't even comparable, because Jones isn't a creationist, nor his he a Christian. My quotes are taken from evolutionists, who believe in evolution, yet still understand the flaws that they need to overcome. Just take what they said for the value of its words. I'm not here to try to explain away how the judge didn't mean what he meant, unlike you, who try to redefine what somebody was quoted as saying, without breaks in the paragraph. You don't have to agree with what they wrote, but don't try to fashion your own formulation.



The Judge continues:

"Five years after McLean was decided, in 1987, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's balanced-treatment law in Edwards for similar reasons. After a thorough analysis of the history of fundamentalist attacks against evolution, as well as the applicable legislative history including statements made by the statute's sponsor, and taking the character of organizations advocating for creation science into consideration, the Supreme Court held that the state violated the Establishment Clause by "restructur[ing] the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 593.

Among other reasons, the Supreme Court in Edwards concluded that the challenged statute did not serve the legislature's professed purposes of encouraging academic freedom and making the science curriculum more comprehensive by "teaching all of the evidence" regarding origins of life because: the state law already allowed schools to teach any scientific theory, which responded to the alleged purpose of academic freedom; and if the legislature really had intended to make science education more comprehensive, "it would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind" rather than permitting schools to forego teaching evolution, but mandating that schools that teach evolution must also teach creation science, an inherently religious view. Id. at 586, 588-89. The Supreme Court further held that the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint and that the Act at issue "advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety." Id. at 591, 596. Therefore, as noted, the import of Edwards is that the Supreme Court made national the prohibition against teaching creation science in the public school system.

The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID"), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer "everyone understands to be God." Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase "purposeful arrangement of parts."

Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).

Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants' expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas' rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy." (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)).

A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses, is the author of the book Creationism's Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID's religious, philosophical, and cultural content. The following is a representative grouping of such statements made by prominent ID proponents.5" - Ibid.

It was quite obvious to the court, after hearing all of the testimony, that ID was nothing but another attempt by creationists to get their religious views taught in the science classroom.

We should note that the Judge mentions the "Wedge Strategy". What is the "Wedge Strategy"? It is the purpose of intelligent Design. In the very own words of one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design:

"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,...We call our strategy the "wedge." Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds Phillip Johnson. 1997.

It is, in other words, exactly what Judge Jones understood Intelligent Design to be: a way of disguising religious beliefs, in order to attack real science.

Contrary to most media coverage, the Dover case was not about whether the theory of evolution or Intelligent Design (ID) is correct or should be taught. The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution.

Students were merely to be read a brief statement asserting that "gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence," and that ID provides an explanation for the origin of life that could be further explored by consulting a book in the school library. While not denying that those statements may be true (it is undeniable that evolution has gaps), Judge Jones nevertheless permanently enjoined the school board "from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution" and from saying that the theory has gaps.[/b]

"Judge Jones exhibited his bias for judicial activism with public remarks that should have caused his recusal. Signaling that he would exploit the dispute, Jones boasted, "It certainly is one of the most significant cases in United States history. . . . Even Charles Darwin's great grandson is attending the trial." -Phyllis Schlafly

This is the same kind of bias that evolutionists assert was presented at the Scope's trial. So what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

Whether a god created the universe or not, is not dealt with in science. As such, we both can and must 'get around speaking about the Creator' in the science classroom. If theists want to discuss the existence of gods, then you are free to do so in classes that deals with matters theological, not matters scientific, as the existence of a god is a supernatural matter, and not scientific by definition.

No, because you are assuming that we should be teaching theology. You don't even have to say God, but you are trying to make it illegal to even say the word. No one has to assign what the Creator is... That is a theological aspect, and leave that portion up to the individual student. What ID says, is that, "There is a clear purpose and intent behind nature that is its driving force. To deny that is to deny science." See, you and evolutionist cronies make ID sound like it is a branch of science or that they claim its a branch of science. It isn't, just like evolution isn't a branch of science. Biology, cosmology, paleontology, geology.... These are branches of science that BOTH parties EMPLOY to support their THEORY. You are inventing things that aren't so, just like Judge Jones did.

I liked where you suggested taking quotes in context was just "interpretation." Of course your quotes normally lacking sources, or surrounding information so we can tell if they are in context doesn't bode well (sorry If I don't trust you). Nor does the attempt to use the quotes in place of real evidence.

I also liked where you ignored his comment about a few bad apples by pulling out more dubious examples of these bad apples as if they represented all evolutionists (should we do that to christians or will you cry "unfair" when people paint you with a broad brush?)

Speaking of the trail. I doubt funneling money from a church through others to hide the fact it was raised at church to buy the creationist books was very helpful for the creationist side. Or the fact the books were originally creationist until the publisher was told creationism couldn't be taught in school so they changed a few words around to pretend it wasn't creationism. Or the fact the school board had shown their religious motives behind the clause and book (which they attempted to get blocked from court).

If the only things the school board did was tell kids to "keep an open mind" I would agree with you. However it became quite evident they had creationist and religious motivations behind their actions and knew what they were doing was most likely illegal.

You're assuming that this has something to do with the theory of evolution at all. Evolution does not deal with the creation of the universe or any possible purpose the universe itself might have; only with what has happened after life has appeared.

It does aspire to answer these questions and has tried to by assiging an age estimate of a 15 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old universe. If evolution only deals with evolution, and the origin of the universe has nothing to do with it, then why does talkorigins mention it in detail as it relates to abiogenesis? My point stands, and yours is moot.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

You are also assuming that the theory of evolution is not compatible with that "something"/"purpose existing which is false. The theory deals with what has happened after life began, not before; hence, any possible purpose imbued by a creator or the creation of the universe itself being done by a creator – might have happened before evolution took place.

Nope...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

You commit yet another logical fallacy when you invoke the argument of the “triune” nature of god. (cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to be exact).

Just because there might be a number which we can observe in some ( a very, very small) quantity of properties in the universe, does not mean that the Jude-Christian god is responsible for the universe, or that it somehow points to him. You must prove that these properties are the result of the Jude-Christian god before you make such assertions, and it is quite obvious you have not done so. Can I use other properties we find in the universe to disprove your baseless assertion? Can I use pi (which represents a fundamental properties of circle, wave, and amyriad of other things) in order to prove that god's nature isn't triune, but a bit more than triune, .1415... more to be exact? The vacuity of your statements should be clear by now. To claim that some minuscule properties that we observe somehow point to the Judeo-Christian god is self-refuting and ridiculous to say the least.

Okay.... I'm not really sure where you were trying to go with that one. But I'll give it a shot. I gave you triune aspects of nature... I'm giving you my theory on creationism. As I stated several times in the book, I agree that theology should not be taught in the science classroom. I'm giving you MY stance on the theory.

Your argument about the eye is, yet again, another logical fallacy. It is an argument from incredulity. Just because you believe the eye would be an impossible feat to be achieved by evolution, does not mean that it is not so. Your argument is therefore, rendered completely useless. This, while ignoring, what I can only assume is, a deliberately misinterpreted the position of scientists on the “eye”. Scientists do not claim they developed there for absolutely no reason, that is a bold face lie on your part. The same applies to ears.

Furthermore, you ignore the sub-optimal qualities of the eye itself. Human eyes have blind spots; but not just regular blind spots, blind spots which could have easily been corrected had the retina on vertebrate animals (yes, this applies to virtually all vertebrates) would not have been “backwards” as it is now. Because it is backwards, and not the other way around, we vertebrates have less visiual actuity, and even blind spots. This is easily explained with evolution, but not with a intelligetn designer as this sub-optimal design shows no sign of intelligence. ID proponents would have us believe that there exists a god which created us humans, one which is intelligent, yet is so idiotic that he knows less about the eye that he himself created than scientists. That is a preposterous explanation at best.

First of all, I was speaking about the first eye, ever to develop, but its even more ridiculous to assume that it keeps adding properties to itself wihtout a fully functioning eye to begin with. Otherwise, what should have prompted it to begin with?

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order." -HS Hamilton, MD

*cough* from your T.O. link

"Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time. This process is often called "cosmic evolution" or "cosmological evolution"; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, it is important to bear in mind that BBT is completely independent of biological evolution."

Abiogenesis is not talked about on the big bang page either however It is also a separate theory from evolution.

Maybe you should fully read these things before you post them.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-18-2006).]

These are just even more examples of your logically erroneous arguments. To claim that because you yourself cannot fathom a way for camouflage to develop by means of evolution is an argument from incredulity. It holds no water. Similarly, to claim that because we might not be able to give a definite answer to how camouflage developed by means of evolution, it must mean that this idea is false, is also fallacious. By virtue of your arguments being so blatantly fallacious we can safely abandon them without reprise.

If its so erroneous, then tell us what prompted these changes to occur. Tell us how a mindless, capricious disorder accounts for all of these amazing procryptic abilities. If I'm using a logical fallacy, then you aren't using logic at all. Its an obvious sign of intent. Lokibg at that and dismissing it, is like finding a red car in the woods, and saying, "Wow, I've never seen a rock that red before." Its so obviously the product of intent. But if you say it isn't, then explain to us it all came to be.

As for human beings not knowing everything there is to know, what does that have to do with anything? Neither science, nor scientists, claim to that humans know everything that we can possibly know. Why you bring this up as if that somehow showed any “elitism” from evolutionists, especially when you claim to follow the scientific method as they do, is beyond me.

The purpose of that statement, as I already stated, is that humans in general are very haughty in their own eyes. But evolutionists attempt to overlook the obvious, and come to some pretty amazing conclusions in order to will away any obvious, self-evident intent.

1. To claim that just because different societies have similar flood myths somehow vindicates the thought that the flood myth is true is beyond ridiculous. More importantly, to claim that out of all the gods, animals, spirits, and deities all those differing civilizations worshiped, only the Judeo-Christian god was correct is ludicrous. If you accept the flood story contained in the bible as some sort of evidence of the Judeo-Christian god, then you must accept (lest you be dishonest and hypocritical) that it also serves as evidence of the other gods, deities and spirits.

2. The shells in Mt. Everest can already be explained with the current scientific theory, thus you cannot claim that they serve as any conclusive evidence in favor of your assertions. This, even if we ignore the fact that Beta brought up, which is the lack of any fossils belonging to modern animals in the peek of Mt. Everest. That is not at all consistent with your claims.

3. The fact that we find animals fossilized in rapidly does not refute evolution at all. This is already explained away. You deliberately misinterpret science when you imply that rapid fossilization cannot occur; that is false. Rapid fossilization can and does occur. To find animals in positions which indicate such, is therefore, not a problem.

4. You're lying when you say that geologists say that rocks could not have contained the pressure found in oil deposits for more than 10,000 years. That is quite simply wrong. For pressure to build up in the first place, a tight seal would be needed. If we follow the creationist frame of thought, the pressure being leaked from the rocks would have never allowed for the pressure to build up in the first place. Moreover, there are various occurrences that could explain this as well, for example the shifting of rocks and sediments that lead into new reservoirs.

I already covered this topic at length with Beta.

Yep and you showed you couldn't use flood geography to explain why shells were found inside a mountain or why other fossils of assorted animals aren't found with the shells.

Nor could you tell me if you believed animals could talk.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Give me a break dude! That is grasping at straws, especially when evolutionists fashion jaw bone togther, glue moths to trees, glue tails from one specie onto another, draw pictures of fetus that don't exist, and even after it being refuted in the early 1900's, it still being used in some textbooks today... But you want to talk about a creationist that misuses quotes, which is really your interpretation. It's always taken in context, and if the quotes said something like, "...the reason...evolution... is wrong... is because...we don't believe... actually, that evolution... is real."

You would have a point. But unfortunatley, the quotes don't say anything like that. It's clear, concise, and very much evident that they understand how big of a problem their gaps are. See, old evolutionists look for young bucks like you to revitalize them. They need that youthful energy and they seek someone to think of something they haven't thought of.



1. Sorry, but me pointing out how you conviniently ignored the underhanded tactics used by creationists is certainly not grasping at straws. It is a very legitimate point, since it shows how you yourself are being underhanded by ignoring them.

2. You completely ignored the fact that I showed you how creationists tactics are not just "interpretations of quotes" but ouright lies. The link I provided you showed an example of one such blatant lie.

3. It seems that you agree that creationists use underhanded tactics, yet do not want to admit that it was underhandd of you to only point out evolutionists examples. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

quote:

First of all, let the judge think as he will. You don't see me flame you over what someone else said, yet you feel the need to rush in to the defense of Gould and others that already implicated themselves. This isn't even comparable, because Jones isn't a creationist, nor his he a Christian. My quotes are taken from evolutionists, who believe in evolution, yet still understand the flaws that they need to overcome. Just take what they said for the value of its words. I'm not here to try to explain away how the judge didn't mean what he meant, unlike you, who try to redefine what somebody was quoted as saying, without breaks in the paragraph. You don't have to agree with what they wrote, but don't try to fashion your own formulation.

You avoided the issue.

1. The point was to show the front which is Intelligent Design, as it was clearly exposed in the trial. The intelligent design movement (or at least the vast majority of it) is merely a front for creationism. It is merely a way for them to slowly insert creationism in the classroom.

2. Your quotes were taken out of context, because none of the scientists believe what you claim they did! That's the very definition of a misinterpration, and that the misinterpretation happens because you deliberately do not include the context of the quotes, shows your dishonesty.

3. Judge Joes is a Christian. You're incorrect in saying that he isn't.

quote:

Contrary to most media coverage, the Dover case was not about whether the theory of evolution or Intelligent Design (ID) is correct or should be taught. The Dover school board did not propose to say ID is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution.

Students were merely to be read a brief statement asserting that "gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence," and that ID provides an explanation for the origin of life that could be further explored by consulting a book in the school library. While not denying that those statements may be true (it is undeniable that evolution has gaps), Judge Jones nevertheless permanently enjoined the school board "from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution" and from saying that the theory has gaps.

"Judge Jones exhibited his bias for judicial activism with public remarks that should have caused his recusal. Signaling that he would exploit the dispute, Jones boasted, "It certainly is one of the most significant cases in United States history. . . . Even Charles Darwin's great grandson is attending the trial." -Phyllis Schlafly

This is the same kind of bias that evolutionists assert was presented at the Scope's trial. So what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

1. The desicion centered around the issue of whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in the classroom; specifically, on its constituationality. That's exactly how the issue came about, and that's exactly what the judge considered. He, after seeing all the testimony, ruled that teaching ID was unconstitutional.

2. The Judge was not practicing judicial activism at all. This is merely a pathetic attempt to grasp at straws. The ID proponents had absolutely no problem with bringing the issue to the Judge. As he himself said, both creationists and ID proponents were asking him to rule on the issue, and they were pleased that he was going to. Why? Because Judge Jones is a Christian, and was appointed to the bench by George Bush. They thought the case was a slam-dunk; yet when he ruled against them, suddenly they cried judicial activism. Sorry, but Intelligent Design got exactly what it asked for.

quote:]

No, because you are assuming that we should be teaching theology. You don't even have to say God, but you are trying to make it illegal to even say the word. No one has to assign what the Creator is... That is a theological aspect, and leave that portion up to the individual student. What ID says, is that, "There is a clear purpose and intent behind nature that is its driving force. To deny that is to deny science." See, you and evolutionist cronies make ID sound like it is a branch of science or that they claim its a branch of science. It isn't, just like evolution isn't a branch of science. Biology, cosmology, paleontology, geology.... These are branches of science that BOTH parties EMPLOY to support their THEORY. You are inventing things that aren't so, just like Judge Jones did.



1. The mere mention of the existence of god is a thelogical argument. But even then, Creationism and Intelligent Design don't just propose the existence of a god, the claim to know that he acted, and how he acted (at least when it comes to creating the universe). Those are undeniably theological arguments; ones which represent religious beliefs in particular.

2. Science does not delve in supernatural explanations. ID and creationism simply do not belong in the Science classroom. That's exactly how Judge Jones ruled.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-18-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



It does aspire to answer these questions and has tried to by assiging an age estimate of a 15 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old universe. If evolution only deals with evolution, and the origin of the universe has nothing to do with it, then why does talkorigins mention it in detail as it relates to abiogenesis? My point stands, and yours is moot.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html



As Beta points out, you ignored the part were talk origins clearly states that biological evolution does not deal with the Big Bang at all.

Again, evolution does not deal with the origins of life, and the link you provided supports what I said. You refuted yourself.



quote:

Okay.... I'm not really sure where you were trying to go with that one. But I'll give it a shot. I gave you triune aspects of nature... I'm giving you my theory on creationism. As I stated several times in the book, I agree that theology should not be taught in the science classroom. I'm giving you MY stance on the theory.

You know exactly where I'm going with that.

1. The properties you mentioned are not triune.

2. The fact that they are not triune then means that if they are evidence of something, it's that god isn't triune at all.

3. If you do not take that evidence to show that god is not triune, then you're dishonest and a hypocrite because you're picking and choosing when these magical properties support your baseless assertions and ignoring them when they do not.

quote:

First of all, I was speaking about the first eye, ever to develop, but its even more ridiculous to assume that it keeps adding properties to itself wihtout a fully functioning eye to begin with. Otherwise, what should have prompted it to begin with?

"That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequels of recombinant DNA or random mutation, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organisation as the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in a harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrates retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order." -HS Hamilton, MD



Yet again you deliberatley ignore what I said.

1. Your argument is an argument from incredulity.

2. The eye is suboptimal, which refutes the intelligent design/creation hypothesis.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



If its so erroneous, then tell us what prompted these changes to occur. Tell us how a mindless, capricious disorder accounts for all of these amazing procryptic abilities. If I'm using a logical fallacy, then you aren't using logic at all. Its an obvious sign of intent. Lokibg at that and dismissing it, is like finding a red car in the woods, and saying, "Wow, I've never seen a rock that red before." Its so obviously the product of intent. But if you say it isn't, then explain to us it all came to be.

I already covered this. Please read what I said.

Again, the fact that we might not be able to come up with an answer does not mean you can reach your conclusion; it means that we can't conclude anything at all! It is a logical fallacy to claim that simply because you cannot phathom these changes occuring via darwinian evolution, that then darwinian evolution must be false.

quote:

The purpose of that statement, as I already stated, is that humans in general are very haughty in their own eyes. But evolutionists attempt to overlook the obvious, and come to some pretty amazing conclusions in order to will away any obvious, self-evident intent.

There is no obvious intent. There is the opposite: suboptimallity littered accross the landscape. That refutes any intelligent intent completely.

quote:

[b]

I already covered this topic at length with Beta.





No you did not.

1. You did not justify your logical fallacy. Again, you cannot use the fact that many civilization have a flood myth to support your own religious views, while conviniently ignoring the fact that it would actually support the religious views of other civilizations as well. It is as much evidence for Christian creationism as it is for other form of creation myths. Thus, not evidence at all.

2. While you talked about the issue of Mt. Everest you never once managed to justify any of your claims. Like Beta said, you never succesfully explained why we see only fossils from old species, and not from modern ones as we should if your assertion is correct.

3. You didn't deal with point number three at all.

4. You didn't deal with point number four at all.

----

These replies of yours leave much to be desired. Everything you replied back with either had already been answered, or was simply you avoiding what I said.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-18-2006).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beta69:

*cough* from your T.O. link

"Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time. This process is often called "cosmic evolution" or "cosmological evolution"; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, [b]it is important to bear in mind that BBT is completely independent of biological evolution."

Oh, I know, and it all fits in to the big picture of how everything is 'evolving' and 'developing.' Why don't you think about that for a moment: Where would you be without it? Numerous evolutionists have used this argument for how life got here. Without it, you're left with nothing, other than life has always existed, or it was an act of deliberate creation. And the Big Bang says that the universe had a definite origin..... So what are we left with? The only reason they made a distinction was because abiogenesis is so falsifiable that for the evolutionist to stick by it would be career suicide. But we all know that evolution needs the Big Bang, and the two very much correlate one another out of necessity... Afterall, the notion of abiogenesis didn't come out of thin air, it came from evolutionists who only recently abandoned it because of its either inconclusive or condemning altogether.

Abiogenesis is not talked about on the big bang page either however It is also a separate theory from evolution.

"One of the unsolved puzzles of evolution is how living cells emerged from non-living chemicals. This is perhaps the most critical step in the evolution of life. What scientists need is a naturalistic mechanism to produce complex structures from simple ones. I think it is safe to say that chance alone is insufficient, we need mechanisms that can create complexity."

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/abiogen.htm

Maybe you should fully read these things before you post them.

Then maybe you can tell me what purpose it serves to have the BB on TalkOrigins if the two don't coincide. You can pretend that it isn't absolutely critical to the evolutionary paradigm if you want, but we all know that you need the BB and abiogenesis to make evolution even possible. You're being obtuse and vague because of its deep implication. You can't fully be married to it, and you can't fully be divorced from it either. Its quite the dilema to overcome.

quote:: Where would you be without it? Numerous evolutionists have used this argument for how life got here. Without it, you're left with nothing, other than life has always existed, or it was an act of deliberate creation.

Exactly. There are still possibilities without the big bang. It is not part of the theory of evolution. It is part of overall science though. Please don't confuse the two.

The Theory of Evolution does not require the big bang for it to exist or work.

The Theory of Evolution does not require abiogenesis for it to exist or work.

The Theory of Evolution requires an environment, a 'code' that effects how an 'organism' adapts to this environment , mutations that change said code and a way to pass that code to offspring. Where the environment or organisms come from is not part of the theory of evolution.

For example, the theory of evolution has been used in simulation programs to help create improve products Evolution does not care that the environment was created by humans and exists as bits instead of being formed from physics that came out of the big bang. It works on the computer organisms just like it would on real life organisms.

quote:Afterall, the notion of abiogenesis didn't come out of thin air, it came from evolutionists who only recently abandoned it because of its either inconclusive or condemning altogether.

You obviously don't know that there is more than one theory of abiogenesis and it is best described as a collection of theories. So your claim that scientists are abandoning abiogenesis is misunderstanding at best and a lie at worst.

quote:One of the unsolved puzzles of evolution is how living cells emerged from non-living chemicals. This is perhaps the most critical step in the evolution of life.

Yep is an important step in the evolution of life but is not part of the theory of evolution. You need to start realizing that everytime the word "evolution" is used it doesn't mean they are referring to the theory of evolution. If you have actually read about the real theory of evolution you should know this.

quote:Then maybe you can tell me what purpose it serves to have the BB on TalkOrigins if the two don't coincide.

Because TalkOrigins is just that, a site (and usenet group) talking about origins and it often sticks to modern science. It is not a site purely about evolution but about origins (diversity, life, universe, etc.). It has also become a site refuting creationist BS and creationist don't always stick to the origins of the diversity of life (that would be evolution) but abiogenesis, geology and astronomy.

Edit: fixed the theory of evolution and added an example of how evolution can work on intelligently designed environments and life.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-18-2006).]

hyro, you are so full of shit that you could grow mushrooms.

seriously, can you just not read, or are your critical thinking skills lacking? oh i know, you exclude anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived paradigm. seriouly lot's of the stuff you are argueing agaist is high school material. i bet you were home-schooled, is that it?

Exactly. There are still possibilities without the big bang. It is not part of the theory of evolution. It is part of overall science though. Please don't confuse the two.

Exactly what? Without it you're left with the metaphysical mystery of your origin. The big bang is the cornerstone of athiestic emergence of life, and evolution is the vehicle that proceeds it. The two make no sense to begin with, without some intelligent intervention, but they really make no sense without each other.

The Theory of Evolution requires an environment, a 'code' that effects how an 'organism' adapts to this environment , mutations that change said code and a way to pass that code to offspring. Where the environment or organisms come from is not part of the theory of evolution.

This is conveniently opaque to point of being absurd. Here's the problem: Evolutionary biologists have the temerity to present only evidence of small adaptations, and act like it presents evidence of macroevoution and only to then assert that the commencement of life must ultimately be inconsequential to our existence because we don't know. We do know how we got here, because we're all out of options. We don't even have define what God is.... Even Gaia would make a little sense. As long as we are moving in a direction of recognizing that something cognizant is at the base of it all.

You obviously don't know that there is more than one theory of abiogenesis and it is best described as a collection of theories. So your claim that scientists are abandoning abiogenesis is misunderstanding at best and a lie at worst.

So, you're all for life coming from non-life?

Yep is an important step in the evolution of life but is not part of the theory of evolution. You need to start realizing that everytime the word "evolution" is used it doesn't mean they are referring to the theory of evolution. If you have actually read about the real theory of evolution you should know this.

Just so you know, the word 'evolution' was completely taken out of context by Darwin's followers. In 1870, evolution meant 'unfolding.' Somehow, the word became distorted to mean gradual change. This is what happens routinely in its own theory... It keeps changing its attitude about itself. And its not because new data has become available, its because they've been forced to change their tune because science reveals its impossibility.

Because TalkOrigins is just that, a site (and usenet group) talking about origins and it often sticks to modern science. It is not a site purely about evolution but about origins (diversity, life, universe, etc.). It has also become a site refuting creationist BS and creationist don't always stick to the origins of the diversity of life (that would be evolution) but abiogenesis, geology and astronomy.

TO is one of most discourteous usenet sites I know. I suspect its because they get irritated by creationists asking them questions, but they need to at this point. But here's where your explanation does no justice for TO: TO talks about the origins of life. They say that the big bang is how complex life arose. You say the same thing. TO says that gradual evolutionary process was able to change a paramecium, that was ultimately casued from the big bang, into a more highly evovlved organsim. TO believes the same thing. So, where does that leave any confusion as to how the BB and evolution is absolutely connected in every concievable way?

Edit: fixed the theory of evolution and added an example of how evolution can work on intelligently designed environments and life.

I know. I could be a theistic evolutionist, but I'm not a Christian because of creation, and I'm not a creationist because I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian because I believe that Yeshua is the messiah, and I'm a creationist because of the evidence countering the macroevolutionary model.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

hyro, you are so full of shit that you could grow mushrooms.

seriously, can you just not read, or are your critical thinking skills lacking? oh i know, you exclude anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived paradigm. seriouly lot's of the stuff you are argueing agaist is high school material. i bet you were home-schooled, is that it?

This coming from someone still in high school who presents no argument, whatsoever, just ad hominem attacks...... If you want to have an actual debate then have one... See, even though Beta disagrees with me, he still has the understanding of how to get a point across without childish jabs. As of now, your debating skills are the equivalent of, 'nani-nani-boo-boo.' Either don't talk until your old enough to understand what you're spewing or cut the umbilical cord, get off your momma's teat, make an honest living, and learn something genuine so as to engage us productively.

Tell me, if Evolution is linked to the big bang, how did the theory survive for the 60 or so years between Darwin's book and the creation of the big bang theory?

My point was not Opaque what so ever. Ok, if you so believe evolution requires abiogenesis or the big bang, please show me where in the theory of evolution it says that? Here is a pretty good, yet short, definition of the theory of evolution. Please bold the section that says the big bang or abiogenesis are specifically required for evolution:

"change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"

Edit: Note how it doesn't say "from non-life" but "from the earliest protoorganism. Evolution requires life, it does not require a specific way for life to get here.



I will also challenge your claim about TO saying specifically "the big bang is how complex life arose" and not that the big bang eventually led to the correct conditions for abiogenesis.

Sorry but your track record of quoting or understanding TO, or other sources is quite shaky and right now I'm not willing to take your word on anything.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 03-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Tell me, if Evolution is linked to the big bang, how did the theory survive for the 60 or so years between Darwin's book and the creation of the big bang theory?

Everyone, or virtually everyone, thought that it was God at that time... Their version of god was an impersonal force within the universe. Nonethless, they knew that something has to exist before anything else can exist.

"change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"

Edit: Note how it doesn't say "from non-life" but "from the earliest protoorganism. Evolution requires life, it does not require a specific way for life to get here.

Beta, then how did any organism have the chance to exist in order to have ever evolved?

I will also challenge your claim about TO saying specifically "the big bang is how complex life arose" and not that the big bang eventually led to the correct conditions for abiogenesis.

Sorry but your track record of quoting or understanding TO, or other sources is quite shaky and right now I'm not willing to take your word on anything.

Its an inference and a really good one, at that. Beta, you state that matter and energy are the product of the big bang. Yes or no? You state that matter is necessary for any organism to exist. Yes or no? This is simple stuff, so simple that you are insulting everyones intelligence by playing dumb.

Listen, I understand what you're saying. You are saying that Big Bang and evolution are two different theories... I understand what you mean. But lets not play dumb here. If the BB caused matter, and organisms are made of matter, then what are you left with? The only option left, is God. And you've expressed that you don't like that option, so now you are forced to concede that the BB and Evo are intertwined. To claim otherwise is like saying my gas tank of my car has nothing to do with gas. Excuse me?

[/B]

As I expected you could not show where the theory of evolution requires the big bang.

There seems to be some confusion here.

Yes the big bang explains how matter came to be, since it comes before abiogenesis or evolution it is 'linked' to them by coming first. However evolution does not require the big bang. There is a huge difference.

So remember although science says the big bang created matter and it is generally accepted (except for the ironic joining of militant atheists and creationists who use pseudo-science to attack it) evolution does not require the big bang. As far as evolution is concerned a magical flying eternal pig could have sneezed and created matter. It's all the same for evolution.

The same goes for abiogenesis and how it is separated from the other theories.

quote:The only option left, is God. And you've expressed that you don't like that option,

Logical fallacy. Careful not to fall into false dichotomies. God is One of the options left, not the only options. For God to be a serious option in science he would generally need to be falsifiable.

God is a possible option for first cause (what caused the big bang) mainly because the laws of physics break down before 0 and thus at 0 a whole mess of odd and strange things could possibly exist, from magical unicorns, to super particles, to Leonard Nemoy singing "free bird" with Captain Kirk (now wouldn't that be a scary first cause).

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

[B]

...oh i know, you exclude anything that doesn't fit into your preconceived paradigm... /B]

wow this thread has been fucking highjacked. intelligent design does not belong in a science class because it is not science. it could be taught in a philosophy class or something however.

hyro, the point was that you don't listen to reason and you are ignorant of the science you are debating about. i've argued with you on threads before, and seen others argue with you. i have come to the conclusion that it is a useless exercise.

Its an inference and a really good one, at that. Beta, you state that matter and energy are the product of the big bang. Yes or no? You state that matter is necessary for any organism to exist. Yes or no? This is simple stuff, so simple that you are insulting everyones intelligence by playing dumb.

you are being too simple here. it is not a simple yes or no question. fallacy: oversimplication

Listen, I understand what you're saying. You are saying that Big Bang and evolution are two different theories... I understand what you mean. But lets not play dumb here. If the BB caused matter, and organisms are made of matter, then what are you left with? The only option left, is God.



beta already covered one reason why this is wrong. this is essentially a prime-mover argument. If only God could cause all that stuff, then what caused God? [/philosophy]

this is also an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

And you've expressed that you don't like that option, so now you are forced to concede that the BB and Evo are intertwined. To claim otherwise is like saying my gas tank of my car has nothing to do with gas. Excuse me?

this is a faulty analogy. you car, which was specifically designed to hold gas by intelligence, does not compare to the BB and Evo, which may or may not have been designed by intelligence. even if it was designed by intelligence, you can't compare a mere human mind to God's.

if you were just talking about the similarity, there is none. the car was designed for gas, and the gas was designed for the car. the BB was not designed for evolution, although evo depends on the BB or a similar event. that is just a false analogy any way you look at it.

i hope you will read over what i have written, integrate it into your current conciousness, and then cognate an intelligent, well thought out response.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

As I expected you could not show where the theory of evolution requires the big bang.

Talk origins shows the progression, from the big bang, all the way up to complex ecosystems. Its showing a progression, an evolution, a series of one step to another. Where's the ambiguity?

There seems to be some confusion here.

Yes the big bang explains how matter came to be, since it comes before abiogenesis or evolution it is 'linked' to them by coming first. However evolution does not require the big bang. There is a huge difference.

Well, you know I disagree with that, but you being an evolutionist, where does it leave you? Call the BB cosmological evolution that preceded biological evolution, but any which way you slice it, the BB had to be there in order for anything to exist, in order for it to have evolved.

So remember although science says the big bang created matter and it is generally accepted (except for the ironic joining of militant atheists and creationists who use pseudo-science to attack it) evolution does not require the big bang. As far as evolution is concerned a magical flying eternal pig could have sneezed and created matter. It's all the same for evolution.

The same goes for abiogenesis and how it is separated from the other theories.

I understand what you're saying Beta, even if you think I don't. Sure, anything could have caused life, including sneezing, eternal pigs. But theory to theory, without the big bang, nothing could precipitate what was to follow. If the BB created matter, then it also allowed for the possibility of reproducing matter. That's all I'm saying. You know I'm not a fan of either for various reasons... I'm just pointing out that the two theories are central to one another for the propagation of evolution.

For God to be a serious option in science he would generally need to be falsifiable.

God needs to be falsifiable before you consider it an option?

God is a possible option for first cause (what caused the big bang) mainly because the laws of physics break down before 0 and thus at 0 a whole mess of odd and strange things could possibly exist, from magical unicorns, to super particles, to Leonard Nemoy singing "free bird" with Captain Kirk (now wouldn't that be a scary first cause).

Yeah, I don't think Nemoy or Kirk could give a good rendition of "Free Bird." Look, both you and I know that none of us could possibly know the first cause with Newtonian precision. We won't be able to 'know' at least not in the same sense that we 'know' if our shoelaces are untied... But given the expressed nature about what God is, why do you suppose so many evolutionists have an aversion towards it? I mean, a Creator could be anything from eternal, sneezing pigs to purple-flying elephants to this timeless, expanding cognizance.... But there is something troubling about the concept of Yahweh to many evolutionists, and I can't explain that, other than the reason of accountability. What's your stance? Why is the concept of God, even if He/She/It propelled evolution such an ugly thought to the athiest?

quote:Well, you know I disagree with that,

the BB had to be there in order for anything to exist, in order for it to have evolved.

Then you would be wrong in disagreeing.

The big bang does not have to be there and I have explained that a number of times. Only life and an environment needs to exist. How they got there is not important to evolution. It is important to science though.

quote:I'm just pointing out that the two theories are central to one another for the propagation of evolution.

Which explains why the theory of evolution wasn't thought up until after the big bang was an accepted theory. (of course we know the theory of evolution came before the big bang, which throws that statement all to hell).

quote:God needs to be falsifiable before you consider it an option?

Although not everything needs to be falsifiable, in science it is a big plus. Science is all about showing things false. If God can't be falsified, then how could we rule him out? The ability to be ruled out is very important in science and many scientists spend their life working on how to falsify current theories. Without falsification you could just say "God did it, that settles it" as an answer, which doesn't fly.

quote:why do you suppose so many evolutionists have an aversion towards it [God]?

I wouldn't say they do. Many Catholics believe in evolution, they don't have an aversion towards God or Yahweh. ASA3 (http://www.asa3.org/) (one of many scientific groups of christians) doesn't have an aversion towards God. There are a good number of theistic groups that accept evolution. Many of these groups do have an aversion towards shoving God into science (called God of the gaps) especially when he is supported by false information. There is a difference between not wanting God in science and not believing in God.

I would say the belief that most evolutionists have an aversion towards God comes from two areas. 1) A Vocal minority, including some famous names. 2) Creationist characterizations that anyone who accepts evolution is an atheist.



quote:What's your stance? Why is the concept of God, even if He/She/It propelled evolution such an ugly thought to the athiest?

It's not and ugly thought, it's just not science. It's a perfectly fine theological position. The problem comes when people try to put it into science.

Of course to atheists, the thought of God might not sit too well, for a number of reasons. IMO I'm an atheist because I see no evidence for God and no reason for God.

Take Intelligent Design, it fails at being science because of God of the gaps. It says if evolution can't explain x, God did it. That's like saying if science can't explain sickness, demons must be doing it.

Then you would be wrong in disagreeing.

The big bang does not have to be there and I have explained that a number of times. Only life and an environment needs to exist. How they got there is not important to evolution.

The big bang allowed the for platform that life emerged from, according to evolutionary theory.



Which explains why the theory of evolution wasn't thought up until after the big bang was an accepted theory. (of course we know the theory of evolution came before the big bang, which throws that statement all to hell).

The concept isn't important as to whether or not it happened. Yes, the BB theory came after the evolutionary theory... But modern athiestic and evolutionary thought needs the big bang in order to remove any intelligence out of the equation. In other words, the BB removed the necessity for a Creator.... Even though the BB doesn't explain how energy was there, either. But that's a whole other argument in itself.

Without falsification you could just say "God did it, that settles it" as an answer, which doesn't fly.

I think you know that that doesn't cut it with me either. For as ridiculous a notion as it would be for me to accept, 'nothing blew up and here we are. That explains everything." It would be equally unnerving for me to say, "God did it, and that explains everything. End of discussion" An answer such as that would castrate science and inadvertently deem it as unimportant. I don't want that any more than you.

It's not and ugly thought, it's just not science. It's a perfectly fine theological position. The problem comes when people try to put it into science.

Of course to atheists, the thought of God might not sit too well, for a number of reasons. IMO I'm an atheist because I see no evidence for God and no reason for God.

I think defining the Creator is a theological aspect. For instance, prior to any of this stuff, every man, woman, and child, thought there was a Creator(s), i.e. Yahweh, Zeus, Ganesha, Odin, etc.... Those dealt with religion. But for me, recognizing that there is an intelligence behind it is simply stating the obvious IMO. Now, is it true that perhaps most 'creationists' are Christian? Yeah, probably. But why should they be made to feel sorry over it. They believe as they do, and I agree with you that in the science classroom, science should be taught... In theology class, theology should be taught. But see, people are trying to criminalize the word, "God." But that's a whole other topic. Bottom line: If we were to realize that only an intelligence accounts for all of life, then we couldn't get around speaking about the Creator, whatever the Creator might be. Could you agree 'Creator' isn't defining any religious aspect?

quote:The big bang allowed the for platform that life emerged from, according to evolutionary theory.

No. According to science, not evolution. Unless you can go back and show me where the big bang is mentioned in the theory of evolution.

Remember, evolution is a theory in science, not science itself.

quote:But modern athiestic and evolutionary thought needs the big bang in order to remove any intelligence out of the equation. In other words, the BB removed the necessity for a Creator

No. But maybe you should go back in time and tell the Priest who came up with the big bang about that.

Matter of fact you have it backwards, the BB added the possibility of a creator. The leading theory before the BB was the steady state theory which proposed an infinitely old universe, with no beginning, no God was needed. Creationist groups attack the 'evil atheistic' Big bang theory when in fact it made it scientifically valid to believe in a creator.

I went to a catholic High school and in biology class all the teacher said that that theres a theory that we evoled from monkeys and there was a law case to teach about evolution and intelligent design in public schools. it didn't go futher

No. According to science, not evolution. Unless you can go back and show me where the big bang is mentioned in the theory of evolution.

Evolution is evolution... If biological matter can evolve because of cosmological evolution, then evolution is evolution. Now we're just getting redundant.

Remember, evolution is a theory in science, not science itself.

Agreed.

No. But maybe you should go back in time and tell the Priest who came up with the big bang about that.

Matter of fact you have it backwards, the BB added the possibility of a creator. The leading theory before the BB was the steady state theory which proposed an infinitely old universe, with no beginning, no God was needed. Creationist groups attack the 'evil atheistic' Big bang theory when in fact it made it scientifically valid to believe in a creator.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I don't know why so many creationists dislike the big bang theory. I can't remember if its in Genesis or the Psalms, but it speaks of God 'stretching out the heavens.' I mean, both evolutionists and creationists believe that the universe had a finite beginning... The mechanism of the BB doesn't go against any Biblical teaching. In any case, I'm undecided on Steady-state or Big Bang. Booth arguments present good cases for their pro's and con's.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

In any case, I'm undecided on Steady-state or Big Bang. Booth arguments present good cases for their pro's and con's.



Most observations fit the Big Bang theory better. Steady-state theory can't explain the cosmic microwave background or why all the galaxies move away from each other. But you weren't talking about scientific pros and cons, were you?

I still don't think you are getting the point. The theory of evolution explains the origins of the diversity of life, Nothing more.

What Elf said. Matter of fact Hoyle (atheist who coined the term "big bang" to mock it and believed Aliens created life on earth) lost credibility when he started pulling his own version of God of the gaps, making up ways the steady state theory could still be true instead of the big bang. He is also the source for the famous "tornado in a junkyard" mischaracterization of abiogenesis and evolution.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Most observations fit the Big Bang theory better. Steady-state theory can't explain the cosmic microwave background or why all the galaxies move away from each other. But you weren't talking about scientific pros and cons, were you?

This is a very fair exposition that presents logical arguments, both pro's and con's about the Doppler effect and redshifts. It really doesn't support or go against either Steady-state or Big bang. It simply presents the evidence to allow you to make your inferences. It was the best unbiased source I could find. If any of you can find a more neutral discourse, please feel free to post it.

http://www.heretical.com/science/redshift.html

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I still don't think you are getting the point. The theory of evolution explains the origins of the diversity of life, Nothing more.

What Elf said. Matter of fact Hoyle (atheist who coined the term "big bang" to mock it and believed Aliens created life on earth) lost credibility when he started pulling his own version of God of the gaps, making up ways the steady state theory could still be true instead of the big bang. He is also the source for the famous "tornado in a junkyard" mischaracterization of abiogenesis and evolution.

He didn't believe aliens transported life to earth, nonetheless, I don't agree with Panspermia any more than I do with evolution.

"I think Susan is getting mixed up with Directed Panspermia and

Panspermia? Hoyle believes that life was seeded to Earth from space, but

that it originated and was transported *naturally*, not by aliens.



It is Crick and Orgel who have proposed Directed Panspermia, that "aliens"

transported life to Earth in the form of bacteria. It is interesting that a co-

discoverer of the structure of DNA (Crick), and one of the world's leading

origin-of-life researchers (Orgel), should find that life is so complex at the

molecular level that they have been forced to propose that it must have

been sent here from elsewhere. Thus Directed Panspermia is effectively the

materialist version of special creation by God!"

http://www .asa3.org/ archive/evolution/200008/0271.html (http: //www.asa3 .org/archi ve/evoluti on/200008/ 0271.html)

http://www .pathlight s.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist11.htm (http: //www.path lights.com /ce_encycl opedia/20h ist11.htm)



[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 03-21-2006).]

Aha, it was Crick not Hoyle. (remember I'm doing most of this from memory http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) )

It should be noted that a lot of what we know about modern abiogenesis comes after Crick and Hoyle made their claims of where life came from.

quote:Everything in nature mimics its Creator, and its creator has a triune character.

1. Height + Width + Depth = Space (3 = 1)

2. Solid + Liquid + Gas = Matter (3 = 1) (1 + 1 + 1 = 3)

3. Past + Present + Future = Time (3 = 1)

• Space is unseen, yet omnipresent, as is the Father unseen, yet omnipresent.

• Matter is the manifestation of space, as is the Son, the manifestation of the Father.

• Time, while unseen, provides the means for experiencing matter, as is, the Spirit, while unseen, the means of expreriencing God.

You have got to be fucking kidding me....you are honestly offering shit like this up as EVIDENCE?

Pseudo-Science at its best.

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

You have got to be fucking kidding me....you are honestly offering shit like this up as EVIDENCE?

Pseudo-Science at its best.

Read the rest of it.

quote:In fact, the same could be said of all the organs in the body. We can estimate that on the surface of the human body there is anywhere from 2,500 to 3,500 square inches of surface, depending on how short, skinny, fat, or tall we are. This space is roughly 3,000 times the space of the eye itself. The eye, by the laws of probability, could have developed arbitrarily anywhere on the body as opposed to where it is actually situated. Out of our abundant margin, we will say that it is one chance out of 1,000; hence, the probability is .001. The compound probability of the location of two things happening together can be ascertained by multiplying together their fractions of probability. So now, we have two eyes that just so happen to be inexplicably placed about the head region, in the front of our body. That is now .001 x .001, which equals .00001. Now let’s up the ante a bit. Now lets throw ears into the mix. The computation is the same in this equation. We have two ears that according to evolutionists, developed there for no good reason at all. Now, the equation reads .000,000,000,001. The two eyes and the two ears have one chance out of a trillion to be placed in the locality that we conveniently find them in. This does not even take into consideration the mouth, the brain, the esophagus, the stomach, the liver, the intestines or any other bodily component that is central to your survival. This feat is nothing short of miraculous, however, such a word is officially, stricken from the vocabulary of evolutionists.

This is just ignorance.

The sensory organs in your head most likely developed where they did due to the proximity to the brain. Its "miraculous" that you never mention things like this in your little work of fiction.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Read the rest of it.





Thats only the first bit that jumped to my eye...I would love to debunk it all day but i do have other things to do today and am simply doing a quick review of some things that interest me.

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

This is just ignorance.

The sensory organs in your head most likely developed where they did due to the proximity to the brain. Its "miraculous" that you never mention things like this in your little work of fiction.

I'm ignorant because it 'likely' developed by the brain???? And what evidence supports your 'likelihood' version of events? You do realize that your entire body is ultimately connected to the brain, don't you? Going by your assessment, your foot shouldn't have developed because, relationally, its nowhere near the brain. So how did the foot develop? How did hands develop? How did a limb develop? How did organs develop?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I'm ignorant because it 'likely' developed by the brain???? And what evidence supports your 'likelihood' version of events? You do realize that your entire body is ultimately connected to the brain, don't you? Going by your assessment, your foot shouldn't have developed because, relationally, its nowhere near the brain. So how did the foot develop? How did hands develop? How did a limb develop? How did organs develop?



Your eyes, ears, nose, and mouth transmit far more information to your brain than your feet and arms do. the sheer amount of information makes shorter pathways for the information make sense. your sense of touch is fairly simple compared to your sense of sight and hearing, therefore the need for proximity to the brain is less.

show me one example where the eyes and ears (if present) of an organism did NOT develop in a close proximity to the brain, and you will have an argument.



[This message has been edited by dead_people_killer (edited 03-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I'm ignorant because it 'likely' developed by the brain???? And what evidence supports your 'likelihood' version of events? You do realize that your entire body is ultimately connected to the brain, don't you? Going by your assessment, your foot shouldn't have developed because, relationally, its nowhere near the brain. So how did the foot develop? How did hands develop? How did a limb develop? How did organs develop?



It's not like humans or primates were ever running around WITHOUT EYES. All MAMMALS have had eyes. You truly are a fucking moron hyro, no wonder you run from the debate when you can no longer defend you ignorance (re the creation of biological information through evolution). I honestly don't believe you are older then 14, there is no fucking way. If you are older you MUST be a drop out, because this is just too fucking stupid.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:



Thats only the first bit that jumped to my eye...I would love to debunk it all day but i do have other things to do today and am simply doing a quick review of some things that interest me.

Keep in mind that unless his attitude has changed Hyro refuses to accept or change any errors found, no matter how blatant they may be.

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

Your eyes, ears, nose, and mouth transmit far more information to your brain than your feet and arms do. the sheer amount of information makes shorter pathways for the information make sense. your sense of touch is fairly simple compared to your sense of sight and hearing, therefore the need for proximity to the brain is less.

That has nothing to do with what you were arguing about... Furthermore, you give no explanations as to how some capricious disorder can manage all this amazing intricacy for no reason at all.

"To arrive, however, at a conclusion regarding the formation of the eye with all its marvelous yet not absolutely perfect characters, it is indispensable that the reason should conquer the imagination; But I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at others hesitating to extend the principle of natural selection to so startling a length." -Charles Darwin

Besides, show me one example where the eyes and ears (if present) of an organism did NOT develop in a close proximity to the brain, and you will have an argument.

All the more reason to draw the conclusion that it was intentional, which was the explicit premise of the argument. It would be in your best interests to give me an example of one organism that did NOT develop in close proximity of the brain.. Then you might actually have an argument. Why? Because if life evolved randomly, then you would have to suppose that out of all these trial errors, any organsim would have been eradicated by natural selection, and thus, would never present itself the opportunity to have ever developed in these remarkably convenient places we find ALL bodily organs, from EVERY creature.... So much for the 'fart in the wind' hypothesis.

[/B]

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

It's not like humans or primates were ever running around WITHOUT EYES. All MAMMALS have had eyes.

Perhaps you're the moron for somehow coming to the conclusion that, that is what I was suggesting. How did the eye develop in the beginning when it needed every one of its components in place, to have ever allowed for vision to begin with? Explain to me the mechanisms of the eye's development, and explain to me why all of the organs in all organisms are placed in their convenient location if it was done by chance.

You truly are a fucking moron hyro, no wonder you run from the debate when you can no longer defend you ignorance (re the creation of biological information through evolution). I honestly don't believe you are older then 14, there is no fucking way. If you are older you MUST be a drop out, because this is just too fucking stupid.

Ad hom isn't an argument, its a way that 14 year olds, possibly much like yourself, get flustered because they can't present an intelligible treatise.

[/B]

Have you ever heard of 'form follows function'?

It means that the function of something dictates its form. therefore, if an eye is supposed to transmit large amounts of info, it would make no sense for the eye to develop in a foot, it would make the organism inferior, thereby allowing it to be killed off.

Also, concerning your theory of 3, why is there no major feature of human anatomy that comes in threes? 2 butt-cheeks, 2 eyes, 2 nostrils, 2 kidneys.....etc, etc. If three is such an important number, it would follow that it would be present in man, whom was "created in God's image".



Another thing about the whole "God's image" thing: Is God retarded? Does God have down syndrome? I was under the impression that God was perfect? If He is perfect, then afflictions like Down Syndrome, MS, and the like would imply a mutation, which is an aspect of evolution.....makes you think.....

[This message has been edited by dead_people_killer (edited 03-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

Have you ever heard of 'form follows function'?

It means that the function of something dictates its form. therefore, if an eye is supposed to transmit large amounts of info, it would make no sense for the eye to develop in a foot, it would make the organism inferior, thereby allowing it to be killed off.

All the more reason to abandon it! Otherwise, what you are saying is that this 'evolvement' had to happen multiple, multiple times by different organsims, completely independant of one another. If one organism developed an eye that was non-functioning, it would inhibit its survival, and thus be swallowed up by natural selection. Then other organisms had to evolve a similar feature for no apparent reason, independant from the first organism because it died. That would mean that something has to be propelling this function for it to arise in multiple differnt organisms. For instance, cephalopod eyes, mammalian eyes, and insect eyes are said, by evolutionists, to have developed independantly from one another. They say this because they recogonze that one eye could NOT have been the progenitor of all the eyes found in every organism. So, even supposing your conjecture were true, what is the driving, yet purposeless force that accounts for all of these miraculous, yet independant functions????

Also, concerning your theory of 3

Its not a theory, its an observation about the nature of matter, time, and space.

why is there no major feature of human anatomy that comes in threes? 2 butt-cheeks, 2 eyes, 2 nostrils, 2 kidneys.....etc, etc.

A better explanation for you would be to ask why there aren't 34 eyes on a Tiger, 5 kidneys in a Lemur, 12 noses on a dung beetle, if there is NO design in natural order.

If three is such an important number, it would follow that it would be present in man, whom was "created in God's image".

The image isn't physical, because God isn't physical... And that passage, if you go back in Hebrew, refers to 'likeness,' i.e., likeness in soul and spirit, which is separate from all other animals. God is distinguishing between how animals have no understanding of morality, but humans do because it was imparted by God.

Anyway, good convo... I have to go do laundry. I'll reply to the rest when I get back.

Another thing about the whole "God's image" thing: Is God retarded? Does God have down syndrome? I was under the impression that God was perfect? If He is perfect, then afflictions like Down Syndrome, MS, and the like would imply a mutation, which is an aspect of evolution.....makes you think.....

[/B]

I also thought about this further....

1. Height + Width + Depth = Space (3 = 1)

You have forgotten the 4th dimension, time.

2. Solid + Liquid + Gas = Matter (3 = 1) (1 + 1 + 1 = 3)

Once again, you have forgotten an aspect, Plasma.



3. Past + Present + Future = Time (3 = 1)

Time is an abstract concept, and by dividing it up in these categories, you put concrete divisions on an otherwise non-concrete concept......a better division of time would be

Time = Infinite number of separate points in the continuum

This would be a much better representation of time than just past, present, and future.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

All the more reason to abandon it! Otherwise, what you are saying is that this 'evolvement' had to happen multiple, multiple times by different organsims, completely independant of one another. If one organism developed an eye that was non-functioning, it would inhibit its survival, and thus be swallowed up by natural selection. Then other organisms had to evolve a similar feature for no apparent reason, independant from the first organism because it died. That would mean that something has to be propelling this function for it to arise in multiple differnt organisms. For instance, cephalopod eyes, mammalian eyes, and insect eyes are said, by evolutionists, to have developed independantly from one another. They say this because they recogonze that one eye could NOT have been the progenitor of all the eyes found in every organism. So, even supposing your conjecture were true, what is the driving, yet purposeless force that accounts for all of these miraculous, yet independant functions????

I am not saying that an organism DID develop this way, I am saying it would make no sense...and the ones who might have been born this way did not survive to pass along the the defect.



I would like to see your reaction to this http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Perhaps you're the moron for somehow coming to the conclusion that, that is what I was suggesting. How did the eye develop in the beginning when it needed every one of its components in place, to have ever allowed for vision to begin with? Explain to me the mechanisms of the eye's development, and explain to me why all of the organs in all organisms are placed in their convenient location if it was done by chance.

Umm no you're the idiot that some how thought he was deriving a probability based on surface area of the human body. The eye doesnt need all of its components to work (idiot), we see many very simple eyes and many complex eyes in nature. I'm not going to explain the mechanism of the eye's development to an idiot like yourself it is very well documented, in every textbook, and should be easy for anyone to find. And evolution is not random chance, evolution will favor putting an eye in the most useful place to the organism, the fact that you dont grasp this makes you a moron.

quote:Ad hom isn't an argument, its a way that 14 year olds, possibly much like yourself, get flustered because they can't present an intelligible treatise.

I am actually suprised that you could be so dense. I proved biological information is created all the time and you ran... Like a scared little boy. Why did you run, because you knew you couldn't refute my proof.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-21-2006).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

I also thought about this further....

1. Height + Width + Depth = Space (3 = 1)

You have forgotten the 4th dimension, time.

2. Solid + Liquid + Gas = Matter (3 = 1) (1 + 1 + 1 = 3)

Once again, you have forgotten an aspect, Plasma.

Plasma is a mixture of two types of gases, one stemming from ions, the other from electrons. So if there were no gas clouds at all, there would be no plasma. But a solid could exist alone because it is independant of a liquid and a gas, a liquid is independant of a gas and a solid, and a gas is independant of a solid and a liquid. That's where the distinction is made.



Time is an abstract concept, and by dividing it up in these categories, you put concrete divisions on an otherwise non-concrete concept......a better division of time would be

Time = Infinite number of separate points in the continuum

Time is an abstract concept, this is true, but we understand it very well. You and I both know that presently, we cannot go back in time. There isn't anything abstract about that. And you know that we can only go into the immediate future and not race 20 years ahead. There isn't anything abstract about that either. But for as much as you say that time is abstract, then the 4th dimension is truly abstract. We live in a three dimensional world that appears inviolate of breaking.... at least, currently. We also have to consider that time and space are pretty much conjoined, because one will affect the other. Einstein noted this well with his theory of Special Relativity. I believe that there are different dimensions that supersede the physical realm, but as it relates to us physically, its a metaphysical concept seen only on a mathematical theorum. Afterall, to be in at least two places simultaneously would place you on a level that much closer to the Creator. This is something that I don't understand. People can conceptualize the 4th dimension, but they can't seem to concieve of God, who would exist in all dimensions, some of which we probably know nothing of. I guess I just don't understand how some people have difficulty in understanding that God is above us in every way. Its almost as if humans can, for the most part, only concieve of physical concepts and automatically ascribe to God in anthropomorphism.

quote:Originally posted by dead_people_killer:

I would like to see your reaction to this h ttp://www. mala.bc.ca /~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm (http: //www.mala .bc.ca/~jo hnstoi/ess ays/courte nay1.htm)

That was actually a very bad article that neglected to explain any of the mechanisms it proposed. Furthermore, it presents microevolutionary process, but pawns it off to mean a macroevolutionary process as being 'overwhelmingly' evident. In other words, it is using some truth in order to bring out a 'truth' that has never been presented. If I were still an evolutionist, I would have sought out a much better article than that.

the big bang is a whole other set of questions that need answering, i am pretty sure the answer to the questions isn't going to be "jesus' daddy"

scientist do have equipment that can create what they think are big bang-like conditions, such as particle accelerators and colliders.

i'm pretty sure that from now on human understanding and technology will become more sophisticated exponentially, and in maybe a few thousand years we will be creating universes and we will know the answers.

Umm no you're the idiot

I never called you an idiot.

that some how thought he was deriving a probability based on surface area of the human body. The eye doesnt need all of its components to work (idiot)

Ad hom

I'm not going to explain the mechanism of the eye's development

So, you are aren't going to explain why you are right, I'm just supose to take your temper tantrum for face value?

to an idiot

Ad hom

like yourself it is very well documented, in every textbook

So you believe some things found in a book, but say that Christians are stupid for believing in a book?

And evolution is not random chance, evolution will favor putting an eye in the most useful place to the organism

Really? If it isn't random or arbitrary, then you are saying that its intentional. So which is it? Was it purposely driven, or was it by chance that evolution propagates itself?

the fact that you dont grasp this makes you a moron.

Ad hom

I am actually suprised that you could be so dense.

Ad hom

I proved biological information is created all the time and you ran... Like a scared little boy. Why did you run, because you knew you couldn't refute my proof.

Ad hom

You proved biological information is created all the time, huh? I hope you aren't confusing creation with procreation. Please show me again, because if I didn't respond to your post, its either because I never saw it or, it was so uninspiring and insipid that it wasn't worth a retort.

When would be a reasonable timeframe to answer your questions? I feel like I have to ask your permission because I may not get another chance to post tonight... So, if I responded tomorrow, would that still be considered 'running away like a scared little boy' to you?

You know, we're having a discussion. Do you really think that everyone is going to agree on every point? Isn't that the purpose of a forum -to gather different perspectives? So why don't you refrain from your meanspirited ways and just have a discussion? I'm not saying it isn't going to get heated, but you are taking to another level.

quote:that some how thought he was deriving a probability based on surface area of the human body. The eye doesnt need all of its components to work (idiot)

ad hom

The eye existed is mammals more ancient that humans, and in organisms even more ancient than mammals. So a calculation for the probability of the eye on the head based on the surface area of humans is just plain ignorant. Then you go on to state that the eye needs all it components to work, when it can be proven that it doesn't. Various other types of eyes lacking many components of the human eye work just fine for the species which have them.



quote:So, you are aren't going to explain why you are right, I'm just supose to take your temper tantrum for face value?

The evolution of the vertebrate eye is one of the first examples taught in any class. It is in any textbook on evolution and the typical creationist objections are refuted. You can easily find the information on the web or in a textbook. If after you have read the scientific theory and still have trouble making sense of it you can post specific questions or objections here and I will be glad to respond. But if you wont make the effort to even try to understand the scientific theory to which you object there is no reason for me to write a lengthy post on it. So go read the theory, then come back with your response.



quote:

So you believe some things found in a book, but say that Christians are stupid for believing in a book?

The difference is text books are based on consenus in the scientific community and provide references to reproducible experiments. The bible is 1st century mythology and philosophy, they did not have the scientific knowledge that we have today.



quote:Really? If it isn't random or arbitrary, then you are saying that its intentional. So which is it? Was it purposely driven, or was it by chance that evolution propagates itself?

Mutations are random, natural selection is nonrandom. Natural selection will select for the eye to be in the most beneficial place possible, this is nonrandom. Do you have any knowledge of thermodynamics? The entire field is based on random motion of particles, yet we have predictable (nonrandom) results.



quote:

You proved biological information is created all the time, huh? I hope you aren't confusing creation with procreation. Please show me again, because if I didn't respond to your post, its either because I never saw it or, it was so uninspiring and insipid that it wasn't worth a retort.

I'll repost both both for you. Now, after reading this I see two possible objections you can make. 1) The mechanisms are unproven/not true or 2) These mechanisms do not create new information.

"Besides point mutations there are also deletions and insertions. Additionally, entire genes (or gene segments) can be transpoed (copied) to another section of the genome. The copy can then become mutated and become a different gene. Thus 'new information' is created all the time. In bacteria parts of their circular chromosome can be excised and from a "plasmid" the plasmid can replicate itself, express genes, become mutated, and transfer to another organism by a process called conjugation. There are other processes besides what I have mentioned here. Genetics is not a simple as "just point mutations" ... something creationists [intentionally] fail to realize."

"Anyways, Hyro, read my post at the top of this page. It expains how new and more information can arise through genetics.

Through mutation, the folowing can happen to a gene.

Point mutation

AATAACGCATTA --------&gt; TATAACGCATTA

Insertion

AATAACGCATTA --------&gt; AATAAGCGCATTA

Deletion

AATAACGCATTA --------&gt; ATAA_GCATTA

Reading frame of original gene:

AAT AAC GCA TTA

Reading frame of point mutant:

TAT-AAC-GCA-TTA

Reading frame of insertion:

AAT-AAG-CGC-ATT-A...

Reading frame of deletion:

AAT AAG CAT TA...

You can also mix and match all these types of mutations, so you can have multiple insertions, insertions and deletions...

One thing that is believed to drive the evolution of complex eukaryotes is gene duplication. Entire genes are duplicated to another section of the genome. This allows for genes to be tweaked by evolution without losing their main function.

Say you have some genes (G1, G2 , G3)

G1--G2--G3 ---mutation--&gt; G1---G2---G4

G1--G2--G3 ---duplication--&gt; G1--G2--G3--G3

---muation--&gt; G1--G2--G3--G4 (what's that? Its a brand new gene, and no old gene was lost in the process!)"

quote:When would be a reasonable timeframe to answer your questions? I feel like I have to ask your permission because I may not get another chance to post tonight... So, if I responded tomorrow, would that still be considered 'running away like a scared little boy' to you?

If you are taking the time to make other (lengthy) posts, you can reply to mine.

quote:You know, we're having a discussion. Do you really think that everyone is going to agree on every point? Isn't that the purpose of a forum -to gather different perspectives? So why don't you refrain from your meanspirited ways and just have a discussion? I'm not saying it isn't going to get heated, but you are taking to another level

It's not a discussion when you ignore valid arguments (my geneduplication posts), when you misrepresent the opposition (saying evolution is random), and when you make sill arguments (like probability of human eye being on the head based on surface are of humans).

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-22-2006).]

plas·ma -

5. Physics. An electrically neutral, highly ionized gas composed of ions, electrons, and neutral particles. It is a phase of matter distinct from solids, liquids, and normal gases.

Plasma is a separate and distinct phase of matter. Arguing with this is arguing with the entire scientific community, who agree that plasma is a state of matter.

As for the time argument, I never said that God does not exist. I believe that there is a God, and will not argue with you on this. I am simply pointing out that time is the fourth dimension in the world in which we live. Without it, there would be no change and we would live in a static world where nothing moved.

Time is a human construct.

quote:Originally posted by asthesunsets:

Time is a human construct.

so what goes by as you wait for the flood control to allow you to post again?

The eye existed is mammals more ancient that humans, and in organisms even more ancient than mammals.

I know. Lets read the rest of what I wrote: "

“To suppose that the eye with all it’s inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I frankly confess, absurd in it’s highest degree.” -Charles Darwin

After testifying to how seemingly absurd it would be for the eye to develop all on its own, he goes on to speak about it as if it were certainly true. All proof is exhausted in the struggle to prove the possibility of such a marvelous eye, that to say nothing at all about the probability of such an occurrence, much less the certainty required by science, is insuperable. But for how amazingly complex the eye is, Darwinism attempts to explain it as having arose by chance. Evolutionists say that the first eye came by pigmentation in the skin, perhaps a freckle or a mole. Then, they say, rays of sunlight converged on this organism and caused a sunspot where it developed into a cluster of light sensitive cells. Then, they claim that the organism could feel the energy from the sun and so it turned towards the source. They purport that a nerve came out of it all, thus, evolving the first eye. What is really being said is, ‘guess, assertion, conjecture.’ This is an unsubstantiated claim founded on no empirical facts, whatsoever."

As you can see, I was refering to the very first eye, ever... Not merely the mammalian eye.

So a calculation for the probability of the eye on the head based on the surface area of humans is just plain ignorant.

And why is that? If one organism had 'primitive' eyes, then it requires a significant mutation of that creature, (none of which has ever been witnessed. This is all quite taken on faith). First, this overlooks the incredible complexity of even the simplest light-sensitive spot. To argue that even 50% of vision would necessarily have a strong enough selective advantage over 50% to overcome the effects of the genetic tendency to eliminate even a beneficial mutation. No one seems to even consider this. Why not? If so many trial assemblies would be needed that we should all expect this one organism to have died out before it ever had the possibility to proliferate. Each step in the evolution of an eye must be advantageous to be positively selected. If neutral or disadvantageous steps are involved, the evolution of the eye would have failed either genetically or by the conglomerate of the natural selection process, altogether. I'm speaking in terms of odds. And in none of this, has anyone even considered how the orbit protects the eye, as well as eyelashes, and eyebrows, eyelids? How can you account for all of these components to develop soley by some chance mutation when its painfully evident that each contrivance is intended? Seriously, you don't see reason behind it all? I mean, look, I could concieve of evolution as being plausible. It would have never gotten to where it is without some plausibility. But how could anyone say that there is not, at least a touch of purpose?

The evolution of the vertebrate eye is one of the first examples taught in any class. It is in any textbook on evolution and the typical creationist objections are refuted.

Any textbook gives references that refute creationists? Name me a textbook, either post-grad, college or high school because I would like to reference it. And no, I'm not being facetious. Seriously, if you know of any that specifically mentions debunking creationism, then I'd love to read it.

If after you have read the scientific theory and still have trouble making sense of it you can post specific questions or objections here and I will be glad to respond.

Given my responses, do you honestly think that I haven't the faintest idea about what I'm talking about?... And don't just say, yes, to be mean. What would compel you to think that I have not done so, or that I was not an avowed evolutionist at one point?

The difference is text books are based on consenus in the scientific community and provide references to reproducible experiments. The bible is 1st century mythology and philosophy, they did not have the scientific knowledge that we have today.

First of all, the Bible was never designed to be a science book, therefore, there isn't any mechanisms describing it. Secondly, your last statement alludes to the notion that people were some how dumber back in the day... I don't think you could ever, however tacit it might be, refer to them as dumb. Knowledge begets knowledge, and if they didn't make their discoveries, we wouldn't have all of the wonderful technology we have today without their initial efforts.

Mutations are random, natural selection is nonrandom. Natural selection will select for the eye to be in the most beneficial place possible, this is nonrandom.

random = Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically, Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective. So, if its non-random, then there is a governing design, there is a methodology to it, and it is systematic, with specific patterns, a purpose, and clear objective -all the markings of intent.

Do you have any knowledge of thermodynamics? The entire field is based on random motion of particles, yet we have predictable (nonrandom) results.

Yes, I'm familiar with thermodynamics. Their laws go against evolution quite profoundly. The 2nd law of thermodynamics holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own will tend to become disordered and dispersed in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Any and all things living or non-living deteriorates, decays, and disintegrates. We know this in absolute, observable, and predictable terms. Evolutionary theory asserts that in advance, but totally ignores this basic and universally true law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts this law. But before you bat an eyelash, I'm pretty sure what you'll say next. You want to know how this applies to open system, such as earth. An open system is a thermodynamic system in which energy matter flow in and out, unlike a closed system, in which the initial energy and matter remains constant. So, if you say that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, then the law of entropy does not apply for the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and, some have suggested, from inanimate objects. But this is where there is an obvious distortion. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered, otherwise we should expect never to age or die. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, sure its true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things, such as we see during photosynthesis in plants and digestion in animals. No living thing can live without such an energy conversion system. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns and deteriorates. In fact, the sun itself is subject to this law, because its burning out. Does that make sense? So really, we would have to recognize that in all of these fortuitous circumstances that evolution needs to get started with, and to maintain itself, smoehow it has managed to overcome this. But let me be plain about it... Nothing has ever been witnessed to counter the 2nd law. Ever. So then, without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort it is in no way advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts, I hope, that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. The real problem here, confronting evolutionists is the burning question of how complex energy converting mechanisms like photosynthesis in plants, which, by the way, cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, should have come into being on its own.

I'll repost both both for you. Now, after reading this I see two possible objections you can make. 1) The mechanisms are unproven/not true or 2) These mechanisms do not create new information.

My objection is that while it is changing the order of the code, it isn't creating completely new information. There is only so much shuffling that you can do before you hit a brick wall, genetically speaking. Aside from that, if we were all inter-related, (I'm refering to different species and genera) then we should expect to see far more similarities than we do. But, there is an inviolate gulf that prevents pigs from genetically crossing over with humans, and vice-versa.

"Besides point mutations there are also deletions and insertions. Additionally, entire genes (or gene segments) can be transpoed (copied) to another section of the genome. The copy can then become mutated and become a different gene. Thus 'new information' is created all the time. In bacteria parts of their circular chromosome can be excised and from a "plasmid" the plasmid can replicate itself, express genes, become mutated, and transfer to another organism by a process called conjugation. There are other processes besides what I have mentioned here. Genetics is not a simple as "just point mutations" ... something creationists [intentionally] fail to realize."

DNA is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our body. And it contains the wnoderfully complete construction plan of the human body, and so with that many variables, I agree that alot of mutating can, and does occur. But this leads to the steady degradation of information. The information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from the physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, are recorded in DNA. The information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four specific proteins. We know that A, T, G, C account for them, as you've pointed out. All the structural differences among people depend on the variations in the sequence of these letters. Its the sequential order of the letters that is going to determine the structure of an organism down to the most minute detail. Essentially, what I'm asking you, is why is it, and how is it that these changes in the genome never seem to lend themselves to any degrading of information to the evolutionist? Seriously, that's like saying that if you copied the first page of Genesis 1 billion times that it would have enough copying errors to produce the entire Bible, in a coherent sequential order. Furthermore, you still have the monumental task of providing reasons why there isn't an absolute, overwhelming abundance of transitional forms. We all know that its been a persistent problem for the evolutionary theory. No one can get around it.

Point mutation

AATAACGCATTA --------&gt; TATAACGCATTA

Insertion

AATAACGCATTA --------&gt; AATAAGCGCATTA

Deletion

AATAACGCATTA --------&gt; ATAA_GCATTA

Reading frame of original gene:

AAT AAC GCA TTA

Reading frame of point mutant:

TAT-AAC-GCA-TTA

Uh huh... I understand... But you're changing the order, which is a completely natural occurance so that organisms aren't exact replicas of their parents. As well, this is a replication of an already existing gene. More doesn't mean better. What you, well, I'm not sure if it was you or Beta or Rust, but one of you was essentially stating that something new can come out of it. And just so you know, deletions are far more prevalent, and the insertion you just described is how people develop Down Syndrome... And that's not exactly a prime candidate for evolution. Spontaneous genetic mutations are caused by an error in DNA replication that leads to a base substitution or an insertion or deletion of one or two base pairs from the DNA. But see, even with that, it isn't creating an entirely new gene that never existed. It just copied something twice. The person with Down Syndrome either replicated too many, or too few of the chromasomes.

One thing that is believed to drive the evolution of complex eukaryotes is gene duplication. Entire genes are duplicated to another section of the genome. This allows for genes to be tweaked by evolution without losing their main function.

I would agree with the premise on this one, as far as a nominal possibility goes, but it has not been verified.

Say you have some genes (G1, G2 , G3)

G1--G2--G3 ---mutation--&gt; G1---G2---G4

G1--G2--G3 ---duplication--&gt; G1--G2--G3--G3

---muation--&gt; G1--G2--G3--G4 (what's that? Its a brand new gene, and no old gene was lost in the process!)"

Well, you certainly don't have to lose something in the process, but gene deletion is more prevalent... Even still, with what I just said about DS, this insertion is injurious and not beneficial. In fact, there are so few 'good mutations' that you might as well consider them all too be either neutral or detrimental in an evolutionary sense.

It's not a discussion when you ignore valid arguments (my geneduplication posts), when you misrepresent the opposition (saying evolution is random), and when you make sill arguments (like probability of human eye being on the head based on surface are of humans

*Read aforementioned remarks*

That was one of the longest posts I've ever written. I'm going to bed. I'll respond tomorrow. Dood, I feel like I've been on this post for the whole day.



[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 03-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Everything in nature mimics its Creator, and its creator has a triune character.

1. Height + Width + Depth = Space (3 = 1)



1.)Height + Width + Depth = Volume Very crudely... Your idea of space is very wrong... Space doesn't exist without time...

quote:

2. Solid + Liquid + Gas = Matter (3 = 1) (1 + 1 + 1 = 3)



2.)How can you add states of matter together, you'd get a fizzy suspension at best...

It's like saying;

Matter + Matter + Matter = Matter

Great, I feel dumber for reading this...

quote:

3. Past + Present + Future = Time (3 = 1)



3.)Again, another excellent equation; The time is 1:30am here so, lets substitute into the equation...

Past + Present + Future = 1:30am

Well presently its 1:30am... So I'll substitute that for "Present"...

Past + 1:30am + future = 1:30am

The "Future" I'm guessing will come at 1:31am... The "Past" was at roughly 1:29am...

1:29am + 1:30am + 1:31am = 1:30am

Hmmm, maybe I'm missing the genius that is your God, but his equation for time isn't as good as Einstein's... Is it possible you just pulled this out of your ass?

Or will I understand this crap when faith hits me?

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 03-22-2006).]

It's sad I don't know how many times Hyro has been told he is butchering the 2LoT by refering to complexity of animals yet he continues to repeat it.

So, one more time, the 2LoT deals with heat energy, not complexity. When a system heads towards higher entropy it means more of its energy is converted to heat.

Please pick up a real science book, this is high school level stuff here.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Keep in mind that unless his attitude has changed Hyro refuses to accept or change any errors found, no matter how blatant they may be.

This statement has become blatantly obvious to me....I was having a good time with this discussion but it is like arguing a brick wall. He ignores everything that doesnt fit in with his construct and anything that does, he latches onto and will not concede any error.

To me, unrelenting affirmation of something in the face of evidence that contradicts that something is a mark of stupidity, not intelligence.

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

Intelligent Design isn't science. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

It's that simple. Why don't more people get it?

Because the person that created it, only created the theory in order to push there religious teaching into main stream education and suck more people into there beliefs.

The eye existed is mammals more ancient that humans, and in organisms even more ancient than mammals.

I know. Lets read the rest of what I wrote: "

“To suppose that the eye with all it’s inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I frankly confess, absurd in it’s highest degree.” -Charles Darwin

After testifying to how seemingly absurd it would be for the eye to develop all on its own, he goes on to speak about it as if it were certainly true. All proof is exhausted in the struggle to prove the possibility of such a marvelous eye, that to say nothing at all about the probability of such an occurrence, much less the certainty required by science, is insuperable. But for how amazingly complex the eye is, Darwinism attempts to explain it as having arose by chance. Evolutionists say that the first eye came by pigmentation in the skin, perhaps a freckle or a mole. Then, they say, rays of sunlight converged on this organism and caused a sunspot where it developed into a cluster of light sensitive cells. Then, they claim that the organism could feel the energy from the sun and so it turned towards the source. They purport that a nerve came out of it all, thus, evolving the first eye. What is really being said is, ‘guess, assertion, conjecture.’ This is an unsubstantiated claim founded on no empirical facts, whatsoever."

Well now it depends on what lineage you are talking about. the eye has evolved independently multiple times. You may be referring to the fish eye. Take a look at these pictures: http://tinyurl.com/create.php

As you can see, I was refering to the very first eye, ever... Not merely the mammalian eye.

The VERY first eye? You mean the very first light sensitive processes or the first eye as an organ? Either way, if you are not referring to the mammalian eye, don't use the surface area of humans as an example. Its just plain stupid.

And why is that? If one organism had 'primitive' eyes, then it requires a significant mutation of that creature, (none of which has ever been witnessed. This is all quite taken on faith). First, this overlooks the incredible complexity of even the simplest light-sensitive spot.

Wrong. Even single celled organisms have light sensitive capabilities. You really need to clarify what exactly you are talking about.

To argue that even 50% of vision would necessarily have a strong enough selective advantage over 50% to overcome the effects of the genetic tendency to eliminate even a beneficial mutation.

Genetic tendency to eliminate a beneficial mutation? Explain and provide scientific evidence to back that up. Natural selection states that beneficial mutation will INCREASE in the population, not become eliminated.

No one seems to even consider this. Why not?

Because it goes against the central dogma of evolution.

If so many trial assemblies would be needed that we should all expect this one organism to have died out before it ever had the possibility to proliferate.

Wrong. The eye evolved over millions of years with very small changes in each generation (1% difference). The first generation has 1% of an eye, this is a beneficial trait and is selected for. Next generation has 2% and is selected for.

Each step in the evolution of an eye must be advantageous to be positively selected. If neutral or disadvantageous steps are involved, the evolution of the eye would have failed either genetically or by the conglomerate of the natural selection process, altogether.

There is a fundamental flaw in your logic here. If a neutral of disadvantageous step occurs it will be selected AGAINST, it will not pass on. Thus, these backsteps can be ignored.

I'm speaking in terms of odds. And in none of this, has anyone even considered how the orbit protects the eye, as well as eyelashes, and eyebrows, eyelids? How can you account for all of these components to develop soley by some chance mutation when its painfully evident that each contrivance is intended? Seriously, you don't see reason behind it all? I mean, look, I could concieve of evolution as being plausible. It would have never gotten to where it is without some plausibility. But how could anyone say that there is not, at least a touch of purpose?

Eyelashes and the rest evolved after the eye or along with it. A person without eye lashes can see a lot better that someone with no eyes at all. Furthermore, If the eye were intelligently designed then why is it so flawed? Why is the mammalian eye so much inferior to the squid eye? Why are people nearsighted or farsighted? But evolution states that there IS a purpose for things, that purpose is REPRODUCTION. The eye helps a species survive and reproduce.

Any textbook gives references that refute creationists? Name me a textbook, either post-grad, college or high school because I would like to reference it. And no, I'm not being facetious. Seriously, if you know of any that specifically mentions debunking creationism, then I'd love to read it.

I'll post some names and pages later, but any book that explains how radiometric dating works or how complexity arises is debunking creationist arguments.

Given my responses, do you honestly think that I haven't the faintest idea about what I'm talking about?... And don't just say, yes, to be mean. What would compel you to think that I have not done so, or that I was not an avowed evolutionist at one point?

There are serious flaws in your reasoning, it looks to me like you did a quick google run with out actually trying to understand the PRINCIPLES behind evolution.

First of all, the Bible was never designed to be a science book, therefore, there isn't any mechanisms describing it. Secondly, your last statement alludes to the notion that people were some how dumber back in the day... I don't think you could ever, however tacit it might be, refer to them as dumb. Knowledge begets knowledge, and if they didn't make their discoveries, we wouldn't have all of the wonderful technology we have today without their initial efforts.

I don't think people were less intelligent that they are now. They were more ignorant, not less intelligent.

random = Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically, Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective. So, if its non-random, then there is a governing design, there is a methodology to it, and it is systematic, with specific patterns, a purpose, and clear objective -all the markings of intent.

That's not the statistical (scientific) definition of random. Besides, the "intent" of evolution is to reproduce, so that is the "purpose" of various genes.



Yes, I'm familiar with thermodynamics. Their laws go against evolution quite profoundly. The 2nd law of thermodynamics holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own will tend to become disordered and dispersed in direct relation to the amount of time that passes.

Over simplified to the point of being incorrect. What you really mean is that over enough time all systems will reach the point of thermodynamic equilibrium aka maximun entropy.

Any and all things living or non-living deteriorates, decays, and disintegrates. We know this in absolute, observable, and predictable terms. Evolutionary theory asserts that in advance, but totally ignores this basic and universally true law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts this law. But before you bat an eyelash, I'm pretty sure what you'll say next. You want to know how this applies to open system, such as earth. An open system is a thermodynamic system in which energy matter flow in and out, unlike a closed system, in which the initial energy and matter remains constant. So, if you say that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, then the law of entropy does not apply for the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and, some have suggested, from inanimate objects. But this is where there is an obvious distortion. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered, otherwise we should expect never to age or die.

This is where you extremely oversimplified understanding of thermodynamics has led you astray. Every chemical reaction that takes place in any living system is entropically favored under the conditions in which it occurs. Furthermore, we should think of the entire planet of earth as the system, it needs to be localized even more, to say a hydrothermal vent or a pond. Aging does not apply directly to entropy. If you disagree, explain how aging or dying increases the entropy of the universe.

Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, sure its true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things, such as we see during photosynthesis in plants and digestion in animals. No living thing can live without such an energy conversion system. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns and deteriorates. In fact, the sun itself is subject to this law, because its burning out. Does that make sense?

This is pretty much true.

So really, we would have to recognize that in all of these fortuitous circumstances that evolution needs to get started with, and to maintain itself, smoehow it has managed to overcome this.

The first living systems did not use photosynthesis, no one asserts that. The very first living systems likely used CHEMICAL energy.

But let me be plain about it... Nothing has ever been witnessed to counter the 2nd law. Ever. So then, without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort it is in no way advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts, I hope, that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. The real problem here, confronting evolutionists is the burning question of how complex energy converting mechanisms like photosynthesis in plants, which, by the way, cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, should have come into being on its own.

Again you are making leaps based on an ignorant understand of thermodynamics. This "energy conversion system" you bring up need only be simple chemical reactions in the primordial soup. Photosynthesis evolved later, and has been evolving for BILLIONS of years. Modern science has only been around 300 years at MOST.

My objection is that while it is changing the order of the code, it isn't creating completely new information. There is only so much shuffling that you can do before you hit a brick wall, genetically speaking. Aside from that, if we were all inter-related, (I'm refering to different species and genera) then we should expect to see far more similarities than we do. But, there is an inviolate gulf that prevents pigs from genetically crossing over with humans, and vice-versa.

We're not just chaning the order, we are adding in new genes. Something you may be interested to know is that bacteria can express human genes, mice can express jelly fish genes. This is done all the time in the lab. But its true men and pigs cannot mate, evolutionary theory explains this perfectly (genetic isolation).

DNA is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillion cells in our body. And it contains the wnoderfully complete construction plan of the human body, and so with that many variables, I agree that alot of mutating can, and does occur. But this leads to the steady degradation of information. The information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from the physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, are recorded in DNA. The information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four specific proteins. We know that A, T, G, C account for them, as you've pointed out. All the structural differences among people depend on the variations in the sequence of these letters. Its the sequential order of the letters that is going to determine the structure of an organism down to the most minute detail. Essentially, what I'm asking you, is why is it, and how is it that these changes in the genome never seem to lend themselves to any degrading of information to the evolutionist? Seriously, that's like saying that if you copied the first page of Genesis 1 billion times that it would have enough copying errors to produce the entire Bible, in a coherent sequential order. Furthermore, you still have the monumental task of providing reasons why there isn't an absolute, overwhelming abundance of transitional forms. We all know that its been a persistent problem for the evolutionary theory. No one can get around it.

You are going to need to clarify what you mean by information if you want me to understand what your are trying to say. But changes in the genome of organisms can lead to "less information" if by information you mean genes. (and by anyones definiton genes must be information)



Uh huh... I understand... But you're changing the order, which is a completely natural occurance so that organisms aren't exact replicas of their parents. As well, this is a replication of an already existing gene. More doesn't mean better. What you, well, I'm not sure if it was you or Beta or Rust, but one of you was essentially stating that something new can come out of it. And just so you know, deletions are far more prevalent, and the insertion you just described is how people develop Down Syndrome... And that's not exactly a prime candidate for evolution. Spontaneous genetic mutations are caused by an error in DNA replication that leads to a base substitution or an insertion or deletion of one or two base pairs from the DNA. But see, even with that, it isn't creating an entirely new gene that never existed. It just copied something twice. The person with Down Syndrome either replicated too many, or too few of the chromasomes.

Actually, Down syndrom is cause by a nondisjunction event leading to an extra copy of one ENTIRE chromosome. It's not a one letter insertion.

Well, you certainly don't have to lose something in the process, but gene deletion is more prevalent... Even still, with what I just said about DS, this insertion is injurious and not beneficial. In fact, there are so few 'good mutations' that you might as well consider them all too be either neutral or detrimental in an evolutionary sense.

It doesn't matter how prevalent gene deletion is. If gene duplication occure it is a prime example of an increase in information. More genes means more information, thus biological evolution can increase information. That is my point. I'll say it again. Gene duplication leads to MORE genes, more genes = more information.

It's very, very simple. Evolution is taught in Science classes, and Creationism is taught in religious studies. That's how it should be anyway.

Why must you fuckers complicate everything?

End of discussion.

[This message has been edited by Adrenochrome (edited 03-25-2006).]

Let's play pretend for a moment. Let's say that the creationists and intelligent designists or whatever managed to completely destroy evolution. Somehow you managed to refute all the data and convince all scientists that evolution was wrong. It's not possible and you never will, but pretend. Where is the case for creationism? The lack of a better explanation? Even if you proved (which you can't) that the Earth was 6000 or 12000 or whichever you pick years old, what does that prove? That virtually all science has been wrong and the most intelligent of humans ('made in god's image' no less) have been greatly deceived to the point of absurdity. Please.

Enough evolution bashing. Disproving evolution does not prove your point. Science has no theories, none whatsoever, as to why gravity exists. We have formulas, calculations (which I have done) but we have no idea why all matter attracts itself. Does this prove that there must be a creator? No. The lack of scientific explanation does not merit the teaching and belief of supernatural forces or deities.

So even without evolution, you could not reasonably demand that your myth be taught as truth. Not only that, but we have large amounts of proof for evolution. So how can it not be taught in schools? Because it proves the bible wrong? Hell, the bible proves itself wrong.

quote:Originally posted by IanBoyd3:

...Enough evolution bashing. Disproving evolution does not prove your point...

A 4.5 billion year old earth and evolution do not disprove the possibility of a God/Creator. It does directly contradict Young Earth Creationism and the account of Creation in Genesis. Fundamentalist (YEC)Christians must deny evolution or accept that their faith is misplaced.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

A 4.5 billion year old earth and evolution do not disprove the possibility of a God/Creator. It does directly contradict Young Earth Creationism and the account of Creation in Genesis. Fundamentalist (YEC)Christians must deny evolution or accept that their faith is misplaced.





Which would be....



...Exactly what I just said.

Perhaps I didn't make the point I was attempting to make. I merely wanted to add to your statement the reason they are so adamant in trying to discredit evolution and the age of the earth. Acknowledgement of evolution or an old earth would shake their belief to it's very foundation.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 03-27-2006).]

Ah nevermind. I see what you meant, I just got confused. And you are right, it agrees with the christians who support evolution.

1.)Height + Width + Depth = Volume

The volume around us is space... That isn't a very hard concept to tackle.

Very crudely... Your idea of space is very wrong... Space doesn't exist without time...

If you read everything I wrote, I very clearly state that.

2.)How can you add states of matter together, you'd get a fizzy suspension at best...

"I feel dumber for having read that."

3.)Again, another excellent equation; The time is 1:30am here so, lets substitute into the equation...

Past + Present + Future = 1:30am

Well presently its 1:30am... So I'll substitute that for "Present"...

Past + 1:30am + future = 1:30am

The "Future" I'm guessing will come at 1:31am... The "Past" was at roughly 1:29am...

1:29am + 1:30am + 1:31am = 1:30am

Are you trying to tell me that you don't understand the concept of time?

Hmmm, maybe I'm missing the genius that is your God, but his equation for time isn't as good as Einstein's... Is it possible you just pulled this out of your ass?

Or will I understand this crap when faith hits me?

You have lots of faith... Perhaps more than I do. I've seen you use it many times. In the meantime, listen for that popping sound.

Out of all the things you could be answering/correcting, I don't think your shakey attempt to show the trinity is all around us is one of them. But I guess it is much easier than doing things like admiting and fixing errors.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Out of all the things you could be answering/correcting, I don't think your shakey attempt to show the trinity is all around us is one of them. But I guess it is much easier than doing things like admiting and fixing errors.

Give me something else that I should 'admit' and to 'fix' and I'll answer it.

I already have, your answer appears to be that you have discussed it, thus you don't really need to fix anything. Of course discussing something and defending it are two different things.

If you would really like me to repost the list (which doesn't include these latest conversations) I will.

I see a number of posts exposing errors that have yet to be addressed let alone those that have been addressed ineffectively. (Note, post numbers come from the edit link for that post, starting with the opening post which is post #0)

Error, then the post it was exposed in.

Page 1:

•Missisipi river deposits show earth is young, Post #39

•Niagara falls shows the earth is young, Post #39

•rotation of the earth shows it to be young, post #43

•Big bang establishes planetary orbits, post #43

•Moon dust shows the moon young, Post #43

Page 2:

•K/Ar dating errors shows it to be ineffective, Post #73

•Fossil dating is circular, Post #73

•C-14 dating errors show it to be ineffective, Post #73

•Quote showing dating flawed, Post #73

•Creationism does not push religion, Post #77

•Mater is triune, Post #78, post #80

•space is triune, Post #80

•Shells on everest are evidence for the flood, Post #98

This list is of only factual errors in your 'book' and doesn't include logical errors or errors in other posts that Rust and Adorkable have pointed out and corrected.

This list doesn't include errors in your 'book' that have yet to be addressed, which is the vast majority of them.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I already have, your answer appears to be that you have discussed it, thus you don't really need to fix anything. Of course discussing something and defending it are two different things.

If you would really like me to repost the list (which doesn't include these latest conversations) I will.

I see a number of posts exposing errors that have yet to be addressed let alone those that have been addressed ineffectively. (Note, post numbers come from the edit link for that post, starting with the opening post which is post #0)

Error, then the post it was exposed in.

Page 1:

•Missisipi river deposits show earth is young, Post #39

•Niagara falls shows the earth is young, Post #39

•rotation of the earth shows it to be young, post #43

•Big bang establishes planetary orbits, post #43

•Moon dust shows the moon young, Post #43

Page 2:

•K/Ar dating errors shows it to be ineffective, Post #73

•Fossil dating is circular, Post #73

•C-14 dating errors show it to be ineffective, Post #73

•Quote showing dating flawed, Post #73

•Creationism does not push religion, Post #77

•Mater is triune, Post #78, post #80

•space is triune, Post #80

•Shells on everest are evidence for the flood, Post #98

This list is of only factual errors in your 'book' and doesn't include logical errors or errors in other posts that Rust and Adorkable have pointed out and corrected.

This list doesn't include errors in your 'book' that have yet to be addressed, which is the vast majority of them.



Originally posted by Beta69:

You need to throw away your source material. What did you use anyway? Did you do any of your own research?

If you're asking whether or not I personally drove to California to examine the Methuselah tree, no I did not, nor would I expect you to either. All of the evidence comes from other sources, of course.

If you did write that I commend you but you are using incorrect facts. I ask you to expand on the arguments because they are commonly thrown around by people who don't really understand them and did zero research into them.

The only reason why I didn't expand on them is because I'm writing a book on many different topics. Only three chapters are devoted to science. Me citing every detailed analysis would be a book in itself. Maybe one day I will write a book devoted to that. Look, the book is not something I'm going to publish and make money off of. I wrote it for those that don't know any better, namely some friends and family. I think they should get another perspective on things. You know as well as I do that the media and fields of science are dominated by the secualr market. With having said that, I feel that there are other options out there that aren't being expressed.

Most of your claims are repeated by creationists like Hovind and a lot come from a book from the 70's.

I don't own any of Hovind's books, but from what I do know of him and his arguments, I agree that some of them are worthy of further investigation. I'm not claiming that I'm a molecular biologist who personally examined the inner-workings of a cell, but I'm elucidating for people that research has been made that is contrary to the prevailing wisdom, and I'm saying, 'Here it is, make your own deduction.'

My original challenge was to give evidence that hadn't been refuted by rust, I believe a number of these have.

I haven't seen Rust post all day....? I'll look again, but I didn't see anything. I would respond to his posts as I always do.



Rotation of the earth

You provide zero evidence or math that shows the corealis effect will cause what you say or that the earth will "fling people off"

Its an inference. Its saying, judging by the amount of time that we have been witnessing this effect, if were to extrapolate backwards, then the earth must have been rotating at a riduculously hgh speed that would obviously not allowed for any life to thrive, much less, survive.

You provide no evidence for any of your parroted claims.

As I stated above, I'm not claiming that I went out and did the research, though I do aspire to, perhaps when my children are older. But I don't just get my information from creationists. I look at the secular arguments as well. I don't like alot of the creationist models because I think some it is fanciful. With having said that, I like others that are very plausible and worthy of some further investigation.

Why should all the planets rotate the same direction? Why should the gasses of two massive planets bleed off into the solar system? Do you even know what the 'surface' of jupiter is made of?

The reason i say this is because a very common pro-evolution model of the big bang shows that after Planck's Time, they state that there was an orbit established from the begginning, and that's why the planets have a sphere shape. I obviously think that's ridiculous, but that's just me. I think a perfect circle is more indicative of a perfect being, but again, that's just me.

You make false assumptions and provide false data. The Mississippi river is not 4.5 billion years old, why are you saying evolutionists claim it is?

I never said that. What I said was that in the time we've been watching this occurance, alot of sediment has been forming. So, logically, if we could expect that the same amount of sedimentary dispersion was the same in the past, it couldn't be hundreds of thousands of years old, because the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't be a body of water anymore, it would be a huge mound of mud.

Methuselah is not 4,400 years old but around 4,768, but thanks for saying you accept tree ring dating as a valid dating method. Niagara falls is not billions of years old.

Yeah, I think dendrochronology is a good method. It's not 100% accurate, but I think it gives a better ballpark figure than other techniques.

Do you understand anything that you posted at all? Can you show you know what you are talking about?

Yeah, but that's going to take a long time and I'm gonna have to go pick up my kids and wife in like half an hour. Plus, my only days off at work are Wed and Thur and I don't have internet access at work. Bastages! But I will write a little article. Just don't wait up all night because it won't be tonight.

For example, can you give an in depth explanation of the shells 'on' Mt Everest (On is in quotes because they are actually in the mountain) and why there are no modern sea creatures with those shells?

I can tell you what secular scientists have to say about that... They say that mountains were formed from earthquakes... Which is true. So, they say that Mt. Everest must have been underwater at one point in time, so the sea shells got there before Everest was a mountain. But I'll go in to that too later.

You even parrot the moon dust argument. I bet you didn't even do enough research to realize it was based on bad math and NASA corrected the error long before they went to the moon.

No, I've never read an article on that, but let's use some reasoning here... Obviously if stellar dust is falling all the time, it would be reasonable that large amounts would accumalte over a large period of time, right? Obviously NASA believes that the moon is a few million years old or they wouldn't have bothered tabulating those figures. So either way, why is there a very small amount of star dust on the moon?

Anyway, I gotta roll... But hopefully I can do a little research on my days off. I'm almost done with the last chapter of the book, (which is kicking my ass), but when I'm done it should free up some time for me.

There's the opening segment that I already answered. You didn't 'correct' any of my answers because there is nothing to correct. I'll respond to the rest later.

I've replied to this before, but...

quote:Its an inference. Its saying, judging by the amount of time that we have been witnessing this effect, if were to extrapolate backwards, then the earth must have been rotating at a riduculously hgh speed that would obviously not allowed for any life to thrive, much less, survive.

That is completely incorrect and I even showed you the math to back it up. 4.5 billion years ago the earths rotation would be about twice as fast as today. Nothing amazingly huge and no where near escape velocity.

will you admit your statement about the earths rotation was in error and remove it from your book?

quote:he reason i say this is because a very common pro-evolution model of the big bang shows that after Planck's Time, they state that there was an orbit established from the begginning, and that's why the planets have a sphere shape.

That is completely wrong, no real scientist says anything of the sort. The planets didn't even exist until billions of years after the big bang. Planets are sphere shaped because gravity pulls in all directions, creating a sphere.

will you admit your statements about the big bang, planet shape, planet rotation and planet mass were in error and remove it from your book?

quote:I never said that. What I said was that in the time we've been watching this occurance, alot of sediment has been forming. So, logically, if we could expect that the same amount of sedimentary dispersion was the same in the past, it couldn't be hundreds of thousands of years old, because the Gulf of Mexico wouldn't be a body of water anymore, it would be a huge mound of mud.

Maybe I wasn't clear about this, modern science agrees with you and says the mississippi river delta is relatively young and didn't exist millions of years ago. Thus this isn't evidence for a young earth.

will you admit your statement about the mississippi river delta providing evidence of a young earth was in error and remove it from your book?

quote:I can tell you what secular scientists have to say about that... They say that mountains were formed from earthquakes... Which is true. So, they say that Mt. Everest must have been underwater at one point in time, so the sea shells got there before Everest was a mountain. But I'll go in to that too later.

You have yet to provide any evidence showing this is evidence for a young earth. You have not provided any mechanism for a flood to deposited seashells inside the limestone that makes up the top of everest. Nor could you explain why only seashells were deposited inside the mountain or provide evidence that a closed clam shell is a sign the shell Must have been buried rapidly.

will you admit your statement about shells in everest providing evidence of a young earth was in error and remove it from your book?

quote:. Obviously if stellar dust is falling all the time, it would be reasonable that large amounts would accumalte over a large period of time, right?

In a later thread I provided a correction to what I said about moon dust, which still explains why it is not evidence for a young earth.

will you admit your statement about moon dust providing evidence of a young earth was in error and remove it from your book?

quote:There's the opening segment that I already answered.

You did not answer anything. You ignored everything you didn't like and provided no support for your claims.

Tell me, would Jesus knowingly provide false information to others?

Page 2:

•K/Ar dating errors shows it to be ineffective, Post #73

•Fossil dating is circular, Post #73

•C-14 dating errors show it to be ineffective, Post #73

•Quote showing dating flawed, Post #73

•Creationism does not push religion, Post #77

•Mater is triune, Post #78, post #80

•space is triune, Post #80

•Shells on everest are evidence for the flood, Post #98

With the exception of Argon dating, (which the only thing I contended was that its initial premise assumed that meterorites were billions of years), I answered every one of these at great depth. You simply don't like my answers and that's really that all this boils down to.

For instance: Seashells on Everest and C14 was beaten into the ground by you and I... So how can you honestly sit there and say that I haven't answered your questions?

What a load of Bullshit, you haven't answered anything. Remember, just because you hit the reply button doesn't mean you answered the problem. It's quite ironic you claim I don't want to hear your answers. Provide a valid answer and I will gladly accept it.

Please quote where you gave me Valid answers to the errors (remember the bit you just quoted wasn't valid and didn't give me any answers, think about that when choosing your quotes).

Yes seashells were beaten into the ground, you kept ignoring what I said and I kept repeating it. Just like you are ignoring it now.

Now, will you actually read what I wrote and support or retract, or will we go through your blatant dishonesty again?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I've replied to this before, but...

The question was whether or not I ever answered you. I have. I continue to answer the same questions over and over again. How many times do want to spend on the same topic saying the exact same things?

[b]That is completely incorrect and I even showed you the math to back it up. 4.5 billion years ago the earths rotation would be about twice as fast as today. Nothing amazingly huge and no where near escape velocity.

Measuring backwards from the current rate of depletion would NOT make it twice as fast if the earth were millions of years old. But, this does not necessarily mean that the earth spun faster. Its an inference. Its just like if there was good evidence showing that the dead body was not because of suicide, but the evidence pointed strongly to murder. If it wasn't faster in the past, then a more important question would have to be, "why is slowing down so much? Could this be a detriment?"

will you admit your statement about the earths rotation was in error and remove it from your book?

No, because its a valid question.

That is completely wrong, no real scientist says anything of the sort. The planets didn't even exist until billions of years after the big bang. Planets are sphere shaped because gravity pulls in all directions, creating a sphere.

First of all, yes they do say that because I've sat in seminars where they use computer generated models showing how the planets form because of the big bang. Hell, what other reason is the universe expanding or why energy exists at all? Its expanding because of the big bang, according to the theory. The big bang is the progeny of everything, from energy, from the elements, to gravity itself. But how should the planets have gravitationally condensed from a nebular, primordial cloud, with no divine intervention required in a system devoid, or virtually devoid of gravity? For instance, they say that the moon is a former chunk of the earth that was ripped away by a meteor or whatever else, yet there is no record of damage to either the moon or the earth. Why aren't there chunks still missing on earth or the moon? What caused both planets to reform as a sphere if it only formed that way because if it were initially a gaseous cloud? These are the questions that no one wants to entertain. They've come up with this theory because the moon has most of the elements found on earth... But they've also proposed that Helium and Hydrogen came from the Big bang... So what about the rest of the elements if stars themselves were composed soley of hydrogen and helium? I mean, the list goes on about why hardly any of this makes any sense.

will you admit your statements about the big bang, planet shape, planet rotation and planet mass were in error and remove it from your book?

No, because I'm asking valid questions.

Maybe I wasn't clear about this, modern science agrees with you and says the mississippi river delta is relatively young and didn't exist millions of years ago. Thus this isn't evidence for a young earth.

will you admit your statement about the mississippi river delta providing evidence of a young earth was in error and remove it from your book?

Possibly. I'll check into that again.

You have yet to provide any evidence showing this is evidence for a young earth. You have not provided any mechanism for a flood to deposited seashells inside the limestone that makes up the top of everest.

Yes I have. When the turbulent water rushes through in the initial stages of the Deluge, it mixes up sediment. The floodwaters from above, and of the deep, eventually stopped after about 40 days of torrential downfall. After that time, the waters were settling and were likely to be calm. The silt covers the layers of the existing sediment. The water evaporates, and whatever existing sediment hardens in the sun and encases any given organism.

Nor could you explain why only seashells were deposited inside the mountain or provide evidence that a closed clam shell is a sign the shell Must have been buried rapidly.

You never presented any reason why I should think that organisms have been found inside mountains. First of all, how deep are we talking? Are we talking a foot, 20 feet, a mile?

will you admit your statement about shells in everest providing evidence of a young earth was in error and remove it from your book?

Absolutely not. There is no earthly reason why seashells should be found on virtually every mountain that is very, very far from any ocean, including Wyoming and Nepal. I think you need to come up with a better theory than plate tectonics when it comes to so many mountains covered with marine life.

In a later thread I provided a correction to what I said about moon dust, which still explains why it is not evidence for a young earth. will you admit your statement about moon dust providing evidence of a young earth was in error and remove it from your book?

No, I will not because whether NASA tabulated those figures incorrectly or not is absolutely inconsequential to the reason why they did it to begin with. They made a good estimate. If the moon is indeed millions of years ago, there should be layers upon layers of stellar dust on the surface of the moon. I agree with that. But there isn't. There is an even 1/2 to a full inch of dust caused by nebular burnout. So why isn't there more dust if the earth and the moon is billions of years old?

You did not answer anything. You ignored everything you didn't like and provided no support for your claims. Tell me, would Jesus knowingly provide false information to others?

Let me break it down for you: You asked me to give you some evidence for creationism because you stated that creationism just bashes evolution. Well, I provided a mound of evidence to the contrary. That just wasn't good enough for you. Then, instead of making your own rebuttle, you asked me to 'explain' it to you in greater detail, as if it wasn't trouble enough simply compiling all of this data. You asked me some pretty vague and broad questions that generalized just about anything. The direct questions you did ask me, I responded to over a month ago and posted it for you again to refresh your memory. You just don't like what I've written, which is fine. You don't have to. But don't ask me to take out portions of my book when you have neglected to answer any real questions. If the reader doesn't believe the evidence, then he/she can go look it up themselves. I provide references at the end of the book. As you already know, I don't like to use too many creationist sources only for reasons of bias.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

What a load of Bullshit, you haven't answered anything. Remember, just because you hit the reply button doesn't mean you answered the problem. It's quite ironic you claim I don't want to hear your answers. Provide a valid answer and I will gladly accept it.

Please quote where you gave me Valid answers to the errors (remember the bit you just quoted wasn't valid and didn't give me any answers, think about that when choosing your quotes).

Yes seashells were beaten into the ground, you kept ignoring what I said and I kept repeating it. Just like you are ignoring it now.

Now, will you actually read what I wrote and support or retract, or will we go through your blatant dishonesty again?

Beta, you keep assuming you're automatically correct in your assessment. You just give me the coined, TalkOrigins response. But you're still assuming very much. Perhaps its you that's incorrect, and perhaps you need to remediate. For the sake of the argument, yes, perhaps it is I who is incorrect... I've considered it. But as of now, you haven't given me any reasons why your theory should be more valid than a very logical one that I hold to.

quote:Measuring backwards from the current rate of depletion would NOT make it twice as fast if the earth were millions of years old.

Prove it I have provided rates and math to back up my claim, you have provided nothing, you have ignored everything I have provided to keep your dishonest claims alive.

quote:First of all, yes they do say that because I've sat in seminars where they use computer generated models showing how the planets form because of the big bang.

Would these happen to be creationist seminars? Sorry but they lied to you.

No self respecting scientist would claim the big bang created the rotation of the planets.

quote:For instance, they say that the moon is a former chunk of the earth that was ripped away by a meteor or whatever else, yet there is no record of damage to either the moon or the earth. Why aren't there chunks still missing on earth or the moon?

You obviously don't know the actual proposition of the moon being a chunk of the earth. It's thought to have happened when both planets were still molten, and thus the planets reformed into spheres after the impact.

quote:So what about the rest of the elements if stars themselves were composed soley of hydrogen and helium? I mean, the list goes on about why hardly any of this makes any sense.

Congrats on just proving again that not only do you not understand the theories you are arguing against but you have ignored the multiple attempts to explain them to you.

Do you understand Fusion? Stars fuse hydrogen and helium together to form heavier elements. At iron (or is it lead, I can never remember) the star can't go any further it supernovas and the energy creates other elements and then disperses them.

quote:Possibly. I'll check into that again.

If you actually admitted you were wrong about something instead of just ignoring everything you didn't like, that would be amazing. Based on your previous arrogance I'm not holding my breath.

quote:The water evaporates, and whatever existing sediment hardens in the sun and encases any given organism.

That doesn't explain where the limestone came from and contradicts claims that floodwaters receded violently carving canyons as they went.

quote:You never presented any reason why I should think that organisms have been found inside mountains. First of all, how deep are we talking? Are we talking a foot, 20 feet, a mile?

If you even knew what you were talking about you would know the organisms are found incased in the mountain and not just sitting on top (the depth varies).

Nice dodge, my question was why are only seashells buried in the mountain and not other animals as well?

quote:There is no earthly reason why seashells should be found on virtually every mountain that is very, very far from any ocean, including Wyoming and Nepal. I think you need to come up with a better theory than plate tectonics when it comes to so many mountains covered with marine life.

1) Yet you just gave the explanation. That you don't understand it or believe it is not my problem.

2) Remember you still need to provide evidence for your claim. If plate tectonics was absolutely destroyed as a theory, it doesn't mean your beliefs are right.

quote:No, I will not because whether NASA tabulated those figures incorrectly or not is absolutely inconsequential to the reason why they did it to begin with. They made a good estimate. If the moon is indeed millions of years ago, there should be layers upon layers of stellar dust on the surface of the moon. I agree with that. But there isn't. There is an even 1/2 to a full inch of dust caused by nebular burnout. So why isn't there more dust if the earth and the moon is billions of years old?

WOW that was just sad. I have even corrected myself and you ignored the correction.

Why should there be tons of stellar dust? What are you basing your estimates on? (I can tell you, but do you know?)

quote:That just wasn't good enough for you. Then, instead of making your own rebuttle, you asked me to 'explain' it to you in greater detail, as if it wasn't trouble enough simply compiling all of this data.

Sorry I expected you to actually try to understand your evidence and not just parot claims, my fault. HAHA it is quite simple to compile this data, mater of fact it has been done before. You are just repeating creationist PRATT lists, it appears your main list is from the 70's (It may appear new to you but it's not).

quote:But don't ask me to take out portions of my book when you have neglected to answer any real questions. If the reader doesn't believe the evidence, then he/she can go look it up themselves.

So you are perfectly happy providing false data to people and doing absolutely no research about. That is sad, I hope you don't teach your kids how to write reports for school.

I've tried hard not to be hard on you, but you make it difficult. You do no research yet expect us to believe you. You dishonestly repeat claims over and over and ignore our posts. You are willing to tell other people lies because of this.

Quite sad.

Now, if you would like to support your claims with real evidence (remember you are claiming creationism is science, you should expect it to be treated like science) or be an honest christian (I notice you ignored my question about Jesus) and retract your statements. Otherwise I'm finished talking to a dishonest brick wall.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Beta, you keep assuming you're automatically correct in your assessment. You just give me the coined, TalkOrigins response. But you're still assuming very much. Perhaps its you that's incorrect, and perhaps you need to remediate. For the sake of the argument, yes, perhaps it is I who is incorrect... I've considered it. But as of now, you haven't given me any reasons why your theory should be more valid than a very logical one that I hold to.



Yes you are right. How stupid of me to assume I'm right. When I do research on a subject, provide evidence and you do no research and provide no evidence.

When I do more research into creationism and evolution than you, you must be right. Afterall it's the person who researches the least who understands the most.

I guess it's easier to dismiss something as a "coined TO response" than to try and understand it or provide a solid reply to it.

Quality job and an amazing demonstration of christian ethics and thought. Just be glad I don't believe all christians are like you. (Maybe harsh, but as it stands right now it's the blatant truth).



[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 04-02-2006).]

Prove it I have provided rates and math to back up my claim, you have provided nothing, you have ignored everything I have

provided to keep your dishonest claims alive.[/b]was a molten ma

Kelvin had good data showing that the earth’s rotational speed is slowing down. No one seems to be contending with that, as you seem to agree. But even the father of modern physics showed that if one went back a few billion years in time, the earth would have been rotating at least twice as fast. Now, once again, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was faster in the past. The question would then be: "Why is it slowing down now?" If the molten earth were spinning at a high speed in the past, the faster it spun the more it would tend to spread out. The centrifugal force that pulls outward is proportional to the square of the speed. So when it cooled after its formation the molten earth would have spun much faster than now and would have caused a bulging effect. This would have been closest to the equator so that the continents would have formed mainly in this region rather than going more in the north and less in the south as they stand now. (This obviously gives more credence to Pangea). But since the continents aren't encircling the earth at the equator and the bulge is not that pronounced, it shows that the earth was neither a molten mass or part of a nebula. It should have hardened in the way it formed. You seem to agree that the earth is sowing at about 1/1,000 per day. How many days are in 4.5 billion years? Its an astronomical figure: 2.1213203435596425732025330863145. That's well beyond the ventigillionths placement (12 zeros).

Would these happen to be creationist seminars? Sorry but they lied to you.

No self respecting scientist would claim the big bang created the rotation of the planets.

No it wasn't a creation seminar. I've actually never been to a creation seminar. This was at:

http://www.meteorcrater.com/

And this is what i watched:

http://www.meteorcrater.com/visitorcenter/theater.htm

This is site was used by NASA to test their lunar landing craft... ardly a pro-creation center.

You obviously don't know the actual proposition of the moon being a chunk of the earth. It's thought to have happened when both planets were still molten, and thus the planets reformed into spheres after the impact.

And what evidence is there of this?? Its an assertion. Its not impossible, but its the motivation for asserting it to begin with. Here's why they think it: Because the earth and the moon seemed to be comprised of the same elements. Well, that isn't exactly a staggering truth being that everything that spawned from the big bang should be relatively homologous.

Congrats on just proving again that not only do you not understand the theories you are arguing against but you have ignored the multiple attempts to explain them to you.

Do you understand Fusion? Stars fuse hydrogen and helium together to form heavier elements. At iron (or is it lead, I can never remember) the star can't go any further it supernovas and the energy creates other elements and then disperses them.

Here's my issue with it. What is the delivery system to implant the elements from stars to earth and all the planets?

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11701.html

If you actually admitted you were wrong about something instead of just ignoring everything you didn't like, that would be amazing. Based on your previous arrogance I'm not holding my breath.

No, I was considering what you said modern scientists think that the Mississippi river delta is a relatively new formation. The fact that its depleting at the rate that it is stands up to scrutiny, but if you say that its a new trend, then there is no old-earth dispute about it.

If you even knew what you were talking about you would know the organisms are found incased in the mountain and not just sitting on top (the depth varies).

Nice dodge, my question was [b]why are only seashells buried in the mountain and not other animals as well? Remember you still need to provide evidence for your claim. If plate tectonics was absolutely destroyed as a theory, it doesn't mean your beliefs are right.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/natural_history/fossils.shtml

http://www.rockhoundnotes.com/Articles/indianpassbydr.htm

http://www.s8int.com/boneyard1.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/oysters.asp

WOW that was just sad. I have even corrected myself and you ignored the correction.

Why should there be tons of stellar dust? What are you basing your estimates on? (I can tell you, but do you know?)

Based on the current rate of stellar burnout.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/255850_stardust16.html?dpfrom=thead



Sorry I expected you to actually try to understand your evidence and not just parot claims, my fault. HAHA it is quite simple to compile this data, mater of fact it has been done before. You are just repeating creationist PRATT lists, it appears your main list is from the 70's (It may appear new to you but it's not).

You know Beta, I'm not really sure why you continue to be mean and nasty about a debate. For all of my old 1970's data that you allege I use, perhaps you should stop referencing models from the 70's either..... The 1870's. Even if I was using 1970's data, then we should discontinue using any of Einsteins models, or Kelvin, or half of Hawkings models.

So you are perfectly happy providing false data to people and doing absolutely no research about. That is sad, I hope you don't teach your kids how to write reports for school.

Why do you keep assuming that I'm providing false data, simply because you don't like its implications? You keep assuming that I'm providing incorrect information.

I've tried hard not to be hard on you, but you make it difficult. You do no research yet expect us to believe you. You dishonestly repeat claims over and over and ignore our posts. You are willing to tell other people lies because of this.

Quite sad.

If I'm parroting claims, then what are you doing? All you have is abstract theorums for why evolution should be true. There is no hard evidence in support of evolution. I'm sorry that it is so, but I won't invent frauds to support something that doesn't exist.

Now, if you would like to support your claims with real evidence (remember you are claiming creationism is science, you should expect it to be treated like science) or be an honest christian (I notice you ignored my question about Jesus) and retract your statements. Otherwise I'm finished talking to a dishonest brick wall.[/QUOTE]

I don't lie about Jesus and I haven't lied about the information found in science journals. And I tried to show you, using secular arguments and data compiled by secular scientists who gain nothing, other than presenting the truth... But that wasn't good enough for you. It really just comes down to me agreeing with whatever you think is true and nothing more.

At any given time you can stop talking to me. It doesn't really matter to me either way. Most of the time I enjoy our conversations, but it seems to me that when you find yourself in a bind you just get nasty. But if you feel incapable of controlling your emotions, then please, by all means, discontinue the dialogue.

quote:Kelvin had good data showing that the earth’s rotational speed is slowing down. No one seems to be contending with that...

Once again I should point out, if you copy work from another site, cite your source. htt p://www.cr eator-crea tion.com/e arth.htm (http: //www.crea tor-creati on.com/ear th.htm)

Their reasoning is ludicrous, they are assuming continental drift is false. I don't even know what this is supposed to prove, this isn't exactly supporting your claim that the earth was rotating so fast everything would have flown off. Matter of fact I think you just contradicted yourself. Now the question is, can you admit you were wrong and say you will change your book?

quote:You seem to agree that the earth is sowing at about 1/1,000 per day. How many days are in 4.5 billion years? Its an astronomical figure: 2.1213203435596425732025330863145. That's well beyond the ventigillionths placement (12 zeros).

That has what to do with what? Since you just admited the earths rotation was only double what it is today,

Will you retract your statement the earth rotated too fast in the past to be billions of years old?

quote:No it wasn't a creation seminar. I've actually never been to a creation seminar. This was at: ?http://www.meteorcrater.com/

Can you provide any evidence they said the big bang caused the rotations of the planets?

Perhaps you misunderstood.

quote:No, I was considering what you said modern scientists think that the Mississippi river delta is a relatively new formation. The fact that its depleting at the rate that it is stands up to scrutiny, but if you say that its a new trend, then there is no old-earth dispute about it.

So you admit your claim is false but wont retract it? If so, I think that's a new low.

quote:http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/natural_history/fossils.shtml

Good that you are doing research, but it provides no evidence for your claims. quote:http://www.rockhoundnotes.com/Articles/indianpassbydr.htm

This has what to do with supporting your claims? quote:http://www.s8int.com/boneyard1.html

One of the crapiest sites I've seen, I would triple check everything you read on it (the site supports known frauds and even lies a number of times on that single page). It also provides no support for your everest claims. quote:http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/oysters.asp

Still doesn't provide any evidence for your claim nor answers any of my questions. They do take the bible out of context (oops), go and read, I mean really read and study Psalm 104.

Do I need to repeat myself again? You just ignored my question and provided no evidence to support your claims. Do you understand the concept of providing evidence?

quote:Based on the current rate of stellar burnout. [URL=http: //seattlep i.nwsource .com/local /255850_st ardust16.h tml?dpfrom =thead[/QU OTE]]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/255850_stardust16.html?dpfrom=thead/URL]

I saw no dust rates on that page, nor did I see any evidence that would support your claims about moon dust. This is just sad, are you just googling "stelar dust" and hoping I will do like you and believe without evidence?

Ok, do you really want to know where the moon dust numbers came from (not that I expect you to read this). Hans Pettersson stood on top of a mountain and measured the amount of nickel, assuming all nickel comes from outspace, made a guestamate about the percentage of nickel in meteorites and arrived at a figure he admited was high. Morris (the source of most of your 'facts') took this high estimate and ran with it. The NASA story is a fabrication. Creationist groups that parrot the moon dust story still run with the outdated, misrepresented and poorly collected figures.

Will you retract your claim that the lack of moon dust means it's young?

quote:You know Beta, I'm not really sure why you continue to be mean and nasty about a debate. For all of my old 1970's data that you allege I use

You misunderstand. It's not just that it's from the 1970's but that most of it has been refuted and debunked since then. It's old, outdated and dead, yet it keeps coming up over and over and over again.

quote:Why do you keep assuming that I'm providing false data, simply because you don't like its implications? You keep assuming that I'm providing incorrect information.

HAHAHAHA, oh yeah I don't like the implications. HAHAHAHA.

I have provided evidence you are providing false data. You ignore it. I love the irony of assuming it's me who is making assumptions.

quote:If I'm parroting claims, then what are you doing? All you have is abstract theorums for why evolution should be true. There is no hard evidence in support of evolution. I'm sorry that it is so, but I won't invent frauds to support something that doesn't exist.

Blah blah parrot blah blah.

Trying to change the subject again. Notice I'm not really defending evolution here, only falsifying your claims.

quote:I don't lie about Jesus and I haven't lied about the information found in science journals.

Misrepresenting my words. Tisk tisk, I bet Jesus is spinning in his grave right now.

If you keep repeating claims I have shown are false, then you are being dishonest.



Now that you have admitted errors will you retract your claims or not? If you still refuse to admit you were wrong and take the arrogant road with fingers in your ears, this conversation is over. If you can get over yourself, actually read what is written, think about it and admit you are wrong, maybe we are getting somewhere.





[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 04-02-2006).]

Once again I should point out, if you copy work from another site, cite your source. htt p://www.cr eator-crea tion.com/e arth.htm (http: //www.crea tor-creati on.com/earth.htm)

Those quips on Kelvin were not from that site. Perhaps thats some of that shot-gunning of shit you so eloquently poised. The website you provided was just complete quackery. Well, it has some facts but it looks like a psuedo-spiritual website to me.

Their reasoning is ludicrous, they are assuming continental drift is false. I don't even know what this is supposed to prove, this isn't exactly supporting your claim that the earth was rotating so fast everything would have flown off. Matter of fact I think you just contradicted yourself. Now the question is, can you admit you were wrong and say you will change your book?

Beta, where is the ambiguity? If the earth was slowing down at a measurable rate, and the earth is said to have existed for 4.5 billion years, then it would have been spinning at least twice as fast... That's being generous. Its a matter of simple logic. If its slowing down at a rate that we can notice, then it spun faster in the past. Its an inference, and a logical one at that.

That has what to do with what? Since you just admited the earths rotation was only double what it is today, will you retract your statement the earth rotated too fast in the past to be billions of years old?

The earth is spinning at about 1,000 mph.... I said it was at least half as fast. I, nor anyone said that it isn't 100% verifiable proof, I said it was an inference. But before you harangue me, evolution is based on similar inferences. So its okay for them to make wild assumptions based on inferences, but its not okay to notice that the earth is slowing down at a measurable rate, and assuming that it spun faster in the distant past is ludicrous?

http://www.creation-answers.com/slowing.htm

Can you provide any evidence they said the big bang caused the rotations of the planets?

Perhaps you misunderstood.

I suppose I could call them ans ask them. No, I didn't misunderstand. My wife was sitting next to me in a similar state of vexation as one conjecture lead to another.

So you admit your claim is false but wont retract it? If so, I think that's a new low.

Wow... And you say that i don't read the posts? Let me explain it... again. I said that the Mississippi river delta is accumulating sediment at the mouth of the gulf of Mexico. It is accumulating at a measurable rate. Extrapolating backwards from the same rate, it clearly shows that it is young, and thus lends more credence to a young earth philosophy. But you said (I'm paraphrasing) "You are misunderstanding. They say that the Mississippi delta is relatively new, not that the earth is young. Will you take that out of your book?" So I said that I would check into that - meaning, I will see if what you say is true. If it is true that most geologists say that the Mississippi river is a relatively new formation, then I have no need to use it as evidence to support a young earth philosophy. But the Mississippi is eroding at a measurable and if I find the geological world overlooking this while maintaining millions of years, then it stays in the book. If they say that Mississippi river is a young formation, then it bears no relevance to the book and will be removed. Do you understand now?

quote:http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/natural_history/fossils.shtml

Good that you are doing research, but it provides no evidence for your claims. quote:http://www.rockhoundnotes.com/Articles/indianpassbydr.htm

This has what to do with supporting your claims? quote:http://www.s8int.com/boneyard1.html

One of the crapiest sites I've seen, I would triple check everything you read on it (the site supports known frauds and even lies a number of times on that single page). It also provides no support for your everest claims. quote:http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/oysters.asp

Still doesn't provide any evidence for your claim nor answers any of my questions. They do take the bible out of context (oops), go and read, I mean really read and study Psalm 104.[/b]

I looked for what they said about Psalm 104, but I couldn't find much about it. I only found a blurb on it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i4/interpretation.asp

Psalm 104 is David praising God for His creation.

Do I need to repeat myself again? You just ignored my question and provided no evidence to support your claims. Do you understand the concept of providing evidence?

What??? You keep contending with two things. 1. You say that there are no aquatic creatures on mountains except for clams.

2. You say that the clams were found 'inside' the mountain. I asked you to tell me what you meant by that. Did you mean a foot in the rock, 20 feet, a mile.... But you have neglected to provide me data showing that clams are 'inside' the mountain... whatever, that means. I already explained how sediment settles and hardens. Afterall, that's what sedimentary rock is.



I saw no dust rates on that page, nor did I see any evidence that would support your claims about moon dust. This is just sad, are you just googling "stelar dust" and hoping I will do like you and believe without evidence?

Ok, do you really want to know where the moon dust numbers came from (not that I expect you to read this). Hans Pettersson stood on top of a mountain and measured the amount of nickel, assuming all nickel comes from outspace, made a guestamate about the percentage of nickel in meteorites and arrived at a figure he admited was high. Morris (the source of most of your 'facts') took this high estimate and ran with it. The NASA story is a fabrication. Creationist groups that parrot the moon dust story still run with the outdated, misrepresented and poorly collected figures.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp

Will you retract your claim that the lack of moon dust means it's young?

Absolutely.

quote:You know Beta, I'm not really sure why you continue to be mean and nasty about a debate. For all of my old 1970's data that you allege I use

You misunderstand. It's not just that it's from the 1970's but that most of it has been refuted and debunked since then. It's old, outdated and dead, yet it keeps coming up over and over and over again.[/b]

So has recapitualtion but it can still be found in many 'current' textbooks as a referrence and that was debunked in the early 1900's. Bad science is bad science.

HAHAHAHA, oh yeah I don't like the implications. HAHAHAHA.

I have provided evidence you are providing false data. You ignore it. I love the irony of assuming it's me who is making assumptions.

No you haven't. You tell me something and expect me to go look it up. You have presented nothing in this last set of posts. You told me about space dust being unusable. You should have provided some evidence. I went looking for it myself and found a retraction. So, thanks for mentioning it, but if you want me to believe you, find an unbiased source.

Blah blah parrot blah blah.

Trying to change the subject again. Notice I'm not really defending evolution here, only falsifying your claims.

No, it reveals a level of hypocrisy on your part if you stand fast to one form of 'parroting' but not another. We'll just pretend that you've done the studies yourself, and that TO gets their information from you, and not the other way around.

Misrepresenting my words. Tisk tisk, I bet Jesus is spinning in his grave right now. If you keep repeating claims I have shown are false, then you are being dishonest.



Jesus rose again, haven't you read?

Now that you have admitted errors will you retract your claims or not? If you still refuse to admit you were wrong and take the arrogant road with fingers in your ears, this conversation is over. If you can get over yourself, actually read what is written, think about it and admit you are wrong, maybe we are getting somewhere.[/b]

I retract the moon dust argument.



[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:Those quips on Kelvin were not from that site.

Although maybe not from that specific site, it is best to list a source when you say something that isn't yours.

quote:Beta, where is the ambiguity? If the earth was slowing down at a measurable rate, and the earth is said to have existed for 4.5 billion years, then it would have been spinning at least twice as fast... That's being generous. Its a matter of simple logic. If its slowing down at a rate that we can notice, then it spun faster in the past. Its an inference, and a logical one at that.

Actually it would be less than twice as fast (see the math I gave, it produces 14 hour days) and that's on the high side (the spin down rate is slightly variable thanks to the surface of the earth and the moon and is thought to be a bit faster than it was in the past).

You however didn't say it would just 'Spin faster in the past" you said,

"If the Earth was billions of years old, the Earth would have had revolutions so fast, due to the Corealis Effect, the centrifugal force would have produced 5,000 mph winds and would have hurled it’s inhabitants into space."

Obviously a bit under twice as fast is no where near escape velocity (which is around 25,000 mph) nor will it produce 5,000 mph winds

quote:but its not okay to notice that the earth is slowing down at a measurable rate, and assuming that it spun faster in the distant past is ludicrous?

Wow, that was a lovely twist around, might I suggest you go back and look at who said what? You seem to like to put words in other peoples mouths, maybe you are remembering things wrong, that's why you can go back and read a thread to make sure.

1) I was the one who said twice as fast, see above response for what you said.

2) I never said it was ludicrous, on the contrary I was the one who provided evidence for it. Matter of fact we can see the effect the slow down has had. Coral has growth patterns based on light dark periods. Coral that is millions of years old shows a different pattern concurrent with the slow down rate I have given.

quote:I suppose I could call them ans ask them. No, I didn't misunderstand. My wife was sitting next to me in a similar state of vexation as one conjecture lead to another.

It's possible they didn't explain things as well. The big bang is responsible for the expansion of the universe but the rotation of planets is so miniscule because of it and a local occurrence. All of the planets that rotate differently than we do, do so in odd ways, suggesting something happened to them in the past. One rotates on its side, another has an orbital period shorter than it's rotational period, suggesting it was spinning the same direction as us and something hit it taking all its rotational energy.

Think of a basketball, if you spin it and drop it, when it hits the ground it reverses rotation and spins slower the other way. This is most likely what happened on a massive scale.

quote:But the Mississippi is eroding at a measurable and if I find the geological world overlooking this while maintaining millions of years, then it stays in the book. If they say that Mississippi river is a young formation, then it bears no relevance to the book and will be removed. Do you understand now?

That's still confusing but yes I understand.

The Mississippi river delta (and other similar items) as evidence for a young earth is like saying TV proves civilization is only a couple hundred years old.

quote:I looked for what they said about Psalm 104, but I couldn't find much about it. I only found a blurb on it.

Ok.

AIG quotes a section of psalms 104 out of context saying "‘The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down’, ironically agreeing with the natural view of things. However it is a misunderstanding.

KJV verse of psalms 104:8 is seen in better context here,

Psa 104:6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.

Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

Psa 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Psa 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

As can be seen, the motion is of the waters not the mountains. Some translations quote 104:8 similar to AIGs use, however in context we can see it's poetic, as the waters fled the mountains "rose" but they didn't actually move the receding water made it appear as if they grew. The verses are talking about the water. This seems to be a common verse that's taken out of context to support their views of creation by creationist groups.

quote:What??? You keep contending with two things. 1. You say that there are no aquatic creatures on mountains except for clams.

2. You say that the clams were found 'inside' the mountain. I asked you to tell me what you meant by that. Did you mean a foot in the rock, 20 feet, a mile.... But you have neglected to provide me data showing that clams are 'inside' the mountain... whatever, that means. I already explained how sediment settles and hardens. Afterall, that's what sedimentary rock is.

Actually you provided the evidence, look back over the fed.us link about where sea fossils are found. I can't give you a specific depth because they are all over since the top of the mountain used to be a sea floor.

Both of use are contending the same things, you are just only interpreting the surface information instead of digging deeper.

Again, to use Everest as flood evidence you need to tell me why only clams and other shell fish that match modern sciences theory are in the mountain and how the violent flood was able to leave soggy limestone on the surface of a mountain.

quote:So has recapitualtion but it can still be found in many 'current' textbooks as a referrence and that was debunked in the early 1900's. Bad science is bad science.

Yep bad science is bad science, which is why it's best to research things. There are errors in textbooks (which are much different than papers from scientific sources) and there are groups that try to get errors in textbooks removed.

However if we know something is in error, we shouldn't use it just because it exists in a book.

quote:No you haven't. You tell me something and expect me to go look it up. You have presented nothing in this last set of posts. You told me about space dust being unusable. You should have provided some evidence.

Actually I did provide where it came from and why is shouldn't be used.

However, you going and looking for yourself is a good thing.

quote:No, it reveals a level of hypocrisy on your part if you stand fast to one form of 'parroting' but not another. We'll just pretend that you've done the studies yourself, and that TO gets their information from you, and not the other way around.

I've said multiple times, I have done the research myself and I don't just parrot TO. I use multiple source, I have talked with a number of scientists that work in the fields I'm researching or who have papers on TO or in peer review journals. (Even scarier I learned a lot of what I know about evolution from christian professors http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) )

TO doesn't get their information from me, but that doesn't matter. I use multiple sources to double check what I'm talking about, and only talk about things I've researched.

Matter of fact I have talked with creationist group members to double check information they provide and to check certain facts on TO for myself.

So I would cation not to make assumptions about my supposed hypocrisy.

It should be noted, parroting is the repeating of information without doing any research or understanding into that information. Also known as regurgitation it's what schools often encourage their students to do. But that's another topic. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:I retract the moon dust argument.

Thanks, that brings hope. Now maybe we can get you to retract some of these other statements as well.

Along with that I retract some of the "dumbass" comments I made awhile ago.

evolution: evolution is a stupid believe by Charles Darwin where people are supposed to believe that a single celled organism (that nobody knows how it got here) started evolving into a better organism and eventually formed the earth and everything in it. BULLCRAP!

first of all, if that were true, why have things stayed the same for the thousands of years we've been here? why aren't there any more organisms evolving to make a giraffe with eight heads and an udder? Why has this suddenly stopped?

and second, why are there animals out there that prove evolution totally wrong by themselves!? take birds. all the same. maybe different species, sizes, and color, but they're basically the same make-up. But what about the bird (can't think of the name right now) that has it's tongue going up through the back of it's throat, through it's skull, through the roof of it's mouth, and out? Why is that ONE species of bird different from all the others? why is it the ONLY one that it's tongue does that? don't you think that the cells evolving would make more then one species like that, considering every other one is basically the same? look up "animals disproving evolution" they have a DVD that disproves evolution just using animals.

Something for you to contemplate, slicktOmmy: It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak (or post) and remove all doubt.

I just figured he drank decade old bong water.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I just figured he drank decade old bong water.



LOL!

Behind putrefaction, that is the most vile smell I can think of.

I wonder how old slicktommy is. I hate dumbass kids who can't argue. Agh it just frustrates me. At least everyone here knows how dumb he is- the worst thing is when people actually side with stupid people like that.