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
     Alternate Theory Biology Class
       Answer to Orion's challange

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

    
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38
Why is it crazy to think single celled orgainisms can evolve into more complex orgainisms.
Lester10
Because such a thing has never been experimentally demonstrated.
Wisp
What do you mean? What do you want? You want a 100.000.000 year experiment?


No I’d just like to see the train moving in the right direction. If you say it can get from Perth to Sydney, I’d at least like to see it on the track heading for Sydney so that I can say that, hypothetically at least, you may be right.
Initially yes, it was assumed. And very well assumed. Now we have the strongest evidence. But i didn't even need that. There was no other way, and i understood that.


Of course not, you know it and evidence makes absolutely no difference –my point about faith and philosophy is now well demonstrated, thank-you.

There is no other way, and I understood that.

–so evolution just has to be correct. Are you hearing yourself? Why are we bothering with the evidence then?
We give you clear transitionals and you ignore them.

Well I’m happy that you found them convincing but then you would,  wouldn’t you ? - because you don’t even need the evidence to know what is true.
. And yes, of course there's a "programme" that does that. Except if by "programme" you mean something with a programmer.

Well you may be quite happy to have a programme without a programmer – but it is code you know. Code does not come about randomly –unless you just prefer to believe that, because you just know that it must have happened. Random mutation, chance, oh and of course, that vital ingredient –looots of time.

How do you think a caterpillar turns into a butterfly?

DNA instructions. Your "programme".

And you ‘think’ that was just a pure chance, long time kind of thing – no programmer necessary?

All the coordinated activities are programmed to work together and all the correct proteins are programmed to be produced at just the right time in just the right quantities.

When things go right, yes.

And again, it makes sense to you that all these co-ordinated activities are caused by random mutations here and there with no plan or foresight of any kind?
Who programmed the parasites?

Like the rest of life on this planet - the same programmer that I alluded to earlier. Only problem is they probably weren’t parasites initially but in the course of mutating, they probably lost something and had to become parasites in order to survive. That’s a detail though in keeping with the general observable deterioration of all life on the planet.
Because biological machines follow physical laws.

Biological machines do the job they were programmed to do.
I think it's silly for any religion to rely on historical facts. That's a weakness.

Well if you are interested in getting to the truth, then historical facts are most helpful in verifying the story. That’s why you accept evolution so readily it seems, the historical facts are a weakness that you apparently have no time for.
I've read that Buddhist monks are told to meditate on the possibility that Buddha didn't exist.

My point –go for something with a little more credibility then. A little discernment is a wonderful thing.
"Faith" means believing without understanding.

Faith means believing in what you have not yet seen – based on what you know to be true. Understanding is part of the equation.

Unless you don't like the possibility, in which case you create your own miracles in big bangs producing matter out of nothing at all.

Please, stop pretending that you know my beliefs about that.

Well, where did the matter come from? What caused the big bang to bang?
Is there some IQ limitation to be able to understand the bible?

No IQ limitation whatsoever –just a desire to know the truth.
The tag "miracle" means we don't know how something happened (but only if we think that what happened was good). That's what i mean by "ignorant". It comes from ignorance. About how things work.

When we talk about miracles in Christianity, we are not talking about ignorance of the facts. The miracles occur when the one who made the physical laws overrides them for his purposes –and because he can. That’s what happened when Jesus died and then came alive. When you’re in charge of the laws then the impossible becomes possible. When you’re outside of time and matter and you made both, you can do what you like. That’s why people pray. They know that their creator can do the impossible.
I bet you were just scared of the prospect of dying.

Not at all, I’m perfectly healthy. I think I was just tired of running from the truth and believing what I felt like believing. The truth is far more satisfying though it is not the easier road to follow – you know what they say about the broad road and the narrow one? Most are on the broad road to destruction. It sure can look good when you’re on it.
But your cause has no cause.

He is eternal. He is called “I am that I am” –not ‘was’ or ‘will be’. He claims to be the ‘alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end’. Somewhere there has to be an ultimate cause. Instead of imagining greater and greater gods to infinity, perhaps you could think along the lines of just one infinite omnipotent one.
We are stuck in the time that He created. He has no such limitations.
Fewer crazy random unnecessary elements.

And that is your measure of truth –it sounds better to me therefore it must be true. Like I said before - no evidence necessary.
Oh, because you have evidence of a unicorn, and a vegetarian lion, and rib clonning...

The genetic code is evidence of intelligence –so the story of an intelligent programmer makes more sense to me than the story with no intelligent programmer. Random mutations and selection of the best mess is not a very satisfying explanation for the complexity of life. I think that logic demands a programmer.
I wasn't fed anything. I paid little to no attention in school. I did my own thinking.

Aah, a clean slate so to speak – no bias added. Somehow I don’t think that you did all that thinking all on your own. We all have a bias. Which bias is the best bias is the question. Something going in in that attentionless youth of yours made you reject God –that is your bias –anything else is acceptable but not that.
You DON'T understand Evolution.

That is the lamest and most common evolutionist’s claim of all time. It is because evolutionists can think, there is the difference. Listen to that arrogance.
Scientists are critical with themselves.

Why –because they can think and are the only ones capable of such brain arresting activities? They can’t even think how the first cell came into being but they have the entire creative story built on top of that faulty foundation. That’s reeeeal clever.
Hahaha! And they do well! I would fire them.

My point exactly –your religion or the highway. It is called ‘religious intolerance.’
It is a science stopper. How many people got fired for not ‘believing’ in global warming? Sort of slows down the inquisitive people that are slow to swallow hogwash, doesn’t it. How would you feel if you were fired for ‘believing’ in evolution. Oh, but luckily you follow the party line –the darwin party, so freedom of thought and expression is of no great concern to you …. now. You want one side only to be taught and dissenters to be disqualified from existing in academia, don’t you? I imagine you would ferret out the unbelievers and have their heads chopped off, wouldn’t you?
More like job qualifications.

Like the qualified ones in communist Russia or the ones that were allowed to live in China.
Well Wisp this is far too long for me to respond to in its entirety, I have to sleep and eat at some stage too.

Bye for now!








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:41 AM on February 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would like to get back to the original question - why do you think Creationism should be presented in a biology class?  Is it a valid scientific theory?  If you think it is, give support to your claims.

First of all, let's give the definition of 'scientific theory'.  According to the US National Academy of Sciences:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [5]

Look up theory in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.



 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:35 PM on February 16, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester:Well you may be quite happy to have a programme without a programmer – but it is code you know. Code does not come about randomly –unless you just prefer to believe that, because you just know that it must have happened. Random mutation, chance, oh and of course, that vital ingredient –looots of time.


The distribution process of the code is mostly random . However, the selection process of the random code is not random.  The environment dictates what code is selected and what code is discarded.  

