Notices
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 601 to 700 of 819
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: radio isotope dating question.

  1. #601  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    You don't? So are you saying it ALL popped into existence all at once then?
    sigh ... see, you're doing it again : i say something isn't totally white and you immediately jump to the conclusion that this something is black - there are so many shades of grey inbetween (in fact, life usually isn't an either-or situation)

    larger chemicals usually form from the concatenation of smaller ones - so neither the option where you add one atom at a time nor the one where all atoms join miraculously together in the right position is a realistic proposition

    let's go through the formation of molecules in interstellar space

    1. provided the atoms (usually of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, with a sprinkling of other elements) can come into physical contact with one another (and remember, the density of interstellar clouds is still very low, but on the other hand, there's millions of years to play with), normal chemical affinity will form simple molecules such H2, H2O, NH3, CO, HCN etc. etc.
    2. occasional supernovae send shock waves as well radiation through interstellar clouds, which is not only thought to lead to their collapse to form stars, but also bumps these simple molecules together with enough energy for some of them to stick together
    3. from the Miller-Urey experiment we know that it's quite easy to make amino acids under these circumstances, and subsequent experiments designed to simulate the specific conditions of interstellar space have confirmed that

    whether these amino acids are exactly the same as the ones used in life on earth is neither here nor there : the fact is that amino acids were formed - it's only historical contingency that a specific type or types were used in DNA to exclusion of other possibilities

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    so they donít know, they have no proof, they go by FAITH, but wont admit it. If you have a theory, then work on trying to back it up with proof, but do not have or find that proof yet, what do you then have if you still hold onto that theory?
    no, there's a vast difference between blind faith and faith in a provisional scientific theory that so far has not been falsified

    say for instance you throw a ball into the air and record where it lands; you attempt to throw it the same way all the time, but there will be variations in the way you throw it or there may be variations in the amount of wind and the direction it comes from - still, despite all the variation in where the ball lands (and which you may at the time not be able to explain in full) you will be able to come to the conclusion that the ball always falls back to earth, and usually within a small window of time

    working in science is a bit like that: you form a working hypothesis, you test it, you keep the bits that seem to be confirmed by the test and throw away the other bits, you test your revised hypothesis etc. etc., each time coming closer to the correct solution
    you may not know the exact path taken to come to a fully working DNA-RNA system inside a cell, but you probably have a fair idea what the general steps are, whilst at the same you're still testing to confirm or refute specific pathways

    with each experiment you have either firmed up an existing hypothesis, modified it to take into account new data or taken out bits that are anomalous
    now you probably would interpret this method as "scientist don't what they're doing, because they change their mind all the time", but during the process of testing hypotheses, you tend to work around a central core which over time becomes established and around which you continue to confirm smaller subhypotheses - a bit like setting aside the fact that the ball always falls back to earth as the proven core of your experiment and use this as a stepping stone to try and get to the detail of explaining the reasons for the variability in exactly how it happens

    one last thing : in your black-and-white picture of the world there's only 2 alternatives, proof and faith
    i've tried to explain to you (and i obviously seem to fail to get through to you) there's a multitude of alternatives, one of which is the evidence-based, provisional acceptance of a hypothesis, but i have the impression that your mindset fails to comprehend what the scientific method stands for : one of its greatest strengths, being able to modify fringes of a hypothesis whilst keeping a central core of accepted fact, you see as one of its greatest weaknesses, exactly because your world vision doesn't allow anything other than a black-and-white picture
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #602  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    sigh ... see, you're doing it again : i say something isn't totally white and you immediately jump to the conclusion that this something is black - there are so many shades of grey inbetween (in fact, life usually isn't an either-or situation)
    How is it not either white or black? How is life not a either or situation? I honestly do not understand. And itís not because I am dumb, itís because this is what how I see it. Could you help me see what you see.


    larger chemicals usually form from the concatenation of smaller ones - so neither the option where you add one atom at a time nor the one where all atoms join miraculously together in the right position is a realistic proposition
    If larger chemicals form from smaller ones connecting, how does the smaller ones connect? Smaller does not mean less complex, it means smaller. Reminds me of the Chinese who have made a microscopic tiny spaghetti and meatball dish, with the same precise details of a normal size one. Smaller does not mean less complex. Bugs are allot smaller then us, yet they are just as complex as we are. Smaller is not less complex. So if those small things that are complex join together to make bigger things, how did those smaller complex organized things come to be? Because if the organized system of a small particle that is even smaller then an atom came to be without all of itís organization, then it would collapse, hence the building of bigger stuff, like the atom, to a molecule, to something bigger would not even begin to happen. So where did the organization come from? Where did the design come from? Design is EVERYWHERE. Itís not just young earth bible creationistís that claim design, even some amongst your own people claim design. So where and how did this organization and complexity come from, even amongís smaller things? Nothing is truly simple, nothing is really a dumb blob of random bla. Itís all organized and complex. Even if itís not as complex as something ELSE, itís still complex and organized. So my question still stands, where did the organization come from? And how would it survive if it was not fully formed at the start? Also this applies to the chicken and egg syndrom. What came first, the chicken or the egg? You still have not answered these questions for me. You have been trying to, but you have been going around the question. It appears to me you have just been going to smaller and smaller things, but smaller is not less complex.


    let's go through the formation of molecules in interstellar space

    1. provided the atoms (usually of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, with a sprinkling of other elements) can come into physical contact with one another (and remember, the density of interstellar clouds is still very low, but on the other hand, there's millions of years to play with), normal chemical affinity will form simple molecules such H2, H2O, NH3, CO, HCN etc. etc.
    2. occasional supernovae send shock waves as well radiation through interstellar clouds, which is not only thought to lead to their collapse to form stars, but also bumps these simple molecules together with enough energy for some of them to stick together
    Notice your key word: density, itís very low. Then notice your other key word: millions of years to play with(assumption). Those millions of years are there slot machine to increase there odds for them, but still the odds are against them even with playing with so much time. Also those super nova according to what I have read, only one per century on average happen. So if only one per century happen, the odds of the atoms clumping together are even MORE scarce. Plus even if more then one super nova were to happen per century, still the stars are so far apart from each other, and take up so little space in comparison to how much space there is, that the radiation would be very low for a lot of space. Plus even if it were to go all over space, still itís only one per century. What your guys are doing is playing with a slot machine and one that does not work very well. Also for the atoms to bump together and stick it has to have the right amount of energy, not to much, not to little, again this is another slot machine. Plus the atoms and stuff smaller then it, itís not simple, they are still organized. The H2 ext. How are all those simple?

    3. from the Miller-Urey experiment we know that it's quite easy to make amino acids under these circumstances, and subsequent experiments designed to simulate the specific conditions of interstellar space have confirmed that

    whether these amino acids are exactly the same as the ones used in life on earth is neither here nor there : the fact is that amino acids were formed - it's only historical contingency that a specific type or types were used in DNA to exclusion of other possibilities
    The Miller experiment made both handed amino acids and not JUST left handed ones. And left handed without the right handed is what is necessary for life, also it did not make ALL the amino acids that are crucial for life, only a few of them. And even if miller did make all left handed, itís still not life he made. But having only made both handed ones, shows the hopelessness of the situation for evolutionists.

    Plus the amino acids found in space are not the same kind we have in our bodies now from what I have read in the article you gave me.

    say for instano, there's a vast difference between blind faith and faith in a provisional scientific theory that so far has not been falsified

    nce you throw a ball into the air and record where it lands; you attempt to throw it the same way all the time, but there will be variations in the way you throw it or there may be variations in the amount of wind and the direction it comes from - still, despite all the variation in where the ball lands (and which you may at the time not be able to explain in full) you will be able to come to the conclusion that the ball always falls back to earth, and usually within a small window of time
    Throwing a ball can be observed, the variations can be observed and explained. Primitive earth cannot be observed, let alone explained. Itís assumed. You see we throw the ball in the air, it falls to earth, within a range of time, in the range of spot. That is observed fact, explanations to WHY there is variations, that is interpretations, but fact is, ball comes down. Primitive earth, not observed, hence assumed, then explanations built on assumption. So, how is it fact? Fact is that which is proved.


    working in science is a bit like that: you form a working hypothesis, you test it, you keep the bits that seem to be confirmed by the test and throw away the other bits, you test your revised hypothesis etc. etc., each time coming closer to the correct solution
    you may not know the exact path taken to come to a fully working DNA-RNA system inside a cell, but you probably have a fair idea what the general steps are, whilst at the same you're still testing to confirm or refute specific pathways
    so if you do not know a working DNA-RNA system inside a cell for primitive earth, even if you do have a fair idea, itís still faith. And fair idea would be stretching it. What exactly is that fair idea they have? To where a cell in a ocean could survive?


    one last thing : in your black-and-white picture of the world there's only 2 alternatives, proof and faith
    i've tried to explain to you (and i obviously seem to fail to get through to you) there's a multitude of alternatives, one of which is the evidence-based, provisional acceptance of a hypothesis, but i have the impression that your mindset fails to comprehend what the scientific method stands for : one of its greatest strengths, being able to modify fringes of a hypothesis whilst keeping a central core of accepted fact, you see as one of its greatest weaknesses, exactly because your world vision doesn't allow anything other than a black-and-white picture

    In my black and white picture of the world there is NOT 2 alternatives, there is proof, evidence(indicators) reason and then faith. So there is 4 things. I have evidence, reason and faith backing me up, but not proof. You have evidence, reason and faith backing you up, but not proof. We both have evidence, reason and faith, but no proof. I think I have more reason, evidence backing me up, which means I have less faith. You think you have more reason and evidence backing you up, so you think you have less faith and I have more. You see we can run around in a circle with this all day. You think im ALL faith, no, there is lots of evidence and reason for my views.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #603  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    for crying out loud, jollybear, are you just arguing for argument's sake ? do you deny that there are molecules of of H2, H2O, NH3, CO, HCN etc in interstellar space ? how else do you expect them to have formed from atoms rather than through simple chemical affinity ?

    + in this case small molecules consisting of 2 or 3 atoms ARE less complex than larger molecules : if you just take a chemistry point of view, you'll notice that small molecules have a limited number of ways that they can interact with their environment, whereas larger ones have more ways to do so - that is a difference in complexity in my book

    as for the Miller-Urey experiment, i'm very well aware that amino acids of both types of handedness were created, whereas life only uses one version
    maybe a chemist will be able to tell you why life could not possibly function with both types of handedness, but for me it's sufficient that life, as a matter of historical contingency, used one type and has continued to do so ever since

    as to the question "how is life not a either or situation?" have a look at the following recent article in New Scientist : Did evolution come before life? - if, as the authors claim, a form of natural selection already existed in pre-biotic molecules then this indicates that the different characteristics by which we recognise current life did not come about all at once

    hence there was a period in time where chemicals with some life-like characteristics existed that were more than lifeless molecules but at the same time not quite life as we now know it
    but i expect you to pooh-pooh this again as so much assumption, since transitional states are and have always been anathema to creationists - you fail to see the evidence because you choose to close your eyes to it, while at the same time accepting outdated and refuted notions as evidence because they match your preconceptions
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #604  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Im not arguing for arguments sake. I donít deny there are molecules of H2, H2O, NH3, CO, HCN etc in interstellar space. And no I do not believe that stuff smaller then atoms formed out of nothing, and that molecules formed from atoms(although yes, molecules are made of atoms, and manipulating atoms to form molecules can be don to my knowledge, I donít deny that) and that molecules formed bigger stuff, and bigger stuff formed bigger stuff. I believe God created it fully functional. In other words, I believe God created the chicken rather then the egg sort of speak. In your view, what came first, the chicken or the egg? Im not asking you if you believe God created it, im just asking what you believe came first? Or what does evolutionists suppose to believe came first: the chicken or the egg? And when I ask this, I apply this principle of the chicken and the egg to both the micro world and the big world alike. But seriously, this is a honest question I have, and I believe itís a very good question, you might think itís foolish, but I think itís very good and deserves an answer.

    Itís true molecules consisting of 2 or 3 atoms are less complex then molecules consisting of 5, 6 or 7 atoms. However the bigger molecule is only appearing to be more complex because of it having more atoms attached to it whilst the smaller molecule appears less complex because of less atoms itís made of. However that is only appearance, the atoms themselves are complex alone, they are made of protons, electrons neutrons, and quarks. With orbits. And a nucleus. So adding that INTO the simple molecule that is made of 2 atoms, now the molecule does not appear as simple as you thought. So my question still stands and has not been answered yet, where did the organization and complexity and design come from? How did it get there? Because itís definitely there. That should not even be a argument, that is a fact, thatís observed. May I have an answer? PLUS even IF I were not to include the complexity of the atom alone with the 2 atom simple molecule, STILL the simple molecule consisting of 2 atoms still has organization to it. Itís like comparing a simple coffee table to a computer, which one is more complex? The computer is, but the table still shows organization and design. So, where did the order and design in these atoms, molecules, amino acids come from? What came first, the chicken or the egg?


    The miller experiment is not a reality for the real world in regards to origins. Itís just not. His results actually give evidence that life was NOT a primitive soup, the very thing he was trying to give evidence for, he gave evidence against. So my conclusion is, there was no primordial soup. Millers experiment showed that full well.

    And I have listened to a audio on youtube from an evolutionist perspective on why life has only the left handed amino acids. They say natural selection selected out the right handed ones. Imagine that now? They just explain it away with there assumption, no basis of proof. Not to mention even if it did select it out so just the left hand ones remained, they would not make life because there is many numbers of amino acids that are needed for life, along with other stuff. The odds again are just against it happening UNLESS of course, God did it. There is no difference with you saying ďchance did itĒ then me saying ďGod did itĒ. God doing it, the odds of it happening are better, whilst chance doing it, the odds of it happening are slimmer. Thatís why I say my reasoning is greater then yours, and you have more faith then I.

    Also natural selection does not bring about macro evolution, it just makes the most fit for the environment survive. So the left handed amino acids will remain amino acids. They would survive while the right handed would vanish off. That donít mean macro evolution, or micro even. Just means the best adapted survive.

    Also how did life not come about all at once? Does this mean you believe the egg came first and not the chicken?

    Yes molecules having a form of life, which we do not see today I would cry assumption this is. There is no proof of this. Also EVEN IF your assumption is correct, that primitive molecules did have some unknown form of life, still where did the design and organization and complexity come from? What came first, the chicken or the egg?

    Also there is no transitional forms, and any that are claimed to be, are very limited number, when in fact there should be insurmountable numbers of them. Also that limited number that is claimed to be transitional is disputed. If you would like to discuss a transitional form, please present one.

    I do not close my eyes, my eyes are wide open, but I still do not see any truth in what you claim. You then may see me as blind, but my eye lids are wide open. If im wrong or blind, please help me by giving me some eye medicine, or in other words, give me the answer to my question, where did the organization come from, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

    Also my question which has not received an answer is obviously not outdated, since it has not received no answer yet. And if my answer or argument has been long refuted, why is it not being refuted yet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #605  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i give up - there's no getting through to you
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #606  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i give up - there's no getting through to you
    Damn' I just opened a beer and bucket of pocorn. I just started to enjoy the show and now - after only 40some pages of trying to get through to a complete nincompoop - you allready give up?? Try harder!!

    Anyone ready to fill in??
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #607  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Jolly, one thing you have to realise is the fallacy in seeing something in the large odds for something to happen. Creationists often claim (as you have been) that the chances for life to occur on its own is just too great, similarly the chances that (mostly) only 20 left handed amino acids are found. But think about it. You could use that same argument for anything (and many people do). What are the chances that I would be speaking to you over the internet? Think about it. We were born at different times and at vastly separated places. Yet through our entire lives things have conglomerated into us having this conversation. What are the chances of that happening if you think about it? But here are. Amazing huh? No. It is just the way things worked out. Try to compare this to how life originated and evolved. Creationists commonly reduce the abiogenesis idea to "they say we came from rocks? Absurd!". Well, not really if you KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Lets for the moment assume that god made all the kinds of particles found in nature. Now, each particle has its own attributes which naturally causes them to congeal into atoms. Atoms naturally congeal into molecules, while each step changes the way the new system behaves. They do all of this simply by being what they are, not by an unseen hand pushing them together. It happens every day and is OBSERVED.

    Now, as far as the black and white thing goes:

    If society were to function with your logic, we would not have survived for very long. The scientific method (the pragmatic method) for figuring out stuff is to see the effect and try and deduce the cause. The further you delve into the dynamics of the cause (using experimentation, observation, formulating and testing of hypotheses), the better all the components of the cause fit together. Eventually the components fit together so well that you can start making predictions using the up-to-date theory of how that particular thing works. That is precisely the case with evolution, geology, etc.etc. The theories are built on tentative assumptions at first, but these assumptions get tested as rigorously as possible until eventually, if the assumption/hypothesis survives the initial testing phase and it does a better job at explaining how things work than all the other theories, it gets accepted by the majority of practitioners in that field. But never is any theory ever deemed as the final one in its entirety. A theory does not necessarily require that the exact workings of all its components are known.

    For instance, the ball analogy MarnixR put forth. You know that if you let go of the ball that it will drop to the ground. It does not necessarily mean that you know exactly how gravity works, or even what the specifics of gravity is in other locations and scales, but you can still with certainty say that the ball will drop to the ground. That is the way it is with evolution, in that it is the same as with the ball dropping. Evolution, though, is a pretty complex issue with MANY participating factors. The FACT is that almost every part of the multitude that makes up the theory makes sense. We have direct evidence of it everywhere. Of course we can’t in most cases watch it happen, as it takes a long time to happen, but every part of the theory indicates the result.

    Finally, the fundamental problem with your approach to this issue is the pre-emptive givens that you use to judge the validity of the various theories. You believe in God’s involvement in almost every aspect of existence, and you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you are unable to even reconsider the truth behind these beliefs of yours then no matter how thoroughly we refute your points, it will never make the slightest difference. The scientific theories do not even necessarily require the non-existence of a God, only the level of his involvement. If you stand up and go and build a wooden wardrobe from scratch, did God build it? No, you did. Similarly, scientists have never found anything in nature that requires the involvement of a God for it to work. Think about this: is it not vastly more wonderful to think that god made the simple constituents of the universe, like particles and the forces, knowing that eventually, after an unimaginably high number of steps in between, that we would result? Is that not vastly more amazing than God doing everything all the time? This does not preclude the involvement of a God in our emotional and circumstantial lives, mind you. Forget for the moment that creationists would be wilfully lying if you ever found out that all their nonsense was made up, and just really consider for a moment the possibility that much of the bible is the product of human fancy, wishful dream analysis, ad hoc circumstantial interpretations and maybe even flat lies. We are all human, even the religious, and are still subject to the same flaws. The accounts in the Bible can very often be traced to the say-so of one man, the final product of word of mouth, or the eventual consensus of a few. Just consider the possibility that somewhere someone misunderstood something or misinterpreted something he saw, or saw something that was not there, or even convinced themselves of something that never happened. This is something that happens to everyone, for example seeing the face of the Virgin Mary in odd places. If you were to try, I guarantee you that you would also be able find the face Barney the Purple Dinosaur in all sorts of weird places! So if you are unable to reconsider the truth behind these two convictions of yours, then we really have nothing to discuss.

    This is an uncharacteristically long and rambling post on my part, so please forgive me! Good luck to you.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #608  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Jolly, one thing you have to realise is the fallacy in seeing something in the large odds for something to happen. Creationists often claim (as you have been) that the chances for life to occur on its own is just too great, similarly the chances that (mostly) only 20 left handed amino acids are found. But think about it. You could use that same argument for anything (and many people do). What are the chances that I would be speaking to you over the internet? Think about it. We were born at different times and at vastly separated places. Yet through our entire lives things have conglomerated into us having this conversation. What are the chances of that happening if you think about it? But here are. Amazing huh? No. It is just the way things worked out. Try to compare this to how life originated and evolved. Creationists commonly reduce the abiogenesis idea to "they say we came from rocks? Absurd!". Well, not really if you KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Lets for the moment assume that god made all the kinds of particles found in nature. Now, each particle has its own attributes which naturally causes them to congeal into atoms. Atoms naturally congeal into molecules, while each step changes the way the new system behaves. They do all of this simply by being what they are, not by an unseen hand pushing them together. It happens every day and is OBSERVED.
    How is my argument have a fallacy in it just because I do what creationists have don by speaking on the odds of life happening by chance are not possible? I donít say it because they say it, I say it because it does make a good point. Plus the chances of me and you meeting on this board and having this conversation is only chance, but if we were to meet in china tomorrow without knowing each others plans, and then the next day meet each other at the grocery store in charlotte, then the day after that meet each other at a coffee shop in New York, WITHOUT knowing each others plans, or anyone else knowing them, and then if we met AGAIN over in Africa at a little corner store. What are the odds of that happening? Slim to nothing, that is the odds. In other words, it would not happen. NOW IF it did happen, THAT WOULD NOT BE CHANCE, that would be GOD doing a divine appointment as I call it. However if I may add, since I am not much of a believer in chance at all(I do not say this for your sake, but mine, I said us meeting on this board and only this board would be chance, I said that for your sake) us meeting on this board only, is still not chance in my eyes, I believe it is still a appointment from God that we both crossed each others paths on this board. However if we had met again and again in so many places that means the appointment would be very high and different purpose God would have in mind. But anyways, the type of chance of life happening from non living molecules and then evolving is like us meeting 50 times in a row in different places without knowing each others plans. In other words, itís like playing a slot machine that does not work very well. Your making the chance that it could happen more easier, itís not like that, you have made the odds smaller. The odds of it happening are not 1 in 1, or 1 in 3, itís 1 out of a zillion. If the earth were to be 6 thousand years old, the odds of it happening would be 1 out of a zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion. If it is billions of years old, the odds for you are better, but only by 1 out of a zillion now. Not much and still small. Even if the odds were 1 out of a billion. STILL that is crazy, itís still not happening.

    So do you believe God created all the particles with all there ability to connect and do there lawful functions? Weather I believe God created them and sustains or manages those functions and laws within the particles, or weather you believe God created them with those lawful functions and then leaves them to do there thing, in other words does not manage it, regardless, you then admit there is order and design and organization and complexity in all the atoms and particles ext and God created it? Or God DID IT? Do you admit this?


    Now, as far as the black and white thing goes:

    If society were to function with your logic, we would not have survived for very long. The scientific method (the pragmatic method) for figuring out stuff is to see the effect and try and deduce the cause. The further you delve into the dynamics of the cause (using experimentation, observation, formulating and testing of hypotheses), the better all the components of the cause fit together. Eventually the components fit together so well that you can start making predictions using the up-to-date theory of how that particular thing works. That is precisely the case with evolution, geology, etc.etc. The theories are built on tentative assumptions at first, but these assumptions get tested as rigorously as possible until eventually, if the assumption/hypothesis survives the initial testing phase and it does a better job at explaining how things work than all the other theories, it gets accepted by the majority of practitioners in that field. But never is any theory ever deemed as the final one in its entirety. A theory does not necessarily require that the exact workings of all its components are known.

    For instance, the ball analogy MarnixR put forth. You know that if you let go of the ball that it will drop to the ground. It does not necessarily mean that you know exactly how gravity works, or even what the specifics of gravity is in other locations and scales, but you can still with certainty say that the ball will drop to the ground. That is the way it is with evolution, in that it is the same as with the ball dropping. Evolution, though, is a pretty complex issue with MANY participating factors. The FACT is that almost every part of the multitude that makes up the theory makes sense. We have direct evidence of it everywhere. Of course we canít in most cases watch it happen, as it takes a long time to happen, but every part of the theory indicates the result.
    Let me see if I got this right, the ball falls to the ground when thrown up(observed fact). Evolution happens(unobserved fact). Explanations to why ball falls to the ground(theories and they get tested). Explanations to how evolution works(theories and they get tested). < there is fallacy with this analogy. You see, ball falls to the ground, OBSERVED fact. Evolution happens, unobserved fact. So if evolution is not observed, how can it be fact? Fact means proven, and itís not. Ball falls to the ground, thatís proven fact. I cannot prove my view is right, and I cannot disprove your view, but I have proved that your view has no proof. Hence is faith, not fact until proven. A better analogy would be to say, the ball was thrown up, then fell down, and then someone comes by and sees the ball there and no one else around, then he has to figure out how it got there, and who put it there. That is a better analogy and better fits with what evolutionists are trying to do. They are trying to figure out, how the ball got there(us, existence ext). That will be based on many assumptions.

    Finally, the fundamental problem with your approach to this issue is the pre-emptive givens that you use to judge the validity of the various theories. You believe in Godís involvement in almost every aspect of existence, and you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you are unable to even reconsider the truth behind these beliefs of yours then no matter how thoroughly we refute your points, it will never make the slightest difference. The scientific theories do not even necessarily

    require the non-existence of a God, only the level of his involvement. If you stand up and go and build a wooden wardrobe from scratch, did God build it? No, you did. Similarly, scientists have never found anything in nature that requires the involvement of a God for it to work.
    I believe there should be balance with this. One extreme says God made everything, then flew the coop and donít manage or sustain anything now or have any level of involvement. The other extreme is that God made everything and he is doing everything, and nothing including ourselves is doing anything, we just think we are, there is no will. Two wrong extremes. I believe God created it all from within his own mind, therefor what he created NEEDS HIM to be sustained in itís laws and functions and design and organization, otherwise it dies or goes POOF and becomes non existent. However that does not mean that he controls every single little movement of the our baby finger sort of speak, or where one of our strands of hair will blow. He just made the laws in function, and then he makes sure those laws stay intact, which means creation needs him. Without him the laws of creation get broke and things start to get disrupted. And thatís why the world also is a mess because it has used itís free will given by God to reject Gods will. Any time a baby gets born with two heads, this is the laws within his creation getting disrupted. Does this mean God failed to manage? No, it means he is sick and tired of a sin cursed world and so he has to separate himself from it at times. Also at times Satan can get a foothold into the situation and attack and make a bad mutation. Anytime something bad happens, itís Gods hand removed and Satan coming in. Or someoneís own bad choice which brings bad consequences. There is many factors with this. I know it appears I am getting off topic, but it actually applies to some extant. So God made the particles, atoms, molecules, cells, bodies, earth, stars, planets, trees, humans. But going to those particles, he made them with the laws within them to do there job and stick and make atoms. HOWEVER his hand is still there managing it, because if it was not, the particles would not work to make atoms, nor atoms work to make molecules etc. Itís like saying, man takes mud, water, rock, and other stuff to make cement in order to make brick. Ok, all that stuff has laws within it to stick together and harden to make brick, but for it to be made and with a squar shape, it has to have intelligence behind it at the same time. THEN after the bricks are made, intelligence uses it to BUILD a house. The people building the house do stuff to the brick to make it a brick, then do stuff with the bricks to make a house stand, and then do stuff with nails and wood to make them stick together. The nails have the law of power to make the boards stay together. But it also takes the balance of intelligence to hammer the nails into the boards. Well itís the same way with the particles and the atoms and molecules. God made them have the laws to stick, but itís his intelligence that uses those building blocks of the universe to actually build the complexity of the universe. Now when man builds the house he can leave and the house still stands. But with God he cannot leave otherwise the house of the universe falls, WHY does the analogy here not apply to God as it does for the man leaving after he builds? Because man builds stuff using OTHER stuff already made. God never builds stuff using OTHER stuff made by someone else, or something else. He made EVERYTHING. So he is the source of everything, so everything needs him to remain intact and in existence. You think science and God are separate, no there not, if God is real, IF he really is real, then he is not at all separated from it. He would only be separated from it by his own choice based on others rejection of him. But still, itís only a partial separation because of the curse on creation through sin(rejection of him and his ways). The reason why people are in doubt over the God issue is because of his partial separation. If sin was out of the way, no one would be in doubt, because Gods full manifesting presence would be all over the place. His partial separation makes it appear like this issue is subjective. However he is still there and can come in greater manifestation if sin is removed.

    Think about this: is it not vastly more wonderful to think that god made the simple constituents of the universe, like particles and the forces, knowing that eventually, after an unimaginably high number of steps in between, that we would result? Is that not vastly more amazing than God doing everything all the time?
    It would not be more wonderful, it would be disastrous, Iíll tell you why. If God made all stuff with the laws in place and then flew the coop and let it do itís course without managing it, nothing would build. Itís equivalent to saying a builder throws all the stuff needed to build a house down on the ground and flies the coop and hopes it will build a house after billions of years of chance time. It wont happen. The builder needs to be there managing and ordering and doing the plan to work and make that building. And God all the more so because he is the SOURCE of matter itself. So based on this reasoning, if your correct then we should NOT be here, but since we are, then it must have been don by Gods involvement and fully functional creation.

    PLUS if God did it the way you propose, it would be disastrous in another way too. It would mean God does not know everything. And if he does not know everything, there cannot BE a GOD at all. God is not like a man, he is a God, without the A. He is GOD, THEE God. For there is only one. Itís like this, suppose you were to step out and make your own business. But you did it with no knowledge and no education, you did it by pure experiment. So if you do that, you will more then likely start at the bottom and work your way up to better methods of doing business. And why is that? Because you do not know everything, you learn as you go along and so you get better by learning through experience and mistakes and trial and error. Well what if you had KNOWN from the beginning what worked and what did not work? What was error and what was not? What was mistake and what wasnít? If you knew the best methods from the beginning, then you would have don them from the beginning and not did things by experimentation. And why? Because you would have known from scratch. Well likewise with God, if God knows everything, why would he do stuff that does not produce the best product instantly? Which is: us and animals, trees, ect? Why would he experiment if he knew from the beginning what would work best? And if he did not know, there is no God then. And if there is no God, there is no us, nor existence of anything, we should not be here, nor should any order or complexity of any sort be here. Huh, now that I think about it, maybe that person I talked to years ago who believed we do not exist, maybe he is right? NOT. But now seriously, perhaps maybe the reason he came to such a foolish conclusion is because although he saw the order and complexity, he did not see a God in a visible sense, so he concluded that to be here would be a contradiction if there be no God, hence we cannot be here, we just think we are. The fact is, God is there, just invisible. And he is Spirit, which is not matter, it cannot be put under the microscope.

    Also God does not do everything, he sustains the laws within everything, which keeps things in order. But he lets things do there own thing based on those laws, or wills in some cases, like us, and animals and insects and living stuff. But there is times he completely does something without our wills or without the laws in creation. Sometimes he just bypasses our will or the laws, which we would call a supernatural miracle, like Moses opening the red sea. This would be him switching the laws at his own will. Which is so easy for him to do, since the laws do not govern him, he governs them. Im sure if the scientists today were there and witnessed the red sea opening up, and saw the waters as walls on each side, surly they would look for a natural explanation for such an event. But there would be non, there is some today I saw them on national geographic try to explain away the supernatural event of the red sea opening up. One natural explanation was that wind blew on the water very strongly and the water went back, making a dry part of land. When I heard it, I was absolutely shocked. Moses and the Israelites would have blown away, also it does not account for the story saying the water was walls on each side. Also another explanation was the waters receded and gave time for Moses and the Israelites to cross, then a tsunami wave came in and swamped the Egyptians. This is still bad, because it still does not account for the story saying the water was WALLS on each side. This means, God switched the laws at his will. Then switched them back after Moses got to the other side. Thatís the ONLY way to look at it. Ether Moses who wrote this is a complete liar or he is completely telling the truth. He was not hallucinating either, because all the rest of the people saw the same thing, and there is archeology evidence for the whole trail. And since there is evidence, it donít look like a lie. Itís very compelling. These stories are not metaphors. PLUS that leaves another problem, which parts are metaphors and which parts are not? If context canít tell you, what can? Plus why would any honest person want to follow metaphors? Something that is myth and not real. Itís ridiculous. Itís either FULLY real, or FULLY not, and it looks very compelling that itís real.

    This does not preclude the involvement of a God in our emotional and circumstantial lives, mind you. Forget for the moment that creationists would be wilfully lying if you ever found out that all their nonsense was made up, and just really consider for a moment the possibility that much of the bible is the product of human fancy, wishful dream analysis, ad hoc circumstantial interpretations and maybe even flat lies. We are all human, even the religious, and are still subject to the same flaws. The accounts in the Bible can very often be traced to the say-so of one man, the final product of word of mouth, or the eventual consensus of a few. Just consider the possibility that somewhere someone misunderstood something or misinterpreted something he saw, or saw something that was not there, or even convinced themselves of something that never happened. This is something that happens to everyone, for example seeing the face of the Virgin Mary in odd places. If you were to try, I guarantee you that you would also be able find the face Barney the Purple Dinosaur in all sorts of weird places! So if you are unable to reconsider the truth behind these two convictions of yours, then we really have nothing to discuss.
    We have lots to discuss, this is only the tip of the ice burg. Your asking me to consider if my believes could possibly be false. Yes itís possible that it is a lie, but not likely since there is so much archeology backing it up, plus so many claims of miracles, some even verified and documented. But it is NOT possible that it is a metaphor, anybody that resorts to interpreting the bible that way is in intellectual dishonesty, UNLESS context says otherwise. Is it possible that it was hallucinations? Not likely because that means thousands of people at the same time would be hallucinating. Makes no sense. Let me flip the coin now and ask you this: Is it possible that it could BE THE TRUTH? Could you consider that? But considerations are not arguments or reasoningís or proofs. Which this discussion is mostly about, at least for my motives. I do not doubt my belief unless my arguments and questions run out, which they have not, nor has even some of my previous questions been answered, so why should I doubt it yet? It would not be justified doubt If I did that now. But there is still lots to discuss, which is having my questions answered and some of my arguments refuted, which they are NOT yet refuted.

    Also seeing a face of virgin marry on a wall, or a picture of Barney in a cloud or seeing a tree on a foggy window has nothing to do with this and Iíll tell you why. What the biblical writers said they SAW was NOT something subjective like seeing Barney in a cloud or marry on a wall. Two people could look at the wall and see something different. Actually I have a true story for you, I thought this was absolutely insane, but it went on. When I use to live in Canada NS there was a city close by my own. It was at Tim Hortons coffee shop. Someone said they saw Jesus face on the wall of Tim Hortons. Im not kidding, this is a true story. Well the news camaraís came out, it was all over the news! And hundreds and if I remember correctly, even thousands over a period of a week came out to see it, some religious Catholics actually took there prayer beads and knelt down and prayed in front of it! I couldnít believe what I was seeing. Well, after about a week, someone changed the light bulb and the so called reflection of Jesus on the wall was gon. Some thought it was only the light bulb, and others thought it was genuinely Jesus and his visit was over. When I saw the wall myself(on TV, I could have gon there to see it, it was close, but I did not bother) sometimes I saw frosty the snowman, other times I saw a picture of a face, but how could that mean Jesus? What I am saying is, that type of thing your talking about is VERY subjective and is NOT real. What the biblical writers saw and witnessed was not subjective things like this. Moses said he saw the glory of God like fire on the mount, the people thousands of them said they saw the same thing. Water split and became walls on each side, then crashed down on Egyptians. Moses split a rock and water comes out. Jesus disciples witness him rise from death, and then float on up into the sky. That type of stuff is NOT subjective. Itís either a deliberate lie, or itís the truth. And itís compelling to me as being the truth because why would they die for what they know is a lie? It makes NO SENSE. Did they lie for power and money? What good would that do them being dead from persecution? It just makes no sense. When I look at the computer in front of me right now, I donít have to convince myself itís a computer, I donít have to say, is this a computer? I know what I see, this is how it was with the biblical writers, hence itís either a deliberate lie, or itís the truth. And if you claim itís a lie, then how do you account for the problems with that claim? And if itís the truth, what are you going to do with it?

    This is an uncharacteristically long and rambling post on my part, so please forgive me! Good luck to you.
    I donít mind your post being long, I do not scan it, I read the whole thing through. Plus if I scanned yours while mine is long, I would be hypocritical for doing such a thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #609  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    "In other words, it’s like playing a slot machine that does not work very well. Your making the chance that it could happen more easier, it’s not like that, you have made the odds smaller. The odds of it happening are not 1 in 1, or 1 in 3, it’s 1 out of a zillion. If the earth were to be 6 thousand years old, the odds of it happening would be 1 out of a zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion, zillion. If it is billions of years old, the odds for you are better, but only by 1 out of a zillion now. Not much and still small. Even if the odds were 1 out of a billion. STILL that is crazy, it’s still not happening"........"So do you believe God created all the particles with all there ability to connect and do there lawful functions? Weather I believe God created them and sustains or manages those functions and laws within the particles, or weather you believe God created them with those lawful functions and then leaves them to do there thing, in other words does not manage it, regardless, you then admit there is order and design and organization and complexity in all the atoms and particles ext and God created it? Or God DID IT? Do you admit this?" etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam
    Sacrebleu!

    At the moment I am exasperated beyond the point of being able to respond without using many, many cuss words, Jollybear. If we were sitting in a coffee shop or something I’d have thrown my drink in your face and slapped you around a bit by now. That is something I have never even come close to doing, so there it is. I am not one to let my reptile brain dictate my behaviour, so just give me a few days to regain my composure before I respond.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #610  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    At the moment I am exasperated beyond the point of being able to respond without using many, many cuss words, Jollybear. If we were sitting in a coffee shop or something Iíd have thrown my drink in your face and slapped you around a bit by now. That is something I have never even come close to doing, so there it is. I am not one to let my reptile brain dictate my behaviour, so just give me a few days to regain my composure before I respond.

    No problem, I'll give you time to think about my points and questions, if you could when you respond, what do you believe, the chicken or the egg first? Could you add that into your response when you do.

    also if you had me in the coffee shop and threw the drink at me, i hope it would not be a hot drink :P That would hurt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #611  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    How is my argument have a fallacy in it just because I do what creationists have don by speaking on the odds of life happening by chance are not possible?
    Because creationist "logic" goes like this: "Assuming cows are cube-shaped......" and then creating random numbers with no - repeat after me "NO" - connection to real life and totally blowing those numbers out of proportion they come up with nonsense like a 1:10^30.000 chance for life to evolve

    So how come that an experiment like the one Lenski is running on E.Coli bacteria did in fact produce mutants after only 40.000 generations that show new genetic traits? I mean this is not some claim but proven fact. Lenski analyzed the genome of a starting population of E. Choli and now he found a mutant that can use citrate as nutrient, something the starting generation of E. Coli could not. And Lo and Behold, he also has a genetic analyis of this mutant and he can also pinpoint the genes that have changed. So much for the "there is no chance that new information is created by mutations"-bit. Damn researchers! They always have to spoil the creationist argument by doing this shitty research and they have the friggin nerve to prove their point by supplying evidence! And Mr Schlafly can bitch and scream and moan and complain all he wants about the data beeing incorrect and even fraudulent (I hope Lenski sues his incompetent ass off), this does not change a bit about the fact.

    [Leans back, grabs a handful of popcorn and cracks another beer and waits for the things to come....especially the "microevolution, not macroevolution"-explanation JB will come up with]
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #612  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hi folks, sorry I was not on for awhile.

    Zitterbewengung when you say it has no connection to real life. This answer does not answer the question, itís a denial answer to the problem, yet pretends to be a answer, when itís not. Buildings and man made structures are REAL stuff, just like life and matter are REAL stuff. A building is just like a human, a building has plumbing, a human has plumbing, a building has wires, a human has vain, a building has insolation, a human has skin and muscle, a building has structure, a human has bones, a building has energy, a human has energy, and the list goes on. A building has very similar complexities as a human body does, but the human body has even more complexities. Where did the structure come from? Random chance could never make a building. Likewise the odds of time and chance doing it for the body without the hand of God is just as low. Where did the structure, organization and complexity come from?

    Even if I made the odds lower, like 1 out of a million instead of a zillion, still it wont happen. Or let me be generous, even if it was 1 out of a thousand, the odds are still very low, and still wont happen because of so many other problems. After the First life beats the odds of making it, then it has to beat NEW odds of finding a mate, and that mate had to beat the same first odds. Itís not happening, even with my generosity.

    Now to the E coli experiment. Notice this was not don in the outside field, but rather in a controlled environment of a experiment.

    Next notice it produced only a variation. It is still a E coli. It did not turn into a fish, or something else like a monkey.

    Next how did this new mutation make new information? Is that not an interpretation of something they see? What if the information got scrambled by the mutations? Which makes it look like there is new information, but itís not new, just shuffled around. Plus most mutations are harmful, in real life itís not going to help non living molecules make life, and if it does, that life will die from the bad mutations.

    But even if it was new information, still itís a e coli, it did not turn into something else. So yes I declare my argument that it would be MICRO, not MACRO. There is no proof for macro evolution. Hence you have faith, not proof or fact.

    Also Kalster im still waiting for my answers to my last post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #613  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Hi folks, sorry I was not on for awhile.

    Zitterbewengung when you say it has no connection to real life. This answer does not answer the question, it’s a denial answer to the problem, yet pretends to be a answer, when it’s not. Buildings and man made structures are REAL stuff, just like life and matter are REAL stuff. A building is just like a human, a building has plumbing, a human has plumbing, a building has wires, a human has vain, a building has insolation, a human has skin and muscle, a building has structure, a human has bones, a building has energy, a human has energy, and the list goes on. A building has very similar complexities as a human body does, but the human body has even more complexities. Where did the structure come from? Random chance could never make a building. Likewise the odds of time and chance doing it for the body without the hand of God is just as low. Where did the structure, organization and complexity come from?
    However, considering the process of evolution, a slow gradual process, the chances are exacly 1. BULDINGS DO NOT EVOLVE, GENIUS!

    And what the hell does random chance mean? There's probability involved in the process of evolution, yes, but not random chance you hypocritical IDiot. That's just outright lying! You make it sound like there's no factors playing in here at all. Goes to show how much you know about this stuff, you poumpus presumptious little hack.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Even if I made the odds lower, like 1 out of a million instead of a zillion, still it wont happen. Or let me be generous, even if it was 1 out of a thousand, the odds are still very low, and still wont happen because of so many other problems. After the First life beats the odds of making it, then it has to beat NEW odds of finding a mate, and that mate had to beat the same first odds. It’s not happening, even with my generosity.
    What the freak are you talking about? What exacly are you calculating? Or are you just pulling random numbers out your ass? Calculating present states is meaningless when you have a process which describes the development of these states you arrogant prick.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    But even if it was new information, still it’s a e coli, it did not turn into something else. So yes I declare my argument that it would be MICRO, not MACRO. There is no proof for macro evolution. Hence you have faith, not proof or fact.
    Yeah, you declare your pretentious claims with arrogance and blissful ignorance like an inane retard, showing how proud you are over your insanity.

    Micro- and macro is the same thing, only difference is time you asinine self-proclaimed expert.

    And it's also obvious that you don't even know what the definition of faith is, rendering you nothing more than an iliterate moron. Care to come up with something which isn't already decleared to be true by your superior intellect with something which is, say, RATIONAL and not completely DENSE!

    Oh, no! I excessively overused ad hominems in this post! To bad their justified by your persistant intellectually insulting bullshit!

    Go learn what the hell you're actually talking about you fraud!

    (Obviously showing his darker side)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #614  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    This has surely gone wildly off-topic. Much of the above is out of place in an earth science thread. Perhaps Jollybear has realised he cannot win with his young earth rubbish so is trying to change the subject.

    I am still waiting for an explanation of how the earth survived the intense meteorite bombardment, without saying, "God did it". I am still waiting to see JB even begin to properly address the problem of massive heat generation from precipitation of limestone, heat of condensation of the water vapour canopy, frictional heat from rapidly moving continents, heat from gravitational energy as giant crustal slabs sank in to the mantle to drive this runaway continental drift, heat from massively accelerated radioactive decay, heat from massive meteorite bombardment ...

    Expect, "God did it" because JB is too bigoted and stubborn to admit his beliefs are ignorant, stupid and ridiculous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #615  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    And he has still to explain great thicknesses of coral reef deposited during a global flood. Great thicknesses of chalk & rock salt too. Dinosaur nests complete with eggs, in the middle of strata with fossils below and above. Dinos nesting underwater? Likewise for fossil footprints - dinos going for a stroll under a turbulent muddy ocean? Nor has he ever accounted for varves, and their correlations with each other and with C-14 dating. It must take a lot of effort to force oneself to believe the garbage JB does, and a lot of intellectual dishonesty to force oneself to ignore such massive contrary evidence. Little wonder I find it hard not to regard young earth creationists with contempt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #616  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    However, considering the process of evolution, a slow gradual process, the chances are exacly 1. BULDINGS DO NOT EVOLVE, GENIUS!
    Your assuming slow gradual processes will make a little cell into a fish, or a fish into a monkey(macro evolution). That is FAITH, not PROVEN. So who is the arrogant person here? Not me at all. Prove to me macro evolution. You canít and you have not. And thatís not arrogance on my part, that is reason on my part. Since you insult my reason, that shows YOUR arrogance. And if you think there is prove for macro evolution, that shows your ignorance too. If you do not think your ignorant there, then prove it. Anyone can speak statements like what you did, itís another thing altogether to back it up with proof.

    Also does technology evolve? Does it get better? Yes it does, but intelligence is always behind it making it better. So houses evolve and get better by man experimenting with his intelligence. Now when things branch off in variations(micro evolution) that does not mean God is experimenting, it means God placed within there bodies information already in order to adapt to situations. But that is never macro evolution, only variations. Prove to me macro evolution, if you canít, then you have no proof, which means you have only arguments, reason, and then faith, NO proof.

    And what the hell does random chance mean? There's probability involved in the process of evolution, yes, but not random chance you hypocritical IDiot. That's just outright lying! You make it sound like there's no factors playing in here at all. Goes to show how much you know about this stuff, you poumpus presumptious little hack.
    Random chance means the universe, matter, energy, earth, life, everything in existence came about without a God or intelligence making it, hence random chance. Itís equivalent to saying the house built itself.

    I am not a hypocritical idiot because I disagree with you, I honestly believe this. Where is the probability that everything that exists made itself without intelligence doing it? Can you prove that? Lets have it, whereís the proof? What your saying is that the improbability and the impossibility becomes a very probability if itís given enough TIME, like billions of years. THAT is your ASSUMPTION, PROVE IT. And even if there was enough time, still it only makes the improbability just a little more probable, but not FULLY probable. If you have to resort to bashing me like hell, you have lost the argument instantly. You have run out of energy and resources and arguments, so you resort to the bash mode. Why donít you just admit your defeat? I donít need to go into bash mode to win a argument, my reasoning does the job for me.

    The probability of a house building itself is zero, even if itís given enough time, itís still zero. A house is like a machine, your body is like a machine, with even more complexity. Stop beating around the bush and answer the question where did that organization come from? You have no right to be angry, I do, because my question is discarded as if itís stupid, and itís NOT.

    Also what are those factors playing in here that you said? If thatís the proof, then letís hear it.

    What the freak are you talking about? What exacly are you calculating? Or are you just pulling random numbers out your ass? Calculating present states is meaningless when you have a process which describes the development of these states you arrogant prick.
    Letís see if you can answer this question. What came first in your view, the chicken or the egg? Please I would like to have your answer on this.

    Yeah, you declare your pretentious claims with arrogance and blissful ignorance like an inane retard, showing how proud you are over your insanity.
    If there so pretentious and so arrogant and ignorant like an insane retard, then PROVE IT?

    Micro- and macro is the same thing, only difference is time you asinine self-proclaimed expert.
    Micro and macro is NOT the same thing. Micro is variations within the same kind of animal or human creature, like you have black people and you have white, that is a variation, micro. Macro evolution is a cell turns into a fish, and a fish into a monkey and a monkey to a human. PROVE IT? Your saying the only difference is time. That is your unproven assumption. TIME is the hero for your hypothesis for evolution to work. When you resort to ďtimeĒ itís no better then me resorting to ďGodĒ. You say ďtime did itĒ. I say ďGod did itĒ. PROVE to me that time did it? If you canít then you have FAITH, JUST LIKE ME, in fact, I believe you have MORE faith then me because my faith is more rational then yours. Because time will never build a complex house with organization. And all the atoms, molecules, cells, bodies, planets, ext all have organization in it. Where did the organization come from? Also I do not claim to be an expert in science, I claim to be right.

    And it's also obvious that you don't even know what the definition of faith is, rendering you nothing more than an iliterate moron. Care to come up with something which isn't already decleared to be true by your superior intellect with something which is, say, RATIONAL and not completely DENSE!
    I absolutely do know what faith is, itís what you have more then I do. What I have is more rational then what you have. Hereís how it works: if there is proof, there is no faith. If there is no proof, but there is evidence, then reason puts the evidence together, but then after that, there is still the leap of faith, because there is no proof. But I also have evidence and reason and then the leap of faith. But I believe you have more faith.

    Oh, no! I excessively overused ad hominems in this post! To bad their justified by your persistant intellectually insulting bullshit!
    Go learn what the hell you're actually talking about you fraud!
    There not justified. And I do know what I am talking about, and I am learning still, are you? Or do you know it all and have fully arrived?

    Why donít you go learn about what the nature of proof is? I am absolutely no fraud(I know that for a fact, I donít care what you say about me, I know me). The fact you think itís proven when itís not, shows you trust in that which is fraud(claimed proof, but no proof), which means you do not think for yourself.

    Now if you could, please answer my questions. Where did the organization come from, the complexity, design, and did the chicken come first or the egg? Stop beating around the bush.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #617  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    jollybear, i'll comment on 2 things, both of them illustrating why i've given up on trying to get through to you

    1. i've demonstrated that cumulative natural selection gives you odds that are far more favourable than mere randomness, still you have either failed to understand what i was trying to say, or you're wilfully ignoring it - either way, it shows how impervious you are to reason
    2. your demands for proof are way beyond what people require as satisfactory evidence in everyday life - if your definition of proof was being used in court, no-one would get convicted, as forensic evidence would be inadmissable
    that's in effect what you're doing : you can only say there's no evidence because you prefer to ignore all the forensic evidence that science has accumulated in favour of what you continue to deny
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #618  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Your assuming slow gradual processes will make a little cell into a fish, or a fish into a monkey(macro evolution).
    What... the... F, are you talking about? A fish doesn't become a monkey unless you ignore thousands of transitional forms. Thanks for showing us, yet again, how much you know about this subject, jackass.

    Also does technology evolve? Does it get better? Yes it does, but intelligence is always behind it making it better.
    Yeah, go ahead and compare inanimate objects to a biological lifeforms capable of reproducing without realizing the obvious flaw in that.

    Random chance means the universe, matter, energy, earth, life, everything in existence came about without a God or intelligence making it, hence random chance. It’s equivalent to saying the house built itself.
    Are you making up words to fit your agenda you biased little dimwit?

    I am not a hypocritical idiot because I disagree with you, I honestly believe this. Where is the probability that everything that exists made itself without intelligence doing it? Can you prove that? Lets have it, where’s the proof? What your saying is that the improbability and the impossibility becomes a very probability if it’s given enough TIME, like billions of years. THAT is your ASSUMPTION, PROVE IT. And even if there was enough time, still it only makes the improbability just a little more probable, but not FULLY probable. If you have to resort to bashing me like hell, you have lost the argument instantly. You have run out of energy and resources and arguments, so you resort to the bash mode. Why don’t you just admit your defeat? I don’t need to go into bash mode to win a argument, my reasoning does the job for me.
    You suck at math.

    The probability of a house building itself is zero, even if it’s given enough time, it’s still zero. A house is like a machine, your body is like a machine, with even more complexity. Stop beating around the bush and answer the question where did that organization come from? You have no right to be angry, I do, because my question is discarded as if it’s stupid, and it’s NOT.

    Also what are those factors playing in here that you said? If that’s the proof, then let’s hear it.
    Did you just admit you know NOTHING of the factors involved in the subject you are trying to debunk...? AHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!! You arrogant prick you... :wink:

    Let’s see if you can answer this question. What came first in your view, the chicken or the egg? Please I would like to have your answer on this.
    Stop dodging bullets and defend your previous statement with a reasoned argument!

    If there so pretentious and so arrogant and ignorant like an insane retard, then PROVE IT?
    INANE you iliterate moron! It's a word! And why ask for proof when proof is already present in your response? DAMN!

    Micro and macro is NOT the same thing. Micro is variations within the same kind of animal or human creature, like you have black people and you have white, that is a variation, micro. Macro evolution is a cell turns into a fish, and a fish into a monkey and a monkey to a human. PROVE IT? Your saying the only difference is time. That is your unproven assumption. TIME is the hero for your hypothesis for evolution to work. When you resort to “time” it’s no better then me resorting to “God”. You say “time did it”. I say “God did it”. PROVE to me that time did it? If you can’t then you have FAITH, JUST LIKE ME, in fact, I believe you have MORE faith then me because my faith is more rational then yours. Because time will never build a complex house with organization. And all the atoms, molecules, cells, bodies, planets, ext all have organization in it. Where did the organization come from? Also I do not claim to be an expert in science, I claim to be right.
    Your such an hilarity when showing your ignorance over the subject you disucss. Small changes over small periods of time equals large freaking changes over large periods of time. Just because you don't have the comprehensive skills to grasp the timespan involved doesn't mean that your ignorance thus constitutes an argument you fallacious IDiot proponent.

    I absolutely do know what faith is, it’s what you have more then I do. What I have is more rational then what you have. Here’s how it works: if there is proof, there is no faith. If there is no proof, but there is evidence, then reason puts the evidence together, but then after that, there is still the leap of faith, because there is no proof. But I also have evidence and reason and then the leap of faith. But I believe you have more faith.
    Your full of self-centered garbage irrelevant to a scientific debate.

    There not justified. And I do know what I am talking about, and I am learning still, are you? Or do you know it all and have fully arrived?
    Stop accusing me for being you, you schizophrenic insane guy.

    Why don’t you go learn about what the nature of proof is? I am absolutely no fraud(I know that for a fact, I don’t care what you say about me, I know me). The fact you think it’s proven when it’s not, shows you trust in that which is fraud(claimed proof, but no proof), which means you do not think for yourself.

    Now if you could, please answer my questions. Where did the organization come from, the complexity, design, and did the chicken come first or the egg? Stop beating around the bush.
    I'm not beating around the bush, I'm freaking bulletshowering the bush with a machinegun. There's no bush left, you're naked.

    And I don't have to answer shit to prove my position when such knowledge is already present when finishing High School. You can READ and LEARN about what you're trying to destroy before you say beans about it, looking like a retard barely able to grasp what he's talking about. THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS A GOOD PLACE TO START LEARNING! Foolish little demanding mini-dictator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #619  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Yabba-Dabba-Dooohoooohoooooooo......

    There we go again. The old "You say monkeys evolved from frogs, why didn't we find fronkeys??" BS. And the: "No matter how hard you try, a hurrican will never blow over a junkyard and create a 747".

    And so what is the difference between a lab-invironment and the real thing when it comes to mutations?

    And just because you do not notice new species "popping" into existence it does not mean that there are no new species "evolving". This is the whole weeny in this story.

    Oh, and there are tons of transitory fossils but the creationist nutjob logic goes like this: yeah, you closed this gap, but now we have two gaps between three species when there was only on ebetween two species before, therefore "God did it"
    I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #620  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Now if you could, please answer my questions. Where did the organization come from, the complexity, design, and did the chicken come first or the egg? Stop beating around the bush.
    Try The Blind Watchmaker - it answers these issues in the length they deserve, and avoids all the assumptive "Have you stopped beating your wife" implications that some of your questions contain.

    I did wonder about your insistence that global warming was a myth, and now that I see the same intensity in your questioning (read attacking) evolution through natural selection, it makes more sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #621  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    *Obviously for president!*
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #622  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Obviously,
    I understand your frustration with jollybear - I have stopped posting anything to him for the time being at least because of his intransigent blindness. However, could I ask you to try to restrain the expression of this frustration in any future responses to his posts. Although it is temporarily satisfying it does not add to your argument.
    Thank you in advance
    Ophiolite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #623  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Obviously,
    I understand your frustration with jollybear - I have stopped posting anything to him for the time being at least because of his intransigent blindness. However, could I ask you to try to restrain the expression of this frustration in any future responses to his posts. Although it is temporarily satisfying it does not add to your argument.
    Thank you in advance
    Ophiolite
    Grrr... :P

    Ok.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #624  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshinewarrior
    Try The Blind Watchmaker - it answers these issues in the length they deserve, ...
    or try Evowiki - many of jollybear's recent objections are discussed at great length + more exhaustively than i have the patience for :

    The odds of life forming are incredibly small
    Even the simplest life is incredibly complex
    First cells couldn't come together by chance
    Miller's experiments had invalid assumption of type of atmosphere
    Life uses only left-handed amino acids
    Macroevolution has never been observed
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #625  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Obviously do you find it hard to be patient? Are you that insecure that you have to bash me constantly? Why canít you debate in a mature fashion? If you think I am a ďjackassĒ ďdimwitĒ ďarrogant prickĒ ďilliterate moranĒ ďidiot proponentĒ ďself centeredĒ ďschizophrenic insane guyĒ ďretardĒ and ďmini dictatorĒ why are you talking to me then? However if you still want to talk to me while believing that I am all those things, then go for it, but keep those things to yourself, believe them in your private mind. Donít tell me them, I donít need to hear all that junk, I donít appreciate it. You should be ashamed of yourself talking to me like that, have I talked to you like that? No I havenít And Ophiolite is right, it adds nothing to your argumentís. You and everyone else on here think itís painful to go through this with me, I donít know why it is, itís not completely painful for me, I enjoy challenging discussions, and stretching my mind, I learn through it, so for me itís not that painful, although sometimes it is a little, but having to endure what your calling me is allot more painful to deal with. Not to mention, NON OF IT IS TRUE about me at all, I know who I am. However if you want to believe those things are true about me, believe them in your private mind and Iíll show you grace and still speak to you even though you donít trust me as a person. I never discuss long things with someone I donít trust or who does not trust me. But I will make an exception for you because itís on a board. If we were talking in person and you spoke to me like that, the conversation would be completely finished instantly, I would not put up with that. And I would not end it because I am afraid, I would end it because I have self respect. If you could be nice, I would still talk in person. Even if you decided to take a gun to my head, or a bat to my head you could do that all you wish, I would still look at you and say ďI still disagree with you, beating me with a bat wont change my mind, answering the questions MIGHTĒ

    However after saying all that, I have nothing against you as a person, I like you, I just donít like you talking to me like that. Present your arguments to me, even do it forceful if you wish, but leave those other words out, those things are hurtful. Oh and Jesus loves you.

    Anyhow, give me some time to read every point presented by everyone and I will answer in a few days.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #626  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    And Ophiolite is right, it adds nothing to your argumentís.
    For balance I also have to say that you do come across as a ďjackassĒ ďdimwitĒ ďarrogant prickĒ ďilliterate moranĒ ďidiot proponentĒ ďself centeredĒ ďschizophrenic insane guyĒ ďretardĒ and ďmini dictatorĒ. In consequence it is enormously difficult to retain a veneer of politeness when inside one is screaming ****ing idiot.

    Your 'arguments' flaunt all logic. Your parroting of creationists themes which have been debunked many times is worse than tiring. Much, much, much worse. Your obvious attachment to your beliefs in the face of any contrary evidence is gut wrenchingly sickening. Your manipulation and distortion of simple facts demonstrates either a profound moral bankruptcy, or an intellectual shortfall of monumental proportions, or self delusion on an astronomical scale.

    For these reasons I have sympathy with Obviously's outburst, though I still believe it is important he restrain himself. I continually try to do the same.

    You ask why we continue to discuss these points with you. If I see an injured bird at the roadside I shall stop to give it aid. Even when there seems little hope of success. That is my motivation here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #627  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    And Ophiolite is right, it adds nothing to your argumentís.
    For balance I also have to say that you do come across as a ďjackassĒ ďdimwitĒ ďarrogant prickĒ ďilliterate moranĒ ďidiot proponentĒ ďself centeredĒ ďschizophrenic insane guyĒ ďretardĒ and ďmini dictatorĒ. In consequence it is enormously difficult to retain a veneer of politeness when inside one is screaming ****ing idiot.

    Your 'arguments' flaunt all logic. Your parroting of creationists themes which have been debunked many times is worse than tiring. Much, much, much worse. Your obvious attachment to your beliefs in the face of any contrary evidence is gut wrenchingly sickening. Your manipulation and distortion of simple facts demonstrates either a profound moral bankruptcy, or an intellectual shortfall of monumental proportions, or self delusion on an astronomical scale.

    For these reasons I have sympathy with Obviously's outburst, though I still believe it is important he restrain himself. I continually try to do the same.

    You ask why we continue to discuss these points with you. If I see an injured bird at the roadside I shall stop to give it aid. Even when there seems little hope of success. That is my motivation here.


    Your forgetting one thing though, I think you and the rest are the injured bird on the road. Also I do not think you are a ďjackassĒ ďdimwitĒ ďilliterate moranĒ ďidiot proponentĒ ď ďschizophrenic insane guyĒ ďretardĒ

    I do however think SOME on here are arrogant and self centered and I do think allot of scientists dictate interpretations for origins. However we can both go back and forth till doomsday about how we see each other, it donít help nothing. All it does is see the injured bird and then to try to cure we kick it. Does kicking it cure it? No.

    I do not see my logic as flaunting all logic, I see your arguments doing that. However we both already believe this about each other, what we have to do is keep showing each other WHY our logicís are flaunt.

    So if you believe also that I am a ďjackassĒ ďdimwitĒ ďilliterate moranĒ ďidiot proponentĒ ď ďschizophrenic insane guyĒ ďretardĒ, that is fine, as long as everyone keeps that in there private mind, which I know you have and will, but I refer to those who donít.

    Plus I have a question, if I am all of this, that means millions of creationists and intelligent design proponents are this. Right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #628  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    tbh, i'm surprised it's taken this long for the name-calling to start

    while i disagree with the names thrown at you, jollybear, i can wholeheartedly share in the sense of frustration in trying to get through to you

    in part this is due to a lack of knowledge about the things you express your doubts about, but more than that, it is due to a complete unwillingness to even consider that there might be any truth in anything that seems to be in conflict with your view of the bible
    as such, we seem to be speaking a different language, even though we both use english words : if i build an argument by starting with certain premises and building out from there, using what i see as sound scientific logic, you either deny the truth of the basic premises (in contradiction to all accepted scientific evidence), or you fail to see the logic of my reasoning and hence keep on doubting the conclusions

    if this sort of attitude continues without any sign that you take anything on board from any of us, is it surprising that the exasperation starts to show ?

    far from me to express any opinion on whether you are stupid or any of the other epithets assigned to you, but one thing i'm certain of : your intransigence is such that there just is no point continuing an argument that is never going to lead anywhere
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #629  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415


    All the names I threw at him was planned and arguably quite accurate even though excessive. My change in argumentative style was due to the fact that jollybear doesn't seem to have changed at all over the year, so I tried using excessive ad hominems and sarcasm to blow up the fallacies and flaw in logic in jollybear's posts. It was a tactical approach which would hopefully show him exacly where he failed in his arguments AND give him a negative association with it.

    You can call it an experiment if you like. And it failed, miserably (though perhaps it would work in the long run? Nah, I don't have the patience...). Jollybear still can't see his own flaws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #630  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously


    All the names I threw at him was planned and arguably quite accurate even though excessive. My change in argumentative style was due to the fact that jollybear doesn't seem to have changed at all over the year, so I tried using excessive ad hominems and sarcasm to blow up the fallacies and flaw in logic in jollybear's posts. It was a tactical approach which would hopefully show him exacly where he failed in his arguments AND give him a negative association with it.

    You can call it an experiment if you like. And it failed, miserably (though perhaps it would work in the long run? Nah, I don't have the patience...). Jollybear still can't see his own flaws.
    Kind of like beating a dog with a newspaper whenever he does something wrong?

    I am really sorry that you could not make a breakthrough after all this time Jollybear. That is why I said a while ago that you should just quit and continue on your way. Believe that you have won, whatever. But realise that there is a fundamental difference between our viewpoints. It is that we understand what you are trying to say, even your humorous attempts at refuting our points, while you have not been able to understand even the most simple of concepts or logic. It has been brought up that you are decidedly unintelligent. I am not sure if that is necessarily the case, but you are definitely incapable of getting any of this. I am more leaning towards you simply not being used to analysing the world around you in a somewhat scientific way and have grown up to trust your gut (sensibilities) more that anything else. Whatever the case may be, I still hope that you can at least realise this shortcoming of yours.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #631  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Plus I have a question, if I am all of this, that means millions of creationists and intelligent design proponents are this. Right?
    1. I very clearly and very carefully said that you appear to be these things. I use language as precisely as I am able. Perhaps you do to. Unfortunately your ability does not match mine, consistently falling short in the application of logic and structured argument.
    2. Yes, young Earth creationists are fools, or self deluded, or liars. There are no other viable options that I am aware of. You are not a liar.

    P.S. You exempted me, it seems, from the charge of being arrogant and self centred. That was polite, unecessary and incorrect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #632  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix.

    jollybear, i'll comment on 2 things, both of them illustrating why i've given up on trying to get through to you

    1. i've demonstrated that cumulative natural selection gives you odds that are far more favourable than mere randomness, still you have either failed to understand what i was trying to say, or you're wilfully ignoring it - either way, it shows how impervious you are to reason
    Believe me when I say this, I am not ignoring your point, that is NOT me to do that. Have I misunderstood your point? Itís possible, however I do know what natural selection is, itís not like I am on here talking about things I donít know about, I have don allot of reading about this, I have been studying it now for about almost two years im estimating. However I obviously do not know more then some of you on here who have studied the subject for years, perhaps all your lives. My main field of study has been purely the bible by itself for 15 years now, so obviously I will know more with that subject then any other subject. However that does not mean I know NOTHING at all on this subject off evolution and the age of the earth. True I donít know everything, but I do know some stuff. And I do know what natural selection is and what it is not. Correct me if I am wrong, natural selection IS nature selects the most fit to survive in that environment while it selects out the weak. This would apply to anything, atoms, molecules, DNA, life, animals, humans, etc. However what natural selection is NOT is micro or macro evolution. It just means the most fit thing survives. So going to the primordial soup with all the amino acids, molecules, DNA ext, the bad DNA dies off, while the fit survive, same with the amino acids, proteins ext. However that still does not answer my question. If you tell me I misunderstand your point, perhaps too you are misunderstanding my question. So my question is not how did DNA survive and the bad ones die, the answer would be natural selection. But how did it get there in the first place being a complex molecule? Plus the miller experiment made right and left amino acids, while real life only has left. And it did not make ALL the amino acids essential for life, it made only some, I canít remember the exact number though. Based on this, how did all the right DNA and essential amino acids ALL of them, only left handed, and all the many proteins that are needed for life, going in the RIGHT ORDER as well. How did all of that happen without intelligence? And how does natural selection made the odds GOOD for your view? I really do not understand how it can and that does not make me stupid. If you could patiently explain how that would be great. And for you out there who tell me if I had of read up on it I would not be asking the question, that just tells me how much you donít think for yourselves that you canít ask questions against your view that you have read up on. But I can and I am. I have read up on it, I know about it, but I am asking the question because I do not see any true evidence to how it could happen.


    2. your demands for proof are way beyond what people require as satisfactory evidence in everyday life - if your definition of proof was being used in court, no-one would get convicted, as forensic evidence would be inadmissable
    court case proof with DNA is allot different then the type of proof for macro evolution and a billion year old earth. When it comes to court cases the evidence is not subjective, when it comes to evolution and billion year old earth it is subjective. So the nature of true proof is not there for a billion year old earth and evolution.

    that's in effect what you're doing : you can only say there's no evidence because you prefer to ignore all the forensic evidence that science has accumulated in favour of what you continue to deny
    your applying a simple court case which DNA can easily prove and convict someone to a very big subjective case of billion year old earth and evolution. They are not similar at all, except in the sense of how they try to put the puzzle together. But the puzzle for a court case is allot easier. On top of it, much of any evidence is destroyed if the earth is billions of years old, so in that case how do you really know what the evidence would be saying anyway?

    To Obviously.

    A fish doesn't become a monkey unless you ignore thousands of transitional forms
    And from what I read, SO DO NOT call me a liar there is NOT thousands of transitional forms, there is huge gaps for the most part. So how would I be ignoring thousands if there not there to ignore? You are then ignoring the big gaps that are there for the most part.

    go ahead and compare inanimate objects to a biological lifeforms capable of reproducing without realizing the obvious flaw in that
    There is factories that have machines that make other smaller machines or shaped stuff. And intelligence is behind the whole thing. Also to add to this. Man has made robots that have no consciousness and cannot produce babies, although he could probably make one TO make or design another bot like the factory. And all of that has intelligence. But the fact man has consciousness and can produce shows even MORE intelligence then what man could muster up by making a robot. Plus to add to this again, just because objects and machines are different then life does not negate the FACT that life is organized, designed and complex, and how do you explain where it came from? And evolved? Nothing is a simple mindless blob, then evolves into something complex and organized as if intelligence is behind it.

    Are you making up words to fit your agenda you biased little dimwit
    No Im not making up words, that is what random chance IS. Instead of accusing me of making something up, which is clearly not made up, if there is no God, then random chance made all this organization and complexity and that would be equivalent to a house building itself by chance. Again I ask you, how could random chance make such organization and complexity? You are ignoring my point, then I am the dimwit?

    You suck at math.
    I had said this ďI am not a hypocritical idiot because I disagree with you, I honestly believe this. Where is the probability that everything that exists made itself without intelligence doing it? Can you prove that? Lets have it, whereís the proof? What your saying is that the improbability and the impossibility becomes a very probability if itís given enough TIME, like billions of years. THAT is your ASSUMPTION, PROVE IT. And even if there was enough time, still it only makes the improbability just a little more probable, but not FULLY probable. If you have to resort to bashing me like hell, you have lost the argument instantly. You have run out of energy and resources and arguments, so you resort to the bash mode. Why donít you just admit your defeat? I donít need to go into bash mode to win a argument, my reasoning does the job for me.Ē

    And all you say is I suck at math. Why donít you explain how I suck at math? Why donít you answer the argument I presented instead of flaring your hot air? Anybody can make a statement, thatís easy.

    Did you just admit you know NOTHING of the factors involved in the subject you are trying to debunk
    No I did not admit I know nothing of the factors involved. But if your saying those factors are proof, tell me which factor/s and tell me how that factor/s IS the proof? should be a easy thing to do. By me asking you for the proof, that does not mean I have not read up on this subject, your intuition is weak. Me asking a question does not mean I know nothing of a subject, when I debate with Christians on a biblical subject I will ask them lots of questions, yet I know about that subject extremely. My question is not because I donít KNOW, itís because I do not see the proof, show me it, tell me that factor, lets hear it. I listened to a audio on youtube on the origins of life from your perspective and then from my perspective, and I did not the proof for your perspective. So please explain it for me in a simple way, and then tell me how that is proof.


    Stop dodging bullets and defend your previous statement with a reasoned argument
    dodging bullets? Thatís what your doing by not answering my questions. Defend my previous statement? Complexity and order and organization and design defends it. Plus you need to defend your statement that chance made it all, defend that and prove that the odds of it happening were high for you and not low? My main objective here is not to prove my view or disprove yours, but to prove that your view HAS NO PROOF for it. So prove and defend your statement that chance did it.

    It's a word! And why ask for proof when proof is already present in your response?
    There is no proof for your view in my response, give me the proof and stop acting like itís proven, if it is, lets hear it.

    Your such an hilarity when showing your ignorance over the subject you disucss. Small changes over small periods of time equals large freaking changes over large periods of time. Just because you don't have the comprehensive skills to grasp the timespan involved doesn't mean that your ignorance thus constitutes an argument you fallacious IDiot proponent.
    Im not ignorant to this reasoning and argument of yours, im well aware of it, but you are ignorant to the fact that this is NOT proof, this is ASSUMED. You really donít see that? This is too obvious to me. And it should be to you and everyone else here. How do you know that little changes over little periods of time will make large changes over large periods of time? How do you know there is not a LIMIT or boundary to the variations? Do you have proof for that? I like how one person said it ďwhen you breed different kinds of pigs, you might get a little one or a big one, but you will never get one the size of Mexico, there is limitations to the variations.Ē And I do have the comprehensive ability to understand your time span you propose.

    Your full of self-centered garbage irrelevant to a scientific debate.
    This is baloney, youíre the one who said I did not know what faith was when I said you have faith. Now I showed that I did know what faith was, and described it. Then you refuse to debunk what I described and just say itís irrelevant to a scientific debate. No itís not, theory is used in science which is the same as faith. And faith is that without proof, so you have faith, so yes it is relevant to a scientific debate. Also how is it self centered what I described? That makes no sense at all.

    Stop accusing me for being you
    By me saying I know what I am talking about but I am still learning and I asked you if you think you have fully arrived and I said your words to me were not justified. By saying this I was not accusing you of being me. If I did that, I would be accusing myself of being you, which I am not you, I will deal with the points and answer the questions and not attack the person.

    I'm not beating around the bush, I'm freaking bulletshowering the bush with a machinegun. There's no bush left, you're naked.

    And I don't have to answer shit to prove my position when such knowledge is already present when finishing High School. You can READ and LEARN about what you're trying to destroy before you say beans about it, looking like a retard barely able to grasp what he's talking about. THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS A GOOD PLACE TO START LEARNING! Foolish little demanding mini-dictator.
    Yes you are beating around the bush, you are now in denial mode when you say this, yet you parade me so confident with insults. How I wish you would have striped the bush bare, but you have beat around it.

    And you donít have to answer my questions or arguments hey? If you donít, then you mise well stop talking to me because all you are interested in then is insulting me to high heaven without dealing with the issues of the topic.

    Plus that so called knowledge that is already present when finishing high school, yes the topic of evolution old earth is taught in schools, but in that information there is no proof. So yes you do have to give the proof and answer the questions, if you donít wish to, why are you bashing me? That makes absolutely no sense.

    You assume I have not read about stuff I am trying to destroy. Your assumption is wrong, I have been reading for about 2 years now. And yes I do demand the proof, but I am not a mini dictator. And again I ask the question, where did the complexity, organization, order, design come from? And what came first the chicken or the egg? I still want answers to this.

    To Zitterbewegung

    There we go again. The old "You say monkeys evolved from frogs, why didn't we find fronkeys??" BS. And the: "No matter how hard you try, a hurrican will never blow over a junkyard and create a 747".
    Again, where is all the transition forms then? Again, how can chance create everything we see with all itís complexity, organization, order and design, both big, and small, like atoms? And if there is tons of transitional forms, why then have evolutionist proponents come up with ďpunctuated equilibriumĒ which is because there is so many gaps macro evolution happened SUPER FAST at periodic short periods of time. Why would they have to resort to this, if there is tons of transitional forms? The transitions are not there. And macro evolution cannot happen that fast within those short periods of time, itís not in the DNA to do that.


    Oh, and there are tons of transitory fossils but the creationist nutjob logic goes like this: yeah, you closed this gap, but now we have two gaps between three species when there was only on ebetween two species before, therefore "God did it"
    Where is all those TONS of transitory fossils? Give me references for them please. I agree there is some transitional forms that are claimed, but there is more gaps then there is transitions. And those transitions are discrepant. They are not true transitions, they are just variations(micro) not macro. So that is not proof.

    Also how does me resorting to God did it any different then you resorting to chance and time did it? Both of these are spectacular.

    To Marnix.

    in part this is due to a lack of knowledge about the things you express your doubts about, but more than that, it is due to a complete unwillingness to even consider that there might be any truth in anything that seems to be in conflict with your view of the bible
    as such, we seem to be speaking a different language, even though we both use english words : if i build an argument by starting with certain premises and building out from there, using what i see as sound scientific logic, you either deny the truth of the basic premises (in contradiction to all accepted scientific evidence), or you fail to see the logic of my reasoning and hence keep on doubting the conclusions
    Lack of knowledge? I do have knowledge, although I am not a expert. Also itís both reasons, I disagree with your premises and your reasoningís I do not see the logic in them. And itís that way because my questions are not answered. And there is another way of looking at the data, which makes it subjective.

    Kulster I am glad you understand me. However you are incorrect when you think I do not understand SOME of your arguments. There is some things I am not understanding in your arguments, and this is why I have presented questions, which have not been answered yet. Where did the complexity come from, order, design ext? And what came first the chicken or the egg?

    Also marnix I plan on reading those links you gave me, I have not don so yet, mainly because today I have taken the time to make this post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #633  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    ... however I do know what natural selection is, ...
    correction : you THINK you know what natural selection is, and you probably do at a basic level, but at a deeper one you don't seem to appreciate its power, all you see is limitations to its effectiveness

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    However that does not mean I know NOTHING at all on this subject off evolution and the age of the earth.
    i did not say you knew nothing about the subject - imo the problem is not lack of knowledge, which can be rectified by reading up on a subject, but a wall of disbelief due to the religious beliefs you hold
    rather ironic isn't it ? a strong belief in one direction causes an equally strong disbelief in the opposite direction - Newton's 3rd law as applied to belief

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also marnix I plan on reading those links you gave me, I have not don so yet, mainly because today I have taken the time to make this post.
    please do - as i said they discuss the arguments far better than i ever could
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #634  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Warning: approaching foul language and adaptation of offensive material originally poking fun at individuals having English as a second language. Politically incorrect on a massive scale, but occassionally - what the heck.

    Strident Young Earth Creationist: "You Darwinists think we know fuck nothing about evolution. Fuck nothing, that's what you think we know. But you are wrong. In fact we know fuck all about evolution."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #635  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    source ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #636  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To Obviously.

    A fish doesn't become a monkey unless you ignore thousands of transitional forms
    And from what I read, SO DO NOT call me a liar there is NOT thousands of transitional forms, there is huge gaps for the most part. So how would I be ignoring thousands if there not there to ignore? You are then ignoring the big gaps that are there for the most part.

    What is your point? We can't prove this 100%? Well guess what, it's impossible to prove anything 100%. However, evidence in the fossil record shows logical soundness and consistency with current theories. We don't expect to find too many fossils given the fact that fossilization is very rare.

    By the way, there are thousands and more transitional fossils given the fact that ALL fossils more or less show transitional forms. By not acknowledging these facts you are ignorant. You don't dictate truth, the evidence is there, the facts are there, the consistency is there, but you IGNORE them.


    go ahead and compare inanimate objects to a biological lifeforms capable of reproducing without realizing the obvious flaw in that
    There is factories that have machines that make other smaller machines or shaped stuff. And intelligence is behind the whole thing. Also to add to this. Man has made robots that have no consciousness and cannot produce babies, although he could probably make one TO make or design another bot like the factory. And all of that has intelligence. But the fact man has consciousness and can produce shows even MORE intelligence then what man could muster up by making a robot. Plus to add to this again, just because objects and machines are different then life does not negate the FACT that life is organized, designed and complex, and how do you explain where it came from? And evolved? Nothing is a simple mindless blob, then evolves into something complex and organized as if intelligence is behind it.

    DNA. There. I just destroyed your whole argument. Didn't even break a sweat.

    However, just for funz, let me explain how flawed your argument is. It's equivalent to saying:

    Computers and humans both have memories, therefore they can both learn.

    It doesn't work like that, your argument is logically unsound. I am sorry you have failed.


    Are you making up words to fit your agenda you biased little dimwit
    No Im not making up words, that is what random chance IS. Instead of accusing me of making something up, which is clearly not made up, if there is no God, then random chance made all this organization and complexity and that would be equivalent to a house building itself by chance. Again I ask you, how could random chance make such organization and complexity? You are ignoring my point, then I am the dimwit?

    There is no such thing as random chance. It's a made up term, it doesn't exist, get over it. Learn about the subject before commenting and looking ignorant. Natural selection: life adapts to its enviroment.

    Stop making things up, it's dishonest.


    You suck at math.
    I had said this “I am not a hypocritical idiot because I disagree with you, I honestly believe this. Where is the probability that everything that exists made itself without intelligence doing it? Can you prove that? Lets have it, where’s the proof? What your saying is that the improbability and the impossibility becomes a very probability if it’s given enough TIME, like billions of years. THAT is your ASSUMPTION, PROVE IT. And even if there was enough time, still it only makes the improbability just a little more probable, but not FULLY probable. If you have to resort to bashing me like hell, you have lost the argument instantly. You have run out of energy and resources and arguments, so you resort to the bash mode. Why don’t you just admit your defeat? I don’t need to go into bash mode to win a argument, my reasoning does the job for me.”

    And all you say is I suck at math. Why don’t you explain how I suck at math? Why don’t you answer the argument I presented instead of flaring your hot air? Anybody can make a statement, that’s easy.

    You came with made up numbers which ignore simple facts which you SHOULD know before discussing this subject. And stop screaming "PROVE I'M WRONG", you're not convincing anyone. We have our proof, where's yours?

    Did you just admit you know NOTHING of the factors involved in the subject you are trying to debunk
    No I did not admit I know nothing of the factors involved. But if your saying those factors are proof, tell me which factor/s and tell me how that factor/s IS the proof? should be a easy thing to do. By me asking you for the proof, that does not mean I have not read up on this subject, your intuition is weak. Me asking a question does not mean I know nothing of a subject, when I debate with Christians on a biblical subject I will ask them lots of questions, yet I know about that subject extremely. My question is not because I don’t KNOW, it’s because I do not see the proof, show me it, tell me that factor, lets hear it. I listened to a audio on youtube on the origins of life from your perspective and then from my perspective, and I did not the proof for your perspective. So please explain it for me in a simple way, and then tell me how that is proof.

    You come with made up claims and expect me to take them seriously? Read:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    Look under mechanisms.



    Stop dodging bullets and defend your previous statement with a reasoned argument
    dodging bullets? That’s what your doing by not answering my questions. Defend my previous statement? Complexity and order and organization and design defends it. Plus you need to defend your statement that chance made it all, defend that and prove that the odds of it happening were high for you and not low? My main objective here is not to prove my view or disprove yours, but to prove that your view HAS NO PROOF for it. So prove and defend your statement that chance did it.

    There is no proof for your view in my response, give me the proof and stop acting like it’s proven, if it is, lets hear it.

    All the proof we give you are IGNORED. Let me repeat that to MAKE SURE you don't miss it:

    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.
    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.
    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.
    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.
    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.
    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.

    You dodged my bullet by suddenly coming with something as random as the "chicken or the egg?", my initial reaction was, "wtf?"


    It's a word! And why ask for proof when proof is already present in your response?
    Your such an hilarity when showing your ignorance over the subject you disucss. Small changes over small periods of time equals large freaking changes over large periods of time. Just because you don't have the comprehensive skills to grasp the timespan involved doesn't mean that your ignorance thus constitutes an argument you fallacious IDiot proponent.
    Im not ignorant to this reasoning and argument of yours, im well aware of it, but you are ignorant to the fact that this is NOT proof, this is ASSUMED. You really don’t see that? This is too obvious to me. And it should be to you and everyone else here. How do you know that little changes over little periods of time will make large changes over large periods of time? How do you know there is not a LIMIT or boundary to the variations? Do you have proof for that? I like how one person said it “when you breed different kinds of pigs, you might get a little one or a big one, but you will never get one the size of Mexico, there is limitations to the variations.” And I do have the comprehensive ability to understand your time span you propose.

    It's CONSISTENT with EVIDENCE (fossil record, retroviral rna and other genetic evidence, experiments, etc). You PROVE here that you are completely ignorant of logic AND the evidence which has been presented to you COUNTLESS times.

    Your full of self-centered garbage irrelevant to a scientific debate.
    This is baloney, you’re the one who said I did not know what faith was when I said you have faith. Now I showed that I did know what faith was, and described it. Then you refuse to debunk what I described and just say it’s irrelevant to a scientific debate. No it’s not, theory is used in science which is the same as faith. And faith is that without proof, so you have faith, so yes it is relevant to a scientific debate. Also how is it self centered what I described? That makes no sense at all.

    Faith is: a strong conviction held without any evidence. That's it, there's nothing more to it in this context.

    The reason I think you're full of self-centered garbage is because of the fact that you IGNORE what all of us are saying all the time and DICTATE what YOU THINK is right when it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.


    Stop accusing me for being you
    By me saying I know what I am talking about but I am still learning and I asked you if you think you have fully arrived and I said your words to me were not justified. By saying this I was not accusing you of being me. If I did that, I would be accusing myself of being you, which I am not you, I will deal with the points and answer the questions and not attack the person.

    "Or do you know it all and have fully arrived?"

    That's what you said, which was ironic. You're the one with all the answers here, no matter how wrong you are.


    I'm not beating around the bush, I'm freaking bulletshowering the bush with a machinegun. There's no bush left, you're naked.

    And I don't have to answer shit to prove my position when such knowledge is already present when finishing High School. You can READ and LEARN about what you're trying to destroy before you say beans about it, looking like a retard barely able to grasp what he's talking about. THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE IS A GOOD PLACE TO START LEARNING! Foolish little demanding mini-dictator.
    Yes you are beating around the bush, you are now in denial mode when you say this, yet you parade me so confident with insults. How I wish you would have striped the bush bare, but you have beat around it.

    And you don’t have to answer my questions or arguments hey? If you don’t, then you mise well stop talking to me because all you are interested in then is insulting me to high heaven without dealing with the issues of the topic.

    Plus that so called knowledge that is already present when finishing high school, yes the topic of evolution old earth is taught in schools, but in that information there is no proof. So yes you do have to give the proof and answer the questions, if you don’t wish to, why are you bashing me? That makes absolutely no sense.

    You assume I have not read about stuff I am trying to destroy. Your assumption is wrong, I have been reading for about 2 years now. And yes I do demand the proof, but I am not a mini dictator. And again I ask the question, where did the complexity, organization, order, design come from? And what came first the chicken or the egg? I still want answers to this.

    There you go again, ignoring EVERYTHING I have said and derive with your superior conclusions. The complexity, yada, yada, is an ILLUSION, which can be understood through reading scientific literature. And I'm not answering what came first, chicken or the egg, because it is a stupid question. However, if we assume this is asked in regards of evolutionary history and the egg isn't necessarily a chicken egg, but eggs in general, then the answer is simple: the egg came first.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #637  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    source ?
    If that was for me then the source of my non-pc 'humour' was my own warped mind. :wink:

    jollybear,
    as Obviously has pointed out all fossils are transitional forms. (To be nitpickingly precise, if the fossil we are looking at had no surviving offspring and contained a combination of features absent from any of its peers then it would not be a transitional form.)
    The reason all fossils are transitional forms - apart from the small exception I noted - is that evolution is a continuous and continuing process. Change is the name of the game.

    I think one of the problems creationists have with evolution is your hang up on the importance of humans. When I studied geology the lectures on vertebrate palaeontology were only made tolerable by the brilliance of our Professor. We did zero on human fossils - that's anthropology not geology. Yet is this area - vertebrates in general and primates and humans in particular - that you level most of your criticisms against.

    When you consider invertebrate palaeontology you have, from my perspective, a much more interesting scene. Here preservation of fossils is - for some genera - more commonplace, and there are absolutely larger numbers of organisms which could potentially be fossilised.
    In this setting 'transitional fossils' in your sense of the term abound. This is where the fossil evidence for evolution is so immensely strong and obvious.

    Evolutionists often comment on the difficulty of fossilisation - the majority of organisms are never preserved as fossils. Creationists have sometimes offered this quote as if it debunked that notion.
    "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration..." T.N.George.

    I think you may even have quoted it earlier in this thread. No matter.

    Since I am probably the only person on this forum who knew Professor George I can assure you he was talking about the record for invertebrates. And that record, as I have noted, abounds with the transitional forms you consider so rare.

    And before you ask - we have never seen a gastropod turn into a cat, although one day I hope to see a YEC turn into a useful member of society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #638  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    source ?
    If that was for me then the source of my non-pc 'humour' was my own warped mind. :wink:
    just checking ...
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #639  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elKG4...eature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6512...eature=related

    Jollybear this example of an asteroid impact is larger than what Noah had to deal with but it does give you an indication of the power of asteroids hitting the planet.

    I'd like to see god stop that.

    EDIT : The second link shows a much much smaller asteroid like the ones Noah would have to deal with. You can see the tsunami and you can clearly see it is not just a bump out in the deep ocean.

    Barry
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #640  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Thank you Mars for some entertaining clips. Although simulations, they do help convey the horror and violence of large impacts, something Jollybear seems not to comprehend. As the earth would have received many thousands of impacts like the lesser one in the clip, plus a dozen or more capable of blasting out 1000 km+ craters, the cumulative effect may actually be approaching the devastation of the big one in the first simulation.

    Now take a look at an actual real-life impact. That of comet Shoemaker-Levy on Jupiter. Some of the fireballs and resulting scars in the Jovian atmosphere were as big as the earth.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7zNuT4dbdjU

    No wonder the creationist websites are silent on the effect this would have had on the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #641  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix.

    correction : you THINK you know what natural selection is, and you probably do at a basic level, but at a deeper one you don't seem to appreciate its power, all you see is limitations to its effectiveness
    You admit I understand it on a basic level. Help me then to understand or see itís effectiveness if I am not seeing it. You have only made a statement here. You need to help me see. HOW does natural selection create evolution?


    i did not say you knew nothing about the subject - imo the problem is not lack of knowledge, which can be rectified by reading up on a subject, but a wall of disbelief due to the religious beliefs you hold
    rather ironic isn't it ? a strong belief in one direction causes an equally strong disbelief in the opposite direction - Newton's 3rd law as applied to belief

    That makes us all have a problem then, since we all have a belief. Even if you say you donít have a belief in evolution and a billion year age for the earth because you say itís facts, still you have believes and views on other issues. No one is FREE from believes even if they wanted to be. If you donít believe in such and such, you then belief in thus and thus, and if you donít believe in thus and thus, then you believe in so in so. Everyone believes in something. So the problem is not really that I believe in genesis creation by God, nor is the problem a lack of courage to hear your arguments or questions or answer them. The problem is not any of that. The problem is I am not being convinced by your premises that they are proven, I do not see the proof. The world of scientists might call it conventionally excepted, but that means nothing to me without proof. And even though I believe in God creating it, and I have exercised courage to come on here and ask questions, present arguments and hear yours as well, still I am not convinced because of the fact there is no proof. If there was proof, what would I do then? How would I respond? I would be crushed but I would make myself face the reality, even though it would be sad to me, and I would not deny the truth. However since from what I see there is such a lack of proof, this means there is much room for me to believe God created it all. And not just for me to believe blindly, because there is evidence for my side.


    To Obviously.

    What is your point? We can't prove this 100%? Well guess what, it's impossible to prove anything 100%. However, evidence in the fossil record shows logical soundness and consistency with current theories. We don't expect to find too many fossils given the fact that fossilization is very rare.

    By the way, there are thousands and more transitional fossils given the fact that ALL fossils more or less show transitional forms. By not acknowledging these facts you are ignorant. You don't dictate truth, the evidence is there, the facts are there, the consistency is there, but you IGNORE them.
    That is a understatement, not only canít you proof it 100% but you canít and have not proven it SUFFICIENTLY ENOUGH for me to believe it and for millions of others in the united states to believe it too. I can understand if someone can proof something fairly close, but this is not even close to proven. Itís not enough.

    Give me a example of the fossil record showing logical soundness and consistency with current theories?

    I agree fossilization is rare.

    All the fossils showing transitional forms are MICRO variations, NOT macro. The gaps in between are HUGE. Plus if you want to use that argument of variations that there is tons of fossils in transition mode, that donít work because you could take LOTS of different variations of birds that are STILL alive AT the SAME TIME right now, and they can all look alike, yet be slightly variant, but obviously they are not evolved from one another since there all alive at the same time. That same logic can be applied to the geologic column. So your argument donít work. Again, NO proof otherwise. How do you proof that all those variations in the fossil record evolved from each other rather then having just been alive at the same time, like many variations being alive today at the same time? If you put the living ones together you could say ďlook they all evolved from each other because they all look alike but are slightly different. But that does not come close to proving that OVER LONG time periods a cell turned from many transition modes to become a man.

    DNA. There. I just destroyed your whole argument. Didn't even break a sweat.

    However, just for funz, let me explain how flawed your argument is. It's equivalent to saying:

    Computers and humans both have memories, therefore they can both learn.

    It doesn't work like that, your argument is logically unsound. I am sorry you have failed
    DNA? That donít destroy my argument one bit. DNA actually HELPS my argument and destroys yours. DNA is complex, itís the blueprint for how our body will be built and how it will look and function and work. That is incredible. Thatís not simple, thatís complex and designed and organized. Where did it come from?

    Your right computers and humans have memories. Humans have to have information PUT INTO them in order to have the information in them or learn. Computers have to have the information PUT INTO IT in order to have it. Itís the same as a human. The only difference between a computer and a human is a human has a free will a computer does not. A human CHOOSES what information he will put into himself, while a computer does not choose, someone else chooses for it what information goes into it. That makes humans even MORE complex, organized and superbly designed above computers. That shows MORE intelligence then man inventing a computer. So your argument has failed, not mine. Where did the organization and design come from?

    There is no such thing as random chance. It's a made up term, it doesn't exist, get over it. Learn about the subject before commenting and looking ignorant. Natural selection: life adapts to its enviroment.

    Stop making things up, it's dishonest
    Im not making things up, IF there is no God, then there is random chance. That is not dishonest, that is the truth. If you deny that, you are dishonest to yourself.

    Let me put it this way. You say there is no random chance because all the atoms and molecules and matter have laws within them which makes things go into organization. However it completely slips your mind to realize that if there is laws within the atoms and laws make organization and complexity and randomness gon, this must mean there is a LAW GIVER. Where does the laws come from? Laws are structures that caus organization. Where does that come from? Did that happen by God? Or did it happen by RANDOM CHANCE?

    Also im not at this moment talking about natural selection or adaptation. Im talking about either God did it or chance did it.

    You came with made up numbers which ignore simple facts which you SHOULD know before discussing this subject. And stop screaming "PROVE I'M WRONG", you're not convincing anyone. We have our proof, where's yours

    Itís not made up numbers. The probability of macro evolution happening within a 6 thousand year history is zero. The probability becomes only SLIGHTLY more probable if you attach to it millions or billions of years. Which is an assumption, not proven. Your in denial mode.


    And yes im screaming ďprove im wrongĒ. If you have your proof, then present it. My proof is the organization, complexity and order and design. Now whereís your proof, where did that design come from and the laws? If you say you have the proof, lets hear it, im waiting.


    I know about the subject, I donít believe your premise, but I know about your premise, but I donít believe in your premise. But my lack of belief does not mean I donít know about your premise. So whereís the proof for your premise. Where did the laws, organization, complexity and design come from? Both in the micro world and the big world? The design of the atoms, the laws of the atoms. Where did that come from?

    I was watching a show once from national geographic and they DO believe in evolution and a billion year old earth. But gaus what? They HONESTLY admitted they could not proof anything about the evolution coming from the primordial soup. Yet they still believed it. But what the show was doing was presenting all kinds of theories on how different scientists THINK it could have happened. And all the theories were contradicting each other. But they all had one thing in common, that evolution, billion year old earth was true. Yet each theory contradicted itself on HOW it happened.

    Here is the sobering truth, if they donít KNOW HOW it happened, HOW do they KNOW it HAPPENED AT ALL? If you donít know HOW it happened that is another way of saying, there is NO proof on how it happened. So if there is no proof on what theory is right on how it happened, then that means there is no proof that it happened period.

    You come with made up claims and expect me to take them seriously? Read:

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    Look under mechanisms.
    Non of this article proves it. Please tell me how it does if you think it does.


    All the proof we give you are IGNORED. Let me repeat that to MAKE SURE you don't miss it:

    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.
    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.
    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.
    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.
    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.
    All the proof we give you are IGNORED.

    You dodged my bullet by suddenly coming with something as random as the "chicken or the egg?", my initial reaction was, "wtf?"
    No I have not ignored it, I have answered it and accounted for it. And on top of it, it was NOT proof. And you keep saying there is proof that we came from the primordial soup. And I keep asking you lets hear it then. And you keep refusing. So why should I be convinced at all? Let me say this with such strong emphasis: you CANNOT win me over by YOUR terms, NOR can you win ANYBODY on YOUR terms for this or ANY other subject. And that principle applies to me too, I cannot win anybody over by my terms. We ALL have to answer each others questions and arguments. Yelling, name calling, making statements, that donít work. Iíve seen that don in my family and other dysfunctional families and to be quite frank, its absolutely BLIND to the core, I KNOW IT does NOT work. Answer the questions. Name the proof, and where did the design and organization come from? Your in denial mode if you donít answer. There not stupid questions. And even if they were, then they should be SO EASY to answer. So answer them otherwise give up or say you donít know the answer.


    Faith is: a strong conviction held without any evidence. That's it, there's nothing more to it in this context.

    The reason I think you're full of self-centered garbage is because of the fact that you IGNORE what all of us are saying all the time and DICTATE what YOU THINK is right when it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
    The biblical faith is not based on blind interpretations of what people think is true. If you think that, you need to do some study. The biblical faith is based on history, eye witnesses, miracles, apparitions, archeology, people dying for what they saw, and the subject we are talking about as well, intelligent design. I already explained that we both have faith. We both observe the world, we both add our reasoning, and then we both make a conclusion(faith). That is what REASONABLE faith is. As for blind STUPID faith, I donít invest myself into that kind of faith. That kind of faith is equivalent to someone going up on top of a tall building and jumping off thinking he will fly. That is blind stupid faith, it has no bases on any reality. The biblical faith does, itís rational. We both have faith. I just believe you have more. But itís beyond a doubt that you DO have faith. Now weather I have more or you have more, that is the nit picks of the debate.

    Also im not ignoring what your saying, you are ignoring what I am saying and what I am asking. So who is the one who is truly self centered here? In my view ANYBODY I donít care who they are or what they claim to be, if they display ANY denial modes or bash modes or refusals to answer questions or account for arguments and evidence or data, THAT is a person that is self centered. The most anybody in my view can do for a selfish person is to love them at a distance. Because in the world of there mind, the whole world revolves around them. And if you think I am that, you gravely misunderstand me. I have no desire to be that. Although we all have some forms of selfishness to some level or another, no one is perfect TO God, but according to me and my faith, selfishness is dealt with and progressively grows weaker as we remain OPEN and honest TO God and others. If the society truly did that, despite itís differences the world would almost be a paradise to live in.

    What I have said here TO me is super reasonable. You might disagree with it, and probably do, but if you state it, please back it up with reasoning and not just a statement.


    "Or do you know it all and have fully arrived?"

    That's what you said, which was ironic. You're the one with all the answers here, no matter how wrong you are
    No, I have not fully arrived. I just believe I am right. You believe you are right, and so here we are debating which way is right.

    There you go again, ignoring EVERYTHING I have said and derive with your superior conclusions. The complexity, yada, yada, is an ILLUSION, which can be understood through reading scientific literature. And I'm not answering what came first, chicken or the egg, because it is a stupid question. However, if we assume this is asked in regards of evolutionary history and the egg isn't necessarily a chicken egg, but eggs in general, then the answer is simple: the egg came first.
    This statement is unbelievable. You have not presented the proof in order for me to ignore it. You have not answered my question in order for me to examine it. So what exactly did I ignore? Tell me exactly what I ignored, please do? Youíre the one ignoring my questions, yet you say I am ignoring your arguments.

    Also the complexity is NOT a ILLUSION. And if you think it is, back that up, whereís the proof that complexity is a illusion? On the contrary I have tons of evidence that complexity is NOT a illusion, there is tons of organization, complexity, and design in things that exist. The human body with all itís cells and how they work, organs, and everything else. And you say itís a illusion? Thatís like looking at a building and saying ďthat building is not organized, itís just a illusionĒ.

    Also if the egg came first, how did it do so without a parent? Or parents? How did the egg come to be? And then being that itís a baby, how did it survive? Where did itís food come from? Did the food get there at the same time it got there? How did it beat off threats to it? How did it produce? These are FAR from stupid questions. Scientists are suppose to play devils advocate with there own theories. Why not with this one?

    To Mars

    Jollybear this example of an asteroid impact is larger than what Noah had to deal with but it does give you an indication of the power of asteroids hitting the planet.

    I'd like to see god stop that.
    How do you know Noah had to deal with a larger asteroid since they would be hitting the earth randomly?

    Also do you believe in Gods existence? Lets assume there is a God. If there is, then he is the creator of the whole universe. That means for him to stop an asteroid is extremely simple. Him stopping an asteroid is equivalent to you stopping a pebble as it is being thrown at you and you block it with your hand. God is a very big God. The creation is not bigger then the creator. The one who made the laws is not under them, he is above them. The bible is full of miracles from both the Old Testament and the New testament. And these people who were eye witnesses of these miracles, many of them died for what they saw. That indicates there is something big to this. God can shield the earth. I like what the bible says in Psalm 18:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse . http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse . http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1;&version=31;

    These say God is a shield of protection to those who trust him and he sends his angels. Noah trusted him.

    Yes, yes I know, circular reasoning. However if there is a God, which DESIGN and complexity and organization(which are facts) IMPLY then that means it is EASY for God to shield the earth or deflect a meteor from earth. Plus most would be small meteors.

    Also those links you gave me are computer simulations, so there based on assumptions. No one has ever observed such a event.

    Also the second link with the tsunami, that was NOT with a global flood. So of course the tsunami will be bigger. If there is a global flood and no land, the tsunami will be smaller. It is a fact that if a boat is way out deep in the ocean, the effect will be only a bump, while those on land will feel the huge wave.

    To Stephen. Notice the link you gave me of real footage. When it hit Jupiter notice it did not spread all over it like it did in the computer simulation for earth. However I do not have a problem with the earth burning to a crisp from a big meteor, I believe that can happen. However God can deflect it.

    Notice also the message to the link, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I just like to highlight it anyway. The message was, get ready, for Jesus is coming. Like that music to, that was good stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #642  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    How do you know Noah had to deal with a larger asteroid since they would be hitting the earth randomly?
    Jollybear you just backed yourself into a corner... Yes indeed the asteroids hit at random and current science postulates that we see large asteroids like the ones shown hitting every 65 million years with smaller ones (eqaully deadly) much more often.
    Since you are compacting the Earths life in 6000 year window we still have to get X number of asteroids hitting the planet.


    A
    lso do you believe in Gods existence? Lets assume there is a God. If there is, then he is the creator of the whole universe. That means for him to stop an asteroid is extremely simple. Him stopping an asteroid is equivalent to you stopping a pebble as it is being thrown at you and you block it with your hand. God is a very big God. The creation is not bigger then the creator. The one who made the laws is not under them, he is above them. The bible is full of miracles from both the Old Testament and the New testament. And these people who were eye witnesses of these miracles, many of them died for what they saw. That indicates there is something big to this. God can shield the earth. I like what the bible says in Psalm 18:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse . http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...&context=verse . http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1;&version=31;
    God did it. You forfeit the debate.

    These say God is a shield of protection to those who trust him and he sends his angels. Noah trusted him.

    Yes, yes I know, circular reasoning. However if there is a God, which DESIGN and complexity and organization(which are facts) IMPLY then that means it is EASY for God to shield the earth or deflect a meteor from earth. Plus most would be small meteors.

    Also those links you gave me are computer simulations, so there based on assumptions. No one has ever observed such a event.
    Tunguska.

    Also the second link with the tsunami, that was NOT with a global flood. So of course the tsunami will be bigger. If there is a global flood and no land, the tsunami will be smaller. It is a fact that if a boat is way out deep in the ocean, the effect will be only a bump, while those on land will feel the huge wave.
    No it wouldn't watch the video carefully. You will see the shockwaves from space and how supermassive the waves are from the point of origin. Stop applying stupid concepts you learned from the 2004 tsunami this is an extra terrestrial tsunami and is different.

    To Stephen. Notice the link you gave me of real footage. When it hit Jupiter notice it did not spread all over it like it did in the computer simulation for earth.
    That's because Jupiter is SO massive the event was localized. The size of that explosion was as big as the Earth! The ENTIRE planet!
    On Earth it is so small that the shockwaves travel around the world.

    However I do not have a problem with the earth burning to a crisp from a big meteor, I believe that can happen.

    However God can deflect it.
    Again God did it. You lose.

    Notice also the message to the link, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I just like to highlight it anyway. The message was, get ready, for Jesus is coming. Like that music to, that was good stuff.
    Forget the video source it was just a stupid religious nutter stealing a movie clip. It's from the movie ''Deep Impact''.
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #643  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Ramble, ramble, ramble!
    I'll give you a "hint" which you can research further:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

    I'll give a more elaborate response tomorrow. I have to respond to this though:

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also if the egg came first, how did it do so without a parent? Or parents? How did the egg come to be? And then being that it’s a baby, how did it survive? Where did it’s food come from? Did the food get there at the same time it got there? How did it beat off threats to it? How did it produce? These are FAR from stupid questions. Scientists are suppose to play devils advocate with there own theories. Why not with this one?
    What the hell are you talking about? You're not making any sense. :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #644  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Mars

    Jollybear you just backed yourself into a corner... Yes indeed the asteroids hit at random and current science postulates that we see large asteroids like the ones shown hitting every 65 million years with smaller ones (eqaully deadly) much more often.
    Since you are compacting the Earths life in 6000 year window we still have to get X number of asteroids hitting the planet.
    I donít see the corner. More smaller meteorites are flung then the bigger ones. That means less bigger ones hitting earth, and more bigger ones missing earth. Plus God can and more likely did(although the biblical account does not specifically specify that event in detail) deflect big ones away from Noahís ark. And even deflect them away from earth period.

    God did it. You forfeit the debate.
    That does not forfeit the debate, it only brings it into a different avenue. That means you have to debunk that God did it now. Which means debunk intelligent design. Design and complexity is there.

    No it wouldn't watch the video carefully. You will see the shockwaves from space and how supermassive the waves are from the point of origin. Stop applying stupid concepts you learned from the 2004 tsunami this is an extra terrestrial tsunami and is different.
    Depending on how big they are. If there small hits, the wave is smaller. Again God can deflect the big ones away.

    Again God did it. You lose.
    I lose? No I donít, you cannot call the rules of the debate. Your saying if I resort to God doing it, I lose, by saying that you are saying to me what I can or cannot resort to; you are calling the rules of the debate. By doing that, you automatically set yourself up to win; but only in your own mind because you make the rules. If I have a different premise then you do and this is a REAL debate, then you cannot abide by MY rules and I cannot abide by YOUR rules. The only rules that apply to BOTH of us, is respecting each other and not bashing and insulting and cussing each other out. But besides that, I do not abide by your rules and you do not abide by mine. You cannot convert me over on your terms and I cannot convert you over by my terms. We all have to answer and account to each others questions and arguments. However I can answer your question any way I want to and I can counter your argument anyway I want to. And you can answer my questions anyway you want to and counter my arguments anyway you want to. However if you give me an answer that I do not consider an answer, then I will show you why itís not, then ask another question for you to answer.

    Thatís like going to court and one attorney says to the other ďto win this case, you have to abide by what I sayĒ. The other attorney would look at him and laugh. Thatís not a real debate, that is dictating the discussion. It donít work like that, as much as you would like it to, it just does not.

    To Obviously.

    Also if the egg came first, how did it do so without a parent? Or parents? How did the egg come to be? And then being that itís a baby, how did it survive? Where did itís food come from? Did the food get there at the same time it got there? How did it beat off threats to it? How did it produce? These are FAR from stupid questions. Scientists are suppose to play devils advocate with there own theories. Why not with this one?



    What the hell are you talking about? You're not making any sense
    Read it again more carefully. How did the egg come first without parents? How did the DNA come first without parents or a host? Where did itís food come from, itís protection? Did all that evolve at the same time it did? In other words for it to survive everything has to be there at the same time(intelligent design).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #645  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Read it again more carefully. How did the egg come first without parents? How did the DNA come first without parents or a host? Where did it’s food come from, it’s protection? Did all that evolve at the same time it did? In other words for it to survive everything has to be there at the same time(intelligent design).
    Again, what the hell are you talking about? The egg contains half the mothers dna and is then fertilized by the father.

    An egg isn't a life, it only contains and sustains life in the beginning of fertilization. If you want to learn why there are two sexes then this video explains it pretty well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJx312qn44

    You can even download the simulations. Go figure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #646  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    More smaller meteorites are flung then the bigger ones. That means less bigger ones hitting earth, and more bigger ones missing earth.
    Jollybear, as has been patiently, and repeatedly, explained to you you have a minimum of 8000 impacts capable of blasting 50km+ craters, and a dozen or more capable of blasting 1000km+ craters to account for, plus the shotgun effect of millions of lesser blasts each comparable to a powerful nuclear weapon. Even one of those 8000 impacts would make life hard for Noah. One of the big dozen would kill him no matter where on earth it hit. You just havn't a clue. You are a retard.


    Plus God can and more likely did(although the biblical account does not specifically specify that event in detail) deflect big ones away from Noahís ark. And even deflect them away from earth period.
    Mars is right. By saying, "God did it" you forfeit the debate. You have lost. It is not up to us to prove He did not do it. The burden of proof is yours'. And you might as well say goblins did it, or aliens did it, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it. Each and every one of these is a cop out and a veiled admission of defeat. You have lost, get used to it. Now snap out of denial. You are only making yourself look even more stupid (if that is possible).

    Now kindly explain the other insurmountable problems, particularly those relating to heat production - the heat of condensation of the water vapour canopy, the heat of precipitation of limestone (enough on its own to boil the oceans), the heat of crystallisation of oceans of molten rock that is now solid, the further heat released as that freshly solidified rock continued to cool to current temperatures (generally below 100 degrees C). The frictional heat of the runaway continental drift, the heat from the release of gravitational energy due to sinking slabs of rock in accordance with creationist fantasy and the heat from accelerated radioactive decay. And please don't fob us off with, "God did it".

    And then there's those coral reefs - even at the fastest recorded rate of coral growth, Bikini Atoll would take over 100,000 years to achieve its great thickness of over 2500 feet.

    Dinosaur nests and footprints right in the middle of rocks laid down by the flood? Get real.

    You were asked about these problems long ago, but still you have not addressed them. Instead you ignore them and ramble off-topic.

    Maybe we should have a vote here. How many people think Jollybear is an idiot? I certainly do!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #647  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To Marnix.

    correction : you THINK you know what natural selection is, and you probably do at a basic level, but at a deeper one you don't seem to appreciate its power, all you see is limitations to its effectiveness
    You admit I understand it on a basic level. Help me then to understand or see itís effectiveness if I am not seeing it. You have only made a statement here. You need to help me see. HOW does natural selection create evolution?
    before i answer your question, can you answer me the following 2 questions first :

    1. what is your understanding of the term "evolution" ?
    2. what is your understanding of the term "natural selection" ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #648  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i just re-read my previous post, and see that the questions might be open to some misunderstanding
    let me therefore rephrase them :

    1. define "evolution" as you understand it
    2. define "natural selection" as you understand it

    the reason for my request is to make sure that before we start any discussion about how natural selection causes evolution, i can at least be sure that we use a commonly understood definition of the 2 concepts
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #649  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Sorry for the late response.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    That is a understatement, not only can’t you proof it 100% but you can’t and have not proven it SUFFICIENTLY ENOUGH for me to believe it and for millions of others in the united states to believe it too. I can understand if someone can proof something fairly close, but this is not even close to proven. It’s not enough.

    Give me a example of the fossil record showing logical soundness and consistency with current theories?

    I agree fossilization is rare.

    All the fossils showing transitional forms are MICRO variations, NOT macro. The gaps in between are HUGE. Plus if you want to use that argument of variations that there is tons of fossils in transition mode, that don’t work because you could take LOTS of different variations of birds that are STILL alive AT the SAME TIME right now, and they can all look alike, yet be slightly variant, but obviously they are not evolved from one another since there all alive at the same time. That same logic can be applied to the geologic column. So your argument don’t work. Again, NO proof otherwise. How do you proof that all those variations in the fossil record evolved from each other rather then having just been alive at the same time, like many variations being alive today at the same time? If you put the living ones together you could say “look they all evolved from each other because they all look alike but are slightly different. But that does not come close to proving that OVER LONG time periods a cell turned from many transition modes to become a man.
    Arguably you only need one instance where the fossil record shows a transition confirming macro-evolution. I can give an example of macro-evolution by showing dinosaur-bird transition. Prepare yourself...
    • Sinosauropteryx prima
    • Caudipteryx
    • Beipiaosaurus
    • Sinovenator
    • Byronosaurus
    • Microraptor
    • Sinornithosaurus
    • Protarchaeopteryx
    • Alvarezsaurids
    • Yixianosaurus
    • Avimimus
    • Archaeopteryx (this one should be known to you)
    • Shenzhouraptor
    • Sapeornis
    • Yandangornis
    • Jixiangornis
    • Sapeornis
    • Omnivoropteryx
    • Confuciusornis
    • Changchengornis

    Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html, (for further references, look there)

    I didn't even bother to list all of them! Seriously, are you going to ignore this, or do you give up now?

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    DNA? That don’t destroy my argument one bit. DNA actually HELPS my argument and destroys yours. DNA is complex, it’s the blueprint for how our body will be built and how it will look and function and work. That is incredible. That’s not simple, that’s complex and designed and organized. Where did it come from?

    Your right computers and humans have memories. Humans have to have information PUT INTO them in order to have the information in them or learn. Computers have to have the information PUT INTO IT in order to have it. It’s the same as a human. The only difference between a computer and a human is a human has a free will a computer does not. A human CHOOSES what information he will put into himself, while a computer does not choose, someone else chooses for it what information goes into it. That makes humans even MORE complex, organized and superbly designed above computers. That shows MORE intelligence then man inventing a computer. So your argument has failed, not mine. Where did the organization and design come from?
    Congratulations for not understanding my argument nor your own.

    DNA evolved! And obviously since it evolved it became more and more complex after a while. Makes sense, doesn't it?

    If I see something I wished I didn't see, will it just go away? No. I can't choose what information not to absorb.

    Anyhow, you can't compare replicating lifeforms to inanimate objects. Living things consume, replicate and change. Buildings don't live their own life. It's a fallacy to assume this. That is why you fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Im not making things up, IF there is no God, then there is random chance. That is not dishonest, that is the truth. If you deny that, you are dishonest to yourself.

    Let me put it this way. You say there is no random chance because all the atoms and molecules and matter have laws within them which makes things go into organization. However it completely slips your mind to realize that if there is laws within the atoms and laws make organization and complexity and randomness gon, this must mean there is a LAW GIVER. Where does the laws come from? Laws are structures that caus organization. Where does that come from? Did that happen by God? Or did it happen by RANDOM CHANCE?

    Also im not at this moment talking about natural selection or adaptation. Im talking about either God did it or chance did it.
    As usual you're talking bullshit. The laws only describe the behaviour of matter and energy in a spacetime continuum through probability. To quote talkorigins:


    "We introduce the second "law" to codify what all of human experience testifies, that air does not empty from a room, people do not grow younger, and the dead do not rise. But these events are not impossible, just highly improbable. Influenced, like Newton, by our culture, we falsely state that these unlikely events cannot happen because the second law "forbids" them from doing so.

    The second law of thermodynamics, along with the arrow of time and the notions of causality and determinism, arise as statistical statements about the likelihood of events that emerge as principles we invent to describe the world of everyday experiences."


    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html


    Random chance is a made up term because random chance does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    It’s not made up numbers. The probability of macro evolution happening within a 6 thousand year history is zero. The probability becomes only SLIGHTLY more probable if you attach to it millions or billions of years. Which is an assumption, not proven. Your in denial mode.


    And yes im screaming “prove im wrong”. If you have your proof, then present it. My proof is the organization, complexity and order and design. Now where’s your proof, where did that design come from and the laws? If you say you have the proof, lets hear it, im waiting.


    I know about the subject, I don’t believe your premise, but I know about your premise, but I don’t believe in your premise. But my lack of belief does not mean I don’t know about your premise. So where’s the proof for your premise. Where did the laws, organization, complexity and design come from? Both in the micro world and the big world? The design of the atoms, the laws of the atoms. Where did that come from?

    I was watching a show once from national geographic and they DO believe in evolution and a billion year old earth. But gaus what? They HONESTLY admitted they could not proof anything about the evolution coming from the primordial soup. Yet they still believed it. But what the show was doing was presenting all kinds of theories on how different scientists THINK it could have happened. And all the theories were contradicting each other. But they all had one thing in common, that evolution, billion year old earth was true. Yet each theory contradicted itself on HOW it happened.

    Here is the sobering truth, if they don’t KNOW HOW it happened, HOW do they KNOW it HAPPENED AT ALL? If you don’t know HOW it happened that is another way of saying, there is NO proof on how it happened. So if there is no proof on what theory is right on how it happened, then that means there is no proof that it happened period.
    First of all, I already demonstrated the flaw in using “organization, complexity and order and design” and why it fails. Even if everything is so unlikely, it doesn’t prove God. First of all, “God” isn’t readily defined, nor its origin explained without logical consequences. The argument from design is an argument that’s not really there. It’s more of a red herring than anything else.

    National Geographic most likely explained how the origin of life, abiogenesis, lacks a complete theory and today can only be explained by a series of hypotheses. I presume you’ve heard of the Miller-Urey experiment? Well, not that many days ago they analyzed a 50 year old sample from the volcanic apparatus version of the experiment where they found 22 amino acids. As you probably know amino acids are the building blocks of life. But I’m not willing to discuss abiogensis, at least not yet, before we’re done with evolution.

    Volcanic lightning may have sparked life on Earth

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Non of this article proves it. Please tell me how it does if you think it does.
    You have GOT to be kidding me! Did you at all look at the link?

    The mechanisms of evolution include Natural Selection (where new genetic information that enhance the probability of survival becomes more numerous in the gene pool), genetic drift and gene flow (which I don’t know that much about).

    The fact that there are slight changes in every generation (eye colour, build, etc) proves that there is variation and change. A species evolve as a result of change and variation in the gene pool, and the selection pressure of the environment. Natural selection drives these changes towards that which increase survivability.

    Is this really that hard to understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    No I have not ignored it, I have answered it and accounted for it. And on top of it, it was NOT proof. And you keep saying there is proof that we came from the primordial soup. And I keep asking you lets hear it then. And you keep refusing. So why should I be convinced at all? Let me say this with such strong emphasis: you CANNOT win me over by YOUR terms, NOR can you win ANYBODY on YOUR terms for this or ANY other subject. And that principle applies to me too, I cannot win anybody over by my terms. We ALL have to answer each others questions and arguments. Yelling, name calling, making statements, that don’t work. I’ve seen that don in my family and other dysfunctional families and to be quite frank, its absolutely BLIND to the core, I KNOW IT does NOT work. Answer the questions. Name the proof, and where did the design and organization come from? Your in denial mode if you don’t answer. There not stupid questions. And even if they were, then they should be SO EASY to answer. So answer them otherwise give up or say you don’t know the answer.
    These aren’t my terms. These are terms which define what science has investigated so far. You have a problem with it? Take it up with the scientific community. Unless you learn these terms you have no say whatsoever. You don’t deserve to comment on something you know nothing about. You can’t enter a musician convention and expect everyone to agree with your understanding of musical theory along with your made up terms. It’s just not going to happen. You don’t deserve to comment on something you know nothing about.

    I’ve given you answers. We all have. The only problem is that you both ignore and misunderstand them. You deserve the name-calling and yelling because you’re not getting it. You don’t know the subject (evident through countless encounters) and can therefore not conclude or comment anything about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    The biblical faith is not based on blind interpretations of what people think is true. If you think that, you need to do some study. The biblical faith is based on history, eye witnesses, miracles, apparitions, archeology, people dying for what they saw, and the subject we are talking about as well, intelligent design. I already explained that we both have faith. We both observe the world, we both add our reasoning, and then we both make a conclusion(faith). That is what REASONABLE faith is. As for blind STUPID faith, I don’t invest myself into that kind of faith. That kind of faith is equivalent to someone going up on top of a tall building and jumping off thinking he will fly. That is blind stupid faith, it has no bases on any reality. The biblical faith does, it’s rational. We both have faith. I just believe you have more. But it’s beyond a doubt that you DO have faith. Now weather I have more or you have more, that is the nit picks of the debate.

    Also im not ignoring what your saying, you are ignoring what I am saying and what I am asking. So who is the one who is truly self centered here? In my view ANYBODY I don’t care who they are or what they claim to be, if they display ANY denial modes or bash modes or refusals to answer questions or account for arguments and evidence or data, THAT is a person that is self centered. The most anybody in my view can do for a selfish person is to love them at a distance. Because in the world of there mind, the whole world revolves around them. And if you think I am that, you gravely misunderstand me. I have no desire to be that. Although we all have some forms of selfishness to some level or another, no one is perfect TO God, but according to me and my faith, selfishness is dealt with and progressively grows weaker as we remain OPEN and honest TO God and others. If the society truly did that, despite it’s differences the world would almost be a paradise to live in.

    What I have said here TO me is super reasonable. You might disagree with it, and probably do, but if you state it, please back it up with reasoning and not just a statement.
    Just because you say I have faith doesn’t mean I do. Demonstrate your claims and accusations, as I have. Otherwise you just won’t be taken seriously. I haven’t denied anything other than your misconceptions about evolution and science. I have not gone into “bash mode” without good reason and accurate use of ad hominems. I have only refused to present evidence because YOU don’t know the subject discussed.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    No, I have not fully arrived. I just believe I am right. You believe you are right, and so here we are debating which way is right.
    I believe I’m right because it coincides with evidence and theory. You believe you’re right because you believe in God. That makes you both selfish and intellectually dishonest in this context, and also delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    This statement is unbelievable. You have not presented the proof in order for me to ignore it. You have not answered my question in order for me to examine it. So what exactly did I ignore? Tell me exactly what I ignored, please do? You’re the one ignoring my questions, yet you say I am ignoring your arguments.
    You ignore your ignorance on this subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #650  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To all. I have taken a break from the debate, and I have gon to studylight to debate on some spiritual issues and discuss and learn more for spiritual refreshment. However here I am back for now. I feel we are going in circles here, and perhaps itís based on me misunderstanding you all, and you all misunderstanding me. I keep asking questions, you keep saying youíve answered them. I keep saying no you have not. I keep giving answers to your questions, you keep saying itís not answered. Obviously we are passing each other somewhere. You think im intellectually dishonest, I think the same for some of you, not all of you, but some of your arguments are good, but some of them are just insane to me. I mean this is futile circles we are going in. I keep saying that you resort to ďchance did itĒ you keep saying I resort to ďGod did itĒ. Well refute God did it then? And you say there is no such thing as chance. How so, if God did not do it? You see im not seeing what your saying at all. Which it has wearied me to some extant trying to tell you that I understand what your saying(I think I do anyway, although I could be missing something) but I do not understand where the proof is. I understand what you say, but I donít understand how that is proof. Also Stephen I want to get into the coral reefs and the rest of the evidence but I have not read up on the coral reefs yet to be honest with you. But I do plan on doing so, I just have been doing other reading on some stuff lately. And before I delve into the coral reefs I first want to finish the thing with natural selection and evolution first. There is so much to learn.


    To Marnix.

    1. define "evolution" as you understand it
    2. define "natural selection" as you understand it
    Ok, my understanding of evolution is, a animal gradually changes into variations, and become better adapted to there environment, itís still the same kind of animal though. After many millions of years, this animal would have changed so much that it turns into a different KIND of animal; one that does not even come close to looking like the original one. Hence through much micro evolution over the years, eventually a macro evolution happens. This is my understanding of evolution. However I disagree with this. If my understanding is missing something, please add what I must know.

    Next. My understanding of natural selection is nature, or the environment selects the most fit to survive, while the weak are selected out, they die off. Simply put, the most fit survive. However I do not see how that is proof for evolution. I just donít see it. If im missing something, please add.

    To obviously. I would like to see pictures for all those transitions that you have listed. Big articles are not proof to me. PICTURES i MUST SEE.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #651  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Obviously we are passing each other somewhere. You think im intellectually dishonest, I think the same for some of you, not all of you, but some of your arguments are good, but some of them are just insane to me. I mean this is futile circles we are going in. I keep saying that you resort to “chance did it” you keep saying I resort to “God did it”. Well refute God did it then? And you say there is no such thing as chance. How so, if God did not do it? You see im not seeing what your saying at all. Which it has wearied me to some extant trying to tell you that I understand what your saying(I think I do anyway, although I could be missing something) but I do not understand where the proof is. I understand what you say, but I don’t understand how that is proof.
    I didn't say there's no such thing as chance. Chance/probability is an important factor, but it's not the only factor, thus why it isn't random as in random chance. You keep isolating chance as the sole factor of everything.

    Perhaps your problem is underestimating our arguments? It's the only reason I see for why you don't get them.

    The reason why "Goddidit" isn't sufficient as an explanation is because it doesn't answer anything, and also multiplies entities unneccessarily. It's unscientific and nothing more than an intellectual lazy patch for "I don't know". Seriously, even "I don't know" is a better answer than "Goddidit", at least it's intellectually honest.

    Your rebuttals to our arguments are unimaginative and constantly guilty of using the strawman fallacy, hence they're not rebuttals at all. Stop acting like we're a bunch of fools and that you're so high and mighty. Maybe then you'll see our arguments and stop underestimating them by resorting to the old, tedious strawman fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    To obviously. I would like to see pictures for all those transitions that you have listed. Big articles are not proof to me. PICTURES i MUST SEE.
    Find them yourself and stop making excuses. One search for images on google and you have them. Is it really that hard?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #652  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Ok, my understanding of evolution is, a animal gradually changes into variations, and become better adapted to there environment, itís still the same kind of animal though. After many millions of years, this animal would have changed so much that it turns into a different KIND of animal; one that does not even come close to looking like the original one. Hence through much micro evolution over the years, eventually a macro evolution happens. This is my understanding of evolution. However I disagree with this. If my understanding is missing something, please add what I must know.

    Next. My understanding of natural selection is nature, or the environment selects the most fit to survive, while the weak are selected out, they die off. Simply put, the most fit survive. However I do not see how that is proof for evolution. I just donít see it. If im missing something, please add.
    ok, you seem to understand the basic definitions, even if you don't agree that they represent a true description of reality - in which case i don't understand how you can fail to add the 2 together and see that one leads to the other

    let's go through it again : natural selection takes the available variation and weeds out the members of the population that least suit the environment, hence this means that :

    a) the population will be different not only in numbers but also in genetic make-up from what it originally was
    b) the remaining population will be better suited to its environment

    which fits more or less with your definition of evolution

    let's now take your definition of evolution under the magnifying glass :

    ... a animal gradually changes into variations, and become better adapted to there environment ...
    now ask yourself : how does it become better adapted to the environment ? the variation on its own won't achieve it since the direction of the variation is random compared with the requirements for survival
    it's the pruning by natural selection that makes the animals that do make the grade better adapted

    so that, in a nutshell, is how natural selection leads to evolution
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #653  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    didn't say there's no such thing as chance. Chance/probability is an important factor, but it's not the only factor, thus why it isn't random as in random chance. You keep isolating chance as the sole factor of everything.
    So your saying there is no random chance, but there is chance/probability. My next question is this: where did the probability come from and how do you know it was lots of probability going on? Probability makes it have structure and laws to everything. Where did those laws and structure come from? How could everything complex make itself without a God and do so with high probability? Where did the probability come from?

    Perhaps your problem is underestimating our arguments? It's the only reason I see for why you don't get them.
    Perhaps maybe. So we will keep chipping away at the rock for now.

    The reason why "Goddidit" isn't sufficient as an explanation is because it doesn't answer anything, and also multiplies entities unneccessarily. It's unscientific and nothing more than an intellectual lazy patch for "I don't know". Seriously, even "I don't know" is a better answer than "Goddidit", at least it's intellectually honest
    This statement right here is completely ignorant and insane to me. And I say that in the nicest possible way. When you say this you have a complete misunderstanding of my argument as well. However it is understandable that you misunderstand because there is a fine line between me saying ďGod did itĒ and ďI donít knowĒ or ďsomething natural did itĒ.

    First your saying when I resort to ďGod did itĒ it does not answer anything. My question is, how does it not answer anything? I can agree that it would not answer SOME things, but ANYTHING? No, that makes no sense to me. If there is a God, then he created the universe, hence ďGod did itĒ. How is that intellectually dishonest if I believe there is a God and he created everything? What your saying is a weighty statement. By saying this you are in essence saying that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING who lives on the earth right now and who has ever lived on the earth in the past who happens to believe God created the universe, that they are ALL dishonest. Can you see the absurdity in that statement? There are billions of people who believe God created the universe. Yes they all have different believes that branch out from that, but non the less there are still billions who believe God created it. OR ďGod did itĒ. Are you really saying they are all dishonest people?

    You know what I think is dishonest. And I this person was on studylight and they gave a statement that was absurd to me. Even you will agree that itís absurd, you definitely will more so then me even. However I even think this statement is insane and I told the person this and why I disagree with them. When they said this, I believe this is intellectually lazy or dishonest. Here is what they said in quotes and what I said in response.


    The whole ark experience was a miracle. God could have placed 10,000,000 species of creatures on that ark. The entire bible is about faith. 1. 1 Cor 1:27 says
    Quote:
    but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,



    The whole ark experience was not a miracle. Some parts of the ark experience were a miracle, some parts were not. Was it a miracle that Noah built the ark? No. That was no more a miracle then man building a bigger ship today. That is all natural. Noah was given Devine instructions on how to build the ark, that was a miracle. The flood came, that was a part of a miracle, but there was still natural processes that took place during that global flood. Itís true God COULD have put 10,000,000 species on the ark, but he DID NOT put that many on the ark. It does not say he put every species on the ark, it says every ďKINDĒ was put on the ark. Kinds narrows down the numbers to around 16 thousand ORIGINAL KINDS. Also if God put 10,000,000 species on the ark, he would either have to shrink all those animals to bug size to fit them on the 450 foot long ark, or he would have to stretch the ark out longer, plus making the hight go higher to perhaps thousands of feet more long and high. If God did that, he would not even need or should I say, bother to have Noah build the ark in the first place. He would have just put Noah and his family and the animals in a bubble, then destroy the wicked people, oh and then he would not even need to destroy all the rest of the animals, he would just need to destroy the wicked people, which was his purpose for destroying the earth by flood. And you know, God CAN do that, I believe that, he can do that easy. BUT he did NOT do that based on the record. God WORKED with Noahís TRUST in him. Noah naturally build the ark, he naturally stored the food, he naturally got things ready. THEN GOD supernaturally sent the animals to the ark without being vicious in there nature. God worked with him. It was not God doing it all, and it was not Noah doing it all. In other words, it was not all miraculous in favor of the ďpure faithersĒ on here, and it was not all natural in favor of the scientific minded out there. It was some of BOTH. Noah naturally build the ark, God supernaturally sent the animals on it, God supernaturally started the flood. When he did, the wicked people NATURALLY died. When the bible says God choice the foolish things of the world to shame the wise. What that means is, foolish in the eyes of the world, NOT foolish in the eyes of God. If scientists look at a creation in 6 days, and a earth that is 6 thousand years old as foolish. Well TO them it is, not TO God and not TO me. So who is truly wise here? Them or Gods word? Itís Gods word that is. So that means they must be missing something, they must be misinterpreting some observations in there science.

    So as you can see this person has resorted to ALLOT more of ďGod did itĒ then there supose to biblically speaking. This I believe is a example of lazyness. I on the other hand, am NOT lazy. I have come on here and debated for I donít know over a year now? And have researched tons of articles, books, encyclopediaís from creation scientists AND evolutionist scientists. Not allot of Christians will do that, most will just stick with there bible nice and comfy. I refuse to do that. So how am I lazy? Seriously I do not see myself as intellectually lazy at all. Even when I took a break from the creation evolution topic, I still was not resting, I was banging away on other topics in the bible and on studylight. My rest from this topic only got me working on another. I have a burning hunger for knowledge.

    So you see the difference in my response from this persons response? God DID DO some things, but he did not do EVERYTHING. You see? And by me saying that, that is in no way dishonest at all. Itís very honest from a biblical viewpoint.

    The same way you all let the evidence lead you to a conclusion, is the same way I let the bible lead me objectively to interpretations of it. Im not dishonest, I know im not, I KNOW I am not. Itís just the way it is.

    And here is a big question I have. If there is no God and God did not do anything. And if after we both die we BOTH go to a state of nothing unconsciousness. If that is all so, why do you debate me on these issues then? Surely your small life span needs as less stress as possible and you need to live it up as much as possible without wasting as little time as possible since the place you are going there is no enjoyment anymore. So you see, if I debate with you and I am right and you are wrong, I have everything to gain by all this, I have your soul to gain by helping it, I have stuff to learn and be sharpened on to gain, I have spiritual growing to gain, and you have something where you try to make sure your right and I am wrong because you know if you are wrong, your in trouble spiritually speaking after you die, so you have everything to gain as well by this massive discussion. However if your right and I am wrong, you do not have anything to gain by this discussion and nor do I. It would all be a waste of time because non of it matters, we both going to die and go to nothingness. The very fact you debate me tells me that there is something inside you, some little deep voice that tells you that you just might be wrong, and if you are, you donít want to be. You are on here to make sure. You want to be certain, because it is a scary thing to be wrong if YOU are wrong. If Im right and your wrong, im safe and your not, if your right and im wrong, were both gon to nothingness land, itís not as bad as hell, but itís not as great as heaven either.

    Itís just what I have been saying all along. There is something inside everyone that screams out ďthere is a God!Ē Some just happen to fight it and suppress it, they canít deal with it, they fear it, they donít understand it, they rebel against him and his ways, they want to live for themselves. This is what itís all about I think. This is what it boils down to. But the very fact you debate it shows there is something in you that tells you that you might be wrong. And that means you have doubt, and if you have doubt, that means itís because there is not complete sufficient PROOF for your premise.

    For the meteorite bombardment how did Noah survive that? I could say ďGod COULD have don itĒ or I could mix in with that ďI donít know, Noah survived the impacts some other way that we are not aware of, or have not discovered. Or maybe the impacts did not hit earth as much as we might think, and we do not know how it did notĒ. So maybe God did it, or some other way it happened. I donít know, but this one thing I do know in my heart, that it DID happen, some way or another. So where is my dishonesty in that? I believe there is a God and the bible is his word.

    Your rebuttals to our arguments are unimaginative and constantly guilty of using the strawman fallacy, hence they're not rebuttals at all. Stop acting like we're a bunch of fools and that you're so high and mighty. Maybe then you'll see our arguments and stop underestimating them by resorting to the old, tedious strawman fallacy.
    If my arguments are straw men arguments why is some of my questions not being answered directly then?

    Iíll look for those pictures as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #654  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    jollybear, surely you realise that as soon as you say "god did it", you leave the field of science, since science attempts to explain phenomena without resorting to supernatural explanations

    it also strikes me as a rather defeatist attitude, because basically what it tells people is to stop trying to find a solution, to stop trying to better themselves because it's all in the hands of god - except that some people DID try and find natural solutions and found that answers WERE available where once they had been told that only the supernatural could provide answers
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #655  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    For the meteorite bombardment how did Noah survive that? I could say ďGod COULD have don itĒ or I could mix in with that ďI donít know, Noah survived the impacts some other way that we are not aware of, or have not discovered. Or maybe the impacts did not hit earth as much as we might think, and we do not know how it did notĒ. So maybe God did it, or some other way it happened. I donít know, but this one thing I do know in my heart, that it DID happen, some way or another. So where is my dishonesty in that? I believe there is a God and the bible is his word.
    In other words there is nothing that will convince you that this argument is fatal to your young earth belief. No matter how powerful the argument, you will just say,
    Noah survived the impacts some other way that we are not aware of, or have not discovered. Or maybe the impacts did not hit earth as much as we might think, and we do not know how it did notĒ. So maybe God did it, or some other way it happened.
    Is there any point arguing with you Jollybear if there is NOTHING that will convince you? No matter how overwhelming the evidence that you are wrong you will just say
    ... some other way that we are not aware of, or have not discovered. ... maybe God did it, or some other way it happened.
    etc. And you could do this every time you are cornered on any topic. As for where the dishonesty is in that, I'll tell you. It is intellectually dishonest. It is a stubborn refusal to face the facts. It is evidence of a mind that is not just closed, but welded shut. It is religious bigotry.

    As for saying, "God did it", the futility of this response has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, yet still you cannot see it - yet more proof of the blinkered, bigoted, welded-shut nature of your small mind. As I said before you might as well say, "Goblins did it", "Aleins did it" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it". And it is NOT up to us to prove otherwise. You are the one making the claim, you are the one who must prove it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #656  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix.

    ok, you seem to understand the basic definitions, even if you don't agree that they represent a true description of reality - in which case i don't understand how you can fail to add the 2 together and see that one leads to the other
    I do understand your logic in thinking that adding the two together can lead to the macro evolution eventually. However I do not understand how this is proof that it eventually does lead to macro evolution. I do not see that there is proof for this in living creatures now, or in the geologic column. There appears to be a LIMIT to the gene variations for each species.

    Like here is my line of logic that I am thinking, let me clarify. I read about some black and white moths. It was the black moths that mostly got eaten by the birds because they stood out more then the white ones. Then pollution came along and made the tree trunks darker, so the light moths got eaten more. So there was nature selecting out the black moths first, then the white months next. But that only meant that the white and black moths went up and down in numbers. The genetic information for black and white moths always existed weather natural selection did away with the numbers of black or white. And both the black and white remained moths, purely moths. There is no proof for macro evolution. Itís assumed that it will eventually happen.

    let's go through it again : natural selection takes the available variation and weeds out the members of the population that least suit the environment, hence this means that :

    a) the population will be different not only in numbers but also in genetic make-up from what it originally was
    b) the remaining population will be better suited to its environment

    which fits more or less with your definition of evolution

    let's now take your definition of evolution under the magnifying glass :

    1. Quote:
    ... a animal gradually changes into variations, and become better adapted to there environment ...



    now ask yourself : how does it become better adapted to the environment ? the variation on its own won't achieve it since the direction of the variation is random compared with the requirements for survival
    it's the pruning by natural selection that makes the animals that do make the grade better adapted
    so that, in a nutshell, is how natural selection leads to evolution
    I understand this is how it works in the present, but I donít understand how it leads to evolution. Natural selection selects out the variation that is not best for the environment, and selects in the variation that is best for the environment. But after the variation is selected to stay alive for a given environment it still only remains that variation. It still only remains a moth for example. And it remains a moth for generations after generations after generations after generations and all down the road. Where is the proof for macro evolution? I understand how this works, but I donít understand how you see proof for macro evolution in this?

    jollybear, surely you realise that as soon as you say "god did it", you leave the field of science, since science attempts to explain phenomena without resorting to supernatural explanations
    I believe there is a fine line between the natural realm and the spirit realm. Lets assume for a moment there is a God and there is a spirit realm and there is a supernatural reality. Assume this for a moment to understand my argument here. Based on this assumption, the spirit realm would be where God is and where the supernatural surge flows from. However the spirit realm and the natural realm would both be connected through a channel. It would be like a radio, the surge signals would flow through the radio. So based on this, there is a distinction between the two realms, but there is not much separating them since they both hold each other together. Itís like the radio is useless without the radio surge signals and the surge signals are useless without the radio. In like manner the spirit realm is useless without the natural realm and the natural realm is useless without the spirit realm. Now that is not to be confused with God, God is never useless without the natural realm. And both the natural and spirit realms would both collapse without God. And the spirit realm was created first before the natural realm in my view of the bible anyhow. Anyhow I know this sounds like off topic, but itís not for the sake of my explanations and where im going with it. Assuming there is a God and a spirit realm itís connected to the natural realm through channels or connections. Sort of like a plug in a socket. Now some disconnect the socket and so there is no surge, or some turn off the radio sort of speak and there is no signal. That is what allot of scientists have don, they have turned the radio off. Just shut God off, shut the spirit world off. Thatís what has happened, and itís very unfortunate because that realm has allot to discover and offer. That realm is just as complex and adventurous as this natural realm is.

    However I know you and many others do not believe this explanation. You believe science/natural realm and the spirit realm are all separate issues and should be disconnected. And you do not even believe there is a spirit realm to disconnect from. I understand all this, however I do believe you have stepped into error without knowing it.

    it also strikes me as a rather defeatist attitude, because basically what it tells people is to stop trying to find a solution, to stop trying to better themselves because it's all in the hands of god - except that some people DID try and find natural solutions and found that answers WERE available where once they had been told that only the supernatural could provide answers
    This is based on a misconception about the bible and the God of the bible and itís message content. Whoever has said that answers can only be found from the supernatural for everything, they are wrong and the bible does not say this. However for the human heart and soul joy and peace and salvation and absolute truth this realm is the ONLY answer.

    Itís like this: this preacher had tons of sores in his mouth one day. And they got worse and he did not know why, he was seeking for an answer. And of course those sores were being caused by something natural, even he assumed this. Well he could have gon to the doctor and asked the doctor what was the natural cause for his sores in his mouth. The doctor could have don some tests im assuming and found out and gave him a natural but accurate answer. But gaus what the preacher did? He asked God and prayed all day about it. All day meaning throughout all the activities he was doing all day. And then something popped in his head that told him it was the toothpaste! Get rid of the toothpaste! So thatís what he did, he threw away his toothpaste and got some new kind. Then all his sores started to go away after that. So he got his answer from the spirit realm. But he could have gotten it from the natural realm too. You can get RIGHT and TRUTHFUL and ACCURATE answers from BOTH realms, but you can also get FALSE and LYING and INACCURATE and WRONG answers from BOTH realms as well. So in the case of science I believe there science about healing sickness through medicine and development of technology like flying plains all of that is accurate and right and good answers from the natural realm. However the view on origins is a wrong answer from the natural realm. Also from the spiritual realm people have also gotten healed of sicknesses without medicine and the view of origins is I believe true and right. However not every view from the spirit realm agrees with the bible. New age agrees with evolution. But they believe that the soul evolves over millions of years.

    So me and God and the bible in itís true context is not saying we should stop trying to discover, use our brains, be lazy, sit back and think God will drop all the answers on our head. Thatís not what im saying nor the bible. The complete apposite actually. We should work, we should discover, we should try to find out more things. To think God will drop it all on us would be a insult to him actually because he gave us a brain to use, so we should use it. So please do not misunderstand. There are allot of people out there who claim to be believers in the bible or a spirit world who have a complete misunderstanding of there own faith they claim to have. So it becomes a bad representation of a good thing, which in turn makes the good thing look bad to other people like yourself.

    To Stephan.

    In other words there is nothing that will convince you that this argument is fatal to your young earth belief. No matter how powerful the argument, you will just say,
    Whatís the difference with me saying either God did it, or it was don by some other means that we do not know of or have not discovered yet. What is the difference with me saying that and you and other scientists saying ďwe donít yet know the answer to this question because we are still researching and discovering, after all that is the nature of scienceĒ? You all say that to some issues do you not?

    So I could easily turn around and say the same thing at you that you said at me ďin other words, there is nothing that will convince you that this argument is fatal to your old earth belief, no matter how powerful the argument, you will just say ďwe do not know yet, that is the nature of science, we are still researching itĒ.

    Is there any point arguing with you Jollybear if there is NOTHING that will convince you? No matter how overwhelming the evidence that you are wrong you will just say
    1. Quote:
    ... some other way that we are not aware of, or have not discovered. ... maybe God did it, or some other way it happened.


    etc. And you could do this every time you are cornered on any topic. As for where the dishonesty is in that, I'll tell you. It is intellectually dishonest. It is a stubborn refusal to face the facts. It is evidence of a mind that is not just closed, but welded shut. It is religious bigotry.
    Is there any point in arguing with you Stephen if there is NOTHING that will convince you? No matter how overwhelming the evidence that you are wrong on some issues you will just say ďwe are still researching that issue, or area, we have not discovered the answer yet, but that is the nature of scienceĒ. And you could do this every time you are cornered on those topics. As for where the dishonesty is in that, Iíll tell you. It is intellectually dishonest. It is a stubborn refusal to face the facts on those specific issues science in your realm has no answer to. It is evidence of a mind that is not just closed, but welded shut. It is religious science bigotry.Ē
    So here is a taste of your own words.


    As for saying, "God did it", the futility of this response has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, yet still you cannot see it - yet more proof of the blinkered, bigoted, welded-shut nature of your small mind. As I said before you might as well say, "Goblins did it", "Aleins did it" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it". And it is NOT up to us to prove otherwise. You are the one making the claim, you are the one who must prove it.
    Yes the point has been brought out to me again and again. And I have also pointed out to you again and again that this point is not accurate again and again. And you refuse to answer to it, you just like to keep restating the same thing over and over again even though I answered this argument and answered it well, which you refuse to answer to. And you tell me im in denial?

    I have already shown why the goblins, aliens, spheghati monster doing it makes no sense. I have already dealt with that argument. Im not going to deal with it further until you answer my arguments against it which I have stated already over and over. Until you deal with how I answered it, I wont answer it again, until you deal with my answer for it. Just to briefly re state my arguments against it, they are 1. alians, goblins and sphegati monster do not have the long historic background that the biblical God Jehovah has. 2. Alians, goblins and sphegati monster do not have the archeologic evidence as much as the biblical messages have. 3. Sphegati monster was only founded in around the year 2000 to 2006 if I remember correctly, but it is around that range. I did state the exact year in former posts though, I just donít want to flip through all the pages looking for it. 4 alians, goblins and sphegati monster do not have the same overwhelming claims of miracles and experiences that people have had with Jehovah God. 5, the nature of alians, goblins and sphegati monster clearly portrays them as NOT gods at all, but only creatures. The nature described in the bible showing who Jehovah God is, clearly portrays him as God, that his nature as God is very rational and more compelling in logic and reason to be God. In short, the biblical faith and God is RATIONAL.

    Also you say I must prove God created it all. Design, complexity, organization, the laws, structure all clearly show that there is a designer, organizer and law giver and structurer. Now you disprove that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #657  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    well, jollybear, it looks like we've reached an impasse here : both of us are looking at the same set of data, we seem to agree on the meaning of the basic data, and still we come to diametrically opposed conclusions

    whereas i see no obstacle to extending the small changes caused by natural selection in the here and now to mean larger changes over geologic time, you see nothing but obstacles to making such an extension

    can you explain to me what is at the root of your disbelief ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #658  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Whatís the difference with me saying either God did it, or it was don by some other means that we do not know of or have not discovered yet. What is the difference with me saying that and you and other scientists saying ďwe donít yet know the answer to this question because we are still researching and discovering, after all that is the nature of scienceĒ? You all say that to some issues do you not?
    There's a huge difference. You are using the "God did it" excuse as a cop-out to avoid overwhleming contrary proof. It is like a flat-earther, being taken into orbit and looking down on the round-earth, and still denying the true shape of the earth by insisting that he is still researching etc. When scientists say they "don't yet know" they are just being honest. So far, however, the creationists have failed to come up with a young-earth argument that stands up. I do not need to say, "I don't yet know" to any young-earth argument. They are all easily refuted.


    So I could easily turn around and say the same thing at you that you said at me ďin other words, there is nothing that will convince you that this argument is fatal to your old earth belief, no matter how powerful the argument, you will just say ďwe do not know yet, that is the nature of science, we are still researching itĒ.
    Wrong. I will simply follow the evidence. If the evidence really indicated that you could get many miles thickness of sediment deposited in a year, consolidated, with fossils, and all the various sedimentary features we observe I would have to accept it. If the laws of thermal physics allowed oceans of molten rock, huge expanses of continental lava flows, and all the granitic batholiths of the world to form, and cool, in a few centuries I would be forced to accept it. If the evidence showed that vast thicknesses of pure chalk could form from muddy turbulent water, in a year, I would accept it. If the evidence showed that the earth could withstand 8000+ impacts in a few months I would be impressed. If the evidence indicated that radioactive decay really was massively accelerated in the past, and that this did not heat up the earth to searing temperatures, I would believe it. If you could show that dinosaurs really did walk about, make nests, and lay eggs, under the sea during a disasterous flood, I would immediately believe in miracles. If you came up with evidence that seas evaporated and formed thick rock salt beds in the middle of the wettest event in history I would be satisfied. If you could demonstrate that giant coral reefs, like Bikini Atoll, could grow in a few 1000 years, I would acknowledge you had a point. And so on, and on. PROVE all these things with hard EVIDENCE and I will be convinced. Unfortunately for you the EVIDENCE is NOT in your favour. Absolutely NONE of it. Not a single creationist argument relating to any of the above withstands even a moment's scrutiny. In fact they are often laughably easy to refute. No need to say "I don't yet know". It's simply a matter of pointing out the facts. You are like a flat-earther seeing the earth from orbit, and denying its shape. I am like a round-earther trying to convince you. Your denial of the overwhelming and fatal difficulties to your stupid beliefs is as perverse, and intellectually dishonest, as the flat-earther in my analogy.

    As for "God did it" being like saying "Goblins did it" etc, you respond with:

    Yes the point has been brought out to me again and again. And I have also pointed out to you again and again that this point is not accurate again and again. And you refuse to answer to it, you just like to keep restating the same thing over and over again even though I answered this argument and answered it well, which you refuse to answer to. And you tell me im in denial?
    Where are your replies? If they are buried amongst your great long off-topic dissertations then don't be surprised if they have been missed. This is an earth science thread yet you keep rambling on about other topics. In an attempt to stick reasonably on-topic I have stuck only to your earth-science-related comments. I am wasting enough time as it is answering your stupid rubbish on earth-science matters, and have not the time to go ploughing through the rest of your gibberish.

    Your feeble attempt at a response (below)

    Just to briefly re state my arguments against it, they are 1. alians, goblins and sphegati monster do not have the long historic background that the biblical God Jehovah has. 2. Alians, goblins and sphegati monster do not have the archeologic evidence as much as the biblical messages have. 3. Sphegati monster was only founded in around the year 2000 to 2006 if I remember correctly, but it is around that range. I did state the exact year in former posts though, I just donít want to flip through all the pages looking for it. 4 alians, goblins and sphegati monster do not have the same overwhelming claims of miracles and experiences that people have had with Jehovah God. 5, the nature of alians, goblins and sphegati monster clearly portrays them as NOT gods at all, but only creatures.
    merely misses the point - that you can invoke any imaginary being and say he/she/it "did it". They are all as far-fetched as each other. If you want an imaginary being with historic and archaeological pedigree, alleged miraculous powers, and numerous (if long dead, in some - but not all - cases) devotees, then pick any of the popular ancient deities: Zeus, Osiris, Ra, Thor, Quetzelcoatl, Vishnu, Krishna, Inti ... It does not affect the argument. Now try and face the evidence honestly. The problems I cite above are not minor difficulties that might be resolved with more research. Each and every one on its own is as devastating to your case as the shape of the earth as seen from space is to flat-earthism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #659  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix

    can you explain to me what is at the root of your disbelief ?
    The root of my disbelief is a few things. 1. Macro evolution is obviously not observed for obviously understandable reasons. 2. I donít see it in the geologic column, only micro variation examples only, the rest being gaps. 3. There is limitations within the genetic information. 4. I believe the bibles account and that there is a God and he is a witness of what happened at the time of origins and he appeared and told others to write the account down.

    To Stephen.

    There's a huge difference. You are using the "God did it" excuse as a cop-out to avoid overwhleming contrary proof.
    Im not using the ďGod did itĒ as a excuse and cop-out to avoid overwhelming contrary proof. That is not my MOTIVE at all. If your going to counter argue me, make sure you represent what I say correctly first. Im using the ďGod did itĒ because I 1. Believe there is a God. 2. He created the universe, 3. He sustains all things, 4 he DOES do some things, and allot more things then we think. Im not using the ďGod did itĒ as a cop out, im using it because I really do believe there is a God, but you cannot seam to understand that in the least. So itís not a excuse, itís a real belief I have. Itís not resorted to in order to AVOID contrary evidence. Im not avoiding contrary evidence, im discussing those very evidenceís you all have. But im doing one at a time. If we discuss ALL the evidence all at the same time, our posts will be HUGE. So itís not practical to do that and is very time consuming. So one evidence at a time and all of us offering our views on that evidence makes it more practical and easyer. I know your eager to get through it all, but lets do one evidence at a time.

    It is like a flat-earther, being taken into orbit and looking down on the round-earth, and still denying the true shape of the earth by insisting that he is still researching etc.
    You have a fine way of twisting things around to make them suit with your favor. It is NOT like a flat earther at all. It is completely different in nature. And you should know that. In the case with your analogy, the flat earther is taken up to space and looks down and sees a round earth and says ďI am still researching, im not going to say the earth that I see is round, even though it may appear roundĒ. You see that is not what I am doing. Macro evolution and a billion year old earth, big bang, ext all of that is not ďappearingĒ in the obvious like the earth being round. The nature of the two are different, allot different. When you say otherwise and then call me dishonest, I find that absolutely insane, and I find myself wondering why you cannot see the pure illogic in your thinking.

    When scientists say they "don't yet know" they are just being honest.
    Oh I get it, when atheistic or evolutionist scientists say ďI donít yet knowĒ to something, they are just being honest, but when a creation scientist says ďI donít yet knowĒ to something, itís always dishonest. Again, this is just another of your fine ways to twist things to make them turn around to fit into your favor. You make a good scientist(except in the cases of your rejection of God), but you would not make a good attorney.

    So far, however, the creationists have failed to come up with a young-earth argument that stands up
    Not true at all. We have been talking of many issues in this thread, and they do not stand up only in your mind. I do not see what you see though. You say there is overwhelming evidence for you, I believe there is overwhelming evidence for me. A given evidence for you, is only evidence for you because you interpret the data to fit your theory, I interpret the data to fit my theory.

    I do not need to say, "I don't yet know" to any young-earth argument. They are all easily refuted.
    The ďI donít yet knowĒ part applies to the areas where atheistic scientists really ďdo not yet knowĒ something. Also there only easily refuted in your mind, not mine. I do not see what you see. And if you want to ďhelpĒ me see what you see, your going to have to really make your evidence and arguments quite simple to understand as if a child could relate to it.

    The mark of an intelligent man is not how much knowledge and what big words and math he can fly around, itís taking how much he knows with all itís complexity and being able to convey it in easy and simple ways.

    Where are your replies? If they are buried amongst your great long off-topic dissertations then don't be surprised if they have been missed. This is an earth science thread yet you keep rambling on about other topics. In an attempt to stick reasonably on-topic I have stuck only to your earth-science-related comments. I am wasting enough time as it is answering your stupid rubbish on earth-science matters, and have not the time to go ploughing through the rest of your gibberish.
    This statement is very ridged in nature. If you happen to ďbend the rulesĒ meaning be flexible by answering my arguments about ďGod did itĒ and Jehovah is different then goblins, aliens, spheghati monster ext. By you answering to this, that is not wrong, even if this thread is in a earth science section. Itís not a huge crime. And the question has much logic and reason backing it up and DOES apply to your argument you have against me. And you know it does. If you donít wish to answer it on here, I do request that you answer it in a private message at least. Then it wont ďbend the rulesĒ so it should be fine, hey? The ďrulesĒ are put in place as a guideline, not a ridged outline. Let me illustrate further what I mean. If you have a arrow that is two flexible, it wont work, if you have one two ridged it also wont work. But if you have one with just the right bend, it works. If I came on here talking about how to cook, or talking about what kind of Computer I should have, that is like a arrow that has too much of a bend. Non of that even comes close to applying to the thread here. If I come on here and do what you do, and refuse to answer to anything with the word ďGodĒ in it, that is equally just as bad from the other end of the spectrum. Itís two ridged, an arrow that is stiff. However as we are talking about earth science stuff and parts or issues arise where God does apply to where my stand is, then that is a ďbendĒ and is OK. Therefor ďbendĒ and answer the question and reason I have about ďGod did itĒ. Or answer the parts about complexity and design. You should loosen up a bit. You a bit uptight.


    merely misses the point - that you can invoke any imaginary being and say he/she/it "did it". They are all as far-fetched as each other.
    You really do not see the error of your logic here, itís amazing. You keep doing the same thing, trying to make Jehovah appear to be the same as goblins, aliens, or sphegati monster, zeus, thor, ext. They are not all far fetched as each other. All of them except Jehovah are far fetched yes. But you keep trying to make Jehovah which is a rational God appear the same as these other irrational so called deities. Why canít you see the error of your logic? I know why, itís because you are trying to make my God look weak, so as to make my arguments look weak, and make yours look stronger. It wont work until you answer my questions about this issue here. You keep blowing it off and yet you accuse me of blowing your arguments off. Are you doing this to get even with me? If so, you have no need to, since I do plan on hitting at all the rest of your evidence. We have hit on allot already, but I do understand there is some more.

    You are ignorant to the nature of Jehovah and these other deities. Though you might know the nature of the other deities, you seam to be quite ignorant of the nature of Jehovah. His nature and or what he IS, is completely different then these other so called deities. You donít seam to be open to learn, you seam to be the one who is shut tight, yet you say I am. You need to live up to your own standards it appears to me. I would not dare bind a standard on someone else that I do not live up to myself. It appears to me that it boils down to one thing here, selfishness. Itís not about if there is a God or not, itís about self. Even if there was a God, self would be YOUR god and that other God would be rebelled against. This is what it boils down to I think.

    Anyhow, on a positive note. I do think you are very knowledgeable, and have presented very good and challenging points. And are passionate. I do not doubt you are very good at your job to and are very focused. You do have all of this in your favor. But the other parts should not be neglected like a bend, some flexibleness, open to learn, equal to answer my questions as well and not try to control through twisting things into your favor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #660  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    The root of my disbelief is a few things. 1. Macro evolution is obviously not observed for obviously understandable reasons. 2. I donít see it in the geologic column, only micro variation examples only, the rest being gaps. 3. There is limitations within the genetic information. 4. I believe the bibles account and that there is a God and he is a witness of what happened at the time of origins and he appeared and told others to write the account down.
    (1) correction : macro-evolution is not directly observed, but its effects are, which include, but are not limited to, the fossil record and the molecular clock

    (2) i look at the geologic column and i see plenty of intermediates - please remember that we're looking for an ancestor to 2 existing species (left in my diagram) and not a modern morphological intemediate between 2 existing species (right in the diagram)



    (3) what are those limitations ?

    (4) tbh, the literal account of the bible doesn't say anything about time scales apart from "7 days"- it doesn't say how long ago, the 6000 years stuff is someone's interpretation of the bible which is only one of many possible interpretations
    there's also no 'read me' file with it which states that everything in the bible requires a literal interpretation
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #661  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    1) correction : macro-evolution is not directly observed, but its effects are, which include, but are not limited to, the fossil record and the molecular clock
    Itís effects are? You mean variations from parents and then micro variations from those variations. But all the variations remain within the same ďkindĒ of animal. I know there was some confusion between the word ďkindĒ and word ďspeciesĒ or ďvariationĒ. However I will attempt to define it very simply.

    First look at this little cartoon picture here of the basic different dog variations.
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/asse.../dog-kinds.jpg

    Notice all those 5 dogs In the picture they are all called different names and they all look different. They are all a distinct variation from each other. But they are all the SAME KIND of animal, called, dog.

    What I am saying is, there can be many variations of dingoís but there all dingoís. Now micro variations would be dingo and collie. But as many micro variations between the different variations as there is, and as many variations as there are, the limitation is that they always remain in there same KIND of animal, called dog. They will never jump out of there kind into a different kind of animal, like a dog turning into a cat, or a bird. Thatís where the limitation comes in. What I am saying is, there is not ENOUGH SUFFICIENT proof that macro evolution happens, even over millions of years.

    2) i look at the geologic column and i see plenty of intermediates - please remember that we're looking for an ancestor to 2 existing species (left in my diagram) and not a modern morphological intemediate between 2 existing species (right in the diagram)
    So we are looking not for one kind of animal turning into another kind after millions of years. We are looking for all the different kinds of animals common ancestor? The trick is, how do they know they have a common ancestor?

    4) tbh, the literal account of the bible doesn't say anything about time scales apart from "7 days"- it doesn't say how long ago, the 6000 years stuff is someone's interpretation of the bible which is only one of many possible interpretations
    This is a misconception. Itís true the bible does mention a 6 day creation week followed by a 7 day rest. But that is not the only time scales that there is in the bible. After the 7 day week is mentioned, all one has to do is take all the generations from Adam to Jesus, then from Jesus to now, and it comes out to be around 6 thousand years. It mentions in the bible all the generations, how old people lived, from Adam to Jesus. There is even a whole book in the bible called ďchroniclesĒ and most of it is only reading a bunch of names and genealogies. For some itís a boring read, but it is there for this very important reason we are talking about. So it is very easy to trace all the way back and forward and do the calculation, and we easily reach a 6 thousand year period. Now some have added a little more time because for some ODD reason they thought there might have been gaps between the generations, which makes absolutely no sense at all. By doing that, it creates a problem, the problem being that if one separates Adam from his son Seth by a few hundred years, or separates Abraham from his son Isaac by a few hundred years, it makes no sense, because then his son Isaac is hardly in his life. So by thinking a gap there when there is non, and then adding more years, like instead of 6 thousand, 10 thousand years for the earth, it creates the problem of separating the parents from the children, and even causing time intervals where there is no people. So by trying to fix a problem through compromise, they create another problem. Not only that, by compromising, they have not even fixed the problem that they were trying to fix, because a 10 thousand year old earth still does not even compare with a 4 billion year earth. And of course every record of history, not just the biblical history, all averages around 5 to 10 thousand years for the earth. Some civilizations make it to be 5, some make it 6, like the bible, some make it 7, some make it 8 and some 9 and some 10. However all that means is that the puzzle of history is getting slightly messed up in itís peaceís based on the imperfections of writers or the imperfections of interpreters of history today. In other words, people not reading all the facts and critically separating fact from error.

    there's also no 'read me' file with it which states that everything in the bible requires a literal interpretation
    This is true. So how does one choose when and when not to give a literal or symbolic interpretation of a given passage? This is how: being objective as we read it. Read it with no bias. Read it in context. Context will tell us when itís talking symbolically and when itís talking literally. To add a symbolic meaning to a literal meaning to a passage makes the passage appear wacky. Something just is not right, it just donít fit. And the same goes for when one adds a literal meaning for a passage that calls for a symbolic interpretation.

    Two examples would be: 1. Genesis where it talks about a 6 day creation, and Adam and eve having kids, and talks about there kids, and generations, right down to Noah. Then talks about Noah having kids, and there generations right down to Abraham, then talks about Abraham and his kids right down to Moses and the exodus of Egypt. Now all of this reads as a literal context.

    Now here is a example of a symbolic context. The book of revelation where John is seeing a vision. He sees dragons and beasts with seven heads with crowns on there heads. Now John himself even says that this is not literal, he says that these beasts represent kingdoms and kings. The seven heads are like seven kings he says. So obviously the beasts are not literal beasts going to come up ďout of the seaĒ and start fighting with the saints of God. We wont see a beast. Itís a kingdom, a brutal one.

    So to interpret genesis as symbolic makes a problem, which is: if the creation week is symbolic, why does it say ďand there was evening and morning the first dayĒ ext. And in exodus it says ďfor in six days you shall work and the seventh rest, for in six days God created all things and the seventh he restedĒ. If itís symbolic for billions of years, then we would have to work billions of years and then rest. Makes no sense. Also if itís symbolic it creates another problem, which is: what parts are literal and what parts are symbolic? It comes down to a ďpick and chooseĒ what you want to be symbolic and what you want to be literal. In other words, anytime a passage in genesis conflicts with science, we twist the passage to fit science into it(bias, out of context, lack of objectiveness). Then why is the creation symbolic while Adam and eve are real? Or maybe they are symbolic, but then they have kids, who are also symbolic, then finally going to Noah, he is real, or maybe he is symbolic. And then Abraham he is real because he lives to 170 years old, while Noah and his few sons and grandsons after him the ages slowly went down from 800 years old to 700 to 600 to 500 to 400 to 300 to 200 then Abraham lives to 170. Then finally Isaac lives 130, then the ages get smaller still. Like 100. And it varies from there. Then it gets into the problem of was Moses a real person? Or was he symbolic? You see it really does become a pick and choose thing when we read it like this. And it makes absolutely no sense in a honest fashion.

    In the same way you believe one should not have bias doing science, that is all I am doing when I say one should not have bias reading the bible. In other words, you look at me as having bias in science because I try to fit the bible into science. But anytime anyone tries to fit evolutionary/billion year old earth science into the bible, I look at that as bias. Itís the same thing, just a different field. It boils down to, what one will we believe? You are honest with your science, I am honest with my bible. If you remain honest with science and try to fit it with the bible, you become biblically dishonest, while remaining scientifically honest. If I try to fit the bible with evolutionary science I remain biblically honest, while being scientifically dishonest. Itís like there is no way of getting out of it, we have to be honest one way, but by being honest one way, we automatically make ourselves dishonest another way. Itís like we cannot remain in the middle somewhere. Unless of course someone is wrong. That means either the bible is right and science is wrong, or science is right and the bible is wrong. Or can the bible fit with science, is there room? Or can science fit with the bible, is there room? The way I see this is, true science can fit with the bible, but evolutionary science cannot fit with the bible. It just canít fit. Any other science apart from that, can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #662  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Jollybear

    Do you know that dogs were bred from wolves, as evidenced by comparing their DNA? So then: Are dogs, dogs or are they wolves?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #663  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Im not using the ďGod did itĒ as a excuse and cop-out to avoid overwhelming contrary proof....
    JB the contrary proof IS overwhelming to any objective mind. You just can't bring yourself to admit it as it would refute your rigid fundamentalism, so you resort to "God did it" to avoid the alternative, which is that your Bible is wrong.

    As for saying, ďI donít yet knowĒ, if a flat-earther looks down on the round earth from space and still clings to flat-earthism by saying, ďI donít yet knowĒ, is that being reasonable? Is that being honest? I think not, yet it is essentially what you are doing. The evidence for the great age of the earth is as overwhelming as that for a round earth. And remember people knew the earth was round long before astronauts got into orbit. One does not have to directly see something to know it is true. Even before the space age the evidence for the roundness of the earth was overwhelming, so all but the most intellectually perverse accepted it. Likewise for the great age of the earth. Only religious nutters deny it.

    You really do not see the error of your logic here, itís amazing. You keep doing the same thing, trying to make Jehovah appear to be the same as goblins, aliens, or sphegati monster, zeus, thor, ext. They are not all far fetched as each other. All of them except Jehovah are far fetched yes. But you keep trying to make Jehovah which is a rational God appear the same as these other irrational so called deities. Why canít you see the error of your logic? I know why, itís because you are trying to make my God look weak, ...
    The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind. It is you who is making the error of logic here. The error of special pleading. "My God is special, your arguments don't apply to my God" is essentially what you are saying. Everyone claims their god is special, and the others false. You and your imaginary friend in the sky are no different.

    Now stop the off-topic ramblings and kindly explain all the fatal difficulties I have pointed out, whether meteorite bombardment, enough heat generated to melt the planet, dinosaurs nesting under the sea, great thicknesses of coral etc. And do it without the easy cop-out of saying, "God did it". If you have to resort to saying, "God did it" then at least have the honesty to concede that without "God doing it" a young earth and Noah's flood would be impossible and that the evidence clearly indicates a very ancient earth. An intellectually honest person, with no position on the existence of God (ie. does not know if there is one or not), on looking at the evidence, would NOT conclude that the earth is 6000 years old and was submerged about 4500 years ago. Instead that person would be drawn to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, because that is where the evidence points. And it is because the evidence so clearly points to an old earth that virtually ALL scientists, whether religious or not, accept the great age of our planet. The earth is billions of years old, and Noah's flood never happened. Get used to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #664  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Kulster.

    Do you know that dogs were bred from wolves, as evidenced by comparing their DNA? So then: Are dogs, dogs or are they wolves?
    The cartoon picture I gave was only a simple thing I was trying to show. But yes I agree that the wolf and the dog are in the same KIND of animal, they are just a higher variation. So dogs and wolves are the same kind. So when you ask ďare dogs, dogs or are they wolves? The word ďdogĒ and ďwolfĒ are just words, apart from that, they are the same kind of animal, just a variation.

    To Stephen.

    JB the contrary proof IS overwhelming to any objective mind. You just can't bring yourself to admit it as it would refute your rigid fundamentalism, so you resort to "God did it" to avoid the alternative, which is that your Bible is wrong.
    Contrary proof is not overwhelming. There are lots of other ways of looking at it. Iíll just say the same words at you ďthe contrary proof is overwhelming to any objective mind that there is a God. You just canít bring yourself to admit it as it would refute your rigid way of science career. So you resort to ďthere is no GodĒ to avoid the alternative, which is that your science ways are wrong.

    As for saying, ďI donít yet knowĒ, if a flat-earther looks down on the round earth from space and still clings to flat-earthism by saying, ďI donít yet knowĒ, is that being reasonable? Is that being honest? I think not, yet it is essentially what you are doing.
    I have answered this reasonably already, and itís like what I said you have not even read it, or you have ignored it all together. Must I repeat it? Itís not the same as flat earthism. The issue is different, one can reasonably conclude without seeing the earth from space, that it is round, based on the sun set and sun rise and man traveling all around it. And one can see the earth is round from space as well. But a billion year old earth, molecules to man evolution, big bang, ext. That is a different issue then observing the earth as round. You were not there in the time of the big bang, molecules to man evolution. You were not around for billions of years to observe. The issue is obviously different. It is just different, im not stupid, itís different.

    The evidence for the great age of the earth is as overwhelming as that for a round earth.
    No itís not, the issue is different.
    And remember people knew the earth was round long before astronauts got into orbit. One does not have to directly see something to know it is true.
    I agree with this. Also to add, one does not have to see God for him to be true.

    Even before the space age the evidence for the roundness of the earth was overwhelming, so all but the most intellectually perverse accepted it.
    I agree with this.


    Likewise for the great age of the earth. Only religious nutters deny it.
    I disagree with this. This is ignorance. Not ALL religious folks believed the earth was flat. And it was not ONLY religious nutters who denied it was roundĒ

    And when you call them religious nutters, you obviously disagree with all religions. But do you at least have respect for religion in the world of your mind? You can disagree with something but still respect it. As long as itís consistent why not respect it? Like I disagree with muslims, budhists, jews, atheists, but if there consistent with there belief systems and not hypocritical, I can respect them, although I will still disagree with them. If there inconsistent and hypocritical I cannot respect them. So, do you have any respect in your mind for religious people? And if not, why not? And donít tell me im getting off topic either, because youíre the one who mentioned the religious ďnuttersĒ so you are the one who got off topic by your own standard by saying that. So if you donít respect them, why not?

    The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind. It is you who is making the error of logic here. The error of special pleading.
    When you say ďthe error of special pleadingĒ this consistently shows that you have not understand a word I have said, and I have said it over and over. Which shows you are very selfish in nature. And if you stay that way, you will not be very good at debating, good at science yes(except for your rejection of God) but debating, no. I will say again what I have been saying before and before. When I resort to ďGod did itĒ or ďGod did some things, or allot of thingsĒ what I am essentially saying is that I believe God exists and based on that belief he did do things, he was involved. So this is not special pleading. I could say that you resort to ďthere is no GodĒ as special pleading. Itís equally the same thing.

    Let me add another spin on the argument here. Itís true that all the people who believe in zeus, thor, artimis, baal, spheghati monster and Jehovah ext. Itís true all these people believe in different gods. But notice that they all at least believe there IS A God. They all interpret that God differently, but they at least all believe there is one. Yes all the interpretations are not all right, one is right, the rest are wrong. But they all have this one thing in common that is right, that there is a God. There is something inside mankind that tells them there is more to this life then the natural world, something inside says there is a God. But why is there so many views on who or what this God is? Because there is a devil out there who instills lies into the mind.

    So why does Jehovah not just bypass all the confusion and lies and make himself very clear and his way so no one has any doubts? Because he has set up the system for people to SEEK and SEARCH and DIG and CHOOSE and FIND him and put there TRUST in him and his ways. Those people who get deceived, they just need to search harder, and not depend on what they grew up with, if they do that, there bound to be deceived, unless they luck out of course. Thatís why they need to search and seek and hunger. If they donít there going to do a great injustice to themselves. People owe it to themselves to search the truth out. Jehovah does not want us to be lazy. Thatís why he set up the system like this. He wants us to be courageous, itís the way he set it up. He could have set it up to where it casts away all doubt. But that would have been too easy. He wants to test the quality of peoples hunger, searching, and stretch there mind, and test there love and passion. Love is not real love unless it passes the tests. Finding the truth is not truly finding the truth unless one thinks hard and wise before making the choice, unless they luck out, which most times is not the case.

    "My God is special, your arguments don't apply to my God" is essentially what you are saying. Everyone claims their god is special, and the others false. You and your imaginary friend in the sky are no different.
    It does not matter for the sake of this point at the moment what God is special. What matters is, they all agree there is a God and he created the universe. It does not matter to this point which gods are false and which one is not. The common ground with all these different religious people is that A God created it all.

    However going further, I do claim my God as true and the rest false. For very logical reasons I do so. Zeus, thor, spheghati monster, baal, dagon, ext they are all creatures, finite creatures, weather they be natural or supernatural, they are still creatures. Angels are creatures, there supernatural beings, but there still finite beings, not gods. So the nature of all these so called gods compared to Jehovahís nature is ALLOT different. The nature of Jehovah is not a finite being, you do not seam to understand that with Jehovah and these other so called gods there is no comparison in nature. There natureís are completely different. Zeus, is like superman, but even superman is finite, he does not control the universe, he has super strength, but if you watch him he still sometimes grunts with his face when he lifts something extraordinarily big. Sometimes he even got kicked across a room by the bad super valine. That all shows that he is only a finite super being, not a god. Itís the same with zeus, thor, baal, dagon, spheghati monster, ext. But with Jehovah, non of this is true. His nature is completely different. He is not finite, his strength has no bounds, so he canít grunt with his face. He knows all things, not some things. He does not just have control over the earth but also the stars, unlike baal he only supposedly has control over the earth but not the stars. You see there is a obvious difference in every way. Just think, spheghati monster, a supernatural entity with beat balls under his body of noodles and two eyes and he created all the universe? Just think how stupid that sounds. Even if spheghati monster did exist, he would only exist as a distorted demon entity, who is finite, not a God. If someone wants to say the spheghati monsters existence makes sense, then the ONLY possible way it would make sense is by it being a demon, nothing more. Being God would sound absurd and a laughingstock. Seriously I can just see heaven with all the angels and saints laughing there head off at the devil saying ďDevil can you come up with a better lie then that, the spheghati monster made all this? Come on Satan, your suppose to be a master liar, do better then that nowĒ.

    Come on, answer my arguments here, and donít say im getting off topic, youíre the one that brought up the spheghati monster, so you canít say im off topic, because youíre the one that brought it up. So why donít you finish it? Donít say im off topic, because then you will have to eat your own words.

    Also when you say that I am saying ďyour arguments donít apply to my GodĒ. Thatís right, they donít. The biblical account says God created all things, it says he sent the animals into the ark. It says many more miracles happened throughout the history of the bible. Yes allot of natural stuff went on too of course, but allot of miracles happened too.

    Now in the bible it does not say anything about meteoroids hitting earth at Noahís time, nor God deflecting them. So itís speculation. However itís reasonable since God did other miracles and his nature is all powerful. Also there is archeology backing up the bible, LOTS of it. So itís a rational faith. So your using the meteoroids to debunk my God and the bible. But im using by God to debunk your meteoroids. You cannot disprove my point, hence you cannot prove your point, and I cannot prove my point. Hence there is no proof. Now since the bible does not mention the issue of meteoroids, I am not even dogmatically saying that ďGod didĒ deflect the meteoroids, there could have been some other mechanism that took place. However if there was no other mechanism then itís very easy for God to deflect them.

    If I have not had many experiences with the Holy Spirit and have talked with people who have seen angels and many different things happening, perhaps it would be easier for you to convert me. But these experiences are an anchor for me. I know what I experienced many times, and I trust those who have told me thereís face to face, and the so many out of body experiences(evidence for spirit world, different then God), but it all goes together.

    You know what? There are two ways people learn. The easy way, and the hard way. I believe you Stephen will learn the hard way, which is after you die, you will find out there is a God and there is a spirit world and you have a soul, but it will not be well with your soul, that is the hard way of learning these issues. Itís the sad way, but it is a way, the hard way. I donít want you to learn the hard way. However you do not believe you will learn the hard way because you do not believe there is a God, spirit world, or you have a soul. However that is the RISK you are willing to take, and you do not believe itís a dangerous risk, I believe it is.


    Now stop the off-topic ramblings and kindly explain all the fatal difficulties I have pointed out, whether meteorite bombardment, enough heat generated to melt the planet, dinosaurs nesting under the sea, great thicknesses of coral etc. And do it without the easy cop-out of saying, "God did it". If you have to resort to saying, "God did it" then at least have the honesty to concede that without "God doing it" a young earth and Noah's flood would be impossible and that the evidence clearly indicates a very ancient earth. An intellectually honest person, with no position on the existence of God (ie. does not know if there is one or not), on looking at the evidence, would NOT conclude that the earth is 6000 years old and was submerged about 4500 years ago. Instead that person would be drawn to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, because that is where the evidence points. And it is because the evidence so clearly points to an old earth that virtually ALL scientists, whether religious or not, accept the great age of our planet. The earth is billions of years old, and Noah's flood never happened. Get used to it.
    To this I say, yes I admit that without the existence of God the earth and the universe would be billions of years old. Actually OLDER then billions, I would go so far as to say ZILLIONS of years old because of the so much chance that would have to be going on in order for so much economic organization to be here so wonderfully. However I do know there is a God, my experiences tell me it.

    Also I will answer the coral reefs and the rest, but at the moment im dealing with the macro evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #665  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Ok then Jolly.

    So dogs and wolves are the same kind of animal. So what about jackals and wolves? Are they the same?


    Jackal



    Wolf



    I am guessing that you'll say yes. So moving on, are wolves and hiŽnas the same kind?


    HiŽna
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #666  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hi Kalster.

    I agree that the Jackel and the wolf are in the ďdog kindĒ. Now the Hyena is that in the dog kind? Iíve searched the web on this one and some say itís the dog kind, some say itís the weasel kind, some say the cat kind. Tough one. It LOOKS like it would be in the dog kind. Hmmm. Iíll go with the cat kind.

    I know your going to bring me somewhere with this. I am anticipating. I can see a corner being set up for me somewhere. Lets hear it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #667  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Yay! I'm reply number 666 on this topic!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #668  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    So your saying there is no random chance, but there is chance/probability. My next question is this: where did the probability come from and how do you know it was lots of probability going on? Probability makes it have structure and laws to everything. Where did those laws and structure come from? How could everything complex make itself without a God and do so with high probability? Where did the probability come from?
    • The laws exist as a product of the interaction between matter and energy on a spacetime continuum.
    • The maths describe these laws.
    • Probability originate from human conception.


    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    This statement right here is completely ignorant and insane to me. And I say that in the nicest possible way. When you say this you have a complete misunderstanding of my argument as well. However it is understandable that you misunderstand because there is a fine line between me saying “God did it” and “I don’t know” or “something natural did it”.

    First your saying when I resort to “God did it” it does not answer anything. My question is, how does it not answer anything? I can agree that it would not answer SOME things, but ANYTHING? No, that makes no sense to me. If there is a God, then he created the universe, hence “God did it”. How is that intellectually dishonest if I believe there is a God and he created everything? What your saying is a weighty statement. By saying this you are in essence saying that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING who lives on the earth right now and who has ever lived on the earth in the past who happens to believe God created the universe, that they are ALL dishonest. Can you see the absurdity in that statement? There are billions of people who believe God created the universe. Yes they all have different believes that branch out from that, but non the less there are still billions who believe God created it. OR “God did it”. Are you really saying they are all dishonest people?

    You know what I think is dishonest. And I this person was on studylight and they gave a statement that was absurd to me. Even you will agree that it’s absurd, you definitely will more so then me even. However I even think this statement is insane and I told the person this and why I disagree with them. When they said this, I believe this is intellectually lazy or dishonest. Here is what they said in quotes and what I said in response.
    What's absurd is replacing one unknown with another and then call it an answer.

    Another member on thescienceforum once said this to refute the "everyone believes it" argument:

    "HUMANS, feed on shit!! 50 Quntillion flies can't be wrong!!"

    I love that quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    If my arguments are straw men arguments why is some of my questions not being answered directly then?

    I’ll look for those pictures as well.
    You are being answered; before you make strawmen out of the answers given to you. You're on a constant biased rampage, where everything is judged insufficient and fallacious by you because it doesn't involve God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #669  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Hi Kalster.

    I agree that the Jackel and the wolf are in the “dog kind”. Now the Hyena is that in the dog kind? I’ve searched the web on this one and some say it’s the dog kind, some say it’s the weasel kind, some say the cat kind. Tough one. It LOOKS like it would be in the dog kind. Hmmm. I’ll go with the cat kind.

    I know your going to bring me somewhere with this. I am anticipating. I can see a corner being set up for me somewhere. Lets hear it.
    Careful now Jollybear. You are saying that one "kind" can't change into another, so your definition of "kind" has to be more specific for my purposes. Why do you choose to classify a hiŽna as a cat?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #670  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    Come on, answer my arguments here...
    What arguments? They are just a load of rambling gibberish. And yes, they are off-topic. And I only mentioned the flying spaghetti monster & co to make a point about your cop-out argument "God did it". So my initial reference to the monster etc. was not off-topic, but a response to your "God did it" cop-out. It is you who fails to see the point and then spins out a great long off-topic essay about why you think the spaghetti monster etc are not the same as your god. And you continue with your special pleading by insisting that your god is special because he has infinite powers etc, and the others don't. But this is a mere belief. A statement of faith. Nothing more.

    I will not waste time pursuing this off-topic nonsense any further. I want you to stick to earth-science matters and address the issues raised, and to do it without resorting to "God did it". An honest person simply follows the evidence wherever it might lead. An honest person does not start with a pre-conceived view and then try to force everything to fit it, and resort to cop-outs to get around contrary evidence that is just so strong it cannot be forced to fit. The evidence for an ancient earth really is overwhelming and you have failed miserably in your pathetic attempts to address it. If an honest person, who had never heard of the idea of god (and so had no position on the issue), came across the geological etc. evidence that person would conclude that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands, for that is what the evidence clearly indicates. By saying, "God did it" you are only evading the evidence. And that is just being intellectually cowardly and dishonest. Shame on you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #671  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Obviously.

    The laws exist as a product of the interaction between matter and energy on a spacetime continuum.
    The maths describe these laws.
    Probability originate from human conception.
    You have dodged the question. Why? The interaction between matter and energy on a spacetime continuum, how does that create the laws within energy and matter? When matter and energy come together and organize itself, where did that come from? I donít understand how your answer explains it? Either answer the actual question, or elaborate more on the answer you already gave me and tell me how that answer explains where the laws came from?

    What's absurd is replacing one unknown with another and then call it an answer.
    If I believe God did it and you say this is a unknown, but you cannot disprove it, then what you believe that something else did it, but you cannot prove that, then what you believe is also a unknown.

    To Kalster.

    Careful now Jollybear. You are saying that one "kind" can't change into another, so your definition of "kind" has to be more specific for my purposes. Why do you choose to classify a hiŽna as a cat?
    To define kind more specifically I would say KIND is any animal that can mate with each other and produce offspring, except in some rare cases, but in those cases the animal is clearly in the same kind still.

    The reason I classify the hyena in the cat kind is because of what I looked up online. However to me it looks more like the dog kind. Let me ask, can hyenaís mate with dogs, or cats? I donít know, do you know? Has it been experimented? Like to put it on a more simple level, if a hyena mated with a human, it would im sure obviously not produce offspring, and there obviously would not be any attraction or drawing toward the two. So the obvious answer is that the human and the hyena are definitely two different KINDS.

    Here is a quote I found online ďalthough hyenas bear physical resemblance to wild dogs, they make up a separate biological family which is most closely related to herpestidae.Ē

    To Stephen.


    What arguments? They are just a load of rambling gibberish.
    What if I call your arguments a bunch of gibberish? You would not like it would you? Obviously you do not understand and are not even WILLING to understand the nature of my arguments, nor willing to answer them. Before you call them gibberish understand them and answer to them. Let me ask you this. WHY are they a bunch of gibberish, can you answer that at least?

    And yes, they are off-topic.
    Nothing is off topic if it gives an answer. When I say God MAY(MAY, MAY, MAY) have deflected the meteoroids, that is not off topic, that is just mentioning a mechanism where with Noah could survive those meteoroids. Nothing is off topic. Itís an answer, so counter it.

    And I only mentioned the flying spaghetti monster & co to make a point about your cop-out argument "God did it".
    Yes, you made your point, which was ďoff topicĒ by your own standard, so I countered your point which was off topic by your own standard. So why not counter my point against your point and keep breaking youíre your own standard which you have already don, yet bind it upon me. Finish it.

    Also itís not a cop-out. I already explained why. I sincerely believe in Gods existence and that he is creator. That is not a cop-out, I really honestly believe he exists, I donít DISHONESTLY believe he exists. Thatís stupid, understand what I am saying. You think I am saying he exists and he does stuff just so I can win a argument? Absolutely not, I really believe he exists. Im not lying about what I believe. Come on, be willing to understand what your trying to argue here and stop making false accusations. By making accusations that you cannot prove against me, that in itself is a cop-out for you. You keep telling me to deal with the issues, YOU meet your own standard and deal with my point as well. Your not going to play dictator here.

    So my initial reference to the monster etc. was not off-topic, but a response to your "God did it" cop-out.
    I already explained this.

    It is you who fails to see the point
    I completely understand your point about the spheghati monster. Your trying to use this monster to show the absurdity of resorting to a God creating the universe and doing anything. But your argument does not work, because although I do agree with you that resorting to the spheghati monster as creator is absurd, but I disagree with you that his nature and the nature of Jehovah are the same. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME IN NATURE and RATIONAL, LOGICAL THOUGHT. Jehovah has a longer history, his nature is more rational to making him God, there is design in things that exist, which implies there is a God. Plus the common ground all these different faiths have is that they do believe there is at least a God, however they all claim different ones though. Your not answering anything im saying, and these points I have stated easily refute your argument of the spheghati monster.

    and then spins out a great long off-topic essay about why you think the spaghetti monster etc are not the same as your god.
    already explained above.

    And you continue with your special pleading by insisting that your god is special because he has infinite powers etc, and the others don't. But this is a mere belief. A statement of faith. Nothing more.
    Yes it is a statement of faith, but a more RATIONAL faith then the others, because itís based and rooted in a long history, the nature of Jehovah is more rational to be God rather then the others. And there is obvious design in nature implying a designer. And there is something within us that tells us there is more then the natural world. 4 powerful things here. Plus your forgetting one thing, you stating there is no God is ALSO a statement of FAITH. Yourís is equally a matter of faith as mine is. I just believe mine is more rational then yours for reasons Iíve mentioned that you refuse to answer to.

    I will not waste time pursuing this off-topic nonsense any further. I want you to stick to earth-science matters and address the issues raised, and to do it without resorting to "God did it".
    well why did you start it in the first place then? Finish what you start. Also you want me to do it without resorting to ďGod did itĒ. Your not going to dictate the discussion. I will not compromise truth or what I believe in order to abide by your dictating rules. I believe God exists and he created all things and he did things. So I am not going to say I donít believe that in order to satisfy you. You have to answer my points just as much as I mention yours.

    An honest person simply follows the evidence wherever it might lead.
    Yes, and thatís what I have don with the bible, let the evidence lead me to objective interpretations. Which makes me an honest person.
    An honest person does not start with a pre-conceived view and then try to force everything to fit it, and resort to cop-outs to get around contrary evidence that is just so strong it cannot be forced to fit
    Right and thatís why I am an honest person because I do not start out with a pre concieved idea before reading the bible and then try to fit my idea into it. I let the bible lead me to itís views and donít try to twist what it says in order to fit things into it. Some people try to fit evolutionary and a billion year old earth into the bible, when it donít fit there. That is dishonest, so I am not dishonest, because I refuse to make it fit. However your saying that I am twisting the natural evidence to fit the bible and call that dishonest. Well weather itís dishonest or not, I do know this that I am 100% honest with biblical interpretation thatís for sure. So either the bible is wrong, or evolutionary billion year old earth science is wrong. Because the TWO DO NOT FIT. Bible does not fit with it, and it donít fit with the bible. So me, im honest and I say the bible is right and your wrong. Your honest and say the bible is wrong and your science is right. One of us is wrong, I believe itís you though.

    The evidence for an ancient earth really is overwhelming and you have failed miserably in your pathetic attempts to address it. If an honest person, who had never heard of the idea of god (and so had no position on the issue), came across the geological etc. evidence that person would conclude that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands, for that is what the evidence clearly indicates. By saying, "God did it" you are only evading the evidence.
    equally if an honest person has never heard of the evidence for the earth being billions of years old(therefor had no position on the matter) but only heard of the bible, they would conclude from studying it that the earth is only around 6 thousand years old and God created it in 6 days for that is what the bible clearly indicates by itís evidence In the passages. By saying billions of years old the earth is, is evading the clear context of the passages.


    And that is just being intellectually cowardly and dishonest. Shame on you.
    Im not a coward and I am not dishonest, I have explained above how I am not. No shame on me. I am not ashamed of what I believe. I believe there is a God, he does things, he created the universe, there is evidence for that. Itís rational. I could equally say youíre a coward and dishonest by saying you donít want there to be a God because you want to live for yourself, self is your god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #672  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    To define kind more specifically I would say KIND is any animal that can mate with each other and produce offspring, except in some rare cases, but in those cases the animal is clearly in the same kind still.
    Again Jolly, you still leave an escape. How do you clearly separate "kinds"? Whether they look similar? Their habits? Diets? Habitat? This is really important for your micro versus macro evolution stance, don't you think?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #673  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    But all the variations remain within the same ďkindĒ of animal. I know there was some confusion between the word ďkindĒ and word ďspeciesĒ or ďvariationĒ.

    What I am saying is, ... , there is not ENOUGH SUFFICIENT proof that macro evolution happens, even over millions of years.
    sorry to join the debate at this late stage, but when all is said and done jollybear, it boils down to the fact that NOTHING will be sufficient proof for evolution to you

    you use a stretchy concept of "kind" to accommodate any variation you can't deny has happened - we've been here before, with claims that 300 million years of trilobite evolution is all seen as variation within one kind : SOME kind this is

    the only biological reality to describe living creatures is the species, which is defined as a group of organisms that is reproductively isolated from others - within-species variation could possibly be described as some form of evolution, but in the overall scheme of things is probably less important to evolution than reproductive isolation of subgroups from the rest of the species, which over time leads to speciation

    but then again, you are totally unwilling to draw what to most people is the logical conclusion, that is that small changes will lead to large changes given enough time
    that's why you and your comrades in arms had to invent a nebulous concept such as "kind", so that even large changes can be called "variation", in blissful unawareness of what a varied load your flag is trying to cover
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #674  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    83
    As marnixR said

    sorry to join the debate at this late stage, but when all is said and done jollybear, it boils down to the fact that NOTHING will be sufficient proof for evolution to you
    Likewise, NOTHING will be sufficient proof for Jollybear that the earth is of great age.

    And yes, JB, your "arguments" if that is what you call them, are rambling gibberish, and well off-topic. This is an earth science thread, but you keep drifting off onto discussions of your god and comparisons between him and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). When I mentioned the FSM it was only to make a brief point, I did not expect you to sieze upon it and blow it into a long essay. I could address your "points", but as they are off-topic I will not. I do not have time to be drawn into protracted debates that do not have anything to do with the age of the earth. Nor do I have to counter your claim that your god deflected meteorites, any more than I have to counter the claim that any other supernatural agency did the same. It is up to you to prove it. And as rightly stated earlier by Mars, as soon as you are pushed into a corner and have to start saying, "God did it" you have lost the argument. It is a cop-out, and no amount of denial from you can change that.

    equally if an honest person has never heard of the evidence for the earth being billions of years old(therefor had no position on the matter) but only heard of the bible, they would conclude from studying it that the earth is only around 6 thousand years old and God created it in 6 days for that is what the bible clearly indicates by itís evidence In the passages
    This does not even address my point. The evidence, looked at dispassionately, by someone with no position on the god question, points to an ancient earth, not a young one. The geological evidence does not change according to whether the person viewing it has read the Bible or not. It still points unequivocally to an ancient earth, and you are too blinkered and stubborn to face that fact. As marnixR said, there is NOTHING that will change your mind, and that is what defines a bigot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #675  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Kalster.

    Again Jolly, you still leave an escape. How do you clearly separate "kinds"? Whether they look similar? Their habits? Diets? Habitat? This is really important for your micro versus macro evolution stance, don't you think?
    To separate kinds would be a combination of what you said, looking similar, habits, diets, habitat and a big one able to mate and produce offspring. It really cannot be put into ONE box and wrapped up with simple packaging.

    Also I did some more reading on the Hyena and some say itís in a family, or KIND of itís own apart from both dog or cat kinds. Itís in itís own kind. Itís just more similar to a cat then a dog according to what I read. But itís in itís own kind according to what I read.


    To Marnix

    sorry to join the debate at this late stage, but when all is said and done jollybear, it boils down to the fact that NOTHING will be sufficient proof for evolution to you
    Also to add, nothing will be sufficient proof to half of America who does not believe in it either. And this half is based on a survey % I read on ďreligious toleranceĒ website. Which is a unbiased website for sure. I can understand the evidence given to me, but there are assumptions attached to each one. And that IS a fact that assumptions are attached to them. There just is. Weather the assumptions are reasonable, right or not, there still assumptions.

    you use a stretchy concept of "kind" to accommodate any variation you can't deny has happened - we've been here before, with claims that 300 million years of trilobite evolution is all seen as variation within one kind : SOME kind this is
    True, I have a stretchy concept of Kind to accommodate variations. But to add, I do not wish to deny the variations that have happened. God set up the information in the genes for variations to happen within kinds for good reasons. 1. No variations would make a boring world, 2. various information in the genes makes it good for adaptations, in order to survive different changes around them.

    The 300 assumed million years of trilobite evolution that you mentioned, the amount that it varied or changed over that period has not been very much. It still looks like a trilobite type or kind. It has not macro evolved into like an Elephant or something else. So that shows that adding millions of years to the equation does not help macro evolution. And if you think it has macro evolved, show a link with pictures. Words will not do for proof.




    the only biological reality to describe living creatures is the species, which is defined as a group of organisms that is reproductively isolated from others - within-species variation could possibly be described as some form of evolution, but in the overall scheme of things is probably less important to evolution than reproductive isolation of subgroups from the rest of the species, which over time leads to speciation
    Ok, I donít have a problem with this if I understand you correctly.

    but then again, you are totally unwilling to draw what to most people is the logical conclusion, that is that small changes will lead to large changes given enough time
    The trilobite example is enough time and there is no LARGE MACRO change there. Same with the sealacanth fish. And a few others I have read about like the bat and some more that I canít remember at the top of my head.

    that's why you and your comrades in arms had to invent a nebulous concept such as "kind", so that even large changes can be called "variation", in blissful unawareness of what a varied load your flag is trying to cover
    when you say ďlarge changesĒ are you saying this is macro evolution? If so, can you give me a example of macro evolution and a picture, words will not be excepted as proof. Even a link giving explanations with no pictures will not do for proof. I want to SEE the actual bones, or living things showing the macro transitions. If I do not see it, I will not believe. If I see it, I will believe. But if a link or website says this fossil or this species is a link with this one and then that one and this one and that one. That donít mean nothing to me unless I see pictures. Pictures are the proof or non proof. Thatís the meat and potatoís, is the pictures.

    To Stephen.

    And yes, JB, your "arguments" if that is what you call them, are rambling gibberish, and well off-topic.
    I asked you, if there rambling gibberish, tell me how and why they are rambling gibberish, donít just make a statement, back it up. And there not off topic, I gave an answer, it is an answer, you decided to refute my answer, I then continued by refuting your answer to my answer, now you are out of thoughts in how to refute my last answer, so you resort to ďyour off topicĒ only because you cant refute my last argument.

    This is an earth science thread, but you keep drifting off onto discussions of your god and comparisons between him and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM).
    Im not drifting onto discussions of my God, im walking into those discussions. Drifting is like on water or the ocean, walking has more control, like on land. I believe there is a God, I honestly believe there is and he is all powerful. Design and nature and complexity and things that exist indicate he exists and that he created the universe. I believe that, I donít use that as a cop-out. Again I do not dishonestly believe there is a God, I HONESTLY believe there is a God. My faith is sincere. I could be wrong, but I hear you telling me that I donít believe what I profess to believe. Is that what your saying to me? Because if so, why are you saying that to me? Thatís weird. And itís a false accusation if thatís what your saying. But is that what your saying to me?

    Also youíre the one who brought up the FSM and made points about him to try to make my arguments look foolish. But I have shown why the FSM is a foolish comparison with Jehovah the biblical God. Iíve mentioned those reasons that you refuse to refute because you have run out of arguments to go down that road. But you have refused to finish walking that road that you have walked just a little bit, you refuse to finish where you were going. You just want to turn around and back track the other way. Why? Is it because you have run out of things to say, you think there is a pit hole up ahead for you that you wont be able to get out? Well your right, there is, and thatís why you back track, I know. You know the hole I have set up for you down that road. Then it will make you look intellectually dishonest if you fall into that hole by finishing walking this route, so to keep yourself from looking intellectually dishonest, you back track. What you have displayed is fear. Be brave and walk toward that trap I have for you. If your mind and thoughts and believes are right, they should be able to get you out of the mind trap, should they not? Sure they should, if there true, so be brave and let your premisses protect your IMAGE of intellectual honesty. Walk toward my trap.

    Is it only your fear of your image being busted that you refuse to finish walking this route, or are you afraid I will leave you bleeding in the trap? Well no need to fear the second part, I wont leave you bleeding, there is a way out that I will provide for you by throwing down a bridge, which will be the transition from your belief to mine if you choose to take it. If not, then I will leave you bleeding.

    When I mentioned the FSM it was only to make a brief point, I did not expect you to sieze upon it and blow it into a long essay. I could address your "points", but as they are off-topic I will not.
    You ďcouldĒ address my points your saying? Your saying you are able to? Then do so. Your only resorting to ďthere off topicĒ because you CANíT address them. Plus I have provided an alternative route for you to go, I still have a mind trap down that route, but at least it wont shader your image to everyone else on here. I have provided the option of addressing the point in a personal message to me, and I promised I would not tell others those personal discussions if you choose for me not to reveal them. You even refuse to do that, but that would not be off topic, because those would be personal messages and not on the actual thread. So that shows you fear the mind trap. And that shows you DO NOT have any more arguments to refute my last points as you say you do. In reality you donít, you just like to think you do. If you do, proof it.

    I do not have time to be drawn into protracted debates that do not have anything to do with the age of the earth.
    They do have something to do with the age of the earth. If there is a God and he created all things, and granted, by him creating all things, that does not have much to do with the actual age of the things he created, but if he created all things and he is all powerful, that changes things greatly. That means he can make things fast, like within 6 days and not through a big bang.

    And design, complexity and order imply there is a God. Thatís probably the best evidence there is for God for those who do not know him, EXCEPT in the cases where people have hands on experience WITH this God through apparitions of Jesus, angels ext or encounters with the Holy Spirit. In those cases that is the best evidence.

    Nor do I have to counter your claim that your god deflected meteorites, any more than I have to counter the claim that any other supernatural agency did the same
    You mean nor can you counter my claim that my God deflected the meteorites. As for any other supernatural agency I have already shown that my God is above them, which you cannot counter. So true, you do not have to counter those other so called gods as creating it all or doing something because those gods are clearly not gods, there obviously made up in mans minds, but man is made up from Jehovahís mind. There is a difference and I have shown those differences which you refuse to counter because you canít. You fear the mind trap that is down that route.

    It is up to you to prove it.
    Two best proofs are design, complexity and order in nature indicate there is a God. Second is apparitions of Jesus, angels, demons, spirits that people have and Holy Spirit encounters. There is the proof.

    As for proofing that God deflected the meteoroids, the thing is, earth has way less meteoroid scars then does the moon. That shows that the earth had some way the meteoroids were deflected. There is the evidence I have. Itís not proof, but then again, neither is your claim proven either. You resort to billions of years, so that is evidence that the earths plate movements weathered away the meteoroid scars from earth. But you canít proof that either. So I canít proof my point, you canít disprove my point, you canít prove your point, which means you cannot disprove my point, and by not disproving my point, you cannot prove your point. So, there you go. No proof.

    And as rightly stated earlier by Mars, as soon as you are pushed into a corner and have to start saying, "God did it" you have lost the argument. It is a cop-out, and no amount of denial from you can change that
    The thing here is, you are a VERY smart man. You KNOW very well that you NEED to control the discussion here in order to prevent yourself from falling into MY mind trap or corner for you. You know that very well, and so you painstakingly make sure you do not go down any routes I have for you because you know you will fall into a hole. So you do not want to have yourself look like your being pressed into a corner and you do not want to have yourself look like your going into denial or that you are resorting to cop-outs, and thatís why you refuse to go any routes I have for you, because you KNOW that you will fall into a hole and be pressed into a corner that you cannot get out in a honest way, so you refuse to go that route so as to preserve your intellectually honest image. By doing that, itís only a ďpretenseĒ type honesty and not ďtrueĒ honesty. Anything that is not TRUE honesty, is not honesty at all.

    Plus not every corner I am pressed into I resort to ďGod did itĒ. Thatís not true. Yes itís true in some things, but not all. But some things are not bad, because God I honestly believe exists and that he does things. I donít dishonestly believe God exists and does things. And if that is what your saying, why? That is just weird.

    This does not even address my point.
    Again you refuse to go a route that will have you fall into a hole you cannot get out. And you know this. Smart man indeed. But I call it, smart at being stupid and fearful, then being smart enough to cover that fear up and make it look like a good ďimageĒ.

    The evidence, looked at dispassionately, by someone with no position on the god question, points to an ancient earth, not a young one.
    I read a quote by someone who had no position on the matter and they said they do not see satisfactory proof from either side. So there you go, your wrong there.

    The geological evidence does not change according to whether the person viewing it has read the Bible or not.
    True, but the evidence is not proof. We got facts, then explanations for the facts, then reason, then assumptions attached to the reasons. We both have that, me and you. Im honest enough to admit it, your not. There is two ways to look at the earth.

    It still points unequivocally to an ancient earth, and you are too blinkered and stubborn to face that fact.
    Itís not a fact, itís an assumption attached to facts. Assumptions are not facts until proven. There not proven. Im not even saying your assumptions are wrong, im just saying there assumptions. As long as they are not proven, there assumptions. You are too stubborn to go down routes and finish arguments you step into, and you are too stubborn to see or understand what I am saying or that there is God and there is evidence for him.

    As marnixR said, there is NOTHING that will change your mind, and that is what defines a bigot.
    Then I am an honest bigot. You are a bigot just the same, just in another field.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #676  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Also to add, nothing will be sufficient proof to half of America who does not believe in it either. And this half is based on a survey % I read on ďreligious toleranceĒ website. Which is a unbiased website for sure. I can understand the evidence given to me, but there are assumptions attached to each one. And that IS a fact that assumptions are attached to them. There just is. Weather the assumptions are reasonable, right or not, there still assumptions.
    this, to me, confirms that as far as i'm concerned we've reached the end of the discussion (provided a debate that goes round in circles can have an end) : our basic assumptions are just too different for us to agree on even the basic definitions of what is valid evidence and what isn't
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #677  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    You have dodged the question. Why? The interaction between matter and energy on a spacetime continuum, how does that create the laws within energy and matter? When matter and energy come together and organize itself, where did that come from? I don’t understand how your answer explains it? Either answer the actual question, or elaborate more on the answer you already gave me and tell me how that answer explains where the laws came from?
    I haven't dodged the question, you just don't understand the answer or simply refuse to understand the answer... Evidently.

    The laws does not exist as a physical quantity, they exist as concepts which are nothing more than mathematical definitions.

    Here, I'll quote a whole section from Wikipedia for you:

    Quote Originally Posted by Origin of laws of nature
    "Some extremely important scientific laws are simply definitions of the observable laws of nature. For example, the central law of mechanics F = dp/dt (Newton's second "law" of mechanics) is just a mathematical definition of force. Although the concept of force predates Newton's law [2], there was no mathematical definition of force before Newton. The principle of least action (or principle of stationary action), Schroedinger equation, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, causality and a few other laws also fall into this category (of mathematical definitions).

    Most of the other fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various mathematical symmetries. Specifically, Noether's theorem connects any conservation law to certain symmetry. For example, conservation of energy is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time (no moment of time is different from any other), while conservation of momentum is a consequence of the symmetry (homogeneity) of space (no place in space is special, or different than any other). The indistinguishability of all particles of each fundamental type (say, electrons, or photons) results in the Dirac and Bose statistics which in turn result in the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions and in Bose-Einstein condensation for bosons. The rotational symmetry between time and space coordinate axes (when one is taken as imaginary, another as real) results in Lorentz transformations which in turn results in special relativity theory. Symmetry between inertial and gravitational mass results in general relativity, and so on.

    The inverse square law of interactions mediated by massless bosons is the mathematical consequence of the 3-dimensionality of space.

    So to large extent scientific laws are mathematical expressions of certain observable simplicities (symmetries) of space, time, etc. In other words, there are quantities (e.g. the origin of the coordinates for time and space, the identity of a specific electron) upon which nothing depends. Currently the search for the most fundamental law(s) and most fundamental object(s) of nature is synonymous with the search for the most general mathematical symmetry group that can be applied to the fundamental interactions.

    The application of these laws to our needs has resulted in spectacular efficacy of science – its power to solve otherwise intractable problems, and made increasingly accurate predictions. This in turn resulted in design and implementation of variety of reliable transportation and communication means, in building more quality and affordable shelters, in creating variety of drugs, in finding new energy sources, in developing variety of entertainments, etc.
    "


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of...laws_of_nature
    Understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    If I believe God did it and you say this is a unknown, but you cannot disprove it, then what you believe that something else did it, but you cannot prove that, then what you believe is also a unknown.
    What?

    We have natural explanation for most phenomenons elaborated by math, experiments, etc, whereas you have an assumed entity (already violating Occam's Razor) whose origin remains unknown and who is defined by being an unknown.

    I have actually made an elaborate post on the logical consequences of the supernatural here if you're interested:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Super...ems-13270t.php

    Also, I have this question. What created God?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #678  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix.

    this, to me, confirms that as far as i'm concerned we've reached the end of the discussion (provided a debate that goes round in circles can have an end) : our basic assumptions are just too different for us to agree on even the basic definitions of what is valid evidence and what isn't
    This does not mean I am closed minded, it means there is not sufficient proof, not to me nor to half of America. Half of America is not stupid, that is not the reason for it, the reason is because there is not sufficient proof. If you wish, I can even find and give you the reference to that survey that was don from ďreligious toleranceĒ about the %. If you want me to I can find it.

    To Obviously.

    I haven't dodged the question, you just don't understand the answer or simply refuse to understand the answer... Evidently.
    I do not refuse to understand, so itís the first one. I donít understand the answer. So I seek to understand the answer.

    The laws does not exist as a physical quantity, they exist as concepts which are nothing more than mathematical definitions.
    Let me explain in my own words what I think you are saying to me here. I just want to verify back to see if I understand you correctly. I hear you telling me that the laws within energy, matter, things that exist, actually are not there. There is no laws, they donít exist. There just illusions, they are just words ďlawsĒ that man made up. Is that what your saying? Do I understand correctly?

    Here, I'll quote a whole section from Wikipedia for you:

    Some extremely important scientific laws are simply definitions of the observable laws of nature. For example, the central law of mechanics F = dp/dt (Newton's second "law" of mechanics) is just a mathematical definition of force. Although the concept of force predates Newton's law [2], there was no mathematical definition of force before Newton. The principle of least action (or principle of stationary action), Schroedinger equation, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, causality and a few other laws also fall into this category (of mathematical definitions).

    Most of the other fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various mathematical symmetries. Specifically, Noether's theorem connects any conservation law to certain symmetry. For example, conservation of energy is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time (no moment of time is different from any other), while conservation of momentum is a consequence of the symmetry (homogeneity) of space (no place in space is special, or different than any other). The indistinguishability of all particles of each fundamental type (say, electrons, or photons) results in the Dirac and Bose statistics which in turn result in the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions and in Bose-Einstein condensation for bosons. The rotational symmetry between time and space coordinate axes (when one is taken as imaginary, another as real) results in Lorentz transformations which in turn results in special relativity theory. Symmetry between inertial and gravitational mass results in general relativity, and so on.

    The inverse square law of interactions mediated by massless bosons is the mathematical consequence of the 3-dimensionality of space.

    So to large extent scientific laws are mathematical expressions of certain observable simplicities (symmetries) of space, time, etc. In other words, there are quantities (e.g. the origin of the coordinates for time and space, the identity of a specific electron) upon which nothing depends. Currently the search for the most fundamental law(s) and most fundamental object(s) of nature is synonymous with the search for the most general mathematical symmetry group that can be applied to the fundamental interactions.

    The application of these laws to our needs has resulted in spectacular efficacy of science Ė its power to solve otherwise intractable problems, and made increasingly accurate predictions. This in turn resulted in design and implementation of variety of reliable transportation and communication means, in building more quality and affordable shelters, in creating variety of drugs, in finding new energy sources, in developing variety of entertainments, etc.Ē

    Understand?
    I read it all carefully. And im sorry but I do not understand HOW this answers my question on where the laws came from or how they got there. I request that you be patient with me and break this down and explain in simple terms HOW this explains where the laws came from, if you could please.

    What?

    We have natural explanation for most phenomenons elaborated by math, experiments, etc,
    Yes you do, with assumptions and interpretations, explanations attached to the experiments and data. Not to mention you are ignorant of the fact that we who believe in a God and connect to the spirit realm also have experiments on how to do this connection. You must not forget that. And some people have connected without even doing the experiments.

    whereas you have an assumed entity (already violating Occam's Razor)
    Occamís razor means nothing, I do not let him think for me, he is only a man like myself, and like yourself, I would recommend you do not let him nor anyone else think for you, no matter how smart they may APPEAR to be. My assumption that there is a God is a reasonable, rational assumption with evidence and experiences backing it up, which makes it more then an assumption to me.

    whose origin remains unknown and who is defined by being an unknown.
    He has revealed his origins through ďprophetsĒ who have wrote it down, which we call those writings the bible. Also he is only defined as a unknown by you and others who do not believe in him. But by me and others who have experienced him to varying degrees or levels, he is a known.

    I have actually made an elaborate post on the logical consequences of the supernatural here if you're interested:
    I am interested.

    Also, I have this question. What created God?
    In your link I do not see any consequences of the supernatural. I just donít SEE it. You will have to explain it more.

    To your question now. What created God. The answer is, nothing created him, nothing before him created him and he did not create himself. He was always there, he has no beginning. There is a beginning only for what he created. He is from eternity years past tense and will be eternity years into the future tense. He was always there, infinity, no end as you go back to an imaginative time line.

    If God was created by another, then he would not be God, the other who created him would be God. Also if God created himself, well that is stupid and impossible. Thatís like saying a baby can birth itself. Thatís just dumb. God is before all, above all. That is God. Thatís the biblical God, and that God is rational above the other so called gods. God by rational explanation is not defined INTO anyoneís BOX. Another way of saying it is by using the first commandment from Moses which says ďYou shall have no other gods before Me, You shall not make for yourself a graven IMAGE(box) in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God(Jehovah), am a jealous GodĒ The biblical God is a rational God. The other gods, graven images are not rational. They are either CARVED images of stone or statues(obviously this is not rational to be God because statues do not create the universe), or they are images made in mans MINDS. This means they make gods like zues, or thor or any other, these gods are made in MANS IMAGE within there mind. Jehovah does not have a manly IMAGE, although he can manifest himself to have a image. But he is not a image, if he was, he would not be God, for he would be finite. And God is not finite. A finite being or creature or whatever cannot create the universe, itís just irrational and illogical to think otherwise.

    So in short, if anyone is to believe there is a God, the only rational one to believe in is non other then Jehovah. Him and him ONLY is logical. Not just because of the first commandment, but because the commandment makes logical sense through understanding it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #679  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    This does not mean I am closed minded, it means there is not sufficient proof, not to me nor to half of America. Half of America is not stupid, that is not the reason for it, the reason is because there is not sufficient proof. If you wish, I can even find and give you the reference to that survey that was don from ďreligious toleranceĒ about the %.
    i did not call you closed-minded or stupid
    all i was referring to was that our frames of reference are so vastly different that, even though we're both using english words, we keep missing each other's meaning like so many ships in the night

    hence any further attempts to discuss the matter in hand proves to be futile

    nice meeting you, but for the time being i'm out of here
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #680  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    This does not mean I am closed minded, it means there is not sufficient proof, not to me nor to half of America. Half of America is not stupid, that is not the reason for it, the reason is because there is not sufficient proof. If you wish, I can even find and give you the reference to that survey that was don from ďreligious toleranceĒ about the %.
    i did not call you closed-minded or stupid
    all i was referring to was that our frames of reference are so vastly different that, even though we're both using english words, we keep missing each other's meaning like so many ships in the night

    hence any further attempts to discuss the matter in hand proves to be futile

    nice meeting you, but for the time being i'm out of here
    Right i do realize you were not calling me stupid or close minded. However it appears to me there must be two options on how you should view me, either stupid/close minded, or smart and open minded, just deceived. But if im deceived it's because i am not racking my brain hard enough to learn. Which would make me lazy or close minded or stupid. So there is only two ways of perceiving me. Or is there? Well three ways, lazy, close mind, or stupid. And those things will ultimately lead to deception, even if it's slightly.

    Anyhow. I do think you have been very gracious to me in discussing things, and have shown a very open mind, and i do appreciate this. And at the same time, i do realize we both think of each other that the other is deceived, not necessarily dishonest or lazy, but deceived, perhaps it's not because of lazyness or close mind or stupid at all, perhaps it's because of time issues and where we happen to be in our journey in life thus far. Even if that deception has been caused by a lack of study, even if it's only slightly, it could happen.

    It reminds me of the Indiana Jones movie i saw as I mentioned before. He had to be wise in making the right choice of cup to drink. It is tricky. He thought long and hard before drinking it, then drank it and hoped to God it was the right one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #681  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    you'd be amazed how many clever people there are who have blind spots they just can't see, even when it's pointed out to them - the 2 are not mutually exclusive
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #682  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    To your question now. What created God. The answer is, nothing created him, nothing before him created him and he did not create himself. He was always there, he has no beginning. There is a beginning only for what he created. He is from eternity years past tense and will be eternity years into the future tense. He was always there, infinity, no end as you go back to an imaginative time line.
    If you can believe something as abstract and illogical as this why can't you understand evolution?
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #683  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    Hello Mars.

    If you can believe something as abstract and illogical as this why can't you understand evolution?
    The thing is, my believe in God and his eternal nature does not appear illogical to me, it appears actually LOGICAL to me. If something created God, that would be illogical to me, and then I would not call that being a God at all because it would be illogical for him to be God since he was created. You follow me?

    As for evolution, I understand it, I just do not believe or agree that everything descended and branched out from a common ancestor. I believe everything descended from a common GOD and he created original KINDS that were separated from each other by boundaries from the start.

    Common ancestor would be everything branched out from a single organism, like a seed and it grows and produces many branches. But that is not how I look at it. I look at it as one seed is one kind and it branches out variations within the same tree. So there was many trees from the start, and each tree was a kind. Of course im using this as an analogy to explain my point. But that is how I see it. And you basically cannot disprove it. Nor prove we came from a common ancestor. If you can, I am open to hear it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #684  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    If you can, I am open to hear it.
    No jollybear. You have demonstrated with overwhelming clarity that the one thing you are not is open. Your mind is firmly closed to anything that runs counter to your faith based belief. You are unable to understand the difference between evidence and imagination. You are a master of self delusion. - Please do not waste our time asking how you are self deluded. You are incapable of listening to or understanding the response.

    As I have observed before I believe you are a sincere person, a committed person. Regretably you are also a very narrowminded, foolish person. You cannot see this narrowness of mind so statements of this sort appear at best misguided, at worst deliberately insulting.

    Frustration, thy name is jollybear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #685  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Let me explain in my own words what I think you are saying to me here. I just want to verify back to see if I understand you correctly. I hear you telling me that the laws within energy, matter, things that exist, actually are not there. There is no laws, they don’t exist. There just illusions, they are just words “laws” that man made up. Is that what your saying? Do I understand correctly?
    The laws describe natural processes which exist as a result of actions and reactions happening in nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    I read it all carefully. And im sorry but I do not understand HOW this answers my question on where the laws came from or how they got there. I request that you be patient with me and break this down and explain in simple terms HOW this explains where the laws came from, if you could please.
    If you repeat what I've said so far many times in your head, you might get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Yes you do, with assumptions and interpretations, explanations attached to the experiments and data. Not to mention you are ignorant of the fact that we who believe in a God and connect to the spirit realm also have experiments on how to do this connection. You must not forget that. And some people have connected without even doing the experiments.
    I doubt any of the experiments you've mentioned would EVER survive a double-blind test. Personal experiences are unverifiable.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Occam’s razor means nothing, I do not let him think for me, he is only a man like myself, and like yourself, I would recommend you do not let him nor anyone else think for you, no matter how smart they may APPEAR to be. My assumption that there is a God is a reasonable, rational assumption with evidence and experiences backing it up, which makes it more then an assumption to me.
    You could at least have "him" help you think.

    There's NO evidence for your side. No scientific data nor any verifiable experiments. Personal feelings matter little in a scientific context.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    He has revealed his origins through “prophets” who have wrote it down, which we call those writings the bible. Also he is only defined as a unknown by you and others who do not believe in him. But by me and others who have experienced him to varying degrees or levels, he is a known.
    Then define him for me. And the bible? A book means nothing. It's as much evidence for God as you saying God exist. In other words, it's not evidence at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    In your link I do not see any consequences of the supernatural. I just don’t SEE it. You will have to explain it more.

    To your question now. What created God. The answer is, nothing created him, nothing before him created him and he did not create himself. He was always there, he has no beginning. There is a beginning only for what he created. He is from eternity years past tense and will be eternity years into the future tense. He was always there, infinity, no end as you go back to an imaginative time line.

    If God was created by another, then he would not be God, the other who created him would be God. Also if God created himself, well that is stupid and impossible. That’s like saying a baby can birth itself. That’s just dumb. God is before all, above all. That is God. That’s the biblical God, and that God is rational above the other so called gods. God by rational explanation is not defined INTO anyone’s BOX. Another way of saying it is by using the first commandment from Moses which says “You shall have no other gods before Me, You shall not make for yourself a graven IMAGE(box) in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God(Jehovah), am a jealous God” The biblical God is a rational God. The other gods, graven images are not rational. They are either CARVED images of stone or statues(obviously this is not rational to be God because statues do not create the universe), or they are images made in mans MINDS. This means they make gods like zues, or thor or any other, these gods are made in MANS IMAGE within there mind. Jehovah does not have a manly IMAGE, although he can manifest himself to have a image. But he is not a image, if he was, he would not be God, for he would be finite. And God is not finite. A finite being or creature or whatever cannot create the universe, it’s just irrational and illogical to think otherwise.

    So in short, if anyone is to believe there is a God, the only rational one to believe in is non other then Jehovah. Him and him ONLY is logical. Not just because of the first commandment, but because the commandment makes logical sense through understanding it.
    I'll come back to this rambling part if I'm not too lazy later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #686  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix.

    you'd be amazed how many clever people there are who have blind spots they just can't see, even when it's pointed out to them - the 2 are not mutually exclusive
    There is 1 of 7 reasons why the clever people do not see what is pointed out to them when shown. Reason 1 is because what is presented to them is wrong and they clearly see it, that which is presented to them makes no sense, while the other who believes it does not see it that way. Reason 2 the point presented IS right, but the person does not see it because the other presenting it does not present it in a simple and understandable way. So there is misunderstanding. 3 The person is stupid who hears the point, which means they perhaps donít have a gift to be intellectual. 4 They are in denial, which is absurdity and a great evil. 5 They just love to argue and be objective and see where it goes. 6 The point presented could be right, but there is no proof for it, so they do not believe it, yet they do understand the point presented. 7 The point is wrong and there is also no proof for it, so they donít believe it.

    Im a combination of some of them. To me your premises do not make sense, so number 1. Although it could be a misunderstanding, which means the discussion needs to go further in simple explanations and answering questions, so number 2. And I do not see the proof, I see theories and reasoningís to facts. But not proof, so 6 or 7. But I am not 3 and 4 that I do know.

    To Mars

    If you can believe something as abstract and illogical as this why can't you understand evolution?
    The thing is, based on Design and organization in nature, to believe there is a God is not abstract. And also if there is a God, for him to have no beginning and no end and to transcend time, space, energy and matter is not illogical, itís very logical matter of fact. I see evolution as abstract and illogical, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT A GOD. I understand ďtheistic evolutionĒ which means God guided the process, and I understand God creating the big bang. Although non of that makes sense to me either, but it makes more sense then atheistic evolution and a big bang. So if you kick God out the door altogether that to me makes evolution, age of the earth abstract and illogical.

    To Ophiolite.

    No jollybear. You have demonstrated with overwhelming clarity that the one thing you are not is open. Your mind is firmly closed to anything that runs counter to your faith based belief.
    I am open. If you can make it make sense to me, I am open to believe it. OR if you can present proof, I am open to believe it. However the faith I have right now, is not just a faith based believe, there is lots of evidence backing it up, archeology is a big one. Also having an open mind does not mean we should have it WIDE open to where our brain falls out. So my mind is not wide open, itís open just enough, and neither is it closed shut tight. And I am not in denial. Make your premise make sense through logic and reason and simplifying things more and more, or present proof, and Iíll believe it. If not, I canít believe it then, and itís not because I will go into denial, but because it either donít make sense, or there is no proof.

    You are unable to understand the difference between evidence and imagination.
    I do understand the difference between evidence and imagination, and faith. I understand where my faith has evidence and where it has faith. I also understand where your premise has evidence and where it has faith. However what you donít seam to understand is where my faith has evidence and where your premise has faith.

    You are a master of self delusion. - Please do not waste our time asking how you are self deluded. You are incapable of listening to or understanding the response.
    I am not a master of self delusion, I know what delusion is, and what itís not. I know the difference between faith and evidence and reason. And my mind is keen enough to see through deception, however am I immune to being deceived? Not at all, no one is, however the more modest one is, the more immune they become to being deceived, however even that does not guarantee them not being deceived, at least in some area. However I do not believe I am deceived, matter of fact, no one believes they are deceived.

    As I have observed before I believe you are a sincere person, a committed person. Regretably you are also a very narrowminded, foolish person. You cannot see this narrowness of mind so statements of this sort appear at best misguided, at worst deliberately insulting.

    Frustration, thy name is jollybear
    Yes I am sincere with my faith and committed. Narrowminded and foolish? No, I am not that. My mind is not so open to where it falls out and not so closed to where it crushes.
    My statement misguided? I donít believe so, and I have shown why, can you show me why it is? Deliberately insulting, definitely no.
    Jollybear is just a forum name I like. It does not imply anything of my nature. Although I am goofy in person at times.

    To Obviously.

    The laws describe natural processes which exist as a result of actions and reactions happening in nature.
    Yes, but where did the actions and reactions come from? Those actions and reactions show design and organization and intelligence, Where did that come from? The actions and reactions show order, where did that come from? Your saying the laws come from the actions and reactions. Thatís like saying the order comes from order. But where did the order come from?

    You have given me an answer that is not a answer. Now I will give you a quote from a website link that is short that agrees with your premise of the big bang, evolution, billion year old earth ext. And this is what they say to answer my question and there answer is different then yours, here it is
    ď http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Wher...s_come_from%3F ď

    This link I have provided above shows the claim from creationists that cosmologists do not know where the laws came from. And the website that attempts to counter it, actually does not counter it, it admits they donít know either. So, they do not know the answer to where the laws came from. You know why? Itís not because ďthatís the nature of science, were still working on itĒ the real reason why is because they CANíT answer it, because the only answer there is, is that they came from God.

    The reason I provided the link was to show you a source that agrees with you, yet in this instance they disagree with you because you say you know the answer and have given it, while this link says they do not know the answer. So what is your answer now? Will you say you do not know like this link, or will you continue to say the laws come from actions and reactions? And if you continue with this answer, again I have to reasonably ask and even the website that agrees with your premises would agree that my question is reasonable because they admit that your answer is no answer, because they do not know the answer, which implies that they do not recognize that your answer is a accurate answer. So therefor my question is reasonable, where did the actions and reactions or the laws or order come from?

    If you repeat what I've said so far many times in your head, you might get it.
    If you repeat anything enough like a mantra you can brainwash yourself to believe anything, yet still not understand it. Im interested to understand how your answer is an answer, im not interested in naively believing it before understanding.

    I doubt any of the experiments you've mentioned would EVER survive a double-blind test. Personal experiences are unverifiable.
    Some would and have survived double blind tests. Also things have been verified, not all claims have, but many have.

    You could at least have "him" help you think.

    There's NO evidence for your side. No scientific data nor any verifiable experiments. Personal feelings matter little in a scientific context.
    Yes, there is LOTS of evidence for my side. By you saying there is NON, I have to ask you the question, have you studied ANY apologetics on the bible, or Christianity at all? If not, you are completely ignorant of the fact of much evidence that does back it up. There is lots, LOTS. If you want some, I can give it. But if you request some, keep in mind I will give one at a time because I know you will attempt to discredit it. So after we discuss the one, I will give another.

    And yes there are verifiable experiments.

    And itís not just personal feelings, like emotions. Some of the feelings that happen are more unusual, emotions however are just usual.

    Then define him for me. And the bible? A book means nothing. It's as much evidence for God as you saying God exist. In other words, it's not evidence at all.
    Alright, I will define God for you. God IS SPIRIT. This is not to be confused with God being A Spirit. God is not A Spirit, he IS Spirit. The difference is this: An angel is A spirit, a demon is A spirit, when someone dies and there spirit comes out of there body, they are A spirit out of there body. So those things are A spirit. God IS Spirit. He is not a form or image like an angel spirit or a demon spirit or a human spirit is. If the angel or demon or human spirit lost there image, they would no longer exist. But God when he ceases to manifest himself into a image form, he still exists, because he IS Spirit. This Spirit is apposite to the physical world. Itís like looking into a mirror and seeing your reflection. The Spirit world reflects the physical world and visa versa. Thatís how I define the spirit world and define God. When people say they hallucinate by seeing ghosts, I do not call that hallucination, I call that the spirit world they are seeing into. They are seeing A spirit. Now God he can manifest himself into a image form, but he is not a image form. But God being SPIRIT does not make him a IMPERSONAL being. He is a person, which means he has a mind, will, emotions, heart, he can speak, etc. He is not a IT or a THING, he is not invisible energy, he is Spirit, a personal being. Also he knows all things, is all wise(perfect in judgement) is all good, all loving, is unlimited in power and size(because he is outside of space and time, energy and matter). And there is evidence that God exists. Evidence is 1 design in things that exist, 2 it makes sense that there is a God, 3 there is evidence for the spirit world through out of body experiences and near death experiences, 4 there is a voice within people that tells them there is a God, 5 there is a craving in people to want to believe, or disbelieve depending on there motive. And last and most important of all is: 5 There experience WITH God either by his Spirit entering them, or God appearing to them in a form. Number 5 is not ONLY an evidence, itís also an obligation that everybody experience God. Itís what the bible calls ďborn againĒ. But that is another issue for now. But here are the evidences for God.

    I'll come back to this rambling part if I'm not too lazy later
    Im interested to hear what you say about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #687  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Im a combination of some of them. To me your premises do not make sense, so number 1. Although it could be a misunderstanding, which means the discussion needs to go further in simple explanations and answering questions, so number 2. And I do not see the proof, I see theories and reasoningís to facts. But not proof, so 6 or 7. But I am not 3 and 4 that I do know.
    one last attempt to see if i can make you see the light : science is not about proof as you understand it (i.e. something you know with absolute certainty), it is about evidence and coming up with an explanation that best explains the evidence - think of it as "proven beyond reasonable doubt" (as in the law courts) rather than mathematical proof

    btw, jolly, i've always seen you as a (5) "They just love to argue"
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #688  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Yes, but where did the actions and reactions come from? Those actions and reactions show design and organization and intelligence, Where did that come from? The actions and reactions show order, where did that come from? Your saying the laws come from the actions and reactions. That’s like saying the order comes from order. But where did the order come from?

    You have given me an answer that is not a answer. Now I will give you a quote from a website link that is short that agrees with your premise of the big bang, evolution, billion year old earth ext. And this is what they say to answer my question and there answer is different then yours, here it is
    http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Wher...s_come_from%3F

    This link I have provided above shows the claim from creationists that cosmologists do not know where the laws came from. And the website that attempts to counter it, actually does not counter it, it admits they don’t know either. So, they do not know the answer to where the laws came from. You know why? It’s not because “that’s the nature of science, were still working on it” the real reason why is because they CAN’T answer it, because the only answer there is, is that they came from God.

    The reason I provided the link was to show you a source that agrees with you, yet in this instance they disagree with you because you say you know the answer and have given it, while this link says they do not know the answer. So what is your answer now? Will you say you do not know like this link, or will you continue to say the laws come from actions and reactions? And if you continue with this answer, again I have to reasonably ask and even the website that agrees with your premises would agree that my question is reasonable because they admit that your answer is no answer, because they do not know the answer, which implies that they do not recognize that your answer is a accurate answer. So therefor my question is reasonable, where did the actions and reactions or the laws or order come from?
    It all came from T=0 :wink: (big bang in case you're confused)

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Alright, I will define God for you. God IS SPIRIT. This is not to be confused with God being A Spirit. God is not A Spirit, he IS Spirit. The difference is this: An angel is A spirit, a demon is A spirit, when someone dies and there spirit comes out of there body, they are A spirit out of there body. So those things are A spirit. God IS Spirit. He is not a form or image like an angel spirit or a demon spirit or a human spirit is. If the angel or demon or human spirit lost there image, they would no longer exist. But God when he ceases to manifest himself into a image form, he still exists, because he IS Spirit. This Spirit is apposite to the physical world. It’s like looking into a mirror and seeing your reflection. The Spirit world reflects the physical world and visa versa. That’s how I define the spirit world and define God. When people say they hallucinate by seeing ghosts, I do not call that hallucination, I call that the spirit world they are seeing into. They are seeing A spirit. Now God he can manifest himself into a image form, but he is not a image form. But God being SPIRIT does not make him a IMPERSONAL being. He is a person, which means he has a mind, will, emotions, heart, he can speak, etc. He is not a IT or a THING, he is not invisible energy, he is Spirit, a personal being. Also he knows all things, is all wise(perfect in judgement) is all good, all loving, is unlimited in power and size(because he is outside of space and time, energy and matter). And there is evidence that God exists. Evidence is 1 design in things that exist, 2 it makes sense that there is a God, 3 there is evidence for the spirit world through out of body experiences and near death experiences, 4 there is a voice within people that tells them there is a God, 5 there is a craving in people to want to believe, or disbelieve depending on there motive. And last and most important of all is: 5 There experience WITH God either by his Spirit entering them, or God appearing to them in a form. Number 5 is not ONLY an evidence, it’s also an obligation that everybody experience God. It’s what the bible calls “born again”. But that is another issue for now. But here are the evidences for God.
    You didn't define God at all. All you said was that God is spirit, begging the question of what a spirit is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #689  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix.

    one last attempt to see if i can make you see the light : science is not about proof as you understand it (i.e. something you know with absolute certainty), it is about evidence and coming up with an explanation that best explains the evidence - think of it as "proven beyond reasonable doubt" (as in the law courts) rather than mathematical proof
    Ok so itís not proven with absolute certainty, itís proven beyond reasonable doubt. But then again, my premises are not proven with absolute certainty, but they are proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. But what one has more reason backing it? That is the trick right there to figure out, because it appears it would be near a fine line somewhere.

    Also if your premises are not proven with absolute certainty, but only proven beyond reasonable doubt, that leaves room for doubt since my side has been proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. So mine is faith and yours is faith too.

    btw, jolly, i've always seen you as a (5) "They just love to argue"
    I admit I have some number 5 in me, but I do have a combination of a few of the others too.

    To obviously.

    It all came from T=0 (big bang in case you're confused)
    So the order that comes from order came from the big bang your saying? Or the actions and reactions that caused the laws came from the big bang. That still begs the question though, how did a singular dot about 20 billion years ago with all space, energy and matter with the actions and reactions inside it come to be? Where did it come from the big bang dot? Also how did that microscopic dot have all the actions and reactions and laws and energy and matter and space of the entire universe in it?

    You didn't define God at all. All you said was that God is spirit, begging the question of what a spirit is.
    Ok, I will define spirit for you. Spirit is that which exists after you die, your consciousness which you have now, will still exist after your body dies, your consciousness will come outside your body and remain conscious. In this conscious state outside your body, you will see both the physical world that you saw when alive in the body, but you will also see other things, things that were not there while in the body, those things are things in the spirit world, they can be objects, or other entities. When you say someone who sees what someone else does not see and you call this hallucination, thatís how you define it, well me I do not define it as that, I define what you call hallucination as spirit. There, I just described spirit for you. God is a invisible conscious being, invisible to the physical world. Also is invisible to the spirit world too UNTIL he manifests himself into a form, which he can do, and has don predominantly as the form of ďJesusĒ or in other words, he manifests himself into a form of a man in a more simple way of putting it. He manifests himself into a form in order to identify with those who have the same form.

    You say hallucinations are things seen that are not really there. I say, no, they are really there, just not really there in the physical world, but they are really there in the spirit world.

    Does this answer the question? If not, ask more questions to this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #690  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Jollybear perhaps you can explain to me what is the point in saying God did everything and evolution is wrong?

    At the end of the day whether you say it or not, scientists will still use evolution and similar factual models to discover and invent new things useful to mankind.

    Saying god did it provides humans with no possible benefit.
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #691  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Ok so itís not proven with absolute certainty, itís proven beyond reasonable doubt. But then again, my premises are not proven with absolute certainty, but they are proven beyond reasonable doubt as well. But what one has more reason backing it?
    not so : your premises rely on outdated and disproven science, which is a world away from explanations that are currently (and have been for the past 150 years) not yet been disproven
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #692  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Mars.

    Jollybear perhaps you can explain to me what is the point in saying God did everything and evolution is wrong?
    Im not saying God did everything. He did create everything, yes. But he does not do everything. He does sustain everything, yes, but he does not do everything. For a simple example, God created our bodies, he also sustains our bodies by sustaining our spirit which is in it. However he does not make us walk, we DECIDE to get up and walk. He does not make us go to the fridge and get some food, we decide to go do that. So you get the point, he does not do everything. If a little meteor is headed to earth, God did not send it, he did not do that, so he donít do everything. It came about naturally. However he did create the matter it is made of and the energy it has, and he sustains it. If God ceased to exist, everything else that exists would cease to exist, but it is impossible for God to cease to exist or die. If you sow a seed in the ground, God did not sow it, you did. When you water it, God did not water it, you did. However it was God who created the water and the seed and the ground you put it in. And itís God that sustains it all, and he is the one who makes it grow into itís shape and form by his intelligent hand.

    However I know that does not answer your question, however I had to say this because your question had a wrong assumption to it. And I want to make sure my stand is correctly represented.

    However to your question now. The point in saying God did allot of stuff is very important. The reason I say God did it, is because 1 If there is a God, he then did stuff, and design in nature indicates he did. 2 If there is a God, then that is an issue that is very important to know about, concerning our existence, and our life after death, and weather or not this God has requirements from our life and what those requirements are. This issue would be very important, one of the most important issues of all life actually. We would have to know this God. Now I do realize some would say he is a deist God(flew the coop after he created everything) but then again, one would have to know this regardless. If he is not a deistic God, then we are all then held very accountable. That is a issue that we would have to know. It would be very important for self explanatory reasons. Not just for judgement sake and being under his wrath, but for conscience sake, to want to honor him, to thank him for what we are and making us, this means we would belong to this God and not own our selves, and thus worship BELONGS to him, and we should reasonably submit it to him freely and out of love and not fear. This is the point of it all. Your life is not your life, itís Gods. You think itís your life, you act as if itís your life, but one day it will be demanded of you, and you shall be held accountable before his judgement seat, as will I myself. However I am prepared, and I care enough to tell you, you also must be prepared. Itís not an issue to gamble with, which so many do, which I call it spiritual suicide.

    Now what is the point or purpose in me saying evolution is wrong? Well 1 There is counter evidence against it. 2 the evidence you have for it, is not proof for it, hence itís faith you have, just like me. 3 I resent being looked at as if I have PURE faith and you have PURE rationality and evidence and I have non of that. Yes I do have some of that, and you have some faith, not just me. So when im laughed at, ridiculed, I resent this because I clearly see that those who do this, are ignorant, and not me myself. 4 the bible does not teach macro evolution. And it does not teach a death cycle at all in the beginning. God created Adam to live forever and never die, sin brought death, God did not. That is what it teaches. If it did not teach that, but taught evolution and a death cycle, well then I would believe in evolution and a primitive death cycle. I have no hidden agenda for interpreting the bible this way, basically, im not interpreting the bible, im letting the bible speak for itself, and I just go with where it leads. Im not a stupid man. I know what I believe. I donít believe what I believe, I know what I believe. I understand exactly what I believe.

    end of the day whether you say it or not, scientists will still use evolution and similar factual models to discover and invent new things useful to mankind.
    Yes many of them at the end of the day will still believe in evolution, the earth is billions of years old ext. No doubt about it. However believing in evolution does not help people discover and invent new things that are useful to mankind. You can discover and invent things without believing in evolution and a big bang. Most scientists were creationists way back in the day, and they were doing the inventing at that time. They did not need to believe in evolution in order to discover things and invent things. Inventions and present day discoveries are PRESENT TENSE STUFF, NOT PAST TENSE THEORIES ON ORIGINS. Big difference there.

    Saaying god did it provides humans with no possible benefit
    Saying chance and evolution and a big bang did it equally provides humans with no possible benefit either. And on the contrary, believing God did it, provides a better benefit then believing evolution did it. The reason why is because by believing God did it, it provides hope, it provides peace, it provides logic based on the design in nature, it provides seeking this God out, being accountable to him. Not out of fear, but love(emphases added)

    To Marnix.

    not so : your premises rely on outdated and disproven science
    Outdated yes, but only by the standards of man, which is but dust. Also by one judge in a courtroom. If it were left up to vote, it would have lost. Proven? No. We have been discussing macro evolution. You nor anyone else here has proven it, or disproven my stand that it donít happen.



    which is a world away from explanations that are currently (and have been for the past 150 years) not yet been disproven
    Not proven either. But yes there is counter evidence against it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #693  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Outdated yes, but only by the standards of man, which is but dust. Also by one judge in a courtroom. If it were left up to vote, it would have lost.
    science is not a democracy - in the end the facts speak for themselves, independent of how many people believe or disbelieve the evidence (+ as far as i'm aware the judge only pronounced himself on whether creationism / ID had a right to claim a place in science lessons)

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    Proven? No. We have been discussing macro evolution. You nor anyone else here has proven it, or disproven my stand that it donít happen.
    but don't you understand ? evolution has withstood all attempts to disprove it, so it is provisionally accepted as true
    on the other hand, your objections against evolution are either spurious confessions of disbelief, or rest on disproven statements

    now it's one thing to use disproven factoids unknowingly, but to continue using them when you should know better is a crime within the realms of science
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #694  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    165
    Yes many of them at the end of the day will still believe in evolution, the earth is billions of years old ext. No doubt about it. However believing in evolution does not help people discover and invent new things that are useful to mankind. You can discover and invent things without believing in evolution and a big bang. Most scientists were creationists way back in the day, and they were doing the inventing at that time. They did not need to believe in evolution in order to discover things and invent things. Inventions and present day discoveries are PRESENT TENSE STUFF, NOT PAST TENSE THEORIES ON ORIGINS. Big difference there.
    Microbiology, genetic engineering, nanotechnology all require an intimate knowledge of evolution for the sole reason that knowing how it was constructed in the first place greatly assists in telling us how we can use it and modify it.
    Evolution is extremely EXTREMELY important in the future of mankind.
    When we believed/followed the teachings of the bible we had something called the Dark Ages...
    Thinking of the question is greater than knowing the answer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #695  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    science is not a democracy - in the end the facts speak for themselves, independent of how many people believe or disbelieve the evidence
    The facts do speak for themselves, yes. But facts are ďproven with absolute certaintyĒ facts are not ďproven beyond reasonable doubtĒ. They are the ďproven with absolute certaintyĒ. However the scientists use theories to explain the facts, and those theories are the ďproven beyond reasonable doubtĒ. The theories are not ďproven with absolute certaintyĒ. However my premises can be the theories to explain the facts and they can equally be the proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    (+ as far as i'm aware the judge only pronounced himself on whether creationism / ID had a right to claim a place in science lessons)
    In other words, the judge says creationism/ID is not a part of science, evolution is. Thatís only one man saying that.

    but don't you understand ? evolution has withstood all attempts to disprove it, so it is provisionally accepted as true
    How has it withstood all attempts to disprove it? It has not withstood my attempts to disprove it. I have shown that it has not been proven.

    on the other hand, your objections against evolution are either spurious confessions of disbelief, or rest on disproven statements
    No there not disproven statements. If you have disproven them, then you would have proven macro evolution. Which you have not. So since you have not proven macro evolution, you have not disproven my statements that it does not happen.

    now it's one thing to use disproven factoids unknowingly, but to continue using them when you should know better is a crime within the realms of science
    It is also a crime to continue to say macro evolution is proven when you still have not presented proof for it. But then saying itís proven beyond reasonable doubt; No, thatís just the explanation for facts. I have another explanation for those same facts. So my statements are a proven beyond reasonable doubt to me. So you saying your statements are proven beyond reasonable doubt is only a statement, itís not a reality of proof.

    To Mars.

    Microbiology, genetic engineering, nanotechnology all require an intimate knowledge of evolution for the sole reason that knowing how it was constructed in the first place greatly assists in telling us how we can use it and modify it.
    Evolution is extremely EXTREMELY important in the future of mankind.
    When we believed/followed the teachings of the bible we had something called the Dark Ages...
    Microbiology and genetic engineering and nanotechnology are all present tense things. Not past theories on origins. You can understand how microbiology and genetic engineering and nanotechnology works by OBSERVING it in the PRESENT tense. And by observing it in the present tense, you learn how to use it. They do not know how it was constructed billions of years ago.

    Plus the fact that there is so much design, order, complexity in things that exist show that these things were ďconstructedĒ by God.

    Also are you saying the bible was responsible for the dark ages? If so, that is absurd ignorance if I ever seen it. How do you figure the bible is responsible for the dark ages? Please explain in detail.

    Also to add, the bible is not against using our brain and discovering and bettering technology, within the machine world, medical world and any other area.

    But please do explain how the bible is responsible for the dark ages, I really want to hear this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #696  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    In other words, the judge says creationism/ID is not a part of science, evolution is. Thatís only one man saying that.
    not exactly - there have been several rulings against various states trying various types of legislation for "equal time", all of which have been judged (by different judges) as unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    How has it withstood all attempts to disprove it? It has not withstood my attempts to disprove it. I have shown that it has not been proven.
    you seem to have a different definition of the verb "to disprove", which according to my dictionary means "proven to be wrong", which is not at all the same as proving that something hasn't been proven yet

    as i've already stated before, since strictly speaking you can't prove anything with 100% absolute certainty in science, the highest credence is given to theories that have withstood the highest number of attempts to disprove it - Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection is one of those theories
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #697  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    To Marnix

    not exactly - there have been several rulings against various states trying various types of legislation for "equal time", all of which have been judged (by different judges) as unconstitutional
    were all these ďdifferent judgesĒ non young earth creationists? I have not read about the monkey trial, that is something I need to do. I only looked at a video about it.

    you seem to have a different definition of the verb "to disprove", which according to my dictionary means "proven to be wrong", which is not at all the same as proving that something hasn't been proven yet
    What I am saying is, you nor anyone else here has presented proof for macro evolution, that it happens, or has happened. I have not presented proof that it has not happened or does not happen. So by not proving that macro evolution happens, how then did you prove my statements wrong when I say it does not happen? If you have not proven your statement, you have not disproven mine. Also you have presented some facts with explanations. But I have offered counter explanations for the same facts. Also the fact that the geologic column shows lots of gaps is my evidence against macro evolution. And I know obviously gave me a big list of transitions. But all that was, was tons of names of animals. No pictures. If I see the pictures, I can decide what is a transition and what is not. Tons of things are randomly buried together, that donít prove nothing, plus there are gaps, so, no prove for you. Plus the selacanth and the bat and a few others have not evolved or changed form even today, and there fossils are in the geologic column and are the same as the living ones pretty much.

    as i've already stated before, since strictly speaking you can't prove anything with 100% absolute certainty in science, the highest credence is given to theories that have withstood the highest number of attempts to disprove it - Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection is one of those theories
    The thing is, I canít disprove a billion year old earth, although there is evidence against it. But I canít disprove it with absolute certainty. But I can and I have so far proven that you canít prove your stand, nor disprove mine. So even though my attempts have not disproven your stand, neither has your attempts disproven my stand.

    To Mars.

    I want to add something else here. You think young earth creationists cannot do good science without believing in evolution. Here is a link to look at that shows you wrong. They did invent even in our age and discovered things. http://creationwiki.org/Creationist_achievements
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #698  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Also the fact that the geologic column shows lots of gaps is my evidence against macro evolution.
    You don't know what you are talking about. The gaps do not prove that.


    And I know obviously gave me a big list of transitions. But all that was, was tons of names of animals. No pictures. If I see the pictures, I can decide what is a transition and what is not.
    Jolly, this just shows your complete ignorance of the subject matter and the science behind it. You have not for an instant shown any comprehension further than the one-line textbook definition. You want to judge transitions by just looking at the pictures? Those pictures I have shown you have proven this very well. I show you one animal (hyena) that is still pretty close to the "dogs/wolves kind" you have invented and suddenly you jump all over the place, even throwing cats in there.

    Tons of things are randomly buried together, that don’t prove nothing, plus there are gaps, so, no prove for you. Plus the selacanth and the bat and a few others have not evolved or changed form even today, and there fossils are in the geologic column and are the same as the living ones pretty much.
    Still further ignorance of the subject matter. An animal does not have to change/evolve if their living conditions stay constant. Please Jolly, read a book on evolution. If you already have, then read another. You keep making these simple mistakes that even further demonstrates your ignorance.


    But I can and I have so far proven that you can’t prove your stand, nor disprove mine.
    I am really astounded that you are still saying this. Your efforts have been woefully inadequate. I am not saying this lightly Jolly: your arguments have been those of a child and you have not really gained any insight at all through this whole thread. That is really sad to me.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #699  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    191
    You don't know what you are talking about. The gaps do not prove that.
    Yes I know what im talking about. Your right the gaps donít prove that, they show evidence of that. Itís not ďproven with absolute certaintyĒ, itís ďproven beyond reasonable doubtĒ. Plus where there is no gap, it only shows the same KIND of animal, either the same variation or variation. But gaps show evidence that there was no transitional forms. That is my evidence(proven beyond REASONABLE doubt, NOT proven with absolute certainty). Now you cannot DISPROVE what I have just said here. And now I ask you, can you admit that?

    Jolly, this just shows your complete ignorance of the subject matter and the science behind it. You have not for an instant shown any comprehension further than the one-line textbook definition. You want to judge transitions by just looking at the pictures? Those pictures I have shown you have proven this very well. I show you one animal (hyena) that is still pretty close to the "dogs/wolves kind" you have invented and suddenly you jump all over the place, even throwing cats in there.
    No ignorance shown. You perceive it as that, but I perceive your perceptions as blindness.

    As for the hyena, this has not proven a transitional link for macro evolution. That hyena is either still within the dog kind, or itís a kind of itís own. Itís not me who has thrown the ďcatĒ into it, im just going by what different websiteís told me on the subject. I have not studied animals, so I check out the web on it. However TO ME, if I were to make my own decision based on observation, the hyena looks like the dog kind. Either that, or itís itís own kind. However using that as prove for macro evolution is SO vague. This is not proof, itís completely void of proof. Dogs always produce dogs and intuition says they always will forever, DNA says thatís the way it will always be. You have not presented proof for macro evolution. So I am not ignorant. Even if you want to say you have presented proof, it would only be ďproven beyond reasonable doubtĒ and not ďproven with absolute certaintyĒ. But then I could turn it around and say the hyena is still either in the dog kind, or a kind of itís own. Itís not a transitional form, it obviously does not prove macro evolution. So my evidence is ďproven beyond reasonable doubtĒ that there is no macro evolution. You canít prove my statement as wrong, can you admit that?

    Still further ignorance of the subject matter. An animal does not have to change/evolve if their living conditions stay constant. Please Jolly, read a book on evolution. If you already have, then read another. You keep making these simple mistakes that even further demonstrates your ignorance.
    I donít have to read another and another and another. Iíll say the same thing to this as I said to obviously, you can repeat something over and over like a mantra and brain wash yourself, that does not make it true. I donít seek to have it indoctrinated in my head by reading another and another and another, I seek to understand it, and based on my understanding, it has problems. And questions im presenting some of them are not being answered. I canít ask a book a question, I can however ask you.

    Also I understand your premise that an animal does not have to change or evolve if the living conditions stay constant. I understood that before I made my statement. However you donít understand that even if a living condition does change, then it will only change the animal by a variation through adaptation through the genetic information within it. But there will be boundaries to that change, the boundaries will make the animal stay within itís own kind. You cannot and have not proven otherwise against this statement. However if you would like to present better proof then the hyena, im open for it.

    I am really astounded that you are still saying this. Your efforts have been woefully inadequate. I am not saying this lightly Jolly: your arguments have been those of a child and you have not really gained any insight at all through this whole thread. That is really sad to me.
    Yes and im still saying I have proven that you have no absolute prove and that my side is equally ďproven beyond reasonable doubtĒ just as much as yours is. And im still saying this because you have not proven your side or disproven mine. My statements have not been that of a child, they have been reasonable and objective, which you will deny of course. I find it sad that you cannot admit there is no proof, and my stand is very justifiable to believe in. JUST as much as yours, although to me, is more justifiable.

    After we finish discussing the ďmacro evolutionĒ topic, and I will let all of you decide when that will be. Then I plan on reading up on the ďcoral reefsĒ that Stephen desired to debate on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #700  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by jollybear
    were all these ďdifferent judgesĒ non young earth creationists? I have not read about the monkey trial, that is something I need to do. I only looked at a video about it.
    have a look at the following list - apart from the scopes trial, where the issue was not whether creationism should or should not be taught in schools, ALL of them have ended up in defeat for the creationist side

    i don't know who the judges were + what their affiliation was, but that is immaterial : in the end the decision has to be made whether certain earlier rulings were constitutional, and that, i should hope, is a matter for the judiciary independent of the politics involved

    if you don't agree with decisions that have been taken over a 40-year period and start questioning whether the "right" type of judge was in chair, maybe you feel ready to rewrite the constitution and appoint judges yourself ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote