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
     Logical Falacies in Evolution
       Some problems with the evolution theory

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello everyone!

Okay, so I have studied both creationism and evolution for a long time.  I have done my best to keep a completely unbiased opinion of both, as so I can fairly judge both.  I have come to many flaws in the evolution theory, and was wondering if anyone could attempt an explanation for me?

#1: The Giraffe.  This is a fairly basic example.  Let's say that the giraffe starts after the Big Bang, or whichever theory of evolution you choose.  Either way, theres a molecule sized resemblance of what will someday be a giraffe right? Here's the problem with that.  

A giraffe needs it's heart, lungs, veins, blood, brain, and all the other vital organs to live.  It dies within a few seconds or a few minutes depending on which organ is malfunctioning or missing.  How then is it possible for the giraffe to have evolved this?  So here's what evolution seems to say.  The giraffe happened to grow a heart.  It happened to grow a brain.  It happened to grow kidneys, liver, lungs, a spine, a nervous system, etc.... ALL at the same time.  Now anyone (who without bias) looks at this statement will obviously come to the same conclusion I have.  That's ridiculous.  The chances are past the multiples of googols.  (a Googol is a number with a hundred zeros after it)  Also, this would imply that the giraffe also had a female that just happened to be growing at the exact same time.  and they just happened to mate.  and they just happened to be succesful every time in history till the giraffes you see today.  Not to mention they somehow knew what to eat, how to eat, and how to survive predators.

#2. Now all of that taken in, let's mention another confusing fact that seems to befuddle evolution.  The giraffe has a huge neck (obviously).  In that huge neck is a lot of muscles, and a whole lotta' blood.  What happens when the giraffe bends over for a drink?  Well gravity does it's thing and the blood rushes down it's neck into it's head.  This would put any other animal in a coma, or at the very least knock it out.  Instead, the giraffe locks out his head from his neck.  However, the giraffe's brain would die without any blood? So what does it do?  Well it has a tissue in it's head that acts like a sponge.  The sponge soaks up a certain amount of the blood before blocking out the rest.  Then it feeds the brain that blood until it has resumed it's upright position.  

Now please, how is that possible?  That can't have evolved!  This would mean that the giraffes of the past would be knocked out every time they tried to drink.  I think anyone can come to the conculsion that the ancestors didn't go into comas and be eaten by lions, or drown in the water every time the tried to drink... So how does evolution explain this?

#3. Now I figured some of you would try to explain that they didn't need their heart at the time, or that the giraffes hadn't developed such a long neck.  Why aren't there giraffes midway through this transformation then?  Or why are there not really any mamals with this problem?

That having being said, I would like to mention that I logically chose the giraffe as it is a relatable animal, however there are many many animals that evolution cannot explain for.  #1 is a problem with nearly ever animal in existence.  

Keep in mind that most of my thoughts here are based off pure logical observation, however check out "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution" to see where some of my facts came from.

Matthew


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 8:42 PM on January 8, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Approaching NWRT.  Poe?


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:33 PM on January 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, Apo. No Poe. He's for real, i think. I invited him after seeing some of his posts on YouTube.

aPassionatePlayer
Hello everyone!
Hello, and welcome.

Thanks for accepting the invitation. Let's have an honest discussion.

Okay, so I have studied both creationism and evolution for a long time.
You mean Young Earth Creationism?

Do you think there's something to it? I mean, more than the other hundreds of creation myths.

I have done my best to keep a completely unbiased opinion of both, as so I can fairly judge both.
I'm not completely comfortable with the word "both" in this sentence because it seems to imply that there are no more stories to explain life, which is clearly false.

It looks very much like the logical fallacy called "false dilemma".

I have come to many flaws in the evolution theory, and was wondering if anyone could attempt an explanation for me?
I'll sure give it a try.

Meanwhile, can you tell us about your convictions? Some details?

#1: The Giraffe.  This is a fairly basic example.
Yes, and i use it to demonstrate Evolution.

Click here to see the thread.

Let's say that the giraffe starts after the Big Bang, or whichever theory of evolution you choose.
What do you mean by this? I only know one (and many versions of Creationism).

Giraffes don't "start". They have evolved, like every living thing.

And how could it "start" before the Big Bang?

What does the Big Bang have to do with the subject?

Either way, theres a molecule sized resemblance of what will someday be a giraffe right?
Huh?

I don't know what you're talking about (seriously, i have never heard anything like what you've just said). But if you're talking about the Big Bang, you started with the wrong foot.

Here's the problem with that.
If you're humbler and, instead of that you say "Here's what i don't understand" it would be cooler.
A giraffe needs it's heart, lungs, veins, blood, brain, and all the other vital organs to live.
Yes. By definition.
It dies within a few seconds or a few minutes depending on which organ is malfunctioning or missing.
Yes. Quicker, if it lacks a brain.
How then is it possible for the giraffe to have evolved this?
Well, it isn't. And nobody says it is.

Giraffes evolved from something like this:


It already had a heart. So no, giraffes didn't evolve the organ.

So here's what evolution seems to say.  The giraffe happened to grow a heart.
Not at all. Evolution (which you said you studied) doesn't say anything remotely like that.

So your problem has just vanished.

Take a look at this book:
http://rs10.rapidshare.com/files/312220846/Evolution_For_Dummies.pdf

It happened to grow a brain.  It happened to grow kidneys, liver, lungs, a spine, a nervous system, etc.... ALL at the same time.
No. Not giraffes at least.

What would a giraffe without a brain look like?

Now anyone (who without bias) looks at this statement will obviously come to the same conclusion I have. That's ridiculous.
I don't know what you mean by "same conclusion". That such a thing couldn't happen? Then you're right. But that's not a problem for Evolution.

You have an incredibly ignorant picture of it.

The chances are past the multiples of googols.
Way past that.
(a Googol is a number with a hundred zeros after it)
I think most of us know.
Also, this would imply that the giraffe also had a female that just happened to be growing at the exact same time.  and they just happened to mate.  and they just happened to be succesful every time in history till the giraffes you see today.  Not to mention they somehow knew what to eat, how to eat, and how to survive predators.
Hahaha!

Where do you say you studied Evolution?

Find me ANYONE who claims such a thing happened, or take that comment back (now is when you have the chance to be honest).

Nobody says such a ridiculous thing.

#2. Now all of that taken in, let's mention another confusing fact that seems to befuddle evolution.  The giraffe has a huge neck (obviously).  In that huge neck is a lot of muscles, and a whole lotta' blood.  What happens when the giraffe bends over for a drink?  Well gravity does it's thing and the blood rushes down it's neck into it's head.  This would put any other animal in a coma, or at the very least knock it out.
It's amazing, yes.
Instead, the giraffe locks out his head from his neck.  However, the giraffe's brain would die without any blood? So what does it do?  Well it has a tissue in it's head that acts like a sponge.  The sponge soaks up a certain amount of the blood before blocking out the rest.  Then it feeds the brain that blood until it has resumed it's upright position.
Awesome!
Now please, how is that possible?
By Evoluton, of course.
That can't have evolved!
Why?
This would mean that the giraffes of the past would be knocked out every time they tried to drink.
Haha! So your conclusion is that they always had it?

Imagine a guy on a plane, in midair. If you take the plane away from him, he'll fall and have a hard time against the ground.

Ergo, he always had the plane. He must have been created with the plane.

No, right?

Can you spot the error on your own?

I think anyone can come to the conculsion that the ancestors didn't go into comas and be eaten by lions, or drown in the water every time the tried to drink... So how does evolution explain this?
Piece of cake. The sponge evolved slowly, as the neck grew longer.

Done.

That was easy. =D

#3. Now I figured some of you would try to explain that they didn't need their heart at the time,
At what time?

If it deserved the name of "giraffe", then it surely needed a heart.

or that the giraffes hadn't developed such a long neck.
When?
Why aren't there giraffes midway through this transformation then?
What makes you think there aren't?


Now, will you be honest, be surprised, and take that back? Or will you be dishonest like the 95% of the creationists who have come by?

Or why are there not really any mamals with this problem?
Because their necks are not that long?
That having being said, I would like to mention that I logically chose the giraffe as it is a relatable animal,
Sorry. What does "relatable" mean?
however there are many many animals that evolution cannot explain for.  #1 is a problem with nearly ever animal in existence.
No. Everything we see is evolvable.

Your example was extremely easy. Creationists have come up with much more difficult ones (but none REALLY difficult, since they all have been addressed).

Like the bombardier beetle, or the bacterial flagellvm.

Keep in mind that most of my thoughts here are based off pure logical observation,
Perhaps. But it's also based on an amazing ignorance on the topic you said you studied for a long time.

Let's do this: you find a statement that's really supported by the Theory of Evolution (you'll have to show me some quotes, or it must be something we all agree upon), and debunk that. Otherwise you're just throwing strawmen (which is not cool).
however check out "Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution" to see where some of my facts came from.
Will do. Thanks, Matthew.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:06 PM on January 8, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

aPassionatePlayer - welcome to the board.

Instead of presenting an argument myself how organs evolved, I'm going to point to an expert in evolutionary biology - Neil Shubin, professor of organismal biology at the University of Chicago.  Shubin, by the way, is the co-discoverer of Tiktaalik, and author of 'Your Inner Fish'.  

Here is a lecture he gives on the evolution of organs.  It's about an hour long.  So sit back, relax, and learn.

Wings Legs and Fins: How Do New Organs Arise in Evolution?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:10 PM on January 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution OMG... That was embarrasing...

Misquoting, argument by ignorance, strawmen, ad hominem...

Lots of logical fallacies in such a short video...

Matthew, i just noticed the title of your thread.

What logical fallacies?

I didn't find any in your caricature of the ToE. Just mistakes.

Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

Here is a list:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:17 PM on January 8, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution has been thoroughly demolished so many times here I can't keep count.  It's a worthless piece of trash that doesn't know the first thing about science, biology or evolution.  
aPassionatePlayer, spare us, do a little research before you post nonsense like this again.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:58 PM on January 8, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

aPassionatePlayer -

Hmmm, do you play all those musical instruments?  If so, that's very impressive.  So you're 'a passionate player' of musical instruments?

Evolution - giraffes (and any other creature) didn't evolve completely intact all at once, as you seem to imply.  And neither did their organs.  

As Neil Shubin pointed out in his lecture, and his book ('Your Inner Fish'), an important tenet of evolution (proposed by Charles Darwin) is Common Descent with Modification.  Organs we see in giraffes, and other animals, didn't come into being fully formed.  They evolved over time from simpler structures.  And these structures from an ancestorial species didn't necessarily come to have the same function as you see in their decendants today.  For an example, the bones of the inner ear evolved from the jawbones of our reptilian ancestors.  Limbs of tetrapods evolved from the fins of lobe-finned fish.  Eyes evolved from simpler light-gathering structures.  Evolution uses & modifies what is available to it.  Wisp's link to giraffe evolution demonstrates this too.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:11 AM on January 9, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cool lecture!

You always find cool stuff, orion!

Well, except that about orangutans being closer to humans than chimps. Haha!
That was fun anyway. =D

What musical instruments?
Oh, wait... Found them...

Woah!!
Matthew, perhaps you know Loreena McKennitt?

Oh... I saw your YouTube profile... You like Celtic Woman. ^_^

You favorited Ken Miller on Intelligent Design...

It's a 2 hour long speech...

2 hours sounds like enough time to learn enough to avoid making the simplistic strawmen you made in your first post. I don't understand...

