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
     Proof what evolution
       What is it?

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

    
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll ask...does anyone on this site have any solid proof of evolution? That the world is 4 odd billion years old, and that I evolved from a piece of pond scum? Not evidence, however overwhelming, but proof? Just interested...


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 9:08 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most people even many scientists cannot intellectually follow the "proof" that science reveals. Proof proof proof pruth pruth truth. Define proof. To really understand you would have to go back to school, get a grasp of calculus, chemistry, etc. But if proof is what you want, then check out God's website; he's got a newspaper dated 4 odd billion years old with the headline "Plans for Earth Revealed!"
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:43 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmm. Got URL? www.God.com?


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 10:51 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lol

Wouldn't that make life so much easier?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:58 PM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Welcome to God.com. Moses will be in chat from 1-3 pm for a question period..." I can just see it now.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 01:04 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're confused. Questions about the age of the earth are questions of geology, not biology and therefore not evolution. And no one (but a creationist) has ever claimed that humans evolved from pond scum. You may claim that you did if you wish.

Even creationists admit to evolution because they found that it was necessary to maintain their belief in the mythology of ancient herdsmen about a big boat and a flood. A very conservative estimate of the number of species alive today is about 5,000,000. Most estimates are higher, up around 30,000,000 species, and in extreme cases, up to 100,000,000. For example, there are over 850 species of bats.

In order to get those kinds of numbers from the few thousand (Woodmorappe claimed about 16,000) "kinds" on the ark requires evolution at rates that no evolutionary biologist would ever claim. In fact, evolutionary biologists would deny that it is possible - for one thing, there is no evidence that it happened. But even creationists claim that such hyper-evolution did happen and has ceased - because we don't see it happening.

Of course, creationists don't call it evolution - that would be to admit defeat. They call it "variation in kind." But what they are admitting is macroevolution.

Proof is not a matte of science. I suspect that you have a distorted idea of what it is and how it works. No scientific theory is ever proved. That's just the nature of the pursuit of science. We may be very, very sure of scientific theories, but logically speaking, they are never proven.

But that is not to say that the major tenets of certain central scientific theories are doubted. The theory of relativity is not doubted in its major points, although some of the finer details are still being worked on. Plate tectonics explains the movement of the continental plates (observed and measured) which, in turn, explains the formation of mountains and vulcanism. Solidly accepted by scientists without any serious opposition (and in fact, now also adopted by creationists except that they again accelerate the process beyond reason).  No serious scientists doubts the big bang anymore. It is the logical consequence of an expanding universe. There are some serious questions about the details, but these don't cast doubt on the theory.

And I'll bet that you accept the heliocentric theory. For you it has been proven. But we haven't known of the existance of Pluto to have observed the completion of one orbit. Besides, we really can't see the planets orbit the sun. All we can really do is measure their angles above the horizon, and their positions against background stars at various times and then offer the best explanation for those observations - the planets orbit the sun. No proof. Just evidence.

Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories. It is also one of those theories that isn't doubted by any serious scientist. In science, the debate is about the details, because we have seen evolution happen. Because it is biologists who get to define what it is, and not chemists or geologists or astronomers or creationists, squeals from the pulpit of "that's not evolution" are empty. Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. Explainations of the mechanisms of that change and how those changes have occurred are the theories of evolution. We haven't see Pluto complete an orbit but we all accept that it will. On the other hand, we have seen new species form, and we have evidence that they have formed in the past.

Tell you what. Do you have any solid proof of a global flood? Not just evidence, overwhelming proof. I'm just interested too. I've been asking that question for a number of years and I've never gotten an answer.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 01:08 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Proof? Naw. With proof, there is no faith, and without Faith, where would God be?
I have some evidence-not rock solid in a few areas, but ponderable.

-Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story

-The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything!)

-The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.

-Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

-"One of the best evidences that strata were accumulated very rapidly, rather than at Schuchert's postulated average rate of about one foot in every two thousand years, comes from a consideration of fossils. Dunbar and Rodgers considered Schuchert's average rate of deposition and said:

Internal evidence in the strata, however, belies these estimates [of the average rate of deposition]. In the coal measures of Nova Scotia, for example, the stumps and trunks of many trees, are preserved standing upright as they grew, clearly having been buried before they had time to fall or rot away. Here sediment certainly accumulated to a depth of many feet within a few years. In other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most. Abundant fossil shells likewise indicate rapid burial, for if shells are long exposed on the sea floor they suffer abrasion or corrosion and are overgrown by sessile organisms or perforated by boring animals. At the rate of deposition postulated by Schuchert, 1,000 years, more or less, would have been required to bury a shell 5 inches in diameter. With very local exceptions fossil shells show no evidence of such long exposure. Evidently then, either our estimates of geologic time are grossly exaggerated, or else most of the elapsed time is not represented in any given section by sedimentary deposits."

-"On the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, this author found a stratum three feet in thickness composed primarily of closed fossil clams numbering in the millions. The stratum is peculiar for two reasons. First, clams do not live solidly packed together in a layer three feet thick. They naturally inhabit a sandy or rocky environment, each clam at some distance from another. Second, clam shells are rarely found in whole, closed condition, but broken apart at the hinge. On the seashore each valve (half of the clam's shell) is usually found separate from the other valve. The reason is that the hinging ligament is on the outside of the shell and tends to open the two valves. Only the muscles of the clam can keep the valves closed. When the clam dies, the muscles relax and the shell opens due to the outside hinging ligament.

How was this clam layer formed? The best explanation seems to be that the clams were washed into their present location and buried alive. If the clams had died prior to burial, the shells would have been open rather than tightly closed. The clams must have been transported because they could not have lived amassed in the layer in which they are found. Turbulent and flowing water seems to be the only mechanism which could rapidly transport and deposit heavy objects like clams. Some catastrophe like the Flood seems to be a most reasonable explanation. "






-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 01:30 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

pie, God could have used evolution to create the world. why put limits on God? there is strong empirical evidence for evolution, there is not for creationism (or at least six-day).


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 01:45 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you, Pie. Then your answer is "no?"

I thought so.

Perhaps I will comment on your wobbly ponderances tomorrow. In the mean time, perhaps you might offer some actual evidence for a global flood that is not better explained by some other means. After all, your idea about clams being deposited on the top of everest by the flood contradicts the hydrologic sorting ideas of Henry Morris of the ICR.

Faith, by the way, doesn't require you to stop thinking. Try it.


 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 02:04 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apparently, the evidence presented is enough to cause you to have to mull it over, on the pretense of your being tired. I await your response.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 03:06 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apparently, the evidence presented is enough to cause you to have to mull it over, on the pretense of your being tired. I await your response.

Apparently you don't have enough faith in your position to respond to anything that I said. I do think that it's pretty cute the way you pretend that rather than sleeping I spent the night mulling over your list of factoids. In truth, I've seen this stuff before and got a good laugh at it.
Proof? Naw. With proof, there is no faith, and without Faith, where would God be?
I have some evidence-not rock solid in a few areas, but ponderable.

Well, it is encouraging that you realize that creationism can't stand up to the scrutiny of science. You demand "proof" from science, thereby demonstrating that you are scientifically illiterate, and then claim that your mystical, magical faith is better than libraries full of scientific data.
-Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story

Aside from that fact that your claim isn't actually true, the question would be "so what?" if it were. Yes there are a lot of flood myths among the various indigenous peoples around the world. Funny how humans settled mostly in areas that are subject to flooding. The similarities are mostly that there was a flood (sent by the gods as punishment sometimes) and one hero saved himself and his family and his livestock. The Biblical flood actually has its source in the Epic of Gilgamesh, an older story from Sumer.
-The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything!)

So what? So you think that such information must necessarily come from your god? I see. Mankind is not capable of learning by himself, by trial and error, so we would have no way of knowing about this 6 to 1 ratio unless your god told us. By the way, did you know that between 1900 and 1909 there were nine wood keel, wood hull schooners built. They were steel reinforced because the marine engineers knew at the time that they were pushing the limits of wood construction. They leaked from the moment they hit the water. During bad weather, they were required to find shelter since the wave action sprung the hull, separating the planking beyond the ability of any caulking to fill. It was said that even in calm weather the bow could be seen to move in relation to the stern - side to side (called snaking) and up and down (called hogging - hogging is actually the movement of both the bow and stern in relation to midships). The two largest wooden ships ever built, the Wyoming (1909 - 329 ft.) and the Great Republic (1853 - 324 ft.) were both lost while riding out storms in sheltered anchorages. 300 ft seems to be the limit of a wooden vessel. How long was the ark?
-The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.

So, you are saying that in spite of the hydrologic sorting claimes made by Henry Morris of the ICR that the flood carried clams to the top of a 29,000 ft. mountain where they were deposited in rock? Can you offer any explanation as to how that rock formed in only a few years? Are you aware that the earth is made up of large plates that float on the magma beneath? Are you aware that these plates are moving? Do you know that India is on a separate plate from Asia and that India is moving to the north? Before you discount what I have just said, you should be aware that plate tectonics is accepted by Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati), the ICR (Henry and John Morris, Steve Austin), and by The Center for Scientific Creationism (Walt Brown), and others.
-Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.

So what? Is there any evidence that a single, world wide event buried these clams? What about the fossil clams that aren't closed? How did these clams get to the top of the mountain?
-"One of the best evidences that strata were accumulated very rapidly, rather than at Schuchert's postulated average rate of about one foot in every two thousand years, comes from a consideration of fossils. Dunbar and Rodgers considered Schuchert's average rate of deposition and said:

Internal evidence in the strata, however, belies these estimates [of the average rate of deposition]. In the coal measures of Nova Scotia, for example, the stumps and trunks of many trees, are preserved standing upright as they grew, clearly having been buried before they had time to fall or rot away. Here sediment certainly accumulated to a depth of many feet within a few years. In other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most. Abundant fossil shells likewise indicate rapid burial, for if shells are long exposed on the sea floor they suffer abrasion or corrosion and are overgrown by sessile organisms or perforated by boring animals. At the rate of deposition postulated by Schuchert, 1,000 years, more or less, would have been required to bury a shell 5 inches in diameter. With very local exceptions fossil shells show no evidence of such long exposure. Evidently then, either our estimates of geologic time are grossly exaggerated, or else most of the elapsed time is not represented in any given section by sedimentary deposits."

Only a fool would claim that sediment is deposited everywhere, at all times at the same rate. That is a claim made by creationists as a straw man. Moreover, the question isn't even one of evolution but of geology. Creationists try to lump anything that they see as conflicting with their faith in mythology as evolution. The problem is that quotes like the above are directed at the scientifically illiterate.
-"On the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, this author found a stratum three feet in thickness composed primarily of closed fossil clams numbering in the millions. The stratum is peculiar for two reasons. First, clams do not live solidly packed together in a layer three feet thick. They naturally inhabit a sandy or rocky environment, each clam at some distance from another. Second, clam shells are rarely found in whole, closed condition, but broken apart at the hinge. On the seashore each valve (half of the clam's shell) is usually found separate from the other valve. The reason is that the hinging ligament is on the outside of the shell and tends to open the two valves. Only the muscles of the clam can keep the valves closed. When the clam dies, the muscles relax and the shell opens due to the outside hinging ligament.

More clams? Also from the Paluxy, how did the dinosaurs make tracks during the middle of the flood? There are so called "flood deposits" below and so called "flood deposits" above the tracks. How exactly did the tracks get there? And if you claim that not all of the layers were made by your flood, please indicate specifically a layer that is world-wide in extent that is the evidence of this flood.
How was this clam layer formed? The best explanation seems to be that the clams were washed into their present location and buried alive. If the clams had died prior to burial, the shells would have been open rather than tightly closed. The clams must have been transported because they could not have lived amassed in the layer in which they are found. Turbulent and flowing water seems to be the only mechanism which could rapidly transport and deposit heavy objects like clams. Some catastrophe like the Flood seems to be a most reasonable explanation."

How is this evidence of a flood? Even if this is true, why is "the Flood" the only explanation? Why not a flood. Why not a sub-surface land slide? There are lots of ways that this might happen that are much better explanations than "it must be a miracle." But that would require actually trying to learn the facts, wouldn't it?
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 1:30 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On a related note:

Flood Predictions

From the above link, I would like someone to comment on why we find these fossils if the global flood occured.

#  fossilized dinosaur nests
# ant nests
# termite nests
# bird nests (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming)
# fragile wasp nests
# complex rodent burrows
# animal dung left in its original position of deposition as it hardened on dry, solid ground
# trackways of land animals
# raindrop imprints
# fossilized mudcracks
# fragile things preserved as fossils, such as bird feathers (Confuciusornis)
# ferns (adjacent to coal beds)
# insects (Oligocene lake beds near Florrisant, CO)
# oxidized rocks layers (redbeds) because there is insufficient oxygen in the water to oxidize (bring up) the iron present.

Porky Pine
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:39 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Apparently you don't have enough faith in your position to respond to anything that I said. I do think that it's pretty cute the way you pretend that rather than sleeping I spent the night mulling over your list of factoids. In truth, I've seen this stuff before and got a good laugh at it."
You seemed to make an attempt at insulting me-hardly the sort of thing necessitating a response.

"Well, it is encouraging that you realize that creationism can't stand up to the scrutiny of science. You demand "proof" from science, thereby demonstrating that you are scientifically illiterate, and then claim that your mystical, magical faith is better than libraries full of scientific data."
It's nice to know that science can't disprove creation. Which was the point of this post, to see if there was any proof. In Nazi Germany, libraries were presumably full of anti-semite literature, works of the Nazi Party and the such. Because it was commonly thought in Germany at the time, do you condone the killing of th Jews? Seeing as you seem to be a slave to popular opinion.

"Aside from that fact that your claim isn't actually true, the question would be "so what?" if it were. Yes there are a lot of flood myths among the various indigenous peoples around the world. Funny how humans settled mostly in areas that are subject to flooding. The similarities are mostly that there was a flood (sent by the gods as punishment sometimes) and one hero saved himself and his family and his livestock. The Biblical flood actually has its source in the Epic of Gilgamesh, an older story from Sumer."
A)Can you prove all of this? That it isn't actually true? Links, anything of the sort?
B)These stories al have similarities to the Genesis flood doesn't prove that the Christian side is right, but it does hint to something like this actually hapening.
C)Noahs flood happened after of 1600 years of Earth, and it's age being younger than other religeons holy books, the Bible would be outdated by them. I.e, the Epic you above mentioned. Presumably, the earliest parts of the Bible-Adam and Eve, the Flood, ect, weren't written by the people who partook in what was happening, but were dictated later on to a given scribe of the Bible by God.

" They were steel reinforced because the marine engineers knew at the time that they were pushing the limits of wood construction. They leaked from the moment they hit the water. During bad weather, they were required to find shelter since the wave action sprung the hull, separating the planking beyond the ability of any caulking to fill. It was said that even in calm weather the bow could be seen to move in relation to the stern - side to side (called snaking) and up and down (called hogging - hogging is actually the movement of both the bow and stern in relation to midships). The two largest wooden ships ever built, the Wyoming (1909 - 329 ft.) and the Great Republic (1853 - 324 ft.) were both lost while riding out storms in sheltered anchorages. 300 ft seems to be the limit of a wooden vessel. How long was the ark?"
The ark was large, and built more like a barge than a modern craft, as it had no sail, and needed the maximum amount of cargo space. Also, if you had a hundred years to build a boat, ad possibly God sticking his finger into things, you'd probably bypass a few problems, too.

"So what? Is there any evidence that a single, world wide event buried these clams? What about the fossil clams that aren't closed? How did these clams get to the top of the mountain?"
If the rain fell quickly enough to cover the Earth in 40 days and 40 nights, it would have screwed up the seabed, caused slides, messed with the currents, ect. Small creatures like clams could easily have been swept up, or down.

"Only a fool would claim that sediment is deposited everywhere, at all times at the same rate. That is a claim made by creationists as a straw man. Moreover, the question isn't even one of evolution but of geology. Creationists try to lump anything that they see as conflicting with their faith in mythology as evolution. The problem is that quotes like the above are directed at the scientifically illiterate." Maybe I missed it, but where did I say that all sediment was deposited everyhere at the same rate?

"More clams? Also from the Paluxy, how did the dinosaurs make tracks during the middle of the flood? There are so called "flood deposits" below and so called "flood deposits" above the tracks. How exactly did the tracks get there? And if you claim that not all of the layers were made by your flood, please indicate specifically a layer that is world-wide in extent that is the evidence of this flood."
You have successfully said nothing regarding my brilliant cut and paste. Got nothing on it?

"How is this evidence of a flood? Even if this is true, why is "the Flood" the only explanation? Why not a flood. Why not a sub-surface land slide? There are lots of ways that this might happen that are much better explanations than "it must be a miracle." But that would require actually trying to learn the facts, wouldn't it?" A sub surface sediment landslide would be washed away by the current before the clams fossilized. With the flood, however, the water level would be so high, the pressure would be tremendous enough to keep the sediment on, hardening it sufficiently for fossilization.









-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 3:46 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You seemed to make an attempt at insulting me-hardly the sort of thing necessitating a response.

You seem to need to grow up. There were no insults. Just responses to your pathetic attempts to do so. Possibly if you had actually presented any evidence at all, anything but empty claims, it would have necessitated some thought on my part. But since you didn't deem it necessary to put any thought into the matter, I don't think that I have any obligation to do so. There is no relation between any of your factoids and a global flood. In fact, you have assumed a flood and then gathered these tid-bits that you claim are evidence. You have it backwards. The conclusion should follow from the evidence and should explain it. You haven't attempted to make any connection between the two. Only claimed that your factoids are evidence.

It's nice to know that science can't disprove creation. Which was the point of this post, to see if there was any proof.

But science doesn't try to disprove creation. What would be the point? Such claims are the invention of those who wish to convince others that their mythology is history. Scientific theories are tested explanations for observations. Creation is faith that the written mythology of nomadic herdsmen is historical. There is no evidence that supports it other than invention and deceit.

In Nazi Germany, libraries were presumably full of anti-semite literature, works of the Nazi Party and the such. Because it was commonly thought in Germany at the time, do you condone the killing of th Jews?

