Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 157

Thread: A way to disprove biblical creation by using evolution.

  1. #1 A way to disprove biblical creation by using evolution. 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Creationist viewpoint.
    God created Adam and Eve
    God created Adam from mud. This could be linked to primordial soup which Amino Acids were created.
    God created Eve from Adam's rib. Now according to biology, any being that is asexual, meaning it reproduces without sex, has the same genetic code as the being it came from. Every off spring from an Asexual being will be a clone. In essence, Eve was a clone of Adam. Now to avoid the whole, "How did she lose the y Chromosome and gain an X chromosome is going to be ignored and just assumed it happened by God's will"
    However, everything else about the two are the same. They share the same genetic code.
    According to biology, if two beings with the same exact genetic code mate together then they will produce the same being with the same genetic code.
    The only reason that two creatures with green eyes who mate together can produce a blue eyed child is do to recessive genes. If you have Gb eye color (Green blue) and you mate with someone who has Gb eye color, then you will have a child who has

    GG
    Gb
    Gb
    and bb eye color
    The child can have complete green eyes (25% chance) or 50% chance of having Gb eyes or to have blue eyes which is another 25% chance.
    Now if Eve was a clone of Adam then his eyes for instance, would be completely brown (being the first eye color without mutation)

    If BB (brown/brown) mated with BB (Brown Brown) then their off spring will have a 100% chance of obtaining brown eyes. If evolution was not real, how did we get such diversity?
    I am curious what Archaeologist has to say about this discovery.


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    I think even the most stubborn creationists accept that there are changes in genotype over time within a species (assuming they even know what that means). They just don't think that this results in speciation. Obviously Chinese people are genetically different from African people, and they believe that all Chinese and African people are descended from the same original couple, so they don't really have a choice about accepting at least SOME genetic changes over time.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Tower of Babil would be their explanation.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Tower of Babil would be their explanation.
    I have never heard it suggested that the ToB incident caused genetic changes - I believe that was just supposed to be different languages (which is a little silly, because it's not like you really need a magic explanation for different languages anyway. People can just make up new ones).

    But even if that is their explanation, it assumes that god can just magically cause genetic changes to occur, which also solves the original problem that you posed. They would probably just say "god did it so that there would be variety" or something.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    God created Adam from mud
    you would be wrong right there. it wasn't mud but 'from the dust of the ground'. big difference, no primordial soup.

    In essence, Eve was a clone of Adam
    that would be wrong. a clone implies an exact copy, Eve was not an exact copy and has different bodily functions. so you twist the truth to fit your theory.

    genetics is an interesting field. genes were created to work in a certain way yet if you play with the combinations you get different results, then you must add in the corruption that entered into the world at adam's sin. such influence plays a part in the gene's activities.

    so with all the factors included, along with changes in the gene pool, for varies reasons, you actually get the results we see today. evolution plays no part in the process, not only does it not exist but it does nothave the cognitive capibilities to design what we find in life.

    that is the big failure of evolution--it is incapable of figuring our what is the right design and what is the wrong one. in other words it has no ability to perform a trial and error process which allows suffering on the part of its life forms. a suffering most of you would protest today if it were being carried out as we speak.

    why would you believe in a lifeless process that did not care about its progeny? why would you believe in a lifeless process that let its progeny suffer? you probabkly blame and hate God or His acts of discipline andpunishment for disobedience yet you holdto a lifeless process that does worse than Him for NO REASON?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why would you believe in a lifeless process that did not care about its progeny? why would you believe in a lifeless process that let its progeny suffer? you probabkly blame and hate God or His acts of discipline andpunishment for disobedience yet you holdto a lifeless process that does worse than Him for NO REASON?
    That's the way the cookie crumbles. We remain convinced by evolution because the evidence for it is overwhelming. It matters not whether we like, or dislike its consequences and implications. Honest people must assess the facts in an objective fashion and accept, no matter how reluctantly, the conclusions those facts lead us to.

    You use faith in words you believe come from God. You reject other words that others, through their faith, believe came from God. You reject other interpretations of these same words in which you have faith because those interpretations differ from your own. You do this with an arrogance that passeth understanding.

    A scientist, empoying the scientific method, will bow to superior interpretations of the facts. A scientists, employing the scientific method, will acknowledge the possibility that alternative explantions for phenomena are correct. Scientists, employing the scientific method, are humble.

    You believe what you want to believe. A scientist believes what the facts demonstrate whether he likes them or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Archaeologist:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BQhW...eature=related

    Are they lying too?

    you would be wrong right there. it wasn't mud but 'from the dust of the ground'. big difference, no primordial soup.
    Man, everything has to be exact, huh? Difference between dust and mud = water. Did Adam not have water in his body?
    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  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Archaeologist:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BQhW...eature=related

    Are they lying too?

    you would be wrong right there. it wasn't mud but 'from the dust of the ground'. big difference, no primordial soup.
    Man, everything has to be exact, huh? Difference between dust and mud = water. Did Adam not have water in his body?
    No you see God had to prove to the angels and marsupials that he really was God so he ignored the water that was everywhere on the earth and used his magic to transmutate some of the dust into water. In fact just to flip off the scientists of the future he probably disobeyed every single conservation law of nuclear physics. I guess he only used any dirt or dust in order to instruct Adam on what he amounted to in the scheme of things especially in comparison to his holy worthy self.


    P.S. I hope you can detect the irony that I intended. I was suddenly filled with horror at the thought that someone might actually think that I believe any of this load of crap.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

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

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    P.S. I hope you can detect the irony that I intended. I was suddenly filled with horror at the thought that someone might actually think that I believe any of this load of crap.
    No danger to those of us who know you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I hope you can detect the irony that I intended.
    Immediately of course, but as preposterous as your satire was, it is still on par with some of the things the fundamentalists subscribe to. So a new member might just cast you into the same bin as the fundamentalists.

    Similarly, I often make fun of stereotypes by using their lingo or arguments mixed into normal conversation and have often thought about how many people didn’t get it actually think I am a surfer/idiot/grease-monkey/biker/paranoid schizophrenic/etc. We have a saying in Afrikaans that goes “Mix with the fodder and the pigs will devour you”.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

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

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    We remain convinced by evolution because the evidence for it is overwhelming.
    nice words to hide behond but you haven't listed anything definitive yet.

    A scientist, empoying the scientific method, will bow to superior interpretations of the facts. A scientists, employing the scientific method, will acknowledge the possibility that alternative explantions for phenomena are correct. Scientists, employing the scientific method, are humble
    you are such an idealist and very arrogant if you think you are the only one who reads or does research. it is very welll known that scientists DO NOT do the above as many hold on to their pet theories long after they have been discredited, others simply disagree on how evolution runs, regardless of this 'overwhelming evidence' and more even reject the idea of evolution but are afraid to speakout for fear of losing their jobs and status.

    you people like making generalities but when it comes to specifics your case falls apart.

    You use faith in words you believe come from God. You reject other words that others, through their faith, believe came from God. You reject other interpretations of these same words in which you have faith because those interpretations differ from your own. You do this with an arrogance that passeth understanding
    there is so much you do not know.
    1. interpretation DOES NOT equal truth and lik eopinions just about everyone has one. what you are leaning towards is an existentialistic readingof the Bible and that is wrong.
    2. belief DOES NOT equal origination. one can believe the words came form God but that does not mean that they do. Jesus instructed to 'test the spirits' to make sure. you see believers ARE NOT to use blind faith but intelligence, knowledge, wisdom and so on to make sure they have the truth.
    3. different DOES NOT equal truth. Paul said 'if any man bring a different gospel...' the 'interpretation'has to line up with the words of Christ and the apostles, if it doesn't then it is not truth.
    4. making false accusations in your points just continues to prove that you do not want to hear the truth but want to follow your own way because you get to decide for yourself instead of humbling yourself to God.

    You believe what you want to believe. A scientist believes what the facts demonstrate whether he likes them or not
    you have this reversed. hawkins used to believe, not sure if he still does, in the string theory but he had no proof. many scientists hold to believes without facts and use 'theory' as a way to hold onto them despite the facts to the contrary.

    everything has to be exact, huh? Difference between dust and mud = water. Did Adam not have water in his body?
    In this case === yes.

    I hope you can detect the irony that I intended
    i just ignored you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    We remain convinced by evolution because the evidence for it is overwhelming.
    nice words to hide behond but you haven't listed anything definitive yet.
    If, as you claim, you have done some reading in this field then you know that asking for this is the purest nonsense. Darwin described On the Origin of Species as one long argument. You could start there if you want something definitive.

    The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould and Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennet should keep you occupied for a while. Their bibliographies will lead you to more subtantiating evidence than you could work through in anything less than a year or two.

    Are you going to offer something defintive to justify your view of God? Are you going to hide behind words like faith and personal revelation?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    A scientist, employing the scientific method, will bow to superior interpretations of the facts. A scientist, employing the scientific method, will acknowledge the possibility that alternative explantions for phenomena are correct. Scientists, employing the scientific method, are humble
    you are such an idealist and very arrogant if you think you are the only one who reads or does research.
    I see you have comprehension difficulties. Don't worry, I can help clarify things for you - though it does help to explain why you reject evolution.
    1. I have made no claim whatsoever that I do research. How can describing what others do be considered arrogant?
    2. Do you see the words I have placed in bold. Scientists, being human, are capable of all the pettiness and arrogance and blindness and stupidity that befalls other humans. The beauty of science (not scientists) is that the methodology is self correcting. It pinpoints the scientists who are not following the scientific method. It does this through peer review, it does it through insistence upon the falsifiability of hypotheses, it does this through the repetition of experiments.
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    A scientist, empoying the scientific method, will bow to superior interpretations of the facts. A scientist, employing the scientific method, will acknowledge the possibility that alternative explantions for phenomena are correct. Scientists, employing the scientific method, are humble
    it is very welll known that scientists DO NOT do the above as many hold on to their pet theories long after they have been discredited,
    Exactly. And how have their pet theories been discredited? By other scientists employing the scientific method. Those holding onto their disproven ideas are sadly human, but they are not, at that point, behaving as scientists.
    [/quote] others simply disagree on how evolution runs, [/quote]**** me, I disagree on how evolution runs. I've had serious issues with certain details for decades. Some of those issues were resolved by the discovery of hox genes. Others look likely to be resolved through some of the insights arising from epigenetics. There are doubtless tens of thousands who have similar views, yet none of us doubt the reality of evolution, we simply have questions concerning aspects of the mechanism.

    You seem to be unaware that such questioning, such doubts are a routine part of science. Indeed without that questioning science could harldy advance. This is what makes your next observation so foolish.
    [/quote] .......and more even reject the idea of evolution but are afraid to speakout for fear of losing their jobs and status.[/quote]If they reject it on scientific grounds they need only offer scientific evidence obtained via scientific methodology and it will be properly considered. If they reject it on non-scientific grounds then it may be right that they lose their jobs and status. Would you accept as a pastor a man who declared he did not believe in God?

    [/quote] you people like making generalities but when it comes to specifics your case falls apart.[/quote]To paraphrase Jack Nicolson in A Few Good Men, You can't handle specifics.

    Here is some specifics for you:
    AbstractThe role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

    Blount, Z.D. et al Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS June 10, 2008 vol. 105 no. 23 7899-7906

    The full research paper is available here:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf+html

    What detail do you feel is lacking? Too specific for you? Do you need help with the big words?

    believers ARE NOT to use blind faith but intelligence, knowledge, wisdom and so on to make sure they have the truth.
    Damn, that puts you in an awkward position then.

    Paul said 'if any man bring a different gospel...' the 'interpretation'has to line up with the words of Christ and the apostles, if it doesn't then it is not truth.
    And in your arrogance you believe only the Bible and only your interpretation of the Bible is correct and then you have the unmitigated presumption to declare you have used intelligence and wisdom and knowledge to arrive at that conclusion.

    Tell us again why the Bible is the true word of God. What is the evidence that that is so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    again with the assumtpions and the arrogance. oh and the personal attacks about my comprehension. which makes ignoring you a whole lot of fun. you obviously only paint one side of the picture and refuse to admit that scientists do not act in a manner that is as worthy as you describe.

    i remember the story of an editor who published an article on intelligent design and when the smithsonian found out he was persecuted beyond belief. such horror stories permeate the secular scientific community.

    stop trying to pretend that the secular scientific community is a bed of roses and that all scientists joyfully alter their life's work without complaint. it is obvious by your bolding that you hold an idealistic view of the scientific world yet gloss over things like personality, bias, corruption etc. to hold to a picture of idealyc glory.

    all scientists are supposed to use the scientific method, are you hinting that some do not? but that has led me to recall what the scientific method is--searching for natural answers. problem with thatis you are using the wrong tools looking in the wrong directions, with the wrong attitude or mentality.

    one CANNOT look for natural answers when the originator of the event investigated is supernatural and the act itself was supernatural. so basically whatyou are proposing is a blind leading the blind activity and death to anyone who opens the curtains and lets some light in to see clearly.

    And in your arrogance you believe only the Bible and only your interpretation of the Bible is correct and then you have the unmitigated presumption to declare you have used intelligence and wisdom and knowledge to arrive at that conclusion
    again you hide behind the word 'interpretation' notice that Jesus never said 'your interpretation will set you free' instead he said 'the truth will set you free'. i do not go by 'interpretation' but by truth. you do not like it becuase it means you haveto alter your life and beliefs now.

    Tell us again why the Bible is the true word of God. What is the evidence that that is so?
    we would be having this conversartion if it were false and the secular world would not be attacking the Bible or believers one very level. notice no one attacks hindus or mormons the way christians and the Bible are attack. that tells you the Bible is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    again with the assumtpions and the arrogance. oh and the personal attacks about my comprehension. which makes ignoring you a whole lot of fun. you obviously only paint one side of the picture and refuse to admit that scientists do not act in a manner that is as worthy as you describe.

    i remember the story of an editor who published an article on intelligent design and when the smithsonian found out he was persecuted beyond belief. such horror stories permeate the secular scientific community.
    Rofl I see that you've seen Ben Stein's creationist propaganda film.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I see that you've seen Ben Stein's creationist propaganda film.
    i knew someone was going to mention that. sorry but i knew about that incident long before the film came out. it was in an magazine article years ago or something like that and i came across it doing research.

    i have seen the film and i was happy someone did mention it, as i thought i was going crazy since i wasn't able to re-find that article.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    We remain convinced by evolution because the evidence for it is overwhelming.
    nice words to hide behond but you haven't listed anything definitive yet.
    What's the point of convincing you if you've obviously reached the conclusion that it is false before doing any actual research on the matter. That's the paradox of faith; once ye have thy faith, ye needeth not be convinced, and ye seeketh only answers that confirms thy preconceptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    What's the point of convincing you if you've obviously reached the conclusion that it is false before doing any actual research on the matter. That's the paradox of faith; once ye have thy faith, ye needeth not be convinced, and ye seeketh only answers that confirms thy preconceptions.
    you assume that i have never done any research or compared notes. also you assume that this is my first conversation on the topic. having faith is a choice based upon the evidence presented and the need recognized. one does NOT need physical evidence to convince them of the truth.

    they know the truth when they hear it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    again with the assumtpions and the arrogance.
    No assumptions. No arrogance. Plain, honest speaking.
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    oh and the personal attacks about my comprehension. .
    It is acceptable to accuse me of arrogance, but I am not permitted to point out that you are having comprehension difficulties. Let me be more precise. I think you understood exactly what I was saying, but chose to pretend I was saying something else.
    Take your choice, either you do have comprehension difficulties, or you are deceitful. I chose to associate you with the one that reflected on your intellect, not your character. I'll avoid that mistake in future.

    I notice you completely avoid any reference to the details I gave you. A post or two ago you accused 'people like me' of being all about generalities. Now, when I offer specifics you run away from them and change the topic.

    Roll up, roll up. Get your mobile goalposts from archaeologist.

    And again with the comprehension - or is it snide lying. I have painted a damning picture of individual scientists. You seem to be blind to that. But blindness to the truth is one of your traits. Now have the decency to acknowledge that with these words
    "Scientists, being human, are capable of all the pettiness and arrogance and blindness and stupidity that befalls other humans."
    ...with these words I did not paint a rosy picture of scientists.
    Are you decent enought, honest enought to admit when you have been caught in a lie?
    I actually hope you are, though it would make you look the worse if you are not.
    Over to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: A way to disprove biblical creation by using evolution. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Creationist viewpoint.
    God created Adam and Eve
    God created Adam from mud. This could be linked to primordial soup which Amino Acids were created.
    God created Eve from Adam's rib. Now according to biology, any being that is asexual, meaning it reproduces without sex, has the same genetic code as the being it came from. Every off spring from an Asexual being will be a clone. In essence, Eve was a clone of Adam. Now to avoid the whole, "How did she lose the y Chromosome and gain an X chromosome is going to be ignored and just assumed it happened by God's will"
    However, everything else about the two are the same. They share the same genetic code.
    According to biology, if two beings with the same exact genetic code mate together then they will produce the same being with the same genetic code.
    The only reason that two creatures with green eyes who mate together can produce a blue eyed child is do to recessive genes. If you have Gb eye color (Green blue) and you mate with someone who has Gb eye color, then you will have a child who has



    Gb
    Gb
    and bb eye color
    The child can have complete green eyes (25% chance) or 50% chance of having Gb eyes or to have blue eyes which is another 25% chance.
    Now if Eve was a clone of Adam then his eyes for instance, would be completely brown (being the first eye color without mutation)

    If BB (brown/brown) mated with BB (Brown Brown) then their off spring will have a 100% chance of obtaining brown eyes. If evolution was not real, how did we get such diversity?
    I am curious what Archaeologist has to say about this discovery.
    The bible and its creation out of nothing is ludicrous.
    The Laws of Conservstion refute this.

    The age of the universe is 6000 years old?
    Ha Ha. This age is but a 'tick' of the second hand on the time clock of the universe that is hundreds of billions of years old .

    The OT is also a divisive hate document towards woman and the apes as
    represented by the MOON or dark side.

    Creation of animal life from the soil and by a male only?
    Ha ha. Do males lay eggs?

    The stupid promotion of introducing mass killings by their YHWH for violating his commandments with themselves as victims? Because of this, I think this ritual should be renamed as Jewicides.

    There are other reasons to dump this book as evil or as a drug that Karl Marx had labeled.
    The Israelies have smartened up and now use the 'gun and cannon' for their survival instead of the religion.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Wow, a creationist who rejects evolution even though he clearly doesn't even really understand it, and some evolution-believers who are willing to engage in the online equivalent of banging their head against a brick wall by trying to argue with him.

    Yawn.

    Anyway, even if we go with the original premise of the thread's opening post and assume that Eve's genetic material came from Adam (or his rib), god would still need to fabricate a whole new X chromosome for her.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    and some evolution-believers who are willing to engage in the online equivalent of banging their head against a brick wall by trying to argue with him.
    We argue not to change his mind, for he clearly lacks one, but to educate the lurker who through chance ignorance might be attracted by his nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    I won't go into details because it will involve getting off topic, and though I see others have no problems with it, I think it would be more efficient to start a different topic to discuss each detail on it's own.

    To clarify, "creation" is not the same as "religion"
    just as "science" is not the same as "education"

    they may go hand and hand, but they are not inseparable
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    We argue not to change his mind, for he clearly lacks one, but to educate the lurker who through chance ignorance might be attracted by his nonsense.
    this is why evolutionists and scientists fail. they think that if you disagree with them, you lack a mind or other abilities. well galt is wrong as usual and implies that to be considered human you have to think like him.

    that is elitism and totalitarianism. i guess we can equate the evolutionist with the nazi or the communist then.

    a creationist who rejects evolution even though he clearly doesn't even really understand it, and some evolution-believers who are willing to engage in the online equivalent of banging their head against a brick wall by trying to argue with him.
    another false accusation which ignores the reality that even evolutionists do not agree with each other about how evoltuion works. this false defense fails continually because the evolutionist forgets that the 'theory' has changed from teh time of darwin till now so if i do not understand evolution then darwin did not either.

    one other thing, to be fair and just, the truth does not change. since evolution changes from decade to decade (to be fair) itis easy to assume thatit does not contain nor is the truth.

    the truth found in the Bible has not changed since the beginning of time, thusit is fair, it is just and all people have access to the same information no matter the decade or generation. once again proving the Bible true and evolution false.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    We argue not to change his mind, for he clearly lacks one, but to educate the lurker who through chance ignorance might be attracted by his nonsense.
    this is why evolutionists and scientists fail. they think that if you disagree with them, you lack a mind or other abilities. well galt is wrong as usual and implies that to be considered human you have to think like him.

    that is elitism and totalitarianism. i guess we can equate the evolutionist with the nazi or the communist then.

    a creationist who rejects evolution even though he clearly doesn't even really understand it, and some evolution-believers who are willing to engage in the online equivalent of banging their head against a brick wall by trying to argue with him.
    another false accusation which ignores the reality that even evolutionists do not agree with each other about how evoltuion works. this false defense fails continually because the evolutionist forgets that the 'theory' has changed from teh time of darwin till now so if i do not understand evolution then darwin did not either.

    one other thing, to be fair and just, the truth does not change. since evolution changes from decade to decade (to be fair) itis easy to assume thatit does not contain nor is the truth.

    the truth found in the Bible has not changed since the beginning of time, thusit is fair, it is just and all people have access to the same information no matter the decade or generation. once again proving the Bible true and evolution false.
    This post is hilarious on so many levels.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    We argue not to change his mind, for he clearly lacks one, but to educate the lurker who through chance ignorance might be attracted by his nonsense.
    this is why evolutionists and scientists fail. they think that if you disagree with them, you lack a mind or other abilities. well galt is wrong as usual and implies that to be considered human you have to think like him.

    that is elitism and totalitarianism. i guess we can equate the evolutionist with the nazi or the communist then.

    a creationist who rejects evolution even though he clearly doesn't even really understand it, and some evolution-believers who are willing to engage in the online equivalent of banging their head against a brick wall by trying to argue with him.
    another false accusation which ignores the reality that even evolutionists do not agree with each other about how evoltuion works. this false defense fails continually because the evolutionist forgets that the 'theory' has changed from teh time of darwin till now so if i do not understand evolution then darwin did not either.

    one other thing, to be fair and just, the truth does not change. since evolution changes from decade to decade (to be fair) itis easy to assume thatit does not contain nor is the truth.

    the truth found in the Bible has not changed since the beginning of time, thusit is fair, it is just and all people have access to the same information no matter the decade or generation. once again proving the Bible true and evolution false.
    So because we find out new information which refines evolution, it automatically means that evolution is false?
    You realize that God itself is a walking logical fallacy right?
    Appeal to Tradition (Most people have believed in a God forever, so God must exist)
    Appeal to Belief (Most people believe in a God so God must exist)
    Appeal to Common Action (Believing in God is common, so the belief in God is a moral one)
    Appeal to Authority (This is used alot by the catholic church)
    Appeal to Emotion (I feel in my heart God is real so he must be real)
    Appeal to Fear (You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell.)
    Appeal to Consequences of a Belief (If there is no God there is no afterlife so there must be a God)
    Appeal to Popularity (Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right)
    Begging the Question (Your favorite one) Where they assume God is real. Or they assume the burden of proof is on me to disprove God)
    Burden of Proof (The example the website gives is "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does." )
    Special Pleading (Everything needs to have been created except God)
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    another false accusation which ignores the reality that even evolutionists do not agree with each other about how evoltuion works. this false defense fails continually because the evolutionist forgets that the 'theory' has changed from teh time of darwin till now so if i do not understand evolution then darwin did not either.
    Do you even realize how stupid this sounds? This is like saying that if two people agree that a car is powerd by an engine but disagree on how the engine works, they must be wrong about the fact that it's the engine moving the car. And you, apparently, are wanting to argue that the car is moved by magic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    We argue not to change his mind, for he clearly lacks one, but to educate the lurker who through chance ignorance might be attracted by his nonsense.
    this is why evolutionists and scientists fail. they think that if you disagree with them, you lack a mind or other abilities. well galt is wrong as usual and implies that to be considered human you have to think like him.
    Not at all. My single requirement is that you can think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Do you even realize how stupid this sounds
    again you missed the point but that seems to the norm around here. if evolution were true, then all its adherents would be on the same page and be in agreeance and their would be rules to distinguish real followers of evolution from the false ones.

    you all do not get it.

    Not at all. My single requirement is that you can think.
    i do think, and i have rejected evolution and all of its trappings. just because i do not agree with you does it mean i am a brain dead robot or that i do not think. you evolutionists need to get off your hatred for all things non-evolutionary.

    So because we find out new information which refines evolution, it automatically means that evolution is false?
    of course, as the new 'information' benefits no one once they have died. such parcelling information is unjust and unfair, lacking in mercy and many other good characteristics.

    such new information benefits no one as it is impossible to prove true.

    You realize that God itself is a walking logical fallacy right?
    not at all. He is the source of logic, it is yours that has the problem.

    Appeal to Tradition (Most people have believed in a God forever, so God must exist)
    wrong. God exists even if no one believed in Him. He doesn't need people to sustain His existence, He wants people to chose life not destruction.

    Appeal to Belief (Most people believe in a God so God must exist)
    wrong again. see above.

    Appeal to Common Action (Believing in God is common, so the belief in God is a moral one)
    wrong again. one is called to believe so they can have salvation, it doesn't have to be a common action. those who believe in Jesus receive salvation.

    Appeal to Authority (This is used alot by the catholic church)
    there is only one just and perfect authority, morality and so on. it is your choice to accept or reject it. it is up to you. you have the option of doing things your way but it would not be wise to do so.

    Appeal to Emotion (I feel in my heart God is real so he must be real)
    emotion does not replace the action of repentence and 'feeling' God in your heart does not mean that it is Him in there. evil likes to copy and 'comes as an angel of light' so one has to use more than emotions to discern if God is there or not.

    Appeal to Fear (You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell.)
    that is just the reality. no appealing to fear. your options are believe and follow God or not believe and follow evil. heaven and hell are the final destinations, your choice put fear aside if you want.

    Appeal to Consequences of a Belief (If there is no God there is no afterlife so there must be a God)
    'ifs' are not reality. there is a God and you must choose.

    Appeal to Popularity (Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right)
    following Jesus is NOT popular. look at me, do you think i am popular here? no i suffer from all the posters insults and personal attacks. JEsus said 'pick p they cross and follow me' He did not promise a rose garden and He did not promise popularity. it is not easy following Jesus and it takes courage, faith andbelief.

    Begging the Question (Your favorite one) Where they assume God is real. Or they assume the burden of proof is on me to disprove God)
    not 'begging the question'. God is real, you need to pray and have Him remove the blindness over your eyes. the evidenceis there and has been for over 6,000 years. one such evidence are the changed lives that happen when people believe in Jesus. another are the miracles that have taken place, (which science cannot explain). you just have to be open to see it.

    Burden of Proof (The example the website gives is "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
    you can't prove He does not exist becaus He does. why do you think scientists cannot get back to before the big bang? there are tings hidden from you all that you do not realize and you won't find the answer through unbelief or science.

    Special Pleading (Everything needs to have been created except God)
    why does God have to be created? He wouldn't be God if He was and you would have excuse to ignore His rules. there would be something greater than God rendering Him moot.

    also for proof that God exists--your own hatred for all things christian.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    again you missed the point but that seems to the norm around here. if evolution were true, then all its adherents would be on the same page and be in agreeance and their would be rules to distinguish real followers of evolution from the false ones.

    you all do not get it.
    By this argument, if Christianity were true all of its adheerents would be on the same page. They patently are not based upon your derisory comments about other Christians. And do not even think about declaring that they are not true Christians. If you choose that path I shall be requesting that you be banned permanently from this forum for hate speech.

    you evolutionists need to get off your hatred for all things non-evolutionary.
    I do not hate, I merely abhor willful ignorance and mindless arrogance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    if Christianity were true all of its adheerents would be on the same page
    yet not all people who claim to be christian ---are.

    If you choose that path I shall be requesting that you be banned permanently from this forum for hate speech.
    yes another common tactic of those who do not want to hear the truth. you can't beat me so you try and silence me. typical and cowardly, showing your intolerance and denial of free speech for anyone who disagrees with you. i have yet to say one word of hatred so your complaint would be a false accusation based upon your hatred for Christ and God.

    sounds like you are guilkty of hate speech which is evidenced by your previous insults and personal attacks.

    I do not hate, I merely abhor willful ignorance and mindless arrogance.
    obviously you as you accuse and condemn without being able to defend yourself or provide proof for your argument. i am not the one being willfully ignorant nor am i arrogant. i am rebutting your argument properly but you are as you seek to 'win' by banning.

    just shows your true colors and character not mine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    again you missed the point but that seems to the norm around here. if evolution were true, then all its adherents would be on the same page and be in agreeance and their would be rules to distinguish real followers of evolution from the false ones.
    Evolution is not a religion, it doesn't have followers.

    You are exceptionally delusional. To use an example from Darius (I think it was him) if two people see a car, and they both propose the car runs on an engine, but they disagree on the type of engine. Then from your logic it must be impossible for the car to have an engine.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i do think, and i have rejected evolution and all of its trappings. just because i do not agree with you does it mean i am a brain dead robot or that i do not think. you evolutionists need to get off your hatred for all things non-evolutionary.
    I'm sorry but willful ignorance supported with logical fallacies is not thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    of course, as the new 'information' benefits no one once they have died. such parcelling information is unjust and unfair, lacking in mercy and many other good characteristics.
    Ha wuh?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    such new information benefits no one as it is impossible to prove true.
    No it isn't, but I suppose the fact that the Bible can't be proven true doesn't bother you either.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    not at all. He is the source of logic, it is yours that has the problem.
    Ha awesome.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    wrong. God exists even if no one believed in Him. He doesn't need people to sustain His existence, He wants people to chose life not destruction.
    I suppose you and he are very close and often talk about what he wants.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    wrong again. one is called to believe so they can have salvation, it doesn't have to be a common action. those who believe in Jesus receive salvation.
    You're missing the point

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist

    there is only one just and perfect authority, morality and so on. it is your choice to accept or reject it. it is up to you. you have the option of doing things your way but it would not be wise to do so.
    Ya threaten people into believing!

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    emotion does not replace the action of repentence and 'feeling' God in your heart does not mean that it is Him in there. evil likes to copy and 'comes as an angel of light' so one has to use more than emotions to discern if God is there or not.
    Unbelievably irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    not 'begging the question'. God is real, you need to pray and have Him remove the blindness over your eyes. the evidenceis there and has been for over 6,000 years. one such evidence are the changed lives that happen when people believe in Jesus. another are the miracles that have taken place, (which science cannot explain). you just have to be open to see it.
    Sure... if you believe in God you'll be able to believe in him...

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you can't prove He does not exist becaus He does. why do you think scientists cannot get back to before the big bang? there are tings hidden from you all that you do not realize and you won't find the answer through unbelief or science.
    No we can't prove he does not exist because it is a logical impossibility to prove nonexistence of anything. I can't prove that the infamous flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    also for proof that God exists--your own hatred for all things christian.
    How is that prove God exists.

    Seriously you have to be a troll, come out with it already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    dam, you atheist seem to have a lot of hate on Christians. can't you talk about Islam , Hinduism or something else. it seems the purpose of this sub-forum is to rant on Christians. Is Christianity the only religion you athesist can rant and talk about, as if it is the only religion in the world?

    evolution is not a fact, it is theory. The bible is not a scientific literature or book about a theory . so how can you use scientific means to disprove faith in god(belief in a divine power)? religion does not rely on scientific theory or facts to have a faith in god or to belief in Devine power.
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    again you missed the point but that seems to the norm around here. if evolution were true, then all its adherents would be on the same page and be in agreeance and their would be rules to distinguish real followers of evolution from the false ones.
    Right. My friend and I are walking down the street, and we see a car drive past us. I say "That car is obviously powered by a motor." My friend says "Yes, clearly." Then I say "I bet the motor runs on gasoline," and my friend says "No, I bet it's an electric motor that runs off batteries."

    Then you come along and say "You're both obviously wrong that it's powered by a motor - if there was any truth to your ridiculous motor theory, you would be able to agree about how the motor works! Clearly the car is powered by god's will!"

    Yeah, that makes perfect sense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    [quote="verzen"]
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You realize that God itself is a walking logical fallacy right?
    Appeal to Tradition (Most people have believed in a God forever, so God must exist)
    Appeal to Belief (Most people believe in a God so God must exist)
    Appeal to Common Action (Believing in God is common, so the belief in God is a moral one)
    Appeal to Authority (This is used alot by the catholic church)
    Appeal to Emotion (I feel in my heart God is real so he must be real)
    Appeal to Fear (You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell.)
    Appeal to Consequences of a Belief (If there is no God there is no afterlife so there must be a God)
    Appeal to Popularity (Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right)
    Begging the Question (Your favorite one) Where they assume God is real. Or they assume the burden of proof is on me to disprove God)
    Burden of Proof (The example the website gives is "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does." )
    Special Pleading (Everything needs to have been created except God)


    God is, but I've never justified this any of these ways. In fact, I don't need to justify it, God just Is and God is Just, I am not just, any attempt to justify is the mind trying to justify itself. You can't justify anything but yourself to yourself.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    and that goes for ANY religion, science, ideology or thought pattern

    the need to justify a way of thinking is the need to justify oneself. Once you've justified yourself, you no longer need to justify yourself, but in seeking justification, you end up looking for more justification. Faith is an end to the cycle of self-destructive-self-affirmation, and a concession to observation.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    and that goes for ANY religion, science, ideology or thought pattern

    the need to justify a way of thinking is the need to justify oneself. Once you've justified yourself, you no longer need to justify yourself, but in seeking justification, you end up looking for more justification. Faith is an end to the cycle of self-destructive-self-affirmation, and a concession to observation.
    Yes, faith is an unavoidable component of all knowledge. It is simply a decision to live your life based on whatever conclusions you may have come to, because absolute proof is an unattainable illusion. Yet within this reality there is still the spectrum of rational faith based on evidence versus blind faith that refuses to look at the evidence. I think the most significant indicator of the latter is an intolerance for people with a different point of view, for it is blind faith that uses such devices as hatred to insulate themselves from facts and ideas that they don't want to give any serious consideration.

    Thus history has given us this important lesson that religion must be bound by the limitations of a secular society to keep this tendency to blind faith from drowning mankind in a sea of ignorance. Perhaps within that setting the religious can see how much there is to learn from the humility of the scientist before the evidence of nature.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

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

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    The basic premise of evolution has not changed. You seem to think that just because people don't agree on every little detail about it, it must be false. That's clearly an absurd position to take. Astronomers don't all agree on the properties of stars - are you going to say that this means stars don't exist, since clearly if the "star" theory were real then everyone would be in agreement on it, or it would at least be possible to tell the "true" star theorists from the "false" star theorists? No scientist has ever claimed that we understand every single detail of evolution. Of course as we study it more, we will understand it better and our opinions on exactly how it occurs will change. That's the entire point of studying something - to improve your understanding of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    not 'begging the question'. God is real, you need to pray and have Him remove the blindness over your eyes. the evidenceis there and has been for over 6,000 years. one such evidence are the changed lives that happen when people believe in Jesus. another are the miracles that have taken place, (which science cannot explain). you just have to be open to see it.
    The same miracles that religious people cannot prove happened? The ones that you read about in a book which, frankly, deserves to be in the fiction section?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you can't prove He does not exist becaus He does. why do you think scientists cannot get back to before the big bang? there are tings hidden from you all that you do not realize and you won't find the answer through unbelief or science.
    When has blind belief with no questions ever uncovered any answers?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    also for proof that God exists--your own hatred for all things christian.
    So if I became a christian, by your logic this would prove god does not exist.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Appeal to Tradition (Most people have believed in a God forever, so God must exist)
    Appeal to Belief (Most people believe in a God so God must exist)
    Appeal to Common Action (Believing in God is common, so the belief in God is a moral one)
    Correlation does not mean causation. There is also correlation between IQ and atheism, but I'm not claiming only stupid people believe in a god (yet)

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Appeal to Authority (This is used alot by the catholic church)
    How is this different to brainwashing, exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Appeal to Emotion (I feel in my heart God is real so he must be real)
    OK. Yep. Scientifically proven then, god must be real because of what you feel.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Appeal to Fear (You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell.)
    If you don't believe in god, presumably you don't believe in hell either, so this is a flawed logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Appeal to Consequences of a Belief (If there is no God there is no afterlife so there must be a God)
    Or, and I'm willing to accept it (you ont he other hand are terrified to accept it); there is no afterlife. We live, we die, nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Burden of Proof (The example the website gives is "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does." )
    Flawed logic. Nothing that has not been observed can be disproved, so can we assume that everything we don't know for a fact is real must be real? I've never seen a two-headed flying alligator made of cheese, therefore it must be real?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Special Pleading (Everything needs to have been created except God)
    Saying everything was created by god, and god was not created, does not explain how everything was created

    Just the same as theist pick faults with the big bang for not explaining what caused it, so I can pick a fault with religion for not explaining how god came to exist.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Do you even realize how stupid this sounds
    again you missed the point but that seems to the norm around here. if evolution were true, then all its adherents would be on the same page and be in agreeance and their would be rules to distinguish real followers of evolution from the false ones.

    you all do not get it.

    Not at all. My single requirement is that you can think.
    i do think, and i have rejected evolution and all of its trappings. just because i do not agree with you does it mean i am a brain dead robot or that i do not think. you evolutionists need to get off your hatred for all things non-evolutionary.

    So because we find out new information which refines evolution, it automatically means that evolution is false?
    of course, as the new 'information' benefits no one once they have died. such parcelling information is unjust and unfair, lacking in mercy and many other good characteristics.

    such new information benefits no one as it is impossible to prove true.

    You realize that God itself is a walking logical fallacy right?
    not at all. He is the source of logic, it is yours that has the problem.

    Appeal to Tradition (Most people have believed in a God forever, so God must exist)
    wrong. God exists even if no one believed in Him. He doesn't need people to sustain His existence, He wants people to chose life not destruction.

    You missed the point. What Appeal to Tradition states is that since the belief in God is old or traditional it must be right or moral. I never stated that if no one believed in him that he wouldn't exist. I simply stated that the belief in a God is an old belief and thus, people use that as justification to believe in him.

    Appeal to Belief (Most people believe in a God so God must exist)
    wrong again. see above.

    And you missed the point AGAIN. Appeal to Belief states that most people believe in claim A so claim A must be true.
    If most people believed that unicorns exist it doesn't mean they actually exist. It is the same with God. Just because most people believe in God does not mean that God exists.


    Appeal to Common Action (Believing in God is common, so the belief in God is a moral one)
    wrong again. one is called to believe so they can have salvation, it doesn't have to be a common action. those who believe in Jesus receive salvation.

    1/3rd of the world follows Christianity. 80% of Americans follow the Christian faith. It is common to be a Christian in the US. Again, you missed the entire point. This logical fallacy is very similar to appeal to popularity.

    Appeal to Authority (This is used alot by the catholic church)
    there is only one just and perfect authority, morality and so on. it is your choice to accept or reject it. it is up to you. you have the option of doing things your way but it would not be wise to do so.

    The priests and the Pope seem to think they are the authority on religion. They believe that they talk to God directly and whatever they say is from God. This is called the Appeal to Authority. They say that they are the authority on what God wants so they must be right.

    Appeal to Emotion (I feel in my heart God is real so he must be real)
    emotion does not replace the action of repentence and 'feeling' God in your heart does not mean that it is Him in there. evil likes to copy and 'comes as an angel of light' so one has to use more than emotions to discern if God is there or not.

    That does not change the fact that emotion is used to justify the belief in God. You basically agreed with me in your own twisted way. Just because you FEEL God is in your heart doesn't mean he is and it doesn't mean he exists.

    Appeal to Fear (You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell.)
    that is just the reality. no appealing to fear. your options are believe and follow God or not believe and follow evil. heaven and hell are the final destinations, your choice put fear aside if you want.

    Atheists are not the followers of Satan. This is a common misconception/propaganda used by Christians. If we deny Christianity and deny religion, we are NOT following Satan. We are denying Satan as well. You just used the appeal to fear in your argument saying that it is a reality and that there is no appealing to fear. Your own argument against what I said contains the very thing I was talking about.

    Appeal to Consequences of a Belief (If there is no God there is no afterlife so there must be a God)
    'ifs' are not reality. there is a God and you must choose.

    The appeal to consequence of a belief simply states that If the opposite of claim X were true then something bad would happen so claim X must be real.

    Appeal to Popularity (Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right)
    following Jesus is NOT popular. look at me, do you think i am popular here? no i suffer from all the posters insults and personal attacks. JEsus said 'pick p they cross and follow me' He did not promise a rose garden and He did not promise popularity. it is not easy following Jesus and it takes courage, faith andbelief.

    You're on a board where 90% of the people here are Atheist or Agnostic. However, Jesus is very popular. 80% of the US are Christians and believe in God. 1/3rd of the world follow the Christian faith. The majority are definately Christian. He IS popular in the world. He may not be popular on this forum, but this forum is miniscule in the scheme of things.

    Begging the Question (Your favorite one) Where they assume God is real. Or they assume the burden of proof is on me to disprove God)
    not 'begging the question'. God is real, you need to pray and have Him remove the blindness over your eyes. the evidenceis there and has been for over 6,000 years. one such evidence are the changed lives that happen when people believe in Jesus. another are the miracles that have taken place, (which science cannot explain). you just have to be open to see it.

    Here is a direct quote from a website
    Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

    Description of Begging the Question
    Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.


    1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
    2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

    Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

    Examples of Begging the Question

    Bill: "God must exist."
    Jill: "How do you know."
    Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
    Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
    Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

    "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

    "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

    Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
    Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
    Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
    Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."


    Burden of Proof (The example the website gives is "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
    you can't prove He does not exist becaus He does. why do you think scientists cannot get back to before the big bang? there are tings hidden from you all that you do not realize and you won't find the answer through unbelief or science.

    Can you provide any evidence for your belief? We don't need to prove that God does not exist. You made the claim and you need to provide evidence for your claim.

    Special Pleading (Everything needs to have been created except God)
    why does God have to be created? He wouldn't be God if He was and you would have excuse to ignore His rules. there would be something greater than God rendering Him moot.

    Thanks for agreeing that the belief in God follows Special Pleading. Here is the quote to Special Pleading.

    Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


    Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
    Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
    Therefore A is exempt from S.
    The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:


    Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
    Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
    Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.
    This is obviously a blatant case of special pleading. Since no one likes going to prison, this cannot justify the claim that Barbara alone should be exempt from punishment.

    From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the Principle of Relevant Difference. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. This principle is a reasonable one. After all, it would not be particularly rational to treat two people differently when there is no relevant difference between them. As an extreme case, it would be very odd for a parent to insist on making one child wear size 5 shoes and the other wear size 7 shoes when the children are both size 5.

    It should be noted that the Principle of Relevant Difference does allow people to be treated differently. For example, if one employee was a slacker and the other was a very prodictive worker the boss would be justified in giving only the productive worker a raise. This is because the productive of each is a relevant difference between them. Since it can be reasonable to treat people differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill's turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be a case of Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner (this, of course, assumes that Bill does not accept a standard that requires people to cook dinner regardless of the circumstances). In this case Bill is offering a good reason as to why he should be exempt and, most importantly, it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill.

    While determing what counts as a legitimate basis for exemption can be a difficult task, it seems clear that claiming you are exempt because you are you does not provide such a legitimate basis. Thus, unless a clear and relevant justification for exemption can be presented, a person cannot claim to be exempt.

    There are cases which are similar to instances of Special Pleading in which a person is offering at least some reason why he should be exempt but the reason is not good enough to warrant the exemption. This could be called "Failed Pleading." For example, a professor may claim to be exempt from helping the rest of the faculty move books to the new department office because it would be beneath his dignity. However, this is not a particularly good reason and would hardly justify his exemption. If it turns out that the real "reason" a person is claiming exemption is that they simply take themselves to be exempt, then they would be committing Special Pleading. Such cases will be fairly common. After all, it is fairly rare for adults to simply claim they are exempt without at least some pretense of justifying the exemption.

    Examples of Special Pleading

    Bill and Jill are married. Both Bill and Jill have put in a full day at the office. Their dog, Rover, has knocked over all the plants in one room and has strewn the dirt all over the carpet. When they return, Bill tells Jill that it is her job to clean up after the dog. When she protests, he says that he has put in a full day at the office and is too tired to clean up after the dog.

    Jane and Sue share a dorm room.
    Jane: "Turn of that stupid stereo, I want to take a nap."
    Sue: "Why should I? What are you exhausted or something?"
    Jane: "No, I just feel like taking a nap."
    Sue: "Well, I feel like playing my stereo."
    Jane: "Well, I'm taking my nap. You have to turn your stereo off and that's final."


    Mike and Barbara share an apartment.
    Mike: "Barbara, you've tracked in mud again."
    Barbara: "So? It's not my fault."
    Mike: "Sure. I suppose it walked in on its own. You made the mess, so you clean it up."
    Barbara: "Why?"
    Mike: "We agreed that whoever makes a mess has to clean it up. That is fair."
    Barbara: "Well, I'm going to watch TV. If you don't like the mud, then you clean it up."
    Mike: "Barbara..."
    Barbara: "What? I want to watch the show. I don't want to clean up the mud. Like I said, if it bothers you that much, then you should clean it up."


    also for proof that God exists--your own hatred for all things christian.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    dam, you atheist seem to have a lot of hate on Christians. can't you talk about Islam , Hinduism or something else. it seems the purpose of this sub-forum is to rant on Christians. Is Christianity the only religion you athesist can rant and talk about, as if it is the only religion in the world?

    evolution is not a fact, it is theory. The bible is not a scientific literature or book about a theory . so how can you use scientific means to disprove faith in god(belief in a divine power)? religion does not rely on scientific theory or facts to have a faith in god or to belief in Devine power.
    God's servant - Evolution is not "just a theory"
    PLEASE watch this video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl...rom=PL&index=6
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    FIRST OFF, let me say that accusing me of HATE SPEECH would be wrong as GOD made the rules NOT ME. If you want to know the truth then your ideas will be corrected, that is NOT HATE but correction.

    to distort the message of a believer into a crime is just wrong and shows thatyou are being selfish and want your own way NOT God's. you canhave your own way, you have free choice BUT you cannot complain when you find out you are wrong.

    Evolution is not a religion, it doesn't have followers.
    semantics to distort the reality. it does have followers or what goodis it?

    the rest of your post is being ignored because of the insults. cleanup your act and i will address the remaining points.

    Then you come along and say "You're both obviously wrong that it's powered by a motor - if there was any truth to your ridiculous motor theory, you would be able to agree about how the motor works! Clearly the car is powered by god's will!"
    going to the extreme and absurd to ridicule reality. you have yet to prove that evolution is correct. you say it is but you have yet to produce one iota of proof. keep in mind that evenif you do present something, there is the possibiity that the result could have come from some other source.

    The basic premise of evolution has not changed. You seem to think that just because people don't agree on every little detail about it, it must be false.
    it is false because it isn't true.

    Astronomers don't all agree on the properties of stars - are you going to say that this means stars don't exist
    now you have made a change and are cmparing apples and oranges. no one has said animals and humans do not exist, it is how they came to exist that is argued. your example isnow talking about existence which is far from the topic. nice try but it fails. no one says stars do not exist, how they came to be is the discussion. don't make such changes in midstream.

    Of course as we study it more, we will understand it better and our opinions on exactly how it occurs will change. That's the entire point of studying something - to improve your understanding of it.
    but you are stdying something THAT DOES NOT EXIST nd yo have NOT proven thatit does or is responsible for life. you SAY IT IS but thatis a far cry from proof and demands more faith then God asks of humans.

    God gave us a bookto help us--your theory has left it up to you. how do you know you have it right? you don't. on reason people like evolution is that it leaves them in control as to what it is. one reason people do not like creation is because tthey have to submit to God and are NOT in control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The same miracles that religious people cannot prove happened
    not talking about the biblical miracles but theones that have taken place throughout thepast 2,000 yearsand still take place today.
    (not the benny hinn type either)

    So if I became a christian, by your logic this would prove god does not exist.
    absurd, ignored.

    How is this different to brainwashing, exactly?
    if you are going to quote me please use my words not the words i answered. i will wait for a edit on that post.

    I simply stated that the belief in a God is an old belief and thus, people use that as justification to believe in him.
    do you need something new for it to be real? it has to be old or it wouldn't be fair or just and God would not be able to punish people for their sins and disobedience.

    It is the same with God. Just because most people believe in God does not mean that God exists
    God exists because God exists plus there would be no morality and no religions if He did not.

    1/3rd of the world follows Christianity. 80% of Americans follow the Christian faith. It is common to be a Christian in the US. Again, you missed the entire point. This logical fallacy is very similar to appeal to popularity.
    statistics mean very little. i could qualify that buy saying, 1/3 of the world and 80% of the americans SAY they believe in God doesn't mean they do or thatthey follow Him. people will say a lot of things but one has to go below the surface and see if they really do believe inGod.

    The priests and the Pope seem to think they are the authority on religion. They believe that they talk to God directly and whatever they say is from God. This is called the Appeal to Authority. They say that they are the authority on what God wants so they must be right.
    yes, people want power and control over others. theywill say what they need to to obtainthat position. doesn't make them an authority or thatthey talk to God. they can say that all they want but if it disagrees with the Bible or their lives do not match what jesus taught then they are not of God. the Bible does give criteria to help people know who are true and false teachers. the Bible is more than just a book, it prepares us for these situations.

    That does not change the fact that emotion is used to justify the belief in God. You basically agreed with me in your own twisted way. Just because you FEEL God is in your heart doesn't mean he is and it doesn't mean he exists
    i am not twsted but the reality is people can and are deceived but the Bible tells us how to figure out the difference and what to do with the false notions, spirits etc.

    Atheists are not the followers of Satan. This is a common misconception/propaganda used by Christians. If we deny Christianity and deny religion, we are NOT following Satan. We are denying Satan as well.
    spin it however you want but if you are not with God you are with satan. there are only two options.

    Can you provide any evidence for your belief? We don't need to prove that God does not exist. You made the claim and you need to provide evidence for your claim.
    asked and answered several times. BUT you do have to prove He does not exist because you are making the claim He doesn't. you need to back up your perspective. the ball is in your court.

    Thanks for agreeing that the belief in God follows Special Pleading
    i didn't agree with you becuase God does not need creating does it mean it is special pleading. God is God and the reality is if he were created, he would not be God and people would be free to ignore Him without fear. your 'special pleading' defense is just another justofication for you to remain in your sinful life and remain an unbeliever. so i guess you do it as well.

    i need to go now but will be back later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    patience, moderation, humility... force breeds resistance

    by all means continue, I'm learning a lot anyway
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    FIRST OFF, let me say that accusing me of HATE SPEECH would be wrong as GOD made the rules NOT ME. If you want to know the truth then your ideas will be corrected, that is NOT HATE but correction.

    to distort the message of a believer into a crime is just wrong and shows thatyou are being selfish and want your own way NOT God's. you canhave your own way, you have free choice BUT you cannot complain when you find out you are wrong.
    This "God made the rules not me" translates into "My god made me your master to tell you what to you have to believe". This is the typical rhetoric of religion that has been transformed into a tool of power and manipulation.



    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Evolution is not a religion, it doesn't have followers.
    semantics to distort the reality. it does have followers or what goodis it?
    The theory of evolution like the theory of relativity is a result of scientific inquiry. The Trekkies don't like the theory of relativity beause they want to believe in starships like in the Star Trek films and books. So what? They can keep on reading their fairy tale stories all they want and make this pretend reality into their whole world. Likewise religious fundamentalists don't like the theory of evolution and abiogenesis because they frankly just don't want a scientific explanation for the existence of life and the species. But again so what? They can keep on believing their fairy tale interpretation of Genesis all they want and make their pretend reality into their whole world. But that is not enough for them because like the communists they don't want their children to have a choice in this.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God gave us a bookto help us--your theory has left it up to you.
    Bulmalarky. You have made it up to YOU, not only with this book you have chosen, but also the interpretation of this book YOU have chosen. It is the scientists that have left it up to the evidence of objective observation. It is you and me that cannot prove that God isn't something that someone has just made up in their own head, while it is evolution that is clearly NOT something that is just made up in someones head because it is right there in front of us to watch anytime we choose.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    how do you know you have it right?
    It is really very simple. I don't believe that God is a liar and I don't beleive there are demons out there arranging all the physical evidence to deceive us -- that is the most basic premise of scientific inquiry. Could this be wrong? Certainly no more than you could be wrong about your fairy tale interpretation of Genesis. But which makes the most sense of the most facts -- that is the question that a rational person must ask. But no matter what you conclude, it will NEVER change the fact that evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is NOT.



    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    on reason people like evolution is that it leaves them in control as to what it is. one reason people do not like creation is because tthey have to submit to God and are NOT in control.
    Yes they choose to submit to what the scientific evidence tells them rather than submit to your refashioning of the God of the Bible into a tool of power and manipulation. Yes they choose to accept reality rather than participate in your self-delusion.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

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

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    God exists because God exists plus there would be no morality and no religions if He did not.
    Prove it. Morality does not go with religion.
    If religions did not exist if their was no God then that would mean EVERY single God in the history of man kind were real at one point in time. That would mean that you do not believe in just one god but many Gods.

    spin it however you want but if you are not with God you are with satan. there are only two options.
    That is where you are wrong. I do not believe God exists and I do not believe Satan exists. I do not believe ANY OF THAT MYTHOLOGY EXISTS so leave me out of your deluded fantasy.

    asked and answered several times. BUT you do have to prove He does not exist because you are making the claim He doesn't. you need to back up your perspective. the ball is in your court.
    NO it is not. Why do theists keep thinking they can make assumptions and unless we can prove them wrong that they must be right?
    If you make a claim such as that God exists, then you must back up your claim. If you cannot back up your claim, don't pawn it off on us to provide evidence of our claim. It is impossible to prove God does not exist. I am waiting for you to prove he does since he has not been proven to exist.

    i didn't agree with you becuase God does not need creating does it mean it is special pleading. God is God and the reality is if he were created, he would not be God and people would be free to ignore Him without fear. your 'special pleading' defense is just another justofication for you to remain in your sinful life and remain an unbeliever. so i guess you do it as well.
    So what you are saying is that God is outside of logic and shouldn't follow the logic that humans prescribe to?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    My god made me your master to tell you what to you have to believe".
    no, you have to follow what Christ and God said and if it deparets from the Bible then your words will be analyzed and if they are saying something they did not teach then you would be categorized as a false teacher and ignored.

    you cannot stray from God and expect to be included in His group.

    The theory of evolution like the theory of relativity is a result of scientific inquiry.
    it is a waste of time money and energy as it is going down the wrong path to the wrong ideas, leading thousands of people astray from the truth. which tells you that that scientific inquiry is wrong and needs to be discarded.

    do you remember the article about the 'walking fish' fossil? guess what, they found less than HALF of it and made this whole theory and dogma up about how it walked yet it wa smissing the very apparatus it needed to walk. seular science is often using partial data, or miniscule evidence to 'prove' their case.

    another example is the minute amount of evidence anthropologists use as evidence to declare skeletons as primates or knuckle walkers or human. usually it is only 1 toe bone. sorry but you all miss the boat as creation has millions of complete examples every day which show it is true.

    You have made it up to YOU, not only with this book you have chosen, but also the interpretation of this book YOU have chosen
    no, you can see it too if you let the Holy SPirit guide you. it isn't just my interpretation.

    I don't believe that God is a liar and I don't beleive there are demons out there arranging all the physical evidence to deceive us
    who said demons were arranging the fossils? they do not need to do that for the moment you start doubting GEn. 1 they have the opening they need to lead you astray away from God.

    Yes they choose to submit to what the scientific evidence tells them rather than submit to your refashioning of the God of the Bible into a tool of power and manipulation.
    yet God is NOT in that evidence. that is why you have a choice--follow God or follow something else. up to you.

    Prove it. Morality does not go with religion.
    actually it does. read 'the end of reason' by ravi zacharias. you will be surprised.

    If religions did not exist if their was no God then that would mean EVERY single God in the history of man kind were real at one point in time
    no because you forget that there is a true faith and there are false religions. not all can be true, only .

    I do not believe God exists and I do not believe Satan exists. I do not believe ANY OF THAT MYTHOLOGY EXISTS so leave me out of your deluded fantasy
    not believing does not exclude you from the reality. saying something doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that it does.

    If you make a claim such as that God exists, then you must back up your claim. If you cannot back up your claim, don't pawn it off on us to provide evidence of our claim
    i have already done so but you ignored it. recentlythere was a rock discovered from a meteor and the 'scientist' says this is a look backinto time to planets forming by themselves. yet where is the proof thatthis is so? it is a rock thousands of years removed from the formation of planets etc., it has nothing to say because it wasn't part of that kind of origination.

    you need to bring real proof not conjecture and wishful thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    actually it does. read 'the end of reason' by ravi zacharias. you will be surprised.
    So I do not believe in God. I guess I am immoral then while Jefrey Dahmer the serial killer is moral for believing God? Get real. I am a very moral person. I don't do drugs. I don't steal. I don't murder. AND I don't discriminate unlike the majority of religious individuals.

    no because you forget that there is a true faith and there are false religions. not all can be true, only .
    Exacly. And what I am saying is that they are all false

    i have already done so but you ignored it. recentlythere was a rock discovered from a meteor and the 'scientist' says this is a look backinto time to planets forming by themselves. yet where is the proof thatthis is so? it is a rock thousands of years removed from the formation of planets etc., it has nothing to say because it wasn't part of that kind of origination.
    Saying that it religion is real is not evidence for your claim. Pointing at the bible is not evidence of your claim. You have yet to provide me with any substantial evidence to your claim besides hear say.
    And disproof of another claim is not proof for your claim.
    You need to take a logic class.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    This "God made the rules not me" translates into "My god made me your master to tell you what to you have to believe".
    no, you have to follow what Christ and God said
    No don't have to, but I want to follow Christ and God. Why? Is it because of the threats and promises of your intellecutal blackmail manipulator god? No. The threats and promises of the "god of this world" have no meaning for me. I will defy your gun-waving father of lies no matter what the consequences, knowing that such defiance is worthwhile for its own sake. So then why do I want to follow Christ and God? It is because when you know them, then there is simply nothing that is more worthwhile. And that is why I cannot believe in the things you say that Christ and God have said, as you have them from the religions of men that have twisted their words to serve a corrupt scheme of power and manipulation.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    deparets from the Bible then your words will be analyzed and if they are saying something they did not teach then you would be categorized as a false teacher and ignored.
    Nonsense, there are those who use the Bible and those who follow the Bible. The former quote the Bible and say this means you have to do what they say, or else, the latter, having the Spirit of God in them breathe new life into Scripture just as Scripture breathes new life into them. Those who use the Bible live by dead words because it is they who put meaning into the words and thus the death which is in such people is multiplied. Those who follow the Bible, find the meaning in the words because God breathes life into them. This is why Jesus said to the religious people of that time, "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." The purpose of the scriptures is to lead you into a relationship of God and it is in that relationship and not in the Bible that you will have eternal life.

    The Bible does NOT contain all truth. This is easy to prove in a thousand different ways but why don't we just take Jesus' own words for it, John 3:12, "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" God has only put in the Bible what the people could understand at the time, and the Genesis story is the oldest. Why should He explain that He also created a hundred billion or more galaxies in a 14 billion light year radius when people had no way of even seeing them? So then what shall we do? Obstinately insist that God didn't create them or that they do not even exist because they are not mentioned in the Bible? Shall we refuse to learn anything that the people 2000 years ago did not understand because the Bible did not speak about such things? You do not use this sort of rhetoric out of any desire for the truth.

    Mathew13:13, "This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." Why does God speaks to people them in a way that allows them to deceive themselves? Your god of this world wants you to believe that it is because God hates us. But the truth is that everything He does is motivated by His love for us and thus to increase our free will and life. Thus He gives us a choice to believe or not to believe. But who was Jesus angry with when He was here? Was it the non-believers? No. It was the religious people. Because they say that they believe but it is not in God whom they believe. They replace the truth with dogma and they replace an infinite and loving God with something small and sordid - an idol of law and scriptures.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you cannot stray from God and expect to be included in His group.
    No I will not stray from God to be one of the children of hell in your group. Your god dictates and threatens like the robber waving a gun because there is no truth in this idol you have constructed.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The theory of evolution like the theory of relativity is a result of scientific inquiry.
    it is a waste of time money and energy as it is going down the wrong path to the wrong ideas, leading thousands of people astray from the truth. which tells you that that scientific inquiry is wrong and needs to be discarded.
    No it is that which tells me that you are on the side of the opiate pushers and have absolutely nothing to do with the truth. The cookie cutter christians imagine that the truth is a door cut to their shape alone so that only people think like them and act like them can pass through the door. But the truth is clear to me that these immitation christians have made themselves the obstacle that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 23:15 to prevent those that would seek the truth from coming to Him, just as the religious people did back then when He was among us. You have made yourselves into millstones.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You have made it up to YOU, not only with this book you have chosen, but also the interpretation of this book YOU have chosen
    no, you can see it too if you let the Holy SPirit guide you.
    But that is the whole point, it is the Holy Spirit I follow and not the relgious organizations and their self serving human interpretations. It is God and the Holy Spirit I will listen to, but I will not listen to you for there is no truth in you.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it isn't just my interpretation.
    Now that I am quite certain is very true. You did not read the Bible to see what it says, you let someone else tell you what it says. The result is that instead of letting God speak to you, you have listened to those who have turned religion into a tool of power and manipulation.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I don't believe that God is a liar and I don't beleive there are demons out there arranging all the physical evidence to deceive us
    they do not need to do that for the moment you start doubting GEn. 1 they have the opening they need to lead you astray away from God.
    I will not stray from God because it is God that I will never doubt and because I will never follow the like of you because the idol you have constructed does not fool me at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Yes they choose to submit to what the scientific evidence tells them rather than submit to your refashioning of the God of the Bible into a tool of power and manipulation.
    yet God is NOT in that evidence. that is why you have a choice--follow God or follow something else. up to you.
    But you are wrong. "Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity has been clearly percieved in the things that have been made." God created the universe and so the unasailable logic is that His purpose must be percieved in that which He has made. So either you don't really believe that God made the universe OR the truth is that you don't want to see God Himself but only the pretend god idol that you have constructed for your convenience.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

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

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    So I do not believe in God. I guess I am immoral then while Jefrey Dahmer the serial killer is moral for believing God
    never said that. why is it that when unbelievers try to make a point they do not look at the whole story but chop it up to make themselves look good and God bad?

    AND I don't discriminate unlike the majority of religious individuals.
    nicodemus basically said the same thing in a discussionwith Jesus. Jesus answer was--'ye must be born again' living a good life is not enough, you have to do what John 3:16 says.

    And what I am saying is that they are all false
    you would be wrong as there is one correct one.

    Saying that it religion is real is not evidence for your claim. Pointing at the bible is not evidence of your claim. You have yet to provide me with any substantial evidence to your claim besides hear say.
    you want physical evidence, you won't get it what you want. the criteria is 'faith'. see, even if i went out an dug up the ark you would find some reason to dismiss it as a fake. the problem isn't evidence--it is the fact you do not want to do it God's way--by faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    No don't have to, but I want to follow Christ and God. Why? Is it because of the threats and promises of your intellecutal blackmail manipulator god? No. The threats and promises of the "god of this world" have no meaning for me.
    i will address you when you remove the adjecties that insult, demean, attack and distort and so on. it isnot enjoyable being name called etc., whenhaving a discussion. i have not stooped to such tactics and you could return the favor instead of seeing how colorful you can be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Sophomore Gods servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    dam, you atheist seem to have a lot of hate on Christians. can't you talk about Islam , Hinduism or something else. it seems the purpose of this sub-forum is to rant on Christians. Is Christianity the only religion you athesist can rant and talk about, as if it is the only religion in the world?

    evolution is not a fact, it is theory. The bible is not a scientific literature or book about a theory . so how can you use scientific means to disprove faith in god(belief in a divine power)? religion does not rely on scientific theory or facts to have a faith in god or to belief in Devine power.
    God's servant - Evolution is not "just a theory"
    PLEASE watch this video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl...rom=PL&index=6
    it called the evolution theroy right? and i can't watch youtube my colledge blocks it
    verzin says: Christians believe in a god that murders kills people.......
    zeb replies:
    I see this argument as a typical pre-concept of people, which never showed a real interest to understand the bible, and the reason of certain things, why they happened. If i explain you, what Gods intent was, and the reason, these things happened, you will certainly come with the next argument, and then the next. And the final will be, no outcome, or change of opinion. I am quit sure, you have made up your mind already, don't you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    You have repeated the claim that we will not deal with specifics. I am still waiting for a response to my reply to your original contention.

    [/quote] you people like making generalities but when it comes to specifics your case falls apart.[/quote]To paraphrase Jack Nicolson in A Few Good Men, You can't handle specifics.

    Here is some specifics for you:
    Abstract
    The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

    Blount, Z.D. et al Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS June 10, 2008 vol. 105 no. 23 7899-7906

    The full research paper is available here:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf+html

    What detail do you feel is lacking? Too specific for you?

    I await a response, or at the very least an apology for claiming we will not deal with specifics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Then you come along and say "You're both obviously wrong that it's powered by a motor - if there was any truth to your ridiculous motor theory, you would be able to agree about how the motor works! Clearly the car is powered by god's will!"
    going to the extreme and absurd to ridicule reality. you have yet to prove that evolution is correct. you say it is but you have yet to produce one iota of proof. keep in mind that evenif you do present something, there is the possibiity that the result could have come from some other source.
    I am not particularly interested in arguing about evolution with you. I'm just trying to make you understand how ridiculous it was when you said
    if evolution were true, then all its adherents would be on the same page and be in agreeance and their would be rules to distinguish real followers of evolution from the false ones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    So I do not believe in God. I guess I am immoral then while Jefrey Dahmer the serial killer is moral for believing God
    never said that. why is it that when unbelievers try to make a point they do not look at the whole story but chop it up to make themselves look good and God bad?
    God? What god? You are yet to show me evidence that there is a god.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    AND I don't discriminate unlike the majority of religious individuals.
    nicodemus basically said the same thing in a discussionwith Jesus. Jesus answer was--'ye must be born again' living a good life is not enough, you have to do what John 3:16 says.
    Great. Let's go back in time and find out what that was? I don't trust a mistranslated 1700 year old book.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    And what I am saying is that they are all false
    you would be wrong as there is one correct one.
    You assume and hope there is. You are yet to provide evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Saying that it religion is real is not evidence for your claim. Pointing at the bible is not evidence of your claim. You have yet to provide me with any substantial evidence to your claim besides hear say.
    you want physical evidence, you won't get it what you want. the criteria is 'faith'. see, even if i went out an dug up the ark you would find some reason to dismiss it as a fake. the problem isn't evidence--it is the fact you do not want to do it God's way--by faith.
    Why would a god do that, though? Why would he deliberately mislead most of us, when he apparantly loves us?

    Lack of evidence for should be considered evidence against, so on that basis I have evidence that there is no god.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    No don't have to, but I want to follow Christ and God. Why? Is it because of the threats and promises of your intellecutal blackmail manipulator god? No. The threats and promises of the "god of this world" have no meaning for me.
    i will address you when you remove the adjecties that insult, demean, attack and distort and so on. it isnot enjoyable being name called etc., whenhaving a discussion. i have not stooped to such tactics and you could return the favor instead of seeing how colorful you can be.
    You are onyl one step away. You are trying to threaten us non-believers with the flames and heat of hell, and some guy called satan as well. But on reading the bible, I can see no reason to assume this satan guy is bad, other than god's word. I haven't heard Satan's side of the story.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quote Originally Posted by Gods servant
    dam, you atheist seem to have a lot of hate on Christians. can't you talk about Islam , Hinduism or something else. it seems the purpose of this sub-forum is to rant on Christians. Is Christianity the only religion you athesist can rant and talk about, as if it is the only religion in the world?

    evolution is not a fact, it is theory. The bible is not a scientific literature or book about a theory . so how can you use scientific means to disprove faith in god(belief in a divine power)? religion does not rely on scientific theory or facts to have a faith in god or to belief in Devine power.
    God's servant - Evolution is not "just a theory"
    PLEASE watch this video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7Ctl...rom=PL&index=6
    it called the evolution theroy right? and i can't watch youtube my colledge blocks it
    Gods Servant. There are two different types of theories. One is a laymans theory which states a simple hunch of a guess. The other type of theory is the scientific theory which basically states that something is very close to the truth and that there are milestones worth of evidence to back it up.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    before i address the recent comments, i should point out that this thread's title is about using evolutionto disprove the Bible, YET not one person onthe evolutionary side as done so or even made an attemtp to do so. why is that?

    what evidence do they have that disproves the Bible? in this or another thread i made a point that not ne scientific or archaeological discovery has been made that has accomplished that objective and noone revealed any smoking gun to contradict me so we must conclude that evolution fails even on this point.

    they made the thread, so the ball is in their court to produce said evidence, said discoveries, said proof.. let's see of they can do so without eons of time which makes it impossible to observe to see if they are right, let's see if they can do so without unsubstantiated theory or conjecture, wishful thinking and soon.

    let's see the cold hard observable, provable evidence andnot some experiemnt that is projected over all life but really only covers a genetic defect in one minute species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I am not particularly interested in arguing about evolution with you. I'm just trying to make you understand how ridiculous it was when you said
    not really because true christians are onthe same page and agree on what the Bible says and do not argue with each other. misinterpretations are soon exposed and peoplehave the choice to change, yet we find in secular science most people refuse to change because their life's work is wasted if they do.

    You are yet to provide evidence.
    this is an escape route because evenif i provided more evidence thani have, you willalways find some excuse to dismiss it. i gave you 3 places togo for your evidence--the human, animal, plant nurseries and yo willget allthe evidence you need. until you do, asking me for more is a waste of time.

    Why would a god do that, though? Why would he deliberately mislead most of us, when he apparantly loves us?

    Lack of evidence for should be considered evidence against, so on that basis I have evidence that there is no god.
    continuing to demand the same things over and over is not goingto change what you are going to get. ifyou cannot accept the evidence we have now, what makes you think you will accept any more evidence?

    i am notinto wasting my time trying to meet petty demands and the stuff you call 'evidence' for evolutionis nothing more than mere conjecture, it isnot physical or even evidence but read into, attributed, credited and so on. not one thing that has been discovered ultimately proves evolution exists let alone is responsible.

    the fact that evolutionists, in their 'predictions', makeit basically impossible for them to accept that their results could be obtained through alternatives. they are not being intellectually honest and tilt the playing field to get the desired results.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I already explained how to disprove creationism via biology and evolution and all you could come up with is, "you're wrong. It is not the truth because it goes against the bible."

    So with that logic in mind I can't come up with any evidence to persuade you from thinking that any evidence AGAINST the bible is automatically wrong and incorrect since it IS against the bible. But anything for the bible is automatically good evidence for the bible.
    It's impossible to argue with you. You believe that all of our evidence is false (simply because it goes against the bible which you view as the truth) while all of your evidence is trustworthy. (Because it goes for the bible which you view as the truth)
    The way you set up your standards is that there is NO WAY that we can win. It's impossible for us to prove our arguments to you simply because you don't trust any evidence that goes against your bible.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  62. #61  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I am not particularly interested in arguing about evolution with you. I'm just trying to make you understand how ridiculous it was when you said
    not really because true christians are onthe same page and agree on what the Bible says and do not argue with each other. misinterpretations are soon exposed and peoplehave the choice to change, yet we find in secular science most people refuse to change because their life's work is wasted if they do.
    You are saying that if it turned out the bible was actually telling you to walk around naked eating a polar bear's penis, you would do it? Of course you wouldn't. So don't make it seem that religion is so much more willing to accept change than science. Especially since you have been refusing to accept any tiny amount of change in this forum, despite overwhelming evidence against your ideas, and instead try to force your ideas on us, despite having no evidence to back them up.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You are yet to provide evidence.
    this is an escape route because evenif i provided more evidence thani have, you willalways find some excuse to dismiss it. i gave you 3 places togo for your evidence--the human, animal, plant nurseries and yo willget allthe evidence you need. until you do, asking me for more is a waste of time.
    You miss the point. Evolution explains all of these without the need for a divine flying invisible man. Whereas you have provided no evidence a) to deny my claims, or b) to support your own.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Why would a god do that, though? Why would he deliberately mislead most of us, when he apparantly loves us?

    Lack of evidence for should be considered evidence against, so on that basis I have evidence that there is no god.
    continuing to demand the same things over and over is not goingto change what you are going to get. ifyou cannot accept the evidence we have now, what makes you think you will accept any more evidence?
    What evidence? I am not asking for more, I am asking you to show this elusive evidence you keep mentioning. because I am, in fact, open to change if evidence can be provided. I would accept there is a god if you could show me some proof.

    This is not to say I would worship him.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am notinto wasting my time trying to meet petty demands and the stuff you call 'evidence' for evolutionis nothing more than mere conjecture, it isnot physical or even evidence but read into, attributed, credited and so on. not one thing that has been discovered ultimately proves evolution exists let alone is responsible.
    Nothing can ever be completely proved. It is a commonly accepted fact. However, all evidence supports evolution to date. None supports creationism. You cannot deny this.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the fact that evolutionists, in their 'predictions', makeit basically impossible for them to accept that their results could be obtained through alternatives. they are not being intellectually honest and tilt the playing field to get the desired results.
    Predictions are made based on the theory of evolution, which have always proved to be correct. While this is not definitive proof, its is strong evidence. Predictions made by creationism are that genetic diversity in a species will not change, and that the DNA of a species has always been constant. All fossils, preserved remains and genetic studies have shown this to be false, as mutations continue to appear in the gene pool and bacteria and viruses continue to evolve to survive. MRSA is an example. HIV, which did not exist a few decades ago.

    So, given that the predictions made by evolutionists have been correct, and all evidence uncovered has also shown evolution to be correct, yet both of these have excluded creationism, we can conclude that evolution is by far the more proven theory, and so the most believable and the most commonly accepted. Even if you don't believe it, the proof is still there, and you can't deny it.

    There. I have explained why evolution has been practically proven.

    Now show me some of this 'evidence' you claim to have.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am notinto wasting my time trying to meet petty demands and the stuff you call 'evidence' for evolutionis nothing more than mere conjecture, it isnot physical or even evidence but read into, attributed, credited and so on. not one thing that has been discovered ultimately proves evolution exists let alone is responsible.
    Have you read the paper to which I have now quoted the abstract twice? It contains an example of the evidence you claim does not exist. Your persistent failure to respond to that evidence does not cast you in a positive light. Will you now respond to it objectively? If you fail to do so I shall be urging the forum admins to ban you for breaching at least one forum rule.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    So don't make it seem that religion is so much more willing to accept change than science.
    i would advise you to read carefully and not assume.

    Evolution explains all of these without the need for a divine flying invisible man. Whereas you have provided no evidence
    but so does the Bible and yu have provided no evidence either other than 'evolution explains it' which seems eerily similar to your complaint 'God did it'. so basically all you have done is taken the christian argument, changed a few words and call it proof. sorry but you lose here very badly.

    I am asking you to show this elusive evidence you keep mentioning. because I am, in fact, open to change if evidence can be provided. I would accept there is a god if you could show me some proof.
    just because you attribute things to evolution does it mean that there is no evidence for God's existence. all you are doing is disguising what is already there and then proclaimig christians have no evidence. well here is something fo ryou to ponder:

    Ken Wilbur wrote in his book, A Brief History of Everything, on page 37 the following:

    Well this changes everything. Calculations done by scientists fromFred Hoyle toF.B. Salisbury consistantly show that 12 billion years isn't even enough to produce a single enzyme by chance. In other words something other than chance is pushing the universe.
    the evidence is there, you just have to be honest .

    Nothing can ever be completely proved. It is a commonly accepted fact. However, all evidence supports evolution to date. None supports creationism. You cannot deny this.
    yes i can becaus eyou have not proven that ALL EVIDENCE supports evolution. in fact i have shown where the evidence doesw NOT support evolution as it is based in conjecture, over-sized time periods and other unprovable points used by evolutionists.

    i have also shown that everything suports creation because everything takes place is the result of God's creative act and the fall of adam. even the hybrid experiments support creation and not evolution.

    Predictions are made based on the theory of evolution, which have always proved to be correct.
    talk about bias and circular reasoning. i have already dealt with predictions and those are faulty because it ignores the fact that alternatives could also produce the same result.

    Predictions made by creationism are that genetic diversity in a species will not change, and that the DNA of a species has always been constant
    you are again using the wrong standard to measure a supernatural act. we do not have to make predictions because we know what took place and how things will turn out. it has been set and no amount of predictions will change anything. besides those 'predictions' used by evolutionists are based upon faulty data and then extrapolated in a generalization by an act of desperation to prove their lie true.

    we can conclude that evolution is by far the more proven theory,
    you would be wrong as prediction is not cold hard facts. the cold hard fact is all things take place according to the creative act and the influence from the fall of adam.

    you arebasing your 'evidence' in a fallible and faulty system which is very off and headed inthe wrong direction.

    so the most believable and the most commonly accepted
    still doesn't make it right or correct.

    AGAINST the bible is automatically wrong and incorrect since it IS against the bible. But anything for the bible is automatically good evidence for the bible.
    there is more to it than that. once one looks beyond the surface and sees the reality thenone will see the difference. evolutionists need billions of years to prove their point, everyone will be long dead and gone which makes their point moot. with creation, we see the results everyday, every hour of the day which makes our point pertinent and correct.

    The way you set up your standards is that there is NO WAY that we can win. It's impossible for us to prove our arguments to you simply because you don't trust any evidence that goes against your bible.
    you can't even prove your arguments logically. Same book & author, pg. 31,32:

    Take the standard example that wings evolved from forelegs. It takes a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg...he wing will work only if these hundred mutations happen all at once in one animal... talk about mind-boggling...random mutationscannot even begin to explain this. The vast majority of mutations are lethal anyways, how are we going to get 100 non-lethal mutations happening simultaneously.
    what you are proposing then is that evolution has to be creation in order to actually work properly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am notinto wasting my time trying to meet petty demands and the stuff you call 'evidence' for evolutionis nothing more than mere conjecture, it isnot physical or even evidence but read into, attributed, credited and so on. not one thing that has been discovered ultimately proves evolution exists let alone is responsible.
    Have you read the paper to which I have now quoted the abstract twice? It contains an example of the evidence you claim does not exist. Your persistent failure to respond to that evidence does not cast you in a positive light. Will you now respond to it objectively? If you fail to do so I shall be urging the forum admins to ban you for breaching at least one forum rule.
    haven't read it either time and do not intend to as i am ignoring you while dealing with other posters. there is only one of me dealing with multiples of opponents.

    if you have to threaten me then you are not worth talking to and it shows you are afraid and a coward. i could care less about you atthis point and have chosen not to deal with you because you resort to the usual tactic most evolutionists use, when losing kick them out.

    you have proven most rumors about evolutionists as true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am notinto wasting my time trying to meet petty demands and the stuff you call 'evidence' for evolutionis nothing more than mere conjecture, it isnot physical or even evidence but read into, attributed, credited and so on. not one thing that has been discovered ultimately proves evolution exists let alone is responsible.
    Have you read the paper to which I have now quoted the abstract twice? It contains an example of the evidence you claim does not exist. Your persistent failure to respond to that evidence does not cast you in a positive light. Will you now respond to it objectively? If you fail to do so I shall be urging the forum admins to ban you for breaching at least one forum rule.
    haven't read it either time and do not intend to as i am ignoring you while dealing with other posters. there is only one of me dealing with multiples of opponents.

    if you have to threaten me then you are not worth talking to and it shows you are afraid and a coward. i could care less about you atthis point and have chosen not to deal with you because you resort to the usual tactic most evolutionists use, when losing kick them out.

    you have proven most rumors about evolutionists as true.
    You asked for detail. You claimed that evolutionists only made vague, general comments about evolution. I provided a detailed document that demonstrated you were incorrect. Now you are presenting a weak excuse to justify your inability to answer.

    You claim to be ignoring me, yet you have responded to other posts of mine since the first posting of my evidence. Clearly you are being selective in what you respond to of mine. Hence your explanation above is dishonest.

    I gave you fair warning. You have been allowed to peddle your dishonesty here long enough for my liking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I gave you fair warning. You have been allowed to peddle your dishonesty here long enough for my liking
    i could care less what you like or do not like. i am under no obligation to address or respond to every poster. i have reported you and your threats as it is people like you who run these forums for everyone.

    you think you own the place and last i heard, you do not. stop acting like a spoiled child.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am under no obligation to address or respond to every poster. i have reported you and your threats as it is people like you who run these forums for everyone.
    You have repeatedly stated that evolutionists offer no detailed evidence for evolution. I have twice posted the abstract from a paper that does exactly that, along with a link to the full paper. You have not only ignored this, but continued dishonestly to claim that no poster is offering the evidence you say you wish to see.

    I make no threats. I have requested that you be banned for such intransigent dishonesty. It is up to the forum admins and mods to decide whether or not they act on that request.

    In terms of ruining the forum, this is done when people insist upon posting unfounded opinions rather than peer reviewed observations. My conscience is clear on that point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Ok let's ditch the blustering pissing contest and get back to the issue.

    With this post here Galt has made his point very well,
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    You have repeated the claim that we will not deal with specifics. I am still waiting for a response to my reply to your original contention.

    you people like making generalities but when it comes to specifics your case falls apart.
    To paraphrase Jack Nicolson in A Few Good Men, You can't handle specifics.

    Here is some specifics for you:
    Abstract
    The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

    Blount, Z.D. et al Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. PNAS June 10, 2008 vol. 105 no. 23 7899-7906

    The full research paper is available here:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf+html

    What detail do you feel is lacking? Too specific for you?

    I await a response, or at the very least an apology for claiming we will not deal with specifics.
    My thanks to you Galt for that was interesting reading. It establishes very well how the accumulation of small internal changes with no visible expression can result in what seems like an abrupt visible change. This is excellent and well substantiated scientific evidence for a very good point.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am notinto wasting my time trying to meet petty demands
    If people answer your claims then courtesy requires that you respond when they do. Thus Galt's request is neither petty nor unreasonable.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    and the stuff you call 'evidence' for evolutionis nothing more than mere conjecture, it isnot physical or even evidence but read into, attributed, credited and so on. not one thing that has been discovered ultimately proves evolution exists let alone is responsible.
    On the contrary, what Galt has quoted is most definitely physical evidence (and quite clear and plain at that) and it is you that have never given anything in support of your postion besides pure rhetoric and not very good rhetoric at that. Your claims here in regards to the evidence Galt has presented is nothing but unsubstantiated slander.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    haven't read it either time and do not intend to
    In other words, as you have repeatedly made it clear you are not interested in scientific evidence but only what the Bible says. Thus you really have no call make any comment about the direction of scientific inquiry at all. Your interest is only theology?

    I hestitate here because you don't even seem to welcome any discussion of the theology of the matter either. Your argument is simply that evolution contradicts what you read in the Bible. You cannot prove that God exists or that the Bible is the word of God, which would logically restrict any meaningful discussion with people who already accept these premises. Your shouting matches with those who do not is completely pointless, and you refuse to engage with me concerning theology.

    Ok so you think we are all evil and we all agree that you are evil, is there anything else?


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    as i am ignoring you while dealing with other posters. there is only one of me dealing with multiples of opponents.
    This is true. But you asked for this. You came here uninvited and persisted with a polemic that would obviously be quite unpopular here.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you have to threaten me then you are not worth talking to and it shows you are afraid and a coward.
    But this is illogical. His threat may be a bit exessive but I think it is an honest expression of his feelings about your behavior. It is you, on the other hand, who are refusing to meet HIS challenge, so your accusation of cowardice is absurd in the extreme.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i could care less about you at this point and have chosen not to deal with you because you resort to the usual tactic most evolutionists use, when losing kick them out.
    How would you feel if someone came to your church to preach Hinduism and tried shouting down your pastor or priest with quotes from the Bhagavad-Gita? Since this is against the express purpose of your meeting, you have every right to toss him out. Him screaming about your cowardice on the way out the door would be rather childish. The same is true of any group, organization and meeting that has the express purpose to conduct or discuss scientific inquiry. They have EVERY right to toss out anyone who is very clearly not interested in scientific evidence and scientific inquiry.

    Since this is called the science forum it should be clear that this forum is also such a group. The religion section here is kind of a last chance for the religious people who visit to learn something about what science is all about. So frankly if you already have your mind made up then you might as well cut to the chase and depart.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you have proven most rumors about evolutionists as true.
    On the contrary, it is you who have confirmed every stereotype of the irrational Bible thumper as completely opposed to scientific inquiry and rational discussion of the issues. If you have convinced any of the atheists here of anything it is that the Bible acts as an off switch for people's brains. I certainly don't believe that, but what can I say to them now? All they have to do is point to this thread as proof to say that I am wrong.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

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

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    If people answer your claims then courtesy requires that you respond when they do. Thus Galt's request is neither petty nor unreasonable.
    no worries for the future.

    On the contrary, what Galt has quoted is most definitely physical evidence (and quite clear and plain at that) and it is you that have never given anything in support of your postion besides pure rhetoric and not very good rhetoric at that. Your claims here in regards to the evidence Galt has presented is nothing but unsubstantiated slander
    i would disagree, as his quote again just shows attribution not proof that evolution was responsible. you haven't eliminated other alternatives from producing the same result. plus i would disagree with the word 'mutation' as it could very well be, and most likely is, a genetic defect.

    what stage of evolution would a mongoloid child be if it is a mutation?

    In other words, as you have repeatedly made it clear you are not interested in scientific evidence but only what the Bible says
    not at all, it just means i have to move to another level of the discussion i was not wanting to do. let me quote something for you fromhis quote:

    We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history
    there is a problem here. NO ONE NOWS how evolution works, no one knows how evolution got started, no one knows if this replay is actually correct because it says it repeated evolution but if you do not know how the first one did its job, how canyou repeat it.? you can't you have nothing original to compare notes with to seeif it was right.

    for all you know, it was merely a gene gone bad or some more information losing combinations which changed the production for future generations. you still have no proof it is evolution at work.

    Your argument is simply that evolution contradicts what you read in the Bible
    no, my argument is that evolution does not exist and it cannot be proven nor shown to be responsible. it sis all attributiona nd conjecture which ignores the facts of life. i.e. genetic defects, information losing, sterilty, immunity and so on.

    you push these things to the side and call the process by another name because that is what you want not the truth.

    You cannot prove that God exists or that the Bible is the word of God, which would logically restrict any meaningful discussion with people who already accept these premises.
    you cannot prove that evolution exists nor provide any proof for it beyond theory and conjecture. remember the 'walking fish' news story of last year , i belieev. well they based that whole scenario on half a fossil minus its 'walking parts' you have no proof. i have proof God exists, you all just do not accept it.

    So frankly if you already have your mind made up then you might as well cut to the chase and depart.
    typical, and very closed minded of you. why are you so afraid of dissenting opinions? i have provided places to go for proof, you all won't do it. don't blame me for your inaction and unwillingness.

    the rest of your post is typical and ignorant. you have had plebnty of time to refute my points and present definitive evidence yet you fail to do so. why? because you are wrong and you have no evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    typical, and very closed minded of you. why are you so afraid of dissenting opinions? i have provided places to go for proof, you all won't do it. don't blame me for your inaction and unwillingness.
    You are not listening. No one here is afraid of dissenting opinion. This forum is full of dissenting opinion, even about evolution. I have simply said that if you already have your mind made up that you have no interest in scientific evidence or scientific inquiry then your participation in this forum is pointless and you might as well leave.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    the rest of your post is typical and ignorant. you have had plebnty of time to refute my points and present definitive evidence yet you fail to do so. why? because you are wrong and you have no evidence.
    It is you who just call anything which disagrees with your point of view ignorant. Your points have been consistently nonsensical and everytime someone addresses them you simply ignore them or make rude comments. You have presented no evidence at all and have ignored evidence presented to you. You simply repeat this bald face lie, "you have no evidence" as if you believe the old Soviet philosophy that if you repeat your lies a thousand times that will make it true.

    Your responses consistently make it clear that you don't understand what you are talking about and that there is no evidence that would convince you of anything. It pointless to discuss science with you and I am not sure there is any point in discussing anything else with you either. It is quite clear that you are capable of convincing yourself of anything including that red is green and so whatever conclusion to come to about the people here is as meaningless as your conclusions about scientific theory. I am done with you as a poster and will only continue to observe as a moderator.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

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

  72. #71  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Ken Wilbur wrote in his book, A Brief History of Everything, on page 37 the following:

    Well this changes everything. Calculations done by scientists fromFred Hoyle toF.B. Salisbury consistantly show that 12 billion years isn't even enough to produce a single enzyme by chance. In other words something other than chance is pushing the universe.
    the evidence is there, you just have to be honest .
    Just to address the Hoyle's Fallacy.

    Hoyle's calculations and those of other mathematicians and astrologers who like to venture into biology with no actual understanding of it, have been soundly refuted. First of all, they calculated those numbers off of the assumption that life would appear spontaneously in the form it is now, instead of a more primitive form. Secondly, they calculated the probability of a single event, ignoring the very likely possibility of multiple locations where life could have evolved. Finally, it ignores the fact that some of the building blocks for life already exist spontaneously and have been identified in meteorites.

    Hoyle was insane anyway, he thought life came to Earth on meteorites, evolved through God's guidance and occasional viruses(sent by God too) to add genetic material.

    You are also making the same mistake creationist always make of equating theories of abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. Evolution is a theory of how life changes, and it begins with the assumption that life exists. It does not address where life came from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Archaeologist wouldn't know evolution if it bit him on the arse.

    Exhibit A:

    for all you know, it was merely a gene gone bad or some more information losing combinations which changed the production for future generations. you still have no proof it is evolution at work.
    And B:

    plus i would disagree with the word 'mutation' as it could very well be, and most likely is, a genetic defect
    That is why you fail my son.
    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  
     

  74. #73  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Evolution explains all of these without the need for a divine flying invisible man. Whereas you have provided no evidence
    but so does the Bible and yu have provided no evidence either other than 'evolution explains it' which seems eerily similar to your complaint 'God did it'. so basically all you have done is taken the christian argument, changed a few words and call it proof. sorry but you lose here very badly.
    Fair enough. I had assumed that evolution was so widely accepted that it would not be necessary for me to provide evidence. My next post will contain evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I am asking you to show this elusive evidence you keep mentioning. because I am, in fact, open to change if evidence can be provided. I would accept there is a god if you could show me some proof.
    just because you attribute things to evolution does it mean that there is no evidence for God's existence. all you are doing is disguising what is already there and then proclaimig christians have no evidence. well here is something fo ryou to ponder:

    Ken Wilbur wrote in his book, A Brief History of Everything, on page 37 the following:

    Well this changes everything. Calculations done by scientists fromFred Hoyle toF.B. Salisbury consistantly show that 12 billion years isn't even enough to produce a single enzyme by chance. In other words something other than chance is pushing the universe.
    the evidence is there, you just have to be honest .
    This only accounts for mutation. Mutation is only a small part of genetic diversity; sexual reproduction in eukaryotes and transfer of genetic material by plasmids in prokaryotes very much accelerates evolution. My example, again, is whole colonies of bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics in a few hours; not just certain individual bacteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Nothing can ever be completely proved. It is a commonly accepted fact. However, all evidence supports evolution to date. None supports creationism. You cannot deny this.
    yes i can becaus eyou have not proven that ALL EVIDENCE supports evolution. in fact i have shown where the evidence doesw NOT support evolution as it is based in conjecture, over-sized time periods and other unprovable points used by evolutionists.
    You have shown me no evidence, you have showed me an excerpt from a book which takes a point out of context and clearly does not fully understand the theory it is trying to disprove.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i have also shown that everything suports creation because everything takes place is the result of God's creative act and the fall of adam. even the hybrid experiments support creation and not evolution.
    You have told us this, not shown it. You have given me no reason to believe you.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Predictions are made based on the theory of evolution, which have always proved to be correct.
    talk about bias and circular reasoning. i have already dealt with predictions and those are faulty because it ignores the fact that alternatives could also produce the same result.
    Yes, for a single experiment. However, in science there are generally a series of experiments which go according to predictions before a theory is considered proven. This means the theory has been so sucessful that it is unlikely for an alternative to be true instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Predictions made by creationism are that genetic diversity in a species will not change, and that the DNA of a species has always been constant
    you are again using the wrong standard to measure a supernatural act. we do not have to make predictions because we know what took place and how things will turn out.
    How convenient for you, I suppose it avoids the embarrasment of being wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it has been set and no amount of predictions will change anything. besides those 'predictions' used by evolutionists are based upon faulty data and then extrapolated in a generalization by an act of desperation to prove their lie true.
    Sources?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    we can conclude that evolution is by far the more proven theory,
    you would be wrong as prediction is not cold hard facts. the cold hard fact is all things take place according to the creative act and the influence from the fall of adam.
    Prediction alone may not prove the theory. But a combination of fossils, DNA decoding, modern examples of ongoing evolution and predictions prove the theory together.

    YOU ARE YET TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM

    You are posting on a scientific forum. Threats and assurances will not win the arguement.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you arebasing your 'evidence' in a fallible and faulty system which is very off and headed inthe wrong direction.
    You only consider it faulty because it disagrees with you. I take it you have decided not to take my advice about not saying science is full of sin, or whatever crap you can make up?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    so the most believable and the most commonly accepted
    still doesn't make it right or correct.
    More likely to be though, since all the evidence agrees with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    AGAINST the bible is automatically wrong and incorrect since it IS against the bible. But anything for the bible is automatically good evidence for the bible.
    there is more to it than that. once one looks beyond the surface and sees the reality thenone will see the difference. evolutionists need billions of years to prove their point, everyone will be long dead and gone which makes their point moot. with creation, we see the results everyday, every hour of the day which makes our point pertinent and correct.
    The whole point with creationism is that there are no results, surely? In which case you need to rapidly think of a way to explain mutating strains of bacteria and viruses.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The way you set up your standards is that there is NO WAY that we can win. It's impossible for us to prove our arguments to you simply because you don't trust any evidence that goes against your bible.
    you can't even prove your arguments logically. Same book & author, pg. 31,32:

    Take the standard example that wings evolved from forelegs. It takes a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg...he wing will work only if these hundred mutations happen all at once in one animal... talk about mind-boggling...random mutationscannot even begin to explain this. The vast majority of mutations are lethal anyways, how are we going to get 100 non-lethal mutations happening simultaneously.
    what you are proposing then is that evolution has to be creation in order to actually work properly.
    Why do all the changes have to happen at once? Why not over time?

    This is how evolution predicts it happens, and it explains how both flying and non-flying animals evolved simultaneuosly; not spontaneously changing from oen to the other.

    Look at archaeopterix (sorry, bad spelling); it had wings, but because it did not have pneumatised bones it could only fly for a few metres at a time.

    Or look at flying squirrels.

    How could they have developed like this if they had been designed by god specifically for flying?

    Why does the ostrich have wings, but cannot fly? Penguins?

    Why do we see fossil records where a species is slowly changing over time?

    Why do we see such a marked change in humans over the past 150,000 years? How did our heads get bigger, and how did we develop teeth for eating meat?

    Why do we see species with eyes which are completely blind?

    Why do mitochondria have their own DNA? Chloroplasts as well.

    Creationism answers none of these. Evolution answers them all.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    On the contrary, what Galt has quoted is most definitely physical evidence (and quite clear and plain at that) and it is you that have never given anything in support of your postion besides pure rhetoric and not very good rhetoric at that. Your claims here in regards to the evidence Galt has presented is nothing but unsubstantiated slander
    i would disagree, as his quote again just shows attribution not proof that evolution was responsible. you haven't eliminated other alternatives from producing the same result. plus i would disagree with the word 'mutation' as it could very well be, and most likely is, a genetic defect.
    Suggest an alternative then, and I will explain why it cannot work.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    what stage of evolution would a mongoloid child be if it is a mutation?
    Have you heard the phrase 'survival of the fittest'? When mutations occur which are harmful, the animal dies. When they are benefitial, the animal has a better chance of survival, so over time the mutation will spread. Mutations which make no difference to survival may or may not survive to be passed on. Hence why there are features of humans that make them appear different but make little actual difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    In other words, as you have repeatedly made it clear you are not interested in scientific evidence but only what the Bible says
    not at all, it just means i have to move to another level of the discussion i was not wanting to do.
    Since you are ignoring what we say and continue to ake reference to the bible, or to god, without anything to back you up, I think you probably aren't listening, to be honest.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    let me quote something for you fromhis quote:

    We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history
    there is a problem here. NO ONE NOWS how evolution works, no one knows how evolution got started, no one knows if this replay is actually correct because it says it repeated evolution but if you do not know how the first one did its job, how canyou repeat it.? you can't you have nothing original to compare notes with to seeif it was right.
    We do know how evolution works, though. Experiments to see the function and origin of genes do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    for all you know, it was merely a gene gone bad or some more information losing combinations which changed the production for future generations. you still have no proof it is evolution at work.
    The fact that a gene makes a difference is proof that evolution is possible, though. And if it is possible, what is stopping it happening?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Your argument is simply that evolution contradicts what you read in the Bible
    no, my argument is that evolution does not exist and it cannot be proven nor shown to be responsible. it sis all attributiona nd conjecture which ignores the facts of life. i.e. genetic defects, information losing, sterilty, immunity and so on.
    Good. Evidence instead of insistance you are right?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you push these things to the side and call the process by another name because that is what you want not the truth.
    I can explain all of these.

    here is some evidence for you:

    http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I'm just waiting until archaeologist tries to claim that all mutations are bad mutations. Then I will point out that sickle cell anemia appears to be a bad mutation, however it is only a bad mutation if the person obtains both parts of the sickle cell mutation. If they only obtain one part of the mutation then they gain an immunity to Malaria.
    That is how evolution works.

    For instance - If sickle cell is classified as an S and normal is classified as an N then sickle cell anemia would be classified as SS while normal is classified as NN

    If a person with sickle cell anemia had sex with a person who is normal then they would be

    N N

    S SN SN

    S SN SN

    So if a normal person has a child with someone with sickle cell anemia, they will have a 100% chance to have a child who is immune to Malaria.


    However, if both are immune to Malaria then it will end up like this


    S N

    S SS SN

    N SN NN

    They have a 50% chance of being immune to Malaria, a 25% chance of being normal or a 25% chance of having sickle cell anemia.

    Now if you are in a place where malaria is highly present, that place also has a good chance for malaria being present as well. If malaria is present in that location, then that country is generally known as a 3rd world nation such as Africa. Usually people with Sickle Cell Anemia die which leaves only people with immunity to malaria and normal. However, those who are normal have a high chance of getting malaria and dying.
    So the majority of births come from

    S N

    S SS SN

    N SN NN

    However, since NN and SS have a low chance of living in a malaria infected environment, they usually die off anyway, so we can then conclude that the majority of individuals in Africa are..

    S N

    S SN

    N SN

    That is how evolution works. Yes, the process for creating more individuals with normal or sickle cell is still present. However, those individuals have a higher chance of dying and less chance of gaining the immunity of the Malaria virus. This process is also true of evolution. Evolution does not state that an individual obtains the best mutations. Evolution is not a sentient being. It is a process.
    It simply states that bad mutations, which are the majority of mutations, die out sooner rather than later. Even a person who is "normal" for the population is forced to adapt otherwise they would die if they did not.
    However, good mutations which are very rare, rarely die out. They are able to produce off spring which share this good mutation more easily then bad mutations can (Immunity to malaria is a good example). Neutral mutations have no effect on the lively-hood of the being in question. A neutral mutation for instance is eye color. If a being loses a tail do to a mutation, then that is common to what is known as a neutral mutation. It has little effect on the being in question and it can or cannot produce off spring depending.
    Does this make a little more sense?
    If you don't think humans can grow tails, then here...



    What I basically stated with my example of sickle cell anemia is that as long as the mutation is within one person, then it can spread to others. Some of those mutations stick with us as humans.
    If God was real and he did not use evolution as a process then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to grow tails and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to obtain any mutations.
    If Adam and Eve were real, then we would all be normal.

    N N

    N NN NN

    N NN NN

    And normal parents equate to normal offspring. There would be no such thing as mutations such as that tail. People would not be born with any extra body parts. We would all be Normal/Normal in everything.
    Archaeologist, I just proved you wrong. Please, bow down and kiss my feet.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    You are not listening. No one here is afraid of dissenting opinion. This forum is full of dissenting opinion, even about evolution. I have simply said that if you already have your mind made up that you have no interest in scientific evidence or scientific inquiry then your participation in this forum is pointless and you might as well leave.
    no you are not listening, you are in the REIGION SECTION and trying to impose science in an area thatis outside of its scope and limitations. if you do not want religious instruction then it isyou who should leave.

    do you see me in the scientific forums? no it is you who should take your lies and leave. you are out of your league here and out of your expertise.

    It is you who just call anything which disagrees with your point of view ignorant.
    i am tired of being blamed forwhat you allare doing tome. i have yet to make a personal attack or use insulting words. blame thepeople whop actually do the insulting.

    the rest of your post is dismissed .

    Just to address the Hoyle's Fallacy.
    it is nice to see how people do not addressd the whole quote and pick one thing to address. i suppose you are going to say salisbury was insane also. if you read the quote properly you would have seen the words 'scientists' (plural), 'from' 'to' meaning more than 1 person has discovered this.

    are they all insane? your arrogance and wanting to be deceived blinds you.

    Archaeologist wouldn't know evolution if it bit him on the arse.
    you would be wrong. evolution does not exist except in the mnds of those who reject God and His word.

    Why do all the changes have to happen at once? Why not over time?
    one reason they would die out before theycompleted the process. this is naother area of failure by evolution and why it has to do mental gymnastics to make itself work. if you read the quote, you would have seen the part 'many of the mutations were lethal'. the species would have died out long before it could complete the process

    remember the qoutes are coming from an evolutionist not a creationist.

    in my next post i willtry to answer some of those questions you asked, the reason for some, is that there are others waiting in line.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    i have yet to make a personal attack or use insulting words.
    your arrogance and wanting to be deceived blinds you.


    one reason they would die out before theycompleted the process. this is naother area of failure by evolution and why it has to do mental gymnastics to make itself work. if you read the quote, you would have seen the part 'many of the mutations were lethal'. the species would have died out long before it could complete the process
    Not all mutations are bad.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  79. #78  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    one reason they would die out before theycompleted the process. this is naother area of failure by evolution and why it has to do mental gymnastics to make itself work. if you read the quote, you would have seen the part 'many of the mutations were lethal'. the species would have died out long before it could complete the process
    Not all mutations are bad.
    Also, mutations affect individuals, not the whole species. It is only through breeding that mutations are continued, so only individuals strong enough to survive to mate will pass on their mutations.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Look at archaeopterix (sorry, bad spelling); it had wings, but because it did not have pneumatised bones it could only fly for a few metres at a time.
    still doesn't prove evolution. michael jordon used to be able to leap and do spins in the air while other players could not. ability or lack of it, does not prove evolution.

    Or look at flying squirrels.
    so, they have an extra advantage over other squirrels, you still can't prove that evolution was responsible for this, you have yet to prove that the process actually exists because this is is the product of the creative act and the influence of the fall of man.

    you cannot exclude creation at any point using just the results and solely say evolution was responsible. where do mongoloid children fit in the evolutionary scheme?

    How could they have developed like this if they had been designed by god specifically for flying?
    genetic combinatins, genetic losing information, not mutation not evolution but the correct result from the way genes were created to work with the influence of sin and corruption that entered into the world.

    Why does the ostrich have wings, but cannot fly? Penguins?
    simple answer-- did you ever think their bodies were just too heavy for their wings to generate enough air flow to lift them? or why does a bird have to fly even if there are wings on it? what law says that they do? not all dogs swim, is that evolution or ability?

    Why do we see fossil records where a species is slowly changing over time?
    circular reasoning. you omit many factors, not all fossils fossilized in the same position. not all fossils were perfect but may have suffered from a genetic defect. you cannot tell which is the mother or daughter fossil. some fossils may have lost a limb or been killed by other animals. some may have had diseases. the list is endless concerning the possibilities which shape the fossils differently.

    Why do we see such a marked change in humans over the past 150,000 years? How did our heads get bigger, and how did we develop teeth for eating meat?
    first off your dating is wrong. another topic for another time. second, all people inthe beginning were vegetarians and it was after the food where men were allowed to eat meat. we always had the teeth we needed.

    Why do we see species with eyes which are completely blind?
    bats? my answer for now is that is the way things work. being blind does not prove evolution bt shows many different things, God's creativeness, God's giving humans an example--radar. there is more but i am not God and i do not have all the answers as i was not there. but still, this does not prove evolution was responsible, you just want it to be.

    Why do mitochondria have their own DNA? Chloroplasts as well.

    Creationism answers none of these. Evolution answers them all.
    again, you are going back to the 'God di it' argument and changing it to-'Evolution did it'. God created it that way, creation just explained it all.

    You are posting on a scientific forum. Threats and assurances will not win the arguement
    NO i am posting inthe religious section of a scientific website, big difference. you are the ones who opened the door, do not blame me for walking through it. i have yet to threaten anyone.

    We do know how evolution works, though. Experiments to see the function and origin of genes do this
    no you don't, you attribute it or credit evolution with the work but you have yet to prove evolution is rsponsible or even exists. you are going from the result and changing the source, not proving the source then seeing the results.

    The fact that a gene makes a difference is proof that evolution is possible, though. And if it is possible, what is stopping it happening
    now you are being honest. the reason it is not possible is because you cannot prove its existence or if it is responsible. plus it would NOTbe fair or just. you would let billions of people die becuase evolution did not let itself be discovered in ancient times. why would it only be discovered in the past 150 years/

    to lead people astray from the truth. to have a system you have to see the big picture and how it affects all people not just the modern world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    one reason they would die out before theycompleted the process. this is naother area of failure by evolution and why it has to do mental gymnastics to make itself work. if you read the quote, you would have seen the part 'many of the mutations were lethal'. the species would have died out long before it could complete the process
    Not all mutations are bad.
    Also, mutations affect individuals, not the whole species. It is only through breeding that mutations are continued, so only individuals strong enough to survive to mate will pass on their mutations.
    No you have it wrong. Mutations effect populations, not individuals.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    I'm just waiting until archaeologist tries to claim that all mutations are bad mutations. Then I will point out that sickle cell anemia appears to be a bad mutation, however it is only a bad mutation if the person obtains both parts of the sickle cell mutation
    unfortunately for you, i know about sickle cells and immunity. thisis one of the problems you face with evolution. is it immunity or an evolutionary change? sometimes that immunity is NOT passed down to other generations thus you cannot differentiate between what is evolutionary and what is not.

    you do not have enough time and that is what destroys the evolutionary theory. you cannot prove one thing you are claiming because you willbe dead and gone by the time the next change comes into effect and your notes may be destroyed before the next generation reads them and they would have no idea about your thoughts.

    no matter how you look at evolution, it fails.

    What I basically stated with my example of sickle cell anemia is that as long as the mutation is within one person, then it can spread to others. Some of those mutations stick with us as humans.
    If God was real and he did not use evolution as a process then it would be IMPOSSIBLE to grow tails and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to obtain any mutations
    not at all. you forget the equation and its part. God created andit was all good + adam sinned allowing sin and corruption to enter the world = genetic diversity which produces all sorts of wonderful and threatening results.

    evolution does NOT explain death but God does. inevolution there is nor reason for age limits and it cannot explain why children die. are they an intermediary species who did not evolve correctly? evolution cannot explain crib death or why babies die. unless you want to be cold hearted and say it wasn't evolved enough.

    evolution sounds a lot like picking and choosing what one wants and dismissing what they don't want.

    tails happen due to genetic defects in a person's body. tails do not prove evolution. i put a car out for sale and say it works well yet you do not know by looking at it or studying it if it was evolved, created in one piece, built by professionals or children. all you see is the results and conjecture to the source without proof that your answer of the source is correct because you have no evidence for that source.

    The Bible gives the evidence for the source.

    Have you heard the phrase 'survival of the fittest'? When mutations occur which are harmful, the animal dies.
    this fails because all life dies, no matter how fit they are. death doesn't come from just a mutation either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    *Vomits*



    (Yes, I think this post is useful)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    *Vomits*
    this is why i have no respect for you nor consider listening to you, you have to do childish things in response and you cannot prove your case or make a credible rebuttal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    this is why i have no respect for you nor consider listening to you, you have to do childish things in response and you cannot prove your case or make a credible rebuttal.
    This is why I think we should install mirrors on this forum.

    Seriously, archaeologist. What makes you so sure that your beliefs are right and all other beliefs are wrong? Sure, some of my responses to you might be childish, but only so to prove a point. Your arrogance and ignorance is not only astounding, it reflects how powerless you are to question yourself. It's actually quite pathetic.

    What's sad even is that your efforts are meaningless. You can't know God any better than anybody else no matter how hard you believe it so. This is the folly of faith. It grows into an endless pit and swallows you whole. Without any means of evolving yourself you end up stuck in this pit, perhaps forever.

    I weep for you, archaeologist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    the reason it is not possible is because you cannot prove its existence or if it is responsible.
    Logical fallacy. Simply because one person cannot prove it doesn't happen doesn't mean others can't prove it either.
    There is a law in science. Whatever can happen will happen. If mutations can happen in humanity and if evolution can happen then it will happen. So if mutations can happen and if they can change someone over time and if they can grow a tail then it will happen eventually.
    you do not have enough time and that is what destroys the evolutionary theory.
    Only because you ASSUME that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
    you cannot prove one thing you are claiming because you willbe dead and gone by the time the next change comes into effect and your notes may be destroyed before the next generation reads them and they would have no idea about your thoughts.
    Simply because we cannot witness a human changing does not mean evolution is not happening. If we did not have evolution then we could not predict the flu and create vaccines for the flu. We would not be able to conduct experiments on E-Coli either. E-Coli is a bacteria with one of the shortest life and breeding cycles in existence.

    evolution does NOT explain death but God does.
    Logical fallacy
    Evolution doesn't explain quantum physics either. It doesn't explain gravity or black holes. Simply because evolution doesn't explain something it was never meant to explain doesn't mean you can label God as it's creator or explanation.

    inevolution there is nor reason for age limits and it cannot explain why children die.
    In biology, it does actually explain age limits and why people do die. It deals with the shortening of something called a telomere which is located on various chromozones. And even if we couldn't explain it, it doesn't automatically mean God did it. If we followed that reasoning then we would be back in the stone age wondering what caused lightning then ultimately saying that some supreme being is causing it instead of actually figuring out what it actually is. Same concept with the sun or rain.

    Children die for multiple reasons. There is not just one specific reason why a child would die. If you are talking about SIDS then that is simply something we don't know what causes it. You can't just say that God did it if we don't know the exact cause. That type of reasoning is what prevents us from trying to find the true answer because we already would think we had the answer.

    evolution cannot explain crib death or why babies die. unless you want to be cold hearted and say it wasn't evolved enough.
    God cannot explain crib death or why babies die. unless you want to be cold hearted and say your God is a heartless bastard who doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything else and just kills babies at random.
    evolution sounds a lot like picking and choosing what one wants and dismissing what they don't want.
    Kettle? Black?
    That is exacly what the bible and it's followers do.


    tails happen due to genetic defects in a person's body. tails do not prove evolution. i put a car out for sale and say it works well yet you do not know by looking at it or studying it if it was evolved, created in one piece, built by professionals or children. all you see is the results and conjecture to the source without proof that your answer of the source is correct because you have no evidence for that source.

    The Bible gives the evidence for the source.
    You can not use the bible to prove the bible.
    Your example is very crappy, could you think of a better one?
    this fails because all life dies, no matter how fit they are. death doesn't come from just a mutation either.
    You really are a moron aren't you? All nature cares about is if we pass on our genes. As long as we mate then it is happy. Individuals with bad mutations don't end up mating! They don't have a chance to! However those with good mutations are able to mate and have children! Once the individual has children then they have done their job in accordance with nature. However beings that are unable to mate by death or by infertility aren't able to pass on their genes. However, infertility isn't something that can kill the individual. Bad mutations which cause death however can kill the individual.
    Oh, btw.. don't bother providing a new example... It will just be crappier then your last.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  87. #86  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Look at archaeopterix (sorry, bad spelling); it had wings, but because it did not have pneumatised bones it could only fly for a few metres at a time.
    still doesn't prove evolution. michael jordon used to be able to leap and do spins in the air while other players could not. ability or lack of it, does not prove evolution.
    I don't remember arguing that point, but OK.

    Archaeopterix was a species. It shows an intermediate stage between truly flying animals, and those which did not walk.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Or look at flying squirrels.
    so, they have an extra advantage over other squirrels, you still can't prove that evolution was responsible for this, you have yet to prove that the process actually exists because this is is the product of the creative act and the influence of the fall of man.
    I can't prove that this was caused by evolution. But I can show that evolution could result in this. You, however, cannot show that creationism could. You can say 'you can't prove it couldn't be creationism' all you like, but you can't explain how it happened. You just assure me it did.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you cannot exclude creation at any point using just the results and solely say evolution was responsible. where do mongoloid children fit in the evolutionary scheme?
    They evolved. What's your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    How could they have developed like this if they had been designed by god specifically for flying?
    genetic combinatins, genetic losing information, not mutation not evolution but the correct result from the way genes were created to work with the influence of sin and corruption that entered into the world.
    A great long sentance of bulls*@!t. According to creationism, there is no need for genes. God made the animals, not evolution, yes? Then why do they need genes which can and do vary?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Why does the ostrich have wings, but cannot fly? Penguins?
    simple answer-- did you ever think their bodies were just too heavy for their wings to generate enough air flow to lift them? or why does a bird have to fly even if there are wings on it? what law says that they do? not all dogs swim, is that evolution or ability?
    Missing my point. Why would they be intentionally made this way?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Why do we see fossil records where a species is slowly changing over time?
    circular reasoning. you omit many factors, not all fossils fossilized in the same position.
    Irrelevant. They are still fossils, they still show the shape and structure of the organism.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    not all fossils were perfect but may have suffered from a genetic defect.
    A genetic defect caused by what? Mutation perhaps?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you cannot tell which is the mother or daughter fossil.
    Doesn't matter. If you see a pile of stones, some big and some small, you still know there are big and small rocks there, regardless of what rocks they were broken down from. Similarly with fossils, if a member of a species from 100 million years ago is found, and another of the species is found from 50 million years ago, which is exactly the same but has grown wings, I'd say it's fairly clear the species has changed. Especially if there are hundreds of fossils from both periods, and from in between, which shows the wings slowly developing.

    Or is this another genetic defect which is somehow not related to evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    some fossils may have lost a limb or been killed by other animals.
    Fractures in bones are quite apparant.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    some may have had diseases. the list is endless concerning the possibilities which shape the fossils differently.
    Then we would expect to see every fossil completely different to the others. We do not. We see species' fossils changing over time.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Why do we see such a marked change in humans over the past 150,000 years? How did our heads get bigger, and how did we develop teeth for eating meat?
    first off your dating is wrong. another topic for another time. second, all people inthe beginning were vegetarians and it was after the food where men were allowed to eat meat. we always had the teeth we needed.
    Fossil records beg to differ. Ancestors of modern humans had no incisors or kanines. And the dating is pretty much proven; more than one radioisotope can be used to find the age, and they generally agree to withing a few years. Actually, this disproves the age of the earth mentioned in the bible, but this is yet another arguement.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Why do we see species with eyes which are completely blind?
    bats? my answer for now is that is the way things work. being blind does not prove evolution bt shows many different things, God's creativeness, God's giving humans an example--radar. there is more but i am not God and i do not have all the answers as i was not there. but still, this does not prove evolution was responsible, you just want it to be.
    No, but it is more evidence. Please notice, everything I have said so far has been evidence for evolution. Individually you may be able to dismiss them, say they could arrive by other means. But the cumulative effect should shake you at laest a little. Unless you really have lost your sense of reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Why do mitochondria have their own DNA? Chloroplasts as well.

    Creationism answers none of these. Evolution answers them all.
    again, you are going back to the 'God di it' argument and changing it to-'Evolution did it'. God created it that way, creation just explained it all.
    If creation explains everything; explain creationism. HOW, not what.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    You are posting on a scientific forum. Threats and assurances will not win the arguement
    NO i am posting inthe religious section of a scientific website, big difference. you are the ones who opened the door, do not blame me for walking through it. i have yet to threaten anyone.
    Hell is the threat theists generally use.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    We do know how evolution works, though. Experiments to see the function and origin of genes do this
    no you don't, you attribute it or credit evolution with the work but you have yet to prove evolution is rsponsible or even exists. you are going from the result and changing the source, not proving the source then seeing the results.
    I have proved it as much as anything can ever be proved. If you refuse to accept the evidence, you must have some sort of mental defect, presumably which is caused by faulty genes which are not related to evolution. No, no, they must have got faulty genes by some other process; not because of the variation in genes and the spread of mutations or by a mutation directly. No, by another, creation related, unspecified method, that you will assure me exists but will avoid explaining in any detail beyond some form of 'it just does'.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The fact that a gene makes a difference is proof that evolution is possible, though. And if it is possible, what is stopping it happening
    now you are being honest. the reason it is not possible is because you cannot prove its existence or if it is responsible. plus it would NOTbe fair or just. you would let billions of people die becuase evolution did not let itself be discovered in ancient times. why would it only be discovered in the past 150 years/
    I think you miss my point. If genes cause changes in an individual, and genes are passed around all the time which is what makes us unique; this is evolution. If I inherit a gene that makes me green from my parents, which was recessive in them but I have two copies; I would consider this evolution.

    Also, cancer; exposure to high frequency photons has been proved to cause cancer. What is this if it is not a mutation?

    Evolution has only been discovered in the past 150 years because in this time, more and more fossils were discovered which showed how species evolved. When Charles Darwin was writing 'The Origin of the Species', there was another scientist (I forget who) who was writing a similar theory. Since the theory was not generally accepted untill many years later, how do you explain this as corruption? They both came up with their theories independantly based on what they observed, and both came up with the same conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    to lead people astray from the truth. to have a system you have to see the big picture and how it affects all people not just the modern world.
    ....You are saying evolution doesn't apply to poor people? Or that god doesn't like poor people?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    unfortunately for you, i know about sickle cells and immunity. thisis one of the problems you face with evolution. is it immunity or an evolutionary change? sometimes that immunity is NOT passed down to other generations thus you cannot differentiate between what is evolutionary and what is not.

    you do not have enough time and that is what destroys the evolutionary theory. you cannot prove one thing you are claiming because you willbe dead and gone by the time the next change comes into effect and your notes may be destroyed before the next generation reads them and they would have no idea about your thoughts.

    no matter how you look at evolution, it fails.
    What are you smoking.

    The gene for sickle cell anemia has been identified for years, it's a single nucleotide mutation in the gene for hemaglobin. It is a codominant trait, people with one sickle cell allele have greater protection against malaria and some of their blood cells will be sickled. If they have a baby with someone else who only has one sickle cell allele or none, then they have a chance of having offspring without the trait.

    I don't know where you get off thinking sickle cell trait is somehow an acquired form of immunity. As someone who majored in immunology and microbiology I would be very much interested in knowing how you think that is possible.

    Really this is high school level genetics...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Your arrogance and ignorance is not only astounding, it reflects how powerless you are to question yourself.
    when one finds the truth, they can stop questioning. one does the questionng before as they search but once theyhave found it they have to make a decision--accept it or keep on searching. i have chosen to accpept the truth--The Bible as written.

    You can't know God any better than anybody else no matter how hard you believe it so.
    that's one of the beauties about God. everyone can get to know Him and He is the same to all, the trick is to belief and obey Him. calling Him a liar is going to put a crimp n your relationship with Him, if it survives at all. call your wife a liar sometime and see how your relationship goes.

    There is a law in science. Whatever can happen will happen. If mutations can happen in humanity and if evolution can happen then it will happen. So if mutations can happen and if they can change someone over time and if they can grow a tail then it will happen eventually
    i would challenge your definition and usage of the word 'mutation' . i do not believe in mutations as none of you have answered my question 'where do mongoloid children fit into that scheme?'

    Only because you ASSUME that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
    you woul dbe wrong as i do not assume how old the age is. we are not told when it took place except for the words 'in the beginning...' 'when' does not matter, 'who' did it does.

    Simply because we cannot witness a human changing does not mean evolution is not happening.
    violates one of the key principles of science, yet you are willing ot ignore that because it allows you to do what you want. watching a genetic defect in a different species does not mean evolution exists or is at work. just means there is genetic design at work. if you cannot observe humans changing then you cannot say evolution is scientific but subjective to whomever is doing the believing.

    Evolution doesn't explain quantum physics either. It doesn't explain gravity or black holes. Simply because evolution doesn't explain something it was never meant to explain doesn't mean you can label God as it's creator or explanation.
    plus nothing explains how evolution came into existence either. is it a process that always existed? if so, then you have changed the word 'God' to 'evolution' but still have the same scenario and the same questions--who created evolution?

    it does actually explain age limits and why people do die. It deals with the shortening of something called a telomere which is located on various chromozones. And even if we couldn't explain it, it doesn't automatically mean God did it
    but it doesn't explain 'why'. there is no reason for death to exist in the evolutionary theory. it is an anomally you can't deal with.

    Doesn't matter.
    it does as the dating systems are very circular and also very difficult to prove accurate. too many factors can corrupt the samples and too many questions are unanswered about the processes. even Libby's c-14 dating is subject to questioning because it requires a consistant slowing of the rate of decline of molecules. something that one cannot test to see if he is right.

    You can not use the bible to prove the bible.
    but you are using science to prove science, i can use the Bible to prove the Bible. then who is to say your scientific experiments are correct when they omit data and limit its scope? if science is honest it will have to open itself up to the possibility and inclusion of the supernatural. (not the wing nut paranormal stuff but legitmiate supernatural).

    All nature cares about is if we pass on our genes.
    'nature cares'? now you are applying God like qualities to an inamite object.

    i have to go, but i will be back in a coupl ehours ot finish this and answer turtle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist



    i would challenge your definition and usage of the word 'mutation' . i do not believe in mutations as none of you have answered my question 'where do mongoloid children fit into that scheme?'
    Assuming you're using mongoloid as an archaic term for children with Down's Syndrome. Down's is trisomy 21, it's a reproductive error when during egg production one egg ends up with 2 of the 21st chromosomes. This happens more frequently as a woman ages.

    I don't see what this has to do with evolution, males with Down's are usually infertile but some have produced viable sperm. Females who have children with normal males will have about 50% of their children with Down's as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    but you are using science to prove science, i can use the Bible to prove the Bible. then who is to say your scientific experiments are correct when they omit data and limit its scope? if science is honest it will have to open itself up to the possibility and inclusion of the supernatural. (not the wing nut paranormal stuff but legitmiate supernatural).
    Are you an idiot? Science is a PROCESS. The bible is a BOOK.
    That would be like me trying to prove to you that Grim's faerie tales was based off of reality by using Grim's faerie tales as evidence.

    However, using science as evidence to prove science is entirely different. The only way to PROVE science is through scientific means. Science and religion are POLAR OPPOSITES. Whatever logic science follows it seems that religion does it backwards.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    God cannot explain crib death or why babies die
    yes he can, because of sin, death entered into the world. notice that it does not say 'death willcome whenyou reach a certain age'. what that means is that any one of any age will die. there are no guarantees.

    children were used as an example and you stillhaven't come up with a reasonable explantion as to why evolution has death with it? there is no purpose for death in evolution.

    Archaeopterix was a species. It shows an intermediate stage between truly flying animals, and those which did not walk.
    except you cannot prove it is an intermediary species. with creation, that animal has a purpose for being like that, it may not fit our understanding but that is the way it goes.

    I can't prove that this was caused by evolution. But I can show that evolution could result in this. You, however, cannot show that creationism could. You can say 'you can't prove it couldn't be creationism' all you like, but you can't explain how it happened. You just assure me it did.
    at least you are being honest, i appreciate that. i cannot give you an answer for everything as i do not know everything. flying sqirrels via creationhave 2 possiblities, maybe more, genetic combinatins, or God wanted there to be flying squirrels. in creation God created what He wanted to exist, which is why we have 2 sexes instead of 3, why, because it makes sense and with flying squirrels it makes sense for the balance of nature, variation showing creativity of God and gives you source for your creativity.

    They evolved. What's your point?
    ha ha ha very funny. my point is if mongoloid children are a result of a genetic defect so are the mutations you claim prove evolution.

    Then why do they need genes which can and do vary
    bodily functions, instinct, why do humans have genes (because their good pants are in the wash), genes play an important role in our daily lives. yes God could have created us without them but then woul dwe ever get sick? would we ever get healthy? i am sure you already know the answer to this.

    Missing my point. Why would they be intentionally made this way?
    because they have a purpose in the balance of nature, to show God is alive and real by showing variety and creativity (he isn't a non-thinking, non-feeling process but someone who cares about you)

    Irrelevant. They are still fossils, they still show the shape and structure of the organism.
    not irrelevant because the different positions tell a different story and do not give the same picture. without being accused of supporting evolution, those fossils were probably fossilized at different ages of their lives which means what one mistakes as an evolutionary change is merely a growing up change.

    A genetic defect caused by what? Mutation perhaps?
    no by something not working properly. maybe a 'battery' went out and the gene is not functioning on full power. (example)

    Similarly with fossils, if a member of a species from 100 million years ago is found, and another of the species is found from 50 million years ago
    what would your objective dating system be? can't be the one developed by science for that would be circular reasoning. 'we are right because our dating system tells us we are right'

    Fractures in bones are quite apparant.
    i didn't use bone fractures in the example you quoted. but what about deformity? that would skew the fossil record right there.

    Then we would expect to see every fossil completely different to the others. We do not. We see species' fossils changing over time.
    conjecture because you cannot eliminate the results of the flood from the list of possibilities.

    No, but it is more evidence. Please notice, everything I have said so far has been evidence for evolution. Individually you may be able to dismiss them, say they could arrive by other means. But the cumulative effect should shake you at laest a little. Unless you really have lost your sense of reality.
    depends upon your definition of reality. i know you are presenting your evidence but i am also showing it is not definitive and exclusionary, and that the same evidence canbe used to support creation. bats and moles are blind probably because God made them that way. remember Gen. 1 states all animals reproduce after their kind, thus how they were made to reproduce will affect their bodily functions.

    If creation explains everything; explain creationism. HOW, not what.
    How= God spoke and it was. God's power is so great that He only has to speak to bring something into existence. it is hard to fathom but thatis the way it is. God's power did it all. i can't give you any more details because i was not there an dthis is something we have to take on faith.
    we do so because we love God and in 1 cor. 13 love is defined as believing all things. thus if we love God we believe His word and do not doubt it.


    Hell is the threat theists generally use.
    it is a choice between destinations.

    I have proved it as much as anything can ever be proved
    but what you have proven doesn't show that evolution is responsible. if you look at my example of proof, the different nurseies, the hybrid experiments, you would see that all proceeds from the result of creation not evolution.

    I think you miss my point. If genes cause changes in an individual, and genes are passed around all the time which is what makes us unique; this is evolution. If I inherit a gene that makes me green from my parents, which was recessive in them but I have two copies; I would consider this evolution.
    i see what you are saying but all that shows is you would conside it evolution and in reality it would be something else instead. attributing and being are two different htings.

    Also, cancer; exposure to high frequency photons has been proved to cause cancer. What is this if it is not a mutation?
    this is another point, in evolution there is no explanation or room for diseases. where did they come from? why do they attack some people and not others? there is no reason for disease to exist inthe evolutionary theory.

    Evolution has only been discovered in the past 150 years because in this time, more and more fossils were discovered which showed how species evolved. When Charles Darwin was writing 'The Origin of the Species', there was another scientist (I forget who) who was writing a similar theory. Since the theory was not generally accepted untill many years later, how do you explain this as corruption? They both came up with their theories independantly based on what they observed, and both came up with the same conclusion.
    first off the first recorded discovery of someone talking about evolution was in the 6th century b.c. in china (After the Flood by Bill Cooper) and darwin's own granfather preached it long before darwin was alive so you cannot credit darwin with the discovery.

    also, this is what proves evolution false as its late discovery is unfair, and unjust to all the people who came before. they diued without out knowing anything about it per se. i that right? no.

    The Bible is the same from beginning to end, from adam to the future, thatis fair, and just and all people get to know about it. do you see the difference andmy point?

    people can come up with many ideas independently, there is no monopoly on evolution. ever hear of the old saying 'great minds think alike'? which ells us people do the exact same thing as darwin and wallace but on differen topics.

    i am tired now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God cannot explain crib death or why babies die
    yes he can, because of sin, death entered into the world. notice that it does not say 'death willcome whenyou reach a certain age'. what that means is that any one of any age will die. there are no guarantees.

    children were used as an example and you stillhaven't come up with a reasonable explantion as to why evolution has death with it? there is no purpose for death in evolution.
    You are so unbelievably ignorant of science and even religion, particularly where religious philosophy is concerned, that I feel guilty responding to you. In fact, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post and just respond to the travesty above.

    1) The explanation that the death of babies is because of "sin" is truly a cop-out and an argument that religionists pose when they can't fathom the answer themselves. Not only does the very mythology you're deluded by state that an alleged savior "died" for our sins (thus absolving man of the "sins of the father," etc.); but it shows a deficiency on the part of a being alleged to be a god and omniscient, omni-benevolent creator. If you accept that babies must die (sometimes very horrible and very painful deaths) because of the sins of everyone else, then clearly your god either didn't know the babies were going to die or he did and let them be born again to die a horrible, painful death. The first indicates his lack of omniscience; the latter his lack of omni-benevolence; both indicate his incompetence.

    You god=fail.

    2) Evolution has no "purpose." This is a fallacy of ignorance that usually afflicts those who lack education in evolution, which you so clearly demonstrate. Natural selection, one of the mechanisms of evolution (along with gene flow, genetic drift, and mutation) selects primarily for fitness (which doesn't mean stronger, more powerful, etc. but, rather, an ability to procreate). Once an organism procreates, evolution has done its job. The organisms that procreate the most and the fastest evolve -adapting to changing environments due to things like climate, competitive release, and so on. That's not to say that death isn't an evolutionary advantage. It is: organisms need to die in order for their resources to benefit other organisms. Trees live because other plants and animals die and decay, releasing their matter as nutrients in the soil (and becoming soil!).

    If you were to die of an aneurysm while hiking in the woods, your corpse would benefit many organisms which would profit from its decay on a seldom traveled path: rodents would get meals from your soft tissues and organs, sharpening their teeth on your long bones; flies could leave their larvae to hatch and feast on your decaying flesh; vultures and coyotes could tear off strips of meat for their young; the soil would absorb the escaping fluids and decaying bits, providing much needed nitrogen and other nutrients to plants and so on.

    Death is an evolutionary advantage. If your aneurysm was due to a congenital defect, and if you dropped dead before you could procreate, the rest of your population would also benefit from your death since your DNA wouldn't have the opportunity to enter the gene pool -the chromosomes and alleles that carry the defect would, hopefully, end with you.

    Death is an evolutionary advantage. It benefits a species' population to have members die (prevents overpopulation, promotes procreation, improves the gene pool through evolutionary mechanisms, etc.); it benefits populations of other species by providing homes, hatcheries, food, and sustenance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    The explanation that the death of babies is because of "sin" is truly a cop-out and an argument that religionists pose when they can't fathom the answer themselves. Not only does the very mythology you're deluded by state that an alleged savior "died" for our sins (thus absolving man of the "sins of the father," etc.); but it shows a deficiency on the part of a being alleged to be a god and omniscient, omni-benevolent creator. If you accept that babies must die (sometimes very horrible and very painful deaths) because of the sins of everyone else, then clearly your god either didn't know the babies were going to die or he did and let them be born again to die a horrible, painful death. The first indicates his lack of omniscience; the latter his lack of omni-benevolence; both indicate his incompetence.
    but babies are being treated exactly the same as everyone else, why would you complain? that is just and fair. also, my point was, in evolution there is no need for death so why does it exist?

    Evolution has no "purpose." This is a fallacy of ignorance that usually afflicts those who lack education in evolution, which you so clearly demonstrate
    if evolution has no purpose then what good is it? why have life at all? this no purpose just makes this a pointless exercise in futility and who would want to accept such a thing?

    as a side note, if evolution were true, there would be no conception of God or religion in the world today. man could not create religion or god for they would have no idea what they were or how to contstruct them.

    so why does the idea of both exist if evolution is true?

    Death is an evolutionary advantage
    How? those organisms will die also which means death is still useless and an exercise in futility. and endless cycle of nothing would drive people insane which leaves evolutionwith no real advatange but the result bringing insanity to a species that has no hope for anything but misery.

    also, as nother side, why have reproductive organs? what purpose do they serve? evolution should have made everyone asexual, what is the need for the present reproductive system when it seres no purpose?'

    in creation we have a purpose for them reproduction and union.

    then why is there morality? evolution has none in its make up so why does it exist? man could not originate it because it would not know what morality is or how it should be implemented.

    there are too many questions with evolution and no real answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    as a side note, if evolution were true, there would be no conception of God or religion in the world today. man could not create religion or god for they would have no idea what they were or how to contstruct them.
    So if God werent real we would be mindless morons who couldn't come up with creative stories?
    Man, I sure am glad Hydra's, Unicorns, and elves were real at one point so that we can have stories about them. I sure am glad Hercules was also real. I loved those disney cartoons.


    there are too many questions with evolution and no real answers.
    Simply because there are questions does not automatically mean it isn't happening.
    Would you rather accept something as true immediantly as long as it claims to have the answers even if it wasn't true or would you like to find out what is actually going on if it leads to reality?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

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

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

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Simply because there are questions does not automatically mean it isn't happening.
    Would you rather accept something as true immediantly as long as it claims to have the answers even if it wasn't true or would you like to find out what is actually going on if it leads to reality?
    mocking gets you no where. i go with the truth and that is not secular science, or evolution. if one is willing to go by faith then one will get the answers they seek but if they are going to wait till they get evrything they want, then they will wake up one day and find out it is too late. they have wwasted their livews chasing the wrong thing.

    evolution does not work on any level and has to keep changing to keep people hoodwinked. it is clear that evolutionists only want a designed belief where they are in charge and control and refuse to accept the reality thatthey cannot be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I wish to register an objection to archaeologist's last post on two grounds.

    1. What appears to be deliberate misinterpretation of Verzens post: Verzen was not, as far as I can see, mocking archaeologist, but asking a perfectly valid question. Falsely accusing Verzen of mocking is insulting behviour.
    2. Accusing evolutionists of changing the theory to hoodwink people constitutes a personal attack on the integrity of several persons here and is insulting behaviour.

    archaeologist has repeatedly stated that he does not engage in personal insults, yet these two examples show that statement to be false.

    I have posted this here rather than sending directly to the moderator, because I do not wish to go behind anyone's back. If it is inappropriate to place it here moderators should feel free to delete it.

    Further archaeologist has offered no evidence to substantiate any of his statements, but relies upon his interpretation of the Bible to justify his stated opinion. I believe he is coming perilously close to hate speech in his characterisation of any viewpoints that differ from his own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Further archaeologist has offered no evidence to substantiate any of his statements, but relies upon his interpretation of the Bible to justify his stated opinion. I believe he is coming perilously close to hate speech in his characterisation of any viewpoints that differ from his own.
    Yes, he has been presenting evolution as if opposing creationism is its sole purpose, while the inverse is mostly true. Science is (ideally) a completely objective endeavour and is purely a search for knowledge. On the other side we have religion which has already decided on how everything works by using an all-purpose Actuator. When the objective findings of science clash with the religious teachings it is attacked by YEC fundies and made mockery of by using underhanded tactics and manufacturing opposing evidence using nothing other than the same kind of faulty reasoning and the full script of logical fallacies that made them prone to religion in the first place.

    Archaeologist has shown repeatedly that he has either not done any kind of objective investigation of the subject matter, deliberately misrepresents the evidence or simply does not have the faculties to understand what he is reading and performs poorly at connect-the-dots.

    Examples:

    How? those organisms will die also which means death is still useless and an exercise in futility. and endless cycle of nothing would drive people insane which leaves evolutionwith no real advantage but the result bringing insanity to a species that has no hope for anything but misery.
    Wrong on a disturbing amount of levels.


    if evolution has no purpose then what good is it? why have life at all? this no purpose just makes this a pointless exercise in futility and who would want to accept such a thing?

    as a side note, if evolution were true, there would be no conception of God or religion in the world today. man could not create religion or god for they would have no idea what they were or how to construct them.

    so why does the idea of both exist if evolution is true?


    This is just terrible reasoning and exhibits an extremely poor understanding of evolution and science in general.

    Archaeologist, I don't know if you think that you are winning anyone over with this nonsense? Would you like to discuss any particular points of evolution? Should we start from the beginning?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

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

  99. #98  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    ha ha ha very funny. my point is if mongoloid children are a result of a genetic defect so are the mutations you claim prove evolution.
    Trisomy is not a mutation, it is trisomy. Moreover, even if it was a mutation it wouldn't disprove evolution. For fuck sake all a mutation is is a change in DNA, it happens, it is observable, and it has been shown how it can be positive. It is often also negative, you clearly have no knowledge of biology.

    Go take a molecular biology and basic genetics course and come back when you understand how DNA works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Should we start from the beginning?
    Don't get him started on abiogenesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if evolution has no purpose then what good is it?
    Evolution does not have a purpose. It simply is. It is not for anything. If you are religious you would then extended this to read it simply is God's way of achieving his goals in regard to life.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why have life at all?
    Life simply is. Deal with it. Or, if you are religious, why would creating man through the process of evolution rather than a single act of creation change in any way the purpose God had for life?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    this no purpose just makes this a pointless exercise in futility and who would want to accept such a thing?
    Clearly you wouldn't want to accept such a thing. A cancer patient, told he has two weeks to live probably would rather not accept such a thing. A student told he has failed his examinations would probably rather not accept such a thing. But if it is the case then it should be accepted. Failure to do so is self deceiving.

    Once again you offer this frightening and sad picture of a man who has a belief founded entirely on the fear of the alternative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God cannot explain crib death or why babies die
    yes he can, because of sin, death entered into the world.
    How and why do people die, then? because your god is a murderer?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    notice that it does not say 'death willcome whenyou reach a certain age'. what that means is that any one of any age will die. there are no guarantees.
    The bible does say such a thing. I have better things to do than search for bible quotes, but, essentially; god says that nobody shall live beyond 126 years of age. (this has already happened several times, FYI, so there is NO chance god is omniscient and omnipotent)

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    children were used as an example and you stillhaven't come up with a reasonable explantion as to why evolution has death with it? there is no purpose for death in evolution.
    Death is not part of evolution. Death is a consequence of being a multi-cellular organism, and is very complicated. But, crucially; it has nothing to do with evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Archaeopterix was a species. It shows an intermediate stage between truly flying animals, and those which did not walk.
    except you cannot prove it is an intermediary species.
    I can show that a few milliond years before that, a species existed that was almost the same but had no wings. I can also show that a few million years after, there was a species which had longer wings and pneumatised bones, but was otherwise the same. There was no overlap, and there was a gradation over time between them.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    with creation, that animal has a purpose for being like that, it may not fit our understanding but that is the way it goes.
    Wait, you are admitting it doesn't fit your understanding? Excellent. This means your theory cannot explain it.

    I, however, understand it perfectly, and it fits the theory of evolution perfectly.

    Yet more evidence for evolution, and against creationism.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I can't prove that this was caused by evolution. But I can show that evolution could result in this. You, however, cannot show that creationism could. You can say 'you can't prove it couldn't be creationism' all you like, but you can't explain how it happened. You just assure me it did.
    at least you are being honest, i appreciate that. i cannot give you an answer for everything as i do not know everything.
    HALLELOUJA

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    flying sqirrels via creationhave 2 possiblities, maybe more, genetic combinatins
    AKA evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    or God wanted there to be flying squirrels. in creation God created what He wanted to exist
    Then most of them died, did they? Hence the fossils of species no longer in existance.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    which is why we have 2 sexes instead of 3
    If there is no such thing as evolution, why do we need sexes? Unless genes do vary and change from generation to generation.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why, because it makes sense and with flying squirrels it makes sense for the balance of nature, variation showing creativity of God and gives you source for your creativity.
    Variation from what? How does i thappen?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    They evolved. What's your point?
    ha ha ha very funny. my point is if mongoloid children are a result of a genetic defect so are the mutations you claim prove evolution.
    What exactly do you mean by genetic defect? Because that's the whole point - genetic defects are a major part of evolution. Such as a genetic defect that causes lungs instead of gills, or wings instead of arms, etc.
    You really are an idiot. You don't even know what you're trying to argue any more.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Then why do they need genes which can and do vary
    bodily functions, instinct, why do humans have genes (because their good pants are in the wash), genes play an important role in our daily lives. yes God could have created us without them but then woul dwe ever get sick? would we ever get healthy? i am sure you already know the answer to this.
    Yes. The reason we have genes is because they determine the structure of our bodies when we develop. Research into genes in animals has shown that a change in only a few bases can drastically change the structure of the resulting organism. Given that a sequence of bases can be altered by ionising radiation, and that we get random genes due to meiosis, which often result in unexpected changes and adaptations (savants, athletes etc. who come from families who have no history in such things), this proves evolution is possible. And if it is possible, and there is nothing stopping it, it will happen.

    Also - why do you think all species have huge amounts of DNA in common? If they were created from scratch, they wouldn't need this. Nor would we see more similar DNA in species which split more recently.

    Please, do a little research into evolution before continuing this arguement. Or you will continue to appear arrogant and ignorant.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Missing my point. Why would they be intentionally made this way?
    because they have a purpose in the balance of nature, to show God is alive and real by showing variety and creativity (he isn't a non-thinking, non-feeling process but someone who cares about you)
    God could always just tell me he is alive.

    You have an overactive imagination.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Irrelevant. They are still fossils, they still show the shape and structure of the organism.
    not irrelevant because the different positions tell a different story and do not give the same picture. without being accused of supporting evolution, those fossils were probably fossilized at different ages of their lives which means what one mistakes as an evolutionary change is merely a growing up change.
    Generally, specimens of a variety of ages are found to use as evidence. And you think every species that ever existed changed a HUGE amount during development into adulthood? Stop being rediculous.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    A genetic defect caused by what? Mutation perhaps?
    no by something not working properly. maybe a 'battery' went out and the gene is not functioning on full power. (example)
    Genes do not need to do anything except be present. They are read by RNA, rather than actively changing anything.

    Some research required on your part, once again.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Similarly with fossils, if a member of a species from 100 million years ago is found, and another of the species is found from 50 million years ago
    what would your objective dating system be? can't be the one developed by science for that would be circular reasoning. 'we are right because our dating system tells us we are right'
    Radioisotope dating. Research it. It works in a similar way to the old atomic clocks did.

    Because of the law of averages, and the huge amounts of atoms decaying, anomolous results are EXTREMELY rare.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Fractures in bones are quite apparant.
    i didn't use bone fractures in the example you quoted. but what about deformity? that would skew the fossil record right there.
    Deformity is a part of evolution. Have you taken to contradicting yourself? Deformities are evidence of mutations which are not benefitial. If the deformities are wings which allow you to fly, and evade predators, they are benefitial. THATS THE WHOLE DAMNED POINT, IT'S HOW EVOLUTION WORKS.

    Creationism does not allow for genes to exist, or for mutations, or for change in a species (which has been observed, and we have given you examples which you ignored)


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Then we would expect to see every fossil completely different to the others. We do not. We see species' fossils changing over time.
    conjecture because you cannot eliminate the results of the flood from the list of possibilities.
    Yeah, sure, a flood gave me my little fingers...


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    No, but it is more evidence. Please notice, everything I have said so far has been evidence for evolution. Individually you may be able to dismiss them, say they could arrive by other means. But the cumulative effect should shake you at laest a little. Unless you really have lost your sense of reality.
    depends upon your definition of reality. i know you are presenting your evidence but i am also showing it is not definitive and exclusionary, and that the same evidence canbe used to support creation.
    You are showing nothing. You are merely stating, out of arrogance.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    bats and moles are blind probably because God made them that way.
    This is by no means evidence. This is a theory; now prove it.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    remember Gen. 1 states all animals reproduce after their kind, thus how they were made to reproduce will affect their bodily functions.
    Remember how there are no fossils of humans before a certain point a few hundred million years ago? Yet other fossils date back almost a billion years.

    How is this so, when humans were made in the first 6 days of creation?


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    If creation explains everything; explain creationism. HOW, not what.
    How= God spoke and it was.
    No, I said how. I speak all the time but I don't make planets, so this is clearly not how it happens.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God's power is so great that He only has to speak to bring something into existence.
    OK. But how does he do it?


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    it is hard to fathom but thatis the way it is.
    If it was remotely difficult, religious people would dismiss it. It is simple, and it is simple because it explains nothing.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    God's power did it all. i can't give you any more details because i was not there an dthis is something we have to take on faith.
    Another way of saying it didn't happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    we do so because we love God and in 1 cor. 13 love is defined as believing all things. thus if we love God we believe His word and do not doubt it.
    God's word I would not doubt, had I ever heard him speak. I have not, though. Only the mentally ill who do what they do in the name of a book about a flying invisible man.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Hell is the threat theists generally use.
    it is a choice between destinations.
    No, it is an unproven hypothesis with no evidence to support it.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I have proved it as much as anything can ever be proved
    but what you have proven doesn't show that evolution is responsible.
    Yes it does, because all other theories have been excluded. Hell, even most theists accept evolution.


    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you look at my example of proof, the different nurseies, the hybrid experiments, you would see that all proceeds from the result of creation not evolution.
    Not so. Even if you disprove evolution you have not proved creationism. And furthermore, you have not disproved evolution. I have explained every minor issue you have brought up, and I have provided evidence. You have done neither.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I think you miss my point. If genes cause changes in an individual, and genes are passed around all the time which is what makes us unique; this is evolution. If I inherit a gene that makes me green from my parents, which was recessive in them but I have two copies; I would consider this evolution.
    i see what you are saying but all that shows is you would conside it evolution and in reality it would be something else instead. attributing and being are two different htings.
    Attribution backed up by evidence to support that the theory is true.

    Here's one; prove that The word 'computer' refers to the machine I am currently using.

    Anything can be denied, but it cannot be disproved without evidence. Nor can another theory be proved without evidence.

    This is what you are trying to do; you will fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Also, cancer; exposure to high frequency photons has been proved to cause cancer. What is this if it is not a mutation?
    this is another point, in evolution there is no explanation or room for diseases. where did they come from? why do they attack some people and not others? there is no reason for disease to exist inthe evolutionary theory.
    What kind of disease? Pathogenically caused? Or genetic disease? Or cancer?

    All are explained by evolution. Pathogens evolved to live inside a host. Genetic disease is caused by mutation from the genes you aquire. Cancer is caused by mutation from the genes you were born with, or from another source (carcinogens and radiation, etc.)

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Evolution has only been discovered in the past 150 years because in this time, more and more fossils were discovered which showed how species evolved. When Charles Darwin was writing 'The Origin of the Species', there was another scientist (I forget who) who was writing a similar theory. Since the theory was not generally accepted untill many years later, how do you explain this as corruption? They both came up with their theories independantly based on what they observed, and both came up with the same conclusion.
    first off the first recorded discovery of someone talking about evolution was in the 6th century b.c. in china (After the Flood by Bill Cooper) and darwin's own granfather preached it long before darwin was alive so you cannot credit darwin with the discovery.
    Fine. Destroy the message by killing the messenger, if you can.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    also, this is what proves evolution false as its late discovery is unfair, and unjust to all the people who came before. they diued without out knowing anything about it per se. i that right? no.
    Religious persecution is probably the main reason evolution went so long undiscovered.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    The Bible is the same from beginning to end, from adam to the future, thatis fair, and just and all people get to know about it. do you see the difference andmy point?
    Things haven't been the same, though. Look at variation in temperature over time, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    people can come up with many ideas independently, there is no monopoly on evolution. ever hear of the old saying 'great minds think alike'? which ells us people do the exact same thing as darwin and wallace but on differen topics.
    The point with the quote 'great minds think alike' is that two inteligent people will come to the same conclusion because it is right. Have you suddenly become an evolutionist?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    i am tired now.
    Yes, this conversation must be greatly taxing your imagination; making up all the bullshit you have posted.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •