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
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 6 7 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A little bit of overlap here, creationism and God.
The  law of thermodynamics states energy is neither created or destroyed and all energy (matter) is conserved right? So energy was not created by natural means yet matter and energy exist. So it was by a Supernatural means that matter and energy were created unless you have discovered something else.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:56 PM on March 17, 2009 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That is assuming facts not in evidence; we have no evidence which suggests that matter or energy did not exist at some point.  You're also asking the wrong question; by the way you have worded your statement you're ruling out the obvious answer to the problem: that matter and energy were not created, they have always existed.
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 8:06 PM on March 17, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But everything has a beginning right?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:35 PM on March 17, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus - matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed by ordinary chemical means.  That's chemistry.  However, if you go nuclear physics, then matter and energy are equivalent by Einstein's famous equation: E=mc2 (that's c-squared, of course).

We actually see this happening in super-duper particle colliders - on a subatomic scale - the conversion of matter-energy/energy-matter.  Matter/antimatter can actually be produced - but at the cost of enormous energy.  Again, we're talking about this at the subatomic scale.  Only very, very, very tiny amounts.

Also, according to BBT current physical forces (electromagnitism, strong & weak nuclear forces) were not present immediately.  The universe was too hot.  I really don't know a whole lot about that subject.  How matter and energy came to be (from a singularity) - who knows.  Talk to a theoretical particle physicist.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:46 PM on March 17, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Glute said
But everything has a beginning right?


Thats a pretty bold assertion!
What evidence do you have to support it?



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 07:21 AM on March 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A little bit of overlap here, creationism and God.
Not at all. God can be equated to Brahman, tao, Ala, Krishna, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Nguenechén, etc. Not all of them were creators. And none of them created the world according to the genesis. 'God' doesn't necessarily mean 'Yahweh'. So no.

YEC is something semi-specific (It's not completely specific, because it leaves out billions of species, but it has some specific details like rib cloning, unicorn, global flood, world population starting from Mt. Ararat, etc, all of which have been debunked).

Hum... I was just thinking... If God put the tree of knowledge in the midst of the garden to test human obedience (i wouldn't put candy before my child and punish him if he touches them, least of all if i intelligently designed his curiosity, but whatever), why did He give the fruit any real effect? He could have put there just ordinary apples. It would do the same thing: test their obedience.

Anyway, why would an all knowing being have to perform tests?

Meh, nevermind. It's not like i believe that you'll even try to answer any of these questions, gluteus.

The  law of thermodynamics states energy is neither created or destroyed and all energy (matter) is conserved right?
Right. Very right.
So energy was not created by natural means yet matter and energy exist.
Yes, so to speak. Kinda of depends on your definition of 'natural' and 'existence'. If you want to know more about the subject google 'quantum field', which is the ultimate nature of matter and energy.
So it was by a Supernatural means that matter and energy were created unless you have discovered something else.
You're assuming that it was created. You have no reasons to do so.

But anyway, this is going nowhere, gluteus. If time, space, matter and energy were started by supernatural means, that's not a valid attack on Evolution, and it doesn't help YEC. It doesn't help the belief that there was a unicorn once.

6k years... What would happen if you found the fossilized tree of life, and ate from that fossil, i wonder...

Again, not expecting an answer from you. I've learned not to do that.

orion, give him this one. The law of conservation of energy and matter is one and the same (for matter and energy are one and the same).

It's like if you chose to give potential energy some other name and a different concept (different from energy), and then concluded that energy CAN be made and erased.

By the way, orion, do you believe that matter/energy had a beginning? That's what gluteus is asking.

I'm not sure, but i don't care much about it when speaking of Evolution or Creationism (which is what we should be doing in this forum).

gluteus, when are we going to end this subject?



-------
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: 08:26 AM on March 18, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, you yourself agreed everything has a beginning. Now you say that matter was not necessarily created. Then you try to wisk me away from the subject without letting me establish a point and doing so, proceed to ask me other questions. For the sake of readability and coherence, brevity serves posts well.
Creationism establishes a cause for existence itself and picks up where science can go no further. So if everything has a beginning, what caused the begginning of the universe?( this point is intertwined  with evolution)

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:55 PM on March 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"In the beginning, God created..."

meaning that God is outside of time and created time. He also created space and matter. Which I find far more compelling than "in the beginning, there was nothing and out of nothing there was a big bang...." of what? What went bang? Where did the matter come from? Where did it acquire the energy to go bang?

Wisp,
I see way back you asked repeatedly how we all felt about your illustrations of the -cetus family. What was your point? Were we supposed to have a moment of awe? Exactly what were you trying to show us? You must excuse me but I am used to seeing creative illustrations of entire prehistoric families produced from one pig's tooth, Lucy with human feet when no feet were found and pakicetus diving deep into the water when no pelvis was even found much less most of the rest of the body. Whenever I see these types of illustrations, my immediate reaction tends to be "what did they actually find?"
Please clarify so that I can comment appropriately.
Thanks


-------
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: 08:47 AM on March 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus
Wisp, you yourself agreed everything has a beginning.
Ipse dixit. How creationist.

Here's what i actually said (it's in another page, so it must be difficult for you):
Again: no.

God doesn't. Or any other concept, for that matter.

Now you answer something. You have plenty to chose from.

EDIT:
And if you needed a 'yes', ok:
Everything has a beginning.

Now say what you had to say.
You have given it some thought, so it better be worth it.
Now you say that matter was not necessarily created.
Not only that. You agree as well. Because you don't believe that God was created.

As i've said before, if everything was created or not depends on your definition of "thing". If God's attributes are 'things' too, well, then there's plenty of things that have not been created, even according to you.

Gluteus, i'm getting tired. This has no chance of going anywhere.

Then you try to wisk me away from the subject
"Word not found: wisk"
without letting me establish a point
I said "Now say what you had to say."
and doing so, proceed to ask me other questions.
But i know you'll never answer them. And you do the same thing you're accusing me of.
For the sake of readability and coherence, brevity serves posts well.
Oh, then THAT's why you don't answer! Right...
Creationism establishes a cause for existence itself and picks up where science can go no further.
How convenient. It keeps retreating to the areas where science can't go yet.
So if everything has a beginning, what caused the begginning of the universe?
GOD DID IT! OK??
Except that Yahweh couldn't have done it, because the biblical details have been demonstrated to be incoherent and impossible.

Now let's move on.
( this point is intertwined  with evolution)
Suuuure...

Except that Evolution keeps working even if God started the Universe. And your biblical myths don't work even if God started the Universe.

Lester10
"In the beginning, God created..."

meaning that God is outside of time and created time.
Is that what you get from that little phrase? I don't think that's what the bronze age sheepherders were thinking.
He also created space and matter.
But chose to give them the confusing name of "Heavens and Earth".
Which I find far more compelling than "in the beginning, there was nothing and out of nothing there was a big bang...." of what?
You're not interested in that subject. Don't pretend that you are.

Besides, right now, i'm not interested either. I'm interested in the TOE, and the YEC (which you can't defend).
What went bang? Where did the matter come from? Where did it acquire the energy to go bang?
Man, if i give you links to some answers, will you read them?

I'd post them myself, but it would be out of place in this forum about CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION!!

Wisp, I see way back you asked repeatedly how we all felt about your illustrations of the -cetus family. What was your point?
That you acknowledge that they were from the cetus family. That's it. Thanks a lot.



-------
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: 11:02 AM on March 19, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, so the word is Whisk, excuse me but you waste time pointing that out. Again, brevity not an issue with you.
I'm still trying to extract from you given the law of thermodynamics how the universe came into being. Did everything in fact, come from nothing? What does quantum physics have to do with this exactly?
Pretty simple post.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:53 PM on March 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, so the word is Whisk, excuse me but you waste time pointing that out.
You think i was mocking you?

I wasn't. I don't know the word 'whisk' either (now i found it). English is not my native language.

Again, brevity not an issue with you.
Or answering questions with you.
I'm still trying to extract from you given the law of thermodynamics
I'm trying to extract some sense from that phrase...
how the universe came into being.
What makes you think you can extract this from that?
Did everything in fact, come from nothing?
You want a simple answer? Sorry, there's none.
What does quantum physics have to do with this exactly?
You'd have to understand a little bit about the quantum field. It will be specially hard, since YOU DON'T GIVE A DAMN!
Pretty simple post.
Yeah, it's easy to make simple posts when you only make questions and give no answers.

gluteus, enough with this subject. You don't care about it, and Evolution says nothing about it.



-------
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: 6:07 PM on March 19, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what is your native language?

"Did everything in fact, come from nothing?
You want a simple answer? Sorry, there's none."

You seem to have a simple answer for evolution stating that it's a fact. So why not go the distance and tell how the universe came from nothing?
I know about quantum entanglement but then again, it assumes matter already in existence.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:52 PM on March 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Spanish.

You seem to have a simple answer for evolution stating that it's a fact.
Answer for Evolution? What's the question?
So why not go the distance and tell how the universe came from nothing?
I didn't say it came from nothing. And quantum entanglement has little to do with it.

Why don't you start a forum: Creationism vs Big Bang?

I'm sorry if your myths go against so many branches of science.



-------
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: 10:31 PM on March 19, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus -
You seem to have a simple answer for evolution stating that it's a fact. So why not go the distance and tell how the universe came from nothing?
I know about quantum entanglement but then again, it assumes matter already in existence.


Evolution is a FACT!  The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.  They are two seperate areas of science.  I don't know the answer to your question about how did it all began - the universe.  Nobody knows at this point exactly why, as far as I know.  