Attacking and insulting me isn't going to help your case. We are not talking about Nazi Germany and to imply that because I do not hold your mythology as actual fact and instead rely on the evidence has anything to do with Nazism is an absurd and dishonest tactic. Have you no integrity?

Seeing as you seem to be a slave to popular opinion.

I wasn't speaking about popular opinion. I was talking about science and the fact that the body of knowledge is passed from one generation to the next in writing. I was talking about theories that have been tested again and again and that have been supported, mostly, and sometimes rejected by better evidence.

A)Can you prove all of this? That it isn't actually true? Links, anything of the sort?

You might read the book, Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History by William Ryan & Walter Pitman. Their ideas are very interesting, and based on actual evidence. They have caused quite a controversy in the fields of oceanography and archaeology. But they give a good recounting of the discovery of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Web searches are easy and you'll probably find some views on both sides of the issues. I doubt that you have the objectivity to evaluate them. Try this:
Gilgamesh
Here is a link to a book about Noah's Ark. The summary is interesting.
Here is a page on The Epic of Gilgamesh with lots of links. Page down to the table of contents and then click on the flood legend.

B)These stories al have similarities to the Genesis flood doesn't prove that the Christian side is right, but it does hint to something like this actually hapening.

From the above cited web page I learned that "While flood myths are common to practically every culture on the planet, most of them are significantly different in detail." That doesn't quite agree with your claim, does it? It seems that you are either a dupe or dishonest.

C)Noahs flood happened after of 1600 years of Earth, and it's age being younger than other religeons holy books, the Bible would be outdated by them. I.e, the Epic you above mentioned. Presumably, the earliest parts of the Bible-Adam and Eve, the Flood, ect, weren't written by the people who partook in what was happening, but were dictated later on to a given scribe of the Bible by God.

There is no evidence that an event as represented by a literal reading of Genesis ever occurred. The book I mentioned does explain why those authors think that several cultures of Mesopotamia had similar legends. Except the flood of Ryan and Pitman happened about 7500 years ago along the Black sea. While there is some debate about Ryan's and Pitman's suggestion that this was the flood of Noah, there is no debate that the actual flood that they recount happened. The former coast of a much smaller Black Sea has been found (including archaeological remains) about 300 ft. or so below the surface.

The ark was large, and built more like a barge than a modern craft, as it had no sail, and needed the maximum amount of cargo space. Also, if you had a hundred years to build a boat, ad possibly God sticking his finger into things, you'd probably bypass a few problems, too.

Actually, by making it a "barge" you compound the problem. Anyone with any kind of nautical experience will be able to attest to the fact that a ship, when dead in the water, will turn beam to the swell - a worst case scenario for seamen. That is the reason why everyone aboard ships does not just go below until the storm is over. It is of maximum importance to keep the bow (powered ships) or stern (windjammers) to the wave front. If the height of the wave exceeds the dimension of the ship, the ship rolls. If the wave height is less, it breaks over the ship and creates the problem of somehow getting rid of it. So the ark had the problem of water coming in from the sprung planking and water coming in from above. Unless you are claiming that the 40 days and 40 nights "dropped as a gentle rain from heaven."

If the rain fell quickly enough to cover the Earth in 40 days and 40 nights, it would have screwed up the seabed, caused slides, messed with the currents, ect. Small creatures like clams could easily have been swept up, or down.

Let's set aside the problem that there isn't enough water in the world to cover Mt. Everest. We can take up the question of where the water came from and where it went some other time. Henry Morris would be very unhappy that you are pooh-poohing his hydrologic sorting of the fossil record spew by claiming that organisms from the bottom would be carried to the top. So answer this. ichthyosaurs and dolphins are of similar size, shape and life style. Why are ichthyosaurs always found in strata that are below the strata in which dolphin (and whale) fossils are found?

Maybe I missed it, but where did I say that all sediment was deposited everyhere at the same rate?

You don't read what you post? I suspected as much.

You have successfully said nothing regarding my brilliant cut and paste. Got nothing on it?

Maybe that is because your cut and paste had already been answered. I assume, then, that you can't answer my question. If you dump dirt on a clam, it will close at the first disturbance. If it is burried, it may not be able to open again and thus, if fossilized, would be closed. How is this an indication of a flood? I'll tell you a rule of thumb that comes from steaming lots of clams. When you dump them into the basket, you remove any clam that is open - it is dead. After you steam them you remove any clam that is closed - it was dead when you put it in the basket. The open or closed condition of a dead clam is not related to a global flood.

A sub surface sediment landslide would be washed away by the current before the clams fossilized. With the flood, however, the water level would be so high, the pressure would be tremendous enough to keep the sediment on, hardening it sufficiently for fossilization.

Absolute nonsense. What current? Isn't "creation science" fun! You get to make it up as you go. If you can imagine an answer, then it must be true.

Now if you want to continue with the snide remarks and implied insults and then claim insult when I respond, keep it up. You need to grow up, a lot. Whether I decide to go to bed at 2:00 AM is not an indication of the power of you logic but rather indicates how trivial and lightweight your things to ponder are. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually learned a little of the science that you claim to discuss?

(Edited by lurch 1/18/2003 at 10:18 PM).

(Edited by lurch 1/19/2003 at 12:51 AM).
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 8:55 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"You seem to need to grow up. There were no insults. Just responses to your pathetic attempts to do so. "
"Faith, by the way, doesn't require you to stop thinking. Try it."

Now that that's out of the way...

"Attacking and insulting me isn't going to help your case. We are not talking about Nazi Germany and to imply that because I do not hold your mythology as actual fact and instead rely on the evidence has anything to do with Nazism is an absurd and dishonest tactic. Have you no integrity?" It is a completely viable thing to say. I will assume for the sake of the argument you are a ware of what an example is. If not, I'll grab a definition from one of the various handy dandy online dictionaries. What the point is:
1)Evolution is popular opinion now, most everyone believes it.
2)In Nazi Germany, the idea that Jews are evil was popular opinion, and a lot of people thought so.
3)As you seem to go by popular opinion, it appears that you codone this.
It was not intended as an insult, but an example to draw attention to the idea that popular opinion is not always right.

"From the above cited web page I learned that "While flood myths are common to practically every culture on the planet, most of them are significantly different in detail." That doesn't quite agree with your claim, does it? It seems that you are either a dupe or dishonest."
From the sites I check, it says they do. Hmm. You can't trust anyone anymore.

"There is no evidence that an event as represented by a literal reading of Genesis ever occurred. The book I mentioned does explain why those authors think that several cultures of Mesopotamia had similar legends. Except the flood of Ryan and Pitman happened about 7500 years ago along the Black sea. While there is some debate about Ryan's and Pitman's suggestion that this was the flood of Noah, there is no debate that the actual flood that they recount happened. The former coast of a much smaller Black Sea has been found (including archaeological remains) about 300 ft. or so below the surface."
The 7500 years ago does not concern me-I have not seen any conclusive evidence, in or out of the Bible, that would hint to the Earth being as young as 4000 to 6000 years. Most of the methods used to obtain these numbers are flawed. Also, the black sea overflow could easily have been caused by rising waters from the Biblical flood.

"Actually, by making it a "barge" you compound the problem. Anyone with any kind of nautical experience will be able to attest to the fact that a ship, when dead in the water, will turn beam to the swell - a worst case scenario for seamen. That is the reason why everyone aboard ships does not just go below until the storm is over. It is of maximum importance to keep the bow (powered ships) or stern (windjammers) to the wave front. If the height of the wave exceeds the dimension of the ship, the ship rolls. If the wave height is less, it breaks over the ship and creates the problem of somehow getting rid of it. So the ark had the problem of water coming in from the sprung planking and water coming in from above. Unless you are claiming that the 40 days and 40 nights "dropped as a gentle rain from heaven."
Water flowing over the sides would not have been a problem-presumably, there would have been a roof to keep all the storage dry.
The ark would have needed to be huge, both in the size of it's base and hight, in order to keep all the animals with sufficient space. And once again, do you suppose God would have allowed the last of humanity, whom he had planned to let continue the human species, die because their boat flipped over?

"So answer this. ichthyosaurs and dolphins are of similar size, shape and life style. Why are ichthyosaurs always found in strata that are below the strata in which dolphin (and whale) fossils are found?" Dolphins and whales are most likely more recent. As I mentioned above, I think the Earth is older than the 4000-6000 years commonly accepted by Creationists, and Ichys may simply have died out, while whales and dolphins remained more successful.

". What current? " So, ocean currents don't exist? And rivers are completely stationary? Dang, I should've played attention in science.

"Wouldn't it be nice if you actually learned a little of the science that you claim to discuss?" I have not yet professed to be a scientist. If I have, feel free to point out where.








-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 9:27 PM on January 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are absolutely no proofs for evolution. Just a bunch of lies that the state tries to feed the brainwashed public school students. It is a "theory" NOT A FACT!

-Calli
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:03 AM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very few people on this board are qualified to offer adequate information and "proof" for evolution.  However, I challenge any creationist here.  If your faith is so strong and you KNOW that the literal interpretation of Genesis is correct then take a class in evolution.  If nothing else, it will help you better argue against evolutionists.  I realize most of you are high school students so when you get to college take a class in evolution (it will usually be Anthropology 1 or something like that).  See if your faith in creationism can stand the information provided in a class focused solely on evolution and taught by a professor who is very informed on the subject (Biology, especially high school biology, doesn't count it is not focused enough and is not taught by a specialist who can answer your questions)   Argue all your creationist arguments with your professor.  See where you come out.  Evolution is actually an extremely interesting subject, and doesn't have to be a threat to religion.  

Of course, you could instead take the easy way out.  Taking creationism as definite truth without hearing (with an open-mind) the arguments for BOTH sides is the cheap way to go.  Following dogma without reason.  If you have faith in Christianity you should have a reason for it, and any scientific fact you get out of the Bible should be able to withstand your intellectual knowledge and facts, otherwise you are LYING to yourself.  The Bible is not inerrant, it was inspired by God, but written by imperfect men.  Remember that.

Sarah
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 01:42 AM on January 19, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pie:

Lurch: You seem to need to grow up. There were no insults. Just responses to your pathetic attempts to do so.
Faith, by the way, doesn't require you to stop thinking. Try it.


Pie: Now that that's out of the way...

What does that mean? Do I need to treat you like a child? OK. Listen, sweetie. I didn't deal with all of your silly babble because it was 2:00 in the morning, not because you had presented any thoughtful arguments. They were mostly just ad hoc, unsupported factoids that have no actual relevance to the discussion. Please think about the topic and your proposed responses. Better yet, invest some honest effort into educating yourself before you speak.

Lurch: Attacking and insulting me isn't going to help your case. We are not talking about Nazi Germany and to imply that because I do not hold your mythology as actual fact and instead rely on the evidence has anything to do with Nazism is an absurd and dishonest tactic. Have you no integrity?

Pie: It is a completely viable thing to say.

Two possibilities: 1)it is a completely dishonest thing to say, 2) it is an ignorant thing to say. In either case, it is an evil thing to say. I explained to you why your remarks are inappropriate and yet you repeat them.

Pie: I will assume for the sake of the argument you are a ware of what an example is.

Again, if you wish to reduce the discussion to implied insult and snide remarks, I can do so. I can assure you that I am "a ware" of what an example is. I'm not too sure that you are. Shouldn't an example actually have some relevance to the topic of discussion?

Pie: If not, I'll grab a definition from one of the various handy dandy online dictionaries.

Do that. But not for me. For yourself. Perhaps the Golden Book Dictionary would be more appropriate to your level of understanding.

Pie: What the point is:
1)Evolution is popular opinion now, most everyone believes it.


Dishonest and ignorant. Evolution isn't an opinion. It is a scientific theory, or rather many theories that explain the causes of many observations. By your standards, gravity is also an opinion. Of course, heliocentrism is too. It seems that you should also look up the word "opinion."

Pie: 2)In Nazi Germany, the idea that Jews are evil was popular opinion, and a lot of people thought so.

Since I have never been a Nazi, have never been in Germany, and have never thought that Jews are evil, how is this relevant to the discussion or to me? What a sad demonstration of mindlessness on your part.

Pie: 3)As you seem to go by popular opinion, it appears that you codone this.

Is this how a christian should conduct herself? Why would you even bring up such a matter? How vile and evil! None of that has anything to do with the topic of discussion or your total lack of scientific knowledge. You are thoughtless and empty headed. However, I must say that I am not really surprised. I have been debating creationists for some years now and your evil insults are typical. Such vile insults seem to be the substance of christianity. When you come face to face with your own ignorance you resort to whining insult and dishonesty.

Pie: It was not intended as an insult, but an example to draw attention to the idea that popular opinion is not always right.

Don't be stupid. It was an insult. It has nothing to do with opinion. I pointed that out to you in the last post and yet you persist. Perhaps it is true that the popular opinion that failure to dress warmly on a cold day causes a cold has no merit. Nevertheless, some 60 years after that opinion was shown to be false, many believe it. But is it nothing more than an opinion that any two bodies attract each other with a force inversely proportional to their masses and the distance between them? I'm sure that you think so. I'm also sure that you didn't understand what I just said. In my opinion you are an evil, ignorant, mindless twit. And I suspect that that is the popular opinion. Grow up and stop acting like an ignorant buffoon. If you aren't capable of discussing the topic in an intelligent manner, then withdraw. Stop demonstrating your ignorance! Either address the topic or shut your pie hole.

lurch: From the above cited web page I learned that "While flood myths are common to practically every culture on the planet, most of them are significantly different in detail." That doesn't quite agree with your claim, does it? It seems that you are either a dupe or dishonest.

Pie: From the sites I check, it says they do. Hmm. You can't trust anyone anymore.

But you offered web sites and asked for web sites. Why am I not surprised that you lack the integrity to actually read what was offered? So I was right when I said that you lacked the objectivity to evaluate them. It seems that you also lack the integrity to actually read them.

lurch: There is no evidence that an event as represented by a literal reading of Genesis ever occurred. The book I mentioned does explain why those authors think that several cultures of Mesopotamia had similar legends. Except the flood of Ryan and Pitman happened about 7500 years ago along the Black sea. While there is some debate about Ryan's and Pitman's suggestion that this was the flood of Noah, there is no debate that the actual flood that they recount happened. The former coast of a much smaller Black Sea has been found (including archaeological remains) about 300 ft. or so below the surface.

Pie: The 7500 years ago does not concern me-I have not seen any conclusive evidence, in or out of the Bible, that would hint to the Earth being as young as 4000 to 6000 years. Most of the methods used to obtain these numbers are flawed. Also, the black sea overflow could easily have been caused by rising waters from the Biblical flood.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA Priceless. Mindless but still priceless. You know nothing of the topic and yet you offer your conclusions. Please list your qualifications to judge the reliability of dating methods used by geology and/or paleontology. What is the basis of your claim that dating methods are flawed. Please detail the flaws. Please explain why your flood deposited miles of sediment around the globe (you still haven't indicated which strata are specifically due to the flood) but essentially none over the Dead Sea sites. In other words, how could your flood sort all fossils from primative sea creatures to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals, with no sign of a modern mammal with or below those of dinosaurs, and yet, stir-up the sediment enough to put clams from the bottom on top of the highest mountain? And yet, Dead Sea sites are almost undisturbed and covered with little sediment. You just don't make sense and don't have the awareness to know it.

lurch: Actually, by making it a "barge" you compound the problem. Anyone with any kind of nautical experience will be able to attest to the fact that a ship, when dead in the water, will turn beam to the swell - a worst case scenario for seamen. That is the reason why everyone aboard ships does not just go below until the storm is over. It is of maximum importance to keep the bow (powered ships) or stern (windjammers) to the wave front. If the height of the wave exceeds the dimension of the ship, the ship rolls. If the wave height is less, it breaks over the ship and creates the problem of somehow getting rid of it. So the ark had the problem of water coming in from the sprung planking and water coming in from above. Unless you are claiming that the 40 days and 40 nights "dropped as a gentle rain from heaven.

Pie: Water flowing over the sides would not have been a problem-presumably, there would have been a roof to keep all the storage dry.

Now you are being stupid. Modern ships have water-tight hatches to prevent water from above from getting below. That wasn't even true 100 years ago. The technology didn't exist to make water-tight seals. A "roof" isn't something that you find on ships. The idea is naive and childish. But it's you!

Pie: The ark would have needed to be huge, both in the size of it's base and hight, in order to keep all the animals with sufficient space. And once again, do you suppose God would have allowed the last of humanity, whom he had planned to let continue the human species, die because their boat flipped over?

I suspect that you actually have no idea of what you have just argued. Again, Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Walt Brown, Steve Austin, and a myriad of other "creation scientists" would be most upset with you. You have just argued that anything and everything that you have said to this point is irrelevant. You have just made a claim that everything is a miracle that goes beyond the laws of nature. Then what is your point? If the ark had to be preserved by divine intervention by the creator of the universe, why didn't he simply cause anything that displeased him to vanish and leave Noah and family to go about their business. Why the flood? Why do creationists always fall back on GODDIDIT whenever they can't answer a question?

lurch: So answer this. ichthyosaurs and dolphins are of similar size, shape and life style. Why are ichthyosaurs always found in strata that are below the strata in which dolphin (and whale) fossils are found?"

Pie: Dolphins and whales are most likely more recent. As I mentioned above, I think the Earth is older than the 4000-6000 years commonly accepted by Creationists, and Ichys may simply have died out, while whales and dolphins remained more successful.

So you are claiming that ichthyosaurs are pre-flood? Again the Morris's of the ICR, Answers in Genesis and other creationists would be most upset with you. In fact, you are most probably going to hell for such heresy. How dare you offer an evolutionary response to a creationist question! But seriously, you believe in a series of creations? So can you please indicate the boundries of these creations, when was man created, where is the stratum (global in extent) that is evidence of the flood? Obviously, it is somewhere above the age of dinosaurs. That solves the Paluxy question that I asked. But since I have been to Paluxy (Glen Rose) and didn't see anything in the canyon wall that looked like a flood, I am dubious.

lurch: What current?

Pie: So, ocean currents don't exist? And rivers are completely stationary? Dang, I should've played attention in science.

[color]Just to get it out of the way, we weren't talking about rivers. Please try to pay attention and address the topic of discussion. Dang. Maybe your lack of attention in science is the problem. It is most obvious.

We aren't talking about ocean currents. You made a claim that ocean currents washed away all of the landslides with open clams but left the deposits with closed clams. I am asking for some rational explanation for how this might have happened. Please detail the evidence that indicates that such currents existed and how and why open/closed clams were differenciated.
[/color]

lurch: Wouldn't it be nice if you actually learned a little of the science that you claim to discuss?

Pie: I have not yet professed to be a scientist. If I have, feel free to point out where.

I never claimed that you were a scientist. If I have, feel free to point out where. I claimed that you are scientifically illiterate. You don't know what science is or how it works. You claim that science is "popular opinion" while your faith is somehow "TRUTH!!!". You need to do a lot of growing up.

So wipe your eyes, tuck your hankie in your purse, and pay attention. Try to think about the crap that you post. Please!



(Edited by lurch 1/20/2003 at 6:55 PM).

(Edited by lurch 1/20/2003 at 6:57 PM).
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 02:21 AM on January 19, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I beg to differ, Sarah.

While I agree that anyone who disagrees with the tenets of evolutionary theory should take a class, it won't be an introductory course in anthropology. More usually a course in real evolutionary theory requires courses in general biology, maybe botany and zoology, and genetics. While some evolutionary theory is discussed in all of the above, a serious study of evolutionary theory is usually a junior level (at a minimum) course in biology.

I take that back. That's what it was in my day. Perhaps they get to the foundations a bit earlier these days. Perhaps they even teach evolutionary theory in anthropology. I know that two paleoanthropologists from whom I learn evolutionary theory.

But still, my feeling is that an exortation to take a course in evolution is somewhat akin to an exortation to take a course in quantum mechanics or nuclear physics. First, one needs to understand what science is and how it works. Without that, anything else is incomprehensible, whether it be anthropology, physics, chemistry, and on and on. If you think that a scientific theory is some sort of wild guess, then you are not capable of discussing science.

'mon back now, ya' hear?
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 03:03 AM on January 19, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest Calli

Please give us the definition of evolution. Understand that I am not asking for examples (I have plenty of those), or theories (I have those too), but the definition of what constitutes evolution. Since evolution is a theory of biological science, please state the definition of the minimum requirements for evolution as required by biologists.

I know that you aren't capable of understanding the question, much less giving an answer. That's OK. But perhaps you should consider learning at least the basics of what you claim to oppose or going back to church, where they will tell you things that make you feel ashamed/worthless/sinful and then tell you that because you are listening to them, you are saved/good. No requirement for honesty/integrity/thought/education.

Good on ya, mate! You are saved and you are awarded 25 salvation points for posting "science is only theory" crap.

And now the bad news. There will be a deduction of 275 points because of the fact that several wavering individuals have been swayed to atheism by your ignorance.

I hope that you don't end up as one of those who are blessed with the eternal salvation of washing the feet of those who actually made an effort to learn the differnece between a theory and a fact.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 03:28 AM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see that no one wanted to tackle the observed fossils that we shouldn't see if there was a global flood.  I wonder why?

Porky Pine

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 06:29 AM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You may be right.  In my college (I took it and it was anthro 1), and the few other colleges I looked it up at it was anthropology, but it could be in other departments.  Pretty much I would suggest finding the class whose description lets you know the focus is evolution.

You are right as far as understanding science, but I kind of assume everyone has that basic capability, even Creationists, otherwise they probably wouldn't be trying to use scientific evidence against evolution.  Or, at the very least I would assume (or hope) anyone taking a class at a college would be capable of doing so, but I could be wrong.  

Sarah


 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 2:10 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What about the eye?

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable cintrivances...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, p. 146.

"To this day the eye makes me shudder." Charles Darwin in a letter to botanist Asa Gray.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 11:21 AM on January 20, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the eye is extremely complex; more complex than we could ever imagine. that is why i believe that the only way evolution could have occured is if God directed it and controlled it...which is a very possible scenario.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:43 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exactly. It was a huge hole is Darwin's theory.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 12:54 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps if you put the quote into context you might seem more honest. It is from Chapter VI, entitled "Difficulties with the theory." Darwin went on at great length doing exactly what he said would he outlines below.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.  When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.  Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.


And so, Broker. Please tell us exactly what Darwin's theory is that this is a huge hole in it. Of course, you must have read "The Origin of Species", so this shouldn't be too difficult for you. To cut and paste quotes and claim difficulty with them would be dishonest if the case is otherwise.

Where did you study evolution (which university I mean) that enables you to see holes in theory that you are going to outline for us?

(Edited by lurch 1/20/2003 at 1:58 PM).

(Edited by lurch 1/20/2003 at 1:59 PM).
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 1:57 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I cut the quote because the rest didn't mean much... it was just detail. I didn't get it right out of the book.

In my opinion eye and many other complex organs are a hole in the theory, and that's all I was doing, adding my opinion. These isn't a biology forum, it is a debate forum.




-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 2:14 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

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


Does that say anything more than what I said?


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 2:16 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, the quote I gave did say more. In reality, you didn't post more because your source had no more. To pretend that it is otherwise is dishonest.

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.


That says that your opinion can't be trusted because you don't know what Darwin's theory is. If you don't know what it is, how do you know there are holes in it.

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.


That is not opinion, that is thought. As I said, Darwin went on at considerable length showing how the evolution of an eye is plausable. But, of course, you just cut and pasted that quote from some creationist site, where they also had an opinion about something that they didn't understand.

How do you know that you oppose Darwin's theory if you don't even know what it is?

As I said, to post a quote out of context is dishonest. Go and read "The Origin of Species" and then get back to me.

(Edited by lurch 1/20/2003 at 2:37 PM).
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 2:34 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
AlexanderTheGreat

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

damn that was a smackdown!

i can't say much about this because i have never studied evolution, but i do feel comfortable commenting on the stupidity of religious people's intellectual dishonesty. why do they all attack evolution as if one flaw/inconsistency/unasnwered question invalidates it, and yet they all ignore the fact that creationism is nothing more than an amalgamation of flaws, inconsistencies.unanswered questions. actually, that's being too nice. you have to have a theory before you have a flawed theory, lurch, could u help me out and explain why their use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is stupid? i am hoping you know a lot about that too


-------
Alex
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 4:38 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know some, but not a lot. The problem is that it takes some effort to compose a meaningful message. I'm a biologist, not a chemist, physicist or engineer. It seems that every time I have to research the matter.

Perhaps you would do better to go to the Talk Origins Thermodynamics FAQ
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 10:41 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

alex, this is why i changed my mind about the evolution/creation debate. i used to believe in creation, but the evidence clearly points to evolution. dont get me wrong, i still am a firm believer in God. i dont think something as complex as evolution could occur without God's direction. i just wanna keep an open mind about this debate. if all of a sudden there is a whole lot of evidence for creation then i will consider that theory. but for now, evolution has the most evidence. sorry.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:45 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

falling...

you are an intellectually honest person. i respect you for that.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:06 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And I thought I was supposed to be the one degrading the discussion to nothing but insults? Damn, either my perception is messed up, or we have greater forces at work.

"What does that mean? Do I need to treat you like a child? OK. Listen, sweetie. I didn't deal with all of your silly babble because it was 2:00 in the morning, not because you had presented any thoughtful arguments. They were mostly just ad hoc, unsupported factoids that have no actual relevance to the discussion. Please think about the topic and your proposed responses. Better yet, invest some honest effort into educating yourself before you speak." Numbnuts, the question was about my comment that an insult isn't worth responding to, particularly if it says nothing. Makes me a little unclear as to why I'm writing this, but picking my nose has dulled slightly over the last half hour. Now, if referring to me as pathetic, unthinking, and having some sort of need to grow up are not insults in your book, then what is? I'm sure it would be so downright degrading I'd make a job for the janitor in my pants? Perhaps.

"Two possibilities: 1)it is a completely dishonest thing to say, 2) it is an ignorant thing to say. In either case, it is an evil thing to say. I explained to you why your remarks are inappropriate and yet you repeat them." Come now! I'll take you by the hand and walk you through this, shall I? Just for you.

"Again, if you wish to reduce the discussion to implied insult and snide remarks, I can do so. I can assure you that I am "a ware" of what an example is. I'm not too sure that you are. Shouldn't an example actually have some relevance to the topic of discussion?" You take offense at my non existant implication you don't know what an example is? My, my, we have some self esteem problems, don't we? I'm sure the local elementary school counsellor can help you with that.

"Do that. But not for me. For yourself. Perhaps the Golden Book Dictionary would be more appropriate to your level of understanding." I'm sure that you still keep your kindergarden activity book o your shelf. An accurate description can be found within, in nice, large print terms you can understand.

"Dishonest and ignorant. Evolution isn't an opinion. It is a scientific theory, or rather many theories that explain the causes of many observations. By your standards, gravity is also an opinion. Of course, heliocentrism is too. It seems that you should also look up the word "opinion."" So, are you completely sure that every school child knows all the steps of evolution, the two arguments, and all the facts? Yes? Stop playing games. No? Thats better. You see, snoogums, these people take note of what others think, and decide that since a lot of people say it is so, it must be! Wow! Was that so hard? I didn't think so.

"Since I have never been a Nazi, have never been in Germany, and have never thought that Jews are evil, how is this relevant to the discussion or to me? What a sad demonstration of mindlessness on your part."
Shall we go back to the "example" phase? I thought we had already covered that.

"Is this how a christian should conduct herself? Why would you even bring up such a matter? How vile and evil! None of that has anything to do with the topic of discussion or your total lack of scientific knowledge. You are thoughtless and empty headed. However, I must say that I am not really surprised. I have been debating creationists for some years now and your evil insults are typical. Such vile insults seem to be the substance of christianity. When you come face to face with your own ignorance you resort to whining insult and dishonesty."
Now, why wouldn't I bring up such an example?After all, an example is an excellent way to make a point, particularly when the given example fits as nicely as ours.

There. Do you see? I hope so, cause I'm getting damn tired of having to take you through this step by step. Look, go sit in the corner, and I'll make a diagram. Go on, yes, you can have a cupcake.

"But you offered web sites and asked for web sites. Why am I not surprised that you lack the integrity to actually read what was offered? So I was right when I said that you lacked the objectivity to evaluate them. It seems that you also lack the integrity to actually read them." Mmmhmm. It's common knowledge, or it at least should be, that lurch is always right. Wait. Maybe (horror of horrors) lurch was wrong! Maybe I shouldn't blindly accept what he says as the honest truth! Thinking for myself is gonna take some work.

"BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA Priceless. Mindless but still priceless. You know nothing of the topic and yet you offer your conclusions. Please list your qualifications to judge the reliability of dating methods used by geology and/or paleontology. What is the basis of your claim that dating methods are flawed. Please detail the flaws. Please explain why your flood deposited miles of sediment around the globe (you still haven't indicated which strata are specifically due to the flood) but essentially none over the Dead Sea sites. In other words, how could your flood sort all fossils from primative sea creatures to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals, with no sign of a modern mammal with or below those of dinosaurs, and yet, stir-up the sediment enough to put clams from the bottom on top of the highest mountain? And yet, Dead Sea sites are almost undisturbed and covered with little sediment. You just don't make sense and don't have the awareness to know it."
Come on, read what I write? It doesn't help ones argument when they
1)See post
2)Read first few lines of post
3)Write reply
4)Become completely convinced they are the ultimate gift to mankind

If you would see I was referring to the dates commonly thought of as ages of the Earth by most creationists. Duh. Hence, the methods used to obtain these, I believe, are flawed.

"Now you are being stupid. Modern ships have water-tight hatches to prevent water from above from getting below. That wasn't even true 100 years ago. The technology didn't exist to make water-tight seals. A "roof" isn't something that you find on ships. The idea is naive and childish. But it's you!" How are we to know they had no water tight hatches? Humanity had had about 1600 years of existance in which to develop before the storm-plenty of time to aquire the required amount of knowledge.

"I suspect that you actually have no idea of what you have just argued. Again, Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Walt Brown, Steve Austin, and a myriad of other "creation scientists" would be most upset with you. You have just argued that anything and everything that you have said to this point is irrelevant. You have just made a claim that everything is a miracle that goes beyond the laws of nature. Then what is your point? If the ark had to be preserved by divine intervention by the creator of the universe, why didn't he simply cause anything that displeased him to vanish and leave Noah and family to go about their business. Why the flood? Why do creationists always fall back on GODDIDIT whenever they can't answer a question?"
1)Actually, I made a claim that one or two things can go beyond nature. I suggest you look up "omnipotent" before arguing against the power of, well, all power.
2)A flood gets the point across more, well, violently. Effectively.
3)Because, God doing it, is a very ideal method.


Now, are we done? Or do I have to hit you over the head and go through syllable by syllable?













-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 01:05 AM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pie, a litlle constructive criticism if you'll allow me.  Please seperate your replies from what you are replying to in seperate paragraphs.  It makes it easier to read that way.

1)Actually, I made a claim that one or two things can go beyond nature. I suggest you look up "omnipotent" before arguing against the power of, well, all power.

Reading from your posts, one doesn't get the impression that you were delegating this to "one or two" things.  It sounds like you were advocating that anything that couldn't be answered was due to divine intervention.  There's a big problem with this thought.  Where do you stop?  Science cannot prove or disprove a divine creator so it leaves it out of the equation.  Anytime you start invoking a god, it is not science anymore.

2)A flood gets the point across more, well, violently. Effectively.

Get's the point across to whom exactly?  Noah and his family?  They were already judged by god as "good".  Why do they need a demonstration?

3)Because, God doing it, is a very ideal method.

I not understand the point of this statement.

Porky Pine

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 06:23 AM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, that quote just gave some details, and that's all that was cut for it. It's talking about the intricate parts, the only difference is that your quote gives a but of detail. Dishonest? I don't think so.

All of you need to stop the name calling now!!


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 08:10 AM on January 22, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quoting out of context is dishonest. If you want, I can post the whole chapter from "The Origin of Species". It is dishonest because it makes it appear that Darwin thought that the eye was evidence against his theory. The rest of the quote makes that clear and the following paragraphs in that chapter tell why, in great detail.

Don't either of you have the honesty to read it?

Isn't it too bad that creationists need to resort to such dishonest tactics? No evidence for your position, only misrepresentation.

And Pie still has been reduced to nothing but insult and incoherent babble. No answers. No support for her position. Just whining that continues to demonstrate her utter ignorance of the topic and science in general.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 09:28 AM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Broker,
I am not sure you see why lurch says quote mining (or quoting out of context) is dishonest.  (which by the way leads me to believe that you didn't purposely do it dishonestly).  Here is a simpler example of quote mining.  (I realize its stupid, but it gets my point across)

If I were to tell you...
"To think he and I are dating is ridiculous, but we are."

and then you turned around and told someone I said....
"to think he and I are dating is ridiculous"

You would have just totally changed my quote to a very opposite meaning by simply cutting off the end.  The first sentence shows some disbelief but concedes that it actually is true.  The second implies that it is not true.  

You did the same thing but cutting the end of Darwin's sentence off.  (By the way, one of the reasons you might have been jumped all over is that that quote is one that is used CONSTANTLY by creationists.  Every creationist in the world tries to argue that Darwin didn't even think that the eye could have been made through evolution, but it isn't true.  Usually I think people were just told it and didn't look into itthemselves to verify it.)  You changed Darwins sentence from an introduction to his chapter on the eye, which shows disbelief but goes onto to explain how it could have happened.  To an implication that it could have never happened.  So by cutting off the end you changed his meaning entirely and are quoting him out of context.

Sarah
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 10:55 AM on January 22, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Broker

At least have the integrity to read the whole quote.

the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.


Emphasis added.

I did not call names. Quoting out of context in order to change the meaning intended by the author is dishonest. You quoted out of context. It follows that you are dishonest.

Now if the case be that you just cut that quote from some creationist site without being aware of the deception, in other words, if you didn't actually verify that it was a proper quote that conveyed what Darwin intended, then you may not be dishonest, only ignorant. But you have allowed yourself to be duped and used by the dishonest.

However, you clearly indicated that YOU cut the quote short. Was that not true? Either way it doesn't reflect well on your honesty and integrity.

Pointing out that you don't understand science is not calling names. Pointing out errors in logic is not calling names. Pointing out your ignorance of the topic is not calling names. Pointing out that your opinion is worthless because it is based on religion and not evidence is not calling names.

If you don't want to be called dishonest, then don't be dishonest.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 12:52 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey, Lurch just called me she....am I really that sexy?

"And Pie still has been reduced to nothing but insult and incoherent babble. No answers. No support for her position. Just whining that continues to demonstrate her utter ignorance of the topic and science in general."

You're right, I don't use a lot of scientific fact in my arguments. Namely, because I don't know a lot of it. Certainly not enough to counter everything said at Talk.Origins, but eventually I'll become more informed.

And I'm sure it's painfully obvious to the rest reading this thread that my tone spawned from your own "holier that thou" attitude.

Porky:
"Reading from your posts, one doesn't get the impression that you were delegating this to "one or two" things.  It sounds like you were advocating that anything that couldn't be answered was due to divine intervention.  There's a big problem with this thought.  Where do you stop?  Science cannot prove or disprove a divine creator so it leaves it out of the equation.  Anytime you start invoking a god, it is not science anymore."

Granted, it isn't very scientific. But, then again, I'm not much of a scientist, but hopefully my knowledge of these subjects will expand over time.

"Get's the point across to whom exactly?  Noah and his family?  They were already judged by god as "good".  Why do they need a demonstration?"

Well, if God just made everyone else go "poof", then what would the point be? Would we be having this debate? A flood is much more impressive, a Bible-worthy ort of affair.
Also, I believe it may have something to do with "cleansing the land", God wanted a fresh start. Meh.


"3)Because, God doing it, is a very ideal method."

Actually, I'm not to sure why I said it, either.





-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 7:19 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Granted, it isn't very scientific. But, then again, I'm not much of a scientist, but hopefully my knowledge of these subjects will expand over time.

I hope so also.  I'm still a amateur in this.  Sarah and Lurch are a lot more knowledgable at it than I am.

BTW, thanks for changing your format.

Well, if God just made everyone else go "poof", then what would the point be?

It would get rid of the bad people whithout all the mess of a flood.

Would we be having this debate?

No, we'd probably having a debate about why he just made everyone disappear instead of drowning them in a flood.

A flood is much more impressive, a Bible-worthy ort of affair.

I think the instaneous dissappearance of a couple of million people would be a pretty impressive event.

Also, I believe it may have something to do with "cleansing the land", God wanted a fresh start. Meh.

And a omnipotent being couldn't do this without a flood?

Porky Pine




 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:48 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're right, I don't use a lot of scientific fact in my arguments. Namely, because I don't know a lot of it.

Let me get this straight. You admit that you are ignorant of the topic and yet you have formed an "opinion"? Not only that, you are offended when I point out your admitted ignorance? Goodness! Doesn't that show a lot of integrity.

So you reach conclusions without understanding even the basics of the topic. Yep! That's creation science.

How truely pathetic. The sad thing is, that you won't learn more about the topic. You will continue to allow yourself to be duped by those who know no more than you and know they are lying to you. You will just continue to spew mindless nonsense.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 8:06 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I must have certainly been duped by you, Lurch....explains why you've done nothing but make attempts at destroying the credibility of what I say rather than showing that it is incorrect. As for my ignorance in posts, well, my dear Watson, it is elementary. I formed my opinions out of my religion. I have not been arguing with scientific facts I know nothing about. If I knew nothing about them, odds are I wouldn't know to put them in a post. Reason is the way to go for me, and it seems to be working well. Nowhere have I delved into scientific fact that is completely out of my level, or claimed knowledge of it. You see, there is nothing wrong wth what I have said. Capish?


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 8:20 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"It would get rid of the bad people whithout all the mess of a flood."

But, the mess of a flood may almost have been a helping factor. Effectively demolishes everything. A fresh start.

"I think the instaneous dissappearance of a couple of million people would be a pretty impressive event."

Yeah...but then again, so are hundreds of tidal waves, and water that covers the mountains. (That would be interesting to see from space).






-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 8:25 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The detail was not needed! It was not dishonest!

My gosh! That whole claim is preposterous! get off of it! Your quote just has some specific details about the eye, big deal. It was describing the complexities, not needed.

You are simply attacking and trying to destroy credibility, which isn't appropriate for a debate setting if you actually have an argument. State some more facts instead of throwing your attacks at everyone.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 9:23 PM on January 22, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

State some more facts instead of throwing your attacks at everyone.


I did. I showed that your quote misrepresented Darwin's meaning. That is a fact. The charge now is that you knew you were misrepresenting the meaning (you said you had cut the quote) and are therefore dishonest, or you were parroting someone else and are therefore a dupe.

So which is it?

As for whether the "detail" was needed, it was. To cut only enough of the quote to give the impression that Darwin said exactly the opposite of what he actually said is most certainly dishonest. It is a lie. It is typical of creationists. Yes, my quote gave some specific details, like the fact that Darwin considered the evolution of the eye completely possible.

And since you have no credibility, it isn't possible to destroy it. You are dishonest. You got caught in a lie and now you are trying to blame me.

It also seems that you have no idea of what a debate is. You see. I actually did present an argument and backed it up with facts. You did not. You whined instead and pretended that pointing out your lie was somehow an attack.

I would ask you to read the chapter in question, if not the whole book, if I had any confidence that you would actually understand it. I am quite sure that you are incapable of doing so.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 12:05 AM on January 23, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I must have certainly been duped by you, Lurch

Perhaps if you learned what a dupe is it might help. You make yourself look foolish when you misuse words like that.

....explains why you've done nothing but make attempts at destroying the credibility of what I say rather than showing that it is incorrect.

Just exactly what do you think is the difference between showing that you are incorrect and destroying the credibility of what you say? You are wrong because of your ignorance. I explained to you why. Sadly, it seems that you are incapable of understanding.

As for my ignorance in posts, well, my dear Watson, it is elementary.

Yes. That is true. Your ignorance is truely elementary.

I formed my opinions out of my religion.

That would be fine if you were not trying to express your religious opinions about science. The problem is that you lack any knowledge of the topic and you still express "opinions". Your religion is irrelevant to science. If you don't know what science is or how it works, then what is your opinion worth? What kind of religion is yours that it encourages ignorance?

I have not been arguing with scientific facts I know nothing about.

Well, since you have actually presented no scientific facts whatsoever, I have to agree with that statement. You have been arguing with ignorance. However you did present a list of "ponderable evidence" (whatever that means) as if you knew what you were talking about. It was, of course, all nonsense and now your feelings are hurt. You made yourself look foolish and are now embarassed. Can't be helped. Perhaps if you actually learned the basics of what you claim to oppose you wouldn't look so foolish.

If I knew nothing about them, odds are I wouldn't know to put them in a post.

Really? They why didn't you respond to a single one of my criticisms of you list of "ponderances"? The answer is simple. You know nothing about them except what someone else has told you. You have been duped (not by me - by a so called christian).

Reason is the way to go for me, and it seems to be working well.

No kidding? How is expressing an opinion about a topic of which you are totally ignorant reasonable? Since when is it reasonable to claim that you are correct when you have no knowledge of the topic? Well, I have no knowledge of aerodynamics but in my opinion it is impossible for large aircraft to leave the ground. It must be the work of Satan! I know nothing about nuclear physics, but in my opinion it is impossible to put a heavy element in water and have it produce electricity. It is all a big conspiracy to make money and deny my god.

By the way, "reason" means that you actually think. I have seen no evidence of that.

Nowhere have I delved into scientific fact that is completely out of my level, or claimed knowledge of it.

Yes you have. You gave a list of your "ponderances" that you didn't understand. To "reason" about them isn't enough. You need to study the available information about the topic. That includes geology and plate tectonics to explain sedimentary rock at the top of mountains (not possible by any flood scenario).

So let me tell you about clams. I used to buy them in 10 lb. bags. When you opened the bag, any clam that was open was thrown away - it was dead. At the slightest disturbance a live clam will close. After you steamed them, any clam that was closed was thrown away - it was dead before they were steamed. In any bag there were always some of both kinds of dead clams - some open - some closed. To claim that dead clams are always open is simply wrong. Now suppose that I put some live clams in a pond and they are doing just fine. Now I dump a pile of dirt on top of them. At the first disturbance the clams will close and the weight of the dirt will prevent them from opening. They will die. To claim that they were suddenly buried and THEN washed to the top of a mountain, sediment and all, is certainly not using "reason".

You see, there is nothing wrong wth what I have said.

Not true. Everything you have said is wrong. You have been unable to support one single assertion that you have made. Worse! You admit your ignorance of the whole discussion and then claim that anyone should somehow respect your "opinion." You admit that you are ignorant of the topic and then pretend that you "opinion" is as valid as those who have spent years in studying that topic (that includes "reason").

Capish?

I'm sure that you must mean "capisce?" The response is, of course, "Capisco," "Ho capito," or simply "Capito." But to that I say, "non capite." You don't understand. That is what's sad. You actually believe that you religion will tell you about why the sun works, or why the planets orbit the sun, or what happens to a star when it burns out, or what causes volcanoes, or why the continents are moving, or why there are deep sea trenches, or what causes the mid-Atlantic ridge, why do living things change through time. You read your holy book, pray a bit, and then "reason" about the causes and come up with the answer. You don't need to actually invest any effort in learning. Your opinion is as valuable as astronomers, physicists, chemists, biologists, and any scientist. An opinion based on ignorance is worthless.
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 01:21 AM on January 23, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I love it. The smell of stupidity in the evening.

"Just exactly what do you think is the difference between showing that you are incorrect and destroying the credibility of what you say? You are wrong because of your ignorance. I explained to you why. Sadly, it seems that you are incapable of understanding."

What is the point here? You have nothing to even remotely counter what I say, so you instead make attempts at making it seem as if I am incapapable of discussing the topic. Nice tactic, but I'm not to sure about how well it will hold up.


"Yes. That is true. Your ignorance is truely elementary."

It's nice how you illustrated my last point so effectively. I thank you.


"That would be fine if you were not trying to express your religious opinions about science. The problem is that you lack any knowledge of the topic and you still express "opinions". Your religion is irrelevant to science. If you don't know what science is or how it works, then what is your opinion worth? What kind of religion is yours that it encourages ignorance?"

I needn't know every detail of a given topic to have an opinion about it. I'm sure you, as the almighty ruler of Evolution, do, but a mortal such as myself needn't trouble himself with knowledge of how many piltdown men make a colecanth.


"Well, since you have actually presented no scientific facts whatsoever, I have to agree with that statement. You have been arguing with ignorance. However you did present a list of "ponderable evidence" (whatever that means) as if you knew what you were talking about. It was, of course, all nonsense and now your feelings are hurt. You made yourself look foolish and are now embarassed. Can't be helped. Perhaps if you actually learned the basics of what you claim to oppose you wouldn't look so foolish."

I'll refrain from asking you if you know what it means to ponder, as it seems you don't, at least from your post, and I wouldn't dare to furthar harm you ego. Also, if you care to actually read what it is you are arguing against, you would discover I did not argue with scientific facts I did not know about after my "ponderables". Nowhere did I delve into a rapturous ectstasy about how C14 squared times radiometric dating eqauls a Biblical flood. If I have, point out where, and we can bitch about that one, too. Nonsense? I don't recall you refuting more tha one or two of the unstable ones. May I once again refer to you as numbnuts?


"Really? They why didn't you respond to a single one of my criticisms of you list of "ponderances"? The answer is simple. You know nothing about them except what someone else has told you. You have been duped (not by me - by a so called christian)."

You see, we are now back at why we should read each others posts before making an enlightened response. I did back up using reason and logic, (which I'll get to in a moment), to a certain degree, causing you to go off on several irreverent tangets. I could swear that I was a few brain cells short after reading these.


"No kidding? How is expressing an opinion about a topic of which you are totally ignorant reasonable? Since when is it reasonable to claim that you are correct when you have no knowledge of the topic? Well, I have no knowledge of aerodynamics but in my opinion it is impossible for large aircraft to leave the ground. It must be the work of Satan! I know nothing about nuclear physics, but in my opinion it is impossible to put a heavy element in water and have it produce electricity. It is all a big conspiracy to make money and deny my god."

Ah, so I'm totally ignorant? Must be why you're getting whipped!  
 
But seriously, my ignorance has sustained me for several posts, with no worthwhile responses from you. It says something.


"Yes you have. You gave a list of your "ponderances" that you didn't understand. To "reason" about them isn't enough. You need to study the available information about the topic. That includes geology and plate tectonics to explain sedimentary rock at the top of mountains (not possible by any flood scenario).

So let me tell you about clams. I used to buy them in 10 lb. bags. When you opened the bag, any clam that was open was thrown away - it was dead. At the slightest disturbance a live clam will close. After you steamed them, any clam that was closed was thrown away - it was dead before they were steamed. In any bag there were always some of both kinds of dead clams - some open - some closed. To claim that dead clams are always open is simply wrong. Now suppose that I put some live clams in a pond and they are doing just fine. Now I dump a pile of dirt on top of them. At the first disturbance the clams will close and the weight of the dirt will prevent them from opening. They will die. To claim that they were suddenly buried and THEN washed to the top of a mountain, sediment and all, is certainly not using "reason"."

Unless mistaken, the primary discussion was of whether or not the clams could be buried, with an absence of cooking methods present. It's nice how you back away from a topic you can't discuss. I appreciate it. And, no, the clams weren't first buried, then swept up. The sand, and clams, would have been taken up as more of a cloud then anything else. Remember, mountains were smaller way back when, and the crap didn't need to float so high. Duh?


"Not true. Everything you have said is wrong. You have been unable to support one single assertion that you have made. Worse! You admit your ignorance of the whole discussion and then claim that anyone should somehow respect your "opinion." You admit that you are ignorant of the topic and then pretend that you "opinion" is as valid as those who have spent years in studying that topic (that includes "reason")."

I am ignorant of many scientific factors, yes. But, as has been shown, that does not make up the entire argument.


"I'm sure that you must mean "capisce?" The response is, of course, "Capisco," "Ho capito," or simply "Capito." But to that I say, "non capite." You don't understand. That is what's sad. You actually believe that you religion will tell you about why the sun works, or why the planets orbit the sun, or what happens to a star when it burns out, or what causes volcanoes, or why the continents are moving, or why there are deep sea trenches, or what causes the mid-Atlantic ridge, why do living things change through time. You read your holy book, pray a bit, and then "reason" about the causes and come up with the answer. You don't need to actually invest any effort in learning. Your opinion is as valuable as astronomers, physicists, chemists, biologists, and any scientist. An opinion based on ignorance is worthless."

Actually, I don't expect my religion to tell me how the sun works, but if it does, please point out where. I don't deny that the Earth is in constant motion-neither should anyone believing in creation. Living things change a bit through time-horizntally, not vertically, bear in mind.  In essence my reading of the Bible and formulating of opinions isn't all that much different than the methods used by scientists. Observe, come up with any idea that fits the scene, and call it proof. Humans would seem to do this as it has become rather unfashionable to believe in God as of late.















-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 02:08 AM on January 23, 2003 | IP
lurch

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have nothing to even remotely counter what I say, so you instead make attempts at making it seem as if I am incapapable of discussing the topic. Nice tactic, but I'm not to sure about how well it will hold up.

But you didn't discuss the topic. You posted some ignorant "ponderances" and then admitted that you knew nothing. If you want to discuss, then do so. Don't pretend that you did.
I needn't know every detail of a given topic to have an opinion about it. I'm sure you, as the almighty ruler of Evolution, do, but a mortal such as myself needn't trouble himself with knowledge of how many piltdown men make a colecanth.

What is your point since neither has been mentioned. But to discuss a topic you need to know the basics. An opinion without information is worthless. Your opinion is worthless since you are ignorant.
I did not argue with scientific facts I did not know about after my "ponderables".

True. You then fell back on ad hominem. Since you made youself look like a fool, you have refrained from any discussion of science. You have done nothing more than whine.
Nowhere did I delve into a rapturous ectstasy about how C14 squared times radiometric dating eqauls a Biblical flood.

Where did I say you did? What kind of babble is that? Can't you stick the the topic?
May I once again refer to you as numbnuts?

Certainly. Feel free. Why don't you follow that with an accusation about how I insult you. I must say, sweetie, that is a truely christian comment. Jesus must be very proud of you.
The sand, and clams, would have been taken up as more of a cloud then anything else. Remember, mountains were smaller way back when, and the crap didn't need to float so high. Duh?

Right. Duh! So you can explain how this "sand" became sedimentary rock after being "swept up"? The idea demonstrates your ignorance. It takes lots of time and lots of pressure. It would have to be buried for a long time before being "swept up."
I am ignorant of many scientific factors, yes. But, as has been shown, that does not make up the entire argument.

Yes you are and yes it does. How can you discuss science if you are ignorant of science.
Actually, I don't expect my religion to tell me how the sun works, but if it does, please point out where.

But you claimed that your opinions of science came from your religion. Either they do or they don't. Make up your mind.
In essence my reading of the Bible and formulating of opinions isn't all that much different than the methods used by scientists. Observe, come up with any idea that fits the scene, and call it proof.

What dismal stupidity. It is moronic to claim that reading the Bible is scientific. Why don't you go and learn what science is and how it works. So far all you have given is your debunked list of "ponderances." You have yet to offer any response that made sense.

You are making yourself look like a fool and your religion look foolish.

Edited to add: Proof is a mathematical concept. Science doesn't come up with an idea and call it proof. An idea is only the first step and it is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a tentative explanation of an observation. Next comes a prediction that is a necessary consequence of the hypothesis followed by a test to see if the prediction holds.

Creationists read their Bible, imagine that mythology is real and call it proof. Not even a basis in reality. There is no prediction or testing. The conclusions are reached before any evidence is examined.

(Edited by lurch 1/23/2003 at 09:41 AM).
 


Posts: 25 | Posted: 02:49 AM on January 23, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm offline for five days and this  is all I get? I'm so disillusioned.

"But you didn't discuss the topic. You posted some ignorant "ponderances" and then admitted that you knew nothing. If you want to discuss, then do so. Don't pretend that you did."

I did discuss...you started insulting me, ect, ect...and this is the result. I did not scientifically argue over my level, I responded with what I know and knew, it worked.


"What is your point since neither has been mentioned. But to discuss a topic you need to know the basics. An opinion without information is worthless. Your opinion is worthless since you are ignorant."

Simply pointing out that I don't need absolute knowledge in order to debate a given subject. You seem to be laboring under that impression.


"True. You then fell back on ad hominem. Since you made youself look like a fool, you have refrained from any discussion of science. You have done nothing more than whine."

Since you attempted to make me look like a fool, we have ceased the actual argument, or merely caused it to degenerate into what is currently under the spotlight. I:e., instead of arguing creation and evolution, we're debating whos a bigger idiot. It's very entertaining, but could go on for quite some time.


"Certainly. Feel free. Why don't you follow that with an accusation about how I insult you. I must say, sweetie, that is a truely christian comment. Jesus must be very proud of you."

You show me the Bible passage that prohibits numbnuts, and I'll beat myself over the
head with a dictionary.


"Right. Duh! So you can explain how this "sand" became sedimentary rock after being "swept up"? The idea demonstrates your ignorance. It takes lots of time and lots of pressure. It would have to be buried for a long time before being "swept up.""

Are you suggesting that water covering the mountaintops does not have much pressure?


"Yes you are and yes it does. How can you discuss science if you are ignorant of science."

I have sufficient amount of basic knowledge, as has been illustrated.


"But you claimed that your opinions of science came from your religion. Either they do or they don't. Make up your mind."

What I think about a given subject is dictated to me by my religion, tis up to myself to find out why.


"What dismal stupidity. It is moronic to claim that reading the Bible is scientific. Why don't you go and learn what science is and how it works. So far all you have given is your debunked list of "ponderances." You have yet to offer any response that made sense."



Vell, once again nothing has been said. It's lovely, isn't it. Wonder how long this post will go before one of us gives up?








-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 02:08 AM on January 29, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

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

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

 

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