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
     Creationist Belief
       Question...

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

    
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do Creationists truly believe that the entire human race came from Adam and Eve?

This is an actual question, because i'm still trying to grasp this theory and what those who believe it hold to be true.

Also, does this theory allow for the existence of the dinosaurs?

Thanks!
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:14 AM on May 3, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i do, and it does account for dinosaurs.



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 5:48 PM on May 4, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes i do and i always will.



-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 6:20 PM on May 4, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Carns at 5:48 PM on May 4, 2005 :
i do, and it does account for dinosaurs.



it does? please explain, as i've never seen it explained

thanks

 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:49 AM on May 5, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow. Seems no one would like to answer's K8 question. Come on people. How bout it? Lets say I'm asking the same question too.

(Edited by Box of Fox 5/12/2005 at 9:55 PM).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 9:23 PM on May 12, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This was the first flaw I picked in christianity, we watched this video about the "creation" of the earth and my first comment was.... what about dinosaurs? and I've nether had an answer from a full on creationist.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 08:38 AM on May 13, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i'll assume we're talking about dinosaur's. in comparison to any other theory of man's history, i fail to see the problem in thinking we all came from a single pair of humans.

well... man's interaction with dinosaur's has been well documented all throughout history. virtually every culture in the world has references to dragons, there are drawings of dragons ("dinosaur" wasn't added to the dictionary until the 1800's) all over the world, including in the grand canyon, peru, egypt, china, and many more. Man has co-existed with dinosaurs. this is always 'shoved under the carpet" though because of the popularity of evolution, and what it would mean to that particular theory, however, the facts are overwhelming. as a skeptic, i could dismiss a handful of "myths" about dragons, but the fact that SO MANY cultures have history that includes many species of dragons, i believe we can't just ignore it. human footprints have been found crossing dinosaur footprints, inside dinosaur footprints, and fossilized. The history of China includes instructions on appointing a dragon care-taker. there were spy reports that the king of babylon was raising dragons to pull his chariot in a parade. any of this evidence would naturally be considered mythical, even to myself, however the fact that so much of it exists, and over such a large geographic span, i fail to see how the cultures involved some how conspired to create a myth of something like this.

i say all this to say the following, dragon's were mentioned all throughout the bible, obviously we wouldn't find an 1800's word in a 1600's english bible, so dont' expect to see that word used. job and god discuss what is obviously a brachiasaurus or a similar dinosaur, as well as a sea dinosaur (i'm unfamiliar with the names of these dinosaurs tbh) I personally believe that god created dinosaurs along with everything else, and that they have slowly been going extinct due to man hunting them (historically, and intuitively they have been target's of mankind).

there have in fact been recent reports that some smaller dinosaurs have been seen in the congo... i wouldn't bank on that necessarily, but its interesting nonetheless...


i think that there is a staggering amount of evidence that undoubtedly suggests that man and dinosaur cohabited earth, and this is completely ignored by the scientific community simply because it makes them look stupid for saying they went extint some 16 million years ago.




-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 9:20 PM on May 13, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, i've heard these theories to do with dragons and such, but i don't know...i really think there'd be a lot more dinosaurs around today if this were true. And all of the instances to do with dinosaur footprints w/ human footprints that i've heard of (only a couple) have turned out to be hoaxes. So, i still don't know...
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 01:54 AM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well... man's interaction with dinosaur's has been well documented all throughout
history.


Actually, there is no documentation of any kind of interaction between man and dinosaurs.

virtually every culture in the world has references to dragons, there are drawings of dragons ("dinosaur" wasn't added to the dictionary until the 1800's) all over the world, including in the grand canyon, peru, egypt, china, and many more.

Yes, and traditionally dragons have 4 legs and 2 wings.  No vertabrate has 6 limbs, let alone dinosaurs.  Dragons traditionally breath fire, no animal can breath fire.  Now if dinosaurs were the basis of the dragon legend, why did most of these ancient cultures make such fundamental mistakes in anatomy when depicting them?  

Man has co-existed with dinosaurs. this is always 'shoved under the carpet" though because of the popularity of evolution, and what it would mean to that particular theory, however, the facts are overwhelming.

First of all, explain how the survival of dinosaurs into modern times would falsify evolution?  I don't see it...  And the facts are overwhelming, no dinosaur fossils have been found younger than 65 million years ago, that's when the last of the  dinosaurs went extinct.  No dinosaur fossil has ever been found in the same sedimentry layer as human fossils.  What facts do you have to support your "Flintstone" world view of dinosaurs existing with humans???

as a skeptic, i could dismiss a handful of "myths" about dragons, but the fact that SO MANY cultures have history that includes many species of dragons, i believe we can't just ignore it.

Many cultures have legends of giants, griffons, unicorns, sea monsters, demons, don't tell me you believe in them too?

human footprints have been found crossing dinosaur footprints, inside dinosaur footprints, and fossilized.

No they weren't, the Paluxy tracks have been conclusively shown to be dino tracks, not human footprints.

The history of China includes instructions on appointing a dragon care-taker. there were spy reports that the king of babylon was raising dragons to pull his chariot in a parade. any of this evidence would naturally be considered mythical, even to myself, however the fact that so much of it exists, and over such a large geographic span, i fail to see how the cultures involved some how conspired to create a myth of something like this.

No conspiricy involved, just cultures borrowing the legends of older cultures.  

job and god discuss what is obviously a brachiasaurus or a similar dinosaur,

Got any proof of this?  Here's the passage you claim is about a dinosaur:
"King James Bible, Job 40:15-24 - "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee;  Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.  His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.  He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.  Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.  The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.  Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.  He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."

Let's go through the passage.  "he eateth grass as an ox."  OK, grass never existed at the same time as dinosaurs, they didn't eat it.
"and his force is in the navel of his belly."
Dinosaurs were egg layers, they didn't have navels.  "He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together."
Sinews of his stones?  This isn't a tail they're talking about, this is a description of mammalian male genitals. "He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens."  Big sauropods didn't lie down, too massive. Sauropods didn't live in swamps.
Clearly this doesn't describe a sauropod dinosaur...What else do you have?

personally believe that god created dinosaurs along with everything else, and that they have slowly been going extinct due to man hunting them (historically, and intuitively they have been target's of mankind).

Then how come we have no evidence of man hunting them?  No cave drawings of man hunting dinosaurs, no dinosaur bones with evidence of being killed by man.  Like I said above, how do you explain the fact that no dinosaur bones have been found that are younger than 65 million years?  How do you explain the fact that no dinosaur fossils have been found in the same strata as man?  

there have in fact been recent reports that some smaller dinosaurs have been seen in the congo... i wouldn't bank on that necessarily, but its interesting nonetheless...

And while I'd absolutely love this to be true (I'm a huge dinophile), there is no evidence to support it.  And dinosaurs surviving into modern times doesn't falsify the theory of evolution.

i think that there is a staggering amount of evidence that undoubtedly suggests that man and dinosaur cohabited earth, and this is completely ignored by the scientific community simply because it makes them look stupid for saying they went extint some 16 million years ago.

First of all, they went extinct 65 million years ago.  And as for a "staggering" amount of evidence, you haven't shown us ANY evidence yet to support your claim.
A much better explaination is that ancient cultures stumbled upon prehistoric fossils and tried to explain them as best they could.  There is evidence that the places many of these myths and legends originated were also rich in fossils.  Imagine an ancient greek finding the leg bone of a Brachiosaurus, to him it could have been the leg bone of a giant.  Or finding a protoceratops skeleton eroding out of a sandstone hill, the boney frill could easily have been mistaken for a dragon wing.  Or how about a deinothere (giant elephant) skull, the hole in it's skull for it's trunk would have looked like a giant cyclopean eye socket.  Take a look at  Adrienne Mayor's book The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times, if you want to better understand what really started dragon (and other mythic animal) legends.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:05 AM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll tell you what I find unreasonable about Adam and Eve, and I won't explain it using evolution:

Adam and Eve had children. These children, in order to birth the next generation, were forced to sleep with each other, or with their parents. Regardless of the fact that the Bible portrays this as morally wrong, its biological effects on children are devastating.

"...full-sibling or parent-child incest results in about 17% child mortality and 25% child disability, for a combined result of about 42% nonviable offspring"
Donald Brown, 'Human Universals' pp123

Or did God make sure that their children were perfectly fine? Or did they just sleep together a few million times until they got a good one? :--)...

Further more, note this:

"Adam and Eve had two children that we know of. Cain and Abel. When they grew up, Cain (or was it the other one?) went off and found a wife."

And just where, might I inquire, did this woman come from? Did God just slap on a few more people when we weren't looking?

(Edited by Box of Fox 5/14/2005 at 1:09 PM).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 1:08 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Carns

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first of all, god didn't declare that as wrong until hundreds of years later, when it would be genetically harmful, you're second statement assumes the same conditions of adam/eve as of human's today, i realize you have no other data to go by, but it's a faulty assumption to make. Genetically speaking, the results of those 42% unviable offspring occurr because of combining genes that are too similar as far as i understand it, which makes sense.. the further away you go from your family tree, the more different the genes (chromosomes, whatever) would get. well, eve was created from adam, so she would have been genetically close, but you can't assume that they would have been as genetically faulty as we are today. their kids (including cain) would obviously have chosen sister's as wives, because nobody else was there, and it wasn't wrong. The reasoning behind all of the things God forbids is for our own good - after the fall of man, death entered the world, our genes began to reproduce inaccurately and eventually, as we see today, the closer your mate, the more the likelyhood of unviable offspring. Of course, demon is going to say some garbage about not having proof of this, but i maintain that it is more intuitive and makes  far more sense.

for the record, i dont usually bother with replying to demon's posts because his statements are equally as unfounded as some of mine may be. I realize you have yourself convinced. while some of your arguments make sense, it's obvious that you are heavily biased on your interpretation of the evidence.

for example
- where is your proof that many of the cultures of the world borrowed legends from eachother? the fact is that they have similar legends and myths. nobody can argue that, but you can't say conclusively that they corroborated on these happenings. but you do anyways.