A simple analogy would be a  game of 5 card draw.   Let's say on the initial deal I get 7, 8, 9, of diamonds and a 3 of clubs and a 2 of spades--dealt face down.  If the card game was totally random, I would either keep all or some of my cards without looking at any of them.  But the game is not totally random.  I get to look at my down cards and keep all the diamonds and sluff the club and spade cards.  Let's say I then draw a 10 and jack of diamond.   Wow I just got a straight flush.  The distribution process for my straight flush was random  (within the prameters of the deck of cards) but the selection process that allowed me to acheive the straight flush was not random.  

DNA = Deck of cards.  

DNA  in daughter individual resulting from genetic combination  of dna in parent individuals = Dealing of cards

Environment favoring or selecting individual possessing genetic traits (DNA combination) that best suit them and their future generations  for survivability and reproduction = Card player choosing to keep the best cards and sluff the worst cards

Lester:And you ‘think’ that was just a pure chance, long time kind of thing – no programmer necessary?


The environment provides selective pressure while at the same time allows selective opportunities for individuals and populations.  The combination of pressure and opportunites selects the most viable members of a population for survival -- the same way a poker player selects and keeps  cards in a random draw that give him or her the best chance at winning a pot.

Lester: Well if you are interested in getting to the truth, then historical facts are most helpful in verifying the story. That’s why you accept evolution so readily it seems, the historical facts are a weakness that you apparently have no time for.


I don't know where you are going but I will say that science does not require an eye-witness for every theory to be valid.  Just as it is in most Judicial Systems, circumstancial evidence in cience often times provides the only basis for making a valid conclusion.  There is nothing unscientific about extrapolating scientific conclusions from historical evidence.   From  historical DNA evidence alone we know that Chimps and Humans share a common ancestor.  And we know this beyond a shadow of doubt--without the necessity of eyewitnesses.

Lester:When we talk about miracles in Christianity, we are not talking about ignorance of the facts. The miracles occur when the one who made the physical laws overrides them for his purposes –and because he can. That’s what happened when Jesus died and then came alive. When you’re in charge of the laws then the impossible becomes possible. When you’re outside of time and matter and you made both, you can do what you like. That’s why people pray. They know that their creator can do the impossible.


Unfortunately there is no scientific evidence that the "miracles" of Christianity were in fact miracles.  The historical evidence supporting the miracles of Jesus is sketchy at best. No doubt if David Copperfied or David Blaine could go back two thousand years and perform their acts, a lot of people would think they were witnessing miracles.  It's not surprising that as the technology used to preserve history has advanced and increased among users the number of religious miracles has decreased.  Video and audio recording technology has done more to kill Christian and Muslim miracles than any 1000 articulate, critics of religion.

Lester:The genetic code is evidence of intelligence –so the story of an intelligent programmer makes more sense to me than the story with no intelligent programmer. Random mutations and selection of the best mess is not a very satisfying explanation for the complexity of life. I think that logic demands a programmer.


I don't think you want to go there. If the "genectic coder" is intelligent than he is also sloppy and lazy.  The digestive tract of a horse  is more "slipshod" than the electrical system of a 50s-70s british sports car.  The "intelligent" coder must have been drunk when he designed the human back.

Lester:Aah, a clean slate so to speak – no bias added. Somehow I don’t think that you did all that thinking all on your own. We all have a bias. Which bias is the best bias is the question. Something going in in that attentionless youth of yours made you reject God –that is your bias –anything else is acceptable but not that.


I don't know about Wisp but I don't reject "God". I reject the god described in the Old Testament" .  Any God that punishes people for not worshipping him is not worthy of being worshipped.  
I also reject the "facts" of individuals who rest their claims totally  on their interpretation of their bible translation.   For me, the God who reveals himself in nature is an honest God worthy of praise.  On the other hand, it seems obvious to me that the flawed God revealed in the King James Bible is the creation of men. Don't get me wrong, I feel there are good parts of the KJV and for the most part I like and appreciate what Jesus had (has) to say.  But there are too many other parts of the KJV (at least my interpretation of it) that make zero sense.  And if at the end of the day my interpretation is wrong...then God needs to either do a better job of getting his message out or at least a better job of programming me to understand his message.

Lester:My point exactly –your religion or the highway. It is called ‘religious intolerance.’
It is a science stopper. How many people got fired for not ‘believing’ in global warming? Sort of slows down the inquisitive people that are slow to swallow hogwash, doesn’t it. How would you feel if you were fired for ‘believing’ in evolution. Oh, but luckily you follow the party line –the darwin party, so freedom of thought and expression is of no great concern to you …. now. You want one side only to be taught and dissenters to be disqualified from existing in academia, don’t you? I imagine you would ferret out the unbelievers and have their heads chopped off, wouldn’t you?


Who got fired for not believing in Global Warming or Evolution?  Do you have names and links?  I can post links of people who got killed and tortured for not being "good" Christians.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:56 PM on February 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you mean? What do you want? You want a 100.000.000 year experiment
No I’d just like to see the train moving in the right direction. If you say it can get from Perth to Sydney, I’d at least like to see it on the track heading for Sydney so that I can say that, hypothetically at least, you may be right.
Sigh...




Initially yes, it was assumed. And very well assumed. Now we have the strongest evidence. But i didn't even need that. There was no other way, and i understood that.
Of course not, you know it and evidence makes absolutely no difference –my point about faith and philosophy is now well demonstrated, thank-you.
Sigh...

If a theory allows no assumptions, it allows for no predictions. So what good is it?

Unicellular ancestors was a flawless assumption.

Evidence does make a difference. When it supports your theory (this has always been the case with Evolution), it gives you more certainty for future assumptions.

There is no other way, and I understood that.
–so evolution just has to be correct. Are you hearing yourself?
Most certainly. I'm reading myself. Evolution doesn't "just" have to be correct. Evolution IS correct. There's no shadow of doubt whatsoever.

Why are we bothering with the evidence then?
New findings can hardly be called "evidence" to support Evolution. It doesn't need any more support. Evolution is a fact. You don't look for evidence to support facts.

Now there are some things that the theory doesn't predict exactly. So we go and look. And we make hypotheses. And we put them to the test.

For the hypotheses we do need evidence. For the fact of evolution we do not.

We give you clear transitionals and you ignore them.

Well I’m happy that you found them convincing but then you would,  wouldn’t you ? - because you don’t even need the evidence to know what is true.
Wrong. I do need evidence to know what particular species begot another one.

There's convincing evidence that this is the ancestor of all the whales:


Well you may be quite happy to have a programme without a programmer – but it is code you know.
I'm not sure what you mean, but i do know what the DNA is.

Code does not come about randomly
Whoever said it did?
You see how you don't understand Evolution?

–unless you just prefer to believe that, because you just know that it must have happened.
Code does not come about randomly.