Saying that God did it is fine.  You can say that until you turn blue in the face - but you can never present any evidence of it (God).  It's a dead-end street.  It doesn't go anywhere.

If God has purpose in your life, its only because you give it purpose.  God is still an imaginary enity - the biblical God is nothing more than a myth.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:34 PM on March 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is a FACT!  The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.


And if I say "Creation is a FACT!" I have to have a starting point to my story and I do. You also need a starting point and you need to explain where the matter came from.

The Big Bang has everything to do with evolution -it is the starting point of the great cosmogenic myth that is being forced down everybody's throats as FACT!! It is the atheist's story of origins -it is the modern genesis story and our evolutionary scientists are the priests of our modern religion.
And everybody that is not convinced is too stupid to understand -according to those in the know. Little children are quite capable of understanding and that is why they are taught it consistently at school. Creationists are too stupid to understand and that is why they do not agree.
Oh what a tangled web we weave ...

Saying that God did it is fine.  You can say that until you turn blue in the face - but you can never present any evidence of it (God).  It's a dead-end street.


Less so than the Big Bang however. We at least know where the space,matter and time came from. You cannot say without resorting to 'quantum' fluctuations and so on -like Roman Catholic priests keeping the Bible in latin so that everyone had to rely on them to translate and understand for the common man. You are like part of the befuddled flock repeating after the priests of quantum 'stuff'.

God is still an imaginary enity - the biblical God is nothing more than a myth.


In your dreams...I heard a good one the other day -"there are no atheists, only stubborn insubordinates. God's creation is his greatest evangelist."
You see the creation as a testimony to blind chance and evolution. I can't do that anymore -the veil is lifted, I can no longer fool myself.

As for me conceding the -cetus line (your earlier post) -it takes more than a -cetus tacked on to the end of a word to get a whale ancestor. How many jaw fragments did they find ?That's always an interesting question.


-------
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: 05:38 AM on March 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And if I say "Creation is a FACT!" I have to have a starting point to my story and I do.
So does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Not special. And you're not asking for a beginning, but a prequel.
You also need a starting point and you need to explain where the matter came from.
It's God's dandruff. So what?

God started it all. Ok? Can we go back to the subject of this forum?

The Big Bang has everything to do with evolution -it is the starting point of the great cosmogenic myth that is being forced down everybody's throats as FACT!!
No. Nobody says that the Big Bang is a fact. Get your facts straight.
It is the atheist's story of origins
Atheism has nothing to do with it. I'm not an atheist. (God, i love not being an atheist so i can shut them up.)
And everybody that is not convinced is too stupid to understand -according to those in the know.
Test your IQ. If it's high, you can tell them to shut up, just like i tell you to shut up when you say that the Evolution is atheist.
Little children are quite capable of understanding and that is why they are taught it consistently at school.
The equation isn't
understand - teach
It is:
learn - teach

They teach you when you're able to learn, not to understand.
Creationists are too stupid to understand and that is why they do not agree.
Not necessarily. They just feel that they have too much to lose if they give up their myths. They have an emotional investment in those myths.

It's like when you buy something expensive. You were very happy with your product. As time goes on people start saying that your product isn't good. But you don't want to get disappointed. You want to believe that your product is the best, and they are wrong. That fear overcomes reasoning.

We at least know where the space,matter and time came from.
You don't. You don't know squat. If you said that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything, you'd have the same kind of 'knowledge'.

We at least can show you why living things are the way they are. We know why they do what they do. We know why they are shaped like they are. We know why some of them look like some others. We know why we found so many species that are extinct today. We know why we find layers. We know why the primitive organisms are found in lower layers.

Would you like to test your knowledge in your own 'theory'?

You creationists don't feel confident enough to answer questions about your 'theory', but you feel confident enough to question science.

You cannot say without resorting to 'quantum' fluctuations and so on
Hahahahaha! At least that means something! You can't say anything but "God's will".

Why does the platypus lay eggs?

-like Roman Catholic priests keeping the Bible in latin so that everyone had to rely on them to translate and understand for the common man.
Sorry, but i understand what i'm reading. And anyone can learn latin today.

You are like part of the befuddled flock repeating after the priests of quantum 'stuff'.
Sorry if you'll never understand. But some of us do.

You don't even understand your own beliefs.

If you do, tell me where did parasites come from, and how did they develop. Why do ostriches have hollow bones? Why don't bats have hollow bones?

God is still an imaginary enity - the biblical God is nothing more than a myth.
In your dreams...I heard a good one the other day -"there are no atheists, only stubborn insubordinates.
You're atheist about the vast majority of gods. Some gods are better than others. Smarter. Yahweh doesn't qualify. Yahweh is as imaginary as it gets.

God's creation is his greatest evangelist." You see the creation as a testimony to blind chance and evolution. I can't do that anymore -the veil is lifted, I can no longer fool myself.
Tell me, unfooled person: how many animals did Noah carry into the ark? Why don't we EVER find any fossils outside their respective layers? Why don't we EVER find any trait that does not belong? How can we make a precise evolutionary tree, confirmed by DNA, taxonomy, the fossil record, compared physiognomy, compared embryology, and observation?

Keep fooling yourself.

As for me conceding the -cetus line (your earlier post) -it takes more than a -cetus tacked on to the end of a word to get a whale ancestor.
Well that's kinda obvious. The -cetus was only tacked once they found concluding evidence. Like matching ear systems.

Go ahead. Say that God gave them the same inner ears because they live in the same environment. Please, do.

How many jaw fragments did they find ?That's always an interesting question.
They found lots of bones, including skulls and legs, of course.

Here:
www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDFfiles/PDG471_WhalesinEgypt.pdf

You can google yourself, 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: 08:10 AM on March 20, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you need to explain where the matter came from.

It's God's dandruff. So what?


Does that mean "where does the matter come from" is not important or do you just not have an answer?

Nobody says that the Big Bang is a fact.


Oh I'm sorry, it sure seems to be what they are saying. No young person is going to know the difference anyway and I think that is the point -just as long as they don't think that there might be a creator.

I'm not an atheist.


Well then you go up one notch for that. Atheism does seem to be a ridiculous position. Tell me how does God (or the flying spaghetti monster) fit into your equation?

Test your IQ. If it's high, you can tell them to shut up


I don't think so -you'd need to have some knowledge of the topic at hand -IQ alone will not help. Is that how your system works -" I have a high IQ so whatever I say is clever?" Hmmm...

They teach you when you're able to learn, not to understand.


Yes that is probably true -as soon as you can learn they teach you what is not true and expect you not to understand but to believe. I told you it was just another religion.

Later on, if you continue to believe, you are credited with the ability to understand the vast wisdom of evolution. If you do not agree, then you do not understand.Then you must be a creationist otherwise you would automatically agree.

They just feel that they have too much to lose if they give up their myths.


That sure sounds like an evolutionist to me. They've made up too many entertaining fables to back out now -too much emotional investment in their own flying spaghetti monster.

You want to believe that your product is the best, and they are wrong. That fear overcomes reasoning.


There it is again -the evolutionist's dilemma.

We at least can show you why living things are the way they are. We know why they do what they do. We know why they are shaped like they are. We know why some of them look like some others. We know why we found so many species that are extinct today. We know why we find layers.


You only think you do and you're hanging on like crazy.Hopefully one day intelligence will gain the upper hand and your old superstitions will give way to reason. 150 years odd is enough of Darwin's crazy ideas.

We know why the primitive organisms are found in lower layers.


They aren't actually. What about the complex invertebrates that just pop up fully formed in the Cambrian? How do you decide what is more or less primitive? What about the trilobite eye? Why is it so low down with the supposed primitive stuff? Are you sure you don't just believe it to be primitive because you believe that that is how it works?

You creationists don't feel confident enough to answer questions about your 'theory', but you feel confident enough to question science.


Evolution is not science -it is an interpretation of the evidence that is currently in favour. Your experiments need to be observable and repeatable to count as real science. Evidence for historical stuff needs to be interpreted. There are different interpretations available for the same evidence. I personally feel that the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence is more wishful thinking than anything else.

Sorry if you'll never understand. But some of us do.


Remember I did not say that the explanation did not sound plausible. Of course it must in order to garner any followers at all. Luckily the priests of evolution have many followers and vast funding as a result. The problem is that not all of the people agree with the way the money is spent and how freedom of speech is being interpreted these days.

If you do, tell me where did parasites come from, and how did they develop. Why do ostriches have hollow bones? Why don't bats have hollow bones?


The best you can do on most of the above is suppose and make up good camp side stories
- so don't fool yourself.

Why don't we EVER find any fossils outside their respective layers?


Is that what they told you? What about when the layers are not even in the correct order? What about when layers are missing?

How can we make a precise evolutionary tree, confirmed by DNA, taxonomy, the fossil record, compared physiognomy, compared embryology, and observation?


Now you're really sprouting nonsense. Do you know how many contradictory evolutionary trees have arisen out of DNA taxonomy or was that not part of your lesson plan? I would not be surprised since evidence not confirming your belief system is not the sort of thing that gets repeated routinely...with good reason I suppose -got to keep that funding rolling in...

The -cetus was only tacked once they found concluding evidence.


Not necessarily - paki'cetus' might well be a land mammal but it was needed elsewhere so it served a purpose. I don't actually call this purposeful deception -I call it wishful thinking by those who have already bought into a worldview.

They found lots of bones, including skulls and legs, of course.


Of course but it is always best to check before you swallow it whole.






-------
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: 10:08 AM on March 20, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester - if evolution is not true, then why don't you explain to us what we see in the fossil record?  Tell us what 'Lucy' is.  Explain to us why we see an orderly progression of fossils - ie; there are no hominid fossils mixed up with dinosaurs, no dinosaurs mixed up Dovonian fossils, no Dovonian fossil mixed up with Cambrian fossils, No Cambrian fossils mixed up with PreCambrian fossils.  Explain that to us, would you please?

And the Big Bang theory does not have anything to do with evolution.  One deals with cosmological origins, the other with the change of life on earth.  

If you want to deny both, go ahead.  But you don't bring anything to the table with your denials, no evidence that refute either BBT or TOE.  You can't even present evidence that supports your Biblical God, except to point to the Bible.  


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:41 AM on March 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you need to explain where the matter came from.
I certainly don't. Not when talking about Evolution. You do need to explan where did animals of the thermal vents come from. And where did parasites get their intelligent design from (the Bible says that all creatures lived in harmony, and there's no mention of a second creation to account for them).

Does that mean "where does the matter come from" is not important or do you just not have an answer?
Not important in the context of this forum. And you kinda should know it.

Nobody says that the Big Bang is a fact.
Oh I'm sorry,
It's ok.
it sure seems to be what they are saying.
Well, it's a working model. It has its limitations, but it's working. Now let us get off this subject, for it does not belong here.

No young person is going to know the difference anyway and I think that is the point -just as long as they don't think that there might be a creator.
Teachers don't teach thinking about creationism. Well, i don't think they do in the USA. I assure you they don't in my country. Nobody thinks about creationism here. The average person ignores that there are parts of the world where people still believe those things.

Atheism does seem to be a ridiculous position.
Perhaps it is. But disregarding Yahweh is not.
Tell me how does God (or the flying spaghetti monster) fit into your equation?
As the eternal yet dynamic virtual source of everything. Specially consciousness and Love (Love not as a feeling but as a form of knowledge).

Test your IQ. If it's high, you can tell them to shut up
I don't think so -you'd need to have some knowledge of the topic at hand -IQ alone will not help.
But of course it will help! We weren't talking about giving good replies, but telling them to shut up when they say you don't understand because of a poor intelligence. If you get a high IQ they were wrong, and you can point it out.
Is that how your system works -" I have a high IQ so whatever I say is clever?" Hmmm...
Of course not. But i do have a high IQ, so if someone says that my less than clever opinion is tributary to my stupidity, i can tell them to shut the fuck up. That's all i was saying. Sorry if i wasn't clear enough, but thinking in English consumes a lot of my RAM, and my vocabulary is kinda poor.

Yes that is probably true -as soon as you can learn they teach you what is not true and expect you not to understand but to believe.
Like when they tell you that Yahweh created every animal, and that they all lived in harmony, but you can't make questions about the digestive tract of lions? Or what a 'kind' is?
I told you it was just another religion.
Nah. If you have something against Evolution you can submit your own paper. Point out the problems you find, and get it published.

Here's how it works:

Check the lower part. You might already be familiar with the upper part.

Later on, if you continue to believe, you are credited with the ability to understand the vast wisdom of evolution. If you do not agree, then you do not understand.
Yeah... Somebody ought to prove us wrong! Anybody!

Lester, forget the Big Bang, and show us your understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Pointing out inconsistencies counts!

(Hint: if you mention the second law of thermodynamics, abiogenesis, Gould, a watch, a mousetrap, Darwin's recant, the bombardier beetle, the bacterial flagellum, Evolution being just a theory, micro and macro, the cambric explosion, random chance, or mutations not adding information, you already lost.)

Then you must be a creationist otherwise you would automatically agree.
Nah. Nobody says that. There are lots of kinds of ignorance that have nothing to do with creationism.

They just feel that they have too much to lose if they give up their myths.
That sure sounds like an evolutionist to me. They've made up too many entertaining fables to back out now -too much emotional investment in their own flying spaghetti monster.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! xD
Man... You find more emotional investment in the fact that monkeys are our cousins, than in a blissful eternal life with your dead loved ones?

We at least can show you why living things are the way they are. We know why they do what they do. We know why they are shaped like they are. We know why some of them look like some others. We know why we found so many species that are extinct today. We know why we find layers.
You only think you do and you're hanging on like crazy.Hopefully one day intelligence will gain the upper hand and your old superstitions will give way to reason.
Man, you believe in giants, unicorns, rib cloning, vegan lions, talking snakes, a virgin girl who begot a zombie messiah, that Yahweh stopped the Sun (???), that rainbows have 4k years...

150 years odd is enough of Darwin's crazy ideas.
When are we going to be proven wrong?

What about the complex invertebrates that just pop up fully formed in the Cambrian?
Oops, you lost.
How do you decide what is more or less primitive?
Modern creatures would tear primitive ones to pieces, for instance (however when i say 'modern' i don't mean 'more evolved').

Not dinosaurs. Nonono. They would crush us.

What about the trilobite eye? Why is it so low down with the supposed primitive stuff? Are you sure you don't just believe it to be primitive because you believe that that is how it works?
Huh?

You creationists don't feel confident enough to answer questions about your 'theory', but you feel confident enough to question science.
Evolution is not science -it is an interpretation of the evidence that is currently in favour. Your experiments need to be observable and repeatable to count as real science.
Bla bla bla bla bla... Put up or shut up.

Present real problems, or surrender.

Evidence for historical stuff needs to be interpreted. There are different interpretations available for the same evidence. I personally feel that the evolutionary interpretation of the evidence is more wishful thinking than anything else.
Yeah... We wish we would just find... I don't know... A Tiktaalik...

We wish we could just find some four legged whale ancestors... Or transitionals from reptile to mammal... An egg laying mammal would be the best... Dinosaurs with feathers... I don't know... Oh, and we wish we don't find any transitionals from bird to mammal, or insect to reptile... That would be the end of us and our religion!

Man, be careful with our wishes.

Sorry if you'll never understand. But some of us do.
Remember I did not say that the explanation did not sound plausible. Of course it must in order to garner any followers at all.
Except for your religion. It's so powerful that it doesn't even need to be plausible.

Luckily the priests of evolution have many followers and vast funding as a result. The problem is that not all of the people agree with the way the money is spent and how freedom of speech is being interpreted these days.


Man, some people might buy that in the USA. But i live in Argentina. We're poor and uneducated. And yet we know Evolution is a fact. And we keep finding fossils in perfect harmony with the Theory of Evolution. And we don't have a dime.

The other day they found a dinosaur while excavating to make a supermarket (those have the money, but don't care about Evolution).

Besides, what would you do with the money? Do you know of any creationist that has designed a feasible experiment, but can't do it because of lack of funding?

If you do, tell me where did parasites come from, and how did they develop. Why do ostriches have hollow bones? Why don't bats have hollow bones?
The best you can do on most of the above is suppose and make up good camp side stories
- so don't fool yourself.
Let's say that we don't know (even if we do). I wasn't talking about Evolution, but about Creationism.

Even if our understanding of Evolution said nothing about parasites (even if it does say a whole lot), Creationism can't give ANY account of them. They are impossible. Things can't evolve, but parasites often have more 'intelligent designs' than most of the nice creatures of God. God didn't make them in Genesis. They can't evolve from God's creatures (because Evolution is not possible). So... Was it the Devil?

Please, say something. SOMETHING!

Devolution doesn't work either. I mean, you can't devolve chemical mind control, can you? Can you devolve venom?

Why don't we EVER find any fossils outside their respective layers?
Is that what they told you?
Yeah. But i don't need them to tell me. There's no other possibility.
What about when the layers are not even in the correct order?
Care to cite examples?
What about when layers are missing?
It's a magical process called 'erosion'.

Wait... Do you believe in erosion? Or is it just a theory?

Do you know how many contradictory evolutionary trees have arisen out of DNA taxonomy or was that not part of your lesson plan?
I don't. Show me.
I would not be surprised since evidence not confirming your belief system is not the sort of thing that gets repeated routinely...
Care to cite examples?
with good reason I suppose -got to keep that funding rolling in...
Yeah... Every guy who finds something to debunk Evolution will shut up and reject the millions so his peers can keep getting funds... Right...

Man, conspiranoia doesn't work. Find me something real. Something specific.

You think that the 'cambric explosion' is a problem for Evolution. It's not. A rabbit in cambric layers would be a problem!!

And the Cambric Explosion was a problem, then you'd have to take back your claim that things that are bad for Evolution don't get repeated.

And if you believe in the Cambric Explosion, give us your own account of it. What does Creationism say about it?

When will you start talking about Creationism???

The -cetus was only tacked once they found concluding evidence.
Not necessarily - paki'cetus' might well be a land mammal but it was needed elsewhere so it served a purpose.
Sorry. I tried really hard, but i have no clue of what you're talking about.
I don't actually call this purposeful deception -I call it wishful thinking by those who have already bought into a worldview.
Stop calling names, start pointing out inconsistencies, and start talking about Creationism.


(Edited by wisp 3/20/2009 at 7:51 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: 7:41 PM on March 20, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester makes some good points. Orion You say we can't even present evidence that supports our Biblical God, except to point to the Bible.  What about Creation itself? The laws of thermodynamics say you cannot get something from nothing so does that not lead u to use your logic and deduce that a supreme being is responsible for introducing all matter into existence from outside of space & time? What is YOUR logic telling you?


Wisp, you a Spaniard?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 10:14 PM on March 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion You say we can't even present evidence that supports our Biblical God, except to point to the Bible.  What about Creation itself?
Even if we call it 'creation', the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes more sense than Yahweh.

Young Earth Creationism is not supported by the facts. Even if God made time, space, matter and energy.


The laws of thermodynamics say you cannot get something from nothing so does that not lead u to use your logic and deduce that a supreme being is responsible for introducing all matter into existence from outside of space & time?
There's no logic there. But even if that's the case, it doesn't make the Bible true. The Bible says Yahweh made everything in 6 days. No logic can make you reach that conclusion.

What is YOUR logic telling you?
That this subject does not belong to this forum.

Wisp, you a Spaniard?
No.



-------
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: 10:54 PM on March 20, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The laws of thermodynamics say you cannot get something from nothing so does that not lead u to use your logic and deduce that a supreme being is responsible for introducing all matter into existence from outside of space & time?

Gluteus - I have to admit, I don't really have a good answer for that question.  You would need to ask a physicist that question.  I don't think there is an explanation why the Big Bang occurred.  And remember, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion in the common sense of the word.  I vaguely understand it to be more of the expansion of space and everything in it.  The beginning of time.

Some people like to believe God had something to do with that.  Fine.  But if so, then it looks to me like God has taken a hands-off approach ever since.

No - Wisp is from Argentina.  I think his command of english is superb - better than many Americans, I dare say.    
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:52 PM on March 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




-------
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: 01:41 AM on March 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion,
if evolution is not true, then why don't you explain to us what we see in the fossil record?


Billions of rapidly fossilized dead things buried all over the world in sedimentary rock layers.

Tell us what 'Lucy' is.


An ape. Evolutionists know that apes evolved into humans and they have a time table so they find Lucy without hands and feet and tack on imaginary human feet (to accord with the Laetoli footprints which are far too old to be human according to evolutionists). They also find other australopithecines but they all have ape hands and ape feet but that is irrelevant because Lucy just has to be an intermediate and, in the absence of evidence of hands and feet, fulfills that need.
I find in general, if there is a -pithecus attached to the end of the given name, it is an ape. If there is a Homo- at the beginning of the name, it is a human. Evolutionists think they are something inbetween.

Explain to us why we see an orderly progression of fossils


Well, for one, over 95% of the fossils are marine creatures which one would expect would be the first ones to be buried in a catastrophic flood. Fossilization can happen rapidly under the right conditions though it is rare today. There are mass burial sites throughout the world packed with millions of fossils.
Fossils themselves tell us neither their age nor how they became encased in the rock layers, they need to be interpreted within some view of earth history. Clearly something dramatically different must have happened in the past that is not happening today.
Starting in the 1800's geologists have chosen to interpret fossils and sediments based on a presupposition of slow accumulation, or more recently, multiple local catastrophes over billions of years. (uniformatarianism). That is all that geologists (and everybody else) learns so it is not surprising that our cultures accept that in general - but it is based on a chosen worldview and attached presuppositions.

If the creation model of life is correct, the fossil record should show a pattern of distinct breaks between very different 'kinds' of creatures. If the classic evolutionary model is correct, the fossil record should be a blurred continuum of creatures.

Generally we expect sea creatures to form lower sediments and land creatures to be found higher up and the most intelligent ones who could make a plan and escape the rising water for a time would be at the highest levels. In fact we would expect that there wouldn't be many human fossils since humans would be the most likely to try to float it out and when they finally drowned, they would rot and decompose after the major burial sediment had already done its job.

there are no hominid fossils mixed up with dinosaurs,


There are human footprints mixed up with dinosaurs though but evolutionists have to come up with other explanations for that. They crisscross with dinosaur footprints but I guess when the dinosaurs succumbed to the flood waters, the humans were still running and managing to make a plan. They don't discuss these sorts of things in evolutionists' classrooms and when sedimentary layers are not in the correct order, they explain it away by various means. When layers are missing, they point to erosion (millions of years eroded away) even when there is no sign of erosion. It is quite bizarre actually.

No Cambrian fossils mixed up with PreCambrian fossils.  Explain that to us, would you please?


The precambrian creatures were buried first. they existed at a lower level in the sea then did the Cambrian invertebrates -it's an ecological niche type of thing. Just think -where are the intermediates between the Cambrian and precambrian 'kinds' of creatures? No matter where on earth you look, you won't find them. Almost looks like they never existed. Also, never mind the supposed cone of increasing diversity, all the phyla are already there in the Cambrian -why no more since then? That is also quite bizarre.




-------
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: 02:41 AM on March 21, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are human footprints mixed up with dinosaurs though but evolutionists have to come up with other explanations for that.

Ha ha ha hahaha!  Yeah, the flintstones left them!  But seriously, this is totally untrue, there are absolutely no human remains, no footprints, no fossils, no nothing, found anywhere near dinosaur fossils, they are seperated by roughly 65 million years.  You'll notice no creationist can give us an actual example of human footprints found mixed in with dinosaur fossils.  So put up or shut up Lester...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:59 AM on March 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Billions of rapidly fossilized dead things buried all over the world in sedimentary rock layers.
So, more questions you won't answer:
How do you get rapid layers?

Well, for one, over 95% of the fossils are marine creatures which one would expect would be the first ones to be buried in a catastrophic flood.
Why?
Most of them know how to swim, you know.

If the creation model of life is correct, the fossil record should show a pattern of distinct breaks between very different 'kinds' of creatures.
And instead of that we ONLY find animals that are related to others in a tidy clear way. That's why we can classify them like this:


If the classic evolutionary model is correct, the fossil record should be a blurred continuum of creatures.
Says who?

Most evolutionary changes happen relatively quickly and in small populations. And you don't know what you're talking about.

Generally we expect sea creatures to form lower sediments and land creatures to be found higher up and the most intelligent ones who could make a plan and escape the rising water for a time would be at the highest levels.
Yeah, old and deformed humans (always with apish deformities) beat every beast, from sea and land in a deluge so weird that IT PRODUCED RANDOM LAYERS! Hahaha! And the first rainbow!!! xD

There are human footprints mixed up with dinosaurs though but evolutionists have to come up with other explanations for that.
Show them to us. Some that have not been debunked and about which the finder (or author) has not recanted shamefully.

Show me some footprints, and i'll explain them to you.

They don't discuss these sorts of things in evolutionists' classrooms and when sedimentary layers are not in the correct order, they explain it away by various means. When layers are missing, they point to erosion (millions of years eroded away) even when there is no sign of erosion. It is quite bizarre actually.
Remember: giants, rib cloning, unicorns, virgin giving birth to a zombie messiah, God and an israelite in a wrestling match, the Sun stopping...

The precambrian creatures were buried first. they existed at a lower level in the sea then did the Cambrian invertebrates -it's an ecological niche type of thing.
Oh... And did they have this ecological niches back in the garden of Eden? Thermal vents too? Pray, tell.
Just think
xD
-where are the intermediates between the Cambrian and precambrian 'kinds' of creatures?
Dead.
No matter where on earth you look, you won't find them.
Well, that was many many million of years ago. Your ark on the other hand is only 4k years, and it must be huge! How come they don't find that?

Or worse, how come they found it so many times?

It just refuses to be found and stay found.

Almost looks like they never existed.
We could say the same about Yahweh.

So Lucy is an ape? Get out of here!
Guess what: so are we.

If you disagree, tell us why.

There's plenty of evidence of human evolution. You can find them in your own body.
Why do you get goose bumps?
We know why.

Why do we have the Jacobson's organ?
We know why.

Why do we have junk DNA (including a disabled gene that used to produce enzymes to process vitamin C, aka L-gulonalactone oxidase)?
We know why.

Why can we move our ears?

We know why. (By the way, i can move them independently.)

Why do we have a plantaris muscle, if we don't manipulate objects with our feet, and we don't swing from tree branches using our feet?
We know why. (We also know why 9% of humans are now born without it.)

Why do we have wisdom teeth?

We know why.

Why do we have a third eyelid?

We know why.

Why do we have the Darwin's point in our ears?

We know why.

Why do we have a coccyx?

We know why.

Why do fetuses develop gills?
We know why.

Why do fetuses develop a tail?
We know why.

Why do we have the appendix?
We know why.

Ok, we're not sure about the appendix (probably helped to process cellulose). But we're sure it makes no biblical sense.

It doesn't take much to reach this conclusion: we used to be quite different.

You won't even try to explain it. You know you can't. So you'll dodge it again.



-------
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: 03:59 AM on March 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello Wisp,
the Bible says that all creatures lived in harmony, and there's no mention of a second creation to account for them).


Then there was the fall. Everything is going downhill. Mutations lead to loss. Some things now need to parasite on others in order to survive? Sounds feasible to me and is in accordance with what we know about the effects of mutations in general -negative and downhill.

Teachers don't teach thinking about creationism. Well, i don't think they do in the USA. I assure you they don't in my country. Nobody thinks about creationism here.


Here (in South Africa) we learn the conventional wisdom at school as well. But wherever there are theists, there is a degree of questioning going on. It is going to be as seriously controversial here as it has ever been in the US, I have no doubt.

thinking in English consumes a lot of my RAM, and my vocabulary is kinda poor.


You know very well that that is not true. I'd hate to take you on in Spanish.

If you have something against Evolution you can submit your own paper. Point out the problems you find, and get it published.


I'm afraid it doesn't work that way -paradigms and all. In theory, freedom of thought and investigation is all very nice but it doesn't extend to creationists. In reality, political correctness comes first and the most popular science journals are politically correct. Most creation scientists keep their mouths shut in academia  lest they get removed from their positions for daring to even think outside the currently accepted paradigm. Fortunately, evolution doesn't contribute to much real evidential experimental  science so they can carry on regardless.

Yeah... Somebody ought to prove us wrong! Anybody!


Refer to my previous point.

Man... You find more emotional investment in the fact that monkeys are our cousins, than in a blissful eternal life with your dead loved ones?


Many never invested in the latter but their 'scientific' reputations depend on their investment in the former.

(Hint: if you mention the second law of thermodynamics, abiogenesis, Gould, a watch, a mousetrap, Darwin's recant, the bombardier beetle, the bacterial flagellum, Evolution being just a theory, micro and macro, the cambric explosion, random chance, or mutations not adding information, you already lost.)


In your dreams... why, don't tell me all the above were already refuted! I'm terrified and heartbroken

We wish we could just find some four legged whale ancestors... Or transitionals from reptile to mammal... An egg laying mammal would be the best... Dinosaurs with feathers... I don't know... Oh, and we wish we don't find any transitionals from bird to mammal, or insect to reptile...


Evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind. The outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.Darwinists can always explain away the sudden appearance of new species by saying that the transitional intermediates were, for some reason, not fossilized but stasis -the consistent absence of fundamental directional change  -is positively documented. It is also the norm and not the exception.
It is one thing to say there are gaps, and quite another to claim the right to fill the gaps with the evidence required to support one's theory.
As Darwin himself said "Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined."
And Darwin again -"Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."

Darwin never lost faith in his theory; the only puzzle was to account for the plainly misleading aspects of the fossil record.

It's a magical process called 'erosion'.


So magical that there is no sign that it ever happened.

A rabbit in cambric layers would be a problem!!


A rabbit swimming amongst the marine invertebrates at the bottom of the ocean  when the flood happened would be strange, you're right.

Why don't we EVER find any fossils outside their respective layers?

Is that what they told you?

Yeah. But i don't need them to tell me. There's no other possibility.


Actually you do find some outside of their layers but there are a variety of reasons (read:excuses) for those whenever they do occur.



-------
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: 05:28 AM on March 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well Lester, I'll give you credit - you didn't try to weasel the question about fossils like timbrx did.  

Wisp - you can move your ears?  Hmmm... I just looked that up and was amazed to find that some people can wiggle their ears.  I can't seem to do it.  Very interesting.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 06:15 AM on March 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How do you get rapid layers?


You mean rapidly formed layers? By forming them rapidly. It's what you need to fossilize things without the rot setting in.

Well, for one, over 95% of the fossils are marine creatures which one would expect would be the first ones to be buried in a catastrophic flood.

Why?
Most of them know how to swim, you know.


Not fast enough for a catastrophic flood I'm afraid.

If the classic evolutionary model is correct, the fossil record should be a blurred continuum of creatures.

Says who?


Says whoever says that one thing changes into another. It would be a correct prediction to make if evolution were true. You certainly wouldn't predict big gaps under those circumstances. Refer to my previous quote from Darwin about the expected blurred continuum.

Most evolutionary changes happen relatively quickly and in small populations.


Aaah so that's how Darwinist evolution always happened in such a manner as to avoid detection!

Sorry that's the excuse, not the reason. It's called 'drawing attention to a problem'.
At least Eldridge and Gould were more honest about the problem and sought to come up with a plausible excuse when they dreamt up 'punctuated equilibrium'. It was the name given to 'a general lack of evidence for the theory.'

And you don't know what you're talking about.


Of course not, I'm a creationist -with corresponding low IQ.

Yeah, old and deformed humans (always with apish deformities)


I suspect you're talking about neanderthals here. The 'apish' deformities would be your description for bent spines? These seemed to have been humans from the ice age according to the general creationist lack of wisdom. They lacked sunlight and their bones show the characteristic defects one would expect in such a situation. Why don't you mention that other Homo groups? How about Homo erectus? There are over 200 known fossil fragments which fit into this category and they are within the range of human variations currently present on our planet. Why are they not considered to be mere variations of modern humans? Because we need links you know. Fame and fortune invarably follows those who find them. It's unfairly tempting. It's also difficult to avoid when you are sure they are out there waiting to be found.

Show me some footprints, and i'll explain them to you.


You mean 'explain them away' -remember they never happened according to evolutionist philosophy so even if they look human you're going to have to put human feet on the unfound feet of Lucy. That's what happens unfortunately.

Oh... And did they have this ecological niches back in the garden of Eden? Thermal vents too? Pray, tell.


Seems likely considering the sedimentary divisions but I wasn't there. I think a designer would probably design the whole picture to fit together and work together, you know like having plants produce O2 and use CO2 and having humans work the other way around.
How does evolution account for that by the way? I shouldn't ask -it's bound to be an interesting story though so I was just wondering...

-where are the intermediates between the Cambrian and precambrian 'kinds' of creatures?

Dead.


Well yeah, but where are all their little stiff bodily remains then? Why did they all go missing? Where are the pre-clams, the pre-worms. Darwinist theory requires lengthy sets of intermediate forms between unicellular forms and all the complex invertebrates of the Cambrian. They can surely not be missing everywhere where precambrian and cambrian layers are found?

No matter where on earth you look, you won't find them.

Well, that was many many million of years ago. Your ark on the other hand is only 4k years, and it must be huge! How come they don't find that?


Well that is no good reason for them all to be missing -there is so much else to be found, you can't have lost them all.
Forget about the ark, I'm sure lots of historical boats can no longer be found, it has little bearing on your problem. That is called a distraction.

Almost looks like they never existed.

We could say the same about Yahweh.


The difference is that they are material remains and Yahweh is the creator of all things, visible and invisible. A good few of those  material remains should be out there -where are they?

So Lucy is an ape? Get out of here!
Guess what: so are we.


You may be but I'm afraid I'm not. It's a philisophical difference. You believe it, I don't. Obviously only one of the above choices can be true.
Do you know how few vaguely acceptable remains of 'human-ape intermediates' there are out there? Most people only ever see the casts -they are mostly jealously guarded by their creators. That's how Piltdown man got used for advertising purposes for 40 odd years. Nobody was allowed to see the real thing. When eventually the anatomists were allowed to see, then the fraud was apparently quite obvious. By that time of course, many people had become believers. Most of the Piltdown converts probably still haven't heard that it was a fraud. They are not as heavily advertised on their way out the back door. If you don't watch carefully, you won't even notice.

Why do you get goose bumps?
We know why.

Why do we have the Jacobson's organ?
We know why.


And I'm sure you have some interesting stories. The thing is, as always, are they true? I have no doubt you think they're true. I'm sure they're even plausible but how would we know whether the stories that 'scientists' come up with are true?

Why do we have junk DNA


The latest is that maybe there is no junk DNA after all. I even heard that in my kids' biology books so it must have been rejected for some time. The concept of junk DNA comes purely from a belief in evolution. The belief that God doesn't make junk keeps people looking for function and purpose when they would otherwise believe they were seeing junk.
As for disabled genes, we expect to see that sort of thing -it has to do with downward mutation -the biblical 'fall' you know.

Why can we move our ears?


I'm sure that'll be an interesting one! My dad can do that? If I can't, does that mean I am more evolved? or have I lost something?

Why do we have wisdom teeth?


Because the food we eat is more refined than it used to be and muscle use makes bones grow. Don't use them enough, your jaw doesn't grow sufficiently for them to fit in. I used to believe the old evolutionary story and repeat it to people who didn't believe in evolution. I was the 'authority' and they believed me -now I don't even believe it myself.
I would apologize and retract if I could remember who I told.

Why do we have a coccyx?
We know why.

Why do fetuses develop gills?
We know why.

Why do fetuses develop a tail?
We know why.

Why do we have the appendix?
We know why.


Sure you do, just like you know about the wisdom teeth.














-------
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: 09:08 AM on March 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

I'm not going to try to convince you out of your beliefs.  You go right on believing that the Biblical Flood really happened.  However, your presentation is not based on sound scientific methodogy.  You won't see it presented in any mainstream geology text book.  And you certainly won't see presented in any scientific journal.

The Epic of Gilgamesh also had a great flood story in it too.  Stories of great floods are not uncommon among early civilizations, since early civilizations grew and developed next to the world's great rivers.  Rivers flood periodically.  Stories get passed down from generation to generation.  Some stories are exaggerated over time, and some grow to epic proportions.  The Bible reflects a lot of this sort of thing.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:09 PM on March 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You answered!! I'm glad!!

I used inverse psychology. Sorry. I'm not saying that i'm sure that that's why you answered, but i thought you might want to prove me wrong, at least regarding your unwillingness to respond.

Then there was the fall. Everything is going downhill.
So spiders devolved venom, and an ability to make sticky webs, and camouflage...

The cheetah devolved its great speed...

Carnivores devolved a killer instinct and stalking abilities, and strong digesting acids, and a strong bone breaking jaw...

Some parasites devolved mind controlling chemicals.

Man, devolution is great!

It's not like you don't believe in Evolution. You just call it 'devolution' for some reason.

Do you think that the cheetah, the lion, the tiger and the cat had a common ancestor in the ark or earlier?

If you can only lose stuff, i guess that their common ancestor had a great speed, was very strong, was very big, and very small... Perhaps it had variable size.... That would be quite evolved...

Mutations lead to loss.
Two words for you: gene duplication.

Take that claim back.

Would you like to see mutation and selection in action?

Down there i post a visualization of a 'DNA' based evolving string consisting of 50 transludic polygons. The DNA mutates randomly, but only the best (more similar to the Mona Lisa) get selected. The number you see in each picture means the generation number.

The process is quite simple. It goes like this:
0) Setup a random DNA string  (application start)
1) Copy the current DNA sequence and mutate it slightly
2) Use the new DNA to render polygons onto a canvas
3) Compare the canvas to the source image
4) If the new painting looks more like the source image than the previous painting did, then overwrite the current DNA with the new DNA
5) repeat from 1


What are the odds?!?!?!

Obviously (it is obvious, right?) this evolutionary line has a definite goal. And it can never be reached. Just like the speed of light.

The rate of improvement per generation is inversely proportional to the square of the similarity with the original image (not as complex as it might sound).

I save you the trouble to comment on this, just so you don't say things like "But there was a programmer!".

Some things now need to parasite on others in order to survive?
Need?
How is needing to feast on meat or blood more 'devolved' than feasting on grass and fruit?

Is a lion more devolved than a cow?

I assume there were no fangs in the Garden of Eden. Are fangs an example of devolution?

Sounds feasible to me and is in accordance with what we know about the effects of mutations in general -negative and downhill.
'We' know? 'We' as in 'creationists'?

thinking in English consumes a lot of my RAM, and my vocabulary is kinda poor.
You know very well that that is not true.
I'm not pretending to be humble (everyone knows i'm not, sadly). Seriously, i have to think extra hard when thinking in English. Lots of times i can't express myself accurately. I feel like an amputee.
I'd hate to take you on in Spanish.
Yes, my Spanish is outstanding. But my Japanese is worse than my English.

If you have something against Evolution you can submit your own paper. Point out the problems you find, and get it published.
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way -paradigms and all. In theory, freedom of thought and investigation is all very nice but it doesn't extend to creationists.
You don't need to say you're a creationist to point out inconsistencies. Just say 'there are no transitionals', or 'DNA doesn't show relations between species', or things like that.

Go to the zoo, grab some animal hair, and compare their DNA. Draw some conclusions from your findings. If they deny the TOE, point it out.

In reality, political correctness comes first and the most popular science journals are politically correct.
Nah. They all want to fuck each other and have their three minutes. But they don't want them to be shameful, that's true...
Most creation scientists (...)
There should be no 'creation scientists'. That term is ridiculous. If they're serious scientists they shouldn't give themselves a name that gives away what they intend to prove. Science doesn't work that way. They would be (correctly) ridiculed.
keep their mouths shut in academia  lest they get removed from their positions for daring to even think outside the currently accepted paradigm.
Perhaps that's true sometimes... I mean... If someone in my team thought that the Earth is the center of the Universe, and that the Sun revolves around it, i'm not ashamed to say that i'd fire that person.
Fortunately, evolution doesn't contribute to much real evidential experimental  science so they can carry on regardless.
Knowledge on Evolution leads to lots of useful techniques on the field of medicine, plant planting (see how limited my vocabulary is?), software, etc. Its principles were NOT invented, but discovered. Darwin had no clue that we could evolve virtual creatures (or virtual designs for real cars, for instance).

Yeah... Somebody ought to prove us wrong! Anybody!
Refer to my previous point.
I meant ANYBODY!

I have a theory that at some point our ancestors were semi aquatic. Our pee is more diluted than veldt animals. We drink and sweat a lot. We know how to swim. We love the water. When we hear water running we want to pee (peeing in a water stream is quite hygienic). When we avoid water for a while we stink.

That's not mainstream Evolution, but i'm sure someone thought about it before.

Your ideas have a very different source (different from facts), but you could still try to express them in a way that makes sense. Try to think of an experiment that can prove you wrong.

Man... You find more emotional investment in the fact that monkeys are our cousins, than in a blissful eternal life with your dead loved ones?
Many never invested in the latter but their 'scientific' reputations depend on their investment in the former.
Is it my poor English?
I didn't mean that more people had an emotional investment in creationism, but what i said. No need for a poll.

don't tell me all the above were already refuted! I'm terrified  and heartbroken
We can't just keep discussing the same over and over again. The mousetrap can lose its wooden base and be nailed to the floor. Darwin never recanted. Gould never doubted Evolution. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent for local systems to reduce their entropy (when they have an energy source like we have the Sun). There's no difference between micro and macro (and no creationist is able to pinpoint the difference). Neither chemistry nor natural selection are driven by random chance. Gene duplication is one of the OBVIOUS ways DNA can undergo an increase of information (whatever creationists mean by 'information'). The bacterial flagellum is cool, but its evolution can be seen in other nasty creatures (their cool design makes us sick and die). The evolution of the bombardier beetle can be seen in its not-exploding cousins (and you have to chose if you see it as evidence for Evolution, or at least evidence against God creating animals in harmony -or did God give them weapons just for the laughs?-).

We wish we could just find some four legged whale ancestors... Or transitionals from reptile to mammal... An egg laying mammal would be the best... Dinosaurs with feathers... I don't know... Oh, and we wish we don't find any transitionals from bird to mammal, or insect to reptile...
Evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind.
No, it's not. I have no clue of what you mean by 'kind', but Evolution is about the changing frequencies of alleles in a population over time.

You mean speciation? Then yes, it's about that too. Do you deny speciation? Timbrx said we had the right to call anyone who denied speciation 'willfully ignorant'.

And many sources of creation bullshit need a superfast speciation (but don't you dare call it 'evolution'!) that in only 4k years gave birth to all felines from two animals in the ark. Or from seven, if they were clean (what the Hell does that mean?).

Do elephants share a common ancestor? Do they share a common ancestor with the mammoth? Shouldn't it be clear?

The outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.
Care to cite your source?
Darwinists can always explain away the sudden appearance of new species by saying that the transitional intermediates were, for some reason, not fossilized
Some reason? You mean you don't know?
but stasis -the consistent absence of fundamental directional change  -is positively documented.
That's true. Homeostasis and transistasis are two opposite forces.
Homeostasis can be seen in the process of healing. Life 'wants' to stay the way it is. It doesn't want to change.

But in a changing environment those species that don't change just die.

I hope i don't have to show you the math to make you understand that it's more likely that we find fossilized individuals from large populations than small ones.

And large populations exerts a genetic 'pull', so that even beneficial mutations get diluted.

Forget your critical disposition for a while, and try to understand this. If a new beneficial gene gets more copies of itself (by giving the organism some advantage that allows it to reproduce more), meiosis in a large population will make them dissapear in spite of the advantages.

That unless a mutated gene can give you X-Men-like abilities, which is highly unlikely.

(Don't you ever wonder why X-Men always get cool stuff, instead of, i don't know, the power to attract pigeon crap?)

It is also the norm and not the exception.
In an unchanging environment and a large population, you're absolutely right.
It is one thing to say there are gaps, and quite another to claim the right to fill the gaps with the evidence required to support one's theory.
Saying that there are gaps is saying that there's a continuity. If you accept gaps, you accept Evolution.

I'm not surprised by the gaps. Fossils tend to belong to large populations, and large populations don't change much.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't predict a lack of gaps. It predicts that we find more change in small populations. And we see that today. We find strange creatures in isolated islands (sorry for the cacophony, both words come from the Latin insula[/b], but some islands are more isolated than others) like Madagascar and the Galapagos.

As Darwin himself said "Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined."
Logical fallacy called [i]'ipse dixit'
(Lat: he himself said it). Creationists use it a lot (along with quote mining). It doesn't work with me. I need valid arguments.
And Darwin again -"Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
Very smart guy. You can see it even through the quote mining.

Are you not ashamed of resorting to that kind of things?
Well, if you thought even for a moment that such a thing could work with us, i guess you're not ashamed...
Somehow i don't think you've read Darwin.

It's a magical process called 'erosion'.
So magical that there is no sign that it ever happened.
Then it's true!! You don't believe in erosion!!! Amazing!!
I was just joking when i asked if you believed in erosion.

I want more funny facts about creationism!

Do you believe in the plate tectonic theory?

Where can i find a list of scientific facts you don't believe?

Actually you do find some outside of their layers but there are a variety of reasons (read:excuses) for those whenever they do occur.
I don't want to google for you, because i can't be sure if what i find is what you mean.

Can you google yourself and post an example of what you mean, please?

How do you get rapid layers?
You mean rapidly formed layers?
Yeah, that. I didn't feel like spending more ram in order to find that combination of words.
By forming them rapidly.
Oh, that explains it.

NOT

It's what you need to fossilize things without the rot setting in.
Yeah, except that a single event cannot possibly produce random layers.

If you get different kind of dirt, stones, sand, whatever, and shake them up with water, you don't get layers. You get a gradual change. The large particles go to the bottom, and the thin ones go on top (yes, i'm not mistaken, just the opposite of potato chips in a bag).

Even if you're too lazy to perform this simple experiment, and you like to do it in your mind so you can make it work, you can't make it work so you get layers of sand-clay-sand.

If you can, there's an interesting article you could write.

RANDOM FORMATION OF LAYERS FROM A SINGLE EVENT

Most of them know how to swim, you know.
Not fast enough for a catastrophic flood I'm afraid.
Fast enough? Did it rain clay and sand and dirt?

Can you think of a deluge that could be problematic for whales? Why did only the four legged ones die? Because they weren't well prepared for an aquatic environment because of it's legs? Why would God make four legged whales then?

If the classic evolutionary model is correct, the fossil record should be a blurred continuum of creatures.
Says who?
Says whoever says that one thing changes into another.
I say that. And i don't say that there should be a blurred continuum. So take that claim back.

Ask the rest of us. Perhaps you're correct about some people.

Apoapsis, Orion, Demon, Skepticus: Does any of you say that we should find a blurred continuum of creatures in the fossil record?

It would be a correct prediction to make if evolution were true.
Only if Evolution happened slowly in large populations.

Since that's now what we found, we learned that it's not what happened.

We learn, you know?

You certainly wouldn't predict big gaps under those circumstances.
You forgot to mention those circumstances.

However, it's not that hard to predict if you know a little bit about populations, mutations and meiosis.
Refer to my previous quote from Darwin about the expected blurred continuum.
He didn't know about meiosis, mutations, or DNA.

Most evolutionary changes happen relatively quickly and in small populations.
Aaah so that's how Darwinist evolution always happened in such a manner as to avoid detection!
Haha!
What we've found is more than enough to see the transitions.

Really now, why do we find feathered dinos?
Egg laying almost mammals?

You have no problems (i assume) when it comes to acknowledge that all races of dog share a common ancestor. Dogs and wolves, i don't know. Some of you do, some of you don't. Jackals, foxes... Some say they all share a common ancestor in the ark (again, you have to believe in a superfast evolution, while refusing to call it evolution). What about hyenas?

You too can make predictions based on your poor knowledge of Evolution. If we tell you that the thylacine is a marsupial, you'll know it shares a lot more DNA with a koala than with a dog, in spite of their similarities.

Perhaps you refuse to make predictions, if that would mean accepting Evolution.

What if someone comes to you with a DNA comparison of a dog, a thylacine and a koala? Imagine he takes a gun out and says "Guess what pair of this three animals share more DNA. If you get it wrong, i blow your head. If you refuse to answer, i blow your head. You have 20 seconds."

If God repeats patterns, why didn't He give us better eyes, or solid bones to the ostrich, or spongy bones to the bats?

Sorry that's the excuse, not the reason. It's called 'drawing attention to a problem'.
Do you mean 'away from a problem'? That would be a red herring.

I suspect you're talking about Neanderthals here. The 'apish' deformities would be your description for bent spines? These seemed to have been humans from the ice age according to the general creationist lack of wisdom.
What? You do believe in the ice age but not in erosion?

Aw, this is very confusing... Painfully so.

They lacked sunlight and their bones show the characteristic defects one would expect in such a situation.
Actually, if you want to deny the Neanderthals, read about the thyroid hormone in Neanderthal evolution. Some think that the 'deformities' are caused by cretinism, whether because of lack of iodine, or a mutation that prevented them from assimilating iodine. Mating with normal humans (or changing the diet) would make them 'disappear' into thin air, which is pretty much what it looks like.

I don't see creationist desperately clinging to this hypothesis yet, but i'm sure they will soon enough.


I have no problems naming 'evidence against Evolution'.

we need links you know. Fame and fortune invarably follows those who find them. It's unfairly tempting.
You're being naive and oblivious of the peer review process. You just don't fake fossils nowadays.

And the piltdown man... You can't keep bringing that up...

Ok, i give you that one. It was embarrassing. Charles Dawson, that stupid fuck...

Anyway, the Piltdown Man was an instant anomaly. A puzzling one. The scientific community was relieved to be able to forget about it when the truth was uncovered. A number of scientists did believe that the cranium and jaw were not from the same creature, but no-one had suspected forgery.

The Piltdown Man being a hoax actually reinforced Evolution. You can always find some little anomalies, but this one was huge.

Show me some footprints, and i'll explain them to you.
You mean 'explain them away' -remember they never happened according to evolutionist philosophy so even if they look human you're going to have to put human feet on the unfound feet of Lucy. That's what happens unfortunately.
Show me the footprints.

Oh... And did they have this ecological niches back in the garden of Eden? Thermal vents too? Pray, tell.
Seems likely considering the sedimentary divisions but I wasn't there.
How come they didn't get buried in the flood? Animals that swim much higher got buried. It makes no sense.

They just can't exist!

I know how you feel... There must be some kind of explanation... I feel the same way about Evolution. When i come by any difficulty (not that there are many, really), i tell myself that there must be some explanation.

But the difference is that i'm always right about that. Sometimes there are several possible explanations. But, like you say, we weren't there.

But we can think, and make up (yes) explanations that make sense to us.

Can you find any explanation for the thermal vent ecosystem that makes sense?
I think a designer would probably design the whole picture to fit together and work together, you know like having plants produce O2 and use CO2 and having humans work the other way around.
Humans? There were originally only two of them. Right? You're so obsessed with humans that you missed that.
How does evolution account for that by the way? I shouldn't ask -it's bound to be an interesting story though so I was just wondering...
I better not make this even longer by answering things you're not really interested in, and perhaps you won't even read.

Well yeah, but where are all their little stiff bodily remains then? Why did they all go missing?
First: the Cambrian explosion wasn't much of an explosion. It took millions of years, like everything else.

As for previous fossils not being found, i don't know. Perhaps a different climate made it harder for them to fossilize. Perhaps life was much harder before the cambric period. It's not like they didn't find any animal from before the cambric period. Organisms from the Ediacaran period include the kimberella: a triploblastic bilaterian (symmetric, like ourselves), possibly an early form of mollusk.  

Some think that the Cambrian Explosion was due to a novelty: the eye.

It's nice, but i don't buy it. I prefer a climate change. But we don't know for sure.

Where are the pre-clams, the pre-worms.
What, do you want me to post more images?

Darwinist theory requires lengthy sets of intermediate forms between unicellular forms and all the complex invertebrates of the Cambrian.
Yes, certainly. But it doesn't require for them to be found. Haha!

Sorry. Must sound like a joke to you, but it's true.

On the other hand the theory does require that we don't find ANY fossil that's out of place. And none will be found, i assure you.

Forget about the ark, I'm sure lots of historical boats can no longer be found, it has little bearing on your problem. That is called a distraction.
It's called 'comparison'.

Do you see your double moral? You ask us to find thousands or even millions of organisms (most of them soft-bodied) from 550 million years ago, and you discard my request to find a humongous boat from only 4k years ago.

How could people from that time forget about the boat that saved the human kind?

Nothing makes sense.

Almost looks like they never existed.
We could say the same about Yahweh.
The difference is that they are material remains and Yahweh is the creator of all things, visible and invisible.
But He used to stroll around, talk to people, and even play a wrestling match with Jacob/Israel (and draw, even when He was the Lord Almighty and Jacob was a sissy).

A good few of those  material remains should be out there -where are they?
They must have told you that they found none. Sorry pal, that's another lie.

So Lucy is an ape? Get out of here!
Guess what: so are we.
You may be but I'm afraid I'm not.
That would be remarkable.
It's a philisophical difference.
It's not. It's genetic, taxonomic, whatever, but not philosophical.
You believe it, I don't.
You don't believe that you share most of your DNA with the rest of the apes? In what sense are you not an ape? Is it just semantic?
Do you know how few vaguely acceptable remains of 'human-ape intermediates' there are out there?
Actually, i don't. I don't even know what would qualify as 'vaguely acceptable' to you. But i'm not particularly interested in human evolution. Humans are not that interesting.

Water to land, and land to water is much more interesting to me.

Ok, the evolution of the human mind is interesting, but we can learn more about it from cave paintings and from our living fellow apes than from human fossils.

I'll reply to the rest in another post, like you.

orion
Wisp - you can move your ears?  Hmmm... I just looked that up and was amazed to find that some people can wiggle their ears.  I can't seem to do it.  Very interesting.
Not only that. When i try to pay attention to something on my left, y move my left ear (to no avail, of course) and viceversa. It comes naturally (it's not like my ears are trying to prove Evolution).

I really didn't know that some people ignored that we can move our ears. Haha! It's just a useless knowledge, but in Argentina we all have it (the knowledge, not the ability, haha).

Watching American series and movies (my primary source of modern English vocabulary) i learn lots of facts that are common knowledge in the USA, but very few of us know here.

In Japan it's a common knowledge that the cat's tongue is very sensitive to heat. Meaning they don't eat hot food.



-------
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: 9:49 PM on March 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Damn, i wrote 'inverse psychology" instead of 'reverse'. Haha!

In Spanish we say "Psicología Inversa".

gluteus
Orion You say we can't even present evidence that supports our Biblical God, except to point to the Bible.  What about Creation itself?
That would be simplistic. But even if we indulge you in the whim to call it 'creation', NOTHING points to Young Earth Creationism, NOTHING points to rib cloning, NOTHING points to having only TWO humans as our older common ancestor (or FIVE humans 4k years ago), NOTHING points to a global flood, NOTHING points to an animal exodus from Mt. Ararat, etc, etc, etc.

So what evidence?

Lester10
Why do you get goose bumps?
We know why.Why do we have the Jacobson's organ?
We know why.
And I'm sure you have some interesting stories.
Interesting? I guess... Stories?

It's not hard at all, you know?
Why do we have goose bumps? For the same reason that every other goose bumping animal has it! To raise the hairs!

Why would we want to do that?
Well, for no reason anymore. But you can clearly see that animals use it to appear bigger (during a confrontation), and to protect themselves from the cold weather (by creating an isolating layer of air trapped between the hairs).

Interesting? Perhaps, i don't know. Revealing? Totally.

The Jacobson’s Organ is used by animals to smell pheromones.

Do i need to say more?
The thing is, as always, are they true?
Yes.
I have no doubt you think they're true.
Nobody told me the story of the goose bumps. I have a mind of my own.

When i was a kid i always wondered why we got goose bumps. I saw my hairs rising, and i thought that if i was furrier that would come in handy in a cold weather.
Then i saw dogs trying to scare each other, with their hairs risen. I told myself "Oh, they want to appear bigger."

Just yesterday i found (with no surprise) that it's the standard hypothesis for our goose bumps. Well doh! What other one might there be?
Can creationism supply any?

Nature is so beautiful, and many of its mechanisms are so obvious, and you're so blind that i feel sorry for you (but i'm sure you feel sorry for me too, even when i do believe in God).
I'm sure they're even plausible but how would we know whether the stories that 'scientists' come up with are true?
Let's say you get home, and everything is a mess. All the valuables are missing. What story would you come up with? Would you report a robbery, even when you have no witnesses?

Let's tell you another story: It's about car sickness.
When you're in a car, reading, for instance, your eyes tell your brain that you're not moving. Yet your sense of equilibrium (the sensory system located in structures of the inner ear that registers the orientation of the head) tell your brain that you're accelerating and decelerating (there's no difference actually). The sense of equilibrium is registered in a zone of the brain next to the zone that processes poisoning. Voilà. You get car sickness.

I always thought it was very stupid. An evolutionary mistake. But last year (i think) i thought better...

In nature we don't ride cars. We have no need to spin like crazy or ride attractions in the amusement park either. So, in nature, when does our brain receive contradictory information from our vision and our equilibrium?

WHEN WE'RE FUCKING POISONED!! Haha!

So i used to count car sickness as an example of evidence against ID. I don't anymore.

I bet you like my new explanation. I mention it to show you that i'm not biased, and you are.

Search your feelings. You like the second explanation better than the first one. They both come from the same unbiased person.

The latest is that maybe there is no junk DNA after all.
Care to cite your source?
The concept of junk DNA comes purely from a belief in evolution.
You're so biased that if junk DNA is used as evidence for devolution you'd cling to it.

Why can we move our ears?
I'm sure that'll be an interesting one!
Nah. Not that interesting. Just look at ear moving animals. It's all quite obvious and ordinary. Even more than the goose bumps.
My dad can do that?
I don't know.
If I can't, does that mean I am more evolved? or have I lost something?
Lost. Lost our fur and our long ears. As for 'more evolved', i don't know what you're talking about.

Why do we have wisdom teeth?
Because the food we eat is more refined than it used to be and muscle use makes bones grow.
Hahahaha! And you don't like OUR stories? xD
Don't use them enough, your jaw doesn't grow sufficiently for them to fit in.
Man, i don't eat hard stuff (i'm a vegetarian). And i have four perfectly functional wisdom teeth. They grew so fine that i think i only noticed the growth of just one of them. Well, i noticed another one when it was almost fully grown.

Now that i think about it... Hum... Wisdom teeth, moving ears... Perhaps i can even digest grass!! Perhaps my appendix works fine!!

Why do we have a coccyx?
We know why.

Why do fetuses develop gills?
We know why.

Why do fetuses develop a tail?
We know why.

Why do we have the appendix?
We know why.
Sure you do, just like you know about the wisdom teeth.
Do you have any clues? I'm sure you know or guess our explanation. What's yours? Can you make them fit creationism?


-------
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: 3:55 PM on March 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, and i forgot toenails. Why would God give us those? To give pedicurists a job?

And why do we itch? Why do we scratch ourselves when we itch?

I can give you the reason. Can you give me one? One that's harmonious with the Bible?

And don't say they told me stories. I don't need stories to figure it out. It's not that hard. I did it by myself upon 25 seconds of not-that-hard thinking.

If i look up for some explanation, i'll find the same conclusion that i reached. I'm positive.

And you can't tell me that it's because me and my source share a belief in Evolution. That's not true. The explanation is harmonious with Evolution and Intelligent Design (even when it utterly denies the biblical creation).

Can you guess the explanation?



-------
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: 5:05 PM on March 22, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, boil it down to the start.... How do we get life from non living chemicals?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 7:52 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteous

How long before the first life appeared did the first star appear? and how long from the appearance of the first star to the 'creation' of the earth?


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 8:29 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy, Are you talking about the sun?  I never gave that any thought.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:35 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do you think the sun was the first star?

Being an evo I guess I assumed that our sun was not the first star.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 8:38 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It may be irrevelant.
But I would like to know how we get life from non living chemicals. Can we do it in a laboratory?

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:43 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You, me and a million other scientists!

We dont yet know exactly how that occurred. The reason scientists do what they do is because there are things that don't know yet.

Do you think that our present inability to replicate the process is evidence for creation (or against evolution)?
What is going to happen to your faith if some scientist does manage it?


My question about the time between first star, 'creation' of our planet and the beginning of life has a point. Are you prepared to offer answers to my questions? Ive answered yours!


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 8:51 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do not know exactly how long after the sun came into existance the Earth did, it could have been quickly though. And your point?

But oddly enuf, in the hostile environment of boiling seas, a cell was created from the crudest of elements, but in a laboratory, it cannot be done.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:07 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No. It was not created from the crudest of elements.


And we have bacteria in boiling environments today. You've not uttered anything remotely valid.



-------
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: 9:58 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, boil it down to the start.... How do we get life from non living chemicals?

You haven't explained to us where the problem is, why couldn't we get life from non living chemicals, life is, after all, composed of non living chemicals.
A better question is how did we get matter from immaterial spirit (God)?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:51 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteous

To me the evidence points to there being vast tracts of time between these events. I find it difficult to reconcile this evidence with a rapid creation scenario.

As a creationist do you really think the whole universe was created in seven days? Do you really think there is a dome (firmament) above the earth and that there is a vast body of water beyond that dome? ('Cos that's what the Bible says!)

Do you really believe that there was a flood that covered the entire earth? Mt Everest is about 9km high so it would have taken a lot of water. Where did all that water go?  Maybe there were no mountain ranges at the time of the flood. Then it wouldnt take so much water to cover all the land. Is that what you believe? That all the mountain ranges on earth post-date the flood which was ....  ??? about 4 thousand years ago?

We're talking science here so you should be able to provide an estimate of the amount of water required to cover the earth. There had to be enough to cover Mt Ararat at least. How much water was it? It 'receded' in less than a year according to Genesis. Where did it go? Where is it now?

Time is important. Creationists expend most of their 'scientific' energy attempting to refute the time calculations of mainstream geologists.
What came first? The earth or the stars?

According to Genesis God created day and night BEFORE he put stars in the sky or created the Sun and moon. He created the earth before the stars (including the sun). Do you believe that? Is it corroborated by any other evidence?

How long did these things take? What do you believe and what is your evidence? If you havent thought about these things then you cannot be considered a credible critic of evolution....  or a credible proponent of creation for that matter.





-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 11:00 PM on March 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We can see new stars forming throughout the cosmos even now.

Star formation - NGC 346
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:29 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

waterboy
As a creationist do you really think the whole universe was created in seven days?
Six.
According to Genesis God created day and night BEFORE he put stars in the sky or created the Sun and moon.
And the first morning came before there was any sun.

Actually light came before there was any Sun or stars.

Orion, are you an astronomer?



-------
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: 12:46 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I'm not an astonomer.  But my first love of science came from astronomy.  I used to lay in my back-yard during summer nights and just looked up at the stars.  I would wonder what planets could be orbiting them, and what forms of life they might harbor.  

I imagine you can guess what my favorite constellation is.

Anyway, the fact that we can see stars in the process of being formed today shows the naive nature of the biblical genesis story.  I don't blame the biblical writers for that.  Their knowledge of the world around them was limited by their times.  But its utter folly for a person to cling to old out-dated notions and ignore the new knowledge that we have gained over three thousand years since biblical times.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:59 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's my favorite constellation too.

I've read that the Sun is a fifth generation star, if i remember right. Meaning it was made from exploded stars that were made from exploded stars that were made from exploded stars that were made from the exploded original stars.

They reached that conclusion analyzing the heavy elements present in them (and the planets in the Solar System, i bet). Do you know about the subject?

This thread is dead anyway (not that the creationists will admit it).



-------
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: 02:13 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp - you're right about our sun, it's a later generation star.  All the heavier elements beyond helium on the periodic table were forged within the centers of earlier stars, probably nova and super-nova that exploded long ago.  More massive stars (many times the mass of our sun) have life spans counted in million of years, rather than billions of years.  So you can see how there has been enough time for heavier elements to accumulate.  That's a simple fact of nuclear physics.

So we're all literally made of star dust.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:06 AM on March 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah... It's really fascinating... I feel sorry about christians and their sillier fascinations.

Moby's right. No one can stop us now. 'Cause we're all made of stars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdb4NyHdFfE



-------
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: 12:19 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What came first? The earth or the stars? I'd say the stars but there is room for interpretation.

Well, with all the holes and gaps in the darwinists theories, I take seriously the Creationists point of view.
I am supposed to believe natural selection, which you folks say is blind, has transformed the crudest of living things and cells into intricate complex beings? The eye foe example, it is necessary to see so we can live and hunt our food. But what "thing" foresaw this fact and decided to morph into an eye? What is the force involved?






 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:51 PM on March 25, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 6 7 ... 29 30 ]
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.