PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     "Evolution is a religion!"
       Not so, unless you can explain these points!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Joe Meert

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 3:18 PM on May 7, 2004 :
I'm sorry. I disagree with this. The scientific method left induction many years ago when the falsification of Popperian thought replaced it.



JM: Real science is a mixture of both inductive and deductive reasoning.  The attempt to pigeon hole it as one or the other is naive.  Rather than start another post on the subject, you need to do some catching up on the Cambrian explosion.  Seems it likely was not so explosive.  

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040412/firstanimal.html

Cheers

Joe Meert



 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 06:48 AM on May 10, 2004 | IP
newme

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gup, "you have nearly persuaded me to be a Christian."  
     By the way, many evolutionists claim to be Christians but the Bible claims itself to be the true word of God and claims a six day creation so it is either entirely correct or has no validity at all.  Like Jesus, who claimed to be the son of God.  He can't be just a good person.  Either He is God or He is a liar.  

  Many say the days were not literal days but then how did plants last so long without the sun and what exactly was that other light.  Did God just hover over the waters for millenia?  Either you accept the Bible as a whole or not at all.  Which reminds me, you guys talked about the Sabbath thing, but how many "Christians" actually keep Sabbath?  Mormons do, but it's not on the right day according to the Bible. (It's based on one of their 3 other Bibles).  Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists, etc. do, but most "Christians" don't.  How will the world take "Christians" seriously if they cannot agree when they have the whole rule book right in front of them, and how can they be considered logical when they don't even believe in what it teaches?

  Nevertheless, the arguments of the evolutionists here have very little merit other than the belief that they are not humanists.  Being founded by a humanist doesn't necessarily make them humanists any more than a person's claiming Christianity necessarily proves they follow Christ.
As for faith, it is accurately interpreted as belief with trust.  If there is no trust there is no faith.  

  Evolutionists only believe and trust science as it is understood by limited human intelligences.  The two opposing views will never come to terms because Creationism believes and trusts Science only as it is understood within unlimited divine intelligence.
As a Christian, your only argument of persuasion is in your attitude.  Do you live like your leader asks?

  In the case of Gup, I find no fault in his attitude, I only wonder if he is of the minority that actually follows what the Bible says rather than merely teaches it to others.  But that is a question for another debate.[
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 02:28 AM on February 20, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, many evolutionists claim to be Christians but the Bible claims itself to be the true word of God and claims a six day creation so it is either entirely correct or has no validity at all.

And yet the Bible is wrong so many times when it makes claims of science, how can you possibly claim that a literal interpretation of the Bible is true?  And of course the majority of the worlds Christians (including the Pope) accept evolution.

It seems the only way you can believe in the myths of the Bible is to reject all the evidence available and  all logic and common sense.  Typical creationist nonsense...


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:50 AM on February 20, 2005 | IP
newme

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

too bad I never claimed to be a Creationist, or you might have had a point.  I said he nearly persuaded me (a play on a Biblical scene).  I also attacked claims of "Christians" (in quotes because they do not keep the teachings of the Bible so how can they claim Christianity?) because they make no sense since they tend to be hypocrites based on the teachings of the very book they claim to follow.  It is remarks such as this that pay no attention to the true comments of others that discredits you in the face of those who would support you.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 05:00 AM on February 20, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is remarks such as this that pay no attention to the true comments of others that discredits you in the face of those who would support you.

Nah, my points still stand, whatever your true comments were.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:29 AM on February 20, 2005 | IP
veritas

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hi there, demon, i've been reading a lot of ur replies throughout today.  i'm a high school senior doing a report on evolution vs. creationism in schools and came across the debate you had with a certain TQ and Young Earth Toad and a few minor others.  i have some questions for you though, concerning your underestimation of the Bible as a truth.  could you point out some scientific statements in the Bible that have been proven as false?  i would like to look them up and see if you are correct.  you see, i am quite learned in the Bible and what it says, and i have never found anything in it to be false, yet.  could you please find some scriptures to help me disclaim my faith?  i have another question, in all of that April debate, no one ever took into consideration that there is a Hell and a Devil, only that there is or is not a God, why is that?  if Creationism is true, then God must be there, and therefore, Satan must be too.  and since Satan hates God and wants to destroy everything he can, where better to start than by leading people to believe that God does not even exist?
trying to prove Creationism is wrong or Evolution is wrong is pretty difficult if you are going to use Science that you see around you today to figure it out.  you see, NONE OF US WERE THERE to see the beginning.  NONE OF US REALLY KNOW FOR A FACT. NOBODY.  the key here is that we were not there to see it happen, therefore, we will never know exactly what occurred.
as a simple minded young girl of 17, i find it much much easier to believe that a Divine Intelligence created the world as it is and rules over it, than to believe that every living thing evolved from a single cell billions of years ago.  to believe in a Superior Being makes sense, Someone made us, Someone gave us a soul.  oh, that brings me to another subject...  Do you have a soul, Demon?  cuz if you don't, then whats the point?  why not get it over with and kill yourself, you are living for no reason, nothing will happen to you when you die, everything you live for matters not.  and why, if there is no punishment in the afterlife for my actions now, should i not kill everyone i dislike?  why have these laws that say you can't kill, you can't steal...  why would someone ever wish to make a rule that takes away insane fun and pleasure if there is no punishment in the afterlife.  sure, these days you get sent to prison, but why?  where did these morals come from?  hmm... last time i checked, those rules were listed on the 10 Commandments, which happens to be in the Book you think is ridiculous.  tell me what you think of all this.  i've been looking forward to communicating with you.


-------
*I believe in Christianity like I believe that the sun has risen; not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.* C.S. Lewis
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 12:21 AM on February 25, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i have some questions for you though, concerning your underestimation of
the Bible as a truth.  could you point out some scientific statements in
the Bible that have been proven as false?


Well, without doing too much research, the story of Noah claims there was a
world wide flood.  This is impossible and was disproven over 200 years ago.
In Genesis the Bible claims God created light and darkness on the first
day, but he didn't create the sun and starts till the 4th day.  You can't
have light without the sun and stars.  And it's obvious that the writers of
the bible did not understand 'darkness' , you can't seperate light from
darkness, since darkness is merely an absence of light.
Then there are the numerous places where the Bible describes the earth as
flat, where it describes the earth as immobile with the sun and stars
revolving around it.
And here's a good one!  In Genesis 30:37-39 it says:

"37Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees, and
peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods.
38He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the
gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and
they mated when they came to drink.
39So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped,
speckled, and spotted."


This is a glaring error, changes in coloration are purely genetic, not
based on environmental color during mating.

Yes, the Bible is brimming with scientific inaccuracies, but what would you
expect from a book written 3000 years ago by primitive peoples who had no
concept of modern science?

you see, i am quite learned in the Bible and what it says, and i have
never found anything in it to be false, yet.


Then you'd better study some science because the Bible is clearly NOT a
book of science!

i have another question, in all of that April debate, no one ever took
into consideration that there is a Hell and a Devil, only that there is or
is not a God, why is that?


Even though I don't believe in God, I don't ever remember trying to
disprove His existance!  Maybe I mentioned something in an off handed
remark, but I never use science to try and disprove God, because God is
supposed to be supernatural, unfalsifiable, and so is neutral to science.
Now, Creationism is a different story.  It makes testable claims, the earth
is 6000 years old, there was a worldwide flood, organisms don't evolve, and
as such, it has been falsified completely.  Many Christians accept
evolution as the means by which God created.  So don't confuse creationism
with christainity, most christians worldwide accept evolution and reject
creationism.

trying to prove Creationism is wrong or Evolution is wrong is pretty
difficult if you are going to use Science that you see around you today to
figure it out.  you see, NONE OF US WERE THERE to see the beginning.


Ridiculous arguement, science never relies on eyewitness accounts, they are
too untrustworthy.  Creationism has been proven wrong by examining the
evidence.  Evolution has been completely accepted due to the support of all
evidence found to date in all relevent scientific disciplines.  So it's not
that difficult at all, creationism fails all empirical tests and evolution
is supported by all emprical tests.

as a simple minded young girl of 17, i find it much much easier to
believe that a Divine Intelligence created the world as it is and rules
over it, than to believe that every living thing evolved from a single cell
billions of years ago.


This is due to the fact that you don't understand how the natural world
works, you haven't studied any of the evidence and you are a simple inded
17 year old girl who has had the superstitions of christianity drummed into
your head all your life.  All the processes in evolution work without the
need for a magical supreme being.

to believe in a Superior Being makes sense, Someone made us, Someone
gave us a
soul.


Why does it make sense?  Absolutely no evidence to support the existance of
a Superior Being.  Nothing in the universe we've observed yet needs one to
exist.

oh, that brings me to another subject...  Do you have a soul, Demon?


Define soul, show me evidence that one even exists...

cuz if you don't, then whats the point?  why not get it over with and
kill yourself, you are living for no reason, nothing will happen to you
when you die, everything you live for matters not.


I beg to differ!  Just because I don't have a 'soul' nothing matters?  I
certainly don't think so!  Being a human, a social animal, the things that
matter to me are (in this order) my family, my friends and the rest of
humanity!  I'm very happy in my life, very satisfied and I find that's the
point of living, that's what matters most!  I find that much more
satisfying than living my life to only worship a possibly imaginary being
who gives the illusion of freewill, who many claim is all loving but is
quick to cast those He determines to be unworthy into eternal punishment
and damnation.

and why, if there is no punishment in the afterlife for my actions now,
should i not kill everyone i dislike?


Because if you killed everyone you disliked you would be a danger to
society, since humanity has evolved as a social animal, wanton killing is
not beneficial to our society, you would be abnormal and you would either
be put away in prison or put to death.  So you're saying the only thing
that keeps you from killing the people you dislike is a fear of God
punishing you?!?  I'm sorry, I think this makes the atheist who does the
right thing, not out of fear of punishment but solely because it's the
right thing, morally far superior to the christian who only does the right
thing for fear of being punished if he doesn't.  Do you really think that
is the only reason for people to treat each other with kindness?  What a
horrible view of humanity you have!

why have these laws that say you can't kill, you can't steal...  why
would someone ever wish to make a rule that takes away insane fun and
pleasure if there is no punishment in the afterlife.


Because humans are social animals.  These morals evolved in order for us to live in groups.  Other animals have their own morals, they don't do it because they think they will be punished in the after life!  The existance of other animals moral codes destroys your assumption.  

where did these morals come from?

Since morals pre date religion, it's obvious they evolved.

last time i checked, those rules were listed on the 10 Commandments, which happens to be in the Book you think is ridiculous.

You can't possibly think morals didn't exist before the ten commandments?!?  The ten commandments merely reitterated what was already created, there are many coded laws that predate the 10 commandments, and added a few new twists to strengthen their religion.  Certainly Hammurabi's Code was written close to a 1000 years earlier than the ten commandments.  And there are codes of law even earlier than Hammurabi's.  So we certainly had codes and morals before the commandments.
So there you go, respond back and let's discuss this stuff!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:34 AM on February 25, 2005 | IP
veritas

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the story of Noah claims there was a
world wide flood.  This is impossible and was disproven over 200 years ago.

how exactly was this disproven?  i keep hearing you say that stuff was disproven 200 years ago, well who disproved it and how??  and there is lots of physical evidence of a worldwide flood, such as the Grand Canyon, the layers of rock are smooth and defined with heavier rock on bottom, and lighter rock on top, something you would see if you put different types of dirt and sand in a glass of water and shook it up, letting it settle on its own would create such layers.  and the mountains, they don't take a long time to form at all!  in fact, it may only take a matter of days or less for a mountain to form after a massive earthquake.  it says in the Bible that when the flood came, the water came from under the earth and above the earth, if water came from under the earth, how would it get to the top but by shooting upwards, forcing rock to redefine its location, much like the formation of a volcano.  if you are going to debate whether or not the world wide flood is true or false, you must first look at everything from BOTH angles.  personally, debating topics like Creationism and Evolution is pointless because both sides have their own answers to everything.  but its still fun to talk about and see what the other side says.  i'm not going to try to persuade you to believe what i believe, i just want you to see that there are many perfectly possible ways things happen.

because God issupposed to be supernatural, unfalsifiable, and so is neutral to science.


for a moment can you pretend that God is real, and He is everything the Bible says He is: Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent.  All powerful, All knowing, and Ever present.  just humor me...  say God is THE sovereign ruler over the entire universe.  don't shake your head and say 'yeah whatever'  just pretend you believe this for a moment.  so, God creates earth from a formless void, He pulls the sun, moon, stars and planets all into this galaxy we like to call the Milky Way, He creates earth and sky, with merely His voice, which must be pretty powerful, and makes extremely complex creatures such as Man and Animal.  (yes, take a look at your anatomy, it's pretty darned complex if you ask me, how could everything we are compounded of come from a single, simple cell?)  He's literally got the whole world in His hand.  are you picturing this?  alright, so if He created everything, including gravity, the atmospheres, the layers of the earth, and everything on the earth.... how could He possibly be neutral to science?  He CREATED science.  and He created man with the ability and need to learn about it to see how great our God is.  ok, you can stop pretending now.

Many Christians accept
evolution as the means by which God created.  So don't confuse creationism
with christainity, most christians worldwide accept evolution and reject
creationism.


yes, this is undeniably true, Christians these days that are taught in public schools believe in evolution... hmm... why is that, i wonder?  because evolution is the only thing taught in schools and many parents think their kids are safe at school, learning everything they need to know about the world.  those Christians who believe in evolution, only believe it out of ignorance.  i myself had never even really thought about the difference in creation and what i was taught in school, it never crossed my mind at all until i was shown the Creationism series by Kent Hovind a few years ago.  i was in shock at all that i saw and heard because i knew that many other Christians had the same problem, ignorance of the truth, the deeper meaning of Genesis 1:1.  it is sad, i know.  
Creationism has been proven wrong by examining the
evidence.  Evolution has been completely accepted due to the support of all
evidence found to date in all relevent scientific disciplines


exactly what kind of evidence supports evolution completely and without doubt?  if there were such evidence, evolution would not be a theory.  i'd like to know about this evidence and how you know its not tampered with or made up by evolutionists grasping something that isn't there.

This is due to the fact that you don't understand how the natural world
works, you haven't studied any of the evidence and you are a simple inded
17 year old girl who has had the superstitions of christianity drummed into
your head all your life.

i'd like to make the point again that i did not look twice at evolution in school until two-three years ago, creationism was not drummed into my head all my life, it was simply just understated, and evolution was overstated.  when i watched the Hovind series i realized the lies i had been told by my biology teachers and felt ashamed because i had been so ignorant of my belief.

Absolutely no evidence to support the existance of
a Superior Being.


if you believed in God and His sovereignty, would you believe He still performs miracles in peoples lives today?  mentally and physically?  yes, physically, something that cannot be staged or lied about.  ever see a lame person walk after a Benny Hinn crusade?  ever see someone healed of malignant brain tumors?  i'm sure that if you dont' believe this happens, you could write to some doctors who have personally seen the cancer before and not seen it after a crusade like this.  it happens, buddy, it really does.  you cannot deny it. so dont even try.

Define soul, show me evidence that one even exists...[b]

soul: spirit of man,  spirit: vital essence of man  that's straight out of websters.  and since i'm in the dictionary right now, lets define evolution and creation, shall we?  
evolve: to develop or to change gradually
evolution: gradual development
create:to make
creation: the universe  (yes this is really in my websters dictionary.)

so, if evolution is gradual development, what did the first cell develope from??  everything has to come from something, so says laws of science, correct?  where did that 'something' first come from?  if there's no one out there bigger than us, no one unlimited out there, then everything has always been here since the beginning.  oh wait, when was the beginning?  where did it all start?  now THAT is a tough question.  evolutionists say that there was no beginning and that everything has been churning and burning for trillions of years, but then you have to ask yourself another taunting question, where did the substances that are churning and burning come from in the first place? typical human thoughts, no doubt.  then we think about God and what that says if He exists.  if we believe in God we know when this planet began, but when did God begin?  way to much to try to understand with our puny little minds.  questions like these always lead to more questions.  the only answer we have for God is what the Bible tells us.  He has no beginning, and no end.  this is hard for us to understand because we are creatures of time, we have a beginning, we have an end, therefore we think that everything that exists has to have a beginning and and end as well.  too much to think about really... it sends my mind in a twist.  
thanks for replying so soon Demon38, ur a good debater. i will surely check this tomorrow.[b]

(Edited by veritas 2/26/2005 at 12:02 AM).


-------
*I believe in Christianity like I believe that the sun has risen; not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.* C.S. Lewis
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 12:01 AM on February 26, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On Noah's flood you said:
how exactly was this disproven?  i keep hearing you say that stuff was disproven 200 years ago, well who disproved it and how?

Well, Christian geologists, 200 years ago, took a good look at earth, no signs of a world wide flood in the same strata across the earth.  Not enough water on the planet to completely cover the land.  We have civilizations that we know lived before the time of the supposed flood and during it!  So either they could hold their breath for a real long time or the Bible is wrong!  And all evidence to date has also disproved the flood.  NASA has satelites that can determine the 'rebound' in tectonic plates from massive weights placed on them, North America is still rebounding from the last ice age 10,000 years ago.  But South America and Africa show no signs of rebound, something that would have to be present if all the land was submerged 4000 years ago!  In fact, all land masses would show the same rate of rebound due to a relatively recent event like a massive world wide flood, but they don't so no flood.  

and there is lots of physical evidence of a worldwide flood, such as the Grand Canyon, the layers of rock are smooth and defined with heavier rock on bottom, and lighter rock on top, something you would see if you put different types of dirt and sand in a glass of water and shook it up, letting it settle on its own would create such layers.

This is a lie, do some real research and stop listening to that liar Hovind!  This is not what the Grand canyon is composed!  Many of the layers of the Grand canyon are made up of limestone and limestone is made up of the exoskeletons of tiny animals.  It took millions of years for enough of these tiny creatures to die and then millions of years for theim to turn into linestone!  The ancient mountain range that lies at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is about 1.7 billion years old.  No, you are completely wrong about the Grand canyon!

and the mountains, they don't take a long time to form at all!  in fact, it may only take a matter of days or less for a mountain to form after a massive earthquake

Utter nonsense!  As a christian you should be thouroughly ashamed for spouting these outright lies!  Mountains take millions of years to form, a matter of days?!?  Impossible!  A mountain rising anywhere near that fast (years? decades?) would generate so much heat that whole continents would be scorched!
If you knew anything about geology, you would know your claims are simply impossible!

it says in the Bible that when the flood came, the water came from under the earth and above the earth, if water came from under the earth,

Except we see no evidence of any vast amounts of underground water!

if you are going to debate whether or not the world wide flood is true or false, you must first look at everything from BOTH angles.

I have and Noah's flood is wildly impossible by everything that is observed!  There is no point of 'side' that makes it logically possible.

personally, debating topics like Creationism and Evolution is pointless because both sides have their own answers to everything.

But Creationism has been falsified, evolution has not.  This means that your side has the wrong answers.  Evolution makes predictions
that are used in many practical applications today.  If it was wrong, then these practical applications would not work, but they do work so evolution must be correct.  Evolution is the basis for modern biology, nothing makes sense unless viewed through evolution.  It is intrical to modern agriculture and animal husbandry, it is invaluble in modern medicine.

alright, so if He created everything, including gravity, the atmospheres, the layers of the earth, and everything on the earth.... how could He possibly be neutral to science?  He CREATED science.

Because He can do all this, He can do anything, no natural law binds him!  I say it's impossible God created the earth in 6 days, you say nothing is impossible to god.  If God is not subject to the natural laws, he is beyond sciences ability to test for Him.  If you say lightning is caused by God throwing lightning bolts from the sky, we can falsify that, lightining is caused by differential heat in the atmosphere causing build up of static charges.
But if you say God is created the laws that cause heat differentials that cause the static charge and He leaves no evidence so you have to believe in him based on faith, well, no evidence and faith, science can't confirm or deny, he is unfalsifiable!

He CREATED science.  and He created man with the ability and need to learn about it to see how great our God is.

Then why did he make so many things that appear to contradict what he says in the Bible???  The earth look unmistakably old, life looks exactly as if it evolved.  Is he testing us, believe your senses, your mind and logic or believe in the bible, if you're wrong, you go to hell?  Seems like a very deceitful god to me....

yes, this is undeniably true, Christians these days that are taught in public schools believe in evolution... hmm... why is that, i wonder?

Because evolutin is science, it's valid, it's consistant with all evidence found to date.  I went to Catholic school and I was taught evolution, so it's not just public schools.  To teach anything other than evolution would lead to another dark age of ignorance.

exactly what kind of evidence supports evolution completely and without doubt?  if there were such evidence, evolution would not be a theory.  i'd like to know about this evidence and how you know its not tampered with or made up by evolutionists grasping something that isn't there.

First of all, the highest concepts in science are theories, there is nothing higher.  The earth orbits the sun, that's the Heliocentric theory, germs cause disease, that's the Germ theory, atoms made up of electrons, neutrons, protons, that's the atomic theory, how electricty, magnetism, light work, that's the quantum theory of electromagnetism, and lets not forget the theory of gravity!  It appears you don't know how science works....
And evolution is both a fact and a theory.  It's a fact that allelle frequencies change in populations.  The theory of evolution explains how this works.
As to evidence for evolution, where to start...
The fossil record is found in an order that is ONLY explained by evolution.
There are literally thousands of clearly transitional fossils that can only be explained by evolution.
Life is segmented into twin nested hierarchies that are only explained by evolution.
Genetics and ERV's point precisely to evolution.
Biogeography is only explained by evolution.
Literally all the evidence supports evolution and none falsifies it.
And the first scientist to prove evolution wrong would instantly become world famous.  Scientists have been trying to disprove evolution for over 150 years, no one has.  If you're claiming there's a world wide atheist conspiricy to prop up evolution where's your evidence???  And if you think evolution is based on shody evidence, you're free to become an expert, study the evidence yourself and personally falsify it, no creationist has done this yet.  In fact, many creationists who have attempted to do this have ultimately conceded that creationism just can't be right.

i'd like to make the point again that i did not look twice at evolution in school until two-three years ago, creationism was not drummed into my head all my life, it was simply just understated, and evolution was overstated

What, you weren't raised christain, you were never told about Noah's ark when you a small child?  You never heard how God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh (why would an omnipotent being need to rest....?)?  And I thought lieing was a sin!

when i watched the Hovind series i realized the lies i had been told by my biology teachers and felt ashamed because i had been so ignorant of my belief.

And Kent Hovin is no scientist, he's a huckster out to make a buck, he has no idea what he's talking about.  You should be ashamed of watching his videos!  If you had listened to your biology teacher, you wouldn't be so ignorant now!

ever see a lame person walk after a Benny Hinn crusade?  ever see someone healed of malignant brain tumors?  i'm sure that if you dont' believe this happens, you could write to some doctors who have personally seen the cancer before and not seen it after a crusade like this.  it happens, buddy, it really does.  you cannot deny it. so dont even try.

No it doesn't, these examples are fake, if they were real, lets see the documentation on them.  Let's see the detailed studies that show that these people really had these diseases and the studies that show that they were really, miraculously healed.  Come on, no such reports exist becasue no miraculous healing took place!   Real doctors and scientists would have endorsed them if they really happened.  No, you're simply too gulible to accept reality.

You still haven't shown me any evidence that a soul exists and that man even has one...

so, if evolution is gradual development, what did the first cell develope from??

Natural occurring chemical processes.  We see organic molecules forming naturally, it's not that far a stretch that they formed the first life.

everything has to come from something, so says laws of science, correct?

Not really, but the organic chemicals that formed the first life came from the primitive earth.

where did something first come from?

the Big Bang?  If everything has to come from somewhere, where did God come from?

if there's no one out there bigger than us, no one unlimited out there, then everything has always been here since the beginning.

And you still haven't shown us any evidence for someone bigger than us anywhere!  And if you mean 'energy' when you say everything, then yes it probably has always been here.

oh wait, when was the beginning?  where did it all start?

Why does reality need a start?  It's much more reasonable to believe reality is eternal than it is to believe in a magical, eternal, super being.

evolutionists say that there was no beginning and that everything has been churning and burning for trillions of years, but then you have to ask yourself another taunting question, where did the substances that are churning and burning come from in the first place?

Evolutionists don't even deal with this, theoretical physicists and cosmologists study this.  And as I said before, why can't energy be eternal?  Please show me the evidence that says it can't be!

if we believe in God we know when this planet began, but when did God begin?  way to much to try to understand with our puny little minds.  questions like these always lead to more questions.  the only answer we have for God is what the Bible tells us.

A book written 3000 years ago by primitive sheep herders...yeah, that makes sense!  

He has no beginning, and no end.

How can you say this when only a few lines ago you said:
"everything has to come from something"
You can't say that and turn around and say God has no begining or no end.  If God has no begining or no end, why can't energy?  I mean, we know energy exists, we know energy and matter are interchangable, but we still have absolutely no evidence that God exists.  

this is hard for us to understand because we are creatures of time, we have a beginning, we have an end, therefore we think that everything that exists has to have a beginning and and end as well.

No, many cosmologists and theoretical physicists don't think everything must have a begining or an end.  

thanks for replying so soon Demon38, ur a good debater. i will surely check this
tomorrow


Hey I might be getting a little...strident....in some of my posts, but I'm enjoying the debate also, thank you!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:38 AM on February 26, 2005 | IP
veritas

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here we go again  

ok, concerning the flood, u say that you see no evidence of vast underground water... hmm, maybe because that water now makes up the 3/4 surface of our planet.  you see, if the Bible is true, and water came from under the earth as well, then that means the water must still be on the surface, note: our oceans.  before the flood, people could pretty much walk the entire surface of the globe, almost every continent was connected, ie: continental shelves...  this, in fact, a way to explain why peoples were scattered so far across the globe, they walked, anywhere and everywhere.  and why not?  nothing else to really do but explore.  ok, getting off subject.  now, would it not make sense that if there was indeed a layer of water beneath the earths crust that when the water exploded out, the crust would sink in? making that layer depleted and therefore, there is little evidence that there ever was one?  
alright, anyway, i just have something to add.  u called me a liar a few times in your last post and i'm offended by it.  just because i'm expressing my opinion does not mean i am lying.  have i called you a liar?  no, because you are only speaking what you believe.  and who is to discern which of us is the liar and which of us is not?  its possible we are both liars, but no man can judge that.  so, lay off the insulting comments about my opinion so we may continue in civilized conversation.
oh, and hey, i recall you saying once that humans are social creatures, and yes, of course that is obviously true.  but, according to evolution, isn't it survival of the fittest?  where does being social fit into that theory?  i dont know about you, but there have only been a few horrible times in the history of civilization where man took that seriously, ie, Hitler.  Hitler took the theory of evolution to heart and decided that there could be a superior race, and he thought he should be the one to decide what that race was to be compounded of.  evolution was the source of his insanity, the theory that man is nothing but an animal, so man can act like an animal.  any rebuttal to that?  i sure hope you accept that he was an avid believer in Darwin's theory and that is why he did what he did, cuz if you don't, you better open some history books.
talk to you soon!  


-------
*I believe in Christianity like I believe that the sun has risen; not because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.* C.S. Lewis
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 11:19 PM on February 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, concerning the flood, u say that you see no evidence of vast underground water... hmm, maybe because that water now makes up the 3/4 surface of our planet.

But water that covers 3/4 of the planet can not cover all the land.  So I guess you're agreeing with me, the entire planet was never flooded.

you see, if the Bible is true, and water came from under the earth as well, then that means the water must still be on the surface, note: our oceans.

But how come we have seen no evidence that there EVER was any underground water?  that much water simply can not support the crust of the planet, rock doesn't float.  Your claim is falsified by everything we know about geology and by common sense.

before the flood, people could pretty much walk the entire surface of the globe, almost every continent was connected, ie: continental shelves...  this, in fact

No it's not a fact, it's completely wrong!  There's never been a time when people could walk across the globe.  At one time there was one super continent, Pangaea, but it began to break up about 225 million years ago.  By about 65 million years ago it was impossible to walk across all the continents.  How do we know this, by measuring plate tectonic speeds and paleomagnetism.  And guess what, even way back then, the 3/4 of the world was covered by water.  

a way to explain why peoples were scattered so far across the globe, they walked, anywhere and everywhere.  and why not?

Well, there were some potential land bridges, like between Russia and Alaska which might have frozen during the winter or were a relatively short distance to boat.

now, would it not make sense that if there was indeed a layer of water beneath the earths crust that when the water exploded out, the crust would sink in? making that layer depleted and therefore, there is little evidence that there ever was one?

No Because it's impossible for water to support the earth's crust.  And we know what the earth looked like 6000 years ago, 100,00 years ago, 10 million years ago, 100 million years ago, 225 million years ago.  What you describe is nothing but a fantasy made up in an attempt to make the bible look like it's true.
But by examing the evidence, your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.  Any geologist, the people who really study the earth, will tell you the same thing.

u called me a liar a few times in your last post and i'm offended by it.  just because i'm expressing my opinion does not mean i am lying.  have i called you a liar?

it's highly likely that you are lieing out of ignorance.  When you're having a scientific debate, your opinion doesn't mean anything when dealing with facts.  You can't call me a liar when I back up everything I say with cold, hard facts.

no, because you are only speaking what you believe.

No, in science belief has no place.  One accepts a theory based on the facts or rejects a theory based on the facts.  I accept evolution and an old earth based on the facts.
You reject them based on your beliefs in primitive superstitions and myths that have been proven incorrect.

and who is to discern which of us is the liar and which of us is not?

The facts!  I've presented real evidence to back up everything I've said, you have not.

oh, and hey, i recall you saying once that humans are social creatures, and yes, of course that is obviously true.  but, according to evolution, isn't it survival of the fittest?  where does being social fit into
that theory?


Survival of the fittest was nothing more than a sound bite and is incorrectly used to describe evolution.  The theory of evolution is based on differential reproductive success.  Being a social animal fits in perfectly with evolution.  We see that most primates are social animals.
Obviously this trait evolved and has proven extremely successful.  Please explain why you think evolution doesn't support this.

i dont know about you, but there have only been a few horrible times in the history of civilization where man took that seriously, ie, Hitler.  Hitler took the theory of evolution to heart and decided that there could be a superior race, and he thought he should be the one to decide what that race was to be compounded of.  evolution was the source of his insanity, the theory that man is nothing but an animal, so man can act
like an animal.


Please!  Learn a little history before you make these ridiculous claims!  No where in the theory of evolution does it rationalize war.  No where does it say one group must be the master.  Hitler did NOT base his war mongering on evolution, that's just not true.  
Hitler was a Christian and everything he did, all the atrocities, all the wholesale murder, he did it in Christs name.  In many of his speeches he said he was doing God's will, that the Aryan race was Jesus' chosen people, that it was the will of God that they would conquer the world.  He quoted the Bible in his most inflammatory speeches, he justified everything he did by the word of God.  Now, most christians, when confronted by the truth about Hitler, respond by saying "well he wasn't a TRUE christian!"  But that doesn't matter, he was reading the same bible you read, he was inspired to kill millions by the same scripture you read, in his heart, just like you, he considered himself a true and righteous follower of Jesus.  The fact of the matter is millions more have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than ever in the name of evolution!

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

Now show me where Hitler said evolution was what made him wage war or admit you were totally wrong!

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 7:37 PM on March 1, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Demon38 at 06:34 AM
This is due to the fact that you don't understand how the natural world
works, you haven't studied any of the evidence and you are a simple inded
17 year old girl who has had the superstitions of christianity drummed into
your head all your life.  All the processes in evolution work without the
need for a magical supreme being.


I am not simple minded and I doubt our young friend is either.
On the other hand you claim to have all knowledge and you seem to claim you had nothing "drummed" into your head.

You claim to know all natural processes. You claim you understand how everything works.

Answer this :what created natural processes?
What created life?
If as you say there is a natural explanation for everything this should be easy.
There are only 2 theories for the generation of life -special creation and spontaneous generation.
Evolutionist like to talk about all these amazing proto-cells or the primordial soup but at some point life has to start. It has to do so instantaneously.
If all there is is matter then spontaneous generation must be true -you can call it abiogenesis and say it is not the same thing but the dictionary and Huxley who coined the word will disagree. abio means non life and genesis means to create or bring forth.

To have an atheistic world view you must ignore the law of thermodynamics and say the Universe had no beginning or you must believe that matter created intelligence.

So instead of believing in the beginning there was intelligence you believe that in the beginning was matter.

Does that seem logical to you that matter creates intelligence. Can you give me an example?
You also claim claim that all the "processes" in evolution work without the need for a supreme being. First of all you need to define evolution instead of making broad statements that mean almost nothing.
Second you need to prove that evolutionary "process" exist , what all of them are and why they don't need a supreme being.

This is impossible as it would require all knowledge for one thing . Another problem is you need to define proof .
Science rarely "proves" anything , it is not the final word on everything as you seem to think.
Science means to know and particles to people evolution is a senario that has no proof whatsoever. It is just the only explanation one can use to deny a supreme being exist.
It cannot be observed or tested so it is not science.
We cannot observe it because it happens to slow? That is not science it is imagination.

How could the information of living organisms -DNA- exist without the organism . How could the organism exist without the information?

There is a world of problems there alone.

200 years ago the only geologist doing emperical science were the catastrophist not Leyell, he was a lawyer! Even Gould would have told you that.

Gould wrote:

‘Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs published by an advocate. … Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.’

If you have not noticed geology is moving away from gradualism due to events that have been observed in Iceland -the formation of Surtsey Island and the Mega Floods. 25 years ago they were considered Nordic Myths now we see they are not. Mt. St. Helens and the Mega floods showed canyons can form in days.
"Real" scientist as you put it , old school geologist realize that Lyell and the gradualist were wrong.
Science means to KNOW . We know by testing and observing.

The man many geologist consider the worlds best authority on plate tectonics believe they started moving during Noah's Flood. It is very difficult to prove or disprove things you didnot see and many evolutionary geologist admit they cannot prove Noah's Flood did not happen.
There are problems with understanding how it might have occured but there are lots of brilliant people who make a case that it did , and that it did not.

Evidence does not speak for itself. All the extinction theories are full of holes.

The Bible has not been disproven because you say so . It has not been disproven at all.

You can choose to believe the flood did not occur but that proves nothing.

The Bible is the best documented book in antiquity bar none.

If human intelligence evolved as you believe how do you explain the amazing complexity of ancient language. Why are there no rudimentry ancient languages?

You should read Job and see how much science was known then that we only discovered in the last 150 years.












-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:15 AM on April 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TQ at 6:27 PM on April 23, 2004 :
I copied this from the talk.origins feed back (April 2000).  It sums it up better than I can.  

How so? It has no deity. No worship. No priests. No sabbath. No commandments. No inerrant doctrine-- it is constantly undergoing revision. It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles. It has no penalties for unbelief. Belief in evolution carries no promises of reward. It is acceptable for any deity, including Jehovah, to be inserted in the forefront, taking credit for the progression of evolution. How, then, is evolution a religion? Are other scientific theories, such as the theory of relativity, also a religion? How does one distinguish and determine this?


Your ability to sum up is found wanting.
The basic principle of evolution, particles to people by random undericted processes is based on atheism . Atheism denies the existence of God. That is a faith or a religion as it is impossible to know unless one possesses all knowledge.
It cannot be science because science means to know.  It is a hypothetical senario and has no basis in fact. It has no undisputed testable evidence to support it.

In order to accept it one must have faith in unseen and  unprovable occurances.

It offers no explanation for the creation of time space and matter.

It reallies on spontaneous generation or if you prefer Huxley's verbage abiogenesis it's synonym for the origin of life.

That goes against the laws of science.

It requires matter to create intelligence.
That is impossible.

It requires one to do what evolutionist claim creationist do , ignore the laws of science.

It is a religion , a very stupid one.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:06 AM on April 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 6:12 PM on May 6, 2004 :
***I agree, I am in academia, and I don't know anyone who doubts man arrived on the scene via speciation.  And most of them are Christians.****

Actually I hate to disappoint you, but I left off the "not" after the "did" What I meant to say is I don't know many who still subscribe radically to Darwinism.



50 years ago you would not have found many who did not believe in the Piltdown man.
200 hundred plus doctorates were awarded for a thesis about him.
Majority opinion means nothing. Just because you don't know anyone in Academia that believes in Genesis does not mean they are not any.

Just because you sit in a chicken house for an hour a week does not make you a chicken.
Jesus Christ believed in Genesis.

Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Mat 19:4  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and

Evolutionist love to bring up the fact that most "Christians " base their religion on unproven science. Sadly it is true.
That makes them of one mind with the atheist who does the same thing.

Michael Ruse
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’


A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to co-ordinate men’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and scientific Humanism.’
‘Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally.’

In other words, evolution = religion. That is, people (not God) set whatever rules they want. In practice, this usually becomes ‘might makes right’, including the tyranny of the majority.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:28 AM on April 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:38 AM on February 26, 2005 :
On Noah's flood you said:
how exactly was this disproven?  i keep hearing you say that stuff was disproven 200 years ago, well who disproved it and how?

Well, Christian geologists, 200 years ago, took a good look at earth, no signs of a world wide flood in the same strata across the earth.  Not enough water on the planet to completely cover the land.  We have civilizations that we know lived before the time of the supposed flood and during it!  So either they could hold their breath for a real long time or the Bible is wrong!  And all evidence to date has also disproved the flood.  NASA has satelites that can determine the 'rebound' in tectonic plates from massive weights placed on them, North America is still rebounding from the last ice age 10,000 years ago.  But South America and Africa show no signs of rebound, something that would have to be present if all the land was submerged 4000 years ago!  In fact, all land masses would show the same rate of rebound due to a relatively recent event like a massive world wide flood, but they don't so no flood.  


Apparently you never knew this.

http://www.vulkaner.no/n/bcnature.html


An ounce of observation trumps a pound of theory.
Are you aware that the Missoula flood is now accepted?

You keep claiming your interpretaion of evidence is fact and observation is irrelevant.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:37 AM on April 27, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not simple minded and I doubt our young friend is either.

When it comes to science in general and evolution in particular, yes you are.

You claim to know all natural processes. You claim you understand how everything works

No I don't, I just claim there is evidence that nothing in nature needs a supernatural explaination.  While I don't understand every process, I do understand that none have required an all powerful god so far.

Answer this :what created natural processes?
What created life?


Though we're not sure, it appears they self arose.  What evidence do you have that they did not?

If as you say there is a natural explanation for everything this should be easy.

Easy?!?!  you're calling quantum physics easy?
Don't be ridiculous!  This is some of the most sophisticated, complicated thinking man will ever do!

There are only 2 theories for the generation of life -special creation and spontaneous generation.

I think it's pretty well established that abiogenesis took place.  We see organic molecules forming spontaneously in nature, we have found no barrier to prevent them from organizing into life.  Although we haven't found the exact path life took to first form on earth, I think there is little doubt in biochemical circles that it could have happened.
What evidence do you have for special creation?

Evolutionist like to talk about all these amazing proto-cells or the primordial soup but at some point life has to start. It has to do so instantaneously.

No it doesn't...And evolutionists don't talk about this, biochemists do.  Get your branches of science right!

If all there is is matter then spontaneous generation must be true -you can call it abiogenesis and say it is not the same thing but the dictionary and Huxley who coined the word will disagree.

Yet spontaneous generation was the term for life coming from dead organic matter, abiogenesis is about life from inorganic matter.

To have an atheistic world view you must ignore the law of thermodynamics and say the Universe had no beginning or you must believe that matter created intelligence.

Where exactly does the theory of evolution violote the laws of thermodynamics?  The same holds for your point of view.  To believe in God you must ignore the laws of thermodynamics and say God had no begining.
And please explain to us why matter couldn't create intelligence.  I mean, intelligence is just a very complex process, our brains are made of matter, there is no evidnce that intelligence is anything more.  

So instead of believing in the beginning there was intelligence you believe that in the beginning was matter.

What?!?  You don't understand cosmology either.  In the begining there was energy, matter didn't form in the early universe for a couple of humdred million years.  It was much too hot before then.

Does that seem logical to you that matter creates intelligence. Can you give me an example?

Yes, it seems logical.  Complexity theory explains it nicely.  As I said before, all evidence supports that intelligence, consciousness, is a product of complex interactions in our brains, nothing more nothing less.  There is no evidence it's anything supernatural.  Intelligence is a result of the interactions of the billions of neurons in our brains, intelligence is a result of evolution.  What isn't logical is your claim that there is a magical skyman that we've never seen, that there is absolutely no evidnce even exists, that "poofed" everything into existance on a whim.

You also claim claim that all the "processes" in evolution work without the need for a supreme being. First of all you need to define evolution instead of making broad statements that mean almost nothing.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.  This has ben observed.

Second you need to prove that evolutionary "process" exist , what all of them are and why they don't need a supreme
being.


Mutation, migration, genetic drift, sexual selection, natural selection.  All these processes have been observed, all drive evolution, all occur naturally with no supernatural intervention.  There, that was easy enough!

This is impossible as it would require all knowledge for one thing

What?!?  Why...These processes have been observed, experimented with, tested and retested millions of times, when they occur, populations of organisms evolve, simple as that.  Your premise is ridiculous.

Another problem is you need to define proof .
Science rarely "proves" anything , it is not the final word on everything as you seem to
think.


Yes, science can not prove any theory 100%,
but it can disprove theories, after 150 years the theory of evolution has not been disproven.  Creationism, on the other hand, was conclusively disproven over 200 years ago.

Science means to know and particles to people evolution is a senario that has no proof whatsoever. It is just the only explanation one can use to deny a supreme being exist.

in science the highest an idea can reach is theory.  A theory is a well supported explaination of related facts.  The theory of evolution explains how and why organisms evolve, that they evolve is an observed fact.
The theory of evolution has made thousands of correct predictions and is supported by literally tons of evidence.  It has been tested and experimented on constantly for the last 150 years and all results to date support evolution.  No results, no evidence yet falsifies it.

It cannot be observed or tested so it is not science.

It can and has been observed and has been tested constantly over the last 150 years.  Evoution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it.

We cannot observe it because it happens to slow? That is not science it is
imagination.


We cannot directly observe an atom, is it imagination?  No, we look at the evidence.
We cannot directly observe the earth revovling around the sun, is it imagination?  No, we look at the evidence.  We know the theory of evolution is valid by looking at the evidence, and all evidence found to date supports evolution, none falsifies it.

How could the information of living organisms -DNA- exist without the organism . How could the organism exist without the information?

What?!?  Define information.  I don't see how this is a problem.  And the first organisms did NOT have DNA, but a simpler self replicating system.  Look up the RNA world.

There is a world of problems there
alone.


Like what?

200 years ago the only geologist doing emperical science were the catastrophist not Leyell, he was a lawyer!

but he was also an Oxford educated geologist.
And you can't seem to refute the evidence, can you.  James Hutton was the first to propose uniformitarianism and Lyell, a classically trained geologist, further expanded on this.  After Lyell published his "Principles of Geology", there were few scientists that supported a 6,000 year old earth.  Creationism was scientifically disproved.

If you have not noticed geology is moving away from gradualism

No it's not, this is a lie.  Vocanic activity like that of the Surtsey Islands is easily accomodated by actualism.

And how do mega floods change our overview of geology?  The reason we know they happened is by the evidence found by real geologists.  As to Mt. St. Helens and canyon formation, don't be ridiculous.  The canyons formed were of volcanic ash, not sedimentry rock so they do nothing to support creatinism.

"Real" scientist as you put it , old school geologist realize that Lyell and the gradualist were wrong.

Ha ha, no they don't, actualism is the prevailing theory in geology today.  Actualism, from here:Actualism

"Actualism admits that rates of geological change can have been different in the past and emphasizes that only the physical constants and how the laws of nature act have remained the same."

This is the model geologists use today and like all science, it's based on evidence.  And all the evidence supports a 4.5 billion year old earth and no world wide flood.

The man many geologist consider the worlds best authority on plate tectonics believe they started moving during Noah's Flood.

And who is that?  Because real geologists know that there was no world wide flood and if the earth's plates didn't start moving until 4,000 years ago, the heat produced by such rapid movement would scorch the earth and biol the seas.  

It is very difficult to prove or disprove things you didnot see and many evolutionary geologist admit they cannot prove Noah's Flood did not happen.

This is another lie.  Geologists are not evolutionary and all geological organizations deny a world wide flood.  

There are problems with understanding how it might have occured but there are lots of brilliant people who make a case that it did , and that it did not.

Start a new thread so we can teach you why a world wide flood is impossible.

Evidence does not speak for itself. All the extinction theories are full of holes.

What extinction theories are full of holes?  

The Bible has not been disproven because you say so . It has not been disproven at
all.


sure it has!  The earth is not flat, the earth is not the center of the universe, the sun does not revolve around the earth, snakes do not talk, there couldn't possibly be a world wide flood, there never was a tower of Babel, I could go ano and on...

You can choose to believe the flood did not occur but that proves nothing

No but all the evidence against it does prove something, that there never was a world wide flood!

If human intelligence evolved as you believe how do you explain the amazing complexity of ancient language. Why are there no rudimentry ancient languages?

You seem to be as ignorant of language evolution as you are of biological evolution.
From here:
Language

"Around 5000 bc, between the Danube river valley and the steppes of what is now the Ukraine, there lived small tribes of primitive farmers who all spoke the same language.  They cultivated rye and oats, and kept pigs, geese, and cows.  They would soon become the first people on earth to tame the local wild horses -- an accomplishment that would make them a significant part of history for thousands of years to come.  And their proximity to the culturally more advance people of Asia Minor -- what is now Turkey -- would allow them to learn the metal working invented there, beginning with copper.
Beginning around 3000 bc, these people would spread into Europe and the Russian steppes.  Around 1500 bc, they would continue into Persia and India, even as far as western China.  Later still (in the last 500 years), they would spread to the Americas, Australia, the Pacific islands, and parts of Africa.  They would take their language with them, although it would gradually change into hundreds of mutually unintelligible dialects, including English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Persian, Hindi and many more.
By examining the oldest examples of modern and classical languages such as Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, linguists have been able to reconstruct an educated guess as to what the language of these ancient people was like.  They call the languaged Proto-Indoeuropean."

So yes, there was a primitive ancient language, just as you claimed there wasn't.  You need to do a whole lot more research on everything you talk about.





 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:40 PM on April 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The basic principle of evolution, particles to people by random undericted processes is based on atheism

Strawman!  Evolution does NOT describe 'particles to people', it only explains how life changes.  It is not driven by random, unrestricted forces and most of the worlds christians accept evolution.  That's 3 glaring mistakes in one sentance!  Pathetic!

It cannot be science because science means to know.

Science doesn't mean to know, it's a method of examining the natural world.  Geez, you don't even know what science is!

It is a hypothetical senario and has no basis in fact. It has no undisputed testable evidence to support it.

Lies, the theory of evolution, like all scientific theories is well supported by evidence and experiments, it is one of the strongest theories in all of science, it is the central concept in modern biology.  It is so well tested and so well supported by all evidence, it is virtual fact.

In order to accept it one must have faith in unseen and  unprovable occurances

No one doesn't!

It offers no explanation for the creation of time space and matter.

It's not supposed to.

It reallies on spontaneous generation or if you prefer Huxley's verbage abiogenesis it's synonym for the origin of life.

No it doesn't, no matter how life got here, abiogenesis, special creation, or anything else, the evidence makes it plain that once it was here it evolved.

That goes against the laws of science.

nothing in the theory of evolution goes against the "laws" of science, nothing in agiogenesis goes against the "laws" of science.

It requires matter to create intelligence.
That is impossible.


Why?  And please present your evidence to support this.

It requires one to do what evolutionist claim creationist do , ignore the laws of science.

please state the laws of science it violates, you haven't done this thus far.

It is a religion , a very stupid one.

Nothing taken on faith, no belief in a supernatural being, no, evolution is in no way a religion.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:54 PM on April 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

An ounce of observation trumps a pound of theory.  Are you aware that the Missoula flood is now accepted?

yeah, so what?  Creationism was still disproven over 200 years ago and a world wide flood is still impossible.  The Missoula flood is now accepted, so what, I accept it.  there's real evidence for it.  How does that support an impossible world wide flood?  Face it, you can;t support your position, you're just throwing out stuff hoping someone falls for it.  You have provided absolutely no evidence for anything you've stated!

From the American Geological Institute:

"Scientific evidence indicates beyond any doubt that life has existed on Earth for billions of years. This life has evolved through time producing vast numbers of species of plants and animals, most of which are extinct. Although scientists debate the mechanism that produced this change, the evidence for the change is undeniable. Therefore, in the teaching of science we oppose any position that ignores this scientific reality, or that gives equal time to interpretations based on religious beliefs only."

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:04 PM on April 28, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 1:04 PM on April 28, 2005 :
An ounce of observation trumps a pound of theory.  Are you aware that the Missoula flood is now accepted?

yeah, so what?  Creationism was still disproven over 200 years ago and a world wide flood is still impossible.  The Missoula flood is now accepted, so what, I accept it.  there's real evidence for it.  How does that support an impossible world wide flood?  Face it, you can;t support your position, you're just throwing out stuff hoping someone falls for it.  You have provided absolutely no evidence for anything you've stated!

From the American Geological Institute:

"Scientific evidence indicates beyond any doubt that life has existed on Earth for billions of years. This life has evolved through time producing vast numbers of species of plants and animals, most of which are extinct. Although scientists debate the mechanism that produced this change, the evidence for the change is undeniable. Therefore, in the teaching of science we oppose any position that ignores this scientific reality, or that gives equal time to interpretations based on religious beliefs only."

Not long ago these same people said the same thing about the Missoula Flood .







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:44 PM on April 28, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:54 PM on April 28, 2005 :
The basic principle of evolution, particles to people by random undericted processes is based on atheism

Strawman!  Evolution does NOT describe 'particles to people', it only explains how life changes.  It is not driven by random, unrestricted forces and most of the worlds christians accept evolution.  That's 3 glaring mistakes in one sentance!  Pathetic!

Most of the worlds Christians means what 60%? show me proof. If not random forces{what unrestricted has to do with it is beyond me}then what? You are just ranting. Evolution can mean whatever you need it too to win an arguement.
Define evolution.




It cannot be science because science means to know.

Science doesn't mean to know, it's a method of examining the natural world.  Geez, you don't even know what science is!

sci·ence    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
[b[Knowledge [/b], especially that gained through experience.

---
[Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know .
[Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


Gee you are quite unfamilliar with the English language-how suprising!  




It is a hypothetical senario and has no basis in fact. It has no undisputed testable evidence to support it.

Lies, the theory of evolution, like all scientific theories is well supported by evidence and experiments, it is one of the strongest theories in all of science, it is the central concept in modern biology.  It is so well tested and so well supported by all evidence, it is virtual fact.

Give me some peer reviewed empirical proof. You can say anything .


In order to accept it one must have faith in unseen and  unprovable occurances

No one doesn't!

It offers no explanation for the creation of time space and matter.

It's not supposed to.

It reallies on spontaneous generation or if you prefer Huxley's verbage abiogenesis it's synonym for the origin of life.

No it doesn't, no matter how life got here, abiogenesis, special creation, or anything else, the evidence makes it plain that once it was here it evolved.

It does matter how life got here. That it is the weakest part of your senario does not change that.
Give me peer reviewed empirical evidence. Don't just rant.


That goes against the laws of science.

nothing in the theory of evolution goes against the "laws" of science, nothing in agiogenesis goes against the "laws" of science.

It requires matter to create intelligence.
That is impossible.


Why?  And please present your evidence to support this.

[
Not once in the history of the world has matter generated life.


please state the laws of science it violates, you haven't done this thus far.

see above


It is a religion , a very stupid one.

Nothing taken on faith, no belief in a supernatural being, no, evolution is in no way a religion.


Michael Ruse
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.


[random]


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:02 AM on April 29, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



If human intelligence evolved as you believe how do you explain the amazing complexity of ancient language. Why are there no rudimentry ancient languages?

You seem to be as ignorant of language evolution as you are of biological evolution.
From here:
Language

"Around 5000 bc, between the Danube river valley and the steppes of what is now the Ukraine, there lived small tribes of primitive farmers who all spoke the same language.  They cultivated rye and oats, and kept pigs, geese, and cows.  They would soon become the first people on earth to tame the local wild horses -- an accomplishment that would make them a significant part of history for thousands of years to come.  And their proximity to the culturally more advance people of Asia Minor -- what is now Turkey -- would allow them to learn the metal working invented there, beginning with copper.
Beginning around 3000 bc, these people would spread into Europe and the Russian steppes.  Around 1500 bc, they would continue into Persia and India, even as far as western China.  Later still (in the last 500 years), they would spread to the Americas, Australia, the Pacific islands, and parts of Africa.  They would take their language with them, although it would gradually change into hundreds of mutually unintelligible dialects, including English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Persian, Hindi and many more.
By examining the oldest examples of modern and classical languages such as Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, linguists have been able to reconstruct an educated guess as to what the language of these ancient people was like.  They call the languaged Proto-Indoeuropean."

So yes, there was a primitive ancient language, just as you claimed there wasn't.  You need to do a whole lot more research on everything you talk about.




That is one of the most ignorant statements I have heard an evolutionist make.
Have you ever heard of sanskrit or Cuniform?
Ever heard of the pyramids ?
Your contention that ancient people were stupid is stupid.







-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:11 AM on April 29, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not long ago these same people said the same thing about the Missoula Flood .

Once again, untrue!  From here:
Missoula

"It was in 1923 that J Harlen Bretz published the first in a series of scientific papers in which he proposed that the severely eroded Channeled Scabland, Dry Falls, and other immense geologic features had been formed by a huge, powerful flood that had swept through the Columbia Basin during the Ice Age.

Despite his peers’ doubt and opposition, he resolutely maintained that direct examination of the geologic evidence could lead only to that conclusion. But Bretz was unable to identify the source or cause of such catastrophic flooding.

Earlier, in 1910, another geologist, Joseph T. Pardee, had described evidence of a great ice dammed lake, Glacial Lake Missoula, that had formed during the Ice Age in northwestern Montana. However, Bretz didn't see the connection between the glacial lake in Montana and the features he described in Eastern Washington. Then, in 1940, Pardee reported on his discovery of giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart, that had formed on the floor of Glacial Lake Missoula. These huge, current-related features, along with other newly-found landforms, dramatically confirmed that the lake had suddenly emptied to the west, unleashing the tremendously powerful erosive forces that shaped many of the landforms found in the Columbia Basin.

More research followed, and new perspectives became available from aerial photography. Among geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be accepted by the late 1950s.

In the following years the account was refined, as evidence of more than one flood was discovered. It is now established that there were large numbers of Ice Age floods that swept across the Northwest, and some of them were among the largest and most powerful floods that have ever occurred on Earth."

Here we see science in action.  An hypothesis is proposed in 1910, it is debated by geologists.  As more evidence is uncovered, the hypothesis, being supported by new evidence that is now peer reviewed, becomes a thoery.  
How is this similar to an impossible world wide flood?  How is this evidence for a world wide flood?  Obviously it's not, you're wrong again.



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:04 AM on April 29, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most of the worlds Christians means what 60%? show me proof. If not random forces{what unrestricted has to do with it is beyond me}then what? You are just ranting. Evolution can mean whatever you need it too to win an arguement. Define evolution.

The catholic church accepts evolution, they are the largest branch of Christianity.  Besides, Christians accept evolution, therefore it can't be an atheistic belief!  Show me where in the theory of evolution it says God doesn't exist!

Define evolution again?!?  Didn't you read the definition the last time I posted it?  Once again,
evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.  

Gee you are quite unfamilliar with the English language-how suprising!

Wait a minute, who's the moron here, didn't you post this as the first definition of science:

"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena."

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena is a method of studying the natural world.  So the main definition you posted agrees completely with what I said.  Talk about stupid...it's right in front of your face, YOU posted it and you can't even admit you are wrong!  

Give me some peer reviewed empirical proof. You can say anything .

I'd quickly run out of room, but here are a few....
The fossil record is laid out in a pattern that only evolution predicts.  As time passes, life became generally more complex.  There is no crossover of certain species, no triceratops fossils found with rhino fossils, no trilobites found with fiddler crabs, no dinosaurs with man.  Transitional fossils live archaeoptyrex, acanthostega and the therapsid line of reptile to mammal fossils are only explained by evolution, no other theory.  
Endogenous Retroviruses in related species are strong evidence that these species evolved from a common ancestor.  Chimps and humans share 7 ERV's that can only be explained by evolution.
We have observed speciation events, speciation is macroevolution.  See the
Faeroe Island house mouse, African cichlids, nylon eating bacteria, apple maggot fly.

It does matter how life got here. That it is the weakest part of your senario does not change that. Give me peer reviewed empirical evidence. Don't just rant.

No it doesn't matter to the theory of evolution how life got here.  Biochemists study abiogenesis, biologists study evolution.  How does the origin of life affect the theory of evolution?  The processes of how life formed are not the processes that drive evolution.  As I said, how life got here has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, as long as there is life that imperfectly reproduces, evolution takes place.  Please explain exactly what parts of the theory of evolution changes if life is a product of special creation, be specific.  You have only given a vague answer that says nothing.  Are you saying that if God zapped life into existance, it didn't reproduce?  Are you saying that the first life God zapped into existance made perfect replicas of itself, because the fossil record makes it clear that life has been changing since it first started....  What specifically changes if the first life was specially created?

Not once in the history of the world has matter generated life.

Sorry, you're wrong again!  Before 3.8 billion years ago, there was no life on earth.  Life either spontaneously formed by natural processes or was specially created by God. So it happened at least once.  Now, the earth has radically changed since that first life formed, so it's possible that life has destroyed the conditions necessary for abiogenesis to occur.
Or abiogenesis is still occurring but we just haven't observed it yet, like in the mouth of deep sea thermal vents, Or abiogenesis is occurring today but unlike 3.8 billion years ago, there is now a real living biosphere and it just gets gobbled up almost instantly.  So your claim that it never happened is false and it MAY still be happening.  But my original question was why can't "matter" give rise to intelligence?  Guess you can't answer that one...

I posted "please state the laws of science it  (evolution) violates, you haven't done this thus far."

You said "see above"

You still have posted no laws that evolution violates...you lose.

Your quote from Michael Ruse, one man's opinion, no more, no less...I disagree with it.
Evolution takes nothing on faith and no supernatural beings are necessary.

The definition of religion:
1.  
     a.  Belief in and reverence for a                   supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
       b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2.    The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3.    A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4.    A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The theory of evolution involves no supernatural entity, so the first and second definitions are eliminated.  The theory of evolution has no spiritual leader so that eliminates the third definition.  And I guess you can apply the fourth definition, although you can apply that to almost anything that's pursued with zeal, baseball, stamp collecting, watching soap operas, so that doesn't mean anything.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:37 AM on April 29, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is one of the most ignorant statements I have heard an evolutionist make.
Have you ever heard of sanskrit or Cuniform?  Ever heard of the pyramids ?  Your contention that ancient people were stupid is stupid.


What is the most ignorant statement you ever heard, that all language began with with Proto-Indoeuropean??  Where is your evidence that it didn't?!?!  And it's not being made by an evolutionist, it's being made by the majority of the worlds linguists!  What about Sanskrit?  Like all other languages, it comes from Proto-Indoeuropean.  And what the hell do the pyramids have to do with the origins of language?  you asked Why are there no rudimentry ancient languages?  I showed you where you were wrong!  There was a primitive, rudimentry language from which all modern languages evolved.  You, once again, are wrong!  I made no contention that ancient people were stupid, where the hell did you get that from, oh yeah, you like to make stuff up! Another of your inane points is falsified...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:56 AM on April 29, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TQ at 6:27 PM on April 23, 2004 :
I copied this from the talk.origins feed back (April 2000).  It sums it up better than I can.  

How so? It has no deity. No worship. No priests. No sabbath. No commandments. No inerrant doctrine-- it is constantly undergoing revision. It has no reliance on the supernatural or miracles. It has no penalties for unbelief. Belief in evolution carries no promises of reward. It is acceptable for any deity, including Jehovah, to be inserted in the forefront, taking credit for the progression of evolution.

Jesus Christ was the Creator of the Universe . Evolution does not "allow" that belief. Jesus preformed numerous ex-nilihoh creations whan He was on the earth. Evolution does not allow " any" miracles from God at all. It is the belief there is a natural cause for everything , including natural causes. That is scientism , scientism is atheistic.
To say that evolution does not deny Christianity is dishonest , deceptive , and a mean spirited argument.
[quote

How, then, is evolution a religion? Are other scientific theories, such as the theory of relativity, also a religion? How does one distinguish and determine this?

First of all evolution is not scientific at all . It started out as a plagerism by Charles Darwin and encouraged by the "Lawyer" Charles Lyles. That should tell you something. Darwin resisted publishing because if he has he would have been branded a plagerer right away. His "theory" of Natural Selection was written by Edward Blyth  a Christian who walked the walk.

"Eiseley (1959) vigorously promoted the thesis that Edward Blyth had established the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1835 and that Darwin surely had read his paper and quite likely had derived a major inspiration from it without ever mentioning this in his writings ... Darwin quite likely had read Blyth's paper but paid no further attention to it since it was antievolutionary in spirit and not different from the writings of other natural theologians in its general thesis."
Notice there is no mention that Darwin couldn't have read the articles in time, and no suggestion that he had already developed his own ideas too far to have been influenced by Blyth.  Such suggestions are, in any case, disproved by the fact that the articles pre-dated Darwin's first 'species question' notebook.

Here are Blyths writing , read them for yourself:
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/blyth1.html

Charles Lyell who pressured Darwin to publish said this around the time of Blyth's papers:

This passage comes from a letter written to a fellow geologist (and personal friend), Poulette Scrope, as he prepared a review of the newly published first volume of The Principles of Geology for the Quarterly Review:

"If you don't triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians.  It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.  If I have said more than some will like, yet I give you my word that full half of my history and comments was cut out, and even as many facts; because I, or Stokes, or Broderip, felt that it was anticipating twenty or thirty years of the march of honest feeling to declare it undisguisedly."

Gould said this of Lyell:

"Lyell relied heavily upon two bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology.  First, he set up a straw man to demolish. ... The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes; rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out.  To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence.  The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see.  The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists. Natural History February 1975 pp.16-17

Ospovat  said of Lyell:
"One of the great advantages of his one-cycle theory of climate and life was that it could not be tested against any sort of evidence. ... Lyell's preoccupations led him to construct a theory of the earth out of distinctly fanciful speculations which were, of necessity, based upon no evidence at all."

Darwin said this of Lyell:
"I feel as if my books came half out of Sir Charles Lyell's brain"

The catastrophist's , the Biblical literalist , that believed that Genesis was history were the true scientist , not Lyell and Darwin. It is much easier to make a case that Darwin never had an original thought in his life than he was a naturalist of any standing. Others did all the work.
Lyell pulled the strings.
It was the introduction of atheism to the mainstream not science.
The little bit of science asociated to it, Natural Selection, was developed by the devout Christian Edward Blyth.

The leading evolutionist Michael ruse said this on the subject:

Michael Ruse
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.
Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless…. [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and, indeed, all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
      “My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.”  William B. Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 51-52  Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University

I rest my case.










(Edited by peddler8111 6/5/2005 at 9:04 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 4:43 PM on June 5, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Insofar as the life sciences are critical to human health, well-being, and knowledge, evolutionary biology is and must be a fundamental component of an excellent science education. Moreover, awareness of current views concerning evolutionary history and mechanisms, including natural selection, is an essential part of modern literacy for all citizens. Excellence in education requires that teachers and students can explore, investigate, and criticize scientific ideas. However, learning and inquiry are inhibited when educators feel pressured to alter their teaching of fundamental concepts of science in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines. The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology is committed to these principles and will support the teaching of fundamental concepts and ideas in science, including those related to evolution and the nature of scientific inquiry."

From the SOCIETY FOR INTEGRATIVE AND COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY (2001).
My quote is from this century...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:27 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 4:27 PM on June 7, 2005 :
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Insofar as the life sciences are critical to human health, well-being, and knowledge, evolutionary biology is and must be a fundamental component of an excellent science education. Moreover, awareness of current views concerning evolutionary history and mechanisms, including natural selection, is an essential part of modern literacy for all citizens. Excellence in education requires that teachers and students can explore, investigate, and criticize scientific ideas. However, learning and inquiry are inhibited when educators feel pressured to alter their teaching of fundamental concepts of science in response to demands external to the scientific disciplines. The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology is committed to these principles and will support the teaching of fundamental concepts and ideas in science, including those related to evolution and the nature of scientific inquiry."

From the SOCIETY FOR INTEGRATIVE AND COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY (2001).
My quote is from this century...


In case you are unaware this century is only 5 1/2 years old. You may wish to jot that down.

A true scientist would say that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence." -- Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution

interesting note. Wells scored double 800's on his sats. How did you do?






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 4:41 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 4:41 PM on June 7, 2005 :
interesting note. Wells scored double 800's on his sats. How did you do?


Another interesting note.  Wells is a Moonie.  Are you?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:11 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In case you are unaware this century is only 5 1/2 years old. You may wish to jot that down.

yeah and 5 1/2 years is a long time in science, a lot of evidence has been found in those 5 years.  A lot of evidence that fully supports the theory of evolution.  I stand by my point, I use
up to date evidence and science, you're hopelessly mired in the past.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:20 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?"
Charles Darwin




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:35 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Charles Darwin is 150 years out of date...
Still don't have anything from THIS century!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:42 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:42 PM on June 7, 2005 :
Charles Darwin is 150 years out of date...
Still don't have anything from THIS century!

you still quote the ideas he plagerized and believe his drivel.
You quote medical sources that say they study Darwinism.
I would say this is a case of selective thinking.
Sad your selection is so limited.
Long ago and far far away!




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:09 AM on June 10, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 03:09 AM on June 10, 2005 :
Quote from Demon38 at 9:42 PM on June 7, 2005 :
Charles Darwin is 150 years out of date...
Still don't have anything from THIS century!

you still quote the ideas he plagerized and believe his drivel.
You quote medical sources that say they study Darwinism.
I would say this is a case of selective thinking.
Sad your selection is so limited.
Long ago and far far away!




Pffff and yours isn't? I've observed your "long long ago" posts, and the majority of the sources you provide as evidence for your claims are biased, invalid, lack common sense, etc...

 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 2:44 PM on June 10, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 2:44 PM on June 10, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 03:09 AM on June 10, 2005 :
Quote from Demon38 at 9:42 PM on June 7, 2005 :
Charles Darwin is 150 years out of date...
Still don't have anything from THIS century!

you still quote the ideas he plagerized and believe his drivel.
You quote medical sources that say they study Darwinism.
I would say this is a case of selective thinking.
Sad your selection is so limited.
Long ago and far far away!




Pffff and yours isn't? I've observed your "long long ago" posts, and the majority of the sources you provide as evidence for your claims are biased, invalid, lack common sense, etc...


Be specific-you can say anything.
Your comments beg the question:
How could you know?




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:21 PM on June 10, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you still quote the ideas he plagerized and believe his drivel.

Drivel, yeah right:
From the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICS TEACHERS:
"Evolution and cosmology represent two of the unifying concepts of modern science. There are few scientific theories more firmly supported by observations than these: Biological evolution has occurred and new species have arisen over time, life on Earth originated more than a billion years ago, and most stars are at least several billion years old. Overwhelming evidence comes from diverse sources - the structure and function of DNA, geological analysis of rocks, paleontological studies of fossils, telescopic observations of distant stars and galaxies - and no serious scientist questions these claims. We do our children a grave disservice if we remove from their education an exposure to firm scientific evidence supporting principles that significantly shape our understanding of the world in which we live."

From NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION:
"As such, evolution is a unifying concept for science. The National Science Education Standards recognizes that conceptual schemes such as evolution "unify science disciplines and provide students with powerful ideas to help them understand the natural world" (p. 104) and recommends evolution as one such scheme. In addition, Benchmarks for Science Literacy from AAAS’s Project 2061, as well as other national calls for science reform, all name evolution as a unifying concept because of its importance across the disciplines of science. Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized."

And from the religious contingent,
UNITED CHURCH BOARD FOR HOMELAND MINISTRIES
"1) We testify to our belief that the historic Christian doctrine of the Creator God does not depend upon any particular account of the origins of life for its truth and validity. The effort of the creationists to change the book of Genesis into a scientific treatise dangerously obscures what we believe to be the theological purpose of Genesis, viz., to witness to the creation, meaning, and significance of the universe and of human existence under the governance of God. The assumption that the Bible contains scientific data about origins misreads a literature which emerged in a pre-scientific age.

2) We acknowledge modern evolutionary theory as the best present-day scientific explanation of the existence of life on earth; such a conviction is in no way at odds with our belief in a Creator God, or in the revelation and presence of that God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit."

NO the theory of evolution is the overriding theory of biology, virtually all biologists accept it.  

You quote medical sources that say they study Darwinism.

Yes I did, and you haven't refuted them either.
I also didn't mention how the whole study of immunology is evolutionary.

I would say this is a case of selective thinking.

Why?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:25 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 03:50 AM on February 20, 2005 :
By the way, many evolutionists claim to be Christians but the Bible claims itself to be the true word of God and claims a six day creation so it is either entirely correct or has no validity at all.

And yet the Bible is wrong so many times when it makes claims of science, how can you possibly claim that a literal interpretation of the Bible is true?  And of course the majority of the worlds Christians (including the Pope) accept evolution.

It seems the only way you can believe in the myths of the Bible is to reject all the evidence available and  all logic and common sense.  Typical creationist nonsense...



Please be specific. Where in the Bible is it incorrect about science?
The greatest scientist in History and many today believe they were created in the image of God.
Were the Wright Brothers morons? Was the M.R.I. and the Lazer stupid ideas?
These are hateful political statements you make. They defy common sense.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:46 PM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from newme at 05:00 AM on February 20, 2005 :
too bad I never claimed to be a Creationist, or you might have had a point.  I said he nearly persuaded me (a play on a Biblical scene).  I also attacked claims of "Christians" (in quotes because they do not keep the teachings of the Bible so how can they claim Christianity?) because they make no sense since they tend to be hypocrites based on the teachings of the very book they claim to follow.  It is remarks such as this that pay no attention to the true comments of others that discredits you in the face of those who would support you.


Please be specific.
As far as your comments on Demon you are the first person who as failed to support his nonsense.
T



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:49 PM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 05:29 AM on February 20, 2005 :
It is remarks such as this that pay no attention to the true comments of others that discredits you in the face of those who would support you.

Nah, my points still stand, whatever your true comments were.


I think you are out standing in your field Demon. Left field.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:51 PM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 03:25 AM on June 11, 2005 :
you still quote the ideas he plagerized and believe his drivel.

Drivel, yeah right:
From the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICS TEACHERS
Read about their views at the Anerican Atheist websight.
http://www.njatheist.org/resourcesbooksonline.html

"And from the religious contingent,
UNITED CHURCH BOARD FOR HOMELAND MINISTRIES

2) We acknowledge modern evolutionary theory as the best present-day scientific explanation of the existence of life on earth; such a conviction is in no way at odds with our belief in a Creator God, or in the revelation and presence of that God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit."

They should buy a bible and read it.

NO the theory of evolution is the overriding theory of biology, virtually all biologists accept it.
Last time we talked about virtually you said it could mean almost all or almost none. Your memory is failing. 

Yes I did, and you haven't refuted them either.
I also didn't mention how the whole study of immunology is evolutionary.
Interesting since it was invented by a creationist.




NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--America's public schools may be teaching evolution, but a significant number of teenagers aren't buying it, and an overwhelming majority of them believe that God one way or another was involved in the creation of humanity, according to a new Gallup poll.

The poll of 1,028 teenagers ages 13-17 found that 38 percent don't believe in evolution, believing instead that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 43 percent believe that humans "developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided" the process. All total, 81 percent believe that God was somehow involved.

Only 18 percent believe that evolution took place without God playing a role.

Mark Hartwig, a social research analyst for Focus on the Family, said the poll underscores the fact that creation itself points to a creator. Hartwig also serves as a fellow for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

"You have to be educated into not seeing the design around you in the natural world," he told Baptist Press. "... You have to be either bullied or ... socialized out of it."

The Gallup poll also asked teens their opinion about the evidence behind Darwin's theory of evolution. Only 37 percent said they thought Darwin's theory was "well supported by evidence." Thirty percent said it was "just one of many theories" and one that "has not been well supported by evidence." Thirty-three percent said they did not yet know enough about Darwin's theory to answer the question.

Secularist evolution -- that is, the idea that the universe was created naturally and apart from God -- is a "minority position" among not only teens but also adults, Hartwig said.

Evolution, he noted, has been advocated for years in school textbooks, school classrooms and even in various TV specials -- such as PBS' "Evolution."

"And Americans are still saying, 'No, I don't believe it,'" Hartwig said.

Adults actually are somewhat more likely not to believe in evolution. In a Gallup poll of adults last November, 45 percent said they believed in creationism while 38 percent believed that God guided the process of evolution. Only 13 percent of adults said they believed that evolution occurred without God's guidance.

A CBS News poll in November found an even larger percentage of adults disagreeing with evolution. In that poll, a majority of adults, 55 percent, believed that God created humans in their present form. Twenty-seven percent believed that God guided the process of evolution, while 13 percent believed in a God-less evolution. Sixty-five percent of adults in the CBS poll favored schools teaching both creationism and evolution, while 37 percent said creationism should be taught instead of evolution.

"Education has changed considerably since the famous 'Scopes Monkey Trial,' but the debate about teaching evolution hasn't ended," Gallup's Heather Mason wrote in an online article. "... Data from Gallup Youth Surveys and adult surveys alike reinforce the notion that evolution is far from a foregone conclusion among large numbers of Americans."

Such polls, Hartwig said, are bad news for the academic world and for evolution supporters.

"They're frustrated by it," he said. "They're pulling out their hair over these polls."

The Gallup poll of teenagers, released March 8, was based on telephone interviews and was conducted Jan. 17 to Feb. 6. The Gallup poll of adults was based on telephone interviews with 1,016 adults Nov. 7-10.

The CBS News poll was conducted via telephone Nov. 18-21 among a sample of 885 adults.
--30--








-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 3:06 PM on June 12, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Read about their views at the Anerican Atheist websight.
http://www.njatheist.org/resourcesbooksonline.html


OK, I looked at your website and could find nothing from the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICS TEACHERS...Either show me where it is or are you admitting that you can't refute the point...

They should buy a bible and read it.

You mean that the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries
"A Recognized Intrumentality in Partnership with all settings of the United Church of Christ"
haven't read teh Bible?!?!  Back up your assertion or withdraw it!  This does pretty much destroy your claim that evolution and christianity are incompatible, though.  So come on, prove to us that the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries never reads the bible!

Last time we talked about virtually you said it could mean almost all or almost none. Your memory is failing.

Now this is why I call you a liar, because you are....where did I say virtually could mean almost all or almost none?  Here let me show you exactly what I said so you can apologize to me AGAIN...
"So while modern coelacanths are incredibly similar to the fossilized versions we have found, they are not exactly the same, it's obvious they have evolved."
" Virtual means almost exactly. No 2 organisms are exactly the same

Duh...almost."

Show me where I said virtually can mean almost all or almost none, or I'll expect an apology.  See, you do lie constantly to support your views, and you deny it even when it's conclusively proven, I never said virtually can mean almost all or almost none, the coelacanth is described as virtually unchanged because the 2 species still alive today are the only member of that family of fish, compared to all other fish, they are virtually unchanged, compared to fossilized coelacanths, they are similar but obviously different, obviously evolved.  

Interesting since it was invented by a creationist.

You've been asked to show where Pastuer rejected evolution and stated that special creation was what he believed in, you haven't done that...Anyway, Pasteur is over 100 years out od date, so I guess we can forgive him his ignorance.  Let's see what MODERN immunologists think about evolution and immunobiology:
Immune
"  The study of evolution has been central to biological investigations for the past one and a half centuries, since the publication of the "Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin. Processes of evolution invest, macroscopically, whole organisms and their populations but are based on their genomic variation. Because of this, all intermediate stages of variation at the cellular, tissular and systemic levels are also involved. Thus any branch of biology, be it zoology or anatomy or biochemistry has something to offer in terms of elucidating evolutionary processes: each discipline can provide a wealth of information to provide insight into evolutionary mechanisms. Indeed, if one may paraphrase T. Dobzhansky, "nothing in biology makes sense unless it is viewed in the light of evolution".
As may be expected, therefore, Immunology can also be used to this purpose. The analysis of immune system and function of various animal groups can provide information as to their evolution and, conceivably, a time-scale of such an evolution. "

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--America's public schools may be teaching evolution, but a significant number of teenagers aren't buying it, and an overwhelming majority of them believe that God one way or another was involved in the creation of humanity, according to a new Gallup poll.

And this is the reason America is falling so far behind the rest of the industrialized world in science.  While America's steep decline in educated citizens is well documented, here's a quote that sums it up nicely:
Dumb
" Despite the growing importance of scientific knowledge, surveys have found that Americans are woefully ignorant of basic scientific facts. A majority of Americans,. for example, do not know that the earth and sun are part of the Milky Way galaxy, and a third of them think humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time. A 1994 survey by Louis Harris & Associates and the American Museum of Natural History found that only about one adult in five scored 60 percent or better on a test of basic knowledge of subjects like space, animals, the environment, diseases, and earth."

your quote makes this evidence, the dogmatic rejection of real scientific theories like evlution and the big bang, is making Americans more stupid and less able to compete in a world environment where scientific knowledge is becoming more and more important.  So yes, more and more high school students might not be buying evolution, and because of that, they are significantly less educated than their counterparts in Asia and Europe.  You've made my point for me!

The poll of 1,028 teenagers ages 13-17 found that 38 percent don't believe in evolution, believing instead that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 43 percent believe that humans "developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided" the process. All total, 81 percent believe that God was somehow involved.
Only 18 percent believe that evolution took place without God playing a role.


So 43% still accept evolution, guided by god (theistic Evolutionists) and 18% accept evolution without God.  So that's 61% that are evolutionists and 38% creatioists...so there is still hope for America.  but you fail to mention the polls that continual show that the more educated a person was the less likely they were to believe in creationism and the more likely they were to accept the theory of evolution.

Mark Hartwig, a social research analyst for Focus on the Family, said the poll underscores the fact that creation itself points to a creator. Hartwig also serves as a fellow for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Bullcrap, creation DOES NOT point to a creator,
the poll scores show conclusively that american students are less educated than their asian and european counterparts.  And the Discovery Institute?!?!  They are reknowned for their dishonesty!  This must be where your getting most of your misinformation!  

"You have to be educated into not seeing the design around you in the natural world," he told Baptist Press. "... You have to be either bullied or ... socialized out of it."

ha ha, big mouth like most creationists, but nothing to back it up with.  Evolution, on the other hand, is supported by ALL evidence found to date and falsified by none of it.  Hartwig is just another creationist loon and has nothing of consequence to add.

The Gallup poll also asked teens their opinion about the evidence behind Darwin's theory of evolution. Only 37 percent said they thought Darwin's theory was "well supported by evidence." Thirty percent said it was "just one of many theories" and one that "has not been well supported by evidence." Thirty-three percent said they did not yet know enough about Darwin's theory to answer the question.

This is understandable when you realize American teens are the most poorly educated
students in any industrialized countries.  
From here:DumbII
"! According to Lauro Cavazos, former US Secretary of Education, when compared to their peers in other industrialized nations,
        Our students rank near the bottom in math and science scores;
        The top five percent of our high‑school students know less about math than the average high‑school student in Japan;
        Our best high‑school students ‑those bound for college‑ rank near the bottom of students from 13 advanced countries in chemistry and physics;
        Our students finish last in biology;"

So yes you are right, many american teens believe creationism and reject evolution, and this has caused the American education system to become the joke of the industrialized world.  Creationism is leading America into another dark age.

Secularist evolution -- that is, the idea that the universe was created naturally and apart from God -- is a "minority position" among not only teens but also adults, Hartwig said.


Which doesn't affect it's validity whatsoever.  So the american public is scientifically illiterate, how does that support creationism?  The people who really study science, the biologists, the chemists, the medical researchers, the astronomers, the geologists,
all accept evolution, an old earth and universe, the fact that there never was a world wide flood...And you still haven't brought any evidence to support any of your claims.  

Evolution, he noted, has been advocated for years in school textbooks, school classrooms and even in various TV specials -- such as PBS' "Evolution."

Apparently not enough because we still have ignorant people who believe in debunked myths, but then again, we still have flat earthers...

Such polls, Hartwig said, are bad news for the academic world and for evolution supporters.

Hahahaaa!!! Why?  Because the ignorant masses reject reality?  Sorry, that doesn't mean a thing and is no evidence for creationism and it doesn't do one thing to falisfy evolution.

So your whole arguement is if enough people believe something, it's true?!?!   Like I've been saying all along, you have no idea what science is or how it works...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:28 PM on June 12, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 8:28 PM on June 12, 2005 :
Read about their views at the Anerican Atheist websight.
http://www.njatheist.org/resourcesbooksonline.html


That just proves your lack the intelligence to find it.
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10

OK, I looked at your website and could find nothing from the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICS TEACHERS...Either show me where it is or are you admitting that you can't refute the point...

How can you refute an idiot?
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10


You mean that the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries
"A Recognized Intrumentality in Partnership with all settings of the United Church of Christ"
haven't read teh Bible?!?!  Back up your assertion or withdraw it!  This does pretty much destroy your claim that evolution and christianity are incompatible, though.  So come on, prove to us that the United Church Board for Homeland Ministries never reads the bible!
That is a strawman. It is obvious they don't believe a word of it.

You are not bright enough to find information on a web page so what is your opinion worth?

“Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless…. [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and, indeed, all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.
      “My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.”  William B. Provine, review of Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 51-52  Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University

Now this is why I call you a liar, because you are....where did I say virtually could mean almost all or almost none?  Here let me show you exactly what I said so you can apologize to me AGAIN...
"So while modern coelacanths are incredibly similar to the fossilized versions we have found, they are not exactly the same, it's obvious they have evolved."
" Virtual means almost exactly. No 2 organisms are exactly the same

Duh...almost."
You left out the part where you said they completely different. But why let the truth get in the way of your best argument.
Liar Liar pants on fire. Brilliant.
BTW -if you hit edit-find on this page you can find information on this page. Professor .

Show me where I said virtually can mean almost all or almost none, or I'll expect an apology.  See, you do lie constantly to support your views, and you deny it even when it's conclusively proven, I never said virtually can mean almost all or almost none, the coelacanth is described as virtually unchanged because the 2 species still alive today are the only member of that family of fish, compared to all other fish, they are virtually unchanged, compared to fossilized coelacanths, they are similar but obviously different, obviously evolved.  
Why bother? You are to stupid to find information on a web page I sent you to why should I think you could find your own contradictions?

You've been asked to show where Pastuer rejected evolution and stated that special creation was what he believed in, you haven't done that...Anyway, Pasteur is over 100 years out od date, so I guess we can forgive him his ignorance.  As may be expected, therefore, Immunology can also be used to this purpose. The analysis of immune system and function of various animal groups can provide information as to their evolution and, conceivably, a time-scale of such an evolution. "

The theory of evolution proves the theory of evolution?

And this is the reason America is falling so far behind the rest of the industrialized world in science.  While America's steep decline in educated citizens is well documented, here's a quote that sums it up nicely:

Who needs that when we have you as living proof?

Bullcrap, creation DOES NOT point to a creator,

For example?

ha ha, big mouth like most creationists, but nothing to back it up with.  Evolution, on the other hand, is supported by ALL evidence found to date and falsified by none of it.  Hartwig is just another creationist loon and has nothing of consequence to add.

All evidence? If I find some cow dung in the road that would prove evolution. A car wrapped around a tree would prove evolution. A dead body under a tractor? You guessed right! Evolution.
Yes it is hard to argue with logic like yours!

This is understandable when you realize American teens are the most poorly educated
students in any industrialized countries.  

That proves you are part of the stupid statistic.
Do you think Indians are evolutionist? Americans are falling behind because of our school system not creationism. It is not taught at school professor. Do you think calculus was invented by Darwin or the Creationist Newton?

Is there an echo when you think?

Which doesn't affect it's validity whatsoever.  So the american public is scientifically illiterate, how does that support creationism?  The people who really study science, the biologists, the chemists, the medical researchers, the astronomers, the geologists,
all accept evolution, an old earth and universe, the fact that there never was a world wide flood...And you still haven't brought any evidence to support any of your claims.  
No they do not all accept it. All most half of Americans period don't accept it. The world's leading expert in computer modeling does not accept it. The inventor of the lazer does not accept it. The inventor of the MRI does not.
You are nuts!
Apparently not enough because we still have ignorant people who believe in debunked myths, but then again, we still have flat earthers...

You are quoting a story by a fairy tale writer. Washington Irving , the guy who wrotw Rip Van Winkle. No educated person with access to the encyclopedia believe that garbage about Columbus anymore.
Only stupid people who best argument is liar liar pant's on fire and your a flat earther dude.
BTW if you want to find information on a web page you can scroll to it as well as hit edit -find on this page.


-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 6:09 PM on June 13, 2005 |
IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That proves you are part of the stupid statistic.
Do you think Indians are evolutionist? Americans are falling behind because of our school system not creationism. It is not taught at school professor. Do you think calculus was invented by Darwin or the Creationist Newton?


Wow. That was the most random number of setences I have ever seen. No topic sentence and no main point.

#1. "Education" is relative. Who is more educated than another? How can you tell? What if someone receives a different education than another? Is education required for world peace/survival/flourishing?

#2. Who cares if a scientist is creationist or evolutionist. It doesn't matter.

#3. "Americans are falling behind..." Falling behind? We're the richest and best educated, along with, and sometimes more so, than the rest of Europe. You think creationism did that?

#4. China is going to exceed America. Exceed America with flying colors. Guess what-- The majority of the Chinese people are either non-religious or Buddhist. Guess what? No creation myths taken as seriously as fundamental Chrisitans (AKA you). *Points* Hahahahahahaha
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 8:46 PM on June 13, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 8:46 PM on June 13, 2005 :

Wow. That was the most random number of setences I have ever seen. No topic sentence and no main point.
Sorry it confused you .

#1. "Education" is relative. Who is more educated than another? How can you tell? What if someone receives a different education than another? Is education required for world peace/survival/flourishing?
And you say my sentences have no meaning.
Education is not relative and it can be compared, it is called testing.
I do believe that education is the key to peace, survival and "flourishing". It helps to be able to grow enough food and produce clean water , medicine etc. Would you prefer to leave this in the hands of people who cannot read write or add 2 & 2 ?

#2. Who cares if a scientist is creationist or evolutionist. It doesn't matter.
I agree with you there. A good scientist is a good scientist.

#3. "Americans are falling behind..." Falling behind? We're the richest and best educated, along with, and sometimes more so, than the rest of Europe. You think creationism did that?
Why would I think that I am a Creationist?

#4. China is going to exceed America. Exceed America with flying colors. Guess what-- The majority of the Chinese people are either non-religious or Buddhist. Guess what? No creation myths taken as seriously as fundamental Chrisitans (AKA you). *Points* Hahahahahahaha

I wish you would not make gestures like Hahahahaha it makes you seem immature.
Famous quotes from a Chinese scientist.
BTW -the Chinese and the Japanese and the Indians are getting a lot of tech jobs not because they believe in evolution, most of them don't. It is because of their work ethic.

Jian Yuan Chan, said, "In China, we can criticize Darwin, ...
In the US you can criticize the government, but you cannot criticize Darwin." ...
americandaily.com/article

There are Chinese scientist who disbelieve Darwin.
http://www.ccmusa.org/challenger/000203/doc1.html

The evidence says it could not happen.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:19 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That just proves your lack the intelligence to find it.

Still dodging the point, puddler, guess you can't refute it...

How can you refute an idiot?

Good point, you've been thoroughly refuted on almost every point you've made and you're so brainwashed that you don't even realize it!  

That is a strawman. It is obvious they don't believe a word of it.

No strawman until you can prove that they never read the Bible.  In fact, the members of
United Church Board for Homeland Ministries
are well versed in the Bible and understand it much better than you do.

“Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God...

What's you're point...

You left out the part where you said they completely different. But why let the truth get in the way of your best argument.
Liar Liar pants on fire. Brilliant.


And here you're lieing again!  Are you pathological?  Is this what your religion teaches you?!?!  I never said they were completely different!  Why don't you EVER back up your lies?  Because you can't, Because I never said that.  Here, since your memory is so faulty, here's what I actually said, from here:
YouDebate
"So while modern coelacanths are incredibly similar to the fossilized versions we have found, they are not exactly the same, it's obvious they have evolved. "

And a little further down:
" Top one is Latimeria Chalumnae,
the bottom one is Macropoma lewesiensis.  They sure look similar but not "virtually" the same to me. "
So I never said prehistoric coelacanths were "completely different" from their modern counterparts, I used the word "virtually" correctly, your the only one who has a problem with it.  No, you've earned your reputation as a liar.

Why bother? You are to stupid to find information on a web page I sent you to why should I think you could find your own contradictions?

All you have to do is FIND my contradictions, but you CAN'T do that, all you can do is lie about them, then ignore my posts when I point out to you where you did lie.  And here you do it again...like I said before, pathetic!

The theory of evolution proves the theory of evolution?

After all this time, after all the lectures you've received, you stilldon't know what science is or how it works.  You are hopeless...

Bullcrap, creation DOES NOT point to a creator,
For example?


For example?!?!  Nothing we've found yet requires magic!  No evidence of any kind for the supernatural.  We see complexity arising naturally everywhere, we see no signs that "creation points to a creator", and you and your ilk can give us no evidence that supports your statement.  The ball is in your court, what in nature DOES point to a creator?!?!  

All evidence? If I find some cow dung in the road that would prove evolution.

The execretory system was designed by evolutionary processes.  Corporolites have been very instrumental in learning about evolution, so yes cow dung could be used as evidence for evolution.  

A car wrapped around a tree would prove evolution. A dead body under a tractor? You guessed right! Evolution.
Yes it is hard to argue with logic like yours!


Sorry for having to explain elementry concepts to a pea brain like yourself...all evidence in the natural world, all evidence in biology, all evidence in geology, all evidence in astronomy, all evidence in genetics...and you still haven't been able to refute any of it.

Americans are falling behind because of our school system not creationism. It is not taught at school professor. Do you think calculus was invented by Darwin or the Creationist Newton?


Moron, how could Newton accept evolution it it wasn't even discovered yet?  Hey, Newton didn't accept atomic theory either, so I guess that's not true either!  You really are a moron!
And because evolution is not taught early enough and effectively enough, american students have some of the lowest science scores in the industrialized world, and the creationist movement in America must take much of the blame for that.

No they do not all accept it. All most half of Americans period don't accept it. The world's leading expert in computer modeling does not accept it. The inventor of the lazer does not accept it. The inventor of the MRI does not.
You are nuts!


No you are, over 99% of the biologists and geologists in the USA accept evolution, that's a fact.  Who cares what the leading expert in computer modeling accepts, he's not a biologist
(and you never gave us his name so we could check it out for our selves), same with the inventer of the laser, who cares what he believes?!?!  same with the inventer of the MRI, who cares, they don't study evolution, theyreject it purely onfaith, they have no logical reason to reject it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:29 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 6:29 PM on June 14, 2005 :


Still dodging the point, puddler, guess you can't refute it...
That was creative, for you anyway.


Good point, you've been thoroughly refuted on almost every point you've made and you're so brainwashed that you don't even realize it!
Yawn 

No strawman until you can prove that they never read the Bible.  In fact, the members of
United Church Board for Homeland Ministries
are well versed in the Bible and understand it much better than you do.
That begs the question:
How would you know?


And here you're lieing again!
Demon you need to come up with new and creative insults!
 Are you pathological?  
?
Is this what your religion teaches you?!?!  I never said they were completely different!  Why don't you EVER back up your lies? ".  No, you've earned your reputation as a liar.
It is only you who says that oh empty headed one.
Your words echo when think:
"Don't be absurd!  Don't youi understand Linnean classification?!?!?  A genus is a classification above a species and below a family.  An Asian and a Caucasian are both from the same species (Homo Sapiens), Living and fossilized coelacanths are different, so different they are not even the same genus!  [b]
So virtually the same and so different they are not the same genus  means the same thing to you?

You need to increase you thorazine dosage.

All you have to do is FIND my contradictions, but you CAN'T do that, all you can do is lie about them, then ignore my posts when I point out to you where you did lie.  And here you do it again...like I said before, pathetic!
Look above you echo when think.

After all this time, after all the lectures you've received, you stilldon't know what science is or how it works.  You are hopeless...

Well echo when think it is hard to listen to a lecture with the echo. Much harder to stop laughing long enough to listen. Perhaps if you actually has something to say it would be worth listening. A waste is a terrible thing to mind.

For example?!?!  Nothing we've found yet requires magic!  No evidence of any kind for the supernatural.  We see complexity arising naturally everywhere, we see no signs that "creation points to a creator", and you and your ilk can give us no evidence that supports your statement.  The ball is in your court, what in nature DOES point to a creator?!?!  
The cell.


The execretory system was designed by evolutionary processes.  Corporolites have been very instrumental in learning about evolution, so yes cow dung could be used as evidence for evolution.

Fasinating. This is rich. Okay Demon the colon and the rectum evolved seperatley ,there is no reason to think that they would evolve simultaneously, that would be evidence of design . Now we know evolution is a blind stupid process, probably why it attracts you, then what happened to pre rectal humans who consumed beans?
 


Sorry for having to explain elementry concepts to a pea brain like yourself...all evidence in the natural world, all evidence in biology, all evidence in geology, all evidence in astronomy, all evidence in genetics...and you still haven't been able to refute any of it.
Hmmm. If you said that pigs could fly then I would be forced to agree because it was spoken by echo when think? [/b]

Moron, how could Newton accept evolution it it wasn't even discovered yet?  Hey, Newton didn't accept atomic theory either, so I guess that's not true either!  You really are a moron!
And because evolution is not taught early enough and effectively enough, american students have some of the lowest science scores in the industrialized world, and the creationist movement in America must take much of the blame for that.
Your complete ignorance of the history of your religion is truly special.
Evolution was around long before Darwin and long before Newton.
Newton's words while talking to an atheistic evolutionist:
" This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

Your ignorance knows no bounds. You are truly special!



No you are, over 99% of the biologists and geologists in the USA accept evolution, that's a fact.  Who cares what the leading expert in computer modeling accepts, he's not a biologist
(and you never gave us his name so we could check it out for our selves), same with the inventer of the laser, who cares what he believes?!?!  same with the inventer of the MRI, who cares, they don't study evolution, theyreject it purely onfaith, they have no logical reason to reject it.
Hmm. Baumgardner is the man USA Today says that about.
So only the opinions of evolutionist about evolution ar valid? Facinating. If evolutionist did not believe in evolution then there would be no evolution so evolution must be true.
Brilliant Demon! It's all clear now. If atheism was not true how would you account for atheist?  
If air was not true how would account for airheads?
It's so simple !




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:57 PM on June 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is only you who says that oh empty headed one.
Your words echo when think:
Don't be absurd!  Don't youi understand Linnean classification?!?!?  A genus is a classification above a species and below a family.  An Asian and a Caucasian are both from the same species (Homo Sapiens), Living and fossilized coelacanths are different, so different they are not even the same genus!
So virtually the same and so different they are not the same genus  means the same thing to you?
You need to increase you thorazine dosage.


it's amazing how you creationists try to twist the facts!  This was explained to you and youstill don't understand it.  your original point was that prehistoric coelacanths were the same as modern coelacanths, you even said:
"They were 100% wrong . It is the same creature , it is evidence of statis , of Creation."

And you were wrong here, they are not the same creature, they are of a different genus.
As I so patiently explained, they are described as virtually alike because NO genus of coelacanths were thought to be alive prior to 1938.   the living specimens found alive are not the same species, they're not even the same genus.  they say virtually the same because NO other coelacanths exist!  They share many characteristics with their primitive cousins, lobed fins, hollow back spines,etc., that set them apart from all other fishes.  but even though they are virtually alike, they are different, so different that they are in a different genus!  I understand the word virtually perfectly, you don't!  I understand why modern coelacanths and their primitive cousins are alike, I understand why modern coelacanths are different.  Your point was destroyed in that arguement, modern coelacanths, while closely related to fossilized coelacanths, are not the same as them.  Fossilized coelacanths can be used as an index fossil.  Since modern coelacanths are different from fossilized coelacanths, the only explaination for them changing is evolution.

Look above you echo when think.

Looked at it real close, the only one wrong here is you, as usual.

For example?!?!  Nothing we've found yet requires magic!  No evidence of any kind for the supernatural.  We see complexity arising naturally everywhere, we see no signs that "creation points to a creator", and you and your ilk can give us no evidence that supports your statement.  The ball is in your court, what in nature DOES point to a creator?!?!
The cell.

The cell?!?!?!?!!!  hahahahaaahahahaaa!!!
How does the cell provide evidence for a creator?!?!?!  As has been shown, we see how the cell could have self arisen, no magic needed, we see how the cell does increase in size and how it does add new functions and structures.  What evidence points to it being magically created?!?!  Typical of your responses, reply with fairytales and treat them like facts...

Fasinating. This is rich. Okay Demon the colon and the rectum evolved seperatley ,there is no reason to think that they would evolve simultaneously, that would be evidence of design .

Why is this evidence of design????  Coevoluiton of supporting structures is easily explained by the theory of evolution.

Now we know evolution is a blind stupid process, probably why it attracts you, then what happened to pre rectal humans who consumed beans?

No, evolution is not a blind process and there never were pre rectal humans, only in your strawman version of evolution!

Hmmm. If you said that pigs could fly then I would be forced to agree because it was spoken by echo when think?

Keep dodging, where is the evidence for supernatural intervention?!?!  Until you can present any evidence for it, you're just talking out of your ass.

Your complete ignorance of the history of your religion is truly special.
Evolution was around long before Darwin and long before Newton.


yet Darwin pulled all the ideas together in a logical and scientific way.  Whow me any mention of the "Theory of evolution" before Darwin proposed it!  

Your ignorance knows no bounds. You are truly special!

No, you're the moron!  You still don't understand how science works!  Newton didn't know about atomic theory, quantum theory, modern theories of astronomy, his opinions on the formationof the universe mean NOTHING today!  That's all you have, centuries out of date quotes that don't apply to science today!  

Hmm. Baumgardner is the man USA Today says that about.
So only the opinions of evolutionist about evolution ar valid?


Not at all, only the opinions of those who have the facts, observations, tests and experiments to back them up count.  Since no creation scientists do any creation science, they have no facts, observations, tests or experiments to back them up, their only reason to doubt evolution is faith in ancient myths 3000 years out of date and disproven by modern science.

Facinating. If evolutionist did not believe in evolution then there would be no evolution so evolution must be true.

Belief or non belief doesn't affect reality, whether anyone accepted evolution or not, that doesn't change the facts that it does happen.  What's your point?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:45 PM on June 15, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 6:11 PM on June 7, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 4:41 PM on June 7, 2005 :
interesting note. Wells scored double 800's on his sats. How did you do?


Another interesting note.  Wells is a Moonie.  Are you?




I think you know the answer to that. Of course I differ with his beliefs , if what you say is true, but unlike you that does not affect my respect for his brilliance as a scientist .

Moonie's are not as strange to me as atheist. And moonies are very , very, strange to me.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 06:46 AM on June 16, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 4:45 PM on June 15, 2005 :

it's amazing how you creationists try to twist the facts!  This was explained to you and youstill don't understand it.  your original point was that prehistoric coelacanths were the same as modern coelacanths, you even said:
"They were 100% wrong . It is the same creature , it is evidence of statis , of Creation."

Twist the facts? You cannot twist facts. If you could they would not be facts. Why not go back to liar liar pants on fire. By far your most brilliant argument.
To you only people who agree with you understand anything. Science welcomes challenges. Demonology does not. The god of science who controls the meaning of all words and the interpretation of all evidence is after all, a god. If anyone disagrees with the god of science he will be chastised by Liar Liar pants on fire.  

And you were wrong here, they are not the same creature, they are of a different genus.
As I so patiently explained.
[b] I know I should be so grateful that you took your valuable time as the god of science to instruct me .
Has it ever occurred to you that what a genus is and what is not an interpretation? Let’s me think. I make my living getting grants to study evolution . I find a fatal flaw in the theory. Do I one, announce it to the world and apply for fry cook at Wendy’s ?
Or just call it a different genus and stonewall. The fish was said to have developing feet, lungs, and a mammals brain. It was an ICON of evolution. It had none of these features , it was , is , a fish , nothing more.. Sooner or later ALL evidence for evolution hits the wall. Piltdown Man , Piltdown Bird, Nebraska Man , The Ginko Tree ad infinitum.




And you were wrong here, they are not the same creature, they are of a different genus.
As I so patiently explained, they are described as virtually alike because NO genus of coelacanths were thought to be alive prior to 1938.   the living specimens found alive are not the same species, they're not even the same genus.  they say virtually the same because NO other coelacanths exist!  They share many characteristics with their primitive cousins, lobed fins, hollow back spines,etc., that set them apart from all other fishes.  but even though they are virtually alike, they are different, so different that they are in a different genus!  I understand the word virtually perfectly, you don't!  I understand why modern coelacanths and their primitive cousins are alike, I understand why modern coelacanths are different.  Your point was destroyed in that arguement, modern coelacanths, while closely related to fossilized coelacanths, are not the same as them.  Fossilized coelacanths can be used as an index fossil.  Since modern coelacanths are different from fossilized coelacanths, the only explaination for them changing is evolution.

This is one of the most absurd paragraphs in recorded history.
“As I so patiently explained, they are described as virtually alike because NO genus of coelacanths were thought to be alive prior to 1938.   the living specimens found alive are not the same species, they're not even the same genus.  they say virtually the same because NO other coelacanths exist!  “
Of course they were not thought to exist. They were thought to have crawled out of the sea and became you and me. Finding them alive disproved everything about the theory of evolution. So what happened, “scientist” changed the theory. They can’t be the same creature or evolution is false so they must be a different genus and other lobe finned fish crawled out of the sea. Sounds like a story a child would make up. It has all the intellectual integrity of “ the dog ate my homework” Actually less, it is possible for the dog to do that, this is absolutely, totally impossible.
You say that fossilized coelacanths can be used as an index fossil but you also have said there are no index fossils because radiometric dating stands alone.
Why would you make the statement no other coelacanths exist when it is obvious we don’t know that. This whole post is about one that “was” extinct. It shows your circular pattern of thinking. Evolution is true, we know that evolution is true because ALL evidence supports it. ALL evidence supports the theory of evolution because evolution is true.
How do we “know” the others don’t exist? Because evolution is true. It so simple . We “know” they evolved because they don’t exist. T[We “know”they don’t exist because they evolved.
Why don’t we find a pattern of slow gradual change? Simple, the change happened quickly. How do we “know” it happened quickly? Simple , there is no evidence for gradualism.
What would happen if we found some of the completely different but virtually identical fish alive? That would be evidence for evolution. How do we “know” that? All evidence is evidence for evolution because evolution is true. How do we know evolution is true? Simple, ALL evidence is evidence for evolution.



The cell?!?!?!?!!!  hahahahaaahahahaaa!!!
How does the cell provide evidence for a creator?!?!?!  As has been shown, we see how the cell could have self arisen, no magic needed, we see how the cell does increase in size and how it does add new functions and structures.  What evidence points to it being magically created?!?!  Typical of your responses, reply with fairytales and treat them like facts...

Could have arisen? That is a fairy tale. Explain the mechanism, give me an example?. Magic is not the power of Almighty God.
The proteins in the cell are coded by the information encoded in the DNA. The DNA is made from proteins. The only answer is they were created at the same instant. The nucleolus of the cell cannot exist in the presence of oxygen.
Pre-biotic natural selection is absurd.
This is what your hero says:
“Dobzhansky, an Evolutionist, said...
Natural selection is differential reproduction, organism perpetuation.  In order to have natural selection, you have to have self-reproduction or self-replication and at least two self-replicating units of entities ... I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot use the words 'natural selection' loosely.  Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms”
He belives in evolution but knows that spontaneous generation is impossible.



Why is this evidence of design????  Coevoluiton of supporting structures is easily explained by the theory of evolution.


At this point I rest my case. For the umpteenth time you have proven my case for me. You are thinking in a circle.
“Coevoluiton of supporting structures is easily explained by the theory of evolution”
This is a Webster’s class definition of thinking in a circle. Evolution theory is explained by evolution theory.
Maybe someday you will realize how utterly absurd that argument is.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 07:59 AM on June 16, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 07:59 AM on June 16, 2005 :
The DNA is made from proteins.


No, it isn't.

What does DNA look like?

The sides of the ladder are a linked chain of alternating sugar and phosphate molecules. The rungs connect to the sugar molecules and are known as bases.

There are four bases - adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G) and cytosine (C). Each rung is made up of two bases that link together and because of their chemical nature, A will only link with T and G will only link with C.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:35 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:20 PM on June 7, 2005 :
In case you are unaware this century is only 5 1/2 years old. You may wish to jot that down.

yeah and 5 1/2 years is a long time in science, a lot of evidence has been found in those 5 years.  A lot of evidence that fully supports the theory of evolution.  I stand by my point, I use
up to date evidence and science, you're hopelessly mired in the past.

Facinating. So 5 1/2 years ago is ancient history? Hmmm, that means everything you know now will be wrong in 2011. Pity.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:43 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.