- i didn't say the existence of dinosaurs would falsify evolution, it would just make this 65 million years ago extinction date look ridiculous. This date has not been proven, its an assumption based on the "dating" of fossils. even if these dates were accurate, it doesn't prove that there don't exist younger fossils.

- Where is your proof that grass didn't exist, and that they didn't eat grass? i can understand some of your issues with this passage, but that is a pretty big assumption.

- I suppose this also means you assume all dinosaurs were carnivores,
From UC Berkeley:
"The general hypothesis that most ornithischians and sauropodomorphs were largely, if not completely herbivorous"

-regarding the navel issue, you simply haven't looked into the original words prior to translation. as per comments of Albert Barnes:

“The word here rendered navel means properly firm, hard, tough, and in the plural form, which occurs here, means the firm, or tough parts of the belly. It is not used to denote the navel in any place in the Bible, and should not have been so rendered here” (The Book of Job, London: Blackie & Son, n.d., Vol. II, p. 248).


- if you're going to take this passage literally, why would it say TAIL if it didn't mean tail? you're really grasping at straws with that one, obviously, behemoth had a huge tail, i assume it was a dino because i dont know of any other animals with tree like tails. you suppose he was talking about his genitals because...? do you know of any animals with genitals like a tree? this is preposterous

- some of your arguments about sauropods not lying down etc. do make sense to me, well done on those, but as much as i liked them, and they do make sense, recognize the assumptions:
-sauropods didn't live in swamps
-sauropods couldn't lie down
-tree's now are the same size as prehistoric trees

-the whole human/dino not being in the same strata isn't conclusive evidence that they did not coexist. tree's in Joggin's nova scotia have been found standing upright in several layers of fossilized strata? used commonly as anti-creation evidence and anti-evolution evidence alike, depending on the interpretation, the fact remains, layers of strata don't necessarily mean different periods or era's of geologic history. there are other documented ways that strata could be laid down. i dont know how they were, but at least i recognize that this whole age-strata thing could be disproven some day. it's a pretty good explanation, but has its flaws.

- you mentioned a bunch of hypothetical statements with regard to what old civilizations *could* have seen and etc.. while this is a nice idea, the fact remains, drawings exist that look almost identical to dinosaurs we know of, no wings, no fire, 4 legs, the whole deal, just that they didn't call them dino's cuz that word wasn't used till 1800's.

i am not against facts. all i want people to know is the difference between fact and interpretation, i am freely stating that my beliefs are interpretation of the facts, but you state your beliefs as though they are facts, but they are simply interpretations of the facts, this is why the same facts are used by creationists and evolutionists alike... if you think about it, the only debate lies in the interpretation, not the facts, since you can't debate facts. i am not saying behemoth was a sauropod, but i know that god and job were obviously discussing creatures that they were familiar with. that's a fact. i interpret the description to be something that has gone extinct, because i dont know of any alive animals that fit the description. what's the big deal if it was a dinosaur? it doesn't disprove evolution as you say? and im not trying to disprove evolution anyways, in fact, im not trying to prove creation either. i was simply showing how dino's fit into the creation story, and while what you presented does contain some interesting facts (i.e. the paluxy trails) dino's still fit into a creationist interpretation of the facts.

you are free to interpret as much as you like. i appreciate your input however, you have obviously spent time in looking into the claims of evo's and create's alike. Congrats.



-------
Inherent Freedom For All
 


Posts: 95 | Posted: 10:32 PM on May 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry it took me so long to reply, I was in Disney World with my family.  Anyway, on to the responses...

for the record, i dont usually bother with replying to demon's posts because his statements are equally as unfounded as some of mine may be.

I beg to differ, I support my responses, you do not.  So my statements are NOT unfounded, they are based on the best data available, at least the best data available to me...

- where is your proof that many of the cultures of the world borrowed legends from eachother? the fact is that they have similar legends and myths. nobody can argue that, but you can't say conclusively that they corroborated on these happenings. but you do anyways.

Proof that many cultures stole, borrowed or otherwise appropriated other cultures myths?
This is common knowledge!  The Romans took the Greek gods and simply renamed them, Noah's flood was taken from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and even the life of Jesus is based on much older myths taken from other civilizations.  From here:
Myths

"Many Pagan religious belief systems permeated the Mediterranean region during the 1st century CE. There were numerous male heroes, saviors and god-men within Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Hindu, and other pantheons of Gods whose lives had many points of similarities to Jesus. Of these, the Egyptian God Horus probably had life events attributed to him which were closest match to those of Jesus. Yet, Horus was worshipped in Egypt thousands of years before the first century CE when Jesus is believed to have been ministering in Palestine."

And from here:
Myth2

"Joseph Campbell helped to popularize ancient mythologies and show how they relate to the civilizations in which they originate and how the stories have been passed on between generations and cultures."

So, unless you have evidence to refute my claim, myths have always been shared between cultures, and as they were shared, they were changed, exaggerated, embellished,
to make them more exciting for a new audience.  So the dragon myth was NOT based on all these distinct civilizations having their own dragon stories, they were based on inheritied, passed down stories from older cultures.

i didn't say the existence of dinosaurs would falsify evolution, it would just make this 65 million years ago extinction date look ridiculous. This date has not been proven, its an assumption based on the "dating" of fossils. even if these dates were accurate, it doesn't prove that there don't exist younger fossils.

OK, maybe the discovery of more recent dinosaur fossils would change our view of dinosaur extinction, but none have been found yet!  The KT boundary is conclusive, this marked the end of the dinosaur.  And nothing is "proven" 100% in science, but no assumptions are used in dating, the various methods of dating are well understood and very accurate.  And virtually all the varied and different dating methods agree.  So yes, these dates are accurate, and while there is a remote possibility that younger dino fossils will be found, since none have been found yet, the current conclusion that all dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago, is the most accurate.  Your claim "it doesn't prove that there don't exist younger fossils", is a baseless fantasy with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Where is your proof that grass didn't exist, and that they didn't eat grass? i can understand some of your issues with this passage, but that is a pretty big
assumption.[b]

Not an assumption at all!  Grass doesn't appear in the fossil record until about 20 - 30 million years ago.  No evidence of it any earlier.  Also, grass is tough, it has deposited silicates in it's structure, it tends to quickly wear down teeth.  But around this time, mammilian herbivores evovled teeth with enamel to protect from this wearing down.  Dinosaurs didn't have enamelled teeth, they could not have eaten grass.  No assumptions, just examining the evidence.  Grass did not arise until the Tertiary period and dinosaurs didn't, couldn't eat grass.

[b]- I suppose this also means you assume all dinosaurs were carnivores,


Of course I don't think that all dinosaurs were carnivores!  Where in the world did you get that from?!?!??

-regarding the navel issue, you simply haven't looked into the original words prior to translation. as per comments of
Albert Barnes:


Who is Albert Barnes and why does his opinion carry any weight?  

- if you're going to take this passage literally, why would it say TAIL if it didn't mean tail?

Because the next line is "the sinews of his stones are wrapped together"  What are stones?  Does he have actual stones embedded in his musculature?  Why would it say stones if it didn't mean stones?  No, it sounds more like a description of mammilian genitalia to me.  

And why doesn't this account mention a sauropod's most striking feature, it's incredibly long neck and small head?  You would think they would at least mention something as unusual as that.  And that tiny head would certainly be incapable of drinking up a river, as Job says...

-sauropods didn't live in swamps

Not an assumption, but based on the latest evidence.  From here:
dinoswamp

"This amphibian theory of sauropods was held almost universally until Bakker convincingly demonstrated that sauropods did not live in water but were actually land-dwellers, more like high-browsing giraffes than wallowing hippos.15  The long erect limbs and deep rib cage of sauropods are similar to those of elephants and other large terrestrial mammals, and quite unlike the short, stubby limbs and barrel-shaped torso of hippos, which spend most of their lives in water.  Moreover, sauropod fossils are typically found in well-drained floodplain or fluvial deposits, and not in lakes or swamps."

-sauropods couldn't lie down

Again, not an assumption, from here:
Dinosleep

"No the larger dinosaurs did not lie down to sleep because the energy it took to get back up would be tremendous. Also they would not be able to get up fast so the predators would have an easier time hunting them. The Brontosaurus for example locked its joints in its legs so that it stood up while it slept, like the horses of modern day."

-tree's now are the same size as prehistoric trees

I didn't look this one up, but they would have to be gigantic trees for a large sauropod to rest in their shade, have any evidence for trees that large?

-the whole human/dino not being in the same strata isn't conclusive evidence that they did not coexist.

Nothing in science is conclusive, but since there is no evidence that they did coexist, it is the best conclusion we can draw.  You have no evidence that they did coexist.

tree's in Joggin's nova scotia have been found standing upright in several layers of fossilized strata? used commonly as anti-creation evidence and anti-evolution evidence alike, depending on the interpretation, the fact remains, layers of strata don't necessarily mean different periods or era's of geologic history. there are other documented ways that strata could be laid down. i dont know how they were, but at least i recognize that this whole age-strata thing could be disproven some day. it's a pretty good explanation, but has its flaws.

What does this mean?  Geologists understand how sediment layers are laid down, they realize that they can be laid down in different ways, by different mechanisms.  The age strata thing has already been shown to be accurate.  What could possibly falsify it?!?  What does the polystrate trees in Joggins have to do with anything?  Polystrate trees occur when they are rapidly covered and their roots grow down into lower starta.  No mystery there, and no proof of any problems with dating strata formation.  So yes, layers of strata don't necessarily mean different geological eras, but geologists know the difference, they understand how sedimentation works, they know what layers represent deep time and what layers do not.

- you mentioned a bunch of hypothetical statements with regard to what old civilizations *could* have seen and etc.. while this is a nice idea, the fact remains, drawings exist that look almost identical to dinosaurs we know of, no wings, no fire, 4 legs, the whole deal, just that they didn't call them dino's cuz that word wasn't used till \
1800's.


Hypothetical statements?  Many of the spots where some of these mythological beasts supposedly lived are places where these ancient peoples found fossils!  These are NOT hypothetical statements, they are based on empirical evidence.  The Mediteranian has always held a great amount of fossils, some of which were indeed found by primitive cultures.
Once again, this theory has been pieced together by studying where fossils have been found, what ancient writers were saying thousands of years ago about the myths of the time, where these myths originated in conjuction with the locations of these fossil sites.  Your claim that pictures exist that look almost identical to modern dinosaurs is bogus, show us where we can see these 'amazing' pictures!  

i am not against facts. all i want people to know is the difference between fact and interpretation, i am freely stating that my beliefs are interpretation of the facts, but you state your beliefs as though they are facts, but they are simply interpretations of the facts, this is why the same facts are used by creationists and evolutionists alike...

But science is not biased, it goes where the facts lead.  Creationists do not do this, they try to twist every "fact" until it supports their truth!  Science is not trying to prove anything, it's just interpreting the facts in the most reasonable, most logical way possible.  Creationists must have everything support their worldview, if it doesn't their faith is in jeapordy.  Science questions everything, tries to disprove every theory, creationists do not, they reject any fact that disproves their conclusion.  I have NOT supported any of my beliefs, I've merely stated the mainstream view of science and pointed out the errors you have made.  

if you think about it, the only debate lies in the interpretation, not the facts, since you can't debate facts.

But who is better suited to interprete the facts?  Experts who have studied them extensively and who have no vested interest in the interpretation or religious fanatics who's faith is seriously damaged by some interpretations?  

what's the big deal if it was a dinosaur? it doesn't disprove evolution as you say? and im not trying to disprove evolution anyways, in fact, im not trying to prove creation either. i was simply showing how dino's fit into the creation story, and while what you presented does contain some interesting facts (i.e. the paluxy trails) dino's still fit into a creationist interpretation of the facts.

Like I said, nobody would be happier than me if dinos were found to still exist or existed in man's history.  We didn't even get to talk about plesiosaur sightings in Africa and ancient egypt.... But we have to face reality, what we want and what is real are 2 different things.  No evidence exists to support dinosaurs surviving into modern times.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:03 AM on May 22, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, Demon, you really packed it on this time :-)....
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 11:53 AM on May 22, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, Demon, you really packed it on this time :-)....

yeah, guess I did...sorry about that!  Gotta learn to be more concise!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:42 PM on May 23, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did it ever occur to you that evolution teaches we ALL come from a common ancestor.

Talk about incest! To say Adam and Eve is a myth because there children would have had to marry there children is ludicrous.

Evolution teach trans- species incest for millions of species.

Please be serious.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 3:18 PM on May 25, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did it ever occur to you that evolution teaches we ALL come from a common
ancestor.


A common ancestor population...

Talk about incest!

Incest?!?!  Once again you demonstrate that
you don't understand the theory of evolution at all.

To say Adam and Eve is a myth because there children would have had to marry there children is ludicrous.

Adam and Eve are a myth for a whole lot more than just that.

Evolution teach trans- species incest for millions of species.

What is 'trans- species' incest?  Different species don't normally mate, no organism gives birth to a different species, what the hell does this mean?

Evolution teach trans- species incest for millions of species

This coming form the guy who STILL doesn't understand how the theory of evolution works...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:30 PM on May 25, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 3:18 PM on May 25, 2005 :
Did it ever occur to you that evolution teaches we ALL come from a common ancestor.

Talk about incest! To say Adam and Eve is a myth because there children would have had to marry there children is ludicrous.

Evolution teach trans- species incest for millions of species.

Please be serious.





Wow, this is stupid.

Trans-species incest. Let's see, oh yes that's right if they are of different species then they are not related!

Species are meant to separate organisms that are not alike. If two organisms of different species mate then they produce an offspring that is sterile (this means the cannot sucessfully breed with other hybrids).

Observe the Mule, It is a cross-breed of a donkey and a horse yet the only way to create more mules are if you breed a horse and a donkey.

The same goes for Ligers (they exist).

Even intra-species breeding is not incest either. I'd say you were wrong and leave it at that but I see your ignorance (probably from incest) and will explain the theory of evolution to you as simply as I can.

Evolution:

Evolution is the slow process at which an entire population changes characteristics. These changes do not result from pure luck, there must be a limiting factor present. (A limiting factor is a factor of an ecosystem that limits population growth ex. disease, foof supply, parasites, predators...)

The population of one species is affected negatively causing those with accidental DNA mistakes that previously never hurt or helped the organism but now gives it the edge over the population. This in turn causes this organism with a different characteristic to survive longer and thus create more offspring which many will carry the gene and as numbers of these organisms multiply, the majority will have the characteristic. This process is called adaptation. The theory of evolution takes this theory and uses it as it's base for saying that over hundreds and thousands of years the organisms will form their own species.

I would go further but I grow weary and desire Nectar and Ambrosia.

So in conclusion, I come back to Adam and Eve. I must say that if anyone tries to pull a fast one and fake their biblical knowledge then they should go actually read the Bible. I suggest that looking at Genesis 5 would help you a little. Also, it helps to remember that it is just a story and no one could have known what happened before Adam and Eve.

And BTW - it is spelled t-h-e-i-r when talking about 3rd person plural possesive or genative case. Observe Latin Declension of 3rd person personal pronouns.

                     M:       F:       N:
Nominative     is       ea       id         he        she          it
Accusative    eum     eam    id         him       her          it
Genitive       eius      eius    eius     his       her, hers  its
Dative            ei         ei       ei        to him  to her      to it
Ablative         eo       ea       eo       by, with, from him, her, it.

Nominative    ei       eae      ea        they, those
Accusative    eos     eas      ea        them, those  
Genitive     eorum  earum   eorum  their, theirs, of those
Dative         eis,iis   eis,iis    eis,iis   to them, to those
Ablative      eis,iis    eis,iis   eis,iis   by, with, from them, those

(Edited by Lord Iorek 5/25/2005 at 5:25 PM).


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 5:21 PM on May 25, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 3:30 PM on May 25, 2005 :
Did it ever occur to you that evolution teaches we ALL come from a common
ancestor.


A common ancestor population...

Talk about incest!

Incest?!?!  Once again you demonstrate that
you don't understand the theory of evolution at all.

To say Adam and Eve is a myth because there children would have had to marry there children is ludicrous.

Adam and Eve are a myth for a whole lot more than just that.

Evolution teach trans- species incest for millions of species.

What is 'trans- species' incest?  Different species don't normally mate, no organism gives birth to a different species, what the hell does this mean?

Evolution teach trans- species incest for millions of species

This coming form the guy who STILL doesn't understand how the theory of evolution works...

I understand just fine. There was an original organism. An original breeding pair of humans eventually evolved at the same time from some unknown ape like ancestor that had to start out as a breeding pair. You have incestuous common ancestors all the way down the line.
We all go back to a mix of amino acids according to the theory.

There is no such thing as trans-species incest but if there is a common ancestor of humans we decended from a ape like creature that was the result of the incest of ape like creatures that decended from an ancestor that was a result of incest and so on and so on.

It is really stupid but that is the way the story goes. I never heard the one where many piles of chemicals came to life simultaneously , have -you?





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:53 AM on May 26, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understand just fine. There was an original organism.

No you don't, you don't understand evolution at all.  That's why you keep making idiotic mistakes in trying to refute it.

There was an original organism.

No, there was an original population of orginisms.

An original breeding pair of humans eventually evolved at the same time from some unknown ape like ancestor that had to start out as a breeding pair.

No, an original population of breeding humans arose, not just 2.  You just don't get the fact that organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.  

You have incestuous common ancestors all the way down the line.

What does this have to do with anything?  Breeding populatins arose, not a single pair of breeding organisms, your entire point is based on a misconception of how evolution works.  

We all go back to a mix of amino acids according to the theory.

Yeah, so what,  you do realize that many simple organisms reproduce asexually, how is this incestuous?

There is no such thing as trans-species incest

Then why did you claim that there was?!?
You said:
"Evolution teach trans- species incest for millions of species"
So now you're admitting that you lied when you made the original statement...

but if there is a common ancestor of humans we decended from a ape like creature that was the result of the incest of ape like creatures that decended from an ancestor that was a result of incest and so on and so on.

Once again, this proves you don't understand how evolution works.  Single organisms don't evolve, populations do.

It is really stupid but that is the way the story goes.

The only thing really stupid here is you.

never heard the one where many piles of chemicals came to life simultaneously , have -you?

Sure, it's called abiogenesis.  We have a great deal of evidence to support it, we see organic moleculres forming naturally all the time (see recent discoveries about Saturn's moon Titan.)  And while we don't know the exact path abiogenesis took on earth yet, it's a much better supported theory than the fairytale of a giant skyman magically poofing life into existance 6000 years ago.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:56 PM on May 26, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler how many times must demon repeat the simple basis of evolution beore you get it in your narrow mind? Again:
Organisms don't evolve, species do!


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:07 PM on May 26, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

abiogenesis was proved in the fifties so peddler... go back to the sixth grade


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 4:44 PM on May 26, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 4:44 PM on May 26, 2005 :
abiogenesis was proved in the fifties so peddler... go back to the sixth grade

Hmmm. I did not know that. The only research I recall done in the 50's on the subject of the spontaneous generation life was the failed Miller-Rey experiment. Surely you are not so ignorant of science to not be aware that Miller himself admitted the conditions that he created could not have existed?  The atmosphere , the trap etc.
The amino acids produced were evenly right and left handed which will not support life.
Surely you are not so ignorant that you believe amino acids spring to life for no aparent reason?
That would be like looking at a Home Depot and expecting houses to form from the stock for no apparent reason.
Actually from just one item like brick perhaps.

No ,I am sure you are much more intelligent that to imply Miler-Rey proved anything and I must  missed this earth shaking bit of history.

I can't wait to hear it.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 07:52 AM on May 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 1:56 PM on May 26, 2005 :
I understand just fine. There was an original organism.

No you don't, you don't understand evolution at all.  That's why you keep making idiotic mistakes in trying to refute it.

There was an original organism.

No, there was an original population of orginisms.

An original breeding pair of humans eventually evolved at the same time from some unknown ape like ancestor that had to start out as a breeding pair.

No, an original population of breeding humans arose, not just 2.  You just don't get the fact that organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.  

You have incestuous common ancestors all the way down the line.

What does this have to do with anything?  Breeding populatins arose, not a single pair of breeding organisms, your entire point is based on a misconception of how evolution works.  

We all go back to a mix of amino acids according to the theory.

Yeah, so what,  you do realize that many simple organisms reproduce asexually, how is this incestuous?

There is no such thing as trans-species incest

Then why did you claim that there was?!?
You said:
"Evolution teach trans- species incest for millions of species"
So now you're admitting that you lied when you made the original statement...
Making up a word to describe a made up story is lying? It shows your character. You have none. To call someone a liar because you don't agree with them of even if they correct themself is the act of a spoiled child not an adult.

but if there is a common ancestor of humans we decended from a ape like creature that was the result of the incest of ape like creatures that decended from an ancestor that was a result of incest and so on and so on.

Once again, this proves you don't understand how evolution works.  Single organisms don't evolve, populations do.

ROFL
So I guess what you are saying is that long ago on a planet that appeared for no apparent reason a bunch of chemicals , for no apparent reason, got together and formed an ENTIRE POPULATION[/b} of simple, ie. more complicated than the space shuttle , organisms for no apparent reason.
So some of us have an ancestor that was one pile of chemicals and some another. Then some apes [or similar creature-take your pick it is after all a fairy tale]-evolved into humans and some into gorillas , baboons etc.
So some of us are related to certain ape like creatures and some to others.
I think Jack and the Beanstalk is more plausible than this dribble.
To believe [b]AN ENTIRE POPULATION
of  creatures of both sexes could simultaneous evolved by way of AN ENTIRE POPULATION of asexual creatures who evolved from an ENTIRE POPULATION of non-living chemicals is so absurd I cannot put it into words.
I understand that you have to put your brain into nuetral just to consider it possible. To accept it as gospel like you do defies credibility.


Sure, it's called abiogenesis.  We have a great deal of evidence to support it, we see organic moleculres forming naturally all the time (see recent discoveries about Saturn's moon Titan.)  And while we don't know the exact path abiogenesis took on earth yet, it's a much better supported theory than the fairytale of a giant skyman magically poofing life into existance 6000 years ago.  

Really . What proof is that? Fox? Miller -Rey. If your theory is so totally devoid of evidence that you have to quote those 2 maybe there is something wrong with your theory.

I have read about Titan. Don't recall life spontaneously generating there though, did you hear that or are you just running out of fairy stories?
Don't know the exact path? Why not ? It is a fairy tale with not one shread of evidence , where is your imagination.

Man with all his "wisdom" cannot create a grain of sand from nothing . You believe the Universe created itself from nothing for no reason. You believe you have no purpose and are a gigantic mistake.
How can you trust your thoughts?
You are one mistake describing the mistake that caused it.
Is that logical?




(Edited by peddler8111 5/27/2005 at 08:31 AM).

(Edited by peddler8111 5/27/2005 at 08:34 AM).

(Edited by peddler8111 5/27/2005 at 08:50 AM).


-------
peddler
 


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

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here a question:

If the Miller-Rey or Foxes experiment would have produced life which they did not what would that prove. If 25 years from now as I hear it from die hard believers in humanism the experiments will bear fruit what will that prove.

It will regulate the the theory of evolution to science fiction and mysticism where it belongs as it will prove the absurdity of life creating itself.

It will prove that life was intelligently designed and it was not by human intelligence.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:55 AM on May 27, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler-- You don't understand evolution. And based on your passionate demeanor and endless quest to forever prove that it is irrational will probably mean you won't ever understand it. So I suggest you stop talking about it, because it makes the people who do understand evolution bang their heads against a wall.

As to refer to your most recent post, Earth did not "suddenly" appear (though its ironic that you support creationism in that sense). The first organism didn't even breathe oxygen-- prokaryotes. Then eurkaryotes, or oxygen "lovers" in a sense, appearad afterword. This all happened 2.6 billion years ago. The Earth is estimated to be about 4.55 billion years old. I'd say its perfectly possible that in ~1.95 billion years a single-celled organism could form.

As for your comment about apes, mammals didn't appear until 200 million years ago, and the first apes didn't appear until 35 million years ago. Evolution can explain the selection pressures for change in a population. If you would like specification, just ask.

As for the reason of life, that's yours to decide. I do not believe humans have a purpose, or that they are particularly special relative to other organisms. In fact, I thinks its weak that humans attempt to rationalize their existence, and then instead of trying to explore it (AKA, science), make up a egotistical, narcissist story to make themselves feel better (AKA, creationism).

(Edited by Box of Fox 5/27/2005 at 09:50 AM).
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 09:48 AM on May 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 09:48 AM on May 27, 2005 :
Peddler-- You don't understand evolution. And based on your passionate demeanor and endless quest to forever prove that it is irrational will probably mean you won't ever understand it. So I suggest you stop talking about it, because it makes the people who do understand evolution bang their heads against a wall.
It makes me sad I can't watch that happen but just hearing you say it made my day.

As to refer to your most recent post, Earth did not "suddenly" appear (though its ironic that you support creationism in that sense). The first organism didn't even breathe oxygen-- prokaryotes. Then eurkaryotes, or oxygen "lovers" in a sense, appearad afterword. This all happened 2.6 billion years ago. The Earth is estimated to be about 4.55 billion years old. I'd say its perfectly possible that in ~1.95 billion years a single-celled organism could form.
Breathe it or not it was in the atmosphere and kills the myth of spontaneous generation , as if it was not dead already.
just because you believe , or have faith , or can imagine does not change reality. Adding long preiods of time does not make the impossible possible. Long ago and far far away is a fairy tale , not science. Science means to know and you cannot know the earth is 4. whatever billion years old or what happened at any given time since. At least not for very long in the past.

As for your comment about apes, mammals didn't appear until 200 million years ago, and the first apes didn't appear until 35 million years ago. Evolution can explain the selection pressures for change in a population. If you would like specification, just ask.
Goldilocks and the three bears can explain the demeanor of a bear when some one eats it porridge . You can say anything . So what?

As for the reason of life, that's yours to decide. I do not believe humans have a purpose, or that they are particularly special relative to other organisms. In fact, I thinks its weak that humans attempt to rationalize their existence, and then instead of trying to explore it (AKA, science), make up a egotistical, narcissist story to make themselves feel better (AKA, creationism).
That a crock . Egotistical is believing you are the supreme being in the universe.  That is your bag not mine.


Man with all his wisdom according to you took millions of years just to create language and you think you are  superior? Your funny.
Does your head bleed when you bang it?


(Edited by peddler8111 5/27/2005 at 6:22 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 6:20 PM on May 27, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 3:07 PM on May 26, 2005 :
Peddler how many times must demon repeat the simple basis of evolution beore you get it in your narrow mind? Again:
Organisms don't evolve, species do!

There is no basis it is a senario, a what if question, it is a fairy tale.
No one has bothered to answer did these magical proto-cells that sprang to life happen by the millions or just once.
Where did the first POPULATIONof animals come from? What were they before they were a POPULATION of animals.
You say I don't understand but you avoid answering the question.
I f you cannot explain the origin of life your theory is dead. Either God created life or matter created life.

You say it was matter so answer the question. What was the first POPULATION of animals before they were the first POPULATION of animals?
What was the first POPULATION of plants before they became the first POPULATION of plants.

I can't wait to hear this answer.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:28 AM on May 28, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler said:
Making up a word to describe a made up story is lying? It shows your character. You have none. To call someone a liar because you don't agree with them of even if they correct themself is the act of a spoiled child not an adult.

Don't pull that character bull with me, you said:
"Evolution teach trans- species incest for millions of species."
Since evolution does NOT teach trans-species incest, you told an untruth, a lie, that makes you a liar, the only thing it says about my character is I recognize when I'm being lied to.

ROFL ...blah blah blah...

Once again you demonstrate that you know nothing about science, biology or the theory of evolution, so go ahead and rant, it's good for a laugh.

I understand that you have to put your brain into nuetral just to consider it possible. To accept it as gospel like you do defies credibility.

Nope, I don't accept it as gospel, dogmatically and on faith, I accept it because all the evidence supports it, no evidence falsifies it, it is the only scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth.

Really . What proof is that? Fox? Miller -Rey. If your theory is so totally devoid of evidence that you have to quote those 2 maybe there is something wrong with your theory.

First of all, at one point there was no life on earth, then there was.  How did it get here?
Since we see no evidence of the supernatural, since we see no event that requires the supernatural, the most reasonable assumption is that life arose from non life.
Now add to that the fact that organic molecules, the building blocks of life, form quite easily, the Urey Miller experiments demonstrated this, and under natural conditions.  As for evidence, look up RNA world and protienoids.  What evidence do you have for God creating the first life?

I have read about Titan. Don't recall life spontaneously generating there though, did you hear that or are you just running out of fairy stories?

No fairy story (like the Bible...), I was showing how widespread the formation of organic molecules are.  We don't know if there is life on Titan yet, but the discovery of organic molecules makes it much more likely.

Don't know the exact path? Why not ?

Because it happened 3.8 billion years ago and micro organisms don't fossilize very well...
By the way, just how can God be eternal, how did HE come from nothing?  Don't know?  Why not?

Man with all his "wisdom" cannot create a grain of sand from nothing

But nature can create matter and energy from nothing, happens all the time, with no help from God.

You believe the Universe created itself from nothing for no reason.

Nope, don't believe that, I believe energy is eternal.  You believe there is a magical skyman who is eternal, your idea's sillier!

You believe you have no purpose and are a gigantic mistake.

No I don't, as a thinking being I create my own purpose.  You, on the other hand, believe your purpose is to be aslave to a magical entity (for which there is absolutely no evidence) who claims to be all loving but who periodically wipes out mankind, innocent and guilty alike, on a whim.  The same all loving God who will cast all those "children" he claims to love into eternal damnation for having the balls to study his creation and question his existance, some freewill!

How can you trust your thoughts?

Why shouldn't I trust my thoughts?  You, on the other hand, how can you trust a magical being who leaves false evidence around, and refuses to even prove he exists.

You are one mistake describing the mistake that caused it.
Is that logical?


The only thing that's not logical is this statement!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:20 AM on May 28, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 7:12 PM on May 29, 2005 :
Yes peddler maybe if you stopped beating off to the thought of incest and kept you hands above the desk where they won't get introuble you would see the big picture that same species is not same parents
Is this your idea of a discussion? Accusing me of being a sexual deviat? That is low even as evolutionist go.
Only a morally bankrupt person would make such a comment, or a child.

Once again I repeat what I've been saying the entire time which is, populations adapt and these populations pass on traits... there were probably a few thousand humanoid linking creatures rather than two which is creationist bull seeping its way into truth. (If this doesn't make sense, I'll try to put this more simply)
Okay . Where there a few thousand piles of chemicals that spontaneously generated all at once to start the ball rolling?






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 6:58 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Its okay, peddler. Apparently, because we have presented our argument and, in a sense, "proven" you incorrect, you have decided to end our discussion in saying blatantly foolish or insulting comments. This is what I view as victory, when you are against a creationist-- wear them down until they go into denial *laughs and rolls eyes*...we do it to Unworthy Servant all the time, but unlike you, he usually preceeds to hide in his bedroom and read the Bible until every aspect of science has been erased from his head. *Sigh*...
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 8:18 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I appologize peddler, it was a low and uncivilized comment I made and I hope you forgive me...

And on another note, I'd love to answer your question but is the question you're asking where or were because I can't answer where but I can say that there were because within the mili seconds of the big bang there were temperatures hot enough to create many chemicals and elements. Which would then form into suns, of hydrogen(the most common and simple element) then there were planets (earth included) that were formed.

Okay are we clear?

But I do admit, it is fun to see unworthy servant get mad. Notice he hasn't posted in a while he may be busy trying to twist the bible to do his bidding...


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 9:01 PM on May 31, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Box of Fox at 8:18 PM on May 31, 2005 :
Its okay, peddler. Apparently, because we have presented our argument and, in a sense, "proven" you incorrect, you have decided to end our discussion in saying blatantly foolish or insulting comments. This is what I view as victory, when you are against a creationist-- wear them down until they go into denial *laughs and rolls eyes*...we do it to Unworthy Servant all the time, but unlike you, he usually preceeds to hide in his bedroom and read the Bible until every aspect of science has been erased from his head. *Sigh*...

Hmm. What a technique! Just keep up the personal attacks until your opponent realizes that talking to the dog would make more sense than talking to you.
Where did you learn this ? K-4?

In what sense ? Nonsense?

You say you agree with Demon and disagree with me although we agree . I have to admit I hurt myself laughing whenever you say things like this.

Perhaps your reality will have an Origin. I would not hold my breath though.



(Edited by peddler8111 6/2/2005 at 08:25 AM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:04 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 9:01 PM on May 31, 2005 :
I appologize peddler, it was a low and uncivilized comment I made and I hope you forgive me...

I think you have just lost your statis here. You have broken a long standing tradition. You have have sinned! Shame on you! Never before in history had an evolutionist apologized . This is historic !
I do however accept and appreciate it. It is the very first time that has ever happened.

And on another note, I'd love to answer your question but is the question you're asking where or were because I can't answer where but I can say that there were because within the mili seconds of the big bang there were temperatures hot enough to create many chemicals and elements. Which would then form into suns, of hydrogen(the most common and simple element) then there were planets (earth included) that were formed.

And you "know" it happened in the first place?
Can we recreate those temperatures? an we set up a repeatable and verifiable test? Of course who want to use a silly method like that devised by a silly creationist?
Imagination is the key to evolution theory. Not only the evolution of particles to people but nothing into particles.
Long ago and far far away!
The evolutionist miracle was when nothing turned water into slime. :}

Okay are we clear?
I think you are cleary delusional. Id that an oxymoron?

But I do admit, it is fun to see unworthy servant get mad. Notice he hasn't posted in a while he may be busy trying to twist the bible to do his bidding...

Well most people don't have skin as thick as mine. After all I am a peddler.
Wonder how you would fair as the Lone Ranger?



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:19 AM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 08:19 AM on June 2, 2005 :

And you "know" it happened in the first place?
Can we recreate those temperatures?


Yes, we can.


an we set up a repeatable and verifiable test?


Yes, we can.

Physicists recreate big bang


-------
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: 2:48 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:48 PM on June 2, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 08:19 AM on June 2, 2005 :

And you "know" it happened in the first place?
Can we recreate those temperatures?


Yes, we can.


an we set up a repeatable and verifiable test?


Yes, we can.

Physicists recreate big bang


"Researchers hope that understanding those properties, in turn, may help explain the origins of protons, neutrons and other elementary particles, and why they form the variety of matter they do today - including humans."

Cool. Can you have them make me a couple of 18 foot tall guys to use as tree trimmers?




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:42 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 12:42 AM on June 3, 2005 :
Cool. Can you have them make me a couple of 18 foot tall guys to use as tree trimmers?


How long can you wait?




-------
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: 09:14 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:14 AM on June 3, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 12:42 AM on June 3, 2005 :
Cool. Can you have them make me a couple of 18 foot tall guys to use as tree trimmers?


How long can you wait?



All joking aside the science learned from these experiments is facinating. To say that you can recreate something that there is no proof ever happened is not science.
It is the same as saying the Miller-Rey experiment "proved" spontaneous generation.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:31 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All joking aside the science learned from these experiments is facinating. To say that you can recreate something that there is no proof ever happened is not science.
It is the same as saying the Miller-Rey experiment "proved" spontaneous generation.


No proof for the Big Bang?!?!  What are you talking about?
From here:
BigBang
"The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
Time dilation in supernova light curves.
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario. "

It is the same as saying the Miller-Rey experiment "proved" spontaneous generation.


But that's not what the experiment was about.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:30 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 05:30 AM on June
No proof for the Big Bang?!?!  What are you talking about?
From here:
BigBang
"The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
Time dilation in supernova light curves.
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario. "

You really should listnen to yourself.
What does "best" current model mean? The one that fit's your naturalistic worldview? Why do you not mention the opposing views? Is science facist and does not alow them?
A model is not proof, none of this is proof but you say it is and it is not.
Are you related to John Kerry?
You said , in this post:

"No proof for the Big Bang?!?!  What are you talking about?"

You also said:

"None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. "

It is bad form to contradict yourself in the same post as I have mentioned before.


[b]It is the same as saying the Miller-Rey experiment "proved" spontaneous generation.


But that's not what the experiment was about.

It was to create life and disprove the need for a Creator God . If it would have succeeded it would have proved the opposite, that life was intelligently designed.
As with most of our Soviet Style education process it teaches one what to think , not how to think. The experiment was set up in an imaginary atmosphere that never existed, Miller himself admitted that, and yet it is proof of evolution. Then it is denied the real purpose was to prove atheism.

The same logic, or lack of , is apparent in your "teachings" :} .

You said , or copied and pasted this:

"The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State: "

This is a perfect example of Soviet Style Education. Either choice is brainwashing. Their is no mention of the "model" that fits with no problems. That Almighty God spoke the Universe in to existence.
The very word Universe comes from joining the words Uni [one} and {verse} to turn -another thought} .
It means one verse:
"In the begining God created the heavens and the earth."
This fits perfectly with observed data and science does not refute it. To discount it as a possibility is not only un-scientific it defies comon sense.
To say that science does not allow the possibility is a religious statement. The scientific community has a very high percentage of atheist but that does not prove atheism is true. Somehow you believe it does.
You will know for sure one day, we all will. Something to think about Demon.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:42 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Meanwhile, Peddler just the essence of skeptical thinking *rolls eyes*.

---
"This fits perfectly with observed data and science does not refute it. To discount it as a possibility is not only un-scientific it defies comon sense.
To say that science does not allow the possibility is a religious statement. The scientific community has a very high percentage of atheist but that does not prove atheism is true. Somehow you believe it does.
You will know for sure one day, we all will. Something to think about Demon."[random]
---

Scientists ask how, not necessarily why.

"God created the heavens and the Earth."

Lets start with scientific inquiry--

---Questions---
1. Who is this God? Where is he now? Can we communicate with him?
2. How did he create the Earth? By what means? Did he use construction equipment?
3. What are "the heavens." Is it Heaven? Is it the rest of the universe? Again, how was this created? How long did it take? By what means did he create the heavens?

---Hypothesis---
"God created the heavens and the Earth."

And you can't go on from there. How do you test the hypothesis? Is it possible to? Things can't be supported by scientific evidence if they aren't applicable to even basic scientific inquiry.

Furthermore, stop babbling. You go right from "It is a religious statement if it does not take creationism into account" to "The scientific community has a very high percentage of atheist but that does not prove atheism is true." How in the world are these statements related? Its not that creationism isn't taken into account, its that it isn't even applicable to scientific inquiry.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 3:14 PM on June 11, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What does "best" current model mean? The one that fit's your naturalistic worldview?

Best current model means the Big Bang is the most parsimonious explaination of the observable evidence.  it means it does the best job of explaining this evidence with the fewest assumptions.  Come on, this is standard scientific method!  How can you claim to know what science is when you still don't understand how it works?

The one that fit's your naturalistic worldview?

Science ONLY deals with nature.  Anything supernatural is not scientific, it is religious.

Why do you not mention the opposing views? Is science facist and does not alow them?

Opposing views?!?!  I don't mention them for 2 reasons,
1)You said:
"To say that you can recreate something that there is no proof ever happened is not science."
You are wrong here as I showed the evidence supporting the Big Bang.
2)Why should I have to show opposing views?  The Big Bang is currently the best model we have for the start of our universe.
No other opposing view is as parsimonious as the Big Bang.  If you think ANY other theory is better supported, show your evidence!

You also said:
"None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. "
It is bad form to contradict yourself in the same post as I have mentioned before.


Who's contradicting themselves?!?!  NO THEORY IN SCIENCE IS EVER PROVEN 100%!  You still don't understand how sciende works!  
Evidence supports or falsifies theories, The Big Bang is supported by the evidence I provided.
So I stand by my statement, your little semantic games don't change a thing,
their is "proof" for the Big Bang, it's the evidence I stated.  But like all scientific theories, it will never be proven 100%.

Now, are you going to retract your original ignorant statement since you have been "proven" wrong?

It was to create life and disprove the need for a Creator God .

No it wasn't, let's see you back up that erroneous statement or retract it...

From here:
Duke
"Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments."

Like I said, you don't understand how science works.  Miller and Urey did not think they were going to create life in their experiment, they were trying to see if organic molecules could form naturally under conditions that might have been present on a primitive earth.  Guess what, they succeeded!
From here:
MillerUrey
"Finally, the Miller-Urey experiment should still be taught because the basic results are still valid. The experiments show that organic molecules can form under abiotic conditions. Later experiments have used more accurate atmospheric compositions and achieved similar results. Even though origin-of-life research has moved beyond Miller and Urey, their experiments should be taught. We still teach Newton even though we have moved beyond his work in our knowledge of planetary mechanics. Regardless of whether any of our current theories about the origin of life turn out to be completely accurate, we currently have models for the processes and a research program that works at testing the models."

So show us were Miller-Urey said they were trying to create life or disprove God.  Or show us where biochemists say their experiment failed...Once again, your just making things up and don't understand what Miller and Urey were trying to do in their experiment or why it was a success.

As with most of our Soviet Style education process it teaches one what to think , not how to think. The experiment was set up in an imaginary atmosphere that never existed, Miller himself admitted that, and yet it is proof of evolution. Then it is denied the real purpose was to prove atheism.

Pure nonsense!  The experiment was set up in what they thought was a good model of the earth's early atmosphere.  Now we know that it was not, but back then we did not know that.  And of course Miller NEVER admitted that it was proof of evolution because abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evlution.
Why can't you understand this simple concept?
Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are 2 different disciplines of science, they are studied by different kinds of scientists, they are driven by different processes, they are no the same thing and don't rely on each other at all.

The same logic, or lack of , is apparent in your "teachings" :} .


They're not my teachings, they're the current best models taught to us by astronomy.

This is a perfect example of Soviet Style Education. Either choice is brainwashing. Their is no mention of the "model" that fits with no problems.

What?!?!  Soviet style education?  That's a perfect description of the tyranical teachings of your brand of christianity!  If you believe science, you will go to hell!  That's the ultimate Soviet style teaching!  And you're too blind to your own hypocrasy to see it!  You are certainly free to describe a better model than the Big Bang, as long as you can support your theory with evidence.  Until then, the Big Bang is THE BEST MODEL of how the universe formed and should be taught as science.  If a better explaination comes along, then that should be taught, but until then, the Big Bang is the best we've got.

That Almighty God spoke the Universe in to existence.
The very word Universe comes from joining the words Uni [one} and {verse} to turn -another thought} .
It means one verse:


Untrue!  From here:
Dictionary
"Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn "

And how can you possibly think a word origin is evidence for anything?!?!  No, there is no evidence that God created anything, let alone the universe.  You believe that based on ancient, primitive myths and have nothing else to back up your claim.

In the begining God created the heavens and the earth."
This fits perfectly with observed data and science does not refute it. To discount it as a possibility is not only un-scientific it defies comon sense.


But it doesn't explain the evidence as well as the Big Bang!  It doesn't explain anything, it just says a magic skyman poofed everything into existance and because he is so magic, we can't understand how he did it!  And yes, science doesn't say anything about God, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you have NO evidence for God.
Your theory is on the same footing as Odin creating the universe, or the Titans creating the universe, or Amon-Ra creating the universe, it's merely primitive myth with nothing to back it up.

To say that science does not allow the possibility is a religious statement.

if your claiming God created supernaturally, then it can't be examined by science.  Science doesn't say Odin didn't create the universe, science doesn't say Amon-Ra didn't create the universe, science doesn't say some unknown god didn't create the universe, so what...a supernatural god is not needed to explain the formation of the universe.

The scientific community has a very high percentage of atheist but that does not prove atheism is true.

What's the point, science doesn't try to prove atheism is true.  Atheism is a belief, it can't be tested by science.  The same with christianity.

Somehow you believe it does.

No I don't.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:24 PM on June 11, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 5:24 PM on June 11, 2005 :

Best current model means the Big Bang is the most parsimonious explaination of the observable evidence.  it means it does the best job of explaining this evidence with the fewest assumptions.  Come on, this is standard scientific method!  How can you claim to know what science is when you still don't understand how it works?

I don't think you know what parsimonious means.
What is frugal about the big bang theory? It requires all sorts of hypothetical ideas to support it.
It is very complicated not parsimonious.

Science ONLY deals with nature.  Anything supernatural is not scientific, it is religious.
Science does not rule out any possibility. This is just your atheistic view of science , science means to know.
What you are saying is science is atheistic. It is not. Some scientist are some are not. The wrong answer in not scientific, it is just wrong!

Why do you not mention the opposing views? Is science facist and does not alow them?

Opposing views?!?!  I don't mention them for 2 reasons,
1)You said:
"To say that you can recreate something that there is no proof ever happened is not science."
You are wrong here as I showed the evidence supporting the Big Bang.
2)Why should I have to show opposing views?  The Big Bang is currently the best model we have for the start of our universe.
No other opposing view is as parsimonious as the Big Bang.  If you think ANY other theory is better supported, show your evidence!

You are just not intelligent enough to grasp that just because a theory is popular that it is not necessarilly true. Science welcomes challenges. It is your atheistic world view you are spouting , not science. I have posted several differing view including a group of scientist that signed a statement that other views should be studied.
You would have been a good facist. Are a good facist.
If you don't agree with something you say it is a lie or you have refuted it.
I don't think you know what that means either.

You also said:
"None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. "
It is bad form to contradict yourself in the same post as I have mentioned before.


Who's contradicting themselves?!?!  NO THEORY IN SCIENCE IS EVER PROVEN 100%!  You still don't understand how sciende works!  
Evidence supports or falsifies theories, The Big Bang is supported by the evidence I provided.
So I stand by my statement, your little semantic games don't change a thing,
their is "proof" for the Big Bang, it's the evidence I stated.  But like all scientific theories, it will never be proven 100%.
 There is no proof that the proof exist! Black holes are hypothetical!
{quote]
Evidence is not proof. It is beyond your comprehension to understand that.

It is was proof then why not let opposing views be heard? Why the gestapo tactics?

Now, are you going to retract your original ignorant statement since you have been "proven" wrong?
You don't know the difference between your opinion and fact. You are delusional. All you have proven is you are unable to think for yourself.

No it wasn't, let's see you back up that erroneous statement or retract it...
What difference does it make, you are brain dead.
Again!
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!” Bozarth, G. Richard, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist (February 1978), p. 30

Huxley expressed his hostility toward religion often and clearly, writing in 1859: "My screed was meant as a protest against Theology & Parsondom ... both of which are in my mind the natural & irreconcilable enemies of Science. Few see it, but I believe we are on the Eve of a new Reformation and if I have a wish to live 30 years, it is to see the foot of Science on the necks of her Enemies

That the theory of evolution is atheism: "
First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source. Not that the whale was derived out of the hummingbird, or man out of the mosquito, but that both are derived by a slow process of variations continued through countless millions of years. Such is the theory with its scientific feathers plucked off...
    A second remark is the theory (evolution) in question cannot be true, because it is founded on the assumption of an impossibility. It assumes that matter does the work of mind. This is an impossibility and an absurdity in the judgment of all men except materialists; and materialists are, ever have been, and ever must be, a mere handful among men, whether educated or uneducated...
    Thirdly, the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand. God has revealed His existence and His government of the world so clearly and so authoritatively, that any philosophical or scientific speculations inconsistent with those truths are like cobwebs in the track of a tornado. They offer no sensible resistance. The mere naturalist, the man  devoted so exclusively to the study of nature as to believe in nothing but natural causes, is not able to understand the strength with which moral and religious convictions take hold of the minds of men. These convictions however, are the strongest, the most ennobling, and the most dangerous for any class of men to disregard or ignore.
   In saying that the system is atheistic, it is not said that Mr. Darwin is an atheist. Nor is it meant that every one who adopts the theory does it in an atheistic sense...His theory is that hundreds or thousands of millions of years ago God called a living germ,  into existence, and that since that time God has no more to do with the universe than if He did not exist. This is atheism to all intents and purposes, because it leaves the soul as entirely without God, without a Father, Helper, or Ruler, as the doctrine of Epicurus or of Comte." Charles Hodge, Princeton Theologian,  Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975, vol. 2, p. 15

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. … 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.’12
This is especially significant because Ruse had also testified with the ACLU in the same trial as Gould, and at that time dismissed the idea that evolution was religion.



From here:
Duke
"Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments."

Like I said, you don't understand how science works.  Miller and Urey did not think they were going to create life in their experiment, they were trying to see if organic molecules could form naturally under conditions that might have been present on a primitive earth.  Guess what,

Guess what? It was a failed experiment.
"At a recent meeting in Chicago, a highly distinguished international panel of experts was polled. All considered the experimental production of life in the laboratory imminent, and one maintained that this has already been done-his opinion was not based on a disagreement about the facts but on a definition as to just where, in a continuous sequence, life can be said to begin." (Simpson, George Gaylord [Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The World into Which Darwin Led Us," Science, Vol. 131, No. 3405, 1 April 1960, pp.966- 974, p.969

"All this is dreadfully wrong, however. The methane used by Urey and Miller was almost surely obtained from natural gas, and so was of biological origin. The ammonia was also of suspect origin, just as it was in Wohler's experiment. So what was actually done was to start with biomaterials and from them produce other biomaterials, a far less impressive outcome than it seemed at the time. If Urey and Miller, and their successors, had used only materials that were genuinely inorganic in the terrestrial context and had obtained similar results, the achievement would have been more impressive. The correct materials to use would have been water, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide and dioxide, for the reason that these substances might have occurred quite naturally on the early Earth before the onset of biological processes." (Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], & Wickramasinghe, Chandra, [Professor of Applied Mathematics & Astronomy, University of Wales], "Our Place in the Cosmos: The Unfinished Revolution," Phoenix: London, 1993, pp.28-29).

"It is true that some of the simpler amino acids have been found in complex mixtures generated under conditions simulating those that might have been present on the primitive Earth. Even nucleotide letters have been found in mixtures that are said to be plausible simulations of probiotic products. But all such 'molecules of life' are always minority products and usually no more than trace products. Their detection often owes more to the skill of the experimenter than to any powerful tendency for the 'molecules of life' to form." (Cairns-Smith, A. Graham, [Reader in Chemistry, University of Glasgow], "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1993, reprint, pp.44-45). [top of page]

The PBS special Origins mentions Miller/Urey as proof of evolution.
To say it is not presented as proof there is no need for God is a lie , a political statement.

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm


Pure nonsense!  The experiment was set up in what they thought was a good model of the earth's early atmosphere.  Now we know that it was not, but back then we did not know that.  And of course Miller NEVER admitted that it was proof of evolution because abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evlution.
Why can't you understand this simple concept?
Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are 2 different disciplines of science, they are studied by different kinds of scientists, they are driven by different processes, they are no the same thing and don't rely on each other at all.
If as you say science cannot allow God and there must be  a naturalistic explanation for life you have no other choice.

Either God created us or spontaneous generation is true. There is no third theory!
Aga"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)


They're not my teachings, they're the current best models taught to us by astronomy.
Best in an opinion , not a fact. It is beyond your intellignce to understand the difference.


What?!?!  Soviet style education?  That's a perfect description of the tyranical teachings of your brand of christianity!  If you believe science, you will go to hell!  That's the ultimate Soviet style teaching!  And you're too blind to your own hypocrasy to see it!  You are certainly free to describe a better model than the Big Bang, as long as you can support your theory with evidence.  Until then, the Big Bang is THE BEST MODEL of how the universe formed and should be taught as science.  If a better explaination comes along, then that should be taught, but until then, the Big Bang is the best we've got.
Yes if you "believe " in science as your god you will!
The belief in God is a supernatural one. You are saying science is anti-God. It is not , many scientist are however.
It's not all we got. There are several other theories, you just don't think science should disagree with you


Untrue!  From here:
Dictionary
"Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn "

I am amazed you can't even read the dictionary and then pretend to have an opinion !
.verse1    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (vûrs)
n.

A single metrical line in a poetic composition; one line of poetry.
A division of a metrical composition, such as a stanza of a poem or hymn.
A poem.
Metrical or rhymed composition as distinct from prose; poetry.

The art or work of a poet.
A group of poems: read a book of satirical verse.
Metrical writing that lacks depth or artistic merit.
A particular type of metrical composition, such as blank verse or free verse.
One of the numbered subdivisions of a chapter in the Bible.

tr. & intr.v. versed, vers·ing, vers·es
To versify or engage in versifying.


---
[Middle English vers, from Old English fers, and from Old French vers both from Latin versus, from past participle of vertere, to turn. See wer-2 in Indo-European Roots.]

It means one verse . I don't have time to talk with someone who is intellectually incapable of reading the dictionary!




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:10 PM on June 11, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think you know what parsimonious means.

As it applies to science, of course I do!
From here:
Dictionary
"law' of par'simony
a principle according to which an explanation of a thing or event is made with the fewest possible assumptions. Cf. Occam's razor."

What is frugal about the big bang theory?

Ah, YOU don't understand parsimony in a scientific context!  Since you don't understand anything about science, I'm not surprised!  The Big Bang best explains the evidence observed with the least amount of assumptions.  Since there is no evidence for God, it is a huge assumption when it comes to the creation of the universe.  The Big Bang explains things nicely without God.  So yes, the Big Bang is a much more parsimonious explaination than any explaination involving a supernatural deity!

It requires all sorts of hypothetical ideas to support it.
It is very complicated not parsimonious.


Yeah, it's obvious you don't know science.  Yes, the big bang requires some assumptions and is very complicated, but requires fewer assumptions than any other explaination while still doing the best job of explaining the evidence.  If you didn't understand what parsimony meant in a scientific context, you should have asked...

Science does not rule out any possibility.

Nonsense!  Science can ONLY examine the natural world, phenomenon that are ultimately repeatable and consistant.  That can be tested and experimented with.  Science can only examine the natural world, how do you test a supernatural being, what empirical knowledge can you gain from a being who follows no natural law?  Since God, a supernatural being, can do anything, it explains nothing and is therefore useless to science.

This is just your atheistic view of science , science means to know.

Science is NOT atheistic and I never claimed it was.  But it IS agnostic, it neither confirms or denies God's existance, because God can't be observed, tested, experimented on, in fact there is no evidence for His existance at all.  So God is beyond science's scope.  Since God's existance is supported by unprovable faith and absolutely no evidence, science simply ignores the possiblity.  Since God is untestable and supposedly omnipotent, he is worthless in a practical scientific sense.  And science doesn't mean "to know", what an utterly simplistic and meaningless definition!
From here: Science
"science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study"

Science can ONLY study the natural world, if there is a supernatural world (and that's a big IF), it can not be examined by science.

What you are saying is science is atheistic. It is not.

No I'm not, I'm saying (and all real scientists say the same thing) is that science is agnostic.

Some scientist are some are not.

So what, all scientific research must be agnostic.

You are just not intelligent enough to grasp that just because a theory is popular that it is not necessarilly true.

Your the one lacking intelligence!  Theories are supported by evidence, what evidence do you have that falsifies the Big Bang?  You claimed there was no evidence for the Big Bang, you are wrong.  You claim the Big Bang is not necessarily true, prove it, show the evidence that falsifies it and show a theory that better explains the evidence.  You haven't done this!

Science welcomes challenges. It is your atheistic world view you are spouting , not science.

yes science DOES welcome challenge, that's why all theories must provide the means to falsify themselves, that's why all theories are peer reviewed by other experts that try to destroy those theories, that's why scientists publish their data so anyone can repeat their experiments and observations and determine FOR THEMSELVES whether the evidence supports the theory.  That's science's greatest strength, it accepts nothing dogmatically, it tests all it's tenets, it invites anyone to test it's tenets, it goes where the facts lead.  It is the most objective method of examining the natural world we have.  What you fail to understand, the theory of evolution, the theory of the Big Bang, have undergone these rigorous tests and peer reviews, they have yet to be falsified by ANYONE.

I have posted several differing view including a group of scientist that signed a statement that other views should be studied.


Who cares who signed what statements?!?!  Where's the evidence to back them up!  Reputation means nothing in science, the only thing that matters is the evidence!  And you have given us none to support your claims!  A religious statement issued by scientists is still a religious statement, it has no evidence to back it up, so it is not scientific!  Who are these scientists, where did you mention them?
Why should we listen to this tiny minority with no evidence to support their faith over the vast majority who can and do support their theories with tested, observed, peer reviewed evidence???

You would have been a good facist. Are a good facist.

No, science is the purest form of democracy, anyone can test any theory, can oppose any theory, as long as you have the evidence to back up your claims.  You have presented NO EVIDENCE.  
Now you, on the other hand, are a perfect example of a mindless drone, you are forced to believe anything that is claimed to be from God, you are too lazy or gutless to do your own research, you listen to your "church elders" and parrot everything they say, no matter how illogical or ignorant.

If you don't agree with something you say it is a lie or you have refuted it.

This only applies to the statements you made that were lies and the statements you made that you claimed were true but really had been refuted.  I'm not letting you spout ignorant creationist lies and claim it's the truth!

There is no proof that the proof exist! Black holes are hypothetical!

No proof that the evidence exists?!?!?!  Cosmic background radiation is a measurable phenomenon, it exists, it supports the Big Bang!  The expanding universe is a fact, we directly observe this, it supports the Big Bang!
And you're the only one mentioning black holes, what do they have to do with the conversation, where did I say black holes were evidence for the Big Bang?  Where did I mention black holes at all?!?!

Evidence is not proof. It is beyond your comprehension to understand that.
From here:
MeriumDictionary
"Evidence:
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof "

from the same site:
"proof:
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"

Sure sounds like evidence is proof and vice versa, back up your statement that evidence IS NOT proof...  

It is was proof then why not let opposing views be heard? Why the gestapo tactics?


No gestapo tactics, why not teach that the earth is flat, it's an opposing view.  Why don't we let people teach that the sun orbits the earth like it says in the bible, all we have is indirect evidence that the earth orbits the sun..
No teaching evolution is NOT gestapo tactics because evolution is the only view supported by the evidence, it's the only scientifically valid theory.

You don't know the difference between your opinion and fact. You are delusional. All you have proven is you are unable to think for yourself.

You said:"To say that you can recreate something that there is no proof ever happened is not science."
There is proof for the Big Bang, you are wrong...again!

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!” Bozarth, G. Richard, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist (February 1978), p. 30

This one man's opinion is demonstratably wrong since most christians world wide accept evolution, so you are wrong again!

Huxley expressed

Who cares what Huxley said?!?!  MOST OF THE WORLDS CHRISTIANS ACCEPT EVOLUTION.  Most christians disagree with you, so evolution is not anti christian, evolution is not atheistic.

Charles Hodge, Princeton Theologian

Who cares what Hodge said?!?!  MOST CHRISTIANS WORLD WIDE ACCPET EVOLUTION!  so explain to us how a scientific theory accepted by most christians, who have no trouble believing in God and Jesus, prevents them from believing in God and Jesus!  Since they STILL believe in God and Jesus AND accept evolution, evolution is not stopping them from believing in God and Jesus, so evolution is not antichristian!

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.

untrue, evolution is the best explaination, the only explaination for the diversity of life on earth, any claims that it is a religion or anti christian are dellusions.

As to the Urey-Miller experiment, you said:
"Guess what? It was a failed experiment."

Guess what, no it wasn't!

At a recent meeting in Chicago, a highly distinguished international panel of experts was polled. All considered the experimental production of life in the laboratory imminent, and one maintained that this has already been done-his opinion was not based on a disagreement about the facts but on a definition as to just where, in a continuous sequence, life can be said to begin." (Simpson, George Gaylord [Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The World into Which Darwin Led Us," Science, Vol. 131, No. 3405, 1 April 1960, pp.966- 974, p.969

This statement supports abiogenesis, why did you post it?

Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], & Wickramasinghe, Chandra, [Professor of Applied Mathematics & Astronomy, University of Wales], "Our Place in the Cosmos: The Unfinished Revolution," Phoenix: London, 1993, pp.28-29).

Who cares what Hoyle said?!?!  He wasn't a biochemist and this statement is 12 years out of date!  This is how modern science considers the Urey-Miller experiment, from here:
Urey
"The molecules produced were relatively simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that natural processes could produce the building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them in the first place."

From here:
Miller
"Results of this experiment caused a new era of experimentation and analysis of possible primordial components."

It was the start of the study of abiogenesis, it inspired other experiments, it proved that organic molecules could arise from inorganic chemicals!

The PBS special Origins mentions Miller/Urey as proof of evolution.

if they said that, they were wrong, simple as that....

If as you say science cannot allow God and there must be  a naturalistic explanation for life you have no other choice.

once agian, you don't understand.  Science is agnostic to God, if God magically poofed the first life into existance, how can science study that, what experiments can they do to recreate that?  If you showed me conclusive evidence that life COULD NOT arise naturally, this would not change the evidence we have that supports evolution on iota.  

Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others.

And of course you can't show us how Pasteur disproved abiogenesis...So this rant is worthless.  Please explain to us what it proves...

Best in an opinion , not a fact. It is beyond your intellignce to understand the difference.


No, completely untrue, they are the best SCIENTIFIC models available, this means they are the best supported by evidence and the most parsimonious, no opinions involved at all...Show us how YOUR claim is a better explaination, you haven't been able to do this...

Yes if you "believe " in science as your god you will!

But once again you demonstrate your ignorance of science, no one believes anything in science, all theories are ACCEPTED based on the evidence.  Belief is only for unprovable suppositions like christianity.

The belief in God is a supernatural one. You are saying science is anti-God. It is not , many scientist are however.

Nope, show were I said "Science is anti god" or you are a liar.  Science is agnostic, it neither confirms nor denies god's existance.  But since God can't be tested, observed, experimented on, there is no evidence for HIM, by his very nature is beyond natural laws, God is worthless to science.

It's not all we got. There are several other theories, you just don't think science should disagree with you

Science doesn't disagree with me, it disagrees with everything you've said so far.

am amazed you can't even read the dictionary and then pretend to have an opinion !
.verse1    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (vûrs)


But this ISN'T the derivation of universe!  It states plainly that it comes from "universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus ", not verse as you so erroneously claim!  What does the derivation of "verse" have to do with universe!  Once again you show us how dishonest or ignorant you are.  

It means one verse .

No it doesn't, it means the whole thing.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:28 AM on June 12, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from K8 at 04:14 AM on May 3, 2005 :
Do Creationists truly believe that the entire human race came from Adam and Eve?

This is an actual question, because i'm still trying to grasp this theory and what those who believe it hold to be true.

Also, does this theory allow for the existence of the dinosaurs?

Thanks!



As an intelligent design atheist (raelian), the human race was actually by more than 2 people. It actually started with 7 races with a significant number of people (how many I not sure but definitely more than 2 people). Scientists created all life on Earth, including us and dinosaurs, so the intelligent design theory applies to dinosaurs as well as every organism on Earth.


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 11:34 PM on June 21, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As an intelligent design atheist (raelian), the human race was actually by more than 2 people. It actually started with 7 races with a significant number of people (how many I not sure but definitely more than 2 people). Scientists created all life on Earth, including us and dinosaurs, so the intelligent design theory applies to dinosaurs as well as every organism on Earth.

Ok so you are saying life on Earth was created by scientists from another planet. I have 5 questions, would you be so kind to answer them please.

1) When did this happen?

2) How did life on THEIR planet start? In  involving space aliens you are just pushing back the first emergance of life.

3) Why are some of the designs so shit? Take bat/bird lungs for example.

4) If they created everything together why do we find fossil sorting? No cats with T. Rex, with Trilobites.

5) What is your evidence?


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 03:20 AM on June 22, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from mabfynhad at 03:20 AM on June 22, 2005 :
As an intelligent design atheist (raelian), the human race was actually by more than 2 people. It actually started with 7 races with a significant number of people (how many I not sure but definitely more than 2 people). Scientists created all life on Earth, including us and dinosaurs, so the intelligent design theory applies to dinosaurs as well as every organism on Earth.

Ok so you are saying life on Earth was created by scientists from another planet. I have 5 questions, would you be so kind to answer them please.

1) When did this happen?

2) How did life on THEIR planet start? In  involving space aliens you are just pushing back the first emergance of life.

3) Why are some of the designs so shit? Take bat/bird lungs for example.

4) If they created everything together why do we find fossil sorting? No cats with T. Rex, with Trilobites.

5) What is your evidence?



Answers

1. They first started to create life around 25,000 years ago. It took about 8000-12000 to create the variety we see today (I don't know the exact figures).

2. Other scientists from another planet created all life on their planet and yet other scientists from a different planet created all life etc. This is an infinite process. If we don't destroy ourselves, we too will create life on other planets.

3. That I don't know. I'm not a biologist or geneticist.

4. Not everything was created together. Also, cats and dinosaurs probably lived in different regions. The reason for the fossils being like that is because of Noah's flood.

5. For the moment I can't provide physical evidence for the existence of these scientists. The best I can do right is provide this statement: Scientists are now just starting to create life. Technologies like genetic engneeer, cloning, stem cell research, etc. are just starting to advance.

If you're interested, you can check out my group's website Raelian Movement and download the free e-books starting with "Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers". Also, there is contact information if you want to contact people knowledgable about biology, genetics, etc.

(Edited by Raelian1 6/22/2005 at 10:25 AM).


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 10:24 AM on June 22, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

After close observation of your website, I see that you observe alien contact. However, you do not provide any documents, or other forms of evidence that this alien exists, let alone contacted Rael.

Furthermore, you can't claim this is intelligent design, because it is nothing like the intelligent design theory presented and pretty much invented by Behe.

You also incorporate the use of the Bible. That's a problem. You are neither scientific nor really creationist in that you are an athiest.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 11:25 PM on June 22, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. They first started to create life around 25,000 years ago. It took about 8000-12000 to create the variety we see today (I don't know the exact figures).

4. Not everything was created together. Also, cats and dinosaurs probably lived in different regions. The reason for the fossils being like that is because of Noah's flood.





Ok I read your webpage and according to you the Elohim created life in discrete steps learning as the went along. The problem with this is that life has been at this level of complexity since we had mammals. Once you can "make" a rodent you can pretty much create a human. Hell once we can make bacteria it wouldn't take long to get to a human, especially when you have a templete such as ourselves. Why did it take the Elohim so long? As to cats and dinosaurs living in  different places, dinosaurs were present globally as are cats (baring Australia/New Zealand for cats).
You bring up Noahs flood, who/what caused it? How did the hydrological sorting work? Why dont we find fossiles of modern rodents with early mammals such as  Deltatheridium who are a similar size?

2. Other scientists from another planet created all life on their planet and yet other scientists from a different planet created all life etc. This is an infinite process. If we don't destroy ourselves, we too will create life on other planets.

Surely there must have been an initial event appearing either by a naturalistic event (abiogenisis) or supernatural (god(s))? The cosmos as we know it can't have existed for infinity, we can say this because the cosmos is expanding and as with all things that expands if you take the clock back far enough you reach a point where the expansion started. We have calculated that this point is about 15 billion years ago.


3. That I don't know. I'm not a biologist or geneticist.


I can respect that answer but I suggest you think about it. Why put different lungs in two animals that lead similar lives such as birds and bats. Birds have very efficiant resperatory system that maximises their oxygen uptake while bats are stuck with common as muck mammalian lungs, which are quite frankly shit.

Bird lungs



Oh yes Humans haven't created any life from scratch yet. Your site seems to say this often.

(Edited by mabfynhad 6/23/2005 at 07:00 AM).


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 06:20 AM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. Noah's flood

To start off, all life on Earth, including us, were created by scientists (elohim) from another planet. Satan, an eloha who resides on the same planet as these scientists, heads an organization that opposed the creation of these lifeforms because they felt that they were a danger to them. He especially feels that humans are no good. Around 13000-14000 years ago, humans were scientifically progressing at a fast rate. Satan and his group felt threatened by this. With the approval of the ruling government, he ordered all life extinguished from Earth. They planted bombs similar to H-Bombs all over Earth and when exploded, created a vast flood and radiation all over. Lucifer, one of the scientists, loved humans and saved two from each race including Noah. They preserved a cell sample from each animal rather than taking two of each animal. They were put on a spaceship rather than an ark and this ship flew "above the firmament of the water". The rest you should know.

Also, all this water came from the Earth itself. This water represents "all" water from Earth. There was one giant land mass and after the bombings, there were separate land masses we know of today.

2. Infinity

The universe has always exists and will always exist. There is no beginning or end. There has always being humanities in the universe creating other humanities and always will be. Scientists measuring this expansion are misinterpreting the evidence they obsesrve. How, I haven't observed this evidence, so I don't know. The Big Bang is a myth.

3. Oh yes Humans haven't created any life from scratch yet. Your site seems to say this often.

The life they created is very, very simple life (probably one celled organisms or just simple DNA srtands). I don't know what precisely that life is.


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 11:21 AM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To start off, all life on Earth, including us, were created by scientists (elohim) from another planet. Satan, an eloha who resides on the same planet as these scientists, ...

Just more myth, nothing to support this.  you believe it based on faith, nothing more.

Also, all this water came from the Earth itself. This water represents "all" water from Earth.

But there just isn't enough water on earth to flood all the land.  It's as simple as that.

There has always being humanities in the universe creating other humanities and always will be. Scientists measuring this expansion are misinterpreting the evidence they obsesrve. How, I haven't observed this evidence, so I don't know. The Big Bang is a myth.

More simple mythological nonsense!  You have NOTHING to support this stuff, why bring it up?
the Big Bang is not a myth, it is a well supported phenomenon.  What other theory explains the evidence as well as the Big Bang?

The life they created is very, very simple life (probably one celled organisms or just simple DNA srtands). I don't know what precisely that life is.

So what, the basic principles are sound, we have an idea how life started and can replicate some of the processes.  Science doesn't have all the answers yet but it's the best way to find them.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:11 PM on June 23, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.