I see your YouTube posts, and you make ad hominem attacks on Darwin, you use slippery slope, psychogenetic fallacy, you use Hitler...

The Theory of Evolution revolves around facts, not men.

You also imply that Abiogenesis is essential to Evolution... It's simply not.

Are you a creationist or not? What are your convictions?



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:35 AM on January 9, 2010 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

aPP has just posted a reply in another thread which looks like it should go here.

actually here it is! (I've had a few beers and it took me a while to remember I could cut and paste!)

"Yes, I have a knack for musical instruments.  I play 25 or so currently.  I also study musical theories and have developed many of my own, including what I call the "Musical Pattern of Human Emotion".  It is a quite fascinating topic, however not an equivocal need for this particular forum.

Okay, well thanks all for your consideration.  Here are some more arguments.

Wisp, be careful as you seemed to have a slight bias in your comments on my topic. Many of your comments seemed to be based off of assumptions and to have little research, but those that you did provide "proof" to were from people not providing facts, merely their own biased theories.

I repeat, anyone who looks at the conclusions will realize that you are making up illogical conclusions based on what "proffesionals" have said. Well let me first off say that these people are also biased, making there arguments more difficult to consider, however I will do so anyways.  Now given that one has the ability to control their emotional state enough to conclude a logical view of both views, this argument might become more of a sincere debate, not a group of people arguing over personal views.

Now what I meant when I said molecule size is that it is a generalization that the animals grew into their present size over time.  It had little fact to it, merely a demonstration.   Perhaps some evolutionists would dictate otherwise, but being a simple example, arguing over it would be useless.

As for you saying I should be humbler, you are simply saying I should be unoffensive to people who believe other things right?  That I should not just assume I am correct?  Well sorry, but is it not why we are all here?  Surely some of us are here just to argue.  Perhaps that is why many of us are here.  I, however, am here to find the truth, and I will be as blunt as is needed and hopefully no more.

Okay, as for your picture.  You have no proof.  None whatsoever.  How do you prove that giraffes used to look like that?  Do you have the remains of half zebra-giraffes, or whatever mix of animal that supposedly is/was?  However this was not the point anyways.  The point is that these logical flaws can be used on ANY animal, not simply just giraffes.  I chose giraffes because they are a well known and relatable animal that gives evolutionists a simple shot at explaining their excuse/theory to these problems.

Now let us excuse your theory and say simply that the animals that evolution claims were the giraffes ancestors were there.  Let's say that perhaps they evolved from an animal before them, and before that.  Let's go all the way to the very beginning (for anyone can logically conclude that they must have had a beginning).  How did THOSE animals happen to develop the vital organs and the ablity to survive and reproduce with a perfect model of the opposite sex?  Not to mention this had to happen perfectly on the first try.  If there was anything that went wrong, they all die.  Their body just happened to be perfect for delivering children on the first try?  They just happened to have developed digestive capabilities?  They just happened to be able to find/eat food?  They just happened to be able to use their muscles properly?  All those nerves just happened to be connected properly throughout the body?  This seems like a very sketchy excuse to me.

Now here is a simple simple example that shows what I am 'getting at'.  

Let's say there is a car.  A Lamborghini.  This car is sitting out in the woods.  Now if you stumbled across this car, would you believe an explosion happened and is just sitting there by chance?  Of course not.  No one would be foolish enough to think that, they would wonder who made the car and who put it there.

Now let me compare the universe to a lamborghini.  Our current knowledge of DNA and atoms concludes that a single atom is more complex than New York City.  This means that the simplest creatures we know of in existence are more than a Googol times more complex than that car.

So, this having been said, believing that an explosion created the universe would seem to me to be the same as believing that a billion billion cars just happened to be created in a random explosion.

That is not logical, and the stupidest person on the planet would be able to conclude this, so arguing that this is wrong is pointless.

That being said, how can anyone conclude that creationism is ridiculous for believing in a God? Certainly a God seems MUCH more likely!  After all, what are the chances that after the explosion that things would be beautiful, let alone work!  It would seem much more logical to conclude a creator spent time making all that is and making it the gorgeous work of art it is today.

Overall, I must say that it seems to take a lot of faith in evolution to believe it.  I just think most people do not realize this.

Matthew"


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 5:25 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks!  wasn't paying attention to where I posted it apparently.


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 5:28 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 4:39 PM on January 9, 2010 :
Our current knowledge of DNA and atoms concludes that a single atom is more complex than New York City.  


In which physics class did you learn that?  

Totally unsupported assertion.

This means that the simplest creatures we know of in existence are more than a Googol times more complex than that car.


Show your math or stop throwing around numbers.



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:05 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Have you studied Atoms at all?

Logic alone should show you how complex they are!  We have struggled to comprehend them for years!

However, simply pull up a few Wikipedia pages on "Atoms", "Molecules", and "DNA" and you find out fairly quickly that it's a complex topic.  

Wikipedia not trustworthy enough for you?  Simply repeat my prior steps... in Google.


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 6:11 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

APP

Let's say there is a car.  A Lamborghini.  This car is sitting out in the woods.  Now if you stumbled across this car, would you believe an explosion happened and is just sitting there by chance?


Life doesn't evolve merely by chance alone, although I would say chance is a big element in how evolution takes place.  What path it takes.  But selection is the primary process driving evolution, not just chance.

Cars?  Why not just say "What are the chances of a hurricane producing a Lamborghini from blowing parts around in a junk yard'?  :0)

That's a poor analogy.  For one thing, car parts are inanimate.  They don't reproduce.  They are not subject to selection. They are not subject to change - except to rust and degrade.

So it is not really logical to apply your car analogy with life and evolution.


Now let me compare the universe to a lamborghini.  Our current knowledge of DNA and atoms concludes that a single atom is more complex than New York City.  This means that the simplest creatures we know of in existence are more than a Googol times more complex than that car.


A single atom is more complex than NY city?  How do you figure that?  I do agree with your second statement, I would agree that the simpliest cell is more complex than a car.  So what?


So, this having been said, believing that an explosion created the universe would seem to me to be the same as believing that a billion billion cars just happened to be created in a random explosion.


So you're saying that the Big Bang was nothing more than an unimaginably huge explosion?  Hmmm, I'm not sure about that.  I think that's an overly simplistic description of what the Big Bang really was.  However, I'm not a physicist, so I'm not the one to ask.  But for the sake of argument, let's say that, yes, our known universe started with the Big Bang - the expansion of space, the beginning of time, the creation of matter in the form of mostly hydrogen and a smaller amount of helium.

You can claim God was responsible for it, if you wish.

We move on from there... to here, today.  The Big Bang was not responsible for life, as you siem to imply.  The Big Bang is one thing.  Evolution is a seperate process, apart from the Big Bang.

But perhaps it is the matter of origins that you're interested in?  

OK.  Fine.

Big Bang - cosmological evidence and physics supprts the Big Bang theory at this time.  What evidence do you have supporting Biblical Genesis?

Evidence supports evolution.  What evidence do you present that supports the idea that God created life as we see it today?  

Indeed, what evidence do you present that supports that a Biblical God (or any other deity, for that matter) actually exists?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:12 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Galileo at 5:25 PM on January 9, 2010 :

Okay, as for your picture.  You have no proof.  None whatsoever.  


Science is not about proof, it is about evidence, and there is quite a bit of it.

How do you prove that giraffes used to look like that?  Do you have the remains of half zebra-giraffes, or whatever mix of animal that supposedly is/was?  


That is an Okapi, the closest extant relative to the giraffe, easily demonstrated by genetic and morphological evidence.


However this was not the point anyways.  The point is that these logical flaws can be used on ANY animal, not simply just giraffes.
 

You have shown no logical flaws in evolution, but you are demonstrating a number of them.




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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:31 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 6:11 PM on January 9, 2010 :
Have you studied Atoms at all?


Yes, I have a degree in Physics.

Logic alone should show you how complex they are!  We have struggled to comprehend them for years!


Yes, but the Standard Model does an excellent job of parametrizing it into a set of rules and constants.

However, simply pull up a few Wikipedia pages on "Atoms", "Molecules", and "DNA" and you find out fairly quickly that it's a complex topic.  

Wikipedia not trustworthy enough for you?  Simply repeat my prior steps... in Google.


I'm underwhelmed.



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:45 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So let me get this straight, you claim that my analogy is too simple to be correct?  The simpler it is, the more valid it becomes!  Let's make it even simpler.  Let's suggest that the Big Bang made a toaster.  Come now, we all know the idea of an explosion making anything that complex (which a toaster is not a very complex machine) is ridiculous!  Hence, making something that is so complex as to live and even reproduce is even more ridiculous.


If you are a physicist then you of all people should understand how complex the atom is!  It has baffled scientists for years!  From what physicists know, the atom is impossible.  We don't know how they hold together.

The Atom consists of 3 basic parts as we all learned in the 5th grade or so. Electrons and a compact nucleus of protons and neutrons.  These components should provide a force that cause the atom to split.  As we know, atoms splitting causes very very bad results.

This is yet one example of how the atom is complex, and denying that it is complex is ridiculous to the point of total denial.

There was a footprint inside of a dinosaur footprint that proved that they lived at the same time.  In a small town in Texas, everyone was delighted to find this, as it sticks a knife into the heart of evolutionary thinking.  Some scientists (upon finding they were being disproved) went and smashed it to bits with a hammer.  However, by then it had been replicated.  This is a simple example of evolutionists being biased to the point of denying facts and logic.  Knowing that this happens, please try to keep in mind that perhaps you are wrong.  Some of you seem to be offended by my logic to the point of bias.  Be careful to keep this a logical argument.

Now here are the fallacies no one has answered:

1: The chances of evolution creating anything capable of life (as I said before) is ridiculous.  Off the scale.  Billions of Billions of zero's would be in that number.  No one can really deny or answer this it would seem.

2: Given that you somehow excuse #1, Why then do we not find animals half way through evolution?  There are no partial corpses of which we know.  Why are we the most advanced species?  Why then are there no less evolved people who are partially inhuman?

These are just 2.

Matthew


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 8:21 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 8:42 PM on January 8, 2010 :
Hello everyone!

Okay, so I have studied both creationism and evolution for a long time. ...

#1: The Giraffe.  This is a fairly basic example.  Let's say that the giraffe starts after the Big Bang, or whichever theory of evolution you choose.  


The last sentence above proves that the first is totally false.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:36 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood - indeed!


APP

So let me get this straight, you claim that my analogy is too simple to be correct?  The simpler it is, the more valid it becomes!  Let's make it even simpler.  Let's suggest that the Big Bang made a toaster.  Come now, we all know the idea of an explosion making anything that complex (which a toaster is not a very complex machine) is ridiculous!  Hence, making something that is so complex as to live and even reproduce is even more ridiculous.


Why do you keep bringing up the Big Bang?  Toasters?


If you are a physicist then you of all people should understand how complex the atom is!  It has baffled scientists for years!  From what physicists know, the atom is impossible.  We don't know how they hold together.


Really?  Ever hear of the Stong Nuclear force?


The Atom consists of 3 basic parts as we all learned in the 5th grade or so. Electrons and a compact nucleus of protons and neutrons.  These components should provide a force that cause the atom to split.  As we know, atoms splitting causes very very bad results.


Oh!  You must be thinking because proton all carry a positive charge that they must repell each other, is that it?  See answer above.


This is yet one example of how the atom is complex, and denying that it is complex is ridiculous to the point of total denial.


Quantum mechanics is complex, no one denys that.  The mathematics is very complex!  Beyond me, that's for sure.  

But this has nothing to do with evolution.


There was a footprint inside of a dinosaur footprint that proved that they lived at the same time.  In a small town in Texas, everyone was delighted to find this, as it sticks a knife into the heart of evolutionary thinking.  


You really believe that?


Some scientists (upon finding they were being disproved) went and smashed it to bits with a hammer.  However, by then it had been replicated.  This is a simple example of evolutionists being biased to the point of denying facts and logic.  Knowing that this happens, please try to keep in mind that perhaps you are wrong.  Some of you seem to be offended by my logic to the point of bias.  Be careful to keep this a logical argument.


Just what is your logical argument?


Now here are the fallacies no one has answered:

1: The chances of evolution creating anything capable of life (as I said before) is ridiculous.  Off the scale.  Billions of Billions of zero's would be in that number.  No one can really deny or answer this it would seem.


you're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution.  But yes, abiogenesis did occur on earth.  That's very obvious.


2: Given that you somehow excuse #1, Why then do we not find animals half way through evolution?  There are no partial corpses of which we know.  Why are we the most advanced species?  Why then are there no less evolved people who are partially inhuman?


Less evolved people?  You mean hominid species?  Ever see these?


SECURITY ALERT: null

How do you explain them, if not by evolution?

(Edited by orion 1/9/2010 at 9:36 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:35 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all, you didn't answer #1.... or even seem to try.  Merely to discredit me. You ridicule me for 2 reasons.  1st, you find it offensive that I might possibly prove you wrong, so your pride demands that you discredit me to somehow make your theories more relevant.  2nd, you have believed in evolution too long to keep a logical view on the subject.  This is bias.

There are a few different theories of evolution, it's just that those are rare theories by unproffesionals.  Being a forum, I would expect many unproffesionals, and it would appear that I was right.

I find it slightly amusing that you try to discredit me instead of providing any logical conclusion to how #1 could be wrong.

As for #2, there are many forms of bone altering diseases, and many kinds of apes that have gone extinct that we don't know of.  These are the most likely theories.  Often people find remains like this and release it into the media.  They find soon after that it was a fake... but that doesn't go into the media.  

I'm talking more evident proof than a simple picture you find on the internet.  Although I'm assuming this one was not, You would be surprised what Photoshop (got to love CS4) can do. I'm talking real proof, not bones that you simply assume were human remains because they slightly resemble them.

You have no way to logically conclude that the chances are anywhere near possible...  I don't understand how anyone could possibly deny it.


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 10:08 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 8:21 PM on January 9, 2010 :
Let's suggest that the Big Bang made a toaster.  Come now, we all know the idea of an explosion making anything that complex (which a toaster is not a very complex machine) is ridiculous!  Hence, making something that is so complex as to live and even reproduce is even more ridiculous.


So let me get this straight, you think that the big bang was an explosion? Ridiculous!

If you are a physicist then you of all people should understand how complex the atom is!  It has baffled scientists for years!  From what physicists know, the atom is impossible.  We don't know how they hold together.


I'm not physicist (fyi), I barely passed high school physics, and have not taken any physics since. But I do know basic science, and I know that many things have baffled scientists for years. One of which is how organisms pass on their traits to their offspring, we didn't know that DNA was responsible when we discovered it. How things burn was another mystery, as well as the structure of cell membranes. My point is that many things in science are complex and have baffled scientists for centuries and we still don't know everything, not even close. But to take an unknown, or very complex structure/system, and say that 'God did it' is not advancing our knowledge one bit, and in many cases stunts it or worse.

But as to how atoms are held together, as Orion pointed out, the strong force (one of the four forces in the universe that we know of).

This is yet one example of how the atom is complex, and denying that it is complex is ridiculous to the point of total denial.


No one is denying that atoms are "complex", or hard to study, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about them. Your whole argument seems to consist of, 'it is too complex so God must have done it supernaturally'. This is not a good, or even convincing, argument.

There was a footprint inside of a dinosaur footprint that proved that they lived at the same time.


Really! Another, let's hope it's not another fake. I've actually seen the photo, and without knowing anything about fossilized imprints I can tell it is a fake. But for sake of argument, if this is real, what species of dinosaur left the footprint?

Now here are the fallacies no one has answered:

1: The chances of evolution creating anything capable of life (as I said before) is ridiculous.  Off the scale.  Billions of Billions of zero's would be in that number.  No one can really deny or answer this it would seem.


Well, evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life, so it is not required (or even able to) answer how life got here. That is left up to the abiogenesis field. But lets say that God magically made the first lifeforms and it was proven to be so. This would in know way invalidate evolution, because evolution doesn't explain how life got here, only how it evolved once it was here.

2: Given that you somehow excuse #1, Why then do we not find animals half way through evolution?


I'm not sure what you mean. Like a human with half a body? Or a bird with half a wing? If this is what you mean then you don't understand evolution in much detail. Each organism is complete in it's own right.

If you mean something like, half dog half cat, again this is not how evolution works. If you mean transitional fossils then there are plenty. The most famous ones are probably archeopteryx and tiktaalik. And in human evolution the most famous is probably Homo erectus.

Why are we the most advanced species?


That is just what our environment selected through natural selection.

Why then are there no less evolved people who are partially inhuman?


Because all the other homo species have gone extinct. And since populations evolve, we (homo sapien) evolved together until today, and we are still evolving.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:35 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you still didn't answer #1.  You  simply demean me.  See a pattern going here?


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 11:42 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

APP -

let's look again at your two assertions.


1: The chances of evolution creating anything capable of life (as I said before) is ridiculous.  Off the scale.  Billions of Billions of zero's would be in that number.  No one can really deny or answer this it would seem.


You're asking here "How can evolution create life" - are you not?  Evolution doesn't deal with how life came about.  Evolution deals with how life changes over time.  Origin of life study comes under the domain of 'abiogenesis'.  At the present time, science does not have a detailed explanation of how life originated from non-life.  However, there are clues and hints that life can indeed arise in an abiotic environment - given the right conditions are present.  

First of all, we know that organic molecules, the building blocks of more complex polymers, can, and do, form naturally.  I am referring to amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, lipdis, etc.  This is NOT an assumption.  It is a fact.  

Secondly, you need to realize that abiogenesis does not propose that life, the first cells/bacteria, arose all at once.  Life, under the abiogenesis hypothesis, originated from precursor molecules/proto-cells.

You might want to take a look at this short YouTube video.  It might correct some erroneous notions you have.  It also provides an overview of abiogenesis.  Again, we don't know yet exactly how life began, but research is providing more clues every year.

Origin of Life

People generally give two possibilities how life arose:

 1.  God
 2.  Naturally, through abiogenesis

I'm betting on #2.  You are obviously betting on #1 (which is perfectly fine with me).  But once again, origin of life is not evolution.


2: Given that you somehow excuse #1, Why then do we not find animals half way through evolution?  There are no partial corpses of which we know.  Why are we the most advanced species?  Why then are there no less evolved people who are partially inhuman?

As for #2, there are many forms of bone altering diseases, and many kinds of apes that have gone extinct that we don't know of.  These are the most likely theories.  Often people find remains like this and release it into the media.  They find soon after that it was a fake... but that doesn't go into the media.  

I'm talking more evident proof than a simple picture you find on the internet.  Although I'm assuming this one was not, You would be surprised what Photoshop (got to love CS4) can do. I'm talking real proof, not bones that you simply assume were human remains because they slightly resemble them.


APP - I agree with you, there is a lot of garbage on the internet.  That's why I perfer to try to keep to reputable sources, such as peer reviewed science journal (Science; Nature; etc).  The entire October 2 issue of Science was devoted to one of these early hominid - Ardipithecus ramidus.  An almost completely intact skeleton of 'Ardi' was analyzed by an international team of paleontologist/anthropologists.  Their papers of this 4.4 million year old hominid are published in that October 2 issue.  Go to the library and look it up.

Bone altering diseases?  Skulls of extinct apes?  Hmmm, I don't think so.  Photoshop alterations?  I don't think so.








(Edited by orion 1/10/2010 at 01:20 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:49 PM on January 9, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

aPassionatePlayer your pride demands that you discredit me to somehow make your theories more relevant


Nicely put. This is the overwhelming strategy of the evolutionists on this site. They appear to have their little book of insults which they share amongst themselves. Wisp used to sound like Wisp, now he sounds like Derwood so I think Derwood sent him ‘the book’.. They make stories up about how things happened in evolution and expect their opponents to demonstrate convincingly that these fairytales didn’t happen.
They can’t see their naturalist philosophy for what it is. Unfortunately, they are completely and intentionally blind. It is altogether sad.

Fencer27 I've actually seen the photo, and without knowing anything about fossilized imprints I can tell it is a fake.


Incredible! Show me Fencer, I can’t wait to see what you see.

Fencer27 This would in know way invalidate evolution, because evolution doesn't explain how life got here, only how it evolved once it was here.


So, in other words, we might allow for God’s participation in the genesis of life since we have no other reasonable ideas; but if he exists and did have anything to do with that, he certainly was not involved thereafter because we believe that evolution was responsible.

Orion However, there are clues and hints that life can indeed arise in an abiotic environment - given the right conditions are present.  


No matter what the conditions and ingredients, no matter what the environment, no matter how many brains are brought to bear on the topic, life has failed to materialize ‘naturally’ – yet evolutionists believe that somehow it must have happened, with no intelligence intervention whatsoever; just a random undirected miracle of natural processes. So is this science or is it faith?

Life, under the abiogenesis hypothesis, originated from precursor molecules/proto-cells.


According to the faith, yes. Unfortunately. No evidence whatsoever is available to back this up.

Again, we don't know yet exactly how life began, but research is providing more clues every year.


You mean researchers are dreaming up more likely stories with monotonous regularity –all of which belong to the fiction realm.

Bone altering diseases?  Skulls of extinct apes?  Hmmm, I don't think so.  Photoshop alterations?  I don't think so.


Evolution, I don’t think so.



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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:01 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 11:42 PM on January 9, 2010 :
you still didn't answer #1.  You  simply demean me.


You're doing such a good job yourself, you don't need help from us.



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 02:03 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 8:21 PM on January 9, 2010 :
If you are a physicist


I am.

then you of all people should understand how complex the atom is!  It has baffled scientists for years!  From what physicists know, the atom is impossible.  We don't know how they hold together.


You need some serious deprogramming.



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 02:16 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 02:03 AM on January 10, 2010 :
Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 11:42 PM on January 9, 2010 :
you still didn't answer #1.  You  simply demean me.


You're doing such a good job yourself, you don't need help from us.




You do realize that by insulting me (without fact or reason) is all the more proving my point?


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 02:19 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 11:42 PM on January 9, 2010 :
you still didn't answer #1.  You  simply demean me.  See a pattern going here?


Both Orion and I have answered #1, and it was the same answer; evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. This is like saying that the theory of gravity is false because it can't explain where gravity or matter came from. It doesn't matter how matter or gravity got here for the theory of gravity to be valid. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether God, or pure nature, or a combination, or even something so esoteric we've never thought up before created life. It is all irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.

I do not 'simply' demean you, I simply just made (a little) fun of some of the things you brought up. And I did, more or less, state that you probably don't know that much about evolution from a scientific standpoint. And from everything that I've seen of yours that seems to be the case. This doesn't mean that you are stupid or anything (If you can play 20 instruments well like you say, you are obviously not dumb; and there is a correlation between those who are good in music and intelligence, at least that is what my band teacher told us), just that you don't know what you are talking about a lot of the time when it comes to evolution and possibly science in general. If I were to talk about music theory in any detail I would probably look like a fool.

I do see a few pattern, you seem to know very little about science and respond to answers to your questions with, 'you just attack me and don't respond to the questions I ask.' Then you don't answer the questions given to you.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:24 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 02:24 AM on January 10, 2010 :
Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 11:42 PM on January 9, 2010 :
you still didn't answer #1.  You  simply demean me.  See a pattern going here?


Both Orion and I have answered #1, and it was the same answer; evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life. This is like saying that the theory of gravity is false because it can't explain where gravity or matter came from. It doesn't matter how matter or gravity got here for the theory of gravity to be valid. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether God, or pure nature, or a combination, or even something so esoteric we've never thought up before created life. It is all irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.

I do not 'simply' demean you, I simply just made (a little) fun of some of the things you brought up. And I did, more or less, state that you probably don't know that much about evolution from a scientific standpoint. And from everything that I've seen of yours that seems to be the case. This doesn't mean that you are stupid or anything (If you can play 20 instruments well like you say, you are obviously not dumb; and there is a correlation between those who are good in music and intelligence, at least that is what my band teacher told us), just that you don't know what you are talking about a lot of the time when it comes to evolution and possibly science in general. If I were to talk about music theory in any detail I would probably look like a fool.

I do see a few pattern, you seem to know very little about science and respond to answers to your questions with, 'you just attack me and don't respond to the questions I ask.' Then you don't answer the questions given to you.



First off, you did not answer #1.  If anything you have avoided it thoroughly.  You have no answer because evolution has no answer to this.  

I try to avoid the scientific parts of the conversation because they tend to change and be difficult to prove/disprove, but I am not afraid of a scientific argument.  However, you (who quite possibly knows a lot more science than I do) cannot deny that your theories are illogically based.  While i'm not a particular expert in science, I know a lot about evolution and creationism.  Am I an expert in every scientific method used for proving evolution? No.  Am I an expert in logical deductive thinking?  Definitely.  Logic alone should be enough to question science.  Science itself is based off of logic, and without logic, would science have any truth to it?

"A little fun"?  I'm sorry, but do you really find me unintelligent enough to suggest that I find that somehow less offensive than full out insults?  It's the same thing with a slightly lesser tone.  That is all.  If you are going to insult me, do it properly and save the manipulative junk for people you will be capable of manipulating.

You cannot logically answer this, so most of you seem to turn to facts which are quite untrustworthy and full of so much bias that it's ridiculous.

As Lester10 said, not everything in Creationism can be proven.  It requires some faith.  My point was merely to prove to you all that it requires much less faith than evolution.  It is easier to believe that my dog will grow wings and fly to the moon tomorrow than it is to believe in evolution.


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 02:54 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Galileo
actually here it is! (I've had a few beers and it took me a while to remember I could cut and paste!)
Hahaha! You're cool, man.

aPassionatePlayer
Yes, I have a knack for musical instruments.  I play 25 or so currently.  I also study musical theories and have developed many of my own, including what I call the "Musical Pattern of Human Emotion".  It is a quite fascinating topic, however not an equivocal need for this particular forum.
That's admirable!

And it DOES sound interesting.

I'd like to hear about it. Have you uploaded anything?

Wisp, be careful as you seemed to have a slight bias in your comments on my topic.
I don't see it, but i guess it's hard to notice one's own biases.

Please, quote me so i can address it properly.

Many of your comments seemed to be based off of assumptions and to have little research, but those that you did provide "proof" to were from people not providing facts, merely their own biased theories.
A quote would come in handy. So i don't have to read everything i wrote while trying to guess what you mean.

I repeat, anyone who looks at the conclusions will realize that you are making up illogical conclusions based on what "proffesionals" have said.
You repeat? You had not said that before.

But yeah, we ALL have to rely in other people. My trust is in the scientific method, peer review AND my own judgment. What do you rely on?

Well let me first off say that these people are also biased, making there arguments more difficult to consider, however I will do so anyways.
That "there" means "their", right?

So you have no trust in peer review? The Scientific Method?

How do you know that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Did you take someone's word for it? Did you check for yourself? Do you believe it at all?

I don't quite understand.

Now given that one has the ability to control their emotional state enough to conclude a logical view of both views, this argument might become more of a sincere debate, not a group of people arguing over personal views.
I don't understand that phrase. I don't know what "conclude a logical view" means. I sure try to avoid for my emotions to get in the way of my thinking.

I also don't understand what you mean by "both". You have not said what your position is yet. Nothing but negatives.

Can you tell us, in positive terms, what your convictions are?

Now what I meant when I said molecule size is that it is a generalization that the animals grew into their present size over time.
Grow? Size?

Size isn't a main concern of the ToE... You can feed it that data, but it's not basic. The ToE doesn't just predict "growth".

Association and specialization of microorganisms seem almost unavoidable, but size is not the real issue.

If the first cells were gigantic (not that anyone says it happened), they could evolve to get smaller, while associating and specializing.
It had little fact to it, merely a demonstration.
In the primitive stages, yeah, it's a fact... But it's not a principle or anything. It's not even worth mentioning, i think.
I sure don't know why you brought it up (and it doesn't help your "molecule sized giraffes" phrase one bit).

Perhaps some evolutionists would dictate otherwise, but being a simple example, arguing over it would be useless.
Being a useless example (well, not even an example), mentioning it would be useless.

As for you saying I should be humbler, you are simply saying I should be unoffensive to people who believe other things right?
Nono. I mean not promoting your ideas with an excessive share of confidence.
That I should not just assume I am correct?
Hum... Something like that, i guess.
Well sorry, but is it not why we are all here?
I like to believe that i "accept" more than "assume".
Surely some of us are here just to argue.
I'd like to make a difference. I'd like to inform. Converting creationists is my wildest dream.
Kinda feels like being Morpheus.
Perhaps that is why many of us are here.  I, however, am here to find the truth, and I will be as blunt as is needed and hopefully no more.
If that bluntness doesn't translate as a pride which will make it difficult for you to accept the evidence that we show you (i.e. make you stubborn), then i guess i have no problem.

If after saying "I'm sure i'm right about this.", you're able to say "Oh, i was wrong. Go figure.", all is fine.

Arrogance only bothers me if it gets in the way.

Okay, as for your picture.
The dot doesn't go there. xD
You have no proof.  None whatsoever.
Haha. Of course. We're discussing Science here. Not Math.
How do you prove that giraffes used to look like that?
I wouldn't even try.

Perhaps you should learn the basics of Science before jumping into some of its branches.

Do you have the remains of half zebra-giraffes, or whatever mix of animal that supposedly is/was?
No. Not that i know of, at least (i haven't investigated the complete list of discovered fossils for every branch of the phylogenetic tree of life, and i bet no one has).

Why?

Are you about to bring up the god of the gaps? Do you think giraffes can save your position?

Actually, i don't know what your position is. I don't like it when you define it slantwise and negatively.

We do have very cool transitionals in other branches.

However this was not the point anyways. The point is that these logical flaws can be used on ANY animal, not simply just giraffes.
What logical flaws?

In this thread you were supposed to present logical fallacies (and not your own).

Your use of the expression tells me that you don't even know what a "logical fallacy" is (i guess you're ok with me being blunt too).

I chose giraffes because they are a well known and relatable animal that gives evolutionists a simple shot at explaining their excuse/theory to these problems.
What problems?

You have not presented any.

I would bet any time that most of the "special" biological features that make a giraffe’s neck possible are just adaptations of traits shared by all mammals. And, as for the few that aren't, i would bet that are adaptations of traits shared by the okapi.

I have this strong tendency to win my bets.

There’s no reason that these traits couldn’t have co-evolved slowly; as the neck lengthened, the valves and arteries were naturally selected as well.

Your sponge-like structure rings a bell, but i don't quite remember it. It's very likely that, if it exists, scientists can show us what it evolved from.

I say "if it exists" not because i think it's impossible (or even difficult). I googled it and most results were from creationist sites. No serious reference to it.

Can you find out its name, so i can google it?

Now let us excuse your theory
What theory?
and say simply that the animals that evolution claims were the giraffes ancestors were there.
It depends. Distant ancestors have SURELY been found.
Perhaps they have not found the exact intermediate that you would say would please you (although statistics tell me that it probably won't please you at all when it's found).
Let's say that perhaps they evolved from an animal before them, and before that. Let's go all the way to the very beginning (for anyone can logically conclude that they must have had a beginning).
I don't follow your logic. What would a "beginning" look like to you?

I see no possible clear beginning, even if we knew exactly every step of the way.

How did THOSE animals happen to develop the vital organs and the ablity to survive and reproduce with a perfect model of the opposite sex?
I don't know what "those" animals are. You don't know what you're talking about.

Nobody says that all traits were developed at the same time.

Try to make valid questions, and i'll try to answer them.

If you're interested in the evolution of sex, i can give you some links. It's fascinating!

Not to mention this had to happen perfectly on the first try.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

What "first try"?

Creationists use this meaningless phrase quite often. It's like they're stuck to the creationist view of life, that things just appear.

There's no "first try". There's Evolution. And, if you use that expression, you don't seem to know the very basics.

If there was anything that went wrong, they all die.
Anything?

Humans don't "all die". So there's nothing wrong with us?

We can't make our own vitamin C, like most mammals can. And we didn't "all die".

Can you answer to that?

Their body just happened to be perfect for delivering children on the first try?
Haha. No.
They just happened to have developed digestive capabilities?
No. Not just. Never just.
They just happened to be able to find/eat food?
No.
They just happened to be able to use their muscles properly?
No.
All those nerves just happened to be connected properly throughout the body?
No.
This seems like a very sketchy excuse to me.
Indeed. A very poor one. Almost as poor as creationism.

Fortunately, nobody says such a ridiculous thing. So you used a strawman.

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):

   attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.

   For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."

   Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

   On the Internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent's position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and Hitler.
Now THAT's a fallacious argument.

Let's say there is a car.  A Lamborghini.
Oh, boy...
This car is sitting out in the woods.
Can your car have offspring that presents functional variability?
Now if you stumbled across this car, would you believe an explosion happened and is just sitting there by chance?
No. And i don't believe that about life either. And i don't believe any sane person does.

You used another strawman.

Strawmen mean that its user is either ignorant or dishonest.

So what is it?

Of course not.  No one would be foolish enough to think that, they would wonder who made the car and who put it there.
It was probably made by some factory in Italy. I would just wonder about the second. And it's not very interesting anyway.
Now let me compare the universe to a lamborghini. Our current knowledge of DNA and atoms concludes that a single atom is more complex than New York City.
Not mine.

I don't think our current knowledge of DNA would have such weird implications.

And i bet Orion and Apoapsis know more than you about atoms, and derwood knows more than you about DNA, and i don't think they will agree.

Edit: I read their posts. They didn't.

Can the whole be less complex than one of its smallest parts? Well, it depends on your focus. The behavior of a ball is simpler than that of its atoms.
But saying such a thing, without clarifying, is very unscientific.

I guess you could put your focus in something that could give your claim some validity, but that focus will probably be very whimsical and quite useless.

This means that the simplest creatures we know of in existence are more than a Googol times more complex than that car.
No.

I'm not saying they aren't (you won't show us your numbers anyway, and i don't know how you would measure complexity), but "this" doesn't mean "that".

You have used another logical fallacy: the non seqvitvr:
Non Sequitur:

   something that just does not follow. For example, "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty !"

   Another example: arguing at length that your religion is of great help to many people. Then, concluding that the teachings of your religion are undoubtably true.

   Or: "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."
So far, every logical fallacy you've presented has you as a source.
So, this having been said,
But not demonstrated.
believing that an explosion created the universe would seem to me to be the same as believing that a billion billion cars just happened to be created in a random explosion.
No. But it doesn't matter, because this forum is about Evolution, not Cosmology.

Even then, i find it hard to avoid pointing out that believing that the Big Bang was an "explosion" is too basic.

I'm sorry that your convictions (you have not yet told me what they are) conflict with many branches of Science. We're here to discuss just one.

That is not logical, and the stupidest person on the planet would be able to conclude this, so arguing that this is wrong is pointless.
I won't even think about it. It's a red herring (yet ANOTHER fallacious argument). We're here to discuss Evolution and Creationism.

That being said, how can anyone conclude that creationism is ridiculous for believing in a God?
There are many ways to conclude that. But it doesn't matter. Creationism is ridiculous for opposing the evidence and Science in general (as you demonstrate by bringing up Abiogenesis and Cosmology).

Certainly a God seems MUCH more likely!
Another red herring.

This forum isn't about Evolution VS God.

If God existed and created the Universe, Evolution wouldn't be in trouble. So focus.

After all, what are the chances that after the explosion that things would be beautiful, let alone work!
Argument from awe (a form of argument from ignorance). Another fallacious argument. The kind a 6 year old is capable of.

And you have yet to show us the "logical fallacies in Evolution". At least one.

It would seem much more logical to conclude a creator spent time making all that is and making it the gorgeous work of art it is today.
Not that i care much but, if it took him time, then this creator doesn't seem almighty.
Overall, I must say that it seems to take a lot of faith in evolution to believe it.
Yeah, you can say that. You can't support it though.
I just think most people do not realize this.
And i think you're just wrong.

I don't need to prove you wrong. You need to support your own claim.

So, define "faith", and show us how it's necessary to believe in Evolution. If you use a single straw man, you lose. Deal?


So let me get this straight, you claim that my analogy is too simple to be correct?
It's too useless to be useful.
The simpler it is, the more valid it becomes!
Life is like a box of chocolate.

That should be the finest analogy ever.
Let's make it even simpler.  Let's suggest that the Big Bang made a toaster.
Let's make it even SIMPLER than that. Let's forget about the Big Bang, because this forum isn't about every branch of Science creationism opposes.
Come now, we all know the idea of an explosion making anything that complex (which a toaster is not a very complex machine) is ridiculous!
I don't know what you mean by "making", but we have tons of examples of growing complexity.
Hence, making something that is so complex as to live and even reproduce is even more ridiculous.
Less so. It's easier for things that reproduce to grow in complexity. And it happens all the time.

A fertilized egg is much less complex than the full-grown animal it will produce. Well, except maybe under some weird useless focus.

Perhaps you can find a way that a seed might be referred to as more complex than a tree, but it probably will be dumb and useless.

If you are a physicist then you of all people should understand how complex the atom is!
If one of us is a physicist, then ALL OF US should understand that...

Talk about logical fallacies.

It has baffled scientists for years!
I happen to enjoy quantum physics. And yeah, i'm baffled oftentimes. And no, this is not the place to discuss that.
From what physicists know, the atom is impossible.
It would be smarter to say the exact opposite.
We don't know how they hold together.
Are you saying that we don't know the Stong Nuclear Force?
(...) This is yet one example of how the atom is complex, and denying that it is complex is ridiculous to the point of total denial.
So let's not even discuss it, and focus on the subject of this forum.
There was a footprint inside of a dinosaur footprint that proved that they lived at the same time.
It proved it? Haha!
In a small town in Texas,
Oh, in the USA!

And in Texas!!

Isn't that remarkable?

And not just regular men, but GIANT MEN! That would lend more credence to the Bible, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't it...?

But sadly, those have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists.

everyone
Rednecks?
was delighted to find this,
I can imagine.
as it sticks a knife into the heart of evolutionary thinking.
In those who don't do much thinking, yeah.
Some scientists (upon finding they were being disproved) went and smashed it to bits with a hammer.
They smashed your claim.

Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

However, by then it had been replicated.
Yeah. And with many errors, including misplaced ball and arch, and excessively long, misshapen toes.
This is a simple example of evolutionists being biased to the point of denying facts and logic.
Hahaha! Well, here i give you more pictorial facts from the same site i got that image from:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm


Giant Humans and Dinosaurs








This petrified finger found in cretaceous limestone, belonged to a "prehistoric" human. Broken short of the middle joint, it measures 7.6 cm (3 inches). At full length it would measure about 15 cm (6 inches). In the photo, it is compared to a regular full-length finger. Excavations of this limestone has also revealed a child's tooth and human hair.

Sectioning reveals the typical porous bone structure expected in a human finger.      Cat-scan and MRI identified joints and traced tendons throughout the length of the fossil.


Haha! Man... Your "facts" are laughable...


From the same page. We see the femur of an ordinary giant man next to a fascinating specimen of rednecvs texanis.

http://www.rae.org/tuba.html << This site is less fraudulent, but also less impressive.

Those "human prints" can only make you yawn.

Knowing that this happens, please try to keep in mind that perhaps you are wrong.
I'm sure i must be wrong about many things. Thank God (?) for the Scientific Method.

Some of you seem to be offended by my logic to the point of bias.
A quote would come in handy.
Be careful to keep this a logical argument.
Be careful to keep it scientific.
Now here are the fallacies no one has answered:
Yeah, you don't know what a fallacy is...
1: The chances of evolution creating anything capable of life (as I said before) is ridiculous.  Off the scale.  Billions of Billions of zero's would be in that number.  No one can really deny or answer this it would seem.
I can: No.

You say "as i said before", but you didn't support it. You don't understand the very basics of Evolution. How can you toss numbers around?

And that wasn't a fallacy.

2: Given that you somehow excuse #1, Why then do we not find animals half way through evolution?
Half way?

Easy: because there are no extremes.

And that wasn't a fallacy.

I can show you tons of transitionals, but nobody would say that they are "half way through evolution". That phrase doesn't even make any sense.

There are no partial corpses of which we know.
Of what?

Edit: Wait... Are you suggesting that the Theory of Evolution predicts partial bodies???

Aw, man... I hope i got you wrong, or that you're joking...

Why are we the most advanced species?
Who says we are? Are we? What's your criterion?
Why then are there no less evolved people who are partially inhuman?
Chimps are partially inhuman.

Neanderthals have gone extinct, sadly.

As for "less evolved", it's just a silly phrase that shows a very poor knowledge of Evolution.

These are just 2.
And none of them are fallacies.

You could call them "holes", or "mistakes", but i've seen no fallacy.

First of all, you didn't answer #1.... or even seem to try. Merely to discredit me. You ridicule me for 2 reasons.  1st, you find it offensive that I might possibly prove you wrong, so your pride demands that you discredit me to somehow make your theories more relevant.
Science doesn't deal with "proof", and those are not "theories" but "hypotheses".

That's why i say you should learn the basics about Science first, and then jump into Evolution.

2nd, you have believed in evolution too long to keep a logical view on the subject.  This is bias.
You mention logic far too often, and Science far too scarcely.
There are a few different theories of evolution, it's just that those are rare theories by unproffesionals.
Oh... Are they worth mentioning?
Being a forum, I would expect many unproffesionals, and it would appear that I was right.
Yes, yes, of course. Most of us are.

I hope you include yourself in that category.

I find it slightly amusing that you try to discredit me instead of providing any logical conclusion to how #1 could be wrong.
Showing you your mistakes isn't discrediting you as a person. It's discrediting your ability to know what you're talking about.
As for #2, there are many forms of bone altering diseases, and many kinds of apes that have gone extinct that we don't know of.
Then how do you know?

That's probably true. Perhaps not "many" but some. In any case, you say it as if you knew, and then proceed to say that nobody does.

These are the most likely theories.
Which ones???
Often people find remains like this and release it into the media.  They find soon after that it was a fake... but that doesn't go into the media.
I don't know about that.

So...

Can we forget about the media, and discuss Science?

I'm talking more evident proof than a simple picture you find on the internet.  Although I'm assuming this one was not, You would be surprised what Photoshop (got to love CS4) can do. I'm talking real proof, not bones that you simply assume were human remains because they slightly resemble them.
Slightly?

Lucy resembles a human much more than the "human prints" you mention resemble, well, human prints.

Lester, your post was, again, not worth replying to. More so knowing that you don't reply to the replies you think you can't reply to.


(Edited by wisp 1/10/2010 at 04:51 AM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:56 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First, welcome back, you've been gone for a while. Now, back to the discussion so my pride may be quenched.  

Quote from Lester10 at 02:01 AM on January 10, 2010 :
Nicely put. This is the overwhelming strategy of the evolutionists on this site. They appear to have their little book of insults which they share amongst themselves.


Odd, I never received this "little book of insults" you speak of. I guess I'm not hard core enough to get in on the good stuff yet.

They make stories up about how things happened in evolution and expect their opponents to demonstrate convincingly that these fairytales didn’t happen.


I'm just going to call out projection here. I know you will just say I'm projecting, but I think some of the veterans here might get a laugh or two out of this.

So, in other words, we might allow for God’s participation in the genesis of life since we have no other reasonable ideas; but if he exists and did have anything to do with that, he certainly was not involved thereafter because we believe that evolution was responsible.


Um, are you sure you understand the TE position? It is not reliant on God-of-the-gaps, it isn't a placeholder for the unknown. While TEs have different opinions, all of them say that God is in control of evolution however He see's fit. Some say He created the perfect system in His eyes and He doesn't need to control it or tweak it. Others believe He does interfere, and there are varying degrees on how much people believe He does interfere. Personally I think He does interfere, as the Bible shows us that He is active in His creation. But as to how much, I believe this to be unanswerable. If I had to guess, I would say on a large scale He lets nature run its course, but never neglects to interfere when necessary.  

As to abiogenesis, again there is variety among TEs. Some accept it, some don't. For those who do accept it, I think the same type of variance is seen as with evolution. Personally I have essentially the same stance (theologically) on both. I accept abiogenesis, and I think God let it work out naturally, except when necessary for divine intervention, and it is unanswerable as to how much intervention, but on a large scale I doubt there was that much. Of course I could be wrong, who knows.

No matter what the conditions and ingredients, no matter what the environment, no matter how many brains are brought to bear on the topic, life has failed to materialize ‘naturally’– yet evolutionists believe that somehow it must have happened, with no intelligence intervention whatsoever; just a random undirected miracle of natural processes. So is this science or is it faith?


You skew abiogenesis and evolution to create a more appealing stance for "God did it". You make it sound as if there is no order nor structure to evolution and abiogenesis, when there is, and quite a bit of it too.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 03:06 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Odd, I never received this "little book of insults" you speak of. I guess I'm not hard core enough to get in on the good stuff yet.


That’s true Fencer, I don’t call it ‘hard core’ but rather ‘extremely ghastly’ –luckily you don’t fit in there.

You skew abiogenesis and evolution to create a more appealing stance for "God did it".


I find it most difficult, in the light of what we do know, that either was possible via naturalistic processes. The code in DNA, for example, screams ‘intelligence’ yet apparently evolutionists believe that it fell together slowly but surely by purely natural means. There’s no evidence for this but faith covers a multitude of problems. ‘Evolutiondidit’ or ‘Godidit’ –which one will it be?

You make it sound as if there is no order nor structure to evolution and abiogenesis, when there is, and quite a bit of it too.


But how do you know this?



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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:30 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 02:54 AM on January 10, 2010 :
First off, you did not answer #1.  If anything you have avoided it thoroughly.  You have no answer because evolution has no answer to this.


You are correct in that evolution has no answer to this, but I'm not sure you understand why it doesn't have an answer, which is what me and Orion have tried to show you. Do you agree that the theory of gravity doesn't need to explain where all the matter in the universe came from?

I try to avoid the scientific parts of the conversation because they tend to change and be difficult to prove/disprove, but I am not afraid of a scientific argument.  However, you (who quite possibly knows a lot more science than I do) cannot deny that your theories are illogically based.


When it comes to science I must deny that they are illogically based. As you've said, science involves logic, so any scientific theory (like evolution) must be logical.

Am I an expert in logical deductive thinking?  Definitely.  Logic alone should be enough to question science.  Science itself is based off of logic, and without logic, would science have any truth to it?


Science is more than logic. It relies on evidence, testable observations, experiments ect. It is logical to assume that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but science clearly shows that it is the other way around.

"A little fun"?  I'm sorry, but do you really find me unintelligent enough to suggest that I find that somehow less offensive than full out insults?  It's the same thing with a slightly lesser tone.  That is all.  If you are going to insult me, do it properly and save the manipulative junk for people you will be capable of manipulating.


I do not find you "unintelligent", I didn't make up that part about the band teacher telling us about the positive correlation between musical ability/aptitude and intelligence. And there is evidence to suggest that this is the case. Personally I think it has a lot to do with conditioning the brain, like memorizing music and playing it when your old has shown to decrease the risk and symptoms of alzheimer's  and other memory conditions. Of course genetics plays a role too, but again psychology has shown that the environment (nurture) plays a vital role in brain development for all ages.

It's the same thing with a slightly lesser tone.  That is all.  If you are going to insult me, do it properly and save the manipulative junk for people you will be capable of manipulating.


I don't try manipulate you, or anyone for that matter. Sometimes I feel like subtly getting across a point, or whatever I want to say at the time. Other times I feel like being overly blatant or blunt, it is just the luck of the draw.  

You cannot logically answer this, so most of you seem to turn to facts which are quite untrustworthy and full of so much bias that it's ridiculous.


Logically answer what, exactly? How evolution started/created life? That in itself is an illogical question, and puts doubt into your claim that you've studied evolution and creationism for a long time. Or at a minimum the types of sources you used to study this issue. At least for me it does.

As Lester10 said, not everything in Creationism can be proven.  It requires some faith.  My point was merely to prove to you all that it requires much less faith than evolution.  It is easier to believe that my dog will grow wings and fly to the moon tomorrow than it is to believe in evolution.


Strictly speaking, nothing in science can be "proven", only disproved. Evolution doesn't require faith if you know about it, much like how you don't need faith in a heliocentric solar system because to those who know about the modern scientific facts/theories they require no faith. But to someone a few thousand years ago, it would be a great leap of faith to say that the Sun is the center of the solar system. Now evolution is slightly more complicated then that basic scenario.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:12 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You complained that we didn't address some of your points (even when i did, and you didn't address my addresses).

So now it's my turn to point fingers:

Your dodges


Okay, so I have studied both creationism and evolution for a long time.
You mean Young Earth Creationism?


I have come to many flaws in the evolution theory, and was wondering if anyone could attempt an explanation for me?
I'll sure give it a try.

Meanwhile, can you tell us about your convictions? Some details?


#1: The Giraffe.  This is a fairly basic example.
Yes, and i use it to demonstrate Evolution.

Click here to see the thread.
Did you check it?

Let's say that the giraffe starts after the Big Bang, or whichever theory of evolution you choose.
What do you mean by this? I only know one (and many versions of Creationism).

Giraffes don't "start". They have evolved, like every living thing.

And how could it "start" before the Big Bang?

What does the Big Bang have to do with the subject?


Either way, theres a molecule sized resemblance of what will someday be a giraffe right?
Huh?
You responded to this, but not satisfactorily, by saying
Now what I meant when I said molecule size is that it is a generalization that the animals grew into their present size over time.
Not only that is false. It's still not clear at all what you mean by a "molecule sized resemblance of what will someday be a giraffe".

If you believed that the Theory of Evolution implies such a thing (i don't think you do), you would be silly. If not, then you'd be dishonest.

I asked for an honest debate, and you're not complying.


So here's what evolution seems to say.  The giraffe happened to grow a heart.
Not at all. Evolution (which you said you studied) doesn't say anything remotely like that.

So your problem has just vanished.


It happened to grow a brain.  It happened to grow kidneys, liver, lungs, a spine, a nervous system, etc.... ALL at the same time.
No. Not giraffes at least.

What would a giraffe without a brain look like?


Now anyone (who without bias) looks at this statement will obviously come to the same conclusion I have. That's ridiculous.
I don't know what you mean by "same conclusion". That such a thing couldn't happen? Then you're right. But that's not a problem for Evolution.

You have an incredibly ignorant picture of it.


Also, this would imply that the giraffe also had a female that just happened to be growing at the exact same time.  and they just happened to mate.  and they just happened to be succesful every time in history till the giraffes you see today.  Not to mention they somehow knew what to eat, how to eat, and how to survive predators.
Hahaha!

Where do you say you studied Evolution?

Find me ANYONE who claims such a thing happened, or take that comment back (now is when you have the chance to be honest).

Nobody says such a ridiculous thing.


#2. Now all of that taken in, let's mention another confusing fact that seems to befuddle evolution.  The giraffe has a huge neck (obviously).  In that huge neck is a lot of muscles, and a whole lotta' blood.  What happens when the giraffe bends over for a drink?  Well gravity does it's thing and the blood rushes down it's neck into it's head.  This would put any other animal in a coma, or at the very least knock it out.
It's amazing, yes.
Instead, the giraffe locks out his head from his neck.  However, the giraffe's brain would die without any blood? So what does it do?  Well it has a tissue in it's head that acts like a sponge.  The sponge soaks up a certain amount of the blood before blocking out the rest.  Then it feeds the brain that blood until it has resumed it's upright position.
Awesome!
Now please, how is that possible?
By Evolution, of course.
That can't have evolved!
Why?
This would mean that the giraffes of the past would be knocked out every time they tried to drink.
Haha! So your conclusion is that they always had it?

Imagine a guy on a plane, in midair. If you take the plane away from him, he'll fall and have a hard time against the ground.

Ergo, he always had the plane. He must have been created with the plane.

No, right?

Can you spot the error on your own?


I think anyone can come to the conculsion that the ancestors didn't go into comas and be eaten by lions, or drown in the water every time the tried to drink... So how does evolution explain this?
Piece of cake. The sponge evolved slowly, as the neck grew longer.

Done.

That was easy. =D


#3. Now I figured some of you would try to explain that they didn't need their heart at the time,
At what time?


or that the giraffes hadn't developed such a long neck.
When?
Why aren't there giraffes midway through this transformation then?
What makes you think there aren't?
Didn't you know beforehand that, if you asked for a short necked giraffe, and it was shown to you, you wouldn't call it a "giraffe"?
If so, then why ask at all? Sounds dishonest.
If not, why didn't you think it through? Sounds silly.


Or why are there not really any mamals with this problem?
Because their necks are not that long?
By the way, the word is "mammals".

Keep in mind that most of my thoughts here are based off pure logical observation,
Perhaps. But it's also based on an amazing ignorance on the topic you said you studied for a long time.

Let's do this: you find a statement that's really supported by the Theory of Evolution (you'll have to show me some quotes, or it must be something we all agree upon), and debunk that. Otherwise you're just throwing strawmen (which is not cool).
You didn't reply. You didn't take my advice. You kept tossing straw men.

Do you understand that those are fallacies?

Of course, these dodges are only for my posts. It would be quite tiresome to look for all of them.


(Edited by wisp 1/10/2010 at 06:16 AM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:42 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You call that proof?  Some random website claims that i'm wrong?  You do realize that the creators of the websites are usually obsessed with evolution and are unwilling to comply with logic... just like you?  While I am inclined to think many of those pictures are fake, here is the most likely indication of how those could be scientifically explained.

Back in the time before the flood (don't deny there was a flood please... there's a whole mountain of evidence to suggest there was) scientists have come to realize that we had 2 atmospheres of pressure.  This means that we had an extra layer in the atmosphere filled with hydrogen.  For a while we had no idea what purpose this layer could have served, until we started replicating the layer.

Starting with plants, scientists were fascinated as they began to grow many times their original size.  2 Atmospheres of pressure causes things to grow larger.  We are not quite sure why exactly.  However, it's hard to argue with a tank full of 2-3 foot long Piranhas.  Also, snakes that are put under this field had a strange effect.  The 1st couple of generations had merely small effect, but after a while they began to change.  Not only did they grow larger, their venom began  to turn to medicine.  So back in the day where this field was active, being bitten by a snake would actually save you.  Odd eh?

Anyways, there is a museum dedicated to the research of this, and yes, it too is located in the lowly state of Texas.

Now that we know there was a hydrogen field in the sky, we also know that the sky was pink.  Before the sky was blue, it was pink!  This sounds completely strange at first, so scientists started experimenting with pink light.  Pink light is soothing.  Elderly people who are exposed to pink light for long periods of time will often begin to show signs that become more able.  Many examples of pink light being an unusual color.

Now since we can know there was a worldwide flood (evolutionists sometimes deny this, sometimes don't, but hey, Shark Teeth don't land in the middle of the sahara desert for no reason), What do you think would happen should this layer have broken?  A wall of hydrogen falling into an oxygen environment?  Hence the flood.


How is it not relevant?  Do you suggest that life itself has no beginning?  Do you believe that God started all life and then it evolved?  If so, then you are either not Christian, or have not studied the bible properly.  Or you just don't care... In any case, yes it does matter where life came from.  Yes it does matter, and the only reason you say it does not is to excuse the fact that other than God there is no explanation.  

No one has properly answered #1, or even really tried.  You have dodged and squirmed and made up idiotic excuses that have no way of explaining or excusing the topic at hand.

The bible is impossible.  It is not possible to write.  It has so many rules applied to it that the only way to have written it would to have written Greek and Hebrew themselves.  Why?  In it's original context, the bible sticks to 50 basic grammatical patterns.  For instance, it has a hugely unusual intances of the number seven.  The number of nouns divisible by 7, the number of verbs divisible by 7, etc for 48 more.  If you give today's leading experts merely 25 of these rules in any language they choose, they will fail.  The bible is impossible to write.

However most of you don't believe in it, so you find this irrelevant and will call me a liar right?  Well the bible requires some faith.  I repeat that it requires less than evolution.  Archeologists found Jericho a few years back.  Everyone was celebrating because they found that there were no walls around the city.  The bible was finally disproved!  Christians would be proven frauds!  ....  As it turns out, the kept digging, and when the bible says "the walls fell 'down'", it ment that literally.  The walls (which were 40 feet wide, and 60 feet deep if I remember correctly) were found around, and below the city.  

This is a pattern with people trying to disprove the bible.  They try, think they succeeded, only to find out it was a miserable failure.

Matthew

(Edited by aPassionatePlayer 1/10/2010 at 10:40 AM).


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 10:32 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

APP -

regarding your #1 question - origins of life:  We did answer it.  Science doesn't have a complete explanation of how life arose yet.  Science doesn't know how the first cells came about.  This is work in progress.  Why do you keep bringing this up?  We simply don't know the answer to that... yet.

Maybe God did it?  But that isn't a useful scientific hypothesis - it isn't testable.  Science cannot detect the supernatural.  Science can only deal with those things that are under Nature.

Fencer - didn't you say you go to George Mason University?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:51 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 10:32 AM on January 10, 2010 :


Back in the time before the flood (don't deny there was a flood please... there's a whole mountain of evidence to suggest there was)


OK, let's start.  I deny there was a global flood.

scientists have come to realize that we had 2 atmospheres of pressure.  


Nonsense, they have concluded nothing of the sort.  You are being deceived by those you trust.  Many become atheists after realizing how much they have been lied to by creationists.

This means that we had an extra layer in the atmosphere filled with hydrogen.  For a while we had no idea what purpose this layer could have served, until we started replicating the layer.


Produce the evidence to back this claim or retract it.


Starting with plants, scientists were fascinated as they began to grow many times their original size.  2 Atmospheres of pressure causes things to grow larger.  We are not quite sure why exactly.  However, it's hard to argue with a tank full of 2-3 foot long Piranhas.  Also, snakes that are put under this field had a strange effect.  The 1st couple of generations had merely small effect, but after a while they began to change.  Not only did they grow larger, their venom began  to turn to medicine.  So back in the day where this field was active, being bitten by a snake would actually save you.  Odd eh?


Produce the evidence.



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:51 AM on January 10, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

APP -

regarding your last post - I have to agree with Apoapsis, you will not find any of the things you mention in a science textbook or peer-reviewed paper.  Two atmospheres?  World-wide flood?  Snakes with medicinal venom bites? (not to be confused with vaccines produced from snake venom)  

I would like to know what 'scientists' are presenting this stuff, because it's not from mainstream science.  What are your sources? ICR (Institute for Creation Research)?  I'm sorry to disappoint you, but whatever your source, it's not a legitimate science organization.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:11 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He hasn't risen to the level of ICR or AiG, they recommend not using a lot of his arguments.

This is a Carl Baugh level indoctrination.


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:35 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm, now I'm beginning to understand his initial comment about having studied creationism and evolution for a long time.  He's been unwittingly looking at all the wrong sources.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:50 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Even for a creationist.


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:12 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You just keep dodging... Amazing...

There's no possible honest debate with you if you maintain this attitude. My hopes were not met. =(

You call that proof?  Some random website claims that i'm wrong?
You call that reading?

1# No. AGAIN, Science does not deal with proof.
2# Those sites claim that you're right.

Geez, man... Get a hold on yourself. And stop pretending that you've read (just like you pretend to know about Logic, Science and Evolution).

You do realize that the creators of the websites are usually obsessed with evolution and are unwilling to comply with logic... just like you?
Hahaha! I just showed you how wrong you are. Those are creationist sites. xD

I don't mention Logic quite as often as you do, but i'm actually very good at it.

Check this link and test yourself.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/

I got a perfect score. =D

While I am inclined to think many of those pictures are fake, here is the most likely indication of how those could be scientifically explained.

Back in the time before the flood (don't deny there was a flood please... there's a whole mountain of evidence to suggest there was)
Huh?

Why would i deny a flood?

I'm sure there have been lots and lots and lots of floods in the millions and millions and millions of years the Earth has been around.

But if you mean a GLOBAL flood, yeah, i deny it.

If you can back it up, please, present your evidence in a new thread.

Hearsay doesn't count. OK?

scientists have come to realize that we had 2 atmospheres of pressure.  This means that we had an extra layer in the atmosphere filled with hydrogen.
Hahaha! Cool! Show me the evidence.

For a while we had no idea what purpose this layer could have served, until we started replicating the layer.

Starting with plants, scientists were fascinated as they began to grow many times their original size.
Giant scientists! Awesome!

Please, show me! I'm very interested.

2 Atmospheres of pressure causes things to grow larger.  We are not quite sure why exactly.
Who is "we"?

Can you give us some links to the actual research at least?

However, it's hard to argue with a tank full of 2-3 foot long Piranhas.
Yeah... Show me those hydrogen induced giant pirañas!

Also, snakes that are put under this field had a strange effect.  The 1st couple of generations had merely small effect, but after a while they began to change.
Something environmental got inherited?

Woah! You have access to the coolest research!

Don't be shy! Show us! ^_^

Not only did they grow larger, their venom began  to turn to medicine.
What do you mean by "medicine"? Just generic medicine? Amazing!

And those stupid companies spending millions and millions of dollars on research, when they could just toss some snakes in a hyperbaric chamber!

So back in the day where this field was active, being bitten by a snake would actually save you.  Odd eh?
Very!

It's even stranger that the snakes didn't go extinct!

It's even stranger yet that many animals developed an instinct to fear snakes, but without Evolution!

Anyways, there is a museum dedicated to the research of this, and yes, it too is located in the lowly state of Texas.
The coincidence isn't stranger than those facts you mention (without giving us the references to the actual researches).

I'll tell you what... Your facts baffle me. I'll address them once you give me your reliable sources.

Meanwhile, why don't you address your many dodges? ^_^

Now since we can know there was a worldwide flood (evolutionists sometimes deny this, sometimes don't,
Sometimes they don't?

When? When they're average guys you meet in the streets? Or are you talking about actual scientists?

If so, when? Whey they're in the bathroom?

By "don't" you mean that they accept a global flood? Can you show me some quotes?

but hey, Shark Teeth don't land in the middle of the sahara desert for no reason), What do you think would happen should this layer have broken?  A wall of hydrogen falling into an oxygen environment?  Hence the flood.
Oh... During a storm?

There was no lightning in the whole world?

Because hydrogen is quite flammable, you know?

How is it not relevant?
Whoever said it wasn't?

If that's true i'm sure it must be relevant for many scientific researches, including paleontology, which is kind of important to polish the Theory of Evolution.

Show me the research, please.

Do you suggest that life itself has no beginning?
No.

I claim that it has no clear beginning.



I certainly don't know what YOU would call "life".

Are viruses alive, according to you?

What about prions?

Am i too naive if i expect an answer?

Do you believe that God started all life and then it evolved?
What do you care? My interest in this forum does not involve the beginning of life. It looks suspiciously like a red herring, or tying questions (a fallacious argument in any case).
If so, then you are either not Christian, or have not studied the bible properly.  Or you just don't care... In any case, yes it does matter where life came from.
Yes, it probably does.

Not in this forum though. Sorry. This forum is not about the many branches of Science that are opposed to your convictions.

There should be a forum about "Creationism VS Abiogenesis", and "Creationism VS Cosmology", and "Creationism VS Embryology", and "Creationism VS Geology"...

Perhaps i would reply to you there.

Unless, of course, you present evidence that support YOUR convictions.

Would you please state clearly what those are?

Yes it does matter, and the only reason you say it does not is to excuse the fact that other than God there is no explanation.
Straw man. I didn't say that.

There are many possible explanations. And no, they are not relevant to this discussion. So focus.

No one has properly answered #1, or even really tried.
Molecule sized giraffes "starting" at the Big Bang?

How else do you want me to address it?

"Nono" should suffice.

As for it "just growing parts", well, that's a "nono" too.

You claim that the ToE states that. You're clearly wrong.

Do i have to keep addressing it?

I mean... You ask me how i can defend a molecule-sized version of a giraffe starting with the Big Bang. Well, i can't.

How could i defend such stupidity?

You have dodged
HOLD YOUR HORSES!

I never dodge anything. EVER.

If i have to say "I don't know", i say it. If i have to say "I was wrong", i say it.

I showed you lots of things you dodged (including the replies that you say don't exist).

and squirmed and made up idiotic excuses that have no way of explaining or excusing the topic at hand.
Excuses for what?

Why don't you start quoting, so we know what you're talking about?

You don't cite your sources, you don't quote your straw men... There's no way to have a serious debate with you if you keep doing that.

The bible is impossible.  It is not possible to write.
Do you have a fever?

I really don't get your jargon.

Are you speaking in tongues?

It has so many rules applied to it that the only way to have written it would to have written Greek and Hebrew themselves.  Why?  In it's original context, the bible sticks to 50 basic grammatical patterns.  For instance, it has a hugely unusual intances of the number seven.
The word is "instances".
The number of nouns divisible by 7, the number of verbs divisible by 7, etc for 48 more.  If you give today's leading experts merely 25 of these rules in any language they choose, they will fail.  The bible is impossible to write.
Oki doki.

However most of you don't believe in it, so you find this irrelevant and will call me a liar right?
I think your dodges are dishonest, but i didn't call you a liar.

I don't think you've studied Evolution, but i think you believe it anyway.

Well the bible requires some faith.  I repeat that it requires less than evolution.
You can't repeat what you had not said before.

I've already asked you to define "faith" and show me why it's necessary to accept Evolution. That was one of your many dodges.

You just say things. You don't seem to feel the need to defend them. Tossing claims is easier.

Archeologists found Jericho a few years back.
Haha! I know!
Everyone was celebrating because they found that there were no walls around the city.  The bible was finally disproved!
It was disproved long before that. The discovery of heliocentrism was more than enough. So is the discovery of bacterial infections (as opposed to demons).
Christians would be proven frauds!
Haha! No, man... Frauds are those who are dishonest. They must know what they're doing.
As it turns out, the kept digging, and when the bible says "the walls fell 'down'", it ment that literally.  The walls (which were 40 feet wide, and 60 feet deep if I remember correctly) were found around, and below the city.
Your investigations fall short of the grace of knowledge.

The legend about the horns and the walls falling belonged to Jericho before the "children of Israel" came peacefully, and blended with the locals, and adopted the legend of Joshua.

How do they know this? Well, they found stone carvings relating the story, from before the time when it was supposed to have happened, and in the language and style of the locals.

The walls fell probably due to seismic activity.

They just came and mixed with the local people, and assimilated some of their myths and legends.

This is a pattern with people trying to disprove the bible.  They try, think they succeeded, only to find out it was a miserable failure.
The Bible says that pi = 3. There. Disproved.

Let's move on to your dodges, please.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:14 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 10:08 PM on January 9, 2010 :
First of all, you didn't answer #1.... or even seem to try.  Merely to discredit me.


You discredited yourself when you rather obviously embellished your past history re: 'studying' evolution.

Let us try some role reversal - let's say I show up on a creationism board and declare:

"I've studied creationism for a long time and I know all about it, so I'll need a creationist to explain to me why a 50-foot tall blue guy with 4 arms would create the universe as you claim?"

Would a rational person who really HAD studied creationism take me seriously?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:15 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So APP, is Carl Baugh your source of information?  He does have a 'museum' in Texas.  He seems to promote all the things you mention above.  Is he also your source for your evolution knowledge?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:21 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 10:32 AM on January 10, 2010 :
...scientists have come to realize that we had 2 atmospheres of pressure.  This means that we had an extra layer in the atmosphere filled with hydrogen.



Um...

Apparently, someone does not realize that 'an atmosphere' is a measure of PRESSURE, not an indication that there are two layers.

Let us all know how 6th grade finishes up for you, APP.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:40 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:


This makes more sense than the molecule-sized giraffe...



Edit:
derwood
aPassionatePlayer
...scientists have come to realize that we had 2 atmospheres of pressure.  This means that we had an extra layer in the atmosphere filled with hydrogen.
Apparently, someone does not realize that 'an atmosphere' is a measure of PRESSURE, not an indication that there are two layers.
W... Wait...

What THAT what he meant?

aPP, was THAT what you meant???

Well, actually, after the molecule sized giraffe in the Big Bang i don't know why it should surprise me...


(Edited by wisp 1/10/2010 at 2:12 PM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:54 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
aPassionatePlayer

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

lol well I gotta say you people didn't last as long as most people.  You have come to a point where you are purely critical instead of logical.

You have no logic.  None.  At all.  Merely pride.

and he is one of my many sources yes.  He is a nice guy!  I recommend anyone talking with him.

I obviously will never convince any of you.  You are all biased.  You are all proud to the point of illogical redundant statements that are not useful, merely belittling.

I could go on, explain proof of the flood.  Atleast until you show some random picture and blindly claim it's proof.  

Or until you make a statement that requires evolution to be true in the first place before it is even valid!!!

I could go on with seriously another 50+ examples that I have.  I could potentially write a book about these.  However you all deny sheer logic.

This brings up an interesting question.  What is logic?  Why does logic dictate us?  Why do all things we can comprehend work according to logic?  To be honest, I am not sure.  Logic is a set of rules given to us, and through them we can discern things that otherwise would seem impossible.

What happens when you give up logic?

The sad results you see on this forum.

As for the molecule size giraffe, that was merely an example of which I have heard a few evolutionists complain of before... kind of funny that you try to pin me with it so badly... it really quite failed.  It makes you seem desperate as you may or may not be.

Anyone who looks at this without a mind full of arrogance might be able to look and see the the logical statistics of evolution is beginning to fail. Evolutionists are having a harder and harder time proving their theories.  I have a feeling that in 50 years it will be so ridiculous that everyone will know it is false. Maybe it won't.  Maybe world will wisen up and realize that Darwin was wrong.  There are rumors that he himself admitted he was wrong, although there was never evidence to back this up.  

I am tired with wasting my time with people who can't see straight logic when it dances naked infront of them.

Have fun insulting me.  Heck, while you are at it, why not insult the entire creationist community?  You all seem adept at pulling out lies and sarcasm on the fly.The only evolutionist here that I felt kept an unbiased opinion was Orion (thank you).

Overall I am done wasting my time with you all.  If you wish to discuss the situation privately in an unbiased manner, please private message me.  

You may say that you have won.  Mock me for "quitting" as you will call it.  I don't really care.  I will stand strong in my place as a Christian.  I will be on God's side when I die, and those who don't will be sorry.

Thank you all for your time,
Matthew Hathaway


-------
Piano, Mountain Dulcimer, Mandolin, Hammered Dulcimer, Mandocello, Cello, Octave Mandolin, Harmonica, Pan Flute, Xaphoon, Recorder, Guitar, Bass, Bongos, and violin.

LIFE IS AWESOME! :)
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 2:43 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

   “It often happens that even a non-Christian knows a thing or two about the earth, the sky, the various elements of the world, about the movement and revolution of the stars and even their size and distance, about the nature of animals, shrubs, rocks, and the like, and maintains this knowledge with sure reason and experience. It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.

   “The trouble is not so much that the erring fellow is laughed at but that our authors are believed by outsiders to have held those same opinions and so are despised and rejected as untutored men, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil…How are they going to believe our books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven when they think they are filled with fallacious writing about things which they know from experience or sure calculation?

   “There is no telling how much harm these rash and presumptuous people bring upon their more prudent brethren when they begin to be caught and argued down by those who are not bound by the authority of our Scriptures, and when they then try to defend their flippant, rash, and obviously erroneously statements by quoting a shower of words from those same Sacred Scriptures, even citing from memory those passages which they think support their case, ‘without understanding either what they are saying or things about which they make assertions’ (I Tim. 1:7)” – St. Augustine in The Literal Meaning of Genesis



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:50 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

aPassionatePlayer
lol well I gotta say you people didn't last as long as most people.
I wonder what would "last" mean.
You have come to a point where you are purely critical instead of logical.
I critique you for not addressing your dodges.
You have no logic.  None.  At all.  Merely pride.
You have no Science. Merely... Well, nothing.
and he is one of my many sources yes.  He is a nice guy!  I recommend anyone talking with him.
So you test for niceness, and then accept what they tell you?

I'm quite nice. =D

I obviously will never convince any of you. You are all biased.  You are all proud to the point of illogical redundant statements that are not useful, merely belittling.
Instead of commenting the discussion you could (you know?) address your many dishonest dodges.
I could go on, explain proof of the flood.
Proof...

You don't know the first thing about Science, and you have demonstrated that you don't learn either.

Science does NOT deal with proof.

Atleast until you show some random picture and blindly claim it's proof.
Hahaha! No! xD

Another claim you won't back up, or take back. Your dishonesty is quite blatant.
Or until you make a statement that requires evolution to be true in the first place before it is even valid!!!
Huh? Before?
I could go on with seriously another 50+ examples that I have.  I could potentially write a book about these.
Ok... You know about Science, Math, Logic, Evolution, and you play 50 instruments.

Yeah, i'm starting to doubt the instruments too.

However you all deny sheer logic.
You have shown none. You don't know the first thing about Logic either.

This brings up an interesting question.  What is logic?  Why does logic dictate us?  Why do all things we can comprehend work according to logic?
I gave you a link to test yourself. I'm sure you'll fail, just as you failed here.

And i don't just say it (like you do). I say relevant things you can't respond to.

To be honest, I am not sure.  Logic is a set of rules given to us, and through them we can discern things that otherwise would seem impossible.
Yeah, we've seen your discernment.
What happens when you give up logic?

The sad results you see on this forum.
Blah blah blah.
As for the molecule size giraffe, that was merely an example of which I have heard a few evolutionists complain of before... kind of funny that you try to pin me with it so badly... it really quite failed.
Do you think i'm obliged to defend those stupid virtual evolutionists you refer to?

They're probably as imaginary as your knowledge.

That's what happen when you talk to the voices in your head instead of checking your info with reliable sources.

It makes you seem desperate as you may or may not be.
For what?
Anyone who looks at this
"This" what?
without a mind full of arrogance
Hey, by your own words you were supposed to know more than all of us together. And then you showed your complete ignorance on the matter you're trying to discuss.

Lucky you have no shame.
might be able to look and see the the logical statistics of evolution is beginning to fail.
Logical statistics? Are you making up terms?

Evolutionists are having a harder and harder time proving their theories.
That was always just as hard as it is now: impossible.

You can't prove a theory. You don't know even that. There's no amount of evidence that will promote a theory to a fact.

If you don't even know that, well... I don't know what to tell you...

I have a feeling that in 50 years it will be so ridiculous that everyone will know it is false. Maybe it won't.
Hahaha! Great predictions, man.

Maybe world will wisen up and realize that Darwin was wrong.  There are rumors that he himself admitted he was wrong, although there was never evidence to back this up.
Science is not about people, but about facts.

You have used yet another fallacious argument: ad hominem.

I am tired with wasting my time with people who can't see straight logic when it dances naked infront of them.
You don't know what logic is.
Have fun insulting me.  Heck, while you are at it, why not insult the entire creationist community?
Because not all of them claim to have a great deal of knowledge.

We're all ignorant in some way or another.

You all seem adept at pulling out lies and sarcasm on the fly.
How perceptive!

What lies? Can you quote them?

There's another thing for you to dodge.

The only evolutionist here that I felt kept an unbiased opinion was Orion (thank you).
Orion is very cool. And his unbiased opinion is that you're wrong (thank you).

Overall I am done wasting my time with you all.  If you wish to discuss the situation privately in an unbiased manner, please private message me.
I've seen your dodging. What? You dodge in private too?

You may say that you have won.  Mock me for "quitting" as you will call it.  I don't really care.
Your mentioning it shows you do.

It's a psychological trick (which won't work anyway).

From Wiki:

A self-defeating prophecy is the complementary opposite of a self-fulfilling prophecy: a prediction that prevents what it predicts from happening. This is also known as the "prophet's dilemma".

I will stand strong in my place as a Christian.  I will be on God's side when I die, and those who don't will be sorry.
Yeeeaaaah! Your true face, finally! Haha!

(Edited by wisp 1/10/2010 at 4:18 PM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:18 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just in case you stop by once more.

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 2:43 PM on January 10, 2010 :
lol well I gotta say you people didn't last as long as most people.  You have come to a point where you are purely critical instead of logical.


You yourself have made very uneducated questions, demonstrated that you no very little about the methodology of science and science in general. You refuse to answer questions, even when those questions are merely to clarify what you are saying. Science is very critical of everything, and such is the nature of science. I have not studied logic, and if we have made illogical claims I would like to know what they are and why. This would be something I would like addressed if you decide to read and respond to this.

I obviously will never convince any of you.  You are all biased.  You are all proud to the point of illogical redundant statements that are not useful, merely belittling.


I am biased, but that bias comes from interacting with creationists for years, and actually studying evolution, as well as basic theology/religion and the mindset of the ancient Hebrews who wrote what creationists say are infallible.

I could go on, explain proof of the flood.  Atleast until you show some random picture and blindly claim it's proof.  

Or until you make a statement that requires evolution to be true in the first place before it is even valid!!!

I could go on with seriously another 50+ examples that I have.  I could potentially write a book about these.  However you all deny sheer logic.


Logic is good, but science doesn't rely on just logic (as I've said before), but requires evidence to back up any and all claims made. Without knowing anything about evolution, I can easily see why logic could discredit evolution, but what does the evidence suggest?

What happens when you give up logic?

The sad results you see on this forum.


I would dare say that if you studied science, and evolution in particular, you would have a different opinion.

Anyone who looks at this without a mind full of arrogance might be able to look and see the the logical statistics of evolution is beginning to fail. Evolutionists are having a harder and harder time proving their theories.


Again, you cannot "prove" anything in science. With in the scientific community (people that actually have studied and experimented with evolution as a profession), evolution grows stronger every day. The only people that don't agree with evolution are laymen. The closest thing to a real scientist creationism has is Dr. Behe, and from what I understand, I accepts evolution, but does not think evolution is able to explain everything. Thus inventing the concept of 'irreducibly complex systems'. In which he feels that some systems cannot have evolved, even though he agrees with evolution in a broad sense.

I have a feeling that in 50 years it will be so ridiculous that everyone will know it is false. Maybe it won't.  Maybe world will wisen up and realize that Darwin was wrong.  There are rumors that he himself admitted he was wrong, although there was never evidence to back this up.


I have a feeling that in 50 years the evidence for evolution will be even greater. But because of the resistance of the fundamentalism movement, and lack of scientific education, creationism will still be running around.  

I am tired with wasting my time with people who can't see straight logic when it dances naked infront of them.


Too bad, but the discussion was getting repetitive, and continuous ad hominem attacks are never pleasant.  

Have fun insulting me.  Heck, while you are at it, why not insult the entire creationist community?


Sure, why not. Creationism is an insult to the entire world. But it is not the layperson's fault, too many of them are just too ignorant and indoctrinated into a fundamentalist belief to know better.

Overall I am done wasting my time with you all.  If you wish to discuss the situation privately in an unbiased manner, please private message me.


I hope this means you will be around for at least a little while longer, you seem to have some interesting ideas. I am too young to be familiar with the old creationist ideas, which apparently you are familiar with and base your ideas off of.   


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 4:34 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

APP - if you find the courage to let yourself do it, read about real evolution someday.  It's really quite a facinating subject.  Very cool.  You will even find that the evidence that supports it IS very logical.  And accepting evolution doesn't mean you have to deny God.  

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:20 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
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.