Random mutation, chance, oh and of course, that vital ingredient –looots of time.
You're still missing vital ingredients. Like natural selection.
You see how you don't understand Evolution?

Lester10
wisp
How do you think a caterpillar turns into a butterfly?
DNA instructions. Your "programme".
And you ‘think’ that was just a pure chance,
No.
You see how you don't understand Evolution?
long time kind of thing
Yeap, very long time.
no programmer necessary?
None.

And again, it makes sense to you that all these co-ordinated activities are caused by random mutations here and there
No, not just that.
You see how you don't understand Evolution?

with no plan or foresight of any kind?
Of course not. If there was a plan to make us walk straight we shouldn't have so much back pain.

And we wouldn't have a plantaris muscle (used by our ancestors to cling to tree branches using our feet, which i assume after seeing other plantaris muscles in our relatives).

The size of our head goes against women's hips.

Our retinas are flipped backwards.

Who programmed the parasites?
Like the rest of life on this planet - the same programmer that I alluded to earlier.
So you do believe it!!!!

This is interesting. You're the first creationist that says that the parasites were made by God.

The predators too, i guess.

So, the spiders were all vegans, but devolved hunting strategies, and webs... They just adapted to a diet of insects...
What's with the hunting instincts?

Take the emerald cockroach wasp or jewel wasp (Ampulex compressa) for instance.


They inject venom (previously used to paralyze plants and fruits in the garden of Eden, no doubt) twice in the cockroach. She delivers an initial sting to a thoracic ganglion and injects venom to mildly and reversibly paralyze the front legs of the insect. This facilitates the second venomous sting at a carefully chosen spot in the roach's head ganglia (brain), in the section that controls the escape reflex (the venom actually blocks the receptors for the neurotransmitter octopamine).

After that she proceeds to chew off half of each of the roach's antennae. Then she leads the victim to the wasp's burrow, by pulling one of the roach's antennae in a manner similar to a leash (she's not strong enough to carry the cockroach).

She then lays her eggs in the helpless cockroach, seals the hiding place (not that the roach will escape, just in case some other predator seizes the easy meal). Eggs hatch, and start eating the roach's internal organs in  way that it will remain alive for twelve days, till the little wasps reach adulthood and leave.

Only problem is they probably weren’t parasites initially but in the course of mutating, they probably lost something and had to become parasites in order to survive.
Yeeeeah... They used to attack little berries, paralyze them (so they won't fight back or escape). Then they would lead the berries to a hiding place.

Lead the berries?
Perhaps berries in the garden of Eden were more cooperative when the receptors for their neurotransmitters were inhibited.

Hide the berries?
Not that it needed to be hidden... All animals lived in harmony. But the wasp just liked to hide things.

That’s a detail though in keeping with the general observable deterioration of all life on the planet.
Yeeeeah... The poor wasp lost it's ability to avoid growing a stinger.

It devolved to the point where it could no longer prevent venom secretion.


Strange snail, yes?

As an evolutionist i'd ask myself how could a snail evolve colorful antennae. And they move quite conspicuously.
My first guess is that it's poisonous, and birds avoid it.
Well, that's not the case. It gets attacked by birds.
The colorful antennae are filled with a parasite that invades the snail, controls it's brain (yeah), and makes it go into the open, with those "eat me" signs. Snails abandon their refuges, climb on top of trees where they can be easily spotted by birds.
Birds are the next host for the parasites.

It would be interesting if creation science tried to explain what these critters did in the garden of Eden (instead of keep trying to disprove Evolution).

Here's a cool video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWB_COSUXMw


You see that thing in the crab's abdomen?
That's a barnacle. I know it doesn't look like one. But this is a special one. When it finds a crab, it kisses it's shell goodbye, and injects it's soft body into the crab. It has learned to parasite... Oh, right, they can't learn, right?
They can only devolve... So... Mmm... Well, living on crabs must be devolution somehow.

They don't just live on them. They send root-like tendrils all throughout the crab's body. Thus it draws nutrients from the crab, and control it's mind.
How?
The crab no longer tries to mate. It no longer regenerates lost appendages. It no longer molts. These activities would take energy away from the barnacle.

If you don't call that "mind control" there's more.

The crabs will take care of the parasites as if they were their own larvae.

Even the males.
The males start acting like females (making female mating gestures and all). They will aid the little parasites with a movement of it's claw to make the water flow.
When the hatching parasite eggs of the Sacculina are ready to emerge from the brood pouch of Sacculina, the crab performs a similar process from a high rock. The crab shoots them out through pulses creating a large cloud of parasites.


This parasite infects the ant, and makes it's abdomen look like a ripe fruit. And the ant "offers" it to birds (the next host).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116142805.htm

It's quite convincing.


Everything Evolution needs to explain, creationism needs to explain about these creatures, but only with 6k years.

Because biological machines follow physical laws.

Biological machines do the job they were programmed to do.
Then, please make me a free energy machine. Just program it, please. I have not been able to do it, but i'm sure any creationist can.

I think it's silly for any religion to rely on historical facts. That's a weakness.
Well if you are interested in getting to the truth, then historical facts are most helpful in verifying the story.
Only if it's the truth about the past what interests you.

That’s why you accept evolution so readily it seems, the historical facts are a weakness that you apparently have no time for.
Historical? Haha!

The historical period is quite short. Prehistory is a better source of evolutive knowledge.

But by "history" you mean "past events", they do interest me. Because Evolution isn't a religion.

I've read that Buddhist monks are told to meditate on the possibility that Buddha didn't exist.

My point –go for something with a little more credibility then. A little discernment is a wonderful thing.
Ok, i didn't quite understand that.

More credibility than Buddhism you say?
The true Buddhism relies on the Buddhist doctrine. The teachings. Not events.

"Faith" means believing without understanding.

Faith means believing in what you have not yet seen
Hum... Like the air?

based on what you know to be true.
Like that the air exists?

I don't like your concept of faith. I don't think anyone would take it seriously.

Understanding is part of the equation
Not the faith equation.

Please, stop pretending that you know my beliefs about that.
Well, where did the matter come from?
I don't know. Perhaps it didn't "come".

My intuition and faith tell me that the laws and events of the Universe (and matter is an event) are self-sustained and self-explained, (pretty much like a vicious circle, or like a fractal). But i just can grasp but a little part of it.

What caused the big bang to bang?
If the Universe was started by a big bang, it's cause (if there was any) would be beyond our Universe. Nothing could (should) be said about it seriously. Anything outside the Universe is outside existence.

Is there some IQ limitation to be able to understand the bible?
No IQ limitation whatsoever –just a desire to know the truth.
Isn't it curious that those desires for truth are focused on the conservative regions of the United States?

When we talk about miracles in Christianity, we are not talking about ignorance of the facts. The miracles occur when the one who made the physical laws overrides them for his purposes –and because he can.
But that seems to imply that the maker wasn't smart enough to get what he wanted with clear unchanging rules.

He made a machine (the Universe) but needs to tamper with it, a little adjustment here and there from time to time...

That’s what happened when Jesus died and then came alive.
And you ask me for evidence...
When you’re in charge of the laws then the impossible becomes possible. When you’re outside of time and matter and you made both, you can do what you like.
Can i?
That’s why people pray. They know that their creator can do the impossible.
The Bible says that He has a minute plan. That nothing happens if He doesn't want to.

Do you believe prayers are to be answered by God?

Ask other creationists. Some won't agree.

But your cause has no cause.
He is eternal. He is called “I am that I am” –not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.
Actually He is called just "I am" (but that looked too short for some translators).

Ok, then the Universe is eternal.

Problem solved?


Oh, because you have evidence of a unicorn, and a vegetarian lion, and rib clonning...
The genetic code is evidence of intelligence –so the story of an intelligent programmer makes more sense to me than the story with no intelligent programmer.
But i was talking about unicorns! Not about the genetic code!

Or you don't believe in those things?

Random mutations and selection of the best mess is not a very satisfying explanation for the complexity of life.
To whom?

I think that logic demands a programmer.
Logic says: The bombardier beetle has a sophisticated defense mechanism.

If we assume that the Bible story is true, then it must have existed in the garden of Eden (just like every animal). But since the story tells us that all animals lived in harmony, the bombardier beetle could not have had such a magnificent defense mechanism back then.

If we assume Evolution is wrong, it could not have evolved.

So the bombardier beetle cannot exist.

Since we can see bombardier beetles, at least one of the premises is wrong.

Pick one.

Aah, a clean slate so to speak – no bias added. Somehow I don’t think that you did all that thinking all on your own.
True. I did not come up with the Theory of Relativity. But i thought about it later, and i understood it (i even came up with General Relativity without reading about it, after reading Special Relativity).

We all have a bias. Which bias is the best bias is the question.
Well, if your bias is based on facts and evidence, what's does it mean to call it "bias"?

Something going in in that attentionless youth of yours made you reject God
Whoever said i reject God?
–that is your bias
You don't know that.
–anything else is acceptable but not that.
Anything? What are you talking about?

You DON'T understand Evolution.
That is the lamest and most common evolutionist’s claim of all time.
When a claim is demonstrated you can stop calling it a claim. ;)

It is because evolutionists can think, there is the difference. Listen to that arrogance.
I never said you couldn't think.

You think a lot of... Mmm... Things.

Scientists are critical with themselves.
Why –because they can think and are the only ones capable of such brain arresting activities?
Because science is critical. Skepticism is a part of it.

They can’t even think how the first cell came into being but they have the entire creative story built on top of that faulty foundation. That’s reeeeal clever.
Shall we make a list about what YOU don't know about your own theory?

How much water was needed to flood the Earth?

How does creationism explain the geological strata?

How the hell did parasites appear?

Hahaha! And they do well! I would fire them.
My point exactly –your religion or the highway. It is called ‘religious intolerance.’
You have not yet demonstrated that Evolution is a religion.

If Evolution is a religion, then my hobby is not collecting stamps.

If i were to send a rocket to the moon, and some of the astronauts says "I believe that the Moon is made of cheese."

I'd replace that whacko in an instant.

Do you find my belief in a non-dairy-Moon to be religious?

It is a science stopper.
It's a moron stopper.

How many people got fired for not ‘believing’ in global warming?
I don't know. But if they were in an ecologic organization, all of them should have.  

Sort of slows down the inquisitive people that are slow to swallow hogwash, doesn’t it.
The only inquisitive thing about christian fundamentalism was the Inquisition.

How would you feel if you were fired for ‘believing’ in evolution.
Thankful for the law suit opportunity.

Oh, but luckily you follow the party line –the darwin party, so freedom of thought and expression is of no great concern to you ….
What thought or expression was taken away from you?

You want one side only to be taught and dissenters to be disqualified from existing in academia, don’t you?
Yeap. The reason side. Ban all other sides!

I imagine you would ferret out the unbelievers and have their heads chopped off, wouldn’t you?
No. Putting them in a job that wouldn't require such knowledge would be better.

More like job qualifications.
Like the qualified ones in communist Russia or the ones that were allowed to live in China.
No, not like those.

fredguff
Your analogy with a deck of cards is very cool.

I don't know about Wisp but I don't reject "God".
Neither do i.
I reject the god described in the Old Testament".
Me too. Yahweh is the primitive god of a primitive group of warriors. Well, at least at some stage of their evolution.

Any God that punishes people for not worshipping him is not worthy of being worshipped.
Haha! True... It sounds kinda "needy".

For me, the God who reveals himself in nature is an honest God worthy of praise.
Personally i try to improve my notions of what's "good".
I feel thankful for everything i have. I have no problems thanking God for it. I can also take a "slice" of God, and call it "Providence".

That's what the Hinduism does. It seems polytheistic because it slices "God" down to many gods. But they're ultimately manifestations of Brahma.

I like Hinduism.

On the other hand, it seems obvious to me that the flawed God revealed in the King James Bible is the creation of men. Don't get me wrong, I feel there are good parts of the KJV and for the most part I like and appreciate what Jesus had (has) to say.
I'd say "had", but ok.

I wish people (christians specially) paid more attention to what Jesus said. That they would stop focusing so much on his death and started focusing a little bit on his life.

Mohandas Gandhi
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.


But there are too many other parts of the KJV (at least my interpretation of it) that make zero sense.  And if at the end of the day my interpretation is wrong...then God needs to either do a better job of getting his message out or at least a better job of programming me to understand his message.
That's exactly my point.

If Yahweh exists and the Bible is his word, well he has handed me (not everyone) a text with contradictions. He also gave me enough brains to notice. He also gave me the ability to contrast the stories with reality and see that they don't match.

And then he will damn me for that???

He can't say he had my informed consent to go to hell.

Edit:
orion
I'm sorry. I didn't read your post before posting mine. Would you like me to erase it and start a thread?


(Edited by wisp 2/17/2009 at 04:54 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:46 PM on February 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please Wisp - no more!  I can't take any more parasite examples today!  I'll have nightmares!

Good grief.  Any God that invented the wasp parasite had a cruel streak in him/her.  I would much rather believe that mindless evolution did it.  Eaten alive from the inside out.  Sounds like a bad Sci-fi movie.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:51 PM on February 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp - nah, never mind my questions.  We all know the answer to it anyway.  

BTW - here's an interesting article on wasps and their caterpillar host.  The interesting part is that the wasp has incorporated some viral genes into its own genome over the course of the last 100 million years.  It injects the viral particles into the host after injecting its eggs into the caterpillar.  The viral particles then subdue the host immune system from attacking the wasps eggs, which allow them to develop and ... ah!!!!  I can't bear to think about it.

But it is horribly facinating, I have to admit.

But such research could even lead to a better understanding of developing gene therapy for treating some illnesses.

The wasps have therefore “domesticated” a virus to turn it into a vector for transferring their genes. Study of this phenomenon is particularly interesting for the development of new vectors for gene therapy, a therapeutic technique that consists of inserting genes into an individual's cells or tissues to treat an illness. Genes are delivered using a deactivated virus as a vector. The particles from parasite wasps are in fact true “natural” vectors, selected over 100 million years to perform this function and capable of transferring large quantities of genetic material (more than 150 genes). Understanding how they work could therefore be very useful for the design of new therapeutic vectors.



From here:
Wasps that incorporate virus genes
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:33 AM on February 17, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The genes from these viral particles have now been identified in the wasp's own genome by a team at the Institut de recherche sur la biologie de l'insecte

Damn!!!

That was interesting!!

That's what i mean when i say that i don't necessarily believe in a common ancestor for all species. I was talking about horizontal exchange of genes (so we all share a common group of ancestors, but not necessarily one, and some extinct "species" might have passed their genes anyway).
But nothing as radical as this... An animal!

Thanks, orion! You always find cool stuff.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:41 AM on February 17, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The example of the wasp/virus/caterpillar not only shows evolution in action, but it also demonstrates how what we learn from evolution can be applied to technology today - in this case, insights into gene therapy treatment.

I might add that I could be a person that might benefit from such research.  I have a genetic defect (retinitis pigmentosa) that is leading to vision loss.  So now I have only some central vision left.  

The way I see it, TOE helped to encourage research leading to the discovery of DNA, and further genetic research.  Do you think this  would have happened if Creationism had continued to hold forth over the last 200 years?  I don't think so.

Evidence from so many fields of science tie so nicely together to support evolution that it takes an extremely strong bias against it to not see the beauty of it all.  That, or strong ignorance of science.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:40 PM on February 17, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would like to get back to the original question - why do you think Creationism should be presented in a biology class?  Is it a valid scientific theory?  If you think it is, give support to your claims.


As far as the observable inter-species aspect of evolution, you're right. It is an established fact. But the evidence for extra-species evolution is debatable. And that is what should be taught in biology class.

Something like this: " We know that changes occur within a species as in , say, dogs. What is less certain is how dogs came to be in the first place. For the past century the prevailing belief is that the same forces that cause differences between dog breeds caused the differences between dogs and cats. Darwin... blah blah blah... But recently a small but growing group of scientists are not convinced that such vast diversity could have occurred as a result of "natural" processes. They are called creationists of ID theorists. ID ... blah blah blah...

What is wrong with that?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:34 AM on February 18, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrxAs far as the observable inter-species aspect of evolution, you're right. It is an established fact. But the evidence for extra-species evolution is debatable. And that is what should be taught in biology class.

Actually genetic evidence in the form of Transposons, Redundant Psuedogenes and ERVs, demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that all placental mammals share a common ancestor.  There is also compelling scientific evidence that  shows that all chordates share a common ancestor and that chordates and echinodermata share a common ancestor.

timbrxSomething like this: " We know that changes occur within a species as in , say, dogs. What is less certain is how dogs came to be in the first place. For the past century the prevailing belief is that the same forces that cause differences between dog breeds caused the differences between dogs and cats. Darwin... blah blah blah... But recently a small but growing group of scientists are not convinced that such vast diversity could have occurred as a result of "natural" processes. They are called creationists of ID theorists. ID ... blah blah blah...

None of the "scientists",  who are proposing a "creationist" model, provide the required scientific evidence to back their claims up.  Without scientific evidence to back your claims up all you have is unsupported opinion.  Unsupported opinion for the most part is a waste of time in the science class.  

timbrxWhat is wrong with that?

Creationism can not be supported by scientific evidence.

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:04 PM on February 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As far as the observable inter-species aspect of evolution, you're right. It is an established fact. But the evidence for extra-species evolution is debatable. And that is what should be taught in biology class.
The fact that you chose to believe one, and disregard the other, doesn't make any of them debatable.

But wait, do you believe in species or not?

I get dizzy when they start talking about kinds.

When you say "species" you mean the same as we do? Or do you mean "kinds"?

How many elephant species were there? I'd say 160.

If any creationist mentions a lower number (calling it "kind" or whatever), then they do believe in inter specific evolution.

Please, stop withholding your beliefs. Where does the strategy end and where does the dishonesty begin?

But recently a small but growing group of scientists are not convinced that such vast diversity could have occurred as a result of "natural" processes. They are called creationists of ID theorists. ID ... blah blah blah...

Recently? This goes back some hundred years. "Recently" would imply that they were convinced once.
Scientists?
Where's the science?
Their theory is "not being convinced about Evolution"? Is that all?

timbrx, what would you say about the echidna (spiny anteater) and the ornithorhynchidae (platypus)?

I mean, we say that mammals evolved from reptiles, and we find semi reptile egg laying mammals...

We didn't even need those to be sure of what we say ( hope Lester10 doesn't come bothering me again about my concern or lack of concern with the evidence).

We know a few species, don't we? How come we NEVER find any species that goes against the TOE?

We never find a true chimera.

Every trait, organ, limb, instinct, etc, is evolvable.

They have to try reeeal hard to find anything that they won't find laughable themselves (whether we laugh at it or not).

And of all the cool mechanisms they find none of them are from parasites. Because that wouldn't be nice from their god.

But even if we found an atomic powered creature, i would say ET before Yahweh.


(Edited by wisp 2/18/2009 at 7:08 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:07 PM on February 18, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually genetic evidence in the form of Transposons, Redundant Psuedogenes and ERVs, demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that all placental mammals share a common ancestor.  There is also compelling scientific evidence that  shows that all chordates share a common ancestor and that chordates and echinodermata share a common ancestor.

Or maybe a common designer.

None of the "scientists",  who are proposing a "creationist" model, provide the required scientific evidence to back their claims up.  Without scientific evidence to back your claims up all you have is unsupported opinion.  Unsupported opinion for the most part is a waste of time in the science class.

As is the equally speculative molecules to man evolution.

Creationism can not be supported by scientific evidence.

Creationists have the exact same evidence as evolutionists. The interpretation is different.


Wisp, as far as the kind/species thing, I don't know. I don't know anything about taxonomy. Or about genetics for that matter. But that is not what I am debating. I'm debating whether the unknowable unprovable part of evolution is more or less valid an explanation of origin than the unknowable unprovable part of creation.

Yes, you've shown us lots of real cool pictures and brought up lots of very interesting facts. It's not too hard to see that what is is. How is a little tougher. Platypus? Yep there they are. But where is the pre-platypus? How much of a leap is it to go from a reptile to a semi-reptile? How many zillions of things have to go right for something to go from cold blooded to warm blooded? Too many.

How do parasites not contradict the Bible? I don't know. But they do contradict evolution. A parasite can't live without the host. And it can't kill the host right off either or it dies with it. So where does a parasite come from? A pre-parasite? How mush of a leap is required for that pre-parasite to become a parasite?

Okay, nothing goes against the little TOE. But everything goes against the big TOE.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:27 PM on February 18, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx: Or maybe a common designer.

Please explain how inserted viral code shared by chimps and humans is evidence of a common designer.

At any rate, the only scientific evidence we have regarding the designers of complex systems is that the designers are/were mortal, imperfect, sexually reproducing primates.  That's basically it.

timbrx: As is the equally speculative molecules to man evolution.

Actually "molecules to man evolution" is NOT as equally speculative as Biblical Creation. There IS scientific evidence that supports molecules to man evolution whereas there is ZERO scientific evidence supporting Biblical Creation.  

As an aside, the book of Genesis isn't even straight about biblical creation!!!

timbrx: Creationists have the exact same evidence as evolutionists. The interpretation is different.

Creationists might have the same "evidence" that scientists have but NONE of the scientific evidence that Creationists have  can be used to support biblical creationism.  Scientists, on the other hand, can use lots of their scientific evidence to support common descent.



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:00 AM on February 19, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx: Creationists have the exact same evidence as evolutionists. The interpretation is different.

I think Creationism has it backwards - the 'theory' (Creationism) comes first, and then they have to try to use it to explain the facts.  That's backwards from the way science works.  If you look at history you'll see that the Bible doesn't have a very good track record at explaining the natural world.  The flat earth geocentric model that the Bible describes is certainly incorrect.  The timeline and geography of the earth is limited in its description, as is it's description of life on the planet.  (There doesn't seem to be that many animals that Noah has to carry on the Ark.)

Now that's not surprising.  The people who wrote the Bible were using the knowledge that they had at the time.  They were trying to make sense of their world as they saw it.  They were no less intelligent than people are today.  But they were constrained in their world view by the limited knowledge that they had at the time.  

I'm not implying we know everything about nature today.  Of course not.  But we know a hell of a lot more about the world around us than the ancients did 2000 - 3000 years ago.

I don't see why faith can't evolve with increasing knowledge over time.  And some people have evolved their faith to incorporate new knowledge.  Others don't.

I would have to ask Creationists just what is it that makes the Bible so literally 'true'?  Because that's the story that has been passed down from generation to generation?  It is even called 'The Holy Bible' - so it must be true?

But then other religions are considered holy too by their followers.  Why is each considered right by its believers and the others wrong?  

Just what is it that makes each religion 'ture'?  Because that's what we are told in the cultures that we grow up with?  

People also used to believed the earth was flat and stationary - which it does indeed seem to be to most observers.  It sure looks like the sun revolves around the earth.  There is nothing to indicate to the casual observer that the earth moves through space.  It took some very smart people to convince us otherwise.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:58 AM on February 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fredguff at 11:00 PM on February 18, 2009 :
There IS scientific evidence that supports molecules to man evolution whereas there is ZERO scientific evidence supporting Biblical Creation.  


Extreme accumulation of nucleotides in simulated hydrothermal pore systems


We simulate molecular transport in elongated hydrothermal pore systems influenced by a thermal gradient. We find extreme accumulation of molecules in a wide variety of plugged pores. The mechanism is able to provide highly concentrated single nucleotides, suitable for operations of an RNA world at the origin of life. It is driven solely by the thermal gradient across a pore. On the one hand, the fluid is shuttled by thermal convection along the pore, whereas on the other hand, the molecules drift across the pore, driven by thermodiffusion. As a result, millimeter-sized pores accumulate even single nucleotides more than 108-fold into micrometer-sized regions. The enhanced concentration of molecules is found in the bulk water near the closed bottom end of the pore. Because the accumulation depends exponentially on the pore length and temperature difference, it is considerably robust with respect to changes in the cleft geometry and the molecular dimensions. Whereas thin pores can concentrate only long polynucleotides, thicker pores accumulate short and long polynucleotides equally well and allow various molecular compositions. This setting also provides a temperature oscillation, shown previously to exponentially replicate DNA in the protein-assisted PCR. Our results indicate that, for life to evolve, complicated active membrane transport is not required for the initial steps. We find that interlinked mineral pores in a thermal gradient provide a compelling high-concentration starting point for the molecular evolution of life.


-------
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: 07:52 AM on February 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually genetic evidence in the form of Transposons, Redundant Psuedogenes and ERVs, demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that (...) share a common ancestor.
Or maybe a common designer.
Why does you common designer generally make similar species with similar genome?

Why is it that sometimes He just doesn't?


TOE explains it all in quite simple terms.
Oh, but Creationism wins in simplicity. "God's misterious ways."

Common designer... Is that why we have this stupid back unprepared to walk in two legs?

Looks like your common designer was in a hurry.

Or perhaps we had the coolest back, but we devolved! And now we even have a coxis!

As for doggish creatures:
Early Flesh-eating Ungulate, Pachyaena

The artist says:

This is one of the smaller, more gracile species of genus Pachyaena and it was doggish in the early Eocene long before anything that could be called a canine was around. Pachyaena was a Mesonychid, a flesh eating ungulate with small, spatulate hooves, a relative of the artiodactyls, represented today by cattle and deer, camels and antelope, hippos and pigs.

All too often I hear narrators on the National Geographic, Discovery or Animal Channel refer to one creature or another as perfectly adapted to their environment. Perhaps since a species can last a long time and fit well into an ecosystem, that statement seems close to true, but individuals are evolutionary fodder. Each animal lives on the edge of the precipice, one misstep away from disease, injury and death. All that matters is that enough members of a population reach breeding age and parent the next generation.

It can be depressing if you dwell on it, and indeed, there’s always a touch of melancholy present as I marvel at the natural world. But if anything, their imperfection makes the individual creatures I portray that much more beautiful and all that more endearing to me because I know the absolute indifference they face in their world; a world without the medical and technological insulation we surround ourselves with.


He's quite smart.

fredguff
Creationism can not be supported by scientific evidence.
timbrx
Creationists have the exact same evidence as evolutionists.
Yeah, but it refuses to support them.

The interpretation is different.
Yeap. Unsupported.

Besides their interpretation is negative. It says how things didn't happen (according to them).

Thus Creationism protects itself against explicit specifications, for they always get easily refuted.

Wisp, as far as the kind/species thing, I don't know. I don't know anything about taxonomy. Or about genetics for that matter. But that is not what I am debating.
Oh, but it's very important!

You see, you're debating the existence of extra-species evolution. But if you believe that the ark held two of every "kind", and that from those "kinds" new species stemmed (quite more rapidly than scientists would accept), then you're contradicting yourself.

You want "proof". You want to believe that we can't prove our claims, just like you do.

That's wrong.

People tend to believe that you can't prove a negative. It's kind of a principle in folk logic. It's completely wrong.
For one thing, one of the principles of logic is a negative: the law of non-contradiction.

No proposition can be true and not true. Nothing is true and false.

Actually, "you can't prove a negative" is a negative. So if you can prove it, then it's wrong.

It's easy to think about it this way: any claim can be expressed as a negative, using the rule of double negation.

A = not-not-A

But any proof requires an agreement about the premises.

*If sirens had existed, then there would be evidence in the fossil record.
*There's no evidence of sirens in the fossil record.
*Therefore, sirens never existed.

So:

*If the Bible is historically and literally true, the ark story is true.
*If the ark story is true, at least two animals of each kind were embarked in the ark.
*There have been 160 elephant species.
*Every kind or species was designed by the ultimate intelligence, capable of predicting that bacteria would someday need to eat nylon.

That's the premises. Now:

*If only two elephants were carried into the ark and they became 160 species afterwards, Evolution is not only true but super fast.
*If 320 elephants were carried into the ark nobody would have survived the flood (provided that all surviving species were on the ark too, and the dimensions of the ark were as already stated by creationists, which would actually be another premise).
*If elephants are "clean" species, and there were 160 species, 1.120 elephants would have boarded the ark.
*If four elephants were carried into the ark then 157 o God designed elephant species were dead by the time of the ark (and thus "intelligent design" equals crap).

I think that the one that makes more sense is that 157 intelligently designed elephants kicked the bucket within 2k years of being created.

What? An accident? Doesn't He have a minute plan?

Change of conditions? Wasn't He aware of that possibility? I mean, he thought beforehand that bacteria could eat nylon... He didn't like the elephants that much?

I'm debating whether the unknowable unprovable part of evolution is more or less valid an explanation of origin than the unknowable unprovable part of creation.
What would be the "knowable" part?

Seriously. What do you "know"?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:51 AM on February 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
I think Creationism has it backwards - the 'theory' (Creationism) comes first, and then they have to try to use it to explain the facts.  


And evolutionists do what?

Why is each considered right by its believers and the others wrong?


Why is evolution considered right by its believers  and the others wrong? Because it is faith-based just like all other religions. But only one can be right. You insist that your faith is correct and well supported by the evidence and I say that my faith is correct and better supported by all the evidence.

Just what is it that makes each religion 'ture'?  Because that's what we are told in the cultures that we grow up with?


Yes and that is what has happened to the true evolution believers -they can't see past their cultural brainwashing and they assume that everybody else is deceived. Obviously the truth can't be a number of different belief systems. There is only one truth. I know which one I think it is.

People also used to believed the earth was flat and stationary


And evolutionists like to imagine that it was the Christians that thought that, despite what the Bible says.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:55 AM on February 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
I think Creationism has it backwards - the 'theory' (Creationism) comes first, and then they have to try to use it to explain the facts.
And evolutionists do what?
Sigh...

Look at the evidence and see where it points.

Our only "biases" are based upon facts, and thus can't be called "biases".

Why is evolution considered right by its believers  and the others wrong?
Because of the evidence, of course. What else?

Because it is faith-based just like all other religions.
Lester10, you just don't read.

That silly claim has been made lots of times. When will someone support it with something?

No rites, no priests, no temples, no faith, no adepts, no nothing. Put up or shut up.

But only one can be right. You insist that your faith is correct and well supported by the evidence
Faith is believing without understanding. A scientific theory is all about understanding.

Perhaps some element of it could be faith based. If so, name it.

and I say that my faith is correct and better supported by all the evidence.
No. You ask for evidence, and play dumb when presented to you.

Explain your Theory of Devolution.

How can parasitic and predatory sophisticated instincts and weapons emerge from devolution?

How could the emerald wasp develop by losing stuff?

No, wait... You already said that parasites were designed by God. The Bible says that every creature made by God lived in harmony with each other.

Tell us about this dichotomy.

Just what is it that makes each religion 'ture'?
Religions are supposed to be helpful. Not 'true'.

Likewise, scientific theories are not supposed to be 'true' in the classical sense. They are also supposed to be helpful.

But helpful to what?

Religions are to be helpful to ease people's minds, give them rules, and unite them.

Scientific theories are to be helpful to give facts a proper frame (an understandable one), and make predictions.

What do you think creationism does?

Because that's what we are told in the cultures that we grow up with?
No. Because it's what makes sense.

Yes and that is what has happened to the true evolution believers
What do you mean by "true"?
-they can't see past their cultural brainwashing
I have not been brainwashed.
and they assume that everybody else is deceived.
What do you mean by "everybody else"?

There are people who ignore all about Evolution, and don't care about how life came to be. So they are not deceived.

Obviously the truth can't be a number of different belief systems.
Obviously you're wrong.

It's possible for two belief systems to overlap harmoniously.

There is only one truth.
Ironically, that's false.
I know which one I think it is.
Why don't you present it to us?

Come on. What do you believe? How did things happen?
Give us a timeline. No matter if it's rudimentary. But give us some of your facts.

What happened?

You believe that the same god that made us made the parasites. Right? So you don't believe in the Bible. Am i mistaken?

What do you believe?

People also used to believed the earth was flat and stationary
And evolutionists like to imagine that it was the Christians that thought that, despite what the Bible says.
The Bible says that the Earth is a circle. But it also says it has four corners.

The Bible says "above" instead of "beyond" lots of times.

It says that the stars will fall down to the Earth.

It says that Jesus was taken to a high mountain from where every nation of the world could be seen.

It also says that Jesus will come down from the clouds and everyone will be able to see it.

And you imagine that the Bible says the Earth is round...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from any place. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

But there's more nonsense about the Earth:

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.   (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

"The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and is armed with strength.  The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.   (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 93:1)"

"Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns."   The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.  (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 96:10)"

And the hebrew word for "world" in those passages doesn't mean the universe or something like that.

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.  (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)"

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.  (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)"

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.  (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:4)"

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.  He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.  (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)"

What? a spherical canopy? A spherical tent?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:47 PM on February 20, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

You forgot Gen 1:6-7

6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

According to Gen 7 the world seems to be immersed in a vast body of water which the firmament holds back. (Until God opens the windows a little to let some water in and teach those no good humans a lesson).

This, of course, is entirely consistent with our modern understanding of space and no doubt timbrx or lestr10 or someone will explain for us.



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 5:06 PM on February 20, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And how about Joshua:

10:12: Then spoke Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel and he said in the sight of Israel "Sun, stand thou still at Gibcon and thou Moon in the valley of Ai'jalon."

10:13: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.


Hmmm, this seems to indicate that the sun revolved around the earth, as does the moon.  I can't blame the writers of the Bible for that.  It sure seems like the sun goes across the sky every day.  I sure can't tell that it is actually the earth that is revolving on it's axis.  I would have said the same thing back then.

Again, I don't fault the ancients for these misconceptions.  Cultures are limited by the knowledge of their day.

Why do you think it was such a big deal when Copernicus displaced the earth as the center of the universe, and instead placed it in orbit around the sun?  Why do you think Copernicus waited until after his death to have his manuscript published?  He was no fool.

And others that came after Copernicus ran into trouble as well.

Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.

Is the Bible infallable?  No - but some outdated teachings of the Bible do not die easily, even after their flaws are laid bare for all to see.

Does that make the Bible useless?  Of course not.  Many millions of people find spiritual guidence in the Bible.  Comfort.  But it shouldn't be used as a science book - because it isn't.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:09 PM on February 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If someone physically close to me and my family REALLY used the Bible as a moral guide, i would try to make him go to jail. If i failed, i would kill him.

Sounds like the best course of action to protect my family against such wackos.

Fortunately such things never happen. They only say they use the Bible as a moral guide, but they wouldn't really kill people who think different.

I prefer hypocrites to real Bible followers. Their hypocrisy doesn't hurt me.

I firmly stand against the use of the Bible as a moral guide. And i am ready to fight against it if necessary.

Evolution, dangerous... Hah!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:33 PM on February 22, 2009 | IP
Livewire_27

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you people aren't being fair here if you're going to try to prove evolution is true you first need to know both sides of the argument
The Bible is a moral guide Wisp there is  nothing your evolution has above it because it is all true I am not going to let you call me or my family hypocrits maybe you are but christians are not hypocrits and I am mad at what you say about christians.  


-------
Livewire27
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 10:19 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A little punctuation would make you more readable.

I'll give you a better answer later. Gotta go now.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:25 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Livewire_27 at 10:19 AM on April 16, 2009 :
you people aren't being fair here if you're going to try to prove evolution is true you first need to know both sides of the argument

1. Nobody is trying to 'proveevolutiontrue.'  Evolution is a conclusion, not some randomotion tossed out in need of 'proof.'
2. You assume that, first of all, there are only 2 options.  That is not true.  You also assume that 'the other side' was NOT understood and still isnot.  That is also not so.  IN fact,the 'other side' was the 'law of the mad' for centuries.  And it lost.


The Bible is a moral guide

Judging by the statements and antics of many of its adherents, I'd say it is not a very good one.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:20 AM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Livewire
you people aren't being fair here if you're going to try to prove evolution is true
We're not.
First: science deals with evidence, not with "proof".
Second: Evolution is a demonstrated scientific fact.
you first need to know both sides of the argument
There are not two sides.

In a way there are hundreds of sides (one per each religious or non religious myth).
In a way there's only one side: reason.

As per knowledge about sides, i bet you i know more about your "side" than you do yourself.

The Bible is a moral guide Wisp
Nobody on Earth follows it. And you're not the exception, i bet.

there is  nothing your evolution has above it
Or below it.
Evolution says nothing about how we should behave. Neither does Gravity.

because it is all true
Not literally. You also said:
The snake in the story of the garden of eden represents sin
That's not literal.

I am not going to let you call me or my family hypocrits
Oh. Ok.

maybe you are but christians are not hypocrits
None of them? How remarkable.

and I am mad at what you say about christians.
Yes, i can see that.

Do you pick up the phone on the sabbath? Or turn a light switch, or prepare a meal, or any of that?

Would you stone your child to death if he disobeyed you?

If you don't comply with those commands, you're either a hypocrite, an ignorant, a poor witted man, or you haven't given it any thought.

Did you read the Bible?


(Edited by wisp 4/16/2009 at 1:50 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:46 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:27 PM on February 18, 2009 :
Actually genetic evidence in the form of Transposons, Redundant Psuedogenes and ERVs, demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that all placental mammals share a common ancestor.  There is also compelling scientific evidence that  shows that all chordates share a common ancestor and that chordates and echinodermata share a common ancestor.

Or maybe a common designer.


I love these hand waves.
Better than actually trying to discuss the issues, I suppose.


None of the "scientists",  who are proposing a "creationist" model, provide the required scientific evidence to back their claims up.  Without scientific evidence to back your claims up all you have is unsupported opinion.  Unsupported opinion for the most part is a waste of time in the science class.

As is the equally speculative molecules to man evolution.

More of the same.
To claim that 'molecules ot man' evolution is just speculation while dirt-to-Dan creationm is TROOOF is just an admission of sheer invincible ignorance.

Creationism can not be supported by scientific evidence.

Creationists have the exact same evidence as evolutionists. The interpretation is different.

Not all interpretations are valid.
Those that require miracles and magic are generally frowned upon bu those actually trying to understand things.


Wisp, as far as the kind/species thing, I don't know. I don't know anything about taxonomy. Or about genetics for that matter. But that is not what I am debating. I'm debating whether the unknowable unprovable part of evolution is more or less valid an explanation of origin than the unknowable unprovable part of creation.

And what parts are those?
Those that you don't personally understand?


Platypus? Yep there they are. But where is the pre-platypus? How much of a leap is it to go from a reptile to a semi-reptile? How many zillions of things have to go right for something to go from cold blooded to warm blooded? Too many.

The problem with these sorts of 'arguments' is that they are backwards.  ANY occurrence, when its probability is figured out retroactively, can appear impossible.

However, when one looks at the platypus in a phylogenetic context, it falls right where it should - as a basal mammal.  That it possesses primitive traits is a boon for evolution and a bust for cretos that like ot misrepresent the platypus, claiming it has a duck's bill, for example.

How do parasites not contradict the Bible? I don't know. But they do contradict evolution. A parasite can't live without the host. And it can't kill the host right off either or it dies with it. So where does a parasite come from?

They lose their ability to live freely.  Looking at their genomes, you can see the remnants of thier once functioning genetic apparatus.  But you said you don't understand genetics, so I gues syou can just ignore all that stuff.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 9:22 PM on April 16, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do parasites not contradict the Bible? I don't know. But they do contradict evolution. A parasite can't live without the host. And it can't kill the host right off either or it dies with it. So where does a parasite come from?
They lose their ability to live freely.  Looking at their genomes, you can see the remnants of thier once functioning genetic apparatus.
Creationists will happily agree, unless you put the stress on the things the parasite would have to gain in order to make a living.

The important thing is that you can't evolve by losing stuff.

I made a really long post about parasites once. The ones with the coolest traits that can't be explained by plain devolution.


(Edited by wisp 4/17/2009 at 12:14 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:00 AM on April 17, 2009 | 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.