Notices
Results 1 to 77 of 77

Thread: Mark Isaak

  1. #1 Mark Isaak 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Hi all,
    I'm new here and was wondering, has any one has read Mark Isaak's book
    "The Counter-Creationsim Handbook?


    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Haven't read it. It's basically TalkOrigins in book form. I have heard it's good though.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Mark Isaak 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Hi all,
    I'm new here and was wondering, has any one has read Mark Isaak's book
    "The Counter-Creationsim Handbook?
    Almost certainly someone has read it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    It seems to be popular in evolution circles as the complete guide to destroying the creation theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Counter evolution,
    since the book you refer to is called Counter Creation and sets out to debunk Creation myth, is it reasonable to suppose that with the name 'counter evolution' your goal is to debunk evolutionary theory?

    I'll answer that question myself. Yes, it is reasonable to suppose that. It will likely only turn out to be a false supposition if you were unreasonable in your choice of name.

    So, what is your take on the evolution-creation debate? Have you read Isaak's book? Do you intend to?


    Turning for a moment to your last post, let me take you to task on a couple of seemingly superficial points.

    1. You refer to the creation theory (sic). That suggests there is only one. Don't you think that is rather offensive to the hundreds of creation tales handed down over many generations by peoples around the world? I imagine it was a slip, a momentary lapse of attention, otherwise such usage would suggest an arrogant and elitist view of the world.

    2. Since this is a science forum and you are posting in the Biology section it would probably be best to use technical terms correctly. Theory is a technical term. Creation myths are not theories. Refering to creation theory elevates such myths to a level apparently equivalent to scientific theories on origins. This is exactly what creationists and promoters of Intelligent Design have been trying to do with great deliberation for the past couple of decades. Is it your intention to support their attemtps?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    When I refer to the creation theory, I mean the Biblical Creation theory.
    This is not a myth like many other cultural stories.
    The defenition of a theory is this:
    "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to on another"

    To get back to Isaak, in his book he barely scratches the surface when he tries to explain how Creationist claims are based on bad science. He dosen't put forward all the claims Creationists make.
    On the back of the book he states that his book will inform people with no scientific background on how to respond to these claims. He does no such thing.
    The layout in his book is as follows:

    A. Creationist claim of fault in Evolution theory.
    B. Source of claim (eg. author, paper...)
    C. States why it is not correct.

    There are several hundred such claims laid out in several larger categories.

    Isaak does not explain both sides of the argument and try to defend his chosen theory. He simply states in as few sentences as possible that the claim is wrong. How could anyone but qualified scientists understand this. He gives them lines to say which could fall apart at any hint of debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    You say he barely scratches the surface, but that he deals with hundreds of creationist claims. Do you see a contradiction here? How would you have him handle the matter? Can you see a criticism that might arise were he to handle the matter otherwise?

    Creationism, like global warming scepticism, has a general tactic in 'the debate' of throwing as much mud into the water as possible. In other words, to try to cast doubt rather than to shed light.

    Some are motivated by fear and doubt, others by light. Evolution shines a very bright light, providing a clear explanation of the origin of species and diversity of life on earth. It says nothing about God of course, regardless of what religious types will say in their efforts to muddy the waters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    The hundreds of claims Isaak deals with are few compared to the amount many Creationists find with evolution. As to how else he could handle it he could either list every claim in a three-volume work. He wouldn't like to do this beacause many claims cannot be supported or refuted from either side. For some there he has no answer. How would you suggest he avoid these pitfalls?

    Global Warming is a government scam to increase their incomes and give them more power. Less than 20% of atmospheric scientists belive global warming is a threat. 75% don't see a problem, the others are on the fence.

    Evolutionists tend to never explain how they came by their answers. Far from confusing people Creationists will happily tell you every detail you desire to know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,154
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Evolutionists tend to never explain how they came by their answers. Far from confusing people Creationists will happily tell you every detail you desire to know.
    The "explanations" provided tend to either avoid the physical evidence to the mountains (often literally mountains) contrary to the creationism concept though, or misinterpret a small piece of evidence as proof of creationism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    it always interests me how creationists are more often than not also global warming deniers - either this reflects a similar state of mind, or something that is common to a certain part of the political spectrum
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    it always interests me how creationists are more often than not also global warming deniers - either this reflects a similar state of mind, or something that is common to a certain part of the political spectrum
    Yeah, that is interesting isn't it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

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

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Paleoichneum,
    What evidence in mountains do you refer to?
    What evidence do you think Creationists ignore?
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,154
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Paleoichneum,
    What evidence in mountains do you refer to?
    Orogeny, plate tectonics, paleomagnetism, radio-isotope data

    What evidence do you think Creationists ignore?[/quote]

    Orogeny, plate tectonics, paleomagnetism, radio-isotope data, continuity in the fossil record
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Counter, from your name, I was worried that this was where the thread was going. I am going to move this thread to pseudoscience, because it is very well-established at this stage that creationism is not science. It has literally no support in the scientific community and is falsified by even the most casually-obtainable evidence.

    I would encourage anyone interested in this topic to please continue posting. Please don't take this move as an attempt to stifle discussion. Just calling a spade a spade here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    When I refer to the creation theory, I mean the Biblical Creation theory.
    This is not a myth like many other cultural stories.
    Yes it is. From a scientific perspective (you may have noticed this is a science forum) there is no significant or unambiguous evidence supporting the Genesis myths, but there is a substantial body of both independent and mutually supportive evidence that falsifies it.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    The defenition of a theory is this:
    "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to on another"
    This does not describe what is meant by a theory in science. It misses that mark by a light year.

    A theory is a body of thinking that describes and explains some phenomena and which includes a mass of supportive evidence and validated predictions. (A better definition could be written, but this comes very much closer to that than your irrelevant dictionary(?) definition.)

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    To get back to Isaak, in his book he barely scratches the surface when he tries to explain how Creationist claims are based on bad science. .
    I am sure you are correct. Creationist claims are so bizarre, illogical, ill conceived, ignorant, delusional and dishonest that a single book could only ever hope to 'scratch the surface'. Surely it is unecessary to point this out?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    He dosen't put forward all the claims Creationists make.
    What are some of the important ones he misses out? Perhaps you could list the top twenty missing ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    On the back of the book he states that his book will inform people with no scientific background on how to respond to these claims.
    I haven't read the book. I haven't read the cover of the book. However, are you sure he states this rather than the publisher? Normally the dust jacket contains marketing hype, not the author's own pitch.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Isaak does not explain both sides of the argument and try to defend his chosen theory. He simply states in as few sentences as possible that the claim is wrong. How could anyone but qualified scientists understand this. He gives them lines to say which could fall apart at any hint of debate.
    Perhaps you could give a single example to demonstrate your point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Evolutionists tend to never explain how they came by their answers.
    Forgive me, but this is a truly ignorant statement. That is to say you are seemingly ignorant of the vast volume of explanations provided by evolutionists.
    Darwin himself described On the Origin of Species as 'one long argument'. The hundreds of text books, thousands of monographs and hundreds of thousands of research papers do nothing but provide detailed, documented, verified, validated, peer reviewed explanations. I am startled that you can make such a bizarre statement. The only way I can presently envisage that you can justify it is through the applications of red herrings such as 'well, evolution does not explain abiogenesis'.

    So please, prove me wrong. Give me an evolutionist's answer that they do not explain and I shall do my level best to a) explain it, b) show where it has been explained already by evolutionists.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Creationists will happily tell you every detail you desire to know.
    Fine. Why is the creation myth in Genesis 1 different from and in contradiction to that in Genesis 2?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    There is less evidence to even begin supporting evolution than Creation. To say there is not enough proof to validate Creation is bizarre. I would suggest some homework on the matter and find some contradicting evidence.

    Science has never and will never prove a thing. You say a theory could predict from a mass of evidence. What if the opposing evidence is greater than the supporting? If science can't prove anything why trust it to predict the future?

    Many claims Creationists make are ignored. It is assumed that evolutionists have no logical answer. If you can answer them all please do.

    An example from Isaak's book:

    CH200: The universe is 6,000-10,000 years old. (Creationist claim)

    1. The age of the earth is 4.5 billion years. (Isaak's response)

    Is this all he can say? He could at least give some shred of "evidence" to support his ridiculos claim. Could you try to explain how "scientists" came to this "inescapable conclusion"?

    Call me stupid but the only error that could be in Genesis is a printing error.

    As for the top twenty claims I will get back to you with full details.
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    There is less evidence to even begin supporting evolution than Creation.
    Can you explain this statement please.
    On the one side I am aware of volumes of evidence from palaeontology, comparative anatomy, genetics, microbiology, ethology and a variety of other sciences that support evolution.
    Even if we just take a few highlights, such as the works of Darwin, Wallace, Huxley, Mendel, Mayr, Fisher, Simpson, Haldane, Dhobzhansky, and Gould, we have a volume that far exceeds that for creation. Please identify this vast volume of evidence for creation and explain how it exceeds the clearly visible volume for evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    To say there is not enough proof to validate Creation is bizarre. I would suggest some homework on the matter and find some contradicting evidence.
    I have been doing homework on the matter for five decades. Some of the contradicting evidence is to be found in the work of the authors I have referred to above. Very much more is to be found in the text books, monographs and research papers I mentioned in my previous post. If there is so much proof for creationism please point me towards two of these proofs.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Science has never and will never prove a thing. .
    You seem to think your statement shows the weakness of science, whereas it reveals its great strength.
    Science does not deal with proof, for it is not so arrogant. Science deals with the balance of probabilities. Sometimes, as is the case with evolution, the balance is so powerful in a particular direction that the matter is taken to be proven - it would be cavalier not to. However, if falsifying evidence were to be found and confirmed then science would reject or modify the theory accordingly.



    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    What if the opposing evidence is greater than the supporting?
    Then, as noted above, the current theory will be modified or abandoned. Such is most definitely not the case for evolutionary theory, which is as robust as just about any theory in any of the sciences.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If science can't prove anything why trust it to predict the future?
    It is not the business of science to predict the future, at least not in the sense you appear to mean it.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Many claims Creationists make are ignored. It is assumed that evolutionists have no logical answer. If you can answer them all please do..
    Well I can hardly answer these claims until you tell me what they are. Stop prevaricating and give me at least one of them to begin with. I've asked once, now I am asking again. Yes, I'd like twenty of the claims to work on, but a single one would let me get started. Surely it can't be that difficult to have included just one in your last post?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    An example from Isaak's book:
    If the example represents the bulk of Isaak's book then I would reach the following conclusions. It is a poor quality book of little value other than using as a door stop. It certainly has nothing to do with the proper practice or exposition of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Could you try to explain how "scientists" came to this "inescapable conclusion"?
    Certainly. We have observed that some elements decay over time to other elements. The rate of this decay has been established. Many observations support the notion that this decay rate is constant for any particular element.
    By measuring the proportion of each element in a rock or mineral we can thus determine the probable age at which that rock or mineral formed. The formation of the solar system from a collapsing gas cloud is supported by observational, modelling and cosmochemical evidence. Meteorites are remains of the process. Their ages measure out to the value quoted by Isaak.

    This is obviously a grossly simplified explanation. I shall be happy to expand any aspect of it about which you have questions or reservations.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Call me stupid but the only error that could be in Genesis is a printing error.
    Now I am genuinely puzzled. It appears from your statement that I would be justified in calling you stupid.

    In Genesis 1 we read in verse 11
    וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים תַּֽדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב
    מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע עֵץ פְּרִי עֹשֶׂה פְּרִי לְמִינֹו אֲשֶׁר
    זַרְעֹו־בֹו עַל־הָאָרֶץ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

    This is rendered in the KJV as
    And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.


    This was on the third day.

    However, in Genesis 2, verses 8 and 9 it is written:
    וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים גַּן־בְעֵדֶן מִקֶּדֶם וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם
    אֶת־הָֽאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָֽר׃
    וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן־הָאֲדָמָה כָּל־עֵץ נֶחְמָד
    לְמַרְאֶה וְטֹוב לְמַאֲכָל וְעֵץ הַֽחַיִּים בְּתֹוךְ הַגָּן
    וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טֹוב וָרָֽע׃

    Which in the KJV is given as
    And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
    And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


    So clearly in Genesis 2 the Lord made trees suitable for food after he had created man, whereas their creation preceeds the creation of man in the account in Genesis 1. You say the only error in Genesis could be a printing error. Is this printing error present in all Bibles?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    How do you put a date on the earth?
    Please try and tell me how you manage to date your elements.

    After five decades studying it is surprising you haven't seen alll the faults in evolution. Maybe you should try checking your evidence against Creationists.
    For example how do explain the fossil record's habit of not conforming to your interpretations of it.?

    If science doesn't prove anything your theory is obselete. Creation is based on a religion. Therefore the fact that science will never prove either theory is unimportant to Creationists.

    The volume of evidence supporting Creation is commonly known. You don't have to be literate to understand it. It is far more visible than evolution's evidence. It is Nature. Creationists have not yet come across a fact or piece of evidence that does not fit in to the theory.

    As for Genesis 1-2 God made man perfect in every way. This means that they would not have a need for food. I trust this is the problem you have in understanding this.

    As no one seems eager to give some overwhelming evidence for evolution which ultimately doesn't exist, I shall give some for Creation. An easy one to start with.
    I will assume you think man and dinosaurs lived in seperate time periods.
    How do you explain the fossils that speak against this?
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Reading this thread is like watching a four-year-old try desperately to fight a heavyweight boxing champion. The boxer doesn't quite know what to make of the situation, and the child is completely convinced he's got the boxer on the ropes.

    CE, I suggest you watch these two video series before continuing to make an absolute fool of yourself. Be careful, you might learn something.

    From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy

    Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Are all evolutionists that ignorant and narrow-minded?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Reading this thread is like watching a four-year-old try desperately to fight a heavyweight boxing champion. The boxer doesn't quite know what to make of the situation, and the child is completely convinced he's got the boxer on the ropes.
    That is a pretty accurate description. It astounds me that people like this are still running around still utterly convinced of the nonsense they spout.

    Counter Evolution, I really suggest you try and understand the scientific method as you will only gain from the understanding. The amount of gobsmacking ignorance you have shown is huge. Believe me when I say that you only make a fool of yourself when you enter into debates with such a poor understanding of that which you are attempting to refute. Believe me also that you are winning NO hearts with this approach and are conforming to a very negative stereotype, which is that creationists attack evolution and a broad range of other sciences with the knowledge of much less than a highschool graduate. Believe me when I say that you are not making any inroads whatsoever into the established science by this frankly pathetic attempt and are not gaining any of the hearts of those that are reading it. Can you tell me, what was your purpose for joining this forum? If it was for straightforward and honest discussion of the facts and the science, then you have come to the right place and we will be happy to explain any issues you might have. If it is merely to start handwaving and dismissing established science with zero credible evidence (as fits the stereotype) then you will do nothing else other than to strengthen the stereotype. I honestly hope it is the former.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

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

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Are all evolutionists that ignorant and narrow-minded?
    That question is answered in both of the video series you ignored. They explain how science, by design, seeks out and exposes errors in current understanding because that is the only way said understanding can improve. This is why science has improved every single aspect of your life in every possible way while creationists like yourself have had to lie at every opportunity just to sound credible.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Counter evolution, I have asked you a number of questions and made a request twice, yet you continue to ignore these.
    1.Please identify the vast volume of evidence for creation which you claim exists and explain how it exceeds the clearly visible volume for evolution.
    2. If there is so much proof for creationism please point me towards two of these proofs.
    3. Stop prevaricating and give me at least one of the examples of a Creationist claim that is ignored. (This is the third time I have asked you for this. Do you realise that your continued refusal is rude. I was brought up to beleive that Christians should be polite. Do you hold a different view?)

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    How do you put a date on the earth?
    Please try and tell me how you manage to date your elements.
    I have already explained that we can measure the rate at which radioactive elements decay into their daughter elements. Once this rate is known through careful laboratory measurement it is a simple matter to measure the ratio of the two elements (radioactive element and daughter product). This allows us to calculate the time when the elements were 'secured' in the rock or mineral.

    I am not clear what part of this process you are unsure of. If you cannot specifically state the nature of your confusion, then I cannot easily help to improve your understanding.

    I have further explained, in my prior post, that the age of the Earth is revealed by measuring the age of meteorites, which represent the remnants of the material from which the Earth was formed. This age is further confirmed by the age of recycled zircons, as in the case of the Jack Hills metasediments in Australia.

    Once more, tell me what part of this explanation you are having trouble with and I shall do my best to explain it to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    After five decades studying it is surprising you haven't seen alll the faults in evolution.
    Please tell me two of the faults that exist in evolutionary theory. You seem well versed in it yourself to be able to know of these faults. What are they? Don't prevaricate again, just give me two examples.
    Remember that you have to demonstrate there is a fault, not simply state that there is one.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Maybe you should try checking your evidence against Creationists.
    I have. In every instance the Creationist's position is lacking and their evidence is non-existent. If you know of an exception to this please present it now.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    For example how do explain the fossil record's habit of not conforming to your interpretations of it.?
    Please give an example of this. I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If science doesn't prove anything your theory is obselete. Creation is based on a religion. Therefore the fact that science will never prove either theory is unimportant to Creationists.
    I wonder if you would take the time in future to write in comprehensible English. I have no idea what you are blabbering about.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    The volume of evidence supporting Creation is commonly known. You don't have to be literate to understand it. It is far more visible than evolution's evidence. It is Nature.
    What in Nature is evidence for Creation. It may be commonly known to you. It is most certainly not commonly known to me. Please share it.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    As for Genesis 1-2 God made man perfect in every way. This means that they would not have a need for food. I trust this is the problem you have in understanding this.
    You have quite missed the point.

    In Genesis 1 the trees and fruits are created on the third day, before the creation of man.
    In Genesis 2 the trees and fruits are created after the creation of man.

    Which is correct? One sayx they came before man; one says they came after. It is irrelevant whether or not man needed them to eat. The words are clear. I have give them to you in English and the original Hebrew in case you have reservations about translations. Both accounts cannot be correct because they are mutually exclusive. Which is correct and how do you account for the error?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    As for Genesis 1-2 God made man perfect in every way. This means that they would not have a need for food. I trust this is the problem you have in understanding this.
    You have quite missed the point.

    In Genesis 1 the trees and fruits are created on the third day, before the creation of man.
    In Genesis 2 the trees and fruits are created after the creation of man.

    Which is correct? One sayx they came before man; one says they came after. It is irrelevant whether or not man needed them to eat. The words are clear. I have give them to you in English and the original Hebrew in case you have reservations about translations. Both accounts cannot be correct because they are mutually exclusive. Which is correct and how do you account for the error?
    I've never heard a good explanation for this one. Counter, would you enlighten us?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Finger,
    Science is not something by which to destroy what any religion or belief system may teach. Wha makes you think science is not a religion. On one of those videos he stated that relgion by definition is a bias. Evolution and atheism are religions. They beleive that nothing is in control of the universe.

    Creationists make it a point of honour to not lie when defending their beliefs.

    Opholite,
    Radiometric dating is useless for dating objects older than 3,000 years let alone 4.5 billion years.

    Two major faults of evolution:
    1. The evolution of feathers. How do scales become feathers?
    2. The evolution of the eye. How does a spot become an eye?

    How do you explain the fossil in the Creation Musem which shows a fish in the process of eating another fish?

    I shall say it again, it doesn't bother Creationists that their theory isn't currently accepted by "scientists". Creation is based on Christianity and therefore doesn't rely on science's theories.

    The eruption of Mount St. Helens is proof enough that evolution is false.

    As for Genesis 1:11 and 2:8-9 this is where you have misunderstood the words.
    In Gensis 1:1 it says God created all plants and trees etc.

    In Genesis 1:26 it says "and let us make man in our own image...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

    In Genesis 2:8-9 God planted a special garden for this man. In it he placed every tree that was pleasant and good.

    There is no contradiction. The plants were made before man. God wished for this man to have his own place to live. So he made the garden later.

    Now perhaps you could show me some evidence for evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Now perhaps you could show me some evidence for evolution.
    Take all of the known living and extinct eukaryotic species on Earth, look at the traits they possess, and then arrange the species according to those traits. Linnaeus, an 18th-century scientist, found that doing this by morphological traits alone resulted in nested tree relationships. All of the species with bony skeletons are a subset of species with vertebral columns. All of the species with camera-style eyes are a subset of those and so on. We never see violations of the nested subset configuration, such as mammals with arthropod-style exoskeltons, or arthropods with bony spinal columns. Centuries later, as we became able to get down to the fundamentals of traits, genetics, we found that these findings held true on a genetic level. All of the known characterised eukaryotic species on Earth appear to be arranged in a nested tree configuration. It is a prediction of evolution that we should only see this configuration broken if a species is capable of horizontal gene transfer. And that's what we do see- eukaryotes in a nested tree configuration, prokaryotes in a tree broken by HGT events.

    A tree is not what we would expect to see in designed objects and indeed we do not. Look at the traits of designed objects such as telephones and computers and instead of a nested tree, we find a complex web. Modern phones have traits derived from older phones but also from computers. Mobile phones combine technology from several different lineages, such as computers, older phones, radios, media devices and cameras. Instead of bifurcating each time, the groups collide- which is good design! We always look to unconventional sources for new traits to combine.

    If life was designed, it was designed by a closed minded idiot. There are small, much preyed-upon, mammals that might well benefit from a protective exoskeleton, or insects that might make good use of lungs rather than the the awkward gas exchange system that currently limits their maximum size. Put simply, although complex, the taxonomy of life agrees with the predictions of the Darwinian theory. By contrast, the creation proposition makes no specific predictions in this regard, since the configuration of taxonomy would depend entirely on features of the purported designer which are not defined in the proposition and which are put off limits to investigation by creationists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Opholite,
    Radiometric dating is useless for dating objects older than 3,000 years let alone 4.5 billion years.

    Two major faults of evolution:
    1. The evolution of feathers. How do scales become feathers?
    2. The evolution of the eye. How does a spot become an eye?

    How do you explain the fossil in the Creation Musem which shows a fish in the process of eating another fish?

    I shall say it again, it doesn't bother Creationists that their theory isn't currently accepted by "scientists". Creation is based on Christianity and therefore doesn't rely on science's theories.

    The eruption of Mount St. Helens is proof enough that evolution is false.

    As for Genesis 1:11 and 2:8-9 this is where you have misunderstood the words.
    In Gensis 1:1 it says God created all plants and trees etc.

    In Genesis 1:26 it says "and let us make man in our own image...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

    In Genesis 2:8-9 God planted a special garden for this man. In it he placed every tree that was pleasant and good.

    There is no contradiction. The plants were made before man. God wished for this man to have his own place to live. So he made the garden later.

    Now perhaps you could show me some evidence for evolution.
    The bolded part... Explain how a volcanic eruption disputes evolution? And why is it important that there is a fossil of a fish, eating another fish? So what? What is the relevance of these 2 things?

    As for the italicized part... I believe you disregarded the point that was raised entirely. Where in Genesis 2 does it state, implicitly, that man was made after the vegetation? It explicitly mentions the creation of man, prior to the creation of vegetation. This is his point (albeit, it is weak), and it is not being addressed properly.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Now perhaps you could show me some evidence for evolution.
    Take all of the known living and extinct eukaryotic species on Earth, look at the traits they possess, and then arrange the species according to those traits. Linnaeus, an 18th-century scientist, found that doing this by morphological traits alone resulted in nested tree relationships. All of the species with bony skeletons are a subset of species with vertebral columns. All of the species with camera-style eyes are a subset of those and so on. We never see violations of the nested subset configuration, such as mammals with arthropod-style exoskeltons, or arthropods with bony spinal columns. Centuries later, as we became able to get down to the fundamentals of traits, genetics, we found that these findings held true on a genetic level. All of the known characterised eukaryotic species on Earth appear to be arranged in a nested tree configuration. It is a prediction of evolution that we should only see this configuration broken if a species is capable of horizontal gene transfer. And that's what we do see- eukaryotes in a nested tree configuration, prokaryotes in a tree broken by HGT events.

    A tree is not what we would expect to see in designed objects and indeed we do not. Look at the traits of designed objects such as telephones and computers and instead of a nested tree, we find a complex web. Modern phones have traits derived from older phones but also from computers. Mobile phones combine technology from several different lineages, such as computers, older phones, radios, media devices and cameras. Instead of bifurcating each time, the groups collide- which is good design! We always look to unconventional sources for new traits to combine.

    If life was designed, it was designed by a closed minded idiot. There are small, much preyed-upon, mammals that might well benefit from a protective exoskeleton, or insects that might make good use of lungs rather than the the awkward gas exchange system that currently limits their maximum size. Put simply, although complex, the taxonomy of life agrees with the predictions of the Darwinian theory. By contrast, the creation proposition makes no specific predictions in this regard, since the configuration of taxonomy would depend entirely on features of the purported designer which are not defined in the proposition and which are put off limits to investigation by creationists.
    Actually, to be fair, the design of life is much different than the design of technology. You would look to make a dynamic ecosystem, not a super species. I don't believe it's fair to say that the way we design our telecommunication systems and our technological advances, even architecture, is really comparative to how a being would design life on a planet.

    In all right, if every species was made perfect, life would be either very difficult, even impossible to sustain, or very boring and, to a proposed creator, not even worth sustaining.

    I'm not condoning creationism, I'm just rebutting that specific argument against creationism.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Actually, to be fair, the design of life is much different than the design of technology. You would look to make a dynamic ecosystem, not a super species.
    That's an argument against perfect species, not against the bizarrely restricted design choices made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I don't believe it's fair to say that the way we design our telecommunication systems and our technological advances, even architecture, is really comparative to how a being would design life on a planet.
    Why not? Lets say we want the species to balance well in an eco system. Does that mean we won't look to unrelated species for traits which best achieve a given goal? Because that's what we see in Earth life, without exception. Except where there is HGT, violations of the bifurcating tree are not found. In design, they're expected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    In all right, if every species was made perfect, life would be either very difficult, even impossible to sustain, or very boring and, to a proposed creator, not even worth sustaining.
    Never for a moment suggested every species should be perfect even if designed. I don't think you've quite grasped my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I'm not condoning creationism, I'm just rebutting that specific argument against creationism.
    It's not an argument against creationism, it's an argument for evolution. It's not a dichotomy. Creationism makes no specific predictions regarding phylogeny, evolution does. These predictions are borne out by the evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    A tree is not what we would expect to see in designed objects and indeed we do not. Look at the traits of designed objects such as telephones and computers and instead of a nested tree, we find a complex web. Modern phones have traits derived from older phones but also from computers. Mobile phones combine technology from several different lineages, such as computers, older phones, radios, media devices and cameras. Instead of bifurcating each time, the groups collide- which is good design! We always look to unconventional sources for new traits to combine.
    This quote makes specific arguments against intelligent design, by comparing it to the designs of technology.

    Life isn't as easy to design as telephones, computers, and what have you. in the design of technology, we see that we do want a super species, we do attempt to make perfection. There certainly would be a correlative that design draws on other successful subjects, but it isn't necessary to an intelligent design to mix and match everything. As I said, there is no "iphone" in the natural world. We see a telephone, a beeper, a pony express, and fax machines, but nothing that has complete benefits. I would think a designer of life on a planet would take things like this into account. The iphone dominates the communication industry, and doesn't leave much room for anything else to thrive. Something like that in nature would become a sole-species and potentially destroy an ecosystem.

    I do realize that my argument is a bit out of left field, but when you have a highly successful species, drawing on the success of other species, it tends to be not only dominant, but potentially "life-ending" as it consumes all and then fails to reproduce and survive. It is because of this type of scenario, something that doesn't happen in our design process, that leads me to believe the two subjects should be treated different by a designer.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    This quote makes specific arguments against intelligent design, by comparing it to the designs of technology.

    Life isn't as easy to design as telephones, computers, and what have you. in the design of technology, we see that we do want a super species, we do attempt to make perfection.
    No, we want fitness for intended function. Different designers will have all sorts of different motives when it comes to things like competition. Especially in the case of a company making multiple products with overlapping features. Case in point, Apple do not want the iPhone, iPad and iMac to compete too much with one another. Plus there are circumstances under which it may suit them to collaborate with a competitor. These are all things we can observe and understand about human designers, shedding light on human designs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    There certainly would be a correlative that design draws on other successful subjects, but it isn't necessary to an intelligent design to mix and match everything.
    Not everything, no. But at least something. Especially if we're suggesting it all has one designer. The extent to which we'd expect to see collisions in the phylogeny depends on some factors not defined in the propositions made by creationists and ID proponents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    As I said, there is no "iphone" in the natural world. We see a telephone, a beeper, a pony express, and fax machines, but nothing that has complete benefits. I would think a designer of life on a planet would take things like this into account.
    Why? Why would that neccessarily be a motive of the designer? Certainly, if you define that habit of the designer in the hypothesis, then you can make such an assertion. But of course we'd need to be able to test that, along with other relevant characteristics, such as aesthetic preference, design capabilities and such. Creation and ID propositions don't define the designer in these terms, and certainly offer no means to test these characteristics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    The iphone dominates the communication industry, and doesn't leave much room for anything else to thrive. Something like that in nature would become a sole-species and potentially destroy an ecosystem.
    Only relevant if the super species cannot survive alone and the designer actually desires diversity. Again, if so, that needs to be an element of the proposition and a testable characteristic of the designer. Otherwise we're just looking at what is there, assuming it is designed and then using that to define the designer, which is circular logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I do realize that my argument is a bit out of left field, but when you have a highly successful species, drawing on the success of other species, it tends to be not only dominant, but potentially "life-ending" as it consumes all and then fails to reproduce and survive. It is because of this type of scenario, something that doesn't happen in our design process, that leads me to believe the two subjects should be treated different by a designer.
    Perhaps they should, but is it beyond a designer to take some inspiration from mutliple sources whilst also maintaining a balance? More importantly, I'm not talking about cobbling together perfect species, I'm just talking about sensible re-use of previous designs. For example, why design the camera-style eye more than once (for cephalopods and then vertebrates), ditto for things like wings ("designed" at least three different ways), fins (at least twice) and legs (at least three times depending on definitions). Why do not only that, but then insist that each fundemental re-design is restricted via the nested phylogeny rather than by niche? Exoskeletal legs only to arthropoda whatever the niche, bony legs to vertebrates and so forth?

    The only circumstance I can imagine under which we would expect a strictly maintained, nested, bifurcating phylogeny for designed objects, is if the designer wished to make it appear as though the objects evolved by natural selection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I agree, designers would most likely look to other structures when designing a feature of an animal. And, as you said, the motives of each individual designer differ, and in all right, are unknown to all but the designer. There is no evidence that the natural world is designed, true, but there is no necessity that it wasn't designed, either. Logically, there is no reason for the natural world to have been designed at all, seeing as we have a less assumptive theory.

    I just wanted to point out that there isn't any necessary nor known trait for what a life-designer would consider when making a creation. It's simply not something we ever have to consider as humans.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Creationists make it a point of honour to not lie when defending their beliefs.

    Opholite,
    Radiometric dating is useless for dating objects older than 3,000 years let alone 4.5 billion years.
    You are mistaken, or you are lying. Since it is a point of honour for you not to lie, then you must be mistaken.

    There are many methods of radiometric dating. Radiocarbon dating is most appropriate for short time spans. It is of little value for ages greater than 50,000 years. This is considerably more than the 3,000 years you mistakenly refer to.
    Other techniques are well suited for the much longer time spans we are talking about. It appears that you have not studied this subject at all and have pciked up some gross, inaccurate simplifications from biased sources. Do you wish to learn, or are you afraid of the truth?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Two major faults of evolution:
    1. The evolution of feathers. How do scales become feathers?
    2. The evolution of the eye. How does a spot become an eye?
    Those comments are foolish. These are not major faults of evolution. They were particular examples of evolution that at one time were not properly understood. That is no longer the case. We have a very good idea how both of these evolved. The details are always being refined. That's what we do in science. Move closer and closer to the truth through observation, hard work and creative thinking. We don't read it all up in an old book.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    How do you explain the fossil in the Creation Musem which shows a fish in the process of eating another fish.
    Are you unaware that some fish are predators? What do you think has to be explained?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    The eruption of Mount St. Helens is proof enough that evolution is false.
    What!!! How does that prove evolution false? Are you just making shit up as you go along or do you have a sub standard IQ?


    Your explanation for the contradictions in Genesis simply do not work.


    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Now perhaps you could show me some evidence for evolution.
    How do you expect me to summarise the work of tens of thousands of researchers spanning over one and a half centuries? you say you do not lie, yet asking for the evidence in such a way, when it is clear you have no intention of paying any attention to it, or giving it even a smidgeon of consideration is deeplydishonest. If a personal God exists, more especially if the Christian God exists I assure you he has marked that action as a sin.

    Now give me some assurance that you will actually look at the evidence with an open mind and I shall withdraw those last remarks. Your choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Opholite,
    For someone stupid enough to not believe in God, it is quite amazing that you seem to know what he would call a sin.

    If you wish to know more about the eruption of Mount St. Helens please ask.

    As for my two faults in evolution, please try to answer them in a logical way.

    If you say that not all of evolution is understood, why believe it?

    Creationists know their theory inside out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Creationists know their theory inside out.
    Not surprising, since only the most functionally challenged can't remember "God did it".

    I asked you a question Counter evolution, please answer it. I'll repeat it for you:

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Can you tell me, what was your purpose for joining this forum? If it was for straightforward and honest discussion of the facts and the science, then you have come to the right place and we will be happy to explain any issues you might have. If it is merely to start handwaving and dismissing established science with zero credible evidence (as fits the stereotype) then you will do nothing else other than to strengthen the stereotype. I honestly hope it is the former.
    I already know the answer, but I want to know how you justify it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

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

  38. #37  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,154
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Opholite,
    For someone stupid enough to not believe in God, it is quite amazing that you seem to know what he would call a sin.
    First off please stay civil, there was no reason to call Ophiolote stupid. It is very reasonable for someone to have knowledge of things considered to be sins even if they do no believe in "god".

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If you wish to know more about the eruption of Mount St. Helens please ask.

    As for my two faults in evolution, please try to answer them in a logical way.

    If you say that not all of evolution is understood, why believe it?

    Creationists know their theory inside out.
    you have been asked twice now once by Arcane_mathematician a page ago and by Ophiolite directly above!

    As has been stated numerous times evolution is much better understood then creationism and fits the evidence, which creationism does not in any way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Counter, no response to my overview of some of the evidence for evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If you wish to know more about the eruption of Mount St. Helens please ask.
    We're asking. How does the eruption of Mount St. Helens falsify the theory of evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If you say that not all of evolution is understood, why believe it?
    If we have a left-handed murder suspect with gunshot residue on his left hand, a gun with left-handed finger prints matching the suspect on the handle and trigger, a victim dead from a gunshot wound traced to the gun and a well established motive for murder, do we need to match the suspects socks to fibres found at the scene? It is desirable to have the full picture, but not always possible, and certainly not required for us to believe the evidence. There comes a stage when we need only reject a proposition due to contradictory evidence rather than lack of evidence. In law that stage is called reasonable doubt. In science it is called "theory".

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    As for my two faults in evolution, please try to answer them in a logical way.
    Well if we're going to be logical, counter, there is no need. You haven't pointed out flaws, you've pointed out someting you find hard to believe, and which was once not well-understood. Even if it were still not explained, it would not be a flaw in evolution, it would merely be unexplained. You're making an argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance, which is something of a major logical faux pas, albeit one commonly employed in rhetorical, rather than evidence-based, argument.
    To tie it back to my analogy above, it would be like the defence attorney at the murder case saying "ah, but there were brown cotton fibres found at the scene and you've failed to show what colour the suspect's socks were, therefore he did not murder the victim". When the body of established evidence is strong, the absence of evidence does not falsify a theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Creationists know their theory inside out.
    Which one? YEC, OEC or ID? There's also Islamic Creationism... though I suspect you's dismiss that one? What exactly is the theory, what is the central hypothesis you are proposing. Bearing in mind that hypotheses must be falsifiable to be scientific, what evidence, hypothetically, would show creationism to be wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I agree, designers would most likely look to other structures when designing a feature of an animal. And, as you said, the motives of each individual designer differ, and in all right, are unknown to all but the designer.
    Well no- motives can be determined by direct observation, questioning and inference, and can be very informative. My point on that is that such traits of the designer do not form a testable part of the creation proposition, except in the sense that the designer is broadly anthropomorphized and did things to a certain framework (baramin etc) within a certain timeframe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    There is no evidence that the natural world is designed, true, but there is no necessity that it wasn't designed, either.
    On this we agree, however I would contend that there is a necessity that it wasn't designed as vaguely proposed by creationists and ID proponents. The phylogeny contradicts even the rough predictions those propositions make. Would you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Logically, there is no reason for the natural world to have been designed at all, seeing as we have a less assumptive theory.
    I agree with this. The proposition fails Occam's Razor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    I agree, designers would most likely look to other structures when designing a feature of an animal. And, as you said, the motives of each individual designer differ, and in all right, are unknown to all but the designer.
    Well no- motives can be determined by direct observation, questioning and inference, and can be very informative. My point on that is that such traits of the designer do not form a testable part of the creation proposition, except in the sense that the designer is broadly anthropomorphized and did things to a certain framework (baramin etc) within a certain timeframe.
    I disagree. We can make a very very highly educated guess, but we can't know. observation of the process can give us insight, maybe great insight, but it can't tell us exactly what the designer was thinking. Even the designer imparting unto us that knowledge, it's still impossible to know if the individual was entirely truthful, deceitful, or even aware of any small lies they might or might not have said.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    There is no evidence that the natural world is designed, true, but there is no necessity that it wasn't designed, either.
    On this we agree, however I would contend that there is a necessity that it wasn't designed as vaguely proposed by creationists and ID proponents. The phylogeny contradicts even the rough predictions those propositions make. Would you agree?
    Yes. I agree that creationist and the majority of ID propositions are necessarily false based of the assertions they make, but I don't agree that Intelligent Design is in and of itself inherently false. I don't think there is a necessity that design wasn't used, but I also wholeheartedly agree with you that creationists are wrong. It's the simple bit of closing out the entirety of the blanket term that I disagree with. in all honesty, I believe that if there were design, it would have occurred in the Cambrian explosion and likely no where else. Evolution is, by all right, very very likely to be true, and I would think it to be the process through which the phylogeny appears.

    The origins of life are the only place I can conceive of design being even remotely relevant.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Opholite,
    For someone stupid enough to not believe in God, it is quite amazing that you seem to know what he would call a sin..
    I am perplexed. Where in my last post, or any post on this thread, or any post on this forum, or any post on the half dozen forums I frequent, do I declare that I do not believe in God? I would really like to know where that post is, for it exists I would like to edit it and thereby correct it.

    I know enough of the Christian God and the Christian ethos and the Christian Bible, having been considered a potential candidate for the ministry, to know that you have very likely sinned in some of your posts here. The ultimate decision on that is mot made by you, or by me, but by that God, but the circumstances point strongly towards your guilt.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If you wish to know more about the eruption of Mount St. Helens please ask..
    I have asked. How the hell does the eruption of Mount St. Helens disprove evolution?

    And while we are at it you consistently fail to reply to most of the points that are made undermining your position, or fail to answer most of the questions directed to you. Why is that?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    As for my two faults in evolution, please try to answer them in a logical way.
    I shall be happy to do so when you explain why they are faults.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If you say that not all of evolution is understood, why believe it?
    We don't understand everything about the Second World War. Do you deny it happened?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Kalster,
    I do not understand your first statement. Please elaborate.

    I can say this, not one scrap of scientific evidence discovered by any scientist in history does not fit and agree with the Creation theory.
    If you wish to dispute this first find a piece of evidence that goes against the theory and then tell me how it disagrees with it.

    My intention in joining this forum was to discuss honestly the facts discovered thus far. If the sterotype of a Creationist is as you describe then you must have never met a Creationist. Also in joining this forum, I expected to have my questions answered. No one seems capable of this.

    Paleoichneum,
    Evolution tries to fit into the available evidence, the evidence fits into the Creation theory like a glove.

    You are entitled to assume that I am being rude. That is your right as a thinking human being. I do not intend to be rude.

    Biologista,
    Since the beginning of history new discoveries are being made in all the areas that science covers. People used to believe that the earth was at the center of the universe until they were told otherwise. Hospitals weren't clean till Louis Pasteur discovered germs that invaded the human body. My point is this, why trust such a fickle academic subject on the very important question of where life came from?


    If you don't know which Creation theory I'm talking about now, you either haven't read my previous posts or you don't know much about the Creation-evolution debate.

    Out of interest, has anyone on this site ever had a face-to-face debate with a Creationist? Or do you all hide behind the screen and find faults in the way I type my replies to avoid answering my questions?

    Opholite,
    You cannot believe in God and support evolution. (Just so you don't argue over which god I mean, I refer to the God in the Bible.) They are like two opposing magnets.

    Just what is so sinful and dishonest about asking for evidence? How do you know I won't consider it when you never give me any?

    Please try to tell me how scales became feathers and spots became eyes. Do not evade the question again.

    As for Mount. St. Helens where shall I start?
    I shall make it as easy to understand as possible. Please don't hesitate to ask questions.

    Let's start with canyons. During the eruption several large 7ft deep mudflows devastated the surrounding area. One formed a canyon that is called the "Little Grand Canyon". It is 100ft deep and a little wider. This canyon was formed in one day by a mudflow. After the mud flow gorged this canyon out it was reduced to a little stream of water. If you say the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be eroded by the tiny Colorado River, you are mistaken. The Flood formed the Grand Canyon by flowing off the continental shelf to the ocean and left this conyon behind. And if mud made a canyon in a day, can you imagine what fast-flowing water could do in that time. Do not assume that just beacause their is a small river flowing in the bottom of a canyon that the river was the cause.

    Sediment was laid down in 25ft thick layers with thousands of smaller layers. These layers were formed in less than 10 hours. According to evolution each layer is formed over long periods of time.

    The hot ground-hugging steam explosion was blasted at speeds of over 650 miles per hour (300 meters per second) and destroyed 200 square miles (500 square kilometers) in ten minutes. 90% of this steam cloud was superheated water. For miles around trees were blown over and every bit of life was vaporized. Despite all this several years after the explosion life returned in all kinds, much to the surprise of biologists.

    Many of the remaining logs that were uprooted were deposited on top of Spirit Lake. Over one million logs covered over half of the surface of the lake. Within days three feet of peat was formed on the lake bed. If the volcano erupted again and buried it with volcanic ash, coal would be formed rapidly. Coal and peat do not take years to form.


    In your post on wednesday at 1:22 a.m. you swore about my satement about this eruption. My respect for you as an intelligent individual has dropped. Whether this effects you or not I sincerely hope your action does not represent the rest of the evoultionist community.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Since the beginning of history new discoveries are being made in all the areas that science covers. People used to believe that the earth was at the center of the universe until they were told otherwise. Hospitals weren't clean till Louis Pasteur discovered germs that invaded the human body. My point is this, why trust such a fickle academic subject on the very important question of where life came from?
    I'm confused. Are you suggesting that scientists should not change their beliefs based on new evidence? That this is some weakness? Would you not contend that creationism is a science? Does it not propose that we change our beliefs (from evolution to creation) based on evidence?

    Do you consider evolution to be a science or to be dogmatic? If it is based on a system which changes its mind based on the evidence, is it not a science by your definition above? Even if you consider it to be a science that is incorrect?

    If you consider changing one's mind based on new information to be a failing, what do you propose as a better philosophy?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If you don't know which Creation theory I'm talking about now, you either haven't read my previous posts or you don't know much about the Creation-evolution debate.
    I know a fair bit about various Creation propositions, I have discussed them extensively with their proponents. It's not entirely clear from your earlier posts which flavour you prefer, but it seems from your recent comments on the grand canyon that it is some variant of YEC. Would that be correct?

    Do you have no comments regarding my evidence for evolution? You keep saying you want to discuss evidence but you haven't responded to that point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    As for Mount. St. Helens where shall I start?
    I shall make it as easy to understand as possible. Please don't hesitate to ask questions.

    Let's start with canyons. During the eruption several large 7ft deep mudflows devastated the surrounding area. One formed a canyon that is called the "Little Grand Canyon". It is 100ft deep and a little wider. This canyon was formed in one day by a mudflow. After the mud flow gorged this canyon out it was reduced to a little stream of water. If you say the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be eroded by the tiny Colorado River, you are mistaken. The Flood formed the Grand Canyon by flowing off the continental shelf to the ocean and left this conyon behind. And if mud made a canyon in a day, can you imagine what fast-flowing water could do in that time. Do not assume that just beacause their is a small river flowing in the bottom of a canyon that the river was the cause.

    Sediment was laid down in 25ft thick layers with thousands of smaller layers. These layers were formed in less than 10 hours. According to evolution each layer is formed over long periods of time.

    The hot ground-hugging steam explosion was blasted at speeds of over 650 miles per hour (300 meters per second) and destroyed 200 square miles (500 square kilometers) in ten minutes. 90% of this steam cloud was superheated water. For miles around trees were blown over and every bit of life was vaporized. Despite all this several years after the explosion life returned in all kinds, much to the surprise of biologists.

    Many of the remaining logs that were uprooted were deposited on top of Spirit Lake. Over one million logs covered over half of the surface of the lake. Within days three feet of peat was formed on the lake bed. If the volcano erupted again and buried it with volcanic ash, coal would be formed rapidly. Coal and peat do not take years to form.


    In your post on wednesday at 1:22 a.m. you swore about my satement about this eruption. My respect for you as an intelligent individual has dropped. Whether this effects you or not I sincerely hope your action does not represent the rest of the evoultionist community.
    Alright, this crapfest has to stop. The canyon you are referring to being created by the mount St. Helen's eruption was created by super heated, acidic, and corrosive materials. The mud was mixed with sulfuric acid in the form of free sulfates in the ash and gasses being released by the eruption. this corrosive mixture would OBVIOUSLY cause far faster erosion than plain old ordinary water... Now, how do you then explain the lack of a canyon in the amazon basin? Why is there no massive and deep canyon there? And what about the shallow canyon that the Yangtze River carves through China? How do you explain these? There were no major events that caused the destruction here.

    The volcanic eruption causing rapid erosion is much different than a massive amount of water causing rapid erosion. They are not equatable.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    As for Mount. St. Helens where shall I start?
    I shall make it as easy to understand as possible. Please don't hesitate to ask questions.

    Let's start with canyons. During the eruption several large 7ft deep mudflows devastated the surrounding area. One formed a canyon that is called the "Little Grand Canyon". It is 100ft deep and a little wider. This canyon was formed in one day by a mudflow. After the mud flow gorged this canyon out it was reduced to a little stream of water. If you say the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be eroded by the tiny Colorado River, you are mistaken. The Flood formed the Grand Canyon by flowing off the continental shelf to the ocean and left this conyon behind. And if mud made a canyon in a day, can you imagine what fast-flowing water could do in that time. Do not assume that just beacause their is a small river flowing in the bottom of a canyon that the river was the cause.

    Sediment was laid down in 25ft thick layers with thousands of smaller layers. These layers were formed in less than 10 hours. According to evolution each layer is formed over long periods of time.

    The hot ground-hugging steam explosion was blasted at speeds of over 650 miles per hour (300 meters per second) and destroyed 200 square miles (500 square kilometers) in ten minutes. 90% of this steam cloud was superheated water. For miles around trees were blown over and every bit of life was vaporized. Despite all this several years after the explosion life returned in all kinds, much to the surprise of biologists.

    Many of the remaining logs that were uprooted were deposited on top of Spirit Lake. Over one million logs covered over half of the surface of the lake. Within days three feet of peat was formed on the lake bed. If the volcano erupted again and buried it with volcanic ash, coal would be formed rapidly. Coal and peat do not take years to form.


    In your post on wednesday at 1:22 a.m. you swore about my satement about this eruption. My respect for you as an intelligent individual has dropped. Whether this effects you or not I sincerely hope your action does not represent the rest of the evoultionist community.
    Alright, this crapfest has to stop. The canyon you are referring to being created by the mount St. Helen's eruption was created by super heated, acidic, and corrosive materials. The mud was mixed with sulfuric acid in the form of free sulfates in the ash and gasses being released by the eruption. this corrosive mixture would OBVIOUSLY cause far faster erosion than plain old ordinary water... Now, how do you then explain the lack of a canyon in the amazon basin? Why is there no massive and deep canyon there? And what about the shallow canyon that the Yangtze River carves through China? How do you explain these? There were no major events that caused the destruction here.

    The volcanic eruption causing rapid erosion is much different than a massive amount of water causing rapid erosion. They are not equatable.
    If I recall rightly, the grand canyon and this "little grand canyon" are not very alike anyway. The course of the little, rapidly-formed one being rather straight due to the rapid process involved whilst the grand canyon meanders widely just like the flow of a relatively weak, low energy river, rather than the course of fast flowing torrent of water, which ought to be much straighter.

    Correct me if I'm off on this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    you are one hundred percent correct bio. That is generally how we would speculate the processes to work. however, I'm certain that CE will dispute that.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You asked me by pm to respond to one of your earlier posts.
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Opholite,
    For someone stupid enough to not believe in God, it is quite amazing that you seem to know what he would call a sin.
    1. You have not demosntrated that not believing in God is stupid. Therfore your statement that I am stupid is unscientific. Consequently your statement has to be viewed as an insult. I suppose if I valued your opinion I would be offended.
    2. Since your God sets out in elaborate detail in the Old and New Testaments what is and is not sinful, and since I have studied these proscriptions in similar detail over the course of more than five decades, then yes, it I do think I know what your God would call a sin.
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If you wish to know more about the eruption of Mount St. Helens please ask.
    The creationist nonsense on Mt. St. Helens. has been adequately dealt with by others. If you think not, please say what you found unclear.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    As for my two faults in evolution, please try to answer them in a logical way.
    I repeat that I am prepared to do so if you convince me you are willing to put in the effort, with an open mind, to explore the groundwork you need to understand the explanation. Are you willing to do so?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If you say that not all of evolution is understood, why believe it?
    We believe it because of the huge volume of evidence that supports it. It is trite and nonsensical to declare that because we lack knowledge of a specifc that we should therefore discard the general. I do not know what my wife was wearing when I left home this morning. I do not therefore reject the idea that my wife was at home this morning.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Creationists know their theory inside out.
    You see this as a strength. Science sees it as a weakness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Arcane,
    According to evolutionists the area we know as Scotland experienced extreme volcanic activity many years ago. If this is so then why didn't all these volcanoes erode the entire northern half of Britain. With the amount of eruptions and timescale it occured in, surley the acidic mud and lava flows would have made a bigger impression than they have.

    Ophiolite,

    Perhaps you could remind me how I have wronged you. Then I'll either apologize or educate you as to what I meant.

    I am perfectly willing to listen to your side of the argument.

    By saying that you don't know everything about your theory, are you suggesting that there is a mythical side to evolution? Or are there aspects you would rather not discuss?

    I ask you again to read my post in which I pointed out some evidence for Creation at Mt. St. Helens.
    Then answer my growing list of questions.

    1. What is my apparent sin?

    2. Tell me how scales became feathers and spots became eyes.

    3. Why don't you know your theory inside out?
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I know you addressed these points to Arcane, but as a Scottish geologist I feel obliged to answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    According to evolutionists the area we know as Scotland experienced extreme volcanic activity many years ago. If this is so then why didn't all these volcanoes erode the entire northern half of Britain.
    Vulcanism is primarily a constructive force. The destruction of many square miles of forest surronding Mt. St. Helens was more than balanced by the deposition of ash across a much wider area.

    One of the reasons some of the responses to your posts may come across as patronising lies in that question. It is puzzling to me how anyone could choose to challenge the theories of a science when they are ignorant of something so fundamental. What I see is someone - you that is - making conclusions from something like Mt. St. Helens, or Tertiary vulcanism in Britain, when you don't understand the very simplest basics. Do you see our problem with your approach?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    With the amount of eruptions and timescale it occured in, surley the acidic mud and lava flows would have made a bigger impression than they have.
    I think you are confused on two counts. First, the eruptions have made a pretty big impression. Skye, Mull, Islay, many of the western isles would not be there if ther had been no eruptions.

    Secondly you misunderstand the use of the word acidic in the context of lava. An acidic lava is one with a high percentage of silica, it is not one that is acidic in the sense of hydrochloric acid. Moreover, the majority of the Tertiary eruptions were of basaltic lava, low in silica.

    I also take it you have never spent time in Scotland. Everywhere are signs of volcanic activity predating the Tertiary outbursts. There are extensive Carboniferous and Devonian lava flows in the Midland Valley, some of which I've had the pleasure of mapping. To the south west there are obducted submarine lavas, part of an ophiolite suite, from which I took my forum name. In the north there are many granite intrusions covering substantial parts of the countryside.

    One could argue that Scotland's scenery is primarily a volcanic scenery. I think it might be taking it a little far, butcertainly to say the viulcanism has not made a big impression is to speak out of ignorance. I hope I have been able to remove that ignorance for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Perhaps you could remind me how I have wronged you. Then I'll either apologize or educate you as to what I meant.
    You haven't actually wronged me, since I don't as yet place much value on your opinion, but you have accused me of being stupid. Most people might view that as insulting.

    Now please note that being stupid and being ignorant are two different things. You were ignorant of the extensive effects of vulcanism in Scotland. I believe I have now educated you somewhat in this regard. You are no longer ignorant. (If you choose to ignore the facts I have presented you with then it would be accurate to describe you as stupid, but I am confident that won't be necessary.)

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    By saying that you don't know everything about your theory, are you suggesting that there is a mythical side to evolution?
    Certainly not. Evolution theory is based upon a huge range of data from anatomy, palaeontology, developmental biology, genetics, and so forth. If I were a research scientist it would take nearly all my effort to stay abreast of the developments say of Late Permian ostracods. That tiny segment relating to evolutionary theory I could just about stay current with. It would simply be impossible though, for one person to know all the details that relate to and confirm evolutionary theory in every branch of every subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Or are there aspects you would rather not discuss??
    I am prepared to discuss any aspect and to state when a particualr topic is outside my general knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    I ask you again to read my post in which I pointed out some evidence for Creation at Mt. St. Helens.
    I see no evidence for creation in anything you posted on Mt. St. Helens. I do see further evidence that you don't understand geological processes and the first evidence (that I've noticed) that you think popular accounts of scientific observations carry any particular weight.
    Arcane and Biologista pointed out the flaws in the silly argument presented in your post. Is that really all you have from Mt. St. Helens?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    1. What is my apparent sin?
    You are twisting and misinterpreting evidence. This is either done out of ignorance, stupidity, or a blind, cynical adherence to religious dogma. I don't think you are stupid. I am now prepared to consider the possibility that you are simply ignorant. If you show a willingness to learn then I will retract my claims of sin (which were only provisional anyway). So are you willing to learn. I've asked you that several times - you don't respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    2. Tell me how scales became feathers and spots became eyes.?
    I am not au fait with the details of this. The evolution of eyes and feathers holds no special interest for me. There are far more interesting developments from my perspective. It is unreasonable of you to expect me to be able offer you an explanation without doing a little literary research. This is the same kind of research you could do.

    Now why should I spend time doing research to answer a question I don't find especially interesting in order to provide you with an answer you will choose not to believe? Give me some sign that you will be truly prepared to objectively consider the evidence and I shall undertake that effort. What do you say?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    3. Why don't you know your theory inside out?
    This is why I accused you of sin. This question is either stupid, ignorant or mind numbingly cynical. You didn't like me swearing before, even though I don't think I did. Well tough shit. How the fuck do you expect anyone to understand every tiny detail of a theory that is backed up by hundreds of thousands of research papers, written by tens of thousands of researchers, upon thousands of research topics. Get real!

    Guess what! I can't recall whether the opithsoparian suture precedes or follows the gonatoparian suture in trilobites. I don't recall if the lopohore in brachiopods was always symmetrical. I'm not certain how crinoid morphology aids the identification of asynchronous facies. I've little idea of how, if at all, exons can be used to determine the rate of mutation in DNA. I can't look at the ischium of a fossil vertebrae and tell you instantly whether it could raise itself on its hind legs.

    I could go on adding to this list for the rest of my life with all the things I don't know about the theory of evolution and you want to make something of this! OK then. Fair is fair. Just what was Jesus doing seven hundred and eighty seven days before he was crucified? I mean you do know everything about your theory, don't you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Ophiolite,
    I do not care if you don't value anything I've said before or what I am about to.
    I am saying this so you know what I think whether you care or not.

    I had hoped I could have a debate with people on this website. I didn't expect it to turn into an insult match.

    Every time I try to bring up a subject or ask a question, instead of answering it or peacefully explaining your viewpoint, you have accused me of sinning in the eyes of a god you don't believe in, insulted my intelligence and evaded any sort of debate. You wave your five decades of research around as if it somehow makes you a special person. I don't care about your years of research if they don't make it to your keyboard.

    The fact that you stoop so low as to swear openly to me is quite frankly despicable.
    I don't know what you want me to think but I certainly don't respect your so-called intelligence.

    The way you search my posts for something trivial to argue over is quite immature. I would expect a person of your age would have grown out of it.
    Arguing trivialities instead of straightly answering questions is common for people who don't really know what they are arguing for.

    Ultimatley you are incapable of debating. To avoid asking any more uncomfortable questions of you I will not post here again until you can apologise and have a mature debate without getting angry at me.
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Hold up a mirror. Take a good hard look at your posts in this thread and my responses. I have tried diligently to answer every one your reasonable questions and to explain when your questions were unreasonable.

    You have failed to acknowledge my responses to the first and you have followed up the second category with yet more unreasonable statements or demands.

    Depite repeated requests you have given me no assurances that you will seriously consider evidence when presented and take the time to properly study the background data. Will you do so now?

    What trivialities have I argued about? I have taken your comments and questions seriously. i have made no trivial remarks in my posts. Are you saying you have? I have treated every one of your comments or questions as a serious comment or question. That is not the same as considering it a good comment or question, but I certainly have not viewed any of them as trivial. So I ask again which of your points or questions that I have responded to was trivial?

    In my last post I invested considerable time to answer honestly and as accurately as possible each point you had raised. At the end of that I swore at you. Tough. You did worse than swear at me and at others in this thread through the snide, belligerent attitude you frequently struck. I'll apologise for my swearing when you apologise for your own patronsing rudeness. I hope we can reach this accomodation. Tell you what, I'll apologise anyway. I regret that I found it necessary to swear at you as a last ditch means of trying to convey how utterly rude, offensive, ignorant, patronising and distasteful your professed attitude on this thread had been. Your turn.

    And I shall repeat this. If you genuinely want a debate or discussion respond to this. This is at least the third time of asking.
    counter evolution wrote:
    2. Tell me how scales became feathers and spots became eyes.?
    I am not au fait with the details of this. The evolution of eyes and feathers holds no special interest for me. There are far more interesting developments from my perspective. It is unreasonable of you to expect me to be able offer you an explanation without doing a little literary research. This is the same kind of research you could do.

    Now why should I spend time doing research to answer a question I don't find especially interesting in order to provide you with an answer you will choose not to believe? Give me some sign that you will be truly prepared to objectively consider the evidence and I shall undertake that effort. What do you say?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Arcane,
    According to evolutionists the area we know as Scotland experienced extreme volcanic activity many years ago. If this is so then why didn't all these volcanoes erode the entire northern half of Britain. With the amount of eruptions and timescale it occured in, surley the acidic mud and lava flows would have made a bigger impression than they have.
    No, not surely. Actually, the mud flows and acid pour would carve out some, but not all, due to the fact that those eruptions weren't concentrated on a single area and direction the way St. Helen's was. The volcanic eruption of St. Helen's was Directional when half the mountain shot off from the pressure. And, as has been stated in prior posts, the type of canyon created by a volcanic eruption is different than by a river.

    And you never addressed my questions to you concerning the other major rivers of the world that experience immense flooding.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Forgive my very late reply. I thought you ought to know that I have been studying geologly so as to accomodate your point of view.

    Ophilite, thank you for your apolgy for swearing at me.
    I hope you will forgive me for asking this but I don't understand what you want me to apologize for. I will gladly apologize for it if you could point it out to me.

    I have said that I will listen to your argument but you haven't given any sign that you have any to offer. I formally state that I will listen to your opinions and study them. Is that good enough? If not please tell me how to prove that I will listen to you.

    As you seem to only understand geology I will stick in that area out of respect for you. I hope that you will be able to answer these questions. I ask you to try to answer without saying that you have already explained them. Start from the beginning. Write a pamphlet if necessary.

    1. Explian how sedimentary layers were laid in minutes at the eruption of Mt. St.Helens.

    2. Explain how the fossil of a fish in the process of eating another took millions of years to form without the fishes rotting.

    3. Explain how tree trunks and a whale were found petrified upright through several layers of strata.

    4. Explain how peat and therefore coal was formed in days after the eruption of Mt. St.Helens.

    Again, I ask you to point out what I have done wrong by you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    2. Explain how the fossil of a fish in the process of eating another took millions of years to form without the fishes rotting.
    for the same reason dead fish won't rot in a freezer. Bacterial growth is inhibited and bacteria on the whole were likely killed. No bacteria, no rot.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    3. Explain how tree trunks and a whale were found petrified upright through several layers of strata.
    First, the animal and plants were petrified. After this, what very likely happened is that (depending on where they were found) either seismic activity opened up a fissure in the surface for the petrified artifacts to fall into, a sinkhole collapsed and the petrified objects fell in, or an ice/thin sediment layer collapsed into a chasm and deposited the artifacts. afaik those theories are the most likely, though I'd have to know where these were found and how old they are believed to be in order to be more specific for you.



    Would you care to refute my last post, please, as you seem to be avoiding a simple question that is paramount to your position on the grand canyon, or please retract your point, and admit you were wrong.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    I hope you will forgive me for asking this but I don't understand what you want me to apologize for. I will gladly apologize for it if you could point it out to me..
    For being patronisingly rude. If you dont' see where you were doing this I suggest you take a long hard look at each of your posts. They are the eptiome of snide beligerence.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    I have said that I will listen to your argument but you haven't given any sign that you have any to offer.
    And there is a perfect example of what I am talking about. I have offered specific arguments in summary form in several posts in this thread. Some examples:
    1. I explained why your use of the word theory was wrong in any scientific context.
    2. I explained why your claim "Evolutionists tend to never explain how they came by their answers." was incredibly ignorant, ignoring the millions of words written on the evidence over the last one and a half centuries.
    3. I offered you clear evidence that their are contradictory statements in Genesis, including both the Hebrew and the KJV of the relvant passages.

    As I worked through my posts looking for further examples I mainly found pleas on my part, asking you to please respond to earlier requests. You usually ignored these.

    So, excuse me, but you are either stupid, singularily poor at English comprehension, or deliberately obtuse, for I have given every indication that I have many arguments to offer. You have displayed a decided lack of interest in listening to them.

    I was asking you to apologise for the arrogance that prompted you to make such a patently false statement, but I've decided there is little hope in that direction. Instead I shall refocus on the topic and now let me make it clear: Regardless of what you think or don't think I am more than ready to put forward arguments for any aspect of evolution that you wish to explore.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    As you seem to only understand geology I will stick in that area out of respect for you.
    Snide and patronising. If you didn't intend it that way then the Chinese fortune cookie says you may have problems with interpersonal relationships.
    1. Explian how sedimentary layers were laid in minutes at the eruption of Mt. St.Helens.

    2. Explain how the fossil of a fish in the process of eating another took millions of years to form without the fishes rotting.

    3. Explain how tree trunks and a whale were found petrified upright through several layers of strata.

    4. Explain how peat and therefore coal was formed in days after the eruption of Mt. St.Helens.
    I shall address each one of these once we have established it as a bona fide question. Please provide references that will allow me to assess the reality of each instance, otherwise these simply become hearsay. Science does not work on hearsay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I shall address each one of these once we have established it as a bona fide question. Please provide references that will allow me to assess the reality of each instance, otherwise these simply become hearsay. Science does not work on hearsay.
    Yeah, unless we can see some primary evidence that, for example, coal was formed de novo at the site, then who is to say it actually happened?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Before I inform anyone of the source of my questions I would just like to ask Biologist something.

    If you say that coal might not of been created as I stated beacause I haven't given proof that anyone saw it happen, then I could say the same about the theory of evolution. How can you say life began as you believe if no one was around till billions of years later. Surley any primary evidence has been eliminated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    I think I have proven the theory of evolution in one of my publications.

    Creationism is really a pisspoor theory if you start thinking about it, unless you are willing to accept the fact that the designer, God is really an incompetent moron. He can't even get the basics right of design. He messes up structures, puts them where they shouldn't be. Makes nerves several meters too long in a giraffe, gives us hemorrhoids, and all that crap.

    So I am actually willing to support the theory of an incompetent creator creating all the life as we know it, and also at the same time devising a system of physical and chemical properties that all point towards some silly theory that could be called evolution.

    But if you start accepting that you can just as well start speculating that your posts were written by your sphincter. Well, actually that wouldn't even be far of the truth probably.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Before I inform anyone of the source of my questions I would just like to ask Biologist something.
    No. No stalling. You can go on forever with semantics. Your next post should begin sourcing the evidence for your 4 assertions above. As site administrator, I'm telling you nothing else is acceptable on this science forum.

    Consider this a warning against trolling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    If you say that coal might not of been created as I stated beacause I haven't given proof that anyone saw it happen, .
    No one is making this assertion. You have stated that "peat and therefore coal was formed in days after the eruption of Mt. St.Helens".

    I have no idea whether or not this is true. I am quite happy to accept it is true if it can be deomstrated that the evidence for it was gathered and analysed in a scinetific manner. I just want to know where this evidence and its analysis was presented. I don't want to hear that you were told this by some guy in a bar, or read it in a copy of The Watchtower. I just want to know what the source is.

    This isn't some sort of trick CE, this is how science works. A claim is made, the claimant is expected to cite his sources. I've been asked to do it many times. I have always complied, or made clear at the outset that I recalled reading something, but could not now find the reference. In the latter case I would only offer the observation up as an interesting item, not as part of an argument.
    so, please, without further ado can you provided the sources for your claims. thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Before I inform anyone of the source of my questions I would just like to ask Biologist something.

    If you say that coal might not of been created as I stated beacause I haven't given proof that anyone saw it happen, then I could say the same about the theory of evolution. How can you say life began as you believe if no one was around till billions of years later. Surley any primary evidence has been eliminated.
    I'm not for a moment suggesting that we can't say that coal was formed new at a site without observing the process. On the contrary, given the circumstances at the time, the evidence would have to be less direct than this- and if it were good non-direct non-firsthand non-observational evidence, I would be more than happy to accept it.

    Now, you've made the claim, so please provide the evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I've noticed that there is only usually one creationist on a science forum at a time. do you think they take it in turns as a sort of penance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Spuriousmonkey,
    I have never or ever will come across a fault in God's creation besides the the evil deeds of mankind. If you are so angry at God for the poor giraffes take it up with him rather than blaspheming him.

    Ophiolite,
    You say science does not work on hearsay yet your belief in evolution is based entirely on the personal conclusions of Darwin and his followers. Please do not suggest that I would act like this when we have the Bible to tell us what happened in the beginning.

    I do not care how you define the word theory, I know what it means and that Creation is one without you twisting its meaning to get evolution to be thought of as a theory.

    Evolutions never answer the important questions like why are we here, where are we going and what is after death.

    As for mistakes in the Bible I have never found or ever will find a fault in it. I am not a trained theologian and I apologize if I made you think that I could eliminate your doubts on this subject.

    The 600ft layers of water deposited sediments which were deposited at the eruption of Mt. St.Helens are strikingly familiar to those found in the greater geological record.

    During the steam explosion over four million trees were deposited on top of Spirit Lake. Within several days peat was covering the bottom of the lake bed. This is not an assumption. Divers went under the logs and studied the results first hand.

    In the Creation Museum near Cincinnati there is a fossil of a fish in the process of eating another fish. This fossil is on the same sedimentary layer. Are you trying to tell me that the fish just laid there and waited to be fossilized?

    Again at Mt St.Helens (there is enough evidence of creation in this single event) due to the amount of logs on the surafce of the lake there was a threat of it flooding the area. The Army Corps of Engineers were brought in to lower the waters. Parts of the lake bed were now visible and it was realised that some of the logs were standing upright. Obviously if these were left to fossilize they would stretch through different sedimentary layers. And the logs would not have time to rot over many millions of years it would have happened a lot faster so as to preserve the log. As for the whale that was found in California it do not follow the afore mentioned fish and wait to be preserved. This whale the fish and the trees were all caught in a sudden gigantic rush of water called the Flood. Again at this famous volcano fresh basalts were laid down and these same basalts were supposedly two million years old according to the reliable radioametric method.
    "It does not take long ages to form rock, it just takes the right conditions."


    Sources: Footprints in the Ash by John Morris and Steve Austin
    www.creationism.org
    www.creationmuseum.org
    The results of the eruption at Mt. St.Helens were seen by Creationists and evolutionists alike. Only one of this pair twists the truth.

    Please feel free to ask any questions

    And could Ophiolite please tell me what he does and doesn't know about so I could have and educated discussion with him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,154
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    The 600ft layers of water deposited sediments which were deposited at the eruption of Mt. St.Helens are strikingly familiar to those found in the greater geological record.
    In what ways and what specific parts of the geologic record?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    During the steam explosion over four million trees were deposited on top of Spirit Lake. Within several days peat was covering the bottom of the lake bed. This is not an assumption. Divers went under the logs and studied the results first hand.
    4 million? the lake was/is not nearly that large. You are thinking of the 4 billion board feet of lumber (trees) felled by the blast in total.

    do you have a source (none creationist) for the peat assertion?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    In the Creation Museum near Cincinnati there is a fossil of a fish in the process of eating another fish. This fossil is on the same sedimentary layer. Are you trying to tell me that the fish just laid there and waited to be fossilized?
    So nothing has ever been to ambitious in what its trying to eat and choked? its very simple, fish tried to eat another fish that was too large or got lodged in its gullet killing both. the pair settle to the bottom and are covered over, then fossilized.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Again at Mt St.Helens (there is enough evidence of creation in this single event) due to the amount of logs on the surafce of the lake there was a threat of it flooding the area. The Army Corps of Engineers were brought in to lower the waters. Parts of the lake bed were now visible and it was realised that some of the logs were standing upright.
    No the logs were noted to be floating upright at the surface not in the lake bed upright

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Obviously if these were left to fossilize they would stretch through different sedimentary layers. And the logs would not have time to rot over many millions of years it would have happened a lot faster so as to preserve the log.
    yes they would, point being? if they were in the anoxic environment of the bottom of a lake not they wouldn't rot, but the covering process is much less the "millions of years"

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    As for the whale that was found in California it do not follow the afore mentioned fish and wait to be preserved.
    What whale?????

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    This whale the fish and the trees were all caught in a sudden gigantic rush of water called the Flood.
    So where are the bunnies in the Cambrian then? To put it more broadly, why are salt water organisms only found in saltwater type deposits, Freshwater ones found only in freshwater deposits, anomalocarids only in the cambrian, rhinos only in Tertiary, etc,...

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Again at this famous volcano fresh basalts were laid down and these same basalts were supposedly two million years old according to the reliable radioametric method.
    It has been noted numerous times that the dating method (K-Ar) used on the Mt St. Helens rock by Dr. Austin was chosen by him even though he was aware it was not a valid technique for that age rock. He set out to purposely get a false result and did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Welcome back to the discussion counter evolution. It has been sometime since your last post and I have not reread this thread, so I shall be at risk of repeating some things.

    Let me also say that you may detect a tone of righteous anger in my posts. This is because of several examples of blatant ignorance or smug complacency in yours. It is no excuse that you think you are being humble and Christian in your writing: you aren't. You are being an arrogant prat.

    For my part, aside from the above paragraph, I shall do my best to ignore that aspect of your posts and adress the facts, unemotionally.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    You say science does not work on hearsay yet your belief in evolution is based entirely on the personal conclusions of Darwin and his followers.
    This is a mistaken statement. I shall set aside your misunderstanding of how Darwin and his followers arrived at their conclusions (there was nothing personal about it - the process was objective and repeatable) and focus on how I arrived at my belief in evolution.

    I believe in evolution because I have looked at the facts. Have you examined the variations in thecal character in graptolites culled from extensive sequences of sediments, or studied the progressive complications of the suture lines in ammonites as we move upward through Jurassic and Cretaceous deposits? I have. I find the notion of evolution fits these observations better, far better, than any alternative explanation.

    Then, in examining the work of Darwin and his followers, do you truly think that I and others with a scientific education in the field look simply at their conclusions? You clearly do not understand how science and scientists work. I look at the data from which they formed their conclusions and assess whether or not I find those conclusions viable.

    While I have, to date, found the general conclusions of Darwin and his followers viable, in detail I often do not. Were I a research scientist I would explore those areas of contention, seeking to find an alternative explanation for the pathway followed by evolution in that particular case. Since I am simply an interested amateur, in these instances I seek out other research in the specific field, in order to resolve some of the uncertainty.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Please do not suggest that I would act like this when we have the Bible to tell us what happened in the beginning.
    The Bible is one of several so called Holy Books that purport to tell how the world came to be and what the will of God is. There is no evidence that this particular book is the one.The only justification for believing that is blind faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    I do not care how you define the word theory, I know what it means and that Creation is one without you twisting its meaning to get evolution to be thought of as a theory. .
    Please make at least an effort to educate yourself. In science, not in every day speech, theory is defined as I defined it earlier in this thread. It does not matter that you choose to ignore this. It does not change how the word is defined in science. Using the scientific definition in this scientific discussion on a science forum I am able to say with certainty that Creationists do not have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, life and mankind.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Evolutions never answer the important questions like why are we here, where are we going and what is after death.
    Evolution also fails to provide a decompression schedule for scuba divers surfacing from 100', or the ideal ratio of butter to flour in a sponge cake mix. Evolution theory is a description of how the diversity of life we see on the planet came to be. Complaining that it doesn't do things it was never intended to do is ludicrous.
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    As for mistakes in the Bible I have never found or ever will find a fault in it. I am not a trained theologian and I apologize if I made you think that I could eliminate your doubts on this subject.
    There is no need to apologise. You might wish to consider that I have probably studied the Bible in more detail and certainly over a longer time period than you. I am not a trained theologian either, but I know enough to know that there are many ambiguities, conflicts and contradictions within the Bible. And the principle source for that knowledge is the work of committed Christians who are trained theologians.

    So by all means, declare yourself a believer in the inerrancy of the Bible, despite the clear evidence to the contrary. That simply helps others identify you as someone, sadly, committed to self delusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    The 600ft layers of water deposited sediments which were deposited at the eruption of Mt. St.Helens are strikingly familiar to those found in the greater geological record.
    1. There have been millions of eruptions like Mount St. Helens throughout geologic time. Is it surprising that we find comparable examples in the geological record? Of course not. This is a nice example of the Principle of Uniformitarianism.

    However, I am interested to explore some aspects of this topic.
    a) Please provide a reference for the thickness of the sediments deposited.
    b) What were the similarities between the Mt. St Helens deposits and those older sediments? Please address grain size, grain shape, grain angularity, sorting (including kurtosis and skew in size distribution), mineral composition, short term post depositional diagenetic effects, bedding planes, sole marks, lateral variability of all the above and any other pertinent data that justify the claim of striking similarity.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    During the steam explosion over four million trees were deposited on top of Spirit Lake. Within several days peat was covering the bottom of the lake bed. This is not an assumption. Divers went under the logs and studied the results first hand..
    This is very interesting. I have no idea why you think this invalidates evolution, but it is interesting. Please provide a reference for this claim. My department's Professor was an acknowledged world expert on the Craboniferous, so I have retained an affection for anything to do with coal formation.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    In the Creation Museum near Cincinnati there is a fossil of a fish in the process of eating another fish. This fossil is on the same sedimentary layer. Are you trying to tell me that the fish just laid there and waited to be fossilized?
    Now you are just being deliberately obtuse. Paleoichneum has addressed this.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Parts of the lake bed were now visible and it was realised that some of the logs were standing upright. Obviously if these were left to fossilize they would stretch through different sedimentary layers.
    Which is a very good example of why we find such instances in the geological record of trees penetrating several sediment layers. What is your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Again at this famous volcano fresh basalts were laid down and these same basalts were supposedly two million years old according to the reliable radioametric method..
    Really. This is offensive in the extreme. The creationist who had that dating carried out deliberately used an inappropriate dating method that is not applicable to young, recent lavas. His actions were dishonest. Your repetition of his spurious data is at best ignorant and at worst deceitful.

    (If you do not like being called a liar I recommend you stop spreading lies.)

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    The results of the eruption at Mt. St.Helens were seen by Creationists and evolutionists alike. Only one of this pair twists the truth
    We can certainly agree on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    And could Ophiolite please tell me what he does and doesn't know about so I could have and educated discussion with him.
    Don't be bloody silly. What do you expect me to say? What level of detail do you require? Ask your bloody questions and I'll tell you whether or not I am competent to answer the damn things.

    Now from your point of view an educated discussion avoids the use of the words bloody and damn. From my point of view it avoids blatant lies and self indulgent ignorance. I'll drop the swearing if you drop the dishonesty. Over to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Ophiolite,
    As far as my knowledge goes I have not once lied in my posts. I have mentioned this before in a previous post.

    Since you give me permission to ask any question I choose in order to see what you know I shall ask these.

    In Darwin's misleading book ,The Origin of the Species, he clearly states himself that his methods were not grounded in scientific procedures or established facts. If you a such a fan of scientific correctness why do you still believe him?

    What do you mean by saying that evolution was never designed to answer the important questions? If you believe this theory of how life started surely these are important to you. Or would you stand by David Attenborough's belief and rid the earth of humans to make way for the next generation of animals.

    Most important of all:
    Where are you going when you die?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Darwin and his followers
    LMFAO

    Such a hugggggeee faux pas here at the science forum. I doubt anyone here will ever take you seriously from now on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Where are you going when you die?
    My flesh will be consumed by bacteria and worms like everyone else's....I'll be but fertilizer...don't pull the "death card" here. We've heard it our whole lives. People have been using that line since the time of Constantine (around 300 BC). We don't KNOW what will happen when we die...unless you're claiming to be Jesus my Saviour and have been resurrected from the dead...but I doubt your fellow cultists would approve of such mendacity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    In Darwin's misleading book ,The Origin of the Species, he clearly states himself that his methods were not grounded in scientific procedures or established facts. If you a such a fan of scientific correctness why do you still believe him?
    Although the exact quote and context still needs to be investigated, this is irrelevant. The theory has progressed a lot since then, and the methods employed by modern scientists is clearly scientific and objective. Every theory begins with an idea and some assumptions that then have to be investigated. By what standards do you test your idea about the evolution of life?
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    What do you mean by saying that evolution was never designed to answer the important questions? If you believe this theory of how life started surely these are important to you.
    As far as I understand, it does not say anything about how life began. It only tries to explain how it evolves.
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Where are you going when you die?
    Unless I will be a zombie, nowhere. My conscience will vanish and my body will decompose.
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Evolutions never answer the important questions like why are we here ...
    First, in what sense do you see the word "why"? Are you referring to the cause or a reason? In the latter case, your question implies that there is a "why", a reason. Why are there stars in the universe? Why are there ants, microbes, rabbits, trees, birds, etc.?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Ophiolite,
    As far as my knowledge goes I have not once lied in my posts. I have mentioned this before in a previous post.
    and I have pointed out numerous examples where, at best, you are deceiving yourself. On the plus side, nearly everyone else can see that self deception so you are the only loser in the affair.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    In Darwin's misleading book ,The Origin of the Species,........
    And you claim such a snide, emotive, agenda ridden comment is not a form of lying? Ah. well.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    he clearly states himself that his methods were not grounded in scientific procedures or established facts.
    Perhaps he did state this. Could you tell me which Chapter he mentions this in.
    Darwin was unusually vigorous in laying out the potential limitations of his work, so I should not be surprised to see him modestly outlining ways in which his approach could be open to objection. Recognise, however, that in the mass of data he offered, the elegant way he perceived it, and the rigorous way he showed the connections, he was establishing an arguably new standard of quality for scientific work.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    . If you a such a fan of scientific correctness why do you still believe him?
    I don't believe him. I believe some aspects of the theory he initiated. What I do believe is the subsequent interpretation of a mountain of observations, by an army of scholars, employing concpets he outlined, or - and this is important - seeking to destroy his thoery of evolution and replace it with another.

    On a side note you seem to think, through ignorance, that evolutionists are Darwinists. This is a quaint idea, but wholly false. Darwin did his work one and a half centuries ago. There is such a thing as progress, you know.


    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    . What do you mean by saying that evolution was never designed to answer the important questions? If you believe this theory of how life started surely these are important to you.
    Evolution has bugger all to do with how life started. Life could have been created on a bet between the Devil and God, or arrived on this planet as spores from space, or arisen by an almost impossible chance, or been the natural emergence from pre-biotic chemistry, and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to how it then evolved.

    Can you get that into your head once and for all. The theory of evolution is about the evolution of life, not about its origin. Also - and this will dispappoint you - it is about the evolution of all life. Most students of evolution couldn't give a flying anteater about the evolution of humans: boring subject about boring naked primates.


    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Or would you stand by David Attenborough's belief and rid the earth of humans to make way for the next generation of animals.
    I think you are probably taking him out of context. And no, if that is his belief - which I doubt - I would not hold to that. Humans to represent the first occasion we are aware of where the universe can contemplate itself. We need to cherish and nourish that singular event. We need to build on it. and along the way we need to rid the race of childish notions that the Sky Fairy gave us books that tell us how to live. The future is in our hands, not God's. Let's get on with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Most important of all:
    Where are you going when you die?
    Sorry. you are going to have to explain to me why that is important. No, I just can't see why you think that is important.

    Don't get me wrong, it is important to me, but since I am not important in the grand scheme of things, then where I go, if anywhere, is not important. After all while I've been typing this I estimate over 2,000 people have died. I am ashamed to admit that I am not overly bothered by that. I am concerned that many of them died needlessly, that many of them died through the actions or inactions of others, that many died unjustly, and that many died with a fairytale expectation of an afterlife. But I am not bothered that they died. People do that. Damned inconvenient, but there you go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    966
    What do you mean by saying that evolution was never designed to answer the important questions? If you believe this theory of how life started surely these are important to you
    Apparently you don't even understand evolution. Or Darwin for that matter. Darwin never once claimed to know how life started. He only mused once in a letter about how it might have happened, stating "that the original spark of life may have begun in a 'warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes'."
    So like Ophiolite said
    "The theory of evolution is about the evolution of life, not about its origin."
    Now if you're looking for a theory into how life started, go look up abiogenesis. Which can mainly be accredited to Alexander Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane. Although numerous others have contributed to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    19
    Ophiolite and any one who responded to my question of death,
    You all have a soul.
    That soul will go to heaven or hell.
    Yes, your body will decompose, I never said that it wouldn't. Stop thinking that just because your precious scientific methods and discoveries can't prove what lies after death that there is no afterlife.

    "A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts that which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Ophiolite and any one who responded to my question of death,
    You all have a soul.
    That soul will go to heaven or hell.
    Bullshit. You may as well be telling everyone they have an invisible unicorn sitting beside them in their living room. The two assertions are currently on perfectly equal footing due to their baslessness and lack of any empirical support whatsoever. Further, at least we have relatively consistent definitions of "unicorn" and "living room." Your terms of "soul" and "heaven or hell?" Not so much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,154
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Ophiolite and any one who responded to my question of death,
    You all have a soul.
    That soul will go to heaven or hell.
    Yes, your body will decompose, I never said that it wouldn't. Stop thinking that just because your precious scientific methods and discoveries can't prove what lies after death that there is no afterlife.

    "A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts that which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones."
    I see you are not going to respond to my comments and questions posed several posts back.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Ophiolite and any one who responded to my question of death,
    You all have a soul.
    That soul will go to heaven or hell.
    Yes, your body will decompose, I never said that it wouldn't. Stop thinking that just because your precious scientific methods and discoveries can't prove what lies after death that there is no afterlife.

    "A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts that which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones."
    I see you are not going to respond to my comments and questions posed several posts back.....
    Or mine. Still waiting for evidence on the coal formation thing...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by counter evolution
    Ophiolite and any one who responded to my question of death,
    You all have a soul.
    That soul will go to heaven or hell.
    Yes, your body will decompose, I never said that it wouldn't. Stop thinking that just because your precious scientific methods and discoveries can't prove what lies after death that there is no afterlife.

    "A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts that which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones."
    Interesting how you ignore all our replies to yours and still stick to your opinions. You are just repeating the blackmail arguments the religions have tried to use for centuries to force us to believe in the ideas that were made up by a few people. I am just glad that nowadays they are not so powerful anymore as they were, when they created the hell on earth for those who simply had a different opinion. No, thank you. I prefer to think for myself.

    What is this strange quote? This is insulting, and I take it personally. All evidence we have today clearly show that ethics and culture are not related to religion whatsoever. They can already be found to some extent among animals. I would like to turn around this quote and claim that, whoever has not matured enough to take responsibility for his own actions or needs a higher instance to justify his deeds and thoughts cannot claim to have an innate foundation of appropriate social behaviour and sense of justice and moral. Therefore, any social or moral standard that results from this is not based on conviction but on the primitive reflex of punishment and reward. Thus, it cannot be a lasting driver, but needs repeated reminders by e.g. rituals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Dear counter_evolution,
    please understand that you are a winner. You can trace your ancestry back through countless generations of winners for over three and a half billion years. I am therefore perplexed that a winner with such a pedigree would turn out to be a coward. How do you eplain this?

    Why do I say you are a coward? Several reasons.

    Each time your points are contested you fail to address the counter arguments that are raised. Instead you resort to some tired repetition of your unsubstantiated personal beliefs.

    Each time you are asked a specific question that highlights the weaknesses in your arguments you choose to ignore the question and instead resort to some tired repetition.........

    Finally, you basically argue that because you are afraid of death, that there must be life after death. You argue that because you are incapable of acting responsibly without external controls that there must be a God.

    All of these are the acts of a coward. Are you willing to act with courage? Are you ready to face the contradictions of your beliefs, to answer the penetrating questions you have been asked, to acknowledge that atheists and agnostics can have as high or higher a set of ethical constraints as any funadamentalist Christian?

    Or do you plan on remaining a coward?
    Reply With Quote  
     

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
  •