Notices
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 497

Thread: 7 Fatal Flaws of Evolution

  1. #101  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Um, wow Archaeologist. That post proves my point. You know NOTHING about evolution... at all. You are ignorant when it comes to evolution and you should STOP discussing something and dismissing something that you do not have a clue on.
    Please THINK for a moment. How would it sound if someone knew nothing of gravity but simply dismissed it because of personal beliefs? Would you look at them as if they were crazy? I would.

    that is NOT evolution in action. I wear dark clothing against a dark background you won't see me either and will spot the person wearing bright cloth. you are just being ridiculous and desperate to believe in something that is false.
    It's actually a major part of evolution.
    If you can not see the prey, they aren't very good prey. The easy targets will be eaten first. This is what is called, "Survival of the fittest" or "natural selection." The easy prey is weeded out first. If you can't see the black birds in order to eat them, then they cant be eaten very easily. This leads to more of a population of black birds over white birds. It is as simple as that. If you do not understand evolution, how can you dismiss it?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    #1. evolution does not exist, all creation was finished on the 7th day Gen. 1:30
    That isn't what it says is it?

    are you now saying that man mad epoisons are part of the evolutionary process?
    There you go again - misquoting/misrepresenting.

    I wear dark clothing against a dark background you won't see me either and will spot the person wearing bright cloth. you are just being ridiculous and desperate to believe in something that is false.
    And a bird can change its coat. Same silly old archy.

    Not bad: 1 misrepresentation 1 misquoting 1 silly remark

    Evolution exists. The Bible is a just a collection of stories that have been known to be wrong for hundreds of years.
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    There you go again - misquoting/misrepresenting
    not at all, you were very clear as you used the word 'pesticides' which are a poison to plants, most animals and even humans. didn't mnisrepresent one thing as you clearly coupled evolution with the lack of use of pesticides . so i just questioned you on your position.

    And a bird can change its coat. Same silly old archy
    right, they have a spare in the front closet of their bird house/nest. how silly of me.

    what you describe is still not evolution in action, nor natural selection or survival of the fittest. all you have described is dinner.
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    you clearly coupled evolution with the lack of use of pesticides
    I never coupled pesticides and evolution. Again you misrepresent. All I stated was that pesticide usage changed.

    The peregrine falcon nearly died out. Numbers went down. Changes were made to pesticide usage and that seemed to allow the birds to come back.
    Here I am trying to b careful and avoid a direct connection between the peregrine population collapse and pesticide usage. I am NOT claiming that pesticides were responsible for the decline in the population. I am certainly not tying evolution and pesticides.

    You blatantly misrepresent people.

    what you describe is still not evolution in action, nor natural selection or survival of the fittest. all you have described is dinner.
    Again how wrong of you. All I claimed was that after the introduction of the peregrine falcons changed the look of the pigeon population.

    The population there once sported light and dark colored birds. Now they are mostly dark.
    I didn't state they are all dark. I didn't state that the peregrines were the cause. I finish with my guess.

    t seems that a light colored pigeon stands out against the dark rock and makes for easier peregrine feed.
    After I make this claim I ask a simple question.

    Is this a case of microevolution or not?
    Two of say yes and you said no. The difference is that you misrepresent. You misquote. I believe you misquoted the bible. Below is Gen 1:30.

    And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground – everything that has the breath of life in it – I give every green plant for food.” It was so.
    Archy, you wrote:
    all creation was finished on the 7th day Gen. 1:30
    The evidence you provide does not state that, does it? I'm surprised that you would even use your holy book in subterfuge - offering fake evidence. Shame on you for using the book you claim to be holy in an unscrupulous manner.

    breeding is NOT proof of evolution, nor is it evolution in action, it shows the varieties and compatibilities that can take place with in 'kinds'. in other words God provided for avenues for variety within species and which you falsely attribute to evolution.
    Next you go on to admit that there is the possibility of variation within species. Good idea since the number of examples are abundant. Evolution means change. That's all. It does not imply purpose.

    The pigeon population exhibited "varieties and compatibilities that can take place with in[sic] 'kinds'." The population changed. The population evolved.

    Not claiming there is going to be something other than a pigeon someday. Not claiming that the color change is permanent. Not claiming that every bird is dark either.
     

  5. #105  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    OK, let's take this one step at a time.

    Archie, let's say that there's a species which feeds on plants.

    If two individuals have digestive systems better adapted to digest plant matter, they will have an advantage, however slight, over the rest of the species, yes?

    If these two mate, their offspring will also have an advantage, no?

    So, in times when there is little food, the offspring which have stronger digestive systems are more likely to survive than the others of the species. So after times of starvations, those with more efficient digestive systems are more likely to have survived, so there will likely be more of these than others. So over time, the whole species, or almost the whole species, will have this trait.

    Now, you can explain this with your 'variation within creationism'.

    But, variation that can be passed on to offspring? How is this not evolution in action?

    Put simply; any change you see in a species over time is evidence for evolution.


    May I give another example? One that is regularly observed?

    Antibiotic resistance.

    This arrises at random (I would say by mutation or HGT; you would maybe say god puts it there) in just one or two bacteria. When there are no antibiotics present, only a few of the bacteria in a colony will have this resistance. However, if you take antibiotics, the normal bacteria die, leaving only resistant bacteria, so that the whole species in this area is resistant.

    And then you die =]

    This is evolution at work; undeniably so.

    In fact, I don't remember you ever responding to a post about antibiotic resistance in bacteria, so I suspect you don't intend to deny it.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    He has responded to a post about it. I tried explaining it to him long ago. He said it is not evolution in action, it is simply the bacteria becoming immune to something.

    Listen Archaeologist... What would be the need to have deadly bacteria in the world if God existed? Why would he create bacteria to harm humans?
    Plus, if a scientist had the cure for AIDS but refused to give it out, would he not be the most evil scientist of all?
    If God could cure diseases but refused to cure people, would he not be the most evil being of all?
    Why worship such a scientist/God?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    OK, let's take this one step at a time.

    Archie, let's say that there's a species which feeds on plants.

    If two individuals have digestive systems better adapted to digest plant matter, they will have an advantage, however slight, over the rest of the species, yes?

    If these two mate, their offspring will also have an advantage, no?

    So, in times when there is little food, the offspring which have stronger digestive systems are more likely to survive than the others of the species. So after times of starvations, those with more efficient digestive systems are more likely to have survived, so there will likely be more of these than others. So over time, the whole species, or almost the whole species, will have this trait.

    Now, you can explain this with your 'variation within creationism'.

    But, variation that can be passed on to offspring? How is this not evolution in action?

    Put simply; any change you see in a species over time is evidence for evolution.


    May I give another example? One that is regularly observed?

    Antibiotic resistance.

    This arrises at random (I would say by mutation or HGT; you would maybe say god puts it there) in just one or two bacteria. When there are no antibiotics present, only a few of the bacteria in a colony will have this resistance. However, if you take antibiotics, the normal bacteria die, leaving only resistant bacteria, so that the whole species in this area is resistant.

    And then you die =]

    This is evolution at work; undeniably so.

    In fact, I don't remember you ever responding to a post about antibiotic resistance in bacteria, so I suspect you don't intend to deny it.
    Archeologist has clearly shown that he has no understanding of basic genetics or molecular biology. Any attempt to convince him of anything is futile. He lacks the ability to understand evolution, and is not willing to educate himself.
     

  8. #108  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Maybe so. But I'm a persistant blighter.

    Never give up. Never surrender. Never concede any point unless you absolutely must.

    This is the way of the turtle.

    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    hokie,you are simply changing your tune because you allowed yourself the manuervering room to change your position depending upon what i said. you are intellectually dishonest.

    If two individuals have digestive systems better adapted to digest plant matter, they will have an advantage, however slight, over the rest of the species, yes?
    not even going to go there. preference is not evolution in action. that is like saying homosexuality is an evolutionary state meant to wipe out mankind, which would explain the hatred towards homosexuality and replacing God's feelings and command that it is an abomination.

    Never give up. Never surrender
    i saw that movie as well. but i stick with the truth not fanciful games to deceive meant to deceive and lead one from the truth.

    Archeologist has clearly shown that he has no understanding of basic genetics or molecular biology. Any attempt to convince him of anything is futile. He lacks the ability to understand evolution, and is not willing to educate himself.
    people, you need to stop insulting me because it is NOT me with the misunderstanding. you lack the ability to understand the truth because your minds are closed and unregenerated. you need God tohelp you.
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    hokie,you are simply changing your tune because you allowed yourself the manuervering room to change your position depending upon what i said. you are intellectually dishonest.
    There you go again misrepresenting what I said. I said it simply and clearly. You on the other hand did not even take the time to challenge my statement of your misrepresentation of Gen 1:30.

    Are you tacitly admitting I was right or did you overlook this challenge?

    To repeat. I believe that you purposely misrepresented the contents of Genesis 1:30.
     

  11. #111  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    If two individuals have digestive systems better adapted to digest plant matter, they will have an advantage, however slight, over the rest of the species, yes?
    not even going to go there. preference is not evolution in action. that is like saying homosexuality is an evolutionary state meant to wipe out mankind, which would explain the hatred towards homosexuality and replacing God's feelings and command that it is an abomination.
    I would actually say that homosexuality is a trait which would most likely die out in nature. I say most likely, because many species, including some species of ape, use homosexual intercourse for bonding, and to maintain their groups.

    But anyway...

    Preference is, indeed, evolution in action. It is a blatant example of a species changing over time to adapt to the environment. So by what definition of evolution is it not an evolutionary process?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Never give up. Never surrender
    i saw that movie as well. but i stick with the truth not fanciful games to deceive meant to deceive and lead one from the truth.
    Um.... Sorry, lost me there.

    It's not from a film, I made it up myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Archeologist has clearly shown that he has no understanding of basic genetics or molecular biology. Any attempt to convince him of anything is futile. He lacks the ability to understand evolution, and is not willing to educate himself.
    people, you need to stop insulting me because it is NOT me with the misunderstanding. you lack the ability to understand the truth because your minds are closed and unregenerated. you need God tohelp you.
    God is always welcome to pop in for a chat.

    It is not that I don't understand your belief; it's that it is illogical and bears no real merit.

    The psychologist understands the mind of the patient, but is not himself insane.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    It's not from a film, I made it up myself
    you may have independentlythoght of it but it was used in a tim allen space movie, the title i forget right now.
     

  13. #113  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Fair enough.

    The point is, I don't give up if something is futile.

    If I'm bored I might, but...
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  14. #114  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    It's not from a film, I made it up myself
    you may have independentlythoght of it but it was used in a tim allen space movie, the title i forget right now.
    Galaxy Quest
    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
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    How did I miss this discussion????

    Anytime I see such a discussion, I try to get the opinions of evolutionists on a pet theory of mine which actually provides an out to evolutionism as to why there are so called "missing links."

    No one ever seems to be able to explain the full process of how evolution actually took place.

    Starting at the beginning (of Godlessly formed life) the assumption seems to be that life began in one single absolutely first one-celled plant or animal although no one "knows," for sure whether it was plant or animal. Nor am I certain anyone has speculated that it may have been one or the other and the the other evolved from that. That is, that the very first living cell was either plant or animal or neither and from that very first living cell, all of life evolved. The question here is how much support is there for the idea that as long as life was spontaneously appearing, is it possible that several life forms appeared spontaneously with absolutely no relationships among them

    For simplicity sake, let us assume we are talking about amoebas and paramecium as two examples. Is it possible that each independently, and with no relationship to the other, became a living form? Now then, multiply this by however many independent first living cells one might consider could have been spontaneously generated. Was it one or was it many?

    OK, so eventually we have a multitude of one-celled plants and animals, either derived from the one very first cell evolving into many or just many different "first" cells coming to life. Now then -- did just one single cell animal evolve into the very first and the one and only two celled animal? And did that single two celled animal evolve into all other two celled animals? (I am focusing on the animal kingdom, but the same principles would apply to plant life.)

    Or did several one-celled animals evolve into two-celled animals, again totally independent of one another and in such a way that some two-celled animals were in no way whatsoever related to any of the other two-celled animals.

    Hopefully, you are beginning to see the pattern of progression developing here. Did only one two-celled animal become a multi-celled animal from which all other multi-celled animals evolved or do we have, again at this level, several multi-celled animals who have absolutely no common ancestor?

    Now then, considering those processes, would it not be reasonable to assume that different multi-celled animals evolved differently such that animals high up the taxonomy chart could have absolutey no evolutionary link to any other similar situated animals.

    Under this concept, it is possible that the cat could have evolved from the amoeba while the dog evolved from the paramecium. There is no reason that one must assume that two original one-celled animals could not have followed a similar evolutionary process to mammalian. One could also build a case for the idea that some fish evolved into amphibians while others evolved directly into reptiles.

    My point here is that perhaps the reason there are missing links is because there are no links and that evolution took place as a geometric progression in such a way that many animals at similar position in taxonomy are in no way related to some of the others in that position. Just about all the charts and explanations I have been exposed to suggest a linear progression such that all animals in a particular position on the taxonomy chart are traced back to some individual animal further back in the taxonomy charts and are, thus, genetically related.

    I am not trying to build the case for evolution. I do not even believe in evolution beyond the micro evolution level. I would not explain the so called "missing links" in this way, but I am shocked that evolutionists have not happened upon this possibility and advance it as an explanation for one of the biggest objections to evolution.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Hi daytonturner. We do see a process called parallel evolution. This is where 2 different organisms develop similar traits, but are not related. This is not what you suggest here, because that standard parallel evolution model has the organisms sharing an ancestor.

    The evidence today is that all life on earth has a common ancestor. The structure of cells suggests a common origin of all life. The origin of mammals can be traced back to a group of reptiles. The fossil record of the transition from reptiles to mammals is one of the best examples of evolutionary change.

    I just want to point out an important issue which you already be aware of and that is that evolution is not a directed process. It's not that a group of fish evolved into amphibians, rather that amphibians evolved from fish. The fish were not trying to change in a particular direction.

    Missing links as you call them are found all of the time. One of the most interesting cases was the so-called missing link for whales. Now the evolutionary events leading from land animals to modern whales have been well established making the evolution of whales one of the best documented changes of life on earth.
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    How did I miss this discussion????

    Anytime I see such a discussion, I try to get the opinions of evolutionists on a pet theory of mine which actually provides an out to evolutionism as to why there are so called "missing links."
    Fossilization is quite rare. Missing links are to be expected. It's actually a prediction that there will be missing links. A couple of missing links, however, aren't enough to discredit all the transitional fossils found to date.

    To claim that it is, is equivalent to saying that the fact that temperature drops during the night disproves global warming...

    Yeeah...

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    No one ever seems to be able to explain the full process of how evolution actually took place.
    Where there are self-replicating organisms/molecules, there will be evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Starting at the beginning (of Godlessly formed life) the assumption seems to be that life began in one single absolutely first one-celled plant or animal although no one "knows," for sure whether it was plant or animal.
    Oh God...

    Plants and animals are both Eucaryota...

    Anyhow, there's no scientific consensus as to how life originated, yet. What can be deduced however is that the earliest forms of life were most likely replicators in the most simple form. What we've found out so far though is that the enviroment in the primordial earth was ideal for simple replicators to appear. Check this out:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...6?DCMP=youtube

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Nor am I certain anyone has speculated that it may have been one or the other and the the other evolved from that. That is, that the very first living cell was either plant or animal or neither and from that very first living cell, all of life evolved. The question here is how much support is there for the idea that as long as life was spontaneously appearing, is it possible that several life forms appeared spontaneously with absolutely no relationships among them

    For simplicity sake, let us assume we are talking about amoebas and paramecium as two examples. Is it possible that each independently, and with no relationship to the other, became a living form? Now then, multiply this by however many independent first living cells one might consider could have been spontaneously generated. Was it one or was it many?

    OK, so eventually we have a multitude of one-celled plants and animals, either derived from the one very first cell evolving into many or just many different "first" cells coming to life. Now then -- did just one single cell animal evolve into the very first and the one and only two celled animal? And did that single two celled animal evolve into all other two celled animals? (I am focusing on the animal kingdom, but the same principles would apply to plant life.)

    Or did several one-celled animals evolve into two-celled animals, again totally independent of one another and in such a way that some two-celled animals were in no way whatsoever related to any of the other two-celled animals.

    Hopefully, you are beginning to see the pattern of progression developing here. Did only one two-celled animal become a multi-celled animal from which all other multi-celled animals evolved or do we have, again at this level, several multi-celled animals who have absolutely no common ancestor?

    Now then, considering those processes, would it not be reasonable to assume that different multi-celled animals evolved differently such that animals high up the taxonomy chart could have absolutey no evolutionary link to any other similar situated animals.

    Under this concept, it is possible that the cat could have evolved from the amoeba while the dog evolved from the paramecium. There is no reason that one must assume that two original one-celled animals could not have followed a similar evolutionary process to mammalian. One could also build a case for the idea that some fish evolved into amphibians while others evolved directly into reptiles.

    My point here is that perhaps the reason there are missing links is because there are no links and that evolution took place as a geometric progression in such a way that many animals at similar position in taxonomy are in no way related to some of the others in that position. Just about all the charts and explanations I have been exposed to suggest a linear progression such that all animals in a particular position on the taxonomy chart are traced back to some individual animal further back in the taxonomy charts and are, thus, genetically related.

    I am not trying to build the case for evolution. I do not even believe in evolution beyond the micro evolution level. I would not explain the so called "missing links" in this way, but I am shocked that evolutionists have not happened upon this possibility and advance it as an explanation for one of the biggest objections to evolution.
    I didn't get half of your seemingly (seemingly, in case you missed the word) gross misunderstanding of evolution, but I can say that Bacteria, Archaea and Eucaryota most likely all have a common ancestor going all the way back to the earliest and simplest self-replicating molecules.

    Perhaps this picture might help you:

    Quote Originally Posted by About The Picture Linked (From Wiki)
    A cladogram linking all major groups of living organisms to the LUA (short trunk at the center). This graph is derived from complete genome sequencing data.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f_life_SVG.svg
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    To be fair those phylogenetic trees of life operate under the assumption (a very reasonable one) that there was a last common ancestor. So, it doesn't really work as proof of a single origin.

    It is possible that there were multiple instances of abiogenesis, although current evidence would suggest that all extent living organisms have a last common ancestor. So, if any other life forms, and their progeny, emerged from abiogenesis they have long since gone extinct. Unless, the other organisms produced by abiogenesis were nearly identical to the other ones.

    Anyway, Archaea and Bacteria long predate the megakaryotes (plants and animals) of Domain Eukaryota.

    Also, to be fair to Dayton, taxonomist only 30 years ago considered the major divisions of life to be Plantae, Fungae, Animalia, Protista, and Bacteria. Woesse's 3 Domain system was only proposed in the early 80s as new genetic evidence became available.
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I read somewhere that there was speculation that some of the Ediacarian lifeforms may represent another division of life.
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Archi

    Their are millions of different creatures on our planet but their is only ONE match to the Chimpanzees and that is our HANDS.
    So that is all the evidence I need to endorse EVOLUTION.

    Besides, the OT is a junk religion since Marx (a born jew) labeled it as a drug.
    And, the Israelis have dumped their religion for the GUN and the CANNON.
    What does that tell you?

    Believing in the OT is DUMB.

    Cosmo
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Cosmo, that is far from evidence for evolution, that barely implies evolution, and seeing as how that was 'all the evidence you need', I see you just want evolution to be true more than anything else. All that show's is that one configuration is more useful than another, and so 2 animals have it. If that was all the evidence we had, I would probably err more on the side of ID and creationism, to be honest
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  22. #122  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    So that is all the evidence I need to endorse EVOLUTION.
    Cosmo, the concept of evolution is based on many pieces of information from fossils, to genetics, to the chemistry of organisms.

    Remember that parallel evolution shows how similar traits have been independently developed. A few similar traits does not mean that species are necessarily closely related. Consider euphorbia and cacti. Some euphorbia are succulents. Some euphorbia have spiky defenses. Yet, they are not closely related to cacti.
     

  23. #123  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Their are millions of different creatures on our planet but their is only ONE match to the Chimpanzees and that is our HANDS.
    So that is all the evidence I need to endorse EVOLUTION.
    your choice but you would be making a mistake

    Besides, the OT is a junk religion since Marx (a born jew) labeled it as a drug.

    Believing in the OT is DUMB.
    so marx was born a jew, that doesn't automatically make him an expert on anything and to listen to someone who proposed a political system contrary to the one you enjoy seems to me to be quite foolish.
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    So archaeologist you quote someone and have no response. Is that agreement or or not.
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I think he forgot to close his quote. I can see where his voice shines through.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  26. #126  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    words that make me physically hurt.
    eh? its now 10AM, and i haven't slept all night. HAH.
    isn't that great?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    So archaeologist you quote someone and have no response. Is that agreement or or not.
    looks like someone messed with my post, i will fix it
     

  28. #128  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    words that make me physically hurt.
    eh? its now 10AM, and i haven't slept all night. HAH.
    isn't that great?
    don't know where you got that quote from, i do not recall saying it nor can i find it anywhere.
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Archaeologist, you realise the further we dig down the simpler the life forms become, right? That is proof of evolution right there... Its like digging down in time.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    verzen said:

    Archaeologist, you realise the further we dig down the simpler the life forms become, right? That is proof of evolution right there.
    Well, that is true if you totally ignore the Cambrian layer.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  31. #131  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    verzen said:

    Archaeologist, you realise the further we dig down the simpler the life forms become, right? That is proof of evolution right there.
    Well, that is true if you totally ignore the Cambrian layer.
    There is nothing more complex about the fossils to be found in the Cambrian compared with later geological periods. Are you claiming there is? If so, please provide examples, evidence and citations.
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Archaeologist, you realise the further we dig down the simpler the life forms become, right? That is proof of evolution right there... Its like digging down in time.
    still doesn't prove evolution nor that evolution was responsible for the change. nor does it answer the charge== where are all the intermediary species? we should be seeing them alive and well today/ why are they absent from life now? there is no reason for them to be absent except to hide the fact that evolution is wrong.

    camberian and other layers are all subjective and implemented without the slightest hint of objectivity. it is trying to hide the evidence for the flood.
     

  33. #133  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    camberian and other layers are all subjective and implemented without the slightest hint of objectivity. it is trying to hide the evidence for the flood.
    The cambrian layer is hiding the evidence for the flood?

    This would date the flood at 490 million years ago, give or take, at the very latest.

    Given that, in the bible, this would actually be something like 4000 years, I think you're bullshitting.


    By the way, in case you missed it, the cambrian is a period in time, not a layer of rock. The 'cambrian layer' is a layer of rock which dates back to the cambrian period.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    where are all the intermediary species?
    See fossils.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    we should be seeing them alive and well today?
    Read about survival of the fittest; they were intermediate and so the 'final' organism had an evolutionary advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why are they absent from life now?
    The organisms that evolved from them were better adapted to survive, and so replaced the ecological niche occupied by the previous species.

    Or, in other words, the 'old' organism cannot compete with the 'new' organism and so eventually dies out.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    are all the intermediary species? we should be seeing them alive and well today/ why are they absent from life now?
    They ARE alive and well today. Evolution doesnt just stop sporadically when it gets a 'perfect' being. There is no such thing as a perfect being. Even humans are evolving. We just dont know what we are evolving into. We are becoming less and less strong.. and more intelligent as the generations go by.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
     

  35. #135  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    still doesn't prove evolution nor that evolution was responsible for the change. nor does it answer the charge== where are all the intermediary species? we should be seeing them alive and well today/ why are they absent from life now? there is no reason for them to be absent except to hide the fact that evolution is wrong.
    You keep proclaiming your knowledge of evolutionary theory, but then you go and make ignorant statements like these. Knowledge of evolution theory and the above statement are mutually exclusive. Laughable.
    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
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    still doesn't prove evolution nor that evolution was responsible for the change. nor does it answer the charge== where are all the intermediary species? we should be seeing them alive and well today/ why are they absent from life now? there is no reason for them to be absent except to hide the fact that evolution is wrong.

    camberian and other layers are all subjective and implemented without the slightest hint of objectivity. it is trying to hide the evidence for the flood.
    So there was change was there. And evolution means change.

    There are lots of intermediary species. One of the best records is the transition from reptile to mammal.

    Why should ancient species be alive today? That is a bad argument on your part archy.

    The old subjective/objective baloney from archy. The layers of rock can be ordered from newest to oldest using a variety of absolute and relative time scale methods. Cambrian is not subjective, but done by definition. Specific places on earth are chosen to represent the boundaries between layers. That is the definition. After that all work is done relative to those chosen layers.

    Here we go again with a nonsense claim of the flood which never happened. Show me any evidence for a global flood archy. Time to put up or shut up. Give us the evidence.
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I don't see that Archy arguing that there are no problems with the Bible is any different than evolutionists arguing there are no problems with evolution.

    When advocates of a side cannot recognize and admit and deal with "real" problems on their side of the discussion, they lose the ability to communicate and build on those areas in which there are no problems.

    The flood story is fraught with problems. I am not aware of any (even stretched) geological evidence supporting the idea that the entire globe was flooded at the same time. However, there is considerable evidence that most of the earth has been subjected to catastrophic floods at one time or another. It may be that the Noahic flood was representative of a series of floods over a period of time which wreaked devastation on living things. Science does support several massive die offs of life forms at various times and places. I'm pretty sure that Moses would not have been able to comprehend or even explain what actually happened. Even if God tried to fully explain, Moses lacked the capacity to communicate at that level. So while Archy tries to defend this story and others scoff at it, I prefer to consider it the best God could to through Moses to explain massive die offs or extinctions.

    The Noah story suffers some of the same problems as evolution in that there is a time problem for the subsequent mass population of the earth by several races in a rather short time. This same time problems also exists for a micro evolution process to have produced the macro evolution required for the diversity of life forms we know have been on earth in the amount of time we believe life has existed here. And then further complicate that by mass extinctions.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    I don't see that Archy arguing that there are no problems with the Bible is any different than evolutionists arguing there are no problems with evolution.
    I see a huge difference. In the evolution debate the question is how did evolution, which is a fact, occur. The mechanism is the issue of debate, not if evolution is a fact.

    Archy defends the bible with the dogmatic the bible is perfect and correct. He has argued that the days of creation are 24 hour days. He has argued that everything happened exactly as the bible states.

    You, dayton, are different in that you suggest that the account of the flood may differ. Archy would never consider the possibility you offer.

    This same time problems also exists for a micro evolution process to have produced the macro evolution required for the diversity of life forms we know have been on earth in the amount of time we believe life has existed here. And then further complicate that by mass extinctions.
    This is an interesting statement. In evolution we see a world in which the life forms have changed. At one time there are no trees, or fish, or mammals, or birds, or insects. At some point in time these show up. Many life forms have disappeared. As you correctly point out there are times when much of life on earth goes away.

    The question is not whether the types of life forms on earth have changed, but how that change comes about. The changes are the fact. The mechanism is the theory. Take Lamark, or Lysenko, or Darwin, or Wallace, or Gould and you find differences in the theory of the mechanism. Here are 4 different theories, (counting Darwin and Wallace as 1).

    In Archy's case there is 1 ultimate model and all facts have to be bent and abused to fit the model. Any evidence to the contrary is labeled a lie. "If you use science then you would be wrong" Does that ring a bell?
     

  39. #139  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I don't see that Archy arguing that there are no problems with the Bible is any different than evolutionists arguing there are no problems with evolution.
    I don't know of any serious evolutionists who argue there are no problems with evolution. For one thing, why would one choose a field of research where all the answers had already been found?
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I have said this before and I will probably say it again.

    I believe that God had communicated to us both in the Bible and in nature. As God is not a God a confusion, He would not give us one message via one means and a completely different message via the other.

    As such I am of the opinion that when the Bible and knowledge seemingly disagree, it is because we misunderstand one or the other (maybe both) and it may be difficult to determine which it is.

    In the matter of a six-day creation, I think the speed of light does a pretty good job of showing that this does not stand for six 24-hour periods. But I think it does depict six important aspects of creation and indicates a point at which God was finished creating and the Earth was fully functional.

    As I stated with the Noah story, God chose to limit His ability to communicate to us on these things in the Bible through a man who lived some 3,500 years ago. I would not even come close to suspecting Moses would have understood Einstein's theories, even if Albert himself went back in time to try to explain it. How would you explain the modern automobile to Moses, and what would he write to record his understanding of what you had told him. I believe what Moses wrote is true if placed in its proper perspective. And I believe that if the scientificos were not so focused in trying to prove Moses wrong, they would be able to figure it out.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  41. #141  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    In the matter of a six-day creation, I think the speed of light does a pretty good job of showing that this does not stand for six 24-hour periods. But I think it does depict six important aspects of creation and indicates a point at which God was finished creating and the Earth was fully functional
    and another falss for the deceptions of modern science. you do not realize that it has to be 6 24 hour days and the speed of light has nothing to do with it. you people lack faith and bow to secular man's understanding and ignore god and His power.

    As I stated with the Noah story, God chose to limit His ability to communicate to us on these things in the Bible through a man who lived some 3,500 years ago. I would not even come close to suspecting Moses would have understood Einstein's theories, even if Albert himself went back in time to try to explain it. How would you explain the modern automobile to Moses, and what would he write to record his understanding of what you had told him. I believe what Moses wrote is true if placed in its proper perspective. And I believe that if the scientificos were not so focused in trying to prove Moses wrong, they would be able to figure it out
    this is just wrong.

    The flood story is fraught with problems. I am not aware of any (even stretched) geological evidence supporting the idea that the entire globe was flooded at the same time
    if you can't use faith, then don't side with Christ as faith is the key component. where will you find geological evidence in massive cities? or land buried by volcanoes and earthquakes/ remember the black sea has sunken villages 400 feet deep, same with india. you would have a long ways to go to find the evidence so stop pontificating that there is no evidence, you just haven't found it yet.

    It may be that the Noahic flood was representative of a series of floods over a period of time which wreaked devastation on living things. Science does support several massive die offs of life forms at various times and places. I'm pretty sure that Moses would not have been able to comprehend or even explain what actually happened.
    that is just pure crap as is:

    Even if God tried to fully explain, Moses lacked the capacity to communicate at that level. So while Archy tries to defend this story and others scoff at it, I prefer to consider it the best God could to through Moses to explain massive die offs or extinctions
    the Bible tells us that nothing is impossible for God, so he would be able to explain in terms moses understood. you betray God.

    This same time problems also exists for a micro evolution process to have produced the macro evolution required for the diversity of life forms we know have been on earth in the amount of time we believe life has existed here. And then further complicate that by mass extinctions.
    there is no micro evolution as God said creation was complete. if micro evolution exists then God does not. yet God exists thus micro evolution does not.
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Archy defends the bible with the dogmatic the bible is perfect and correct. He has argued that the days of creation are 24 hour days. He has argued that everything happened exactly as the bible states.

    You, dayton, are different in that you suggest that the account of the flood may differ. Archy would never consider the possibility you offer
    of course not, for the simple reason you and dayton do not see the ramifications of his alternative. you want to reconcile secular scientific studies with God's word and it won't happen. you either side with God or you don't. there is no marrying of the two. they are not compatible and are enemies not friends
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    they are not compatible and are enemies not friends
    Like I said to you Dayton, Archy is a dogmatic fool. He thinks he has the only valid interpretation of the bible and that as he puts it everyone else is his enemy.

    you would have a long ways to go to find the evidence so stop pontificating that there is no evidence, you just haven't found it yet.
    Alright Archy why don't you tell us what sorts of evidence a flood would leave. Try to explain to us why a global flood's evidence has not been found. Can you supply a date? It's time to provide more than nay saying.

    PS. I am still waiting for a response on your Gen 1:30 claim.
     

  44. #144  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    and another falss for the deceptions of modern science.
    This statement is deffinitely not anti-science

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you do not realize that it has to be 6 24 hour days and the speed of light has nothing to do with it. you people lack faith and bow to secular man's understanding and ignore god and His power.
    I 'bow to secular man's understanding'? Does this mean I accept string theory then?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    this is just wrong.
    Glad we looked at it in such detail, rather than dismiss it out of hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The flood story is fraught with problems. I am not aware of any (even stretched) geological evidence supporting the idea that the entire globe was flooded at the same time
    if you can't use faith, then don't side with Christ as faith is the key component. where will you find geological evidence in massive cities? or land buried by volcanoes and earthquakes/ remember the black sea has sunken villages 400 feet deep, same with india. you would have a long ways to go to find the evidence so stop pontificating that there is no evidence, you just haven't found it yet.
    The evidence would be almost everywhere, though, rather than just under volcanoes and cities.

    Sounds ot me like you're making it up as you go along, and you're starting to realise you don't actually know anything; just hope and assume.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    that is just pure crap
    Another well thought out arguement.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the Bible tells us that nothing is impossible for God, so he would be able to explain in terms moses understood. you betray God.
    The bible also tells us bats are birds and a man who died but never died could walk on water. What's your point?

    It could equally be harry potter using magic; he's also from a book.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    there is no micro evolution as God said creation was complete. if micro evolution exists then God does not.
    DEAL.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    yet God exists thus micro evolution does not.
    That's a matter of faith, not science.

    If you can prove god exists, and get him to tell me personally that there is another valid explanation for the evidence supporting evolution, then you will convince me.

    Should be easy, if he is real. If not, you're screwed.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  45. #145  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    [
    you want to reconcile secular scientific studies with God's word and it won't happen. you either side with God or you don't. there is no marrying of the two. they are not compatible and are enemies not friends
    It isn't possible to reconcile the doctrines of a cult with the cold hard facts of science. Even more so, the cults are the world are distributed geographically, which isn't the way science works at all. A Muslim, a Christian and a Jew are going to witness the same results from an experiment, no matter what their beliefs.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    At some point, I suppose one has to begin to wonder if Archy isn't just some atheist troll come on the forum to expound the most unreasonable positions one could ascribe to Christians. But it does make an interesting contrast to (Q)'s unreasonable comments from the other extreme. Maybe it is the same person posing as these two unreasonable commentators.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  47. #147  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    At some point, I suppose one has to begin to wonder if Archy isn't just some atheist troll come on the forum to expound the most unreasonable positions one could ascribe to Christians.
    Would that be the "unreasonable position" of a Christian actually following Christianity?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Dayton let's suppose for arguments sake that someone, could be a "secular scientist" as Archy likes to call it or a creationist that discovers human remains in situ with trilobites or dinosaurs or eurypterids or placoderms or anything that should not be mixed together. Wouldn't that be a sensational find! Alas, that has not happened and appears not to be found.

    I certainly would have to change my world view based on a find that questions the current model of the world. Archy on the other hand cannot adjust his position no matter what. His mind is closed to anything other than a single option.[/quote]
     

  49. #149 Re: 7 fatal flaws of evolution 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Can u rename topic 7 things I have completely misunderstood about evolution

    maybe throw in something like
    seen from a religious perspective, just to scare people

    Fatal Flaws of Evolution

    1. Evolution Origins: Darwin and Wallace aside, evolutionists have no clue about where ‘the process of evolution’ came from. Couple this with the fact that they have no idea where life started or what the ‘common ancestor was’ tells us that evolutionists are just the ‘blind leading the blind’.
    where it came from is simple

    a atom joined with another atom and that went on joining more and more atoms together, till it got so complex that it actually developed the ability to copy itself..and we define this ability as life

    2. Why Earth: This is another question evolutionists cannot answer. Without finding life on other planets, the question ‘why earth’ is very important. There is no reason for earth to be the only planet selected for life or the process’. Too many other questions arise as well. How did evolution get here? How did it form? Why would it form? Why would it get involved in life?
    was happy with answer someone else posted and come on we searched 1 planet for life so far and we have barely touched it

    its like an alien craft landing in the middle of the biggest desert on earth taking 2 steps and going nope this planet has no life


    3. Time: This is a killer as no matter how one looks at it, the time factor either provides an excuse for failing to provide evidence or it is just ridiculous as they have homo erectus surviving for a million years without fire or heat.
    fundementalist christians think the earth is 6000 years old what do u think

    Evolution is build on time, its not a very fast process...millions of years are like seconds


    4. Evolution is clueless: it has been repeatedly said that evolution is a process, that it doesn’t know anything yet it was able to ‘guide’ all species through all environmental conditions until it found the right combination to allow life to exist unimpeded. It was also able to create diversity even though it has no clue what variety , creativity, and other characteristics found in life today, are.
    This just stretches credibility way too far as there is no way it could come up with the function of each species and fit each role perfectly into life.

    Life and the environment grow together, it gets colder the species with warmer coats do better hence increase offspring hence more likely to have offspring with warmer coats

    then it starts getting warmer species without coats do better hence more offspring without coats, hence less coats


    5. Reproduction systems: Here is another vital life function that evolutionary adherents cannot explain why it exists. There is no reason why ‘the process’ would develop reproduction through sexual activity, there would be no need for it, nor concept that such a practice would be needed, nor can they explain why men need to have release more than women.
    two points:
    1. its an expansion on point 1 refer to point 1
    the whole copying molecules thing if u dont recall
    2. "release more than women", ur a guy right..... go read some psychology books on this topic and edit post when done

    6. Morality: Another vital issue that evolutionists cannot explain. They may try to say it comes from a gene yet how did the gene ‘conceive of it’? or where did the gene receive the idea of morality or that it would be needed?
    In evolution, where survival of the fittest is the key theme, morality plays no role for evolution is all about anarchy not moral behavior. Since evolution knows nothing, it is impossible for it to instill proper behavior in its resulting forms and it could not provide an ideal standard for its product to use as a guide.
    At best, only animal instincts would reside in all species including humans, meaning that a Hitlerian attitude against the sick and weak would reign without competition from those who disagree.
    " go read up on basic evolutionary concepts its not survival of the fittest its survival of the most adaptable"

    example: great white sharks eat their siblings before birth and as soon as their born we see them with all the traits of a hunter already, thats not instinct its learned behavior so why cant a creature be born with some basic brain memories etc

    what tells the brain it would be a good idea to start pumping the heart even inside the womb, this is a basic form of what u call instinct

    7. Religious Issues: Evolution is not God and knows nothing thus the concept of God or even a god(s) would be absent from all humans. There would be no desire to find God and no reason to even think about superior beings because there would be no need for such hope.
    first thing u said all day thats correct religion is not god


    please spot the sarcasm here

    but people are good at making things up.....the sun is so bright and big and it goes around the earth....there must be some chariot god pulling it

    how does the earth float there must be some god keeping it in place

    No wait thats the older gods, now christianity just has one.

    For every comment u put forward I will counter with a rational statement and argument...........ok its ur turn again...



    With no concept of God, no guidance from a moral ideal, life on earth would just be one animal attacking another animal for its possessions. Since there would be no rules, then all is good and it wouldn’t matter what one person did to another, there would be no punishment for killing, raping and other crimes as there would be no definition of what a crime was.
    and my view on this statement, apparently its not one of ur 7 great things

    but me being me I will go the extra mile

    On earth there will always be good people and bad people, in a religious free world u would find good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but with religion thrown into the mix

    Good people will end up doing bad things and bad people will end up doing bad things

    and in the end humanity gets screwed over, oh wait damn thats happening here

    wonders off to nearest alternative universe to find religious free earth.
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  50. #150  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Can u rename topic 7 things I have completely misunderstood about evolution
    No. these are 7 of the fatals flaws of evolution and prove that evolution cannot exist.

    where it came from is simple
    try to read the whole thread first before assuming no one has heard this drivel before.

    At some point, I suppose one has to begin to wonder if Archy isn't just some atheist troll come on the forum to expound the most unreasonable positions one could ascribe to Christians. But it does make an interesting contrast to (Q)'s unreasonable comments from the other extreme. Maybe it is the same person posing as these two unreasonable commentato
    you would obviously be wrong and i see you take science over God, fatal error.

    you also do not understand how creation works and bow to those who were NOT there, did not observe it and look at the wrong things to draw their conclusions. modern science certainly cannot determine what took place 'in the begining'. for argument's sake i will use the number 10,000. 'modern secular scientists' think they can look back over 10,000 years of time, which contain thousands of natural disasters, wars, climate changes and think they know what took place using limited and partial data as their basis.

    they are only fooling themselves.

    i noticed you could not rebut the points about evidence for Noah's flood.

    with the cold hard facts of science
    whose hard facts of science are you going to accept? many people disagree with each other.

    could be a "secular scientist" as Archy likes to call it
    I am not the only one who uses that term. i forget which book i read that contains the term as well though i came up with the term independently of that author.
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    i noticed you could not rebut the points about evidence for Noah's flood.
    if we are going to refer to a flood lets stick with the one that the Christians stole

    The Epic of Gilgamesh
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  52. #152  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Can u rename topic 7 things I have completely misunderstood about evolution
    No. these are 7 of the fatals flaws of evolution and prove that evolution cannot exist.
    Sure there are.

    3 people dismissed them simultaneously, if memory serves.

    Think of some new, better ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    At some point, I suppose one has to begin to wonder if Archy isn't just some atheist troll come on the forum to expound the most unreasonable positions one could ascribe to Christians. But it does make an interesting contrast to (Q)'s unreasonable comments from the other extreme. Maybe it is the same person posing as these two unreasonable commentato
    you would obviously be wrong and i see you take science over God, fatal error.
    'fatal' error?

    But I'm still alive....

    Should we take this to mean there is no god?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you also do not understand how creation works
    Then explain it to us?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    and bow to those who were NOT there, did not observe it and look at the wrong things to draw their conclusions.
    Thanks for helping us out there, 'archie the ancient'.

    Saw it all happen then, did you?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    modern science certainly cannot determine what took place 'in the begining'.
    Yet a book you read a few times must surely be right.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    for argument's sake i will use the number 10,000. 'modern secular scientists' think they can look back over 10,000 years of time, which contain thousands of natural disasters, wars, climate changes and think they know what took place using limited and partial data as their basis.
    You, on the other hand, think you can say EXACTLY what happened, using no sources or evidence at all.

    Which would hold up in a court case - the estimate based on records and evidence, or the shot in the dark guess?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    they are only fooling themselves.
    Not at all. If you can provide evidence, you could completely destroy the theory of evolution. But you cannot, so...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i noticed you could not rebut the points about evidence for Noah's flood.
    Really? Because I did. I pointed out to you there should be vast amounts of evidence for worldwide flooding, just like there is for a number of ice ages which have happened from 10,000 years ago to 1,000,000 years ago. Your flood evidence would be more recent, and so more likely to have survived. The flood would also have lasted longer.

    Unless the flood didn't happen on Earth at all?

    Maybe god moved us here form Gliese 581D, which is potentially the first completely submerged planet found?

    If you're going to make shit up, may as well be imaginative, right?

    Rising from the dead and walking on water? That's getting old now...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    with the cold hard facts of science
    whose hard facts of science are you going to accept? many people disagree with each other.
    Facts are subject to interpretation, much like your beloved bible, but they are still facts.

    Nobody who has studied radio-isotope dating in any detail at all can debate that it works, for example.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    i noticed you could not rebut the points about evidence for Noah's flood.
    Since archy has refused, or been unable to offer any evidence of a global flood I think it is now safe to say that archy thought he could pull a poker bluff and we would fall for his lunatic claims.

    I have asked several times for archy to tell me how his claim that Gen 1:30 denies evolution. He has not. I think he was blatantly lying about his knowledge of the bible.

    Maybe there is truth to the rumor that archy is in fact an atheist troll.
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    AlwaysAsking I don't mind you blasting a nitwit like archy. Saying 'stole' to archy is what he deserves.

    On the other hand there are quite a few interesting people that may not believe in evolution in whole or in part. The comments by these people make me reevaluate just how well I know the material. Do I really have a decent answer on a question? Do I know why something is right, wrong, or a gray area of research? The interesting part of science to me is that mistakes can be made, but there is the opportunity to rectify the situation.

    I've been too harsh at times in my comments to others I think because some nitwit has rubbed me the wrong way with some trolling comments.

    Have at it with archy and welcome to the forum.
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    AlwaysAsking I don't mind you blasting a nitwit like archy. Saying 'stole' to archy is what he deserves.

    On the other hand there are quite a few interesting people that may not believe in evolution in whole or in part. The comments by these people make me reevaluate just how well I know the material. Do I really have a decent answer on a question? Do I know why something is right, wrong, or a gray area of research? The interesting part of science to me is that mistakes can be made, but there is the opportunity to rectify the situation.

    I've been too harsh at times in my comments to others I think because some nitwit has rubbed me the wrong way with some trolling comments.

    Have at it with archy and welcome to the forum.
    EDIT: I think I misinterpreted this comment, the first time I read it

    I wasnt saying he stole it I was saying the Naohs arc story was stolen from a the epic of gilgamesh, which is another flood story predating biblical times(although almost exactly the same)

    Yes I know some of my best real life friends are people that dont believe in evolution, I just get frustrated with people who will not listen to reason under any circumstances, my friends are more than willing to discuss the existence or non existence of god, or anything in the bible, and look at it from a scientific view.... just as I am willing to look at a view that maybe there are reliable alternatives to evolution

    just frustrated when other person refuses to enter the debate

    I am an open minded and I would go as far as to say a spiritual person, I don't believe in a god in the strict definition, but I believe in a higher power that the religions have used as a tool to make war etc and divide humanity

    I like to think of the different religions as different ways to worship the same being.

    Not that I am saying the being created everything just that there are very likely things in the universe that are smarter and better and more advanced than us

    and if these things did exist I doubt they would be interested in our lives, but I envision these beings as spiritual and I think we tap into that spiritual energy when we refer to that feeling of god. for all we know this feeling could just be the people right here on earth

    sorry this post just dragged on and I will probably get some bad comments against it but its one of the more plausible arguments I have heard from one of my real life friends but we only get to points like these usually after several hours worth of involved discussion



    and thanks for the welcome
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Archy said (in reference to me):


    you would obviously be wrong and i see you take science over God, fatal error.

    you also do not understand how creation works and bow to those who were NOT there, did not observe it and look at the wrong things to draw their conclusions. modern science certainly cannot determine what took place 'in the begining'. for argument's sake i will use the number 10,000. 'modern secular scientists' think they can look back over 10,000 years of time, which contain thousands of natural disasters, wars, climate changes and think they know what took place using limited and partial data as their basis.
    The only thing that is obvious to me is that it is impossible to figure out which you misunderstand the most -- science or the Bible. And no matter how much it seems you misunderstand one of them more than the other, it then appears you misunderstand the other even more.

    No one "understands" how creation worked, including you. Neither did you observe it and the Bible does not go into the nitty gritty details nor the hows and wherefores. It merely tells us that God did it. I suspect if He thought we needed to know and could understand everything about it, He would have told us.

    I do not mind science looking for the beginning because I am confident that when they figure it out, the answer will be spelled, in Hebrew, YHWH. With the repairs to the Hubble telescope, they believe they can get to see back to withing 500 or 600 million years of the creation. That is not as close as Genesis 1:1, but pretty close.

    So your estimate of 10,000 years is a gross underestimate; they think they will be able to look back some 13 BILLION years.

    Nature has left us considerable evidence of things that have happened in the history of this wonderful and miraculous home God gave us. The discussion is never focused on what evidence exists or does not exist. The discussion revolves around what that evidence means and what it shows.

    When men work to use science and the Bible to prove each other, that is when we gain real and meaningful knowledge about our world and the meaning of life.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Beautifully stated Dayton.
     

  58. #158  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Since archy has refused, or been unable to offer any evidence of a global flood I think it is now safe to say that archy thought he could pull a poker bluff and we would fall for his lunatic claims.
    thi is simply a smoke screen to hide safely behind as you know you have two options which you will happily employ. option 1; dismiss any evidence presented; option 2 complain no one presents any evidence.

    evidence has been presented, none has been offered in rebuttal,said evidence is dismissed without consideration conclusion, forget presenting evidence because it is not handled with any honesty.

    AlwaysAsking I don't mind you blasting a nitwit like archy. Saying 'stole' to archy is what he deserves.
    it's not your call. he needs to abide by the rules and none of them say 'this one doesn't apply when addressing archaeologist'.

    The only thing that is obvious to me is that it is impossible to figure out which you misunderstand the most -- science or the Bible. And no matter how much it seems you misunderstand one of them more than the other, it then appears you misunderstand the other even more.
    oh grasshopper, you know so little and resort to a personal attack. your credibility is now in jeopardy.

    No one "understands" how creation worked, including you.
    you obviously have no clue on how christianity works and limit yourself, forgeting that God teaches believers, the Holy SPirit leads believers to the truth and that we are to obtain 'understanding'. it is common for many to knock down the few who have learned much because they want everyone on their level.

    doesn't work that way. i have strived to learn and understand a lot and God has rewarded that, and i can tell you that secular science, your 'proof' of light speed is wrong.

    I do not mind science looking for the beginning because I am confident that when they figure it out, the answer will be spelled, in Hebrew, YHWH. With the repairs to the Hubble telescope, they believe they can get to see back to withing 500 or 600 million years of the creation. That is not as close as Genesis 1:1, but pretty close.
    um, hate to tell you this BUT the past is gone and the hubble (and secular science) cannot see into the past. it is gone, done, over and any 'past' they claim to see is merely an assumption or bad conjecture extrapolated without observation or proof.

    you and they will NOT see God in action creating again thus they will 'create' false answers to try and satisfy their needs, when all they have to do is look in the Bible and they will have all their answers.

    God spoke it was. you can't put that in a test tube and you can't create a false origin to example what God did.

    So your estimate of 10,000 years is a gross underestimate; they think they will be able to look back some 13 BILLION years.
    stupidity at its best--you can't even 'look back' into yesterday let alone 13 billion years ago. this is a great case of people fooling themselves because they do not want to accept the simple truth. you cannot 'look back' into yesterday by looking at a young boy and extrapolating that to your own actions, the two are NOT the same.

    Nature has left us considerable evidence of things that have happened in the history of this wonderful and miraculous home God gave us. The discussion is never focused on what evidence exists or does not exist. The discussion revolves around what that evidence means and what it shows.
    'nature' is not a super being, itis not a being at all. it is impossible for it to 'leave' us anything.

    When men work to use science and the Bible to prove each other, that is when we gain real and meaningful knowledge about our world and the meaning of life.
    you forget that right and wrong apply to science as does morality. as it stands evolutionists have taken the dr. mengeles path and tried to throw out the rules so they can 'create' whatever scenario they want and it just doesn't work because they keep stumbling over that little thing called TRUTH.

    they can try to hide it through cleverly written fairy tales that only the 'elite' can discern but they won't succeed.

    it is so funny that only those who have a science degree construct this theory they propose as an alternative to the Bible, whereas in comparison you do not need a degree to understand the Bible or creation and everyone has access to it and can see the truth for themselves.
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    thi is simply a smoke screen to hide safely behind
    Give us any evidence. You have never offered evidence.
    Please explain why Gen 1:30 denies evolution.

    stupidity at its best--you can't even 'look back' into yesterday let alone 13 billion years ago. this is a great case of people fooling themselves because they do not want to accept the simple truth. you cannot 'look back' into yesterday by looking at a young boy and extrapolating that to your own actions, the two are NOT the same.
    Your ignorance is overwhelming at times

    they can try to hide it through cleverly written fairy tales that only the 'elite' can discern but they won't succeed.
    construct this theory they propose as an alternative to the Bible, whereas in comparison you do not need a degree to understand the Bible or creation and everyone has access to it and can see the truth for themselves.
    This is what archy does. He claims to be an 'elite' that understands the bible. He actively claims that others are wrong.

    You say that Gen 1:30 denies evolution. I say you are a bible nitwit and are wrong. Support the claim.
     

  60. #160  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    the only ignorance i see is that someone is ignoring the correction i made, without excuse, as soon as i realized my error. someone who continues to berate another after the correction has been made, is the one now in purposeful error.

    Your ignorance is overwhelming at times
    yet you resort to a personal attack instead of showing that you can see into the past. this 'seeing' is nothing but an assumption and it is far from the truth as well as reality.

    let's see the evidence for your position.

    This is what archy does. He claims to be an 'elite' that understands the bible. He actively claims that others are wrong
    yet i give credit to God for showing me and tell others they can do the same thing. that does not make me 'elite' but someone willing to learn the truth. it is clear hokie is just out to cause trouble and has no interest in real discussion or the truth.

    I say you are a bible nitwit and are wrong
    it is obvious that the moderator is falling down on the job here as he is too busy with a personal vendetta against Q.
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    then please, archy, cite where in the bible evolution is denied? Creation was complete, so why is change also complete? I think if I can change, physically, why can't something else? why is evolution barred from God? God created all of the original species, landscapes, and all manner of other things; but they have ALL changed since then. There IS evidence of the landscape changing that you CANNOT deny.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  62. #162  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Quote:
    Your ignorance is overwhelming at times


    yet you resort to a personal attack instead of showing that you can see into the past. this 'seeing' is nothing but an assumption and it is far from the truth as well as reality.
    I stand by my position that your lack of understanding followed up by vociferous condemnation of simple ideas is overwhelming ignorance.

    yet i give credit to God for showing me and tell others they can do the same thing. that does not make me 'elite' but someone willing to learn the truth.
    Your elitism shows when you deny interpretations other than your own. You claim that god has shown you are right and others are wrong. That certainly what has been coming across to many people on this forum.

    Please explain why Gen 1:30 denies evolution.

    Are you a fraud?
     

  63. #163  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    NOT FUNNY!! i have filed a complaint about the thread title change.
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    NOT FUNNY!! i have filed a complaint about the thread title change.
    as far as I can tell, u have 7 things u dont understand about the way evolution works, u put them here to ask the science community to put forward reasons why these 7 things are not applicable or show ur misunderstanding on the topic, and that was fine.

    Then u decided to ignore the arguments put forward for ur 7 reasons, and this is where ur choice came in to continue with the 7 reasons, despite the logic put forward by several readers

    as another member of the forum stated these 7 things have been shown to be based on weak grounds and hence if the debate on the topic of evolution or the lack there of is to continue new ideas and reasons need to be put forward to show that it is still worthy debating

    on a side note I did some reading up and the reason why we dont have the original species even as fossilized remains is because 1 bone in 1 billion bones will be under the right conditions to fossilize.

    there are 200+ bones in one human body, so if the whole US population died

    We would be left with around 50 bones which isnt even a complete skeleton

    we would get 6 skeletons (1 per billion people), from the earths population

    It has also been estimated that less than one species in ten thousand has made it into the fossil record.

    the fossil record is also absurdly biased in favour of marine creatures. About 95 per cent of all the fossils we possess are of animals that once lived under water, mostly in shallow seas."

    because

    "...Most land animals, of course, don't die in sediments. They drop in the open and are eaten or left to rot or weather down to nothing."

    combine this with the fact that 99.9 % of species no longer exist

    and well u have reality

    The original source of above said information Bill Bryson's book "A Short History Of Nearly Everything":

    take a read and get back to us
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    NOT FUNNY!! i have filed a complaint about the thread title change.
    This coming from the person who goes to other threads and requests mergers with his own... pathetic.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  66. #166  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    NOT FUNNY!! i have filed a complaint about the thread title change.
    This coming from the person who goes to other threads and requests mergers with his own... pathetic.
    I didn't do it. Not only is it not my style, but I find things like this confusing. I didn't even realize what had happened until I read archy's post here.


    BUT........ when I did, I sure got a chuckle out of it. LOL
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  67. #167  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    as far as I can tell
    you would be wrong

    I didn't do it. Not only is it not my style, but I find things like this confusing. I didn't even realize what had happened until I read archy's post here.
    don't believe you. let's see if you have some cahonies and right the wrong done.
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    NOT FUNNY!! i have filed a complaint about the thread title change.
    This coming from the person who goes to other threads and requests mergers with his own... pathetic.
    I didn't do it. Not only is it not my style, but I find things like this confusing. I didn't even realize what had happened until I read archy's post here.


    BUT........ when I did, I sure got a chuckle out of it. LOL
    LoL, I also only just noticed it

    and it was my idea, I cant stop laughing
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    don't believe you.
    Hell will freeze and galaxies will fall to the earth before I care what you believe about anything.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    let's see if you have some cahonies and right the wrong done.
    LOL
    I can no longer be bothered to lift a finger either for you or against you. You can only expect my laughter, either way.
    LOL
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  70. #170  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    didn't think you had any courage to right wrongs. it is nice to see that you do not have any integrity or character.

    it has nothing to do withme, but it has a lot to say about this forum, website and you and none of it good.
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    actually, it only says something about you, arch. Especially seeing as how you care so much about a thread title, when the title itself doesn't really matter. the discussion is important, and you focus on how the title of said discussion was changed. again, I reiterate, pathetic.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  72. #172  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    you would be so wrong arcane.
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    point and case:
    thats all you say. Ever. If ANYONE rebuts your argument, posts any kind of evidence, you fail to show respect for them, and simply say something to the effect of 'you would be wrong' or some kind of bashing of the person for not agreeing with you. You are the person who lacks integrity, and you are dually ostracized by ALL of the mods and admins, as well as most forumites for your behavior here.

    You are wrong. And the best part is, you will NEVER admit it.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

     

  74. #174  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    drowsy turtle did a better job but failed miserably bu comparing evolution tohis oven:

    My oven doesn't know about cooking, what of it?
    an oven, even gravity, does not come close to being similar to what evolutionists describe the process of evolution to be.

    an oven needs to be built by someone, designed would be the operative word here, then it has to be turned on and food placed inside of it to cook. the oven needs an outside source tomake it work and toput food inside of it.

    thus are evolutionists saying that there is a superior being who had to design evolution to work in its way, then place 'life' within its authority so it could work?

    if so, then they are saying that there is a supreme being out there that designed everyting towork in a certain manner and evolution was just the 'oven'.
    Just wanted to also comment on the oven analogy, something that only really just came to my mind....at least I try to think differently

    if the universe is infinitely big (especially if u believe in the multi-verse view) which I assume u don't...

    but what is the probability that atoms organize themselves into an oven if u assume the universe is damn big and bigger than even what we see I would bet my money that there probably are several ovens just floating around that naturally formed all by themselves

    maybe a few teapots as well u just need the atoms there in the right quantities, with the right forces applied all at the right moment of time and instant oven got to love that word infinity it automatically covers all possibilities

    but strangely doesn't cover the god concept at least in my opinion

    because god created everything so there was no infinity before god hence no possibility of god creating everything

    just a random thought that I came across in my head....
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Always.Asking
    if the universe is infinitely big (especially if u believe in the multi-verse view) which I assume u don't...

    but what is the probability that atoms organize themselves into an oven if u assume the universe is damn big and bigger than even what we see I would bet my money that there probably are several ovens just floating around that naturally formed all by themselves

    maybe a few teapots as well u just need the atoms there in the right quantities, with the right forces applied all at the right moment of time and instant oven got to love that word infinity it automatically covers all possibilities
    I am sorry but this just doesn't work. You would lose that bet.

    Basic statistical mechanics shows that state counting quickly exceeds the number of particles in the universe. This is the basis of the second law thermodynamics. Entropy is all a matter of probability but on such a truly vast scale that it becomes an unbreakable law.

    For example if you consider getting 28 grams of silicon atoms into the right locations it is like talking about rolling all sixes when you have 6x10^23 dice. Can you calculate the probability of that? The answer is one in 10^466890750200000000000000 which makes the mere 10^81 atoms (at most) in the universe utterly insignificant. And THAT is assuming there is only 6 places for each silicon atom to go, which obviously underestimates things a great deal because it is countable infinity at least and that makes the probability in the order of 1 in uncountable infinity which makes the probablity zero even in an infinite amount of time in an infinite universe.

    It doesn't work.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131


    the mere 10^81 atoms (at most) in the universe utterly insignificant.

    It doesn't work.
    I said in a multi-verse situation, where u have many separate universes in 4-D(3 dimensions and time) space that completely do not interact with each other.

    Ie. what we see is just 1 universe among many perhaps an infinite number of them

    every event that could ever have occurred where a so called alternative situation could of been envisioned "could go one way or could go another way", basically the multiverse idea is that if u decided to have coffee this morning there is another universe out there that is exactly the same as this universe, until someone who lives and looks like u and has done everything u have done up till this point decides on this morning he will have tea instead of coffee and then u get the split, to 2 alternative universes...

    basically every possible situation unfolds somewhere, thats why I said the infinity thing>>was referring to the multi-verse concept

    But thank you for noticing and emphasizing the underlying theory behind above statement

    Edit: basically u have as many universes as u have number of possible dice combinations

    e.g. 1 dice = 6 universes
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Always.Asking
    I said in a multi-verse situation, where u have many separate universes in 4-D(3 dimensions and time) space that completely do not interact with each other.

    Ie. what we see is just 1 universe among many perhaps an infinite number of them

    every event that could ever have occurred where a so called alternative situation could of been envisioned "could go one way or could go another way", basically the multiverse idea is that if u decided to have coffee this morning there is another universe out there that is exactly the same as this universe, until someone who lives and looks like u and has done everything u have done up till this point decides on this morning he will have tea instead of coffee and then u get the split, to 2 alternative universes...
    Well yes if you assume it in your premises then of course it follows.

    But it remains a fact that the universe you speak of is a highly unlikely even unreasonable one, violating the second law of thermodynamics in such a blatant manner.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Well yes if you assume it in your premises then of course it follows.

    But it remains a fact that the universe you speak of is a highly unlikely even unreasonable one, violating the second law of thermodynamics in such a blatant manner.
    lol, yes thats why I said its a completely random thought been awake now working straight for 2 days...so these posts should come with a warning label

    going along the lines of this post will most likely be random and make No sense or logic to anyone who reads it BUT read it anyway as it might be important
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I agree with Arch on this. It is, after all, a thread he started and named. I think the only people with the ability to change titles, are Mods. Since Mitchell has not been commenting the last couple of days, I would suspect he has been away and is not responsible.

    Whatever, I think the title to this thread should be returned to what the originator named it. I have never seen an inflammatory anti-religious topic title euphamized.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I agree with Arch on this. It is, after all, a thread he started and named. I think the only people with the ability to change titles, are Mods. Since Mitchell has not been commenting the last couple of days, I would suspect he has been away and is not responsible.

    Whatever, I think the title to this thread should be returned to what the originator named it. I have never seen an inflammatory anti-religious topic title euphamized.
    I also have to agree with this I think if someone did change the title they should be willing to state that the title was changed and say why it was changed

    I know arch is just expressing his views even though he isnt doing it very well he should still have the right to at least know who and why it was changed



    No hard feelings Arch

    It was just a comment on ur inability to fully grasp the other views found in this thread, and the whole denial attitude u use as a defense for it

    I had no intention for it to be taken as seriously as it did
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
     

  81. #181  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Title change: my money would be on SkinWalker whose contempt for archie is probably around 9.0 on the Richter scale. This is the sort of restrained yet powerful response he would make. Too much imagination for (In)Sanity and Mitchell would have happily pointed out the change to archie, so it has to be Skin.
    Secretly wonders if Homo Universalis has returned to the forum.
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I had the same suspicion, but was reluctant to say so publicly, hoping (In)Sanity would track it down and take appropriate action on his own. In fact, it has not gone beyond my suspicion that Skinwalker could be deceptively posting as a Christian under the name of Archy. He once tee-heed here about how he enjoyed doing that on other forums.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  83. #183  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I had the same suspicion, but was reluctant to say so publicly, hoping (In)Sanity would track it down and take appropriate action on his own. In fact, it has not gone beyond my suspicion that Skinwalker could be deceptively posting as a Christian under the name of Archy. He once tee-heed here about how he enjoyed doing that on other forums.
    What? Archy has a link in his signature. Check it out. It probably was Skinwalker, since Mitch has already told everyone that it was not him. Archy can believe what he will, few people will care.

    Look, to be honest, the new title more accurately reflects the contents of the thread. Archy has stated one of the largest piles of nonsense about evolution I have ever seen. I don't even think I could have done worse if I had tried. He has been completely impervious to corrections provided. He keeps making, frankly, stupid claims about evolution that has been turning into a tired joke. The pit his brand of fundamentalism has dug for him has left him beyond the reach of any length of rope. The best one can do is to try and explain the issues for the benefit of others that might be reading it. In pursuit of such a goal, the new title is wholly appropriate IMO.
    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
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Well, I did not exactly agree with the original title, either. I do not think the objections are "fatal" flaws. Evolution is still alive and well. But I don't think "mis" understandings quite represents both sides of the issue either. The things Archy pointed out are among the points of controversy over interpretations of the information which is available (or not available).

    I hardly think any Mod would have changed a topic title stating "Seven fatal flaws of Chistianity which prove it wrong."

    Even today, as they reveal the new amazing primate fossil found in Germany, there are big questions as to what it means and where it fits. If evolution were a "done deal" as the many evolution enthusiasts here seem to want to believe it is, this fossil's spot would be obvious and clearly evident. It isn't.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  85. #185  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, I did not exactly agree with the original title, either. I do not think the objections are "fatal" flaws. Evolution is still alive and well. But I don't think "mis" understandings quite represents both sides of the issue either. The things Archy pointed out are among the points of controversy over interpretations of the information which is available (or not available).
    Sure. They are points of controversy among creationists.

    I hardly think any Mod would have changed a topic title stating "Seven fatal flaws of Chistianity which prove it wrong."
    It would depend on the content of course, though it would probably consist of a bunch of nonsense as well and might have been sent to pseudoscience or trash. I think merely changing the thread title is less than this thread deserves as a very poor attempt at refuting evolution by someone that refuses to listen to corrections to the lack of logic and understanding displayed.

    Even today, as they reveal the new amazing primate fossil found in Germany, there are big questions as to what it means and where it fits. If evolution were a "done deal" as the many evolution enthusiasts here seem to want to believe it is, this fossil's spot would be obvious and clearly evident. It isn't.
    As has been explained, evolution is an observed fact. Exactly how it happens is where all the research goes into. Finding new data simply helps to refine all the various theories that make up the how. Zebaoth888 posted a link in another thread that is supposed to refute evolution, but he fails to understand how scientific enquiry works. Finding new and unexpected things are good and exciting for scientists! That is exactly what they are after: To understand the world better.
    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
     

  86. #186  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    If evolution or religion were simple there would be no debates would there? What is strange is to state that a system is without flaw. That goes for most systems. So dayton brings an interesting evolution to light - how is a part of the tree of life connected? This is a good example of a 'flaw' in evolution. Well, it's more like an uncertainty than a flaw.

    I claimed Exodus cannot be verified through archaeology. Right or wrong that is my claim. Is the bible any less of an important work if exodus did not happen exactly as stated? Is it a 'flaw'? It's more like an uncertainty than a flaw. The number of people involved, and the locations are unimportant details in my mind.

    It is archy's unflagging claim that the bible is without flaws that is his problem. His position is that he knows the bible perfectly and that the bible is the correct description of the world; both he and the bible are unerring. He is an elitist.
     

  87. #187  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Even today, as they reveal the new amazing primate fossil found in Germany, there are big questions as to what it means and where it fits. If evolution were a "done deal" as the many evolution enthusiasts here seem to want to believe it is, this fossil's spot would be obvious and clearly evident. It isn't.
    Most 'evolutionists' couldn't give a dried turd's worth of interest in primate fossils, since most evolutionists are engaged in research on far more interesting vertebrates, invertebrates and prokaryotes. It is only the Christian fundamentalists, medics and anthropologists who have much of an interest or stake in the human evolutionary record.
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Even today, as they reveal the new amazing primate fossil found in Germany, there are big questions as to what it means and where it fits. If evolution were a "done deal" as the many evolution enthusiasts here seem to want to believe it is, this fossil's spot would be obvious and clearly evident. It isn't.
    Most 'evolutionists' couldn't give a dried turd's worth of interest in primate fossils, since most evolutionists are engaged in research on far more interesting vertebrates, invertebrates and prokaryotes. It is only the Christian fundamentalists, medics and anthropologists who have much of an interest or stake in the human evolutionary record.
    It amazes me how they prefer to think of themselves as machines designed by a watchmaker and feel such horror at kinship with a monkey. I guess they find more dignity in being factory duplicates than in being trained monkeys, but I do not. To be alive is the more important distinction with far more dignity than can be given by manufacture no matter who is the designer. Are they frighted by the greater implied freedom and reponsibility or is this simply grasping at anything to repress the enormous kinship which is starkly obvious and the challenge this presents to a terribly weak faith?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  89. #189  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Twas I that changed the title. And here's why:

    In reviewing the thread, it begins with several fallacious arguments which demonstrate a misunderstanding of evolution. Following are several well-written and largely accurat rebuttals to these misunderstandings.

    Following that is a complete lack of acknowledgement and continued ignorance and misunderstanding of evolution.

    The OP was an attempt to attack science on a science board under the auspices that it was posted in the religion section of that board. But this is a science board and the title change now more accurately reflects the thread's content as well as the stance of the staff and most of the membership and with the stated purpose of The Science Forum "a place where people actually care about scientific research and discussion."

    Anti-science threads and attitudes need not be tolerated or treated with equality to science threads and attitudes, even in the Religion subforum. Such postings are useful in the discourse and participation that they generate, but, at the end of the day, this is a science forum and people do come here for answers, inspiration, and discourse with like-minded people.

    This is why I changed the title of this thread.

    I can appreciate that archy doesn't like being laughed at (who does), but the title change wasn't done to ridicule him. It was to give the thread more utility, which it now has.

    If discussion of the title change continues, don't be surprised if the posts on this topic disappear and reappear in the Site Feedback section. I hesisitate to do this now since some posts are a mix of topic and difficult to split out. If metadiscussion of the thread is desired, please either continue there or make your posts single issue so they can be split without loss of context.
     

  90. #190  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Hmmm. Kalster seems to represent the opposite polarity from Archy.

    Kalster says: (of the objections)

    Sure. They are points of controversy among creationists.
    According to what I was reading about the primate fossil find in Germany, it was all evolutionist people who were discussing the different ways it might be linked to humans. Actually, I guess, they were paleontologists. But whatever their disagreements, it was among evolutionaries, not creationists.

    Evolution advocates who cannot accept that there are legitimate questions are as blinded by whatever their motivation is as are the Archies by their inability to get past what motivates them. Those who are outraged against God are easily as blinded by their zeal as are the over the top enthusiasts of God.

    And I don't care where SkinWalker hides this comment, but I think his unilateral decision to change the title of this thread cloaked in secrecy was an abuse of Mod-power, if not a form of censorship which he himself would not tolerate if it were exercised against him. I did not find the title nearly so offensive toward science as are some of the thread titles offensive to religion in general and Christianity often in specificity. Can we Christians have the same prerogative to change the thread titles we find offensive? Had SkinWalker discussed this with the rest of the Mods and (In)Sanity, had their support and posted an explanation , it may have been somewhat acceptable. But this seems to be the PC way -- OK to offend believers; not OK to offend non-believers.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  91. #191  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Evolution advocates who cannot accept that there are legitimate questions are as blinded by whatever their motivation is as are the Archies by their inability to get past what motivates them. .
    Dayton the disagreements are not over the reality of evolution, but over details of precise pathways from the single common ancestor to any particular species, or on the particulars and nuances of the mechanisms of evolution. It is equivalent to debating whether we should fly to Paris, or take the train, not as to whether or not the Louvre exists, or that there are various methods of transport.

    Creationists routinely try to turn every little dispute like this into a destruction of the very principle of evolution. And it never is.

    And not once do creationists seem prepared to acknowledge that even if they were, by some miracle, to disprove evolution it would in absolutely no way prove creationism. And that - in my far from humble view - is about as stupid as one can be and still cross the road without being run down.
     

  92. #192  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    it was a great abuse of mod power and the original title was correct. this title is nothing but a lie and misrepresents the point being made.

    i have spoken with insanity and have asked him to just return the thread title back to the original. no mod has the authority to change thread titles without permission from the Op which is me in this case.
     

  93. #193  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    i do not accept the reasons skinwalker gave because that is just his and others opinion not fact. i have made a complaint against both him and MM as i did nothing to warrant such treatment and have been subject to a double standard bias, and hatred since i got here.

    i have not ventured into the science threads and wrecked havoc but remained for the most part in this forum. I even cut down my participation here so there would be no accusations or misunderstandings of my involvement.

    there is no reason i should be targeted by the admin because i have stayed within the rules while they have turned a blind eye to the abuse hurled at me.

    what this shows is that the non-christian realm is far worse than the christian one and if you think you are better, your actions certainly have contradicted such conclusions.

    you have to ask yourselves, why are you so afraid of my being here that skinwalker and MM have to violate their authority, the rules and behave in such a mean spirited way?

    i am not anti-science, i am anti-secular science and false theories, in fact all 3-4 of me degrees are scientific ones, just because i side with God does not mean i am wrong or do not know what i am talking about.

    you want to do things your way and that just won't get you the answers you want.
     

  94. #194  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    According to what I was reading about the primate fossil find in Germany, it was all evolutionist people who were discussing the different ways it might be linked to humans. Actually, I guess, they were paleontologists. But whatever their disagreements, it was among evolutionaries, not creationists.
    Its not clear why disagreement over where this early primate fits in the evolutionary tree suggests that there is any weakness to evolution (if that's even what you're suggesting). Indeed, this is clearly a strength and demonstrates the provisional nature of science.

    Evolution advocates who cannot accept that there are legitimate questions are as blinded by whatever their motivation is as are the Archies by their inability to get past what motivates them.
    I'm not aware of any scientists or proponents of evolution who think that biology hasn't any "legitimate questions" remaining, even about evolution. There are plenty. These questions, however, do not impinge on the fact that evolution has occurred and is still occurring.

    Those who are outraged against God are easily as blinded by their zeal as are the over the top enthusiasts of God.
    Again, I'm not aware of too many who are "outraged against God" (yours or anyone elses). These would, necessarily, be believers in whichever god you had in mind though. Perhaps you might look there. As one who holds no god belief, I'm occasionally outraged at the actions and behaviors as well as the overt anti-science tendencies of some god-believers.

    Can we Christians have the same prerogative to change the thread titles we find offensive?
    I would expect nothing less if I were participating on a forum (of comparable or larger size) where reason and rational discourse were abandoned in favor of superstition and religious cult doctrine. Indeed, I expect I'd not even be given voice to dissent from their superstitions and doctrines.
     

  95. #195  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    John Galt said:

    Dayton the disagreements are not over the reality of evolution, but over details of precise pathways from the single common ancestor to any particular species, or on the particulars and nuances of the mechanisms of evolution.
    That is true when you consider only those who believe that we will eventually discover pathways back to common ancestors. It would not be true of those who think such pathways cannot be explained because they do not exist. But often, it also revolves around which reality one wants to subscribe to.

    As to the second part, I suspect there is general agreement concerning potential mechanisms such at mutation or genetic preferences for adaptations. However, discussion still surrounds questions such as how come the only mutations we have ever observed have been detrimental to the mutated version.

    Or how do you reconcile the thousands of years it takes for adaptations to evolve with the millions of species which would need to have adapted in fewer millions of years? It is not like there is an adaptation of the month club.

    I understand the evolutionist position as being sort of like if I came up to you and said, "Hey, my car won't start." And you reply, "That's no problem, think nothing of it." Well, sure, it's not a problem for you, but it damn well is for me.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
     

  96. #196  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    And I don't care where SkinWalker hides this comment, but I think his unilateral decision to change the title of this thread cloaked in secrecy was an abuse of Mod-power, if not a form of censorship which he himself would not tolerate if it were exercised against him. I did not find the title nearly so offensive toward science as are some of the thread titles offensive to religion in general and Christianity often in specificity. Can we Christians have the same prerogative to change the thread titles we find offensive? Had SkinWalker discussed this with the rest of the Mods and (In)Sanity, had their support and posted an explanation , it may have been somewhat acceptable. But this seems to be the PC way -- OK to offend believers; not OK to offend non-believers.
    There is perhaps a bit of the primate or Baboon like behavior in this, that the most univerally unpopular and disliked member of the group is fair game. It is not a behavior that I would like to see at church or in a project of my own creation and fully under my own authority, BUT since the situation has not arisen in the closest I have come to that (being the teacher in a classroom) I don't feel that I have a really solid foundation to pass judgment. And anyway this is not quite the same kind of environment as a classroom and none of the people here have quite the same obligations to professional behavior either.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
     

  97. #197  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    MM should be more upset as it is his authority that is now maligned and undermined. such disrespect towards a moderator, even though i disagree with him, should not go unchallenged.

    such arbitrary action when the situation did not call for is clearly unethical and shows that the admin will play games with members. such hatred for cannot be tolerated for a website that advocates objectivity. objectivity is not limited to only those comments and ideas that one favors.

    it means putting up with those ideas that dissent from one's chosen preference or alternative. this act, coupled with the many that sent threads and posts to the trash, show that skinwalker has no integrity whatsoever and that is not a trait that needs to be absent when one is in a position of authority.

    his arbitrary methods demonstrate that he cannot be impartial nor fair but will let his own bias and emotions influence his decisions. that is just wrong.
     

  98. #198  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    That is true when you consider only those who believe that we will eventually discover pathways back to common ancestors. It would not be true of those who think such pathways cannot be explained because they do not exist. But often, it also revolves around which reality one wants to subscribe to.
    Dayton the issue with connections is that we see different life forms across time. There are past points in time in which there are no mammals, fish, birds, or insects. The question is not why life forms have changed on earth. The question is where did the life forms come from.

    There are mammals today. There are no mammals in Cambrian times. It turns out that reptiles are the ancestors of mammals. The sequence is well documented.

    So if you do not want ancestors to exist then you have to invoke creation many times over the history of the earth.
     

  99. #199  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Wow archy. Hatred, liar, unethical, ... Lots of tough words.

    Take a deep breath. I am still waiting for an answer as to why Gen 1:30 says evolution is impossible.
     

  100. #200  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie

    So if you do not want ancestors to exist then you have to invoke creation many times over the history of the earth.
    Probably every few minute throughout 90% of the Earth's history right up and including closely observed events in the field and lab when it appears some new characteristic was advantageous to survival and directly resulted in the the extinction of another species.
     

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •