NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, just remember, without Judeo-Christian Values, we wouldn't be here talking about this.

*snip*

The Christian God created the universe because the Christian God actually exists.

You see, the deterioration of society that we see today can be traced to the evolutionary movement, removal of prayer from schools, the free-love movement, Roe v. Wade, etc.

*snip*

There is a Creator. There is a God. There is a right and a wrong.

And Evolution is the latter. A rebellion unto God.

Wow. I don't know where to begin. There is no arguing with that kind of "thinking." I concede, I'll convert to creationism for I see the evils of evolutionism and free love...

I'm going to bed. You remind me of why I hate mankind.

I'm sorry to say actually that this is already taught to all children in school, just not legally. I am not a Christian in any way. I am not for many things that the parties supporting this are for. However this is something that I think is good. Evolution is a creation theory the same as God making the Earth, or Ymir's body becoming the world. This I am afraid is murky water.

The first point that many will bring up, church and state. Yes there is supposed to be a separation of the two. However teaching evolution as THE way things happened, when it is a theory might I add the same as the "Big Bang" albeit more substaintial, is the same as mandating God made everything. They should all be taught as ways it MIGHT have happened. Teach the religious beliefs as just that, beliefs, not definite fact. Same should be done with evolution. Sure show facts supporting these, teach many religion's version of intelligent design, teach multiple creation myths of science. Teach them all because we should learn them, THAT is the point of education, to learn about the world around us, and my friends, religion, theology is in it. (I know I made it sound like I was going to list points, but I scrapped that idea and couldn't think of a different way to start it -_-)

I don't see where you can get the evidence for Deluge from the fossil record. Ancient ecosystems that couldn't have existed contemporary, in-situ preserved coral reefs on what is now land (which certainly couldn't have grown within that one year of deluge with kilometers of water column above them). The fact alone that we have pole caps is totally inconsistent with the Deluge.



Somehow you seem to exagerate things quite a bit there... you know how (un)likely it is that a nearby isotope turns into a radioactive one from the decay product of a decaying radioactive isotope? Via beta-decay, perhaps, but alpha-decay (helium nuclei) is pretty unlikely...

Added mass destabalizes an atom.

Makes it radioactive.

Pole Caps is inconsistent with the Flood? How so?

As for the Coral Reefs, how did ruins from ancient civilisations get in the Atlantic and Meditteranean?

Wow. I don't know where to begin. There is no arguing with that kind of "thinking." I concede, I'll convert to creationism for I see the evils of evolutionism and free love...

I'm going to bed. You remind me of why I hate mankind.

You hate mankind because your sad perspective on life and its origins provides for no hope. No purpose. No value.

Not because of me or God.

Wow. I don't know where to begin. There is no arguing with that kind of "thinking." I concede, I'll convert to creationism for I see the evils of evolutionism and free love...

I'm going to bed. You remind me of why I hate mankind.

Oh, another point. Just remember, Evolutionists have no proof, so why should I bother explaining myself?

I'm sorry to say actually that this is already taught to all children in school, just not legally. I am not a Christian in any way. I am not for many things that the parties supporting this are for. However this is something that I think is good. Evolution is a creation theory the same as God making the Earth, or Ymir's body becoming the world. This I am afraid is murky water. No, it isn't. Evolution has mountains of scientific data to back it up. None of the other theories do.

The first point that many will bring up, church and state. Yes there is supposed to be a separation of the two. However teaching evolution as THE way things happened, when it is a theory might I add the same as the "Big Bang" albeit more substaintial, is the same as mandating God made everything. No, because we have evidence for one and not for the other. We can test one and examine one and not the other. One is falsifiable and the other is not. The two are not equatable. They should all be taught as ways it MIGHT have happened. Teach the religious beliefs as just that, beliefs, not definite fact. Same should be done with evolution. Sure show facts supporting these, teach many religion's version of intelligent design, teach multiple creation myths of science. Teach them all because we should learn them, THAT is the point of education, to learn about the world around us, and my friends, religion, theology is in it. (I know I made it sound like I was going to list points, but I scrapped that idea and couldn't think of a different way to start it -_-) No, hard science belongs in the science class room. Superstituous beliefs of dead cultures belong in Classical Studies or humanities classes. Leave the science classes to the scientific.

No, it isn't. Evolution has mountains of scientific data to back it up. None of the other theories do.
No, because we have evidence for one and not for the other. We can test one and examine one and not the other. One is falsifiable and the other is not. The two are not equatable. No, hard science belongs in the science class room. Superstituous beliefs of dead cultures belong in Classical Studies or humanities classes. Leave the science classes to the scientific.

Yes. And those mountains were created by God.

Why don't you give us these mountains of evidence? And don't use some cop-out like, "Go read a book."

All your evolution books are flawed and presuppositionary.

And the theory of evolution is not true science. It cannot be tested or reproduced in a lab. It wasn't observed, and so on and so forth. When you show me a gecko lay chicken eggs, then I'll be convinced (Because there are no transitional reptile-avian fossils, especially none with birdlike characteristics such as hollow bones, or intact feather-scales).

Pole Caps is inconsistent with the Flood? How so?

Well, they are such a mass of water that they would have provided enough buoyancy to float off the polar caps and break up. And they certainly wouldn't regrow quickly.

Then, there's some other stuff you just wish to ignore, for example most aquatic lifeforms would have been killed of by the Deluge due to a change in salinity...

And all the other impossibilities... it just doesn't make sense to believe something like that could have actually happened, because it's impossible. Simply impossible.

As for the Coral Reefs, how did ruins from ancient civilisations get in the Atlantic and Meditteranean?

If you're talking about Atlantis there's no evidence whatsoever for it. It's a myth, just like Genesis. ;)

Oh, another point. Just remember, Evolutionists have no proof, so why should I bother explaining myself?
What is your proof may I ask? The bible hmm? So you're saying that the bible is the word of God HIMSELF unto the people, am I correct in this assertion?

Yes. And those mountains were created by God.

Why don't you give us these mountains of evidence? And don't use some cop-out like, "Go read a book." How about instead of "read a book" I give you a "read the damned thread"? We've covered the fossil record, we've covered examples of evolution observed and recorded by humans, we've covered transitory species, etc. Everything is already here, your mere refusal to acknowledge it does not negate it.

All your evolution books are flawed and presuppositionary. No, but those are good words for the Bible.

And the theory of evolution is not true science. It cannot be tested or reproduced in a lab. Yes it can, and has been. Rather frequently on microscopic organisms actually. It wasn't observed, and so on and so forth. Yes it can, and has been. Rather frequently on microscopic organisms actually. When you show me a gecko lay chicken eggs, then I'll be convinced (Because there are no transitional reptile-avian fossils, We covered this too. Dinosaur =/= Reptile. Furthermore, there are transitory dinosaur bird fossils. If you had read the thread, you would have known this too. especially none with birdlike characteristics such as hollow bones, or intact feather-scales).Wrong again.

Yes. And those mountains were created by God.
How can you explain why mountains are differently eroded, why they are made up of different materials (including *kilometers* of folded sedimentary rocks), and finally how we can measure plate tectonics even today?


Why don't you give us these mountains of evidence? And don't use some cop-out like, "Go read a book."

All your evolution books are flawed and presuppositionary.

Yeah, go read the bible, closely, and maybe you will realize all the inconsistencies...

And the theory of evolution is not true science. It cannot be tested or reproduced in a lab. It wasn't observed, and so on and so forth. When you show me a gecko lay chicken eggs, then I'll be convinced .

Of course it's true science, evolution has been observed in the lab, quite a couple of times. Regarding geckos, they are squamates, and birds are not anywhere closely related to them (they evolved from dinosaurs, remember?)

(Because there are no transitional reptile-avian fossils, especially none with birdlike characteristics such as hollow bones, or intact feather-scales).
That's not true. We have found tons of feathered dinosaurs... think about Archaeopteryx, Microraptor, Rahonavis, Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, etc. etc. And you say there are no transitional fossils? Where have you been hiding?

No, it isn't. Evolution has mountains of scientific data to back it up. None of the other theories do.
No, because we have evidence for one and not for the other. We can test one and examine one and not the other. One is falsifiable and the other is not. The two are not equatable. No, hard science belongs in the science class room. Superstituous beliefs of dead cultures belong in Classical Studies or humanities classes. Leave the science classes to the scientific.


Yes, yes of course, mister atheist scientist knows all about the universe from what man has seen and knows, there is no room for that which man cannot know, that which man is incapable of knowing, forgive me for being so wrong. You can test evolution? I am honestly and truthfully unaware of how this is done, tell me where I can find information on this. You say hard science belongs in the science class room. Superstituous beliefs of dead cultures belong in Classical Studies or humanities classes. Leave the science classes to the scientific...so why is it mandatory that we be taught this, and not what really matters about the world? Maybe evolution is right, but cultures across the world still follow these religions and hold it as fact the same as your evolution. So either make room for more options mandatorily, or remove the religion that your science is pushing on children. And yes my friend, it is taught in schools, ALOT, though they are not supposed to it is taught. By High School I had learned the same as most Christian children about their faith, through school, I've read the first few pages of Genesis and got bored with the pages of so-and-so begot so-and-so. Though it is a project, one can never learn too much. As for the norse comments, they were an example of another religion, a polytheistic one, so that it is realized Christians aren't the only ones out there.

Yes, yes of course, mister atheist scientist knows all about the universe from what man has seen and knows, there is no room for that which man cannot know, that which man is incapable of knowing, forgive me for being so wrong. I never said any of that. Every subject has it's place. Hell, I am a philosophy major myself, I merely find it appropriatte to keep the scientific in science and the metaphysical in metaphysics. You can test evolution? I am honestly and truthfully unaware of how this is done, tell me where I can find information on this. Yes, I don't have a source handy but I will tell you how it can be tested. Take a bacteria colony and add anti-biotics. See what survives and let it regrow. Add more anti-biotics. Repeat over and over. Then go back and add the first dose of anti-biotics too them. You should find very few, if any, die from it. You just witnessed the transformation of a species to fit a new environment. You say hard science belongs in the science class room. Superstituous beliefs of dead cultures belong in Classical Studies or humanities classes. Leave the science classes to the scientific...so why is it mandatory that we be taught this, and not what really matters about the world? I think humanities classes, as well as science should be mandatory. Maybe evolution is right, but cultures across the world still follow these religions and hold it as fact the same as your evolution. Not all of them. How many religions still follow the ancient Japanese creation myths? Or the Greeks? Or the egyptians? etc. There are many a creation myth that is dead and buried. So either make room for more options mandatorily, or remove the religion that your science is pushing on children. And yes my friend, it is taught in schools, ALOT, though they are not supposed to it is taught. I think humanities should be taught. Personally I think there needs to be a hell of alot more taught in schools today. By High School I had learned the same as most Christian children about their faith, through school, I've read the first few pages of Genesis and got bored with the pages of so-and-so begot so-and-so. Which is fine, so long as it was presented properly.
Though it is a project, one can never learn too much. Agreed. As for the norse comments, they were an example of another religion, a polytheistic one, so that it is realized Christians aren't the only ones out there.
Right, my point in regards to those was is there are probably hundreds of variations on creation myths and if you give them all equal air time, the more scientifically sound theories are going to be drowned out. 3 days on Evolution, 3 days on the Norse, three days on the Egyptians, 3 days on the Summarians, etc.

OK. America has for some time now been a political joke in how they carry out their emperialistic ideals enforcing them on others.

Now they become a joke among the scientfic community. All thanks to Bush.

oh for Gods sake(terrible pun)
Well we have it in religion classes in Ireland. No one takes it seriously-tho we only have it because of Catholic schools.

I never said any of that. Every subject has it's place. Hell, I am a philosphy major myself, I merely find it appropriatte to keep the scientific in science and the metaphysical in metaphysics. Yes, I don't have a source handy but I will tell you how it can be tested. Take a bacteria colony and add anti-biotics. See what survives and let it regrow. Add more anti-biotics. Repeat over and over. Then go back and add the first dose of anti-biotics too them. You should find very few, if any, die from it. You just witnessed the transformation of a species to fit a new environment. I think humanities classes, as well as science should be mandatory. Not all of them. How many religions still follow the ancient Japanese creation myths? Or the Greeks? Or the egyptians? etc. There are many a creation myth that is dead and buried. I think humanities should be taught. Personally I think there needs to be a hell of alot more taught in schools today. Which is fine, so long as it was presented properly.
Agreed.
Right, my point in regards to those was is there are probably hundreds of variations on creation myths and if you give them all equal air time, the more scientifically sound theories are going to be drowned out. 3 days on Evolution, 3 days on the Norse, three days on the Egyptians, 3 days on the Summarians, etc.

Then I agree with you in that aspect. The Japanese are still shinto, Hokkaido still follows pre-Ise religions in parts of the mountains. Mostly places too secluded or unimportant to the church still follow their religions. That's political though, not quite religious. As for the time, give evolution, give other theories as well (there are others, don't know them because I wasn't taught them, but I know they're there, it will also demonstrate the power of the Scientific Model or whatever it's called) Then do major ones. Obviously Judeo-Christian beliefs, due to their prominence, will have a larger time. Muslim beliefs should get air, if just to shed light on things. Buddhism, Confucism, Taoism, they should get time as well, though they could be disputed as philosophies, they're religious philosophies that have importance in the world and its shaping. Greko-Roman (sp?) myths should obviously be taught, for their influence on art, culture, and other such things at least. Then maybe religions that formed the basis for most of our major religions today. There's time for it all, trust me, I've learned evolution as many times as how to reduce a fraction, or about the revolutionary war.

Oh, another point. Just remember, Evolutionists have no proof, so why should I bother explaining myself?

Because you have even less proof!*

That's why you are so fucking painful for me to read. Your dogma stings my eyes.

*This is humoring your delusion that evolutionary theory has no proof.

To all you Atheist Evolutionists out there:

The world as we know it is going to end in the year 2012. That gives you 7 years to mend your ways.

If you do not - When the rapture comes, you'll be surfing on a lake of fire - while I will be drinking ice tea and playing scrabble with Jesus.

I can't believe that the name 'Bush' and the word 'intelligent' have come together in one sentence.

To all you Atheist Evolutionists out there:

The world as we know it is going to end in the year 2012. That gives you 7 years to mend your ways.

If you do not - When the rapture comes, you'll be surfing on a lake of fire - while I will be drinking ice tea and playing scrabble with Jesus.


Lake of fire came about through the church to scare the people I'm afraid, why 2012? Are you speaking of the end of the cycle of the Mayan Calendar? change is not the end. And be careful, the Seraphim are known to cheat at scrabble.

Lake of fire came about through the church to scare the people I'm afraid, why 2012? Are you speaking of the end of the cycle of the Mayan Calendar? change is not the end. And be careful, the Seraphim are known to cheat at scrabble.

I know 94 7 letter words in Aramaic. I'm gonna kick their asses.

To all you Atheist Evolutionists out there:

The world as we know it is going to end in the year 2012. That gives you 7 years to mend your ways.

If you do not - When the rapture comes, you'll be surfing on a lake of fire - while I will be drinking ice tea and playing scrabble with Jesus.I refuse to believe in a God that wishes to be praised constantly.

I know 94 7 letter words in Aramaic. I'm gonna kick their asses.
careful with Jesus and it though, I played with him once, and he cried and went all divine intervention and cast me into purgatory for a few days until God appologized for his son's temper.

I refuse to believe in a God that wishes to be praised constantly.

I hope you have an asbestos boogy-board. Stock up on the sun-block, too.

To all you Atheist Evolutionists out there:

The world as we know it is going to end in the year 2012. That gives you 7 years to mend your ways.

If you do not - When the rapture comes, you'll be surfing on a lake of fire - while I will be drinking ice tea and playing scrabble with Jesus.

I hope you're still on NS in 2013.

To all you Atheist Evolutionists out there:

The world as we know it is going to end in the year 2012. That gives you 7 years to mend your ways.

If you do not - When the rapture comes, you'll be surfing on a lake of fire - while I will be drinking ice tea and playing scrabble with Jesus.
You are much mistaken, I am afraid. As the Great Book* clearly states, the Apocalypse has come and gone and the only reason nobody noticed it is because the Antichrist didn't really feel like destroying the whole world and everything.

Also, if the Apocalypse had indeed come and the seas would turn to blood, do you really think the angels upon high, poised as they are to battle the angels from down below, could really be bothered to pick up a few believers here and there just so they could sneer at the tormented unbelievers in comfort?

Finally, God does not play Scrabble. He's the dealer in a game of poker with blank cards for infinite stakes and He won't tell you the exact rules and He smiles all the time.


*(The Great Book obviously being Good Omens as written by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, who were clearly divinely inspired at the time of writing)

I hope you have an asbestos boogy-board. Stock up on the sun-block, too.
though honestly, if you're...raptured and all that, will we get an E-Mail? Just to let us know what happened and all.

Finally, God does not play Scrabble. He's the dealer in a game of poker with blank cards for infinite stakes and He won't tell you the exact rules and He smiles all the time.


HaHahahahaha! Oh man thats hilarious, is it from terry pratchett?

HaHahahahaha! Oh man thats hilarious, is it from terry pratchett?
oh you must definitely read it, there is no excuse.

oh you must definitely read it, there is no excuse.

There is only one book you should be reading. I suggest you all get started immediately.

7 years, 2 months, 11 days, 14 hours, 36 minutes, 47 seconds.. 46.... 45.... 44... 43...

Rapture is on it's way.

I am seriously fed up with Christians. Especially western Christians. Why not teach the Kuran? At least the Kuran leaves room for evolution, and it's not geocentric like the Bible. Why not go with the Torah? Why are your dumb Christian a$$es always looking to push forward *your* religion, *your* culture, *your* food your everything? What makes you believe that we want it? I'm a southern Slav and I am proud of my culture and my country and even my ancestors' religion. Just like most other cultures... Difference is we aren't as violent and vile as the westerners, which translates into we don't conquer and colonize other cultures and impose our will. I hope the western hegemony dies really really soon...

Btw, if anyone still believes that evolution is unprovable, please seek a councelor or a high building.

Also, regarding the discussion on the universe and it's origins, I suggest all of you read up on quantum physics and particularly the String Theory.

... Difference is we aren't as violent and vile as the westerners, which translates into we don't conquer and colonize other cultures and impose our will...


Yeah, except for those pesky Ottomans and their Europe-invading empire.

I don't see the problem here.

Even if I was an atheist, I wouldn't see the problem.


Thats becuase your a Christian, and you obviously believe that everyone else should be too.

Otherwise you might realize that there are more children with different religious beliefs in American schools, than ever before.
This being the case, choosing to teach any ONE of them, in all classrooms, is
extremely biased thinking.

Therefore...NO religions should be taught in public schools, and such things should be left up to the parents to teach at home, or at church.

Thats becuase your a Christian, and you obviously believe that everyone else should be too.

Otherwise you might realize that there are more children with different religious beliefs in American schools, than ever before.
This being the case, choosing to teach any ONE of them, in all classrooms, is
extremely biased thinking.

Therefore...NO religions should be taught in public schools, and such things should be left up to the parents to teach at home, or at church.

I'm not Christian. yet I agree. sorry.

Shit. My browser just crashed. Why did you have to use the words "intelligent" and "Bush" in the same sentence? This causes my system to have instability problems.

what? like "military intelligence?" "sleep over?" (you tell m sister you're meant to sleep) and of course, "scout organisation?"

woo for disorganised camping!

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf

Yes, I know it's probably somewhat biased, but it's a nice, concise refutation of all the bull that's been spewed in this thread, and I'm too annoyed, too tired, and too angry to find anything on Google.

what? like "military intelligence?" "sleep over?" (you tell m sister you're meant to sleep) and of course, "scout organisation?"

woo for disorganised camping!

now on to the main and important bit:

I think that religion should be taught About in schools. all 5 major world religions, the philosophy Buddhism and maybe some older and/or less well known sects such as the native american tribal beleifs, Rastafarianism and Bah'ai.

i say this: leave science in science lessons and religionin RS lessons.

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf

Yes, I know it's probably somewhat biased, but it's a nice, concise refutation of all the bull that's been spewed in this thread, and I'm too annoyed, too tired, and too angry to find anything on Google.

Heh, nice one. :)

To The Evolutionist:

Charles Darwin is god.
The Origin of Species is the bible.
The ACLU, The Democrats, College Professors, and certain Biology books are the evangelists.
The classroom is the church.
And brainwashing is the saving message.
You forgot

"I am Batman!"

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf

Yes, I know it's probably somewhat biased, but it's a nice, concise refutation of all the bull that's been spewed in this thread, and I'm too annoyed, too tired, and too angry to find anything on Google.

No, you didn't refute all the bull in this thread. You added to it.

Cain's Wife:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

Little things on almost everything you ever wanted to know about Christianity:
http://www.equip.org/store/topical.asp?Div=Types&Da=y&Author=&TopID=&Keyword=&K2=&DeptID=318&SubID=&List=all

Suggested Reading:

The Bible Answer Book, by Hank Hanegraaff

The Face That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, by Hank Hanegraaff

The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Dr. Robert Morey

And, for good measure,

The Defense of the Faith, by Cornelius Van Til

You forgot

"I am Batman!"

NO!

I am Sparticus!

No, you didn't refute all the bull in this thread. You added to it.

Cain's Wife:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

Little things on almost everything you ever wanted to know about Christianity:
http://www.equip.org/store/topical.asp?Div=Types&Da=y&Author=&TopID=&Keyword=&K2=&DeptID=318&SubID=&List=all

Suggested Reading:

The Bible Answer Book, by Hank Hanegraaff

The Face That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, by Hank Hanegraaff

The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Dr. Robert Morey

And, for good measure,

The Defense of the Faith, by Cornelius Van Til

Oh goody. Theologians talking about science! :rolleyes:

This thread is almost a parody.

Charles Darwin is god.
The Origin of Species is the bible.
The ACLU, The Democrats, College Professors, and certain Biology books are the evangelists.
The classroom is the church.
And brainwashing is the saving message.

Not quite, I doubt they would be offended in a religious sense if you burned a copy of Origin of a Species :p .

I am seriously fed up with Christians. Especially western Christians. Why not teach the Kuran? At least the Kuran leaves room for evolution, and it's not geocentric like the Bible. Why not go with the Torah? Why are your dumb Christian a$$es always looking to push forward *your* religion, *your* culture, *your* food your everything? What makes you believe that we want it? I'm a southern Slav and I am proud of my culture and my country and even my ancestors' religion. Just like most other cultures... Difference is we aren't as violent and vile as the westerners, which translates into we don't conquer and colonize other cultures and impose our will. I hope the western hegemony dies really really soon...

Btw, if anyone still believes that evolution is unprovable, please seek a councelor or a high building.

Also, regarding the discussion on the universe and it's origins, I suggest all of you read up on quantum physics and particularly the String Theory.

Oh, I've read up on Quantum Physics and String Theory. And you're not going to tell me that some 4 and 6 dimensional split produced the infinate intricacy of this universe.

Secondly, we do not wish to teach the Qu'ran because of its numerous falsehoods, lies, and its militant commandments.

You see, when, in the course of the Old Testament, the Lord commanded the Hebrews and later the Isrealites to do battle, it was against an unrighteous or unjust people who had not repented from their sin and rebellion against God.

When the Isrealites turned from God, He sent conquering armies (The Babylonians and Romans to name a few) to punish the Isrealites.

However, in my reading of the Qu'ran, I have found many disturbing passages, and a very disturbing overall mindset. I believe that Muhammad suffered from Schizophrenia due to these main reasons:

Muhammad, in his "divine recitation of the word of Allah" made several errors. One, he placed Mary and (Moses or Abraham, can't find the passage. It's a confusing book) in the same time period, which we know is false right off the bat. There goes the Qu'ran's claim to infallibility.

Secondly, at numerous points in the Qu'ran, Allah orders that the followers of Islam treat "People of the Book [Christians and Jews]" as brothers, and to treat them well.

However, just as many times throughout the Qu'ran, Allah orders that all the Jews and the Christians (called, at many points, polytheists because of the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Blessed Trinity, Three in One)) be slaughtered mercilessly.

Thirdly, Muslims believe, and the Qu'ran states, that the Bible and Torah were originally of God, but have been corrupted. Allah has only preserved the Qu'ran. Within the Qu'ran, Allah/Muhammad ("We" is used throughout the Quran, "We" to symbolize Allah and Muhammad. Now, if Muhammad wasn't trying to make himself a powerful, godlike man with this whole Islam business, I don't know what he was trying to do) claims that the word of Allah has been divinely inspired. The Bible and Torah also make this claim. Now, if Allah inspired the Torah and the Bible, and later the Qu'ran, yet Allah did not keep the Torah and Bible true, then why would Allah keep the Qu'ran 'true'?

Anyway, there's my little rant, which many people will take as "Muslim-hating" in its message. I do not in any way 'hate' Muslims. In fact, I have had many Muslim teachers, and I have many Muslim friends. As for the Muslims who are terrorists and cowards, I do not hate them, for hate is a sin. I do have pity, and great sadness that their souls shall burn in Hell forever, and those who still live I hope hear, and take heart, the Gospel.

And, should anyone take offense at my comments about Islam, before you speak, look at what has been said about Christianity, about My beliefs, In this thread and on NS in general. Look at how God has been mocked before you say anything to me about Muhammad.

NO!

I am Sparticus!


Or "I am the Walrus"

This thread is almost a parody.

Parody of what?

I really could go on and on. Soviets, I've to be off to bed now, but I'll get to your common descent thing eventually.

so not only did you not even attempt to deal with the post you quoted or make the barest attempt to answer the questions it put forward, but you instead made up a bunch of bullshit. bullshit that even if it was true (which it isn't) wouldn't be relevant. do you remember when you said you wanted to see some evidence of evolution? that's what i laid out for you. deal with the fucking issue at hand instead of trying to change the subject like an ignorant coward.

explain the existence of the twin nested hierarchy of life. why a nested hierarchy, rather than a random jumble or a great chain of being or any of the numerous other possible ways to organize things?

explain why fossilized life should fit right in to the same nested hierarchy.

explain the precise ordering of fossil life, in exactly the order we would expect based on common descent and evolution. why are pigeons never found in earlier strata than velociraptors? why are homo sapiens never found in earlier strata than trilobites?

explain all the wonderfully detailed transitional series we have, that occur at the right times, and in the right orders.

explain how population containing variations + reproduction + selection of some traits over others + a source of new variation could possibly add up to anything other than evolution.

put up or shut the fuck up.

Of an actual debate. It's like the semi-retarded-cousin-that-everyone-tries-to-pretend-doesn't-exist of discourse.

so not only did you not even attempt to deal with the post you quoted or make the barest attempt to answer the questions it put forward, but you instead made up a bunch of bullshit. bullshit that even if it was true (which it isn't) wouldn't be relevant. do you remember when you said you wanted to see some evidence of evolution? that's what i laid out for you. deal with the *beep* issue at hand instead of trying to change the subject like an ignorant coward.

explain the existence of the twin nested hierarchy of life. why a nested hierarchy, rather than a random jumble or a great chain of being or any of the numerous other possible ways to organize things?

explain why fossilized life should fit right in to the same nested hierarchy.

explain the precise ordering of fossil life, in exactly the order we would expect based on common descent and evolution. why are pigeons never found in earlier strata than velociraptors? why are homo sapiens never found in earlier strata than trilobites?

explain all the wonderfully detailed transitional series we have, that occur at the right times, and in the right orders.

explain how population containing variations + reproduction + selection of some traits over others + a source of new variation could possibly add up to anything other than evolution.

put up or shut the [censored, because we should all be civil and intelligent here] up.

First of all, science today has no idea how Man evolved. You see, Cro-Magnon, Neanderthals, etc, have all been found in the same time-period as modern man. There are no transitional species which can be truly traced to Man. Pithicanthropus Erectus has been proved to be false. In fact, I remember reading an article in a "Science" Journal about how Apes could have "evolved" from humans.

As for the genetic similarities, Life on earth shares nearly all of its charictaristics. From Adenine, Guanin, Cytosine, and Thymine (Plus the other one... Utricine? Don't remember) to Nerves, Lungs (gills), Brains, Eyes, Skin cells, livers, stomachs, intestines, hair, olfactory nerves & sinuses, and the list goes on. Now, this makes for a very close DNA tree. It begs the question, if Evolution were correct, would there not be a greater variety of Life? Not all seemingly "out of one basket"?

God created the Animals in the beginning. Since then, they have grown and multiplied and, to a degree, Evolved. However, this evolution has only been a change in the already-existing specie. Avian charictaristics did not develop from lizards. Evolution over a small time-scale has occured, but the Universe has only existed for a short time.

As for transitional specie, There have been found no transitional plant species to trees, no transitional specie from lizards to birds (Archaeopteryx has been found in the late Triassic, which disproves that it evolved from the lizards previously thought to have evolved into this bird. And, as for the 21 reptilian characteristics it is supposed to have, Dr. Duane Gish, through careful examination, demonstrated these characteristics to be avian in nature, rather than reptilian).

After Archaeopteryx, the noted psuedosaur, was ruled out by Harvard's Dr. Stephen Jay Gould (A militant anticreationist) by this statement:

"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the 'official' position of most western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between bauplane [basically different types of creatures] are almost imposssible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record."

Then, because this intermediary was disproven, John Ostrom of Yale proposed a dinosour called "Pro-Avis". Since science could not produce, science fiction prevailed. There is no fossil evidence for the existence of such a creature. However, it was theorized to serve as an intermediary between lizards and archaeopteryx.

Newsweek summarized of a gathering of leading evolutionists in Chicago, "Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in High School."

"Rather than becoming Creationists, however, evolutionists have simply become more creative."

Then, because of the lack of intermediary fossils/species, the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium was put forth. This essentially says that, after long periods of time, new species come about, rather than by gradual change. Punctuated equilibrium is just a way for evolutionists to attempt to deal with their lack of evidence.

You, Free Soviets, lack a vocabulary, as evidenced by your use of foul, vulgar, and simplistic language. You also lack grammar and English Conventions skills, as evidenced by your punctuation, word order, sentence structure, and lack of capitals at the beginning of a sentence (I'm not perfect either). You also lack proof. You did not mention any fossilized species to support your argument, nor any scientific tests. Maybe this is because Evolution cannot be reproduced in a lab, tested, etc.

I have made my effort, and did so without truly attacking someone. I responded in kind to your personal attacks.

I have made my effort, and did so without truly attacking someone. I responded in kind to your personal attacks.The fact that no transitional species have been found proves: Nothing. The chance of such a species being found, intact, properly preserved, is rather small. The earth isn't a very friendly place for fossils...

And you wrote Zustände wrong. :D

why must everything turn into an argument?

I think only facts that can be proven should be taught in school. Everything based on faith should be taught outside of school, by choice. When it comes to matters of faith people just get too upset about it.
I think schools can give elective classes that discuss many religious views as long as it remains completely anthropological. That might actually be a way of promoting tolerance. It would be wrong to just teach the christian belief and it would be wrong to teach any beliefs as anything but another culture's perspective.

Cain's Wife:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp
Irrelevant and useless, I didn't even mention that.
Little things on almost everything you ever wanted to know about Christianity:
http://www.equip.org/store/topical.asp?Div=Types&Da=y&Author=&TopID=&Keyword=&K2=&DeptID=318&SubID=&List=all
Suggested Reading:

The Bible Answer Book, by Hank Hanegraaff

I KNOW about Christianity. I've read the Bible all the way through. I don't
need to be told "Obviously you oppose Christianity because you don't know about it." I know about it. And I think it's absurd.

The Face That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, by Hank Hanegraaff
Read it. Nothing but pseudoscience and baseless attacks on evolution.

The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, by Dr. Robert Morey

And, for good measure,

The Defense of the Faith, by Cornelius Van Til
See above.

And you STILL haven't addressed any of the points my link raised.

You, Free Soviets, lack a vocabulary, as evidenced by your use of foul, vulgar, and simplistic language. You also lack grammar and English Conventions skills, as evidenced by your punctuation, word order, sentence structure, and lack of capitals at the beginning of a sentence (I'm not perfect either). You also lack proof. You did not mention any fossilized species to support your argument, nor any scientific tests. Maybe this is because Evolution cannot be reproduced in a lab, tested, etc.

I have made my effort, and did so without truly attacking someone. I responded in kind to your personal attacks.
...sigh.

First, you didn't make your effort without attacking someone. You attacked Free Soviets' grasp of the English language, which has nothing to do with Evolutionism or Creationism. In fact, the best scientists stereotypically are very poor writers. But the reason your statements are truly an attack on Free Soviets and not just part of your argument is the fact that Free Soviets' grasp of the English language have nothing to do with whether or not what he said was right.

And, I'd like to point out a couple things on your comment about the type of language Free Soviets has used. Firstly, vulgar language does not inherently imply limited vocabulary. In fact, by not ever using these words, you yourself are limiting your own vocabulary. Second, why use large words and complex sentences to try making yourself sound smart (create a false image of yourself, essentially), when you can get the same point across with simpler language? If your opponent can not counter your argument because he does not understand your language (because of its complexity), then you have not won, but lost the argument. If you use simple language and a solid argument, and your opponent can not refute it, then you have won the argument. In debate, no, in language in general, it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of simplicity. (An interesting aside, I'm actually currently helping someone edit a short story because what they wrote is WAY too complicated, even for an educated reader, to swallow easily enough to fluidily read the story.)

That said, your final statement is immature enough for me to ignore the rest of your post. It is one thing to make a mature, respectful post, but any ground you may have gained there is completely lost when you feel the need to brag about yourself and remind us that you didn't insult anyone (even though you quite obviously did).

greater googlia, i agree with what you said.
It is not mature to insult others to make yourself look better. It reflects poorly on you. If the world was made of people who were only impressed by fancy words i would be worried.

I think we cannot accept ideas that have not been proven. That doesn't mean we should dismiss ones that haven't. We should just work together to find out the truth.

breaking things up, since you've decided to get into specifics now. by the way, you still didn't answer any of the questions i posed, merely tried to pretend that there aren't any transitionals. i'm taking this detour because i can easily excuse your ignorance of them due to your major source of info on the subject being known liars. but i still expect answers.

First of all, science today has no idea how Man evolved. You see, Cro-Magnon, Neanderthals, etc, have all been found in the same time-period as modern man. There are no transitional species which can be truly traced to Man. Pithicanthropus Erectus has been proved to be false. In fact, I remember reading an article in a "Science" Journal about how Apes could have "evolved" from humans.

bullshit.

yes, modern humans and neandertals co-existed for some time (modern humans caught the tail end of neandertals). this is unsurprising, as they are cousins and not ancestors. how about trying it with the actual ancestral species. oh yeah, you don't believe we have any examples of transitionals. unfortunately for you, we have found lots (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html). and they form a wonderful gradual series of increasingly modern features as we go through time in terms of bone size and shape, overall body size, brain size, tool use, etc. want to see a picture of some of the skulls in the series (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html)?

even worse for you, your creation 'scientists' all disagree (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html) about which ones count as 'fully human' and which ones count as 'fully ape'. which is exactly what one would expect when looking at a transitional fossil that contained characteristics that can be found in either modern group.

as for your last claim, normally i would ask for a source, but since it is so obviously bullshit, we'll just leave it at that.

Pwned.

I just thought I'd note that Free Soviets has done something highly respectable here and completely ignored Germanische's ad hominen.

Not only that, but FS also did not attack GZ. Granted, he used some harshed words, and attacked some of GZ's arguments, but this is an argument. The arguments are exactly what you're supposed to be attacking..

As for the genetic similarities, Life on earth shares nearly all of its charictaristics. From Adenine, Guanin, Cytosine, and Thymine (Plus the other one... Utricine? Don't remember) to Nerves, Lungs (gills), Brains, Eyes, Skin cells, livers, stomachs, intestines, hair, olfactory nerves & sinuses, and the list goes on. Now, this makes for a very close DNA tree. It begs the question, if Evolution were correct, would there not be a greater variety of Life? Not all seemingly "out of one basket"?

no. evolution and common descent actually explain precisely why things should share fundamental similarities - we all descend from some original ancestor. creationism does not. all creationism can say is "just because".

oh, and your list of similar characteristics doesn't work. those things aren't even all present across a single phylum, let alone the various kingdoms and domains of life. unless amphibians, birds, and mammals all have hair in your universe...

"Not only that, but FS also did not attack GZ. Granted, he used some harshed words, and attacked some of GZ's arguments, but this is an argument. The arguments are exactly what you're supposed to be attacking.."

FS - "so not only did you not even attempt to deal with the post you quoted or make the barest attempt to answer the questions it put forward, but you instead made up a bunch of bullshit. bullshit that even if it was true (which it isn't) wouldn't be relevant. do you remember when you said you wanted to see some evidence of evolution? that's what i laid out for you. deal with the fucking issue at hand instead of trying to change the subject like an IGNORANT COWARD"

Sorry to say but he actually did insult GZ.

"Not only that, but FS also did not attack GZ. Granted, he used some harshed words, and attacked some of GZ's arguments, but this is an argument. The arguments are exactly what you're supposed to be attacking.."

FS - "so not only did you not even attempt to deal with the post you quoted or make the barest attempt to answer the questions it put forward, but you instead made up a bunch of bullshit. bullshit that even if it was true (which it isn't) wouldn't be relevant. do you remember when you said you wanted to see some evidence of evolution? that's what i laid out for you. deal with the fucking issue at hand instead of trying to change the subject like an IGNORANT COWARD"

Sorry to say but he actually did insult GZ.
I just searched this page for instances of the word coward to find where FS called GZ and "ignorant coward" and the only result is your post...(and now 3 times in mine).

It's on page 20.

It's on page 20.
I was referring to FS's post which followed my first post about GZ's insult.

That'd be a lot more clear if RPP's post wasn't in between my post and FS's.

God created the Animals in the beginning. Since then, they have grown and multiplied and, to a degree, Evolved. However, this evolution has only been a change in the already-existing specie. Avian charictaristics did not develop from lizards. Evolution over a small time-scale has occured, but the Universe has only existed for a short time.

do you concede that with the existence of 'deep time' species could in fact have evolved from a common ancestor? that all it takes is variation, reproduction, and selection to cause evolution, and only argue that there hasn't been enough time for this to occur? i just want to be clear on this before launching off on a lovely tour through the magical worlds of dating the universe.

As for transitional specie, There have been found no transitional plant species to trees, no transitional specie from lizards to birds (Archaeopteryx has been found in the late Triassic, which disproves that it evolved from the lizards previously thought to have evolved into this bird. And, as for the 21 reptilian characteristics it is supposed to have, Dr. Duane Gish, through careful examination, demonstrated these characteristics to be avian in nature, rather than reptilian).

putting aside the fact that gish is an idiot and known liar, you surely must know that archy isn't the only dino-to-bird evidence we have, yes? and that we have regular old dinosaurs with fossilized proto-feathers on their bodies? and that even before all that, people noticed that dinosaurs and birds share numerous skeletal features? http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm

as for gish, what possible 'avian nature' could he have demonstrated for fucking claws and teeth and a bony tail?

trees i know less about. though i do know that angiosperms show up well after gymnosperms, and that early trees were essentially giant ferns. what about it?

no. evolution and common descent actually explain precisely why things should share fundamental similarities - we all descend from some original ancestor. creationism does not. all creationism can say is "just because".

oh, and your list of similar characteristics doesn't work. those things aren't even all present across a single phylum, let alone the various kingdoms and domains of life. unless amphibians, birds, and mammals all have hair in your universe...

Erm, Intelligent Design (Creationism is LIEZ) DOES explain why there are fundamental similarities. Say you build a table. You use wood. Hey, that worked pretty good, now let's building something else, say, a house. You might also use wood. God/Deity of your choice could have just used the same building blocks.

Oh, and bringing up phylums, not sure if this has been mentioned before, since I stopped reading all after page 5 'cause of the sheer ignorance on both sides, but what about the large majority of all the phylums appearing at once, in the Cambrian period? In a sort-of Biological Big Bang? How does evolution explain that?

yes, modern humans and neandertals co-existed for some time (modern humans caught the tail end of neandertals). this is unsurprising, as they are cousins and not ancestors. how about trying it with the actual ancestral species.

So have the officially decided neandertals place? When I first learned about them, they were part of the line. Now they are arguing they are nothing more then offshoot.

And you wrote Zustände wrong. :D


Hmmmmmm. You have me thinking.

I wonder if our friend here is Greenlander?

Kind of argues the same way......

Erm, Intelligent Design (Creationism is LIEZ) DOES explain why there are fundamental similarities. Say you build a table. You use wood. Hey, that worked pretty good, now let's building something else, say, a house. You might also use wood. God/Deity of your choice could have just used the same building blocks.

except that there is no reason to think that god - sorry, i mean the completely scientific non-denominational intelligent designer - would have used the same materials and basic blueprints for everything, whether it made sense to or not. taking your table and house example a step further, suppose we then wanted to build a 90 story building. or an airplane. or an oil tanker. oh damn, the building collapsed, the plane could barely fly, and the oil tanker sprang a leak and sank. it turns out that some materials are better than others at doing certain jobs. but in life, much of the basic structure and biochemical building blocks are the same for cats, trees, and extremophile archaea. but there are better designs that could have been used, better materials to perform well in certain environments. instead we see a constant string of jury-rigged design, as if the designer only had a limited supply of materials and was just macgyvering up solutions on the fly.

evolution explains this. creationism can't. and intelligent design says that evolution is right, but we need to also assume that there is also an incredibly stupid and criminally neglegent designer back there somewhere.

Oh, and bringing up phylums, not sure if this has been mentioned before, since I stopped reading all after page 5 'cause of the sheer ignorance on both sides, but what about the large majority of all the phylums appearing at once, in the Cambrian period? In a sort-of Biological Big Bang? How does evolution explain that?

"all at once" is a bit of an overstatement. we are talking about a period of 15 to 50 million years. yes, there was a dramatic diversification of life over the course of the pre-cambrian/cambrian. as we would expect for organism essentially entering into completely new niches. a good number of the earliest precursors of todays extant phyla show up in the cambrian, sure. why wouldn't they?

basically, after life had been around for several billion years, the mutations that allowed multicellular life happened in some population. millions of years later the mutations that allowed hard parts occured. in the millions of years after that, hard bodied multicellular life diversified into a huge range of forms and filled up the new niches available in this new world of multicelllar life with hard parts. the most successful of these lifeforms went on to spawn a huge line of diverse descendents over the next 500 million years, forming most of the animal phyla we have today. yeah, and?

So have the officially decided neandertals place? When I first learned about them, they were part of the line. Now they are arguing they are nothing more then offshoot.

yeah, they are officially cousins now. the main debate is about whether they are first cousins (homo sapiens neandertalensis) or third cousins twice removed (h. neandertalensis). the first cousins side is winning as far as i know. there is also a bit of debate about whether they were kissing cousins, but that is mostly overblown noise because the discovery channel thinks it makes good tv.

a good number of the earliest precursors of todays extant phyla show up in the cambrian, sure. why wouldn't they?

let me put this another way. in the nested hierarchy of life, the various phyla of animal life have to occur after the differentiation of the kingdoms (which is after the differentiation of the three domains) most of the extant animal phyla are based around multicellular things with hard parts. so it just seems obvious that these things would develop soon after life began meeting those two conditions. its not as though we would epect the various extant phyla to slowly develop out of each other. rather, we would expect them to share earlier common ancestors, and to further differentiate themselves not into new phyla but into new classes and orders.

I can't believe that Bush finally gave the nod to teaching creation... I mean Intelligent Design in school. I'm really scared.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-intelligent-design,1,2655180.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Sadly, knowing Bush, this isn't too surprising... :(

Well, they are such a mass of water that they would have provided enough buoyancy to float off the polar caps and break up. And they certainly wouldn't regrow quickly.Then, there's some other stuff you just wish to ignore, for example most aquatic lifeforms would have been killed of by the Deluge due to a change in salinity...
And all the other impossibilities... it just doesn't make sense to believe something like that could have actually happened, because it's impossible. Simply impossible.
If you're talking about Atlantis there's no evidence whatsoever for it. It's a myth, just like Genesis. ;)

There was a flood, it covered the world of the Jews. In other parts of the world there was a massive draught. Much like the story of the sun in the sky, there was a massive darkness in America at the same time. When the Bible refers to the World, it most commonly uses the known world, primarily the Holy Land.

Bush and Intelligent

Isn't that an oxymoron? :D

I wonder if our friend here is Greenlander?



Who argues like me?



EDIT: This guy? Germanische Zustande?

Actually I wasn’t in this thread, I’m working backwards here, but so far, I think this looks pretty good, I approve of such similarities.

GZ rocks.

evolution explains this. creationism can't. and intelligent design says that evolution is right, but we need to also assume that there is also an incredibly stupid and criminally neglegent designer back there somewhere.



Yeah, especially if the designer came up with GW Bush. Criminal, indeed! I'd fire God on the spot if i thought he was responsible.

Hmmmmmm. You have me thinking.

I wonder if our friend here is Greenlander?

Kind of argues the same way......

Greenlander: There can be only one!

Greenlander: There can be only one!

:D

Evolutionary science does not help itself when much of what is written in school textbooks and still taught is out of date and demonstrably disprovable.

Evolutionary science does not help itself when much of what is written in school textbooks and still taught is out of date and demonstrably disprovable.

Of course it's going to be out of date, what do you expect? This science we're talking about here, there's always new things being discovered.

Also, care to explain what can be disproven?

Of course it's going to be out of date, what do you expect? This science we're talking about here, there's always new things being discovered.

Also, care to explain what can be disproven?


The Miller Experiment

Darwin's Tree of life

Haeckl's Embryos

The Archaeopteryx

The Miller Experiment

Darwin's Tree of life

Haeckl's Embryos

The Archaeopteryx



Yeah, if evolutionists are so insistent upon barring ID, they could at least update their own textbooks.

Yeah, if evolutionists are so insistent upon barring ID, they could at least update their own textbooks.

New textbooks are produced on a continuous basis. The problem is school budgets and ridiculous local politics. But go ahead and beat another straw-man to death, no one is stopping you.

The point is that The Theory of Evolution is created using Rational Thinking.
School is the place where kids are supposed to learn to think rationally. They are asked (or should be anyways) to use their brains, to criticise and ask questions.
That goes against the The Theory of Creation, which is based on thousands of year-old folk stories and requires faith rather than brains.
If parents think their kids should learn about Creation then they can send them to church (although I think that too should be made the kid's choice).

And besides, if you teach God making Adam and Eve, then you have to teach Brahma making the Earth, and the Rainbow Serpent and so on...

Creation isn't a theory, calling it so will only cause confusion. :)

Haeckl's Embryos were a joke, and were disproved in the mid 20th century(I think)so I don't understand why school textbooks would still have it.

All you tards who voted for Bush, here's your payback. He's the #1 wackjob doing the dirty work for the Bush/Saudi oligarchy that has had the US by the balls since the Oil Shocks of the 1970's (which was before the time of 95% of you all on this board).

Wake up sheeple!

hello this would be my first post i was reading and i saw that you were debating about were exactly neanderthal man stood on the evolutionary chain awhile ago i watched a documentery that sudjested that neanderthal man was a cousin of ours and was simlpy breed out of existance which has happend to other species in the past
and is happaning to some in our time for instance the red wolf once just thought to be a cross between a gray wolf and a cyote, but later information shows that the red wolf had evolved on its own and is infact not a cross. but the red wolf is quickly becoming an endangered species becuase they often breed with cyotes. which may be what happend to neanderthal man. this also explains the many diverse physical features of human beings to day.


ps: please excuse any spelling error's i simply can not spell it's just not one of my gift's

The point is that The Theory of Evolution is created using Rational Thinking.
School is the place where kids are supposed to learn to think rationally. They are asked (or should be anyways) to use their brains, to criticise and ask questions.
That goes against the The Theory of Creation, which is based on thousands of year-old folk stories and requires faith rather than brains.
If parents think their kids should learn about Creation then they can send them to church (although I think that too should be made the kid's choice).

And besides, if you teach God making Adam and Eve, then you have to teach Brahma making the Earth, and the Rainbow Serpent and so on...

No one has ever said that they are making kids learn that the God of the Bible is the Intelligent designer. If you believe that the Rainbow serpent is intelligent very well then he is the one you can believe created the world.

As for rational thought... how rational is it to believe in something that is not still happening today in which no "missing link" can be conclusively proven but most of the things in which they find "fact" are built around things such as teeth and a random skull here and there. I think that takes a lot more "faith" to believe reather than an intelligent designer created intelligent things such as humans

hello this would be my first post i was reading and i saw that you were debating about were exactly neanderthal man stood on the evolutionary chain awhile ago i watched a documentery that sudjested that neanderthal man was a cousin of ours and was simlpy breed out of existance which has happend to other species in the past
and is happaning to some in our time for instance the red wolf once just thought to be a cross between a gray wolf and a cyote, but later information shows that the red wolf had evolved on its own and is infact not a cross. but the red wolf is quickly becoming an endangered species becuase they often breed with cyotes. which may be what happend to neanderthal man. this also explains the many diverse physical features of human beings to day.


ps: please excuse any spelling error's i simply can not spell it's just not one of my gift's


or it could be that fact that humans, all of them, posses things known as ressecive genes that appear at random depending on genetic pairing

*my spelling is equally wonderful as you can tell* :)

... how rational is it to believe in something that is not still happening today...

Oh Shit! Evolution stopped?! And nobody told me! When did this happen?

Oh Shit! Evolution stopped?! And nobody told me! When did this happen?

Simple, it never started not macro as the darwinian evolutionalry theory represents

As for rational thought... how rational is it to believe in something that is not still happening today in which no "missing link" can be conclusively proven but most of the things in which they find "fact" are built around things such as teeth and a random skull here and there. I think that takes a lot more "faith" to believe reather than an intelligent designer created intelligent things such as humans
It's called the "Scientific Method".
A tooth is enough to create some jaws around it, is enough to create a skull, is enough to imagine a lot about what an animal does.
We have modern examples to guide us, we have biology and zoology.
Also note that Evolution (depite a lot of evidence of natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth) happening, of genetic mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breeding) happening etc etc) is still called a "theory", while Creationism is presented as truth.

Simple, it never started not macro as the darwinian evolutionalry theory represents

Evolution never happened??? WTF???? Then how did we get here??? Everything came from something didn't it?

or it could be that fact that humans, all of them, posses things known as ressecive genes that appear at random depending on genetic pairing

*my spelling is equally wonderful as you can tell* :)

your of course correct in that but you cant dubate man of neandrathat mans trates have found there way into the gean pool and thus we end up with people like president bush lol no but seriosly for instance people in the northern regions of europe and brittain are larger and have a stronger more protruding brow. those regions being the regions of which neanderthal man was said to last exist

[QUOTE=Leonstein]It's called the "Scientific Method".
A tooth is enough to create some jaws around it, is enough to create a skull, is enough to imagine a lot about what an animal does.
We have modern examples to guide us, we have biology and zoology.
Also note that Evolution (depite a lot of evidence of natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth) happening, of genetic mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breeding) happening etc etc) is still called a "theory", while Creationism is presented as truth.[/

As is evolution...

And again what Bush is implementing is Intelligent design not creationsism ... not biblical doctrine and not a bible thumper's wonderland he is simply asking... that ID be considered as a theory... never as law

here's something to think about:

science explains how,
religion explins why.

never does one explain the other.

think about it.

Evolution never happened??? WTF???? Then how did we get here??? Everything came from something didn't it?
This isn't an evolution thread.

This is a WFT? What-if-I-don't-believe-in-God Thread.

here's something to think about:

science explains how,
religion explins why.

never does one explain the other.

think about it.

I would beg to differ with you. God is how and why... and I would also say that God explains for a lot in science... i.e. DNA, IQ differentials

It's called the "Scientific Method".
A tooth is enough to create some jaws around it, is enough to create a skull, is enough to imagine a lot about what an animal does.
We have modern examples to guide us, we have biology and zoology.
Also note that Evolution (depite a lot of evidence of natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth) happening, of genetic mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breeding) happening etc etc) is still called a "theory", while Creationism is presented as truth.

sorry to say that, but honestly, that's a hugy jump. A tooth telling you what the animal does. I'm afraid even science needs more then that.

sorry to say that, but honestly, that's a hugy jump. A tooth telling you what the animal does. I'm afraid even science needs more then that.


bravo

here's something to think about:

science explains how,
religion explins why.

never does one explain the other.

think about it.

Okay. I'll think about it....


Now what?

This isn't an evolution thread.

This is a WFT? What-if-I-don't-believe-in-God Thread.

Now you're just trying to confuse me. Stop messing with my head!

As is evolution...
No it's not. Maybe you just failed to ask the questions?

And again what Bush is implementing is Intelligent design not creationsism ... not biblical doctrine and not a bible thumper's wonderland he is simply asking... that ID be considered as a theory... never as law
How would that look in practice? A non-biblical "intelligent design" (which is just the modern name for creationism, and you know it) class?

Since some people don't believe in Biology, they reject the idea that there may have been animals that evolved from other animals. Those people usually have no idea what they are talking about, but that's not that important, because they yell the louder the less they know.
Therefore, we have been ordered to tell you that we might have been created by someone, who just snapped his (it's never a her) fingers, and we all existed. That person's name is not "God" , or "Jesus" or "our Lord", because calling him that would be against free will and freedom of speech...

No it's not. Maybe you just failed to ask the questions?


How would that look in practice? A non-biblical "intelligent design" (which is just the modern name for creationism, and you know it) class?


A non biblical ID class would be something terribly politically correct i.e. he/she that MAY have designed the world could be whoever you want it to be... a very pluralistic and modern way of approaching things... It goes along with they theory that all religions, races, people and thoughts are of equal value

oh and what questions??

A non biblical ID class would be something terribly politically correct i.e. he/she that MAY have designed the world could be whoever you want it to be... a very pluralistic and modern way of approaching things... It goes along with they theory that all religions, races, people and thoughts are of equal value

I guess I don't understand what would be actually taught in an I. D. class. I would think the essentials of I. D. could be covered in about 10 minutes. Why does this require a class?

sorry to say that, but honestly, that's a hugy jump. A tooth telling you what the animal does. I'm afraid even science needs more then that.
How much do you know about Biology?
There are laws anatomy has to follow, just like Physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

About Reconstruction:
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/research/anthropology/crsp/arccrsppearlstskull.html

If you want to know more, I would refer you to the Journal of Paleontology, but that needs a subscription.

oh and what questions??
Any questions at all. Evolution is only presented as "truth" as long as no one asks a question.
I'm saying you are only under the impression that they presented Evolution as the truth (I think the evidence speaks for itself, but anyways) because you never bothered opening your mouth in biology class.

How much do you know about Biology?
There are laws anatomy has to follow, just like Physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

About Reconstruction:
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/research/anthropology/crsp/arccrsppearlstskull.html

If you want to know more, I would refer you to the Journal of Paleontology, but that needs a subscription.

I know about biology as I have stated before. Honestly I don't care for it, but I learn it just the same, because it is knowledge. I understand that it operates in a system. However saying that finding one tooth will give you an animal is crap to be quite frank. I found a tooth, it has a square jaw by the base of the tooth. Even though I don't have any more evidence then a tooth that may or may not have come from anything else, here's a wangdoodle off of it. You need more evidence then that. Through process at me all day and it won't change the fact that weird jumps like that don't prove things. Yes I know there are huge gaps in all faiths before you say it. Personally I believe they all are correct, all different parts of the picture, but that's just me. However to prove a theory, even a spiritual one, you need a reason to believe it and proof. That is if you want anyone to believe it.

I would like to thank you for sources though. Well done.

Any questions at all. Evolution is only presented as "truth" as long as no one asks a question.
I'm saying you are only under the impression that they presented Evolution as the truth (I think the evidence speaks for itself, but anyways) because you never bothered opening your mouth in biology class.


Wrong... I was told by my teachers that I needed to trust in the knowledge of the scientists that they know more and are able to study more than I could because they have a degree... I was told that the evolutionary icons had been proven... Oh yeah and I was told i needed to stop disrupting the learning process

Wrong... I was told by my teachers that I needed to trust in the knowledge of the scientists that they know more and are able to study more than I could because they have a degree... I was told that the evolutionary icons had been proven...

When in school, there are two dogmas taught to children. Christianity, and Science.

That's stupid.
Intelligent Design is for the church. Are they going to teach every single religious theory of every single religion?

School is for the sciences. Science says Evolution is the way, and has much evidence to back it up. It doesn't ask you to accept it, it only presents it.

Then after school, kiddies can learn whatever they want from whoever they want.
Intelligent design does not mean Christian Creationism. So it almost is, in effect, teaching all religious theory. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Tribalism, almost every religion believes in intelligent design of some sort. The Generalization you seem to use disgusts me. ID does not imply Christianity, or just one religion. So shut up, your argument does not work.

I guess I don't understand what would be actually taught in an I. D. class. I would think the essentials of I. D. could be covered in about 10 minutes. Why does this require a class?
I think that we should not just give the biased point of view of only teaching evolution. I think that in order to really understand how the world came to be, one must see all sides of the argument, not just evolution (And vice versa). But that is just my opinion.

I think that we should not just give the biased point of view of only teaching evolution. I think that in order to really understand how the world came to be, one must see all sides of the argument, not just evolution (It applies to everything). But that is just my opinion.


Yeah, that takes about a minute to say... then what? It's not like there is a scientific theory to discuss or biological experiments to perform or raw data to look at. - I. D. is a one sentence philosophy, why do we need to have a science class on it?

So shut up, your argument does not work.
Am I supposed to be scared and be quiet now? :rolleyes:

Bush is a Christian, and quite a hardliner as far as I am concerned. It's obvious what he's talking about.
ID Lessons belong in Religion-Classes, not in Biology classes.

I found a tooth, it has a square jaw by the base of the tooth.
And you can see what kind of food the animal would eat with such a tooth.
Then you could look at the size and shape, and establish where in the Jaw it would sit.
Then you can look at other animals that eat similar stuff, and use what you now know about the Jaw to create a full mouth.
There need to be muscles to move the Jaw, and those muscles must be connected to a skull.
Again you have plenty of other animals that are similar, and you shape a skull. And so on.

Wrong... I was told by my teachers that I needed to trust in the knowledge of the scientists that they know more and are able to study more than I could because they have a degree... I was told that the evolutionary icons had been proven... Oh yeah and I was told i needed to stop disrupting the learning process
You've got a bad teacher then. But nonetheless, they still have a point. Paleontologists and the like have spend decades and decades researching this stuff, and know a good deal more about it than you or me.
Ideally, he should have encouraged you to go and study more about it, even if there wasn't the time in class.

I think that we should not just give the biased point of view of only teaching evolution. I think that in order to really understand how the world came to be, one must see all sides of the argument, not just evolution (And vice versa). But that is just my opinion.
'Taint biased son. Try teaching about speciation, cladeograms (shudder), population dynamics and quite a bit of genetics without evolution. Can't be done.


ID would destroy much of biology if it was a valid theory. Which it isn't.

What REALLY baffles me is why these loons( that is to say those who think Intelligent Design should be taught in schools) don't just GO TO CHURCH to hear it preached. Do they honestly think that this will be a good evangelical technique? :rolleyes:


Their premise that evolution should not be taught because its "only a theory"( which I have to admit it is) is a logical fallacy. In many different fields of higher education( say a college psyche class) what people are taught is almost purely theoretical.

Yeah, that takes about a minute to say... then what? It's not like there is a scientific theory to discuss or biological experiments to perform or raw data to look at. - I. D. is a one sentence philosophy, why do we need to have a science class on it?

It is called camparison and contrast... just as you would explore different thoeries of writting this would be exploring theories of how the world began. how ID compares to evolituion the differences and strenghts of each

It is called camparison and contrast... just as you would explore different thoeries of writting this would be exploring theories of how the world began. how ID compares to evolituion the differences and strenghts of each
Well, we've explored the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution, and the Weaknesses of Creation.
What are the strenghts of the ID Theory?

Well, we've explored the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution, and the Weaknesses of Creation.
What are the strenghts of the ID Theory?


Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.


Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html#introduction

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.


Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html#introduction

What??? I've never heard of this happy crappy before! There's secret messages from God encoded in our DNA????!!!! Holy Shit!

If this is true, I'll sign up for I.D. class, shave my ass and learn to walk backwards! My mind has just been blown wide open... details... details... give me all the details!!!!

Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation.
Such as?

Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
Like?

Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating intelligent causes and that challenges naturalistic explanations of origins which currently drive science education and research.
So they already have a conclusion, and now they use science to prove it? Not particularly scientific.
And your link seems to prove me right rather than your idea. It seems like all the "scientists" who claim ID seem to be proven wrong rather easily.

I think that we should not just give the biased point of view of only teaching evolution. I think that in order to really understand how the world came to be, one must see all sides of the argument, not just evolution (And vice versa). But that is just my opinion.

But ID, by definition, cannot be taught in a science class, as it is not science.

Well, it could be taught, as an example of bad science, but I don't think IDers would go for that much....


Intelligent design does not mean Christian Creationism. So it almost is, in effect, teaching all religious theory. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Tribalism, almost every religion believes in intelligent design of some sort. The Generalization you seem to use disgusts me. ID does not imply Christianity, or just one religion. So shut up, your argument does not work.

ID implies theism. Thus, it implies a religious idea - which rules out some Eastern religions altoghether and certainly rules out atheism.

Meanwhile, evolution implies neither theism nor atheism. To be scientific, neither can be implied or claimed, because neither is a scientifically falsifiable. Thus, ID is not science and cannot be taught in a science class, as it is completely dependent upon an untestable and unfalsifiable intelligent designer.

Look, will one of you Iders out there tell me more about this secret code stuff? I'm on pins and needles here! This could change my whole world view! Let me in on the secret!!!!!!

Such as?


Like?


So they already have a conclusion, and now they use science to prove it? Not particularly scientific.
And your link seems to prove me right rather than your idea. It seems like all the "scientists" who claim ID seem to be proven wrong rather easily.


Such as that it is a law of science that you cannot take something random and get something as detailed as even a one celled organism.

Like the evidence of the fact that there are not new species comming about today. if evolution created us all and is a viable option how come there are not new species about everyday?

and doesn't all science set out to prove something? people do not just go into a laboratory and perform a random experiment for no reason?? that is not what science is

Such as that it is a law of science that you cannot take something random and get something as detailed as even a one celled organism.
That is not a "law of science".
Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions.


Like the evidence of the fact that there are not new species comming about today. if evolution created us all and is a viable option how come there are not new species about everyday?
Are you trying to seem ignorant now?
It takes many thousand years, and that was never disputed. Plus, did you read my earlier post about that Peppered Moth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth)?

and doesn't all science set out to prove something? people do not just go into a laboratory and perform a random experiment for no reason?? that is not what science is
It does, but this thing is clearly too biased to be called "Science".
Generally people have a theory and then go out to see whether it is correct. If it isn't, they give it up.

These people have a belief, and they go out to collect "facts" that they can use to convince politicians. If they'd be wrong (which they apparently are), then they don't care.

That is not a "law of science".




Are you trying to seem ignorant now?
It takes many thousand years, and that was never disputed. Plus, did you read my earlier post about that Peppered Moth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth)?

If the universe were purely chaotic, the existence of life as it is known would be impossible, since organized complexity is a defining characteristic of life. The laws of nature create order in the universe, and result in a generally stable environment that, in accordance with the anthropic principle, is permissive of life, including humanity. However, from whence the laws of nature originate and exist, and why they are of the particular form that they are, is unknown, and in the purview of metaphysics.

Most laws are mathematical consequenses of various symmetries (see Emmy Noether theorem as a proof of this). For example, energy conservation law is the consequence of symmetry of time (no moment in time is any different than any other), momentum conservation law - consequence of symmetry of space and so on.

Some laws are not laws at all but simply definitions. For example, F=dp/dt (second Newton's law central to mechanics) is not a law at all but is a mathemetical definition of force (introduced first by Newton himself). Principle of least action (to be more accurate - extremum principle, or principle of stationary action) and few other laws fall into this category.

It has sometimes been suggested that the laws of nature are not real—that they are entirely inventions of the human mind, attempting to make sense of the universe. This is very strongly argued against by the spectacular efficacy of science—its power to solve otherwise intractable problems, and make accurate predictions—and by the fact that newly-discovered laws have typically suggested the existence of previously unknown or unrealized phenomena, which have then been confirmed to exist.

And as for the thousands of years comment that is exactly my point if your theory is true then why every thousand or so years is some surpise new species showing up? I mean we should have since the times of say aristotle have some new and more advanced species come about?

Such as that it is a law of science that you cannot take something random and get something as detailed as even a one celled organism.

There is no such law.

In fact, those who study randomness and chaos can and will point to systems in which order rises out of chaos. It isn't all that uncommon at all.

Like the evidence of the fact that there are not new species comming about today.

So I suppose the termites that can only eat concrete and the bacteria that exist completely on nylon - both human inventions that could not possibly be in existence before now - were around before they had sustenance?

if evolution created us all and is a viable option how come there are not new species about everyday?

(a) There is nothing in the theory that would suggest this would happen.

(b) There may be new species being created all the time. We discover new species all the time, with no absolute knowledge of when they came into existence. There are ecosystems we have explored very little - and what species may be going extinct or being created in them are a mystery.

and doesn't all science set out to prove something? people do not just go into a laboratory and perform a random experiment for no reason?? that is not what science is

No, science sets out to disprove something. Read up a bit on the scientific method. A scientist forms a hypothesis and then performs every experiment they and their colleagues can come up with to disprove that hypothesis. Every experiment that does not disprove it supports it. Nothing can logically prove it - as there is always a chance that the next test will disprove it.

Such as that it is a law of science that you cannot take something random and get something as detailed as even a one celled organism.

Like the evidence of the fact that there are not new species comming about today. if evolution created us all and is a viable option how come there are not new species about everyday?

and doesn't all science set out to prove something? people do not just go into a laboratory and perform a random experiment for no reason?? that is not what science is

Considering we don't even have a full grasp of every species existing currently, isn't a little foolhardy to suggest there aren't being species created everyday?

Not al sciences set out to prove something. Part of the scientific method includes a pre-test theory. However, if scientist already knew the outcome, they wouldn't be doing the experiment. Super colliders and our presences in space are just two examples of humans saying, "I wonder what will happen."

If you really want to see microevolution in progress, look at viruses. Avian flu has made the genetic leap to a human version. Certain viruses are now immune to drugs. That sounds like survival of the fittest to me.

And as for the thousands of years comment that is exactly my point if your theory is true then why every thousand or so years is some surpise new species showing up? I mean we should have since the times of say aristotle have some new and more advanced species come about?

Humans haven't evolved simply because there is no need. Living as a human isn't a struggle. Food is widely available, and the biggest reason we die isn't because we're being hunted.

Humans as a race have eliminated basic evolutionary forces from every day life.

If you were to write an encyclopaedia about the entire history estimated life on earth - 100,000 pages long - the pyramids and WWII would be in the same paragraph. Thousands of years is way too short of a time period. Try tens of thousands of years for micro changes.

If the universe were purely chaotic, the existence of life as it is known would be impossible, since organized complexity is a defining characteristic of life. The laws of nature create order in the universe, and result in a generally stable environment that, in accordance with the anthropic principle, is permissive of life, including humanity. However, from whence the laws of nature originate and exist, and why they are of the particular form that they are, is unknown, and in the purview of metaphysics.

Chaos Theory refutes this. High population systems based on simple rules will often produce organized, complex systems. In fact experiments in Artificial Life have demonstrated that the currently theorized mechanics of evolution are a feasible explanation for life on Earth.

Most laws are mathematical consequenses of various symmetries (see Emmy Noether theorem as a proof of this). For example, energy conservation law is the consequence of symmetry of time (no moment in time is any different than any other), momentum conservation law - consequence of symmetry of space and so on.

Some laws are not laws at all but simply definitions. For example, F=dp/dt (second Newton's law central to mechanics) is not a law at all but is a mathemetical definition of force (introduced first by Newton himself). Principle of least action (to be more accurate - extremum principle, or principle of stationary action) and few other laws fall into this category.

It has sometimes been suggested that the laws of nature are not real—that they are entirely inventions of the human mind, attempting to make sense of the universe. This is very strongly argued against by the spectacular efficacy of science—its power to solve otherwise intractable problems, and make accurate predictions—and by the fact that newly-discovered laws have typically suggested the existence of previously unknown or unrealized phenomena, which have then been confirmed to exist.

The laws of nature are mathematical models constructed to fit observed data. As such, given enough observation, the mathematical model should provide an fairly accurate prediction of future events. This does not mean the mathematical model is how things are actually working.

For example Newton's Laws of Mechanics: they have been demonstrated to be incorrect - but they fit the data of the time. In fact the model is still used because under most conditions its a good fit. But it doesn't fit all cases.

And as for the thousands of years comment that is exactly my point if your theory is true then why every thousand or so years is some surpise new species showing up? I mean we should have since the times of say aristotle have some new and more advanced species come about?

We actually find new species all the time. But it is hard to tell if they are new, or just haven't been observed. Simple probability is we aren't likely to observe a new species until its been around for a while.

I recommend reading the 'Science of Discworld': It is an amusing, easy to read exploration of current Scientific thought using characters from Terry Pratchet's Disc World series.

The Miller Experiment

Darwin's Tree of life

Haeckl's Embryos

The Archaeopteryx

are these supposed to be examples of things that have been disproven and are still in text books? if so, explain what you mean by 'disproven' for numbers 1, 2, and 4.

I would like to address the point about life being too complex to exist without a creator and the odds of it occurring naturally being astronomical. Suppose cards with all the whole numbers between 1 and 10^1000 (for perspective: there are about 10^80 atoms in the universe) written on them are put in bag and the number 32,954 is drawn. No one can say that 32,954 a number with terrible odds of being drawn was drawn because of a will to do so or a rational reason. An event had to happen and that was the one that did. That's what life is from its beginning, something had to happen and that something was the formation of life as we understand it. A completely different type of "life" could have been formed or nothing could have formed, infact it probably did many times. But eventually amino acid and DNA based life was formed. This is just like how any number could have come out of the bag but only 32,954.

Ahh, fuck...

Why not teach the flat earth theory.

Well of course the Flat Earth theory belongs in schools. In a sufficiently curved universe a flat Earth would appear to be round, and physicists have not yet proven that the universe lacks any such curvature. :D

Well, we've explored the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution, and the Weaknesses of Creation.
What are the strenghts of the ID Theory?

It contributes the the stupification of the general population by putting ignorance and education on equal footing making it easier to control them with sit-coms and football games?

Well, I'm sure that someone thinks that that's a strength of it.

Intelligent design should be taught in schools, but, for a different reason than it's proponants would like. At some point, students need to learn the difference between a good scientific idea, and a bad one. Evolution is the pinnicle of good scientific ideas. There is so much evidence to support it. ID is not science at all. It's a terrible scientific idea. It can't even be called a theory, because there is no scientific evidence to support it. But, ID is a great example of what science is not. I can think of no better example to use when teaching about the nature of science.

What are the strenghts of the ID Theory?

depends on how dembski or behe is feeling on the particular occassion. usually id is identical to evolution except that they add one more unobservable element to the theory that adds no explanatory power and makes no distinguishing predictions. but sometimes they feel that id is drastically different and makes all sorts of predictions that differentiate it from evolution. and every single one of those predictions has come back wrong. and sometimes they just retreat to universal relativism.

No one better not mention the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a "valid" reason evolution never happened, since I'll slap them in the face if they say so. The reason being? It only has to do with heat, nothing else.

No one better not mention the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a "valid" reason evolution never happened, since I'll slap them in the face if they say so. The reason being? It only has to do with heat, nothing else.

Actually, that isn't correct either.

The reason that the 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot disprove evolution is that it only holds true in a closed system, which the world clearly is not.

Actually, that isn't correct either.

The reason that the 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot disprove evolution is that it only holds true in a closed system, which the world clearly is not.

Even if it was a closed system it still is irrelevant. Entropy locally can decrease in a sytem so long as it increases more somewhere else meaning even if it did apply to evolution as creationists pretend it does, it still would in no way controdict it.

Actually, none of you are correct.

The reason that the 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot disprove evolution is that it is an incredibly stupid argument.



- Kid Thermodynamite! -

The reason that the 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot disprove evolution is that it only holds true in a closed system, which the world clearly is not.

and the fact that the molecules involved with life are generally thermodynamically favored anyways.

Even if it was a closed system it still is irrelevant. Entropy locally can decrease in a sytem so long as it increases more somewhere else meaning even if it did apply to evolution as creationists pretend it does, it still would in no way controdict it.

Ok, Your second sentence contradicts the first by explaining why it has to be a closed system.

In a closed system, entropy increases. However, since the only totally closed system is the universe (and even that is disputed), entropy can decrease in one part of the system, but increase in the other - while the total entropy in the universe is still increased.

Ok, Your second sentence contradicts the first by explaining why it has to be a closed system.

In a closed system, entropy increases. However, since the only totally closed system is the universe (and even that is disputed), entropy can decrease in one part of the system, but increase in the other - while the total entropy in the universe is still increased.

Let me clarify.

Pretend for a moment Earth is a closed system. Also pretend entropy is decreasing in fish X as it is evolving, for the sake of mimicing an insane creationist argument. So long as entropy is increasing more elsewhere in the closed system, say for the sake of insane creationist argument the lake it is in, the entropy decrease in Fish X does not violate the second law of thermodynaics.

Let me clarify.

Pretend for a moment Earth is a closed system. Also pretend entropy is decreasing in fish X as it is evolving, for the sake of mimicing an insane creationist argument. So long as entropy is increasing more elsewhere in the closed system, say for the sake of insane creationist argument the lake it is in, the entropy decrease in Fish X does not violate the second law of thermodynaics.

Exactly. You just repeated exactly what I said. =)

Yes, but it is also what I said, or attempted to say, the first time. :)

[QUOTE=Mikshu]Chaos Theory refutes this. High population systems based on simple rules will often produce organized, complex systems. In fact experiments in Artificial Life have demonstrated that the currently theorized mechanics of evolution are a feasible explanation for life on Earth.


But where did the rules come from?

I can't believe that Bush finally gave the nod to teaching creation... I mean Intelligent Design in school. I'm really scared.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-intelligent-design,1,2655180.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Teach it, fine. Just don't call it science. It isn't. Without question. By anyone's definition of science. Please note the ways the religious right are trying to get it taught to their kids:

1. They're trying to get evolutionism called a religious theory, so that "ID" has to be taught as First-Amendment "balance".

2. They're trying to change the textbooks from saying that a scientific theory is one which provides a "natural explanation" for empirical phenomena to an "adequate explanation." Sadly, the moment you leave naturalism you are no longer dealing with science: try to quantify God and you make Him a component of nature, thus finding yourself back at naturalism, dealing with a spiritual science, but leave everything to His whim and there's no point looking for rules or explanations at all, because He could change it at any time.

These people irritate me not because they have a religious viewpoint but because they try to deny that they are religiously motivated, and devalue both a high-quality scientific theorem and the aims of science itself by tainting its objectivity with religious politics. They're as bad as the drug company high-ups, lying about negative test results and inventing diseases to sell existing products twice.

are these supposed to be examples of things that have been disproven and are still in text books? if so, explain what you mean by 'disproven' for numbers 1, 2, and 4.
1 Miller Experiment - Miller used the wrong atmosphere than what is thoerized to be what the earth would have been like so many odd years ago. He used a Hydrogen rich atmosphere... it is thought today that the atmosphere would be of nitrogen, co2 and water vapor

2 Darwin's Tree of life-it fails by the fact that there is no transionary fossils. If life were created as darwin's thoery represents there should be myriads of fossil evidence.

3 The Archaeoptryx- is only a bird based on its bone structure and other contributing factors. And any other sort of fossil that would be said to be part bir and part reptile is not even found in the same time bracket as Archaeoptryx but tens opf millions of years later.

[QUOTE=Mikshu]But where did the rules come from?
Statistical Thermodynamics. Which, though you don't understand it, and may not have even heard about it, provides much of the foundation that the world runs on.

This is about as far as I can dumb it down.

A large extremely hot ball of quark-gluon plasma is simple. It is very uniform, and while there are a great many individual reactions, everything has basically the same state. As it expands and cools the almost insignificant imperfections in its uniformity grow, reinforce each other, and ultimately determine what states various parts of a now very heterogenious, and complicated system (which has less total energy available to do work) will have.

What people who say, "but order is the opposite of entropy" are doing is seriously misinterperetating the observed laws of thermal equalibrium. Take careful note how it's never the thermodynamics experts who are making these kinds of delusional claims (and that's what Intelligent Design and Creationism that involves an interventionsit God is). They, unlike the dilettanti sophists pimping religious bullshit, actually care enough to understand, and they use it to enrich our lives everyday. Something all the monotheistic prayer in Africa doesn't do for Africans. When a Priest can miracle me up a better battery, or microchip then I'll listen, if they can't then need to keep their ignorant flock off of the infobaun and out of the public square.

Gnesios, evolution works because of mutations and breeding. For example, babies take after -both- parents, do they not? And by chance, the baby may have two good factors, one from each parent. And then the baby will grow up and have a baby with another person, who might take two good factors...

And the cycle will go on and on, and over geological periods of time, say, hundreds of thousands of years, it would change a species.

I want to see you disprove that with your thermodynamics argument. Though, it would be pretty hard because this stuff happens in the real world already.

1 Miller Experiment - Miller used the wrong atmosphere than what is thoerized to be what the earth would have been like so many odd years ago. He used a Hydrogen rich atmosphere... it is thought today that the atmosphere would be of nitrogen, co2 and water vapor

2 Darwin's Tree of life-it fails by the fact that there is no transionary fossils. If life were created as darwin's thoery represents there should be myriads of fossil evidence.

3 The Archaeoptryx- is only a bird based on its bone structure and other contributing factors. And any other sort of fossil that would be said to be part bir and part reptile is not even found in the same time bracket as Archaeoptryx but tens opf millions of years later.

1. and yet different mixtures also give essentially the same results. the hydrogen exists anyway as long as there is water. do any textbooks fail to mention this fact?

2. hahaha, that's so mind-bogglingly stupid i don't know how to respond. shit man, i posted links to photographs of some in this very thread. there are literally hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils that we've found so far.

3. only a bird?! name me one bird that has a long bony tail, claws on its wings, and fucking teeth. we have lots of things with intermediate characteristics of both birds and dinosaurs. after all, evolution isn't linear but bushy. again, links about this were posted by myself earlier in the thread

Gnesios, evolution works because of mutations and breeding. For example, babies take after -both- parents, do they not? And by chance, the baby may have two good factors, one from each parent. And then the baby will grow up and have a baby with another person, who might take two good factors...

And the cycle will go on and on, and over geological periods of time, say, hundreds of thousands of years, it would change a species.

I want to see you disprove that with your thermodynamics argument. Though, it would be pretty hard because this stuff happens in the real world already.


I completely agree with what you are saying I believe that would change the species that it happens within all I am saying is that it does not chagne soething into a completely different species ... i.e. a dog

If intelligent designs is being taught alongside evolution in a science class, then - no, this is not just because of my political beliefs - so should dialectial materialism...

Well, of course we wouldn't completely change. There are ecological factors involved, and there is no natural pressure for us to turn into a dog. Besides, humanity already is a pretty damn versatile species.

But anyways, a species could make a nearly complete change over a long period of time. There would still be some remnants from though, as humans still have a part reptillian brains, part old mammal brains, and a part new smarty human brains.

[QUOTE=Gnesios]
Statistical Thermodynamics. Which, though you don't understand it, and may not have even heard about it, provides much of the foundation that the world runs on.

This is about as far as I can dumb it down.

A large extremely hot ball of quark-gluon plasma is simple. It is very uniform, and while there are a great many individual reactions, everything has basically the same state. As it expands and cools the almost insignificant imperfections in its uniformity grow, reinforce each other, and ultimately determine what states various parts of a now very heterogenious, and complicated system (which has less total energy available to do work) will have.

What people who say, "but order is the opposite of entropy" are doing is seriously misinterperetating the observed laws of thermal equalibrium. Take careful note how it's never the thermodynamics experts who are making these kinds of delusional claims (and that's what Intelligent Design and Creationism that involves an interventionsit God is). They, unlike the dilettanti sophists pimping religious bullshit, actually care enough to understand, and they use it to enrich our lives everyday. Something all the monotheistic prayer in Africa doesn't do for Africans. When a Priest can miracle me up a better battery, or microchip then I'll listen, if they can't then need to keep their ignorant flock off of the infobaun and out of the public square.


ok but you still did not answer my question where did the laws come from if there are laws that govern how things act where did they come from if there are patterns why? Statistical Thermodynamics are great but.... why and how do they function that way? Why do things statictically come out that way? Where did these governing factors come from?

all I am saying is that it does not chagne soething into a completely different species ... i.e. a dog

so you don't think that species will randomly change into other species that already exist, right? congrats, you and evolution agree on this completely.

Bush: Schools Show No Evidence of Intelligent Design

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002270.html

Entering the debate over the teaching of origins for the first time, President George Bush today said he sees "no evidence of intelligent design in America's public schools."

"A lot folks claim that the public school system is irreducibly complex, so there must have been an intelligent designer," said Mr. Bush, "But I believe our public schools advance by mutation and random chance. They have evolved into an unwieldy beast with an insatiable appetite."

The president, a professed Christian, said his only hope for a better future in American education rests on his faith in "the survival of the fittest."

ok but you still did not answer my question where did the laws come from if there are laws that govern how things act where did they come from if there are patterns why? Statistical Thermodynamics are great but.... why and how do they function that way? Why do things statictically come out that way? Where did these governing factors come from?

Why and where the laws came from is not the realm of science. It is in the realm of philosophy and theology.

However, one does not have to know why to explain how.

Bush: Schools Show No Evidence of Intelligent Design

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002270.html

Entering the debate over the teaching of origins for the first time, President George Bush today said he sees "no evidence of intelligent design in America's public schools."

"A lot folks claim that the public school system is irreducibly complex, so there must have been an intelligent designer," said Mr. Bush, "But I believe our public schools advance by mutation and random chance. They have evolved into an unwieldy beast with an insatiable appetite."

The president, a professed Christian, said his only hope for a better future in American education rests on his faith in "the survival of the fittest."

Was there an actual point to your post?

Why and where the laws came from is not the realm of science.

i'm not sure that that is necessarily true

Creationism.....Intelligent Design..............whatever you call it it still smells like horse-shit! Only the name is changed to make it more acceptable to the idiots of the world.

i demand that the stork theory of human reproduction be taught instead of the atheistic and sinful theory of sexual reproduction.
:headbang: ::sigh::
I second that~

i'm not sure that that is necessarily true

But it is. Science doesn't ask, "Why does the Universe work like this?" It is irrelevant. Science simply looks at how the Universe works and uses that information to predict future events and to use the rules that they find for some purpose.

But it is. Science doesn't ask, "Why does the Universe work like this?" It is irrelevant. Science simply looks at how the Universe works and uses that information to predict future events and to use the rules that they find for some purpose.


that's just not true at all. for example, gallileo figures out some of the how of gravity. newton gives a fuller account of the how, but is bothered by the fact that all he can say for why is that there is some sort of spooky action at a distance going on. einstein provides the why with the curvature of space-time. why is the second major motivating question of science. i see no reason to think that second or third order whys are necessarily outside the bounds of it.

ok but you still did not answer my question where did the laws come from if there are laws that govern how things act where did they come from if there are patterns why? Statistical Thermodynamics are great but.... why and how do they function that way? Why do things statictically come out that way? Where did these governing factors come from?
That depends on exactly what you're asking. If you're asking where statistical thermodynamics comes from, it's the observations of the behavior of heat, particularly in the form of steam, and quantum mechanics (in which case I'll refer you to the work of Plank and Albert Einstein's paper on the Photoelectric Effect for starters).

If you're talking about where does energy come from, the answer is in the action of the fundemental forces of nature. Which of course have many fields of intellectual pursuit dedicated to their investigation. And are as of yet not fully revealed.

If you're asking where the laws of the universe come from, the terribly few values that describe the bulk qualities of the universe we live in, well, our survey of the fundemental forces isn't complete, and there are some indications we may never be able to answer that question, even in part. But the possibilitiy remains that even within the remainder of my life we may have partial answers. Einstein never realized that dream either but because of his work, we have GPS and microchips.

If the secret question you're asking is, "Why do I not know this and why am I unable to intuit it?" The first part is because your interests haven't conspired with the people you know to compel you into a more rigorous investigation. The reason you're unable to intuit it is because that's insanely difficult, and in fact it has taken hundereds of millenia and intricate, impossibly clever experiments by the most clever and dedicated of people to get this far, which has happened almost entirely in the last four centuries.

That, for whatever reason, you're not fully aware of the scope of this legacy and birthright (if not the particulars) is truly a tragedy.

And I can't forget geometry... what would Gibbs say?

Ok. Here's an experiment you can do at home. Take a wooden box or perhaps a drawer that's convienent to empty out. Everyone has bottles or cups of pennies and change lying around. There are different ways to do this. But we'll go simple just put it all in there randomly. (One could start off with all heads or whatever). If you shake it a lot to get the coins to flip, you'll mix things up, quite without plan. If you have a large enough quantity of coins, bulging muscles and a lot of free time you'll probably end up sorting them by density (thank you gravity). But when you stop shaking and begin a careful examination of the coins you'll start to notice patterns. There might be clusters of heads or tails, some might form a geometric pattern (a hexegon, or in 3d a little tower of hanoi), certain features might overlap, presidents on the coins might be arranged in order, or reverse order in some spot, a pile of coins might cluster to form pile whos value has interesting numerological significance to you, dates on some coins my cluster in a way as to be significant to you (such as the dates of birth of some relatives), then with the state quarters, who knows. When you choose to elevate one pattern for all the other possible patterns, and attach some significance to it, your mind is playing a trick on you. It's seducing you to commit selection bias. (One of the most insidious problems of not just science but the modern world.) We would expect a cluster of patterns, the box of coins with as many degrees of freedom as we can choose to find insures that there will be some. (And indeed this can be done with many things in many ways, the bad poetry of Nostredomus, bible codes, numerology, astrology, tarot cards, tortured interpretations of the book of revealations, dream interpretation, etc.) This is colloquially described as coincidence. And likewise there might be real patterns arising from fundemental laws (ie gravity seperating things by density).

Some states will be more similar to others, the coins spelling out "Fuck you, < your name here >" in some fashion would be unlikely. But, in a box with a lot of coins there would be many many occurences of that kind of state (position shifts, different angles, languages!, buried underneath the top layers of coins) but in the incomprehensibly vast array of possible states they are comparitively unlikely and thus unexpected. (Though not impossible, in fact if we had all the time in the universe to flip coins and find patterns we would expect to find them all, in much the same way we might expect a lot of monkeys to write shakespear. Though Darwin might argue it already happened once.) And in any large random discrete process, there is just too much stuff with too few states to avoid order completely.

Science is the method by which we overcome our evolutionary desire to connect all the dots, and instead connect only the right ones in a manner others can faithfully reproduce. Its the only way we have for finding things we can all be certain are true. Religion, of all sorts, requires a leap of faith. Belief with the *promise* that you will never *know* while you're a part of this world. That people cling to magic when they confront something they don't understand is an enourmous sin. That is, quite rightly, occasionally deadly. The proper answers are either the correct answer, an educated guess, or "I don't know". "A magic superhero did it", is never acceptable.

In the end, entropy is the energy, that's just not economical to use any more. Too cold, too diffuse, too unlikely. It's the garbage of the universe that defies recycling.

Hey guys, I did this dude's experiment and now I have a brand spanking newly evolved Mercedes in my garage!

Rest Assured, I am not gone. You cannot defeat me, and you never will. I am researching my reply, and my typing speed is considerably reduced due to injuries I sustained today on my bicycle.

By the way, I witnessed the miracle of bloodclotting, which, in and of itself is an extremely complex biochemical reaction dependent upon hundreds of thousands of factors. This amazing proof of the Sovereignty of God and the wonders of His Creation stuns me in its ramifications.

By the way, I witnessed the miracle of bloodclotting, which, in and of itself is an extremely complex biochemical reaction dependent upon hundreds of thousands of factors. This amazing proof of the Sovereignty of God and the wonders of His Creation stuns me in its ramifications.

and thus do you prove that god sent hemophilia to punish the wicked?

and thus do you prove that god sent hemophilia to punish the wicked?

hemophilia is a lifestyle choice.

The fact that no transitional species have been found proves: Nothing. The chance of such a species being found, intact, properly preserved, is rather small. The earth isn't a very friendly place for fossils...

And you wrote Zustände wrong. :D

Didn't want to deal with the dots over the A. Don't have that particular character on my keyboard.

and thus do you prove that god sent hemophilia to punish the wicked?

God does what He will according to His Justice and Mercy and Holiness. He is Honorable and Truthful. Hemophelia is a result of man's sin, as begun by Adam and Eve in the beginning of time.

Hemophelia is a result of the devil, sin, and corruption. Not of God.

God does what He will according to His Justice and Mercy and Holiness. He is Honorable and Truthful. Hemophelia is a result of man's sin, as begun by Adam and Eve in the beginning of time.

Hemophelia is a result of the devil, sin, and corruption. Not of God.
?

so you don't think that species will randomly change into other species that already exist, right? congrats, you and evolution agree on this completely.

No, evolution has failed in its gradualistic presentation of its core God-dismissing values.

So they have had to resort to Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, which essentially says that totally different creatures appear suddenly, and not with gradual change.

God does what He will according to His Justice and Mercy and Holiness. He is Honorable and Truthful. Hemophelia is a result of man's sin, as begun by Adam and Eve in the beginning of time.

Hemophelia is a result of the devil, sin, and corruption. Not of God.
Satan is t3h tricksy. Didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes:

Who argues like me?



EDIT: This guy? Germanische Zustande?

Actually I wasn’t in this thread, I’m working backwards here, but so far, I think this looks pretty good, I approve of such similarities.

GZ rocks.

Thank you. We must argue together. I have never met someone with debate similarities.

Satan is t3h tricksy. Didn't see that one coming. :rolleyes:

Sin is the cause of all degeneration in this world, in relation to man and beast, though.

You see, in the Beginning, Adam and Eve's genetics were pure. Thus, their offspring were able to reproduce with each other without worry of genetic malfunctions.

However, as sin and degeneration has pervaded through the Human Genome since Creation, disease, short lifespan, and other such things are much more common, and will continue to increase.

Sin is the cause of all degeneration in this world, in relation to man and beast, though.

You see, in the Beginning, Adam and Eve's genetics were pure. Thus, their offspring were able to reproduce with each other without worry of genetic malfunctions.

However, as sin and degeneration has pervaded through the Human Genome since Creation, disease, short lifespan, and other such things are much more common, and will continue to increase.

Okay... since none of this wacky shit is in the Bible, from whose crazy ass did you pull it from?

Irrelevant and useless, I didn't even mention that.


I KNOW about Christianity. I've read the Bible all the way through. I don't
need to be told "Obviously you oppose Christianity because you don't know about it." I know about it. And I think it's absurd.


Read it. Nothing but pseudoscience and baseless attacks on evolution.


See above.

And you STILL haven't addressed any of the points my link raised.

The fifteen questions? I have no need to answer, just like you dismiss mine. I see through the makup on evolution's facade.

I am working on that link Free Soviets posted about Man's so-called progenitors, though.

Okay... since none of this wacky shit is in the Bible, from whose crazy ass did you pull it from?

Oh, no, it's in the Bible. Since the Fall of Man in the Garden, Sin has been the cause of Death and Human degeneration. That's why we have disease, death, etc. God no longer keeps Humans perfect. Only will those who are saved in Christ be perfected someday in Heaven with Him.

Only will those who are saved in Christ be perfected someday in Heaven with Him.

OKay. Good luck with that.

Sin has been the cause of Death and Human degeneration.

So sin is the reason for the Darwin Awards?

It can't be all bad then!

...sigh.

First, you didn't make your effort without attacking someone. You attacked Free Soviets' grasp of the English language, which has nothing to do with Evolutionism or Creationism. In fact, the best scientists stereotypically are very poor writers. But the reason your statements are truly an attack on Free Soviets and not just part of your argument is the fact that Free Soviets' grasp of the English language have nothing to do with whether or not what he said was right.

And, I'd like to point out a couple things on your comment about the type of language Free Soviets has used. Firstly, vulgar language does not inherently imply limited vocabulary. In fact, by not ever using these words, you yourself are limiting your own vocabulary. Second, why use large words and complex sentences to try making yourself sound smart (create a false image of yourself, essentially), when you can get the same point across with simpler language? If your opponent can not counter your argument because he does not understand your language (because of its complexity), then you have not won, but lost the argument. If you use simple language and a solid argument, and your opponent can not refute it, then you have won the argument. In debate, no, in language in general, it is ALWAYS better to err on the side of simplicity. (An interesting aside, I'm actually currently helping someone edit a short story because what they wrote is WAY too complicated, even for an educated reader, to swallow easily enough to fluidily read the story.)

That said, your final statement is immature enough for me to ignore the rest of your post. It is one thing to make a mature, respectful post, but any ground you may have gained there is completely lost when you feel the need to brag about yourself and remind us that you didn't insult anyone (even though you quite obviously did).

I use "complex sentences" because they better convey my meanings and intentions. Secondly, I have put up with curses directed at myself, by Free Soviets and others, my God has been mocked constantly, and you think I have no right? I am not being immature. I am being civilized, coherent, understandable, and logical. And, I did not simply dismiss Soviets' post simply because of his use of deplorable language. I make an effort to understand him and his arguments, and I expect the same in reply. Nor did I dismiss your post, of which I prove by replying now.

By the way, I didn't insult anyone (out of jest) until this, in reply to Soviets' first jab.

But, what the hay. I did wrote my edification, and what's done is done.

Thank you. We must argue together. I have never met someone with debate similarities.

Greenlander! You are talking to yourself!

That didn't take long!

So sin is the reason for the Darwin Awards?

It can't be all bad then!

Man is sinful and prideful, as evidenced by Man's (evolutionists in particular) need to elevate himself above God, or dismiss God from the picture.

This carries with it several different effects.

a) The removal of accountability to a Higher Power
b) The removal of a Right and a Wrong (see 'a')

And everything else essentially stems from these.

And I'm pretty sure that Darwin is now a Creationist, because I'm sure he was sent to hell, pending the day of Judgement...

Greenlander! You are talking to yourself!

That didn't take long!

Clarification please?

Man is sinful and prideful, as evidenced by Man's (evolutionists in particular) need to elevate himself above God, or dismiss God from the picture.

This carries with it several different effects.

a) The removal of accountability to a Higher Power
b) The removal of a Right and a Wrong (see 'a')

And everything else essentially stems from these.

And I'm pretty sure that Darwin is now a Creationist, because I'm sure he was sent to hell, pending the day of Judgement...

I'm sure glad one of us has a backdoor into God's mind and knows his judgements of us all. I mean, it seems for Darwin accepting Christ as his savior wasn't enough...

Clarification please?

You are Greenlander.

Greenlander's head would expload if he didn't respond to a thread like this.

I'm sure glad one of us has a backdoor into God's mind and knows his judgements of us all. I mean, it seems for Darwin accepting Christ as his savior wasn't enough...

If Darwin was training to become a Minister, and then he turned his back upon God, it begs the question...

"Was Darwin ever really saved?"

We are told that once we are saved, we are in God's Hands, and He will not allow us to become lost again. Now, Christians are not perfect because they are saved. Who knows, Darwin may have just gone horridly wrong, but I doubt it.

The Bible is one giant instruction book from God. We can never know His mind.

You are Greenlander.

Greenlander's head would expload if he didn't respond to a thread like this.

I am not Greenlander. I am myself.

I am not Greenlander. I am myself.

He is Legion.

He is Legion.
You also find it interesting that Greenlander found this thread just after someone pointed out his similarity to GZ and only hung around long enough to deny the connection as I recall?

And I'm pretty sure that Darwin is now a Creationist, because I'm sure he was sent to hell, pending the day of Judgement...

Oddly enough, Darwin was a creationist. Old-Earth one, though. Still, most people today would find Darwin to be a fair-sight of a fundie.

So they have had to resort to Punctuated Equilibrium Theory, which essentially says that totally different creatures appear suddenly, and not with gradual change.

no, it doesn't.

it actually says that in at least some cases - particularly for widespread species - most evolutionary changes will occur over a limited geographic region through cladogenesis rather than anagenesis. and that these daughter species that branched off can sometimes quickly outcompete the parent ones, leading to geologically abrupt changes over the entire range of the species. but the geographically restricted bit of evolution happens through the same process of gradual change as always, just acting under different selective pressures on a smaller group and probably amplified by the founder effect.

never take a creationist book or website's word on anything. they are almost always knowingly lying to you. their faith is weak, and they have decided to worship false idols rather than the reality of god's creation.

No one has responded to my Celestial Arguments for a Young Universe theory... Or the disproval of the Archaopteryx... or the fact that Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because of a lack of transitional specie... Or the fact that Darwin was a racist and a sexist... Or about any other number of my arguments...

And I know, I haven't replied to Soviets' list of hominid human 'progenitors'. I'm working on it.

Oh, and I can't absolutely confirm it, but I'm 99.99% sure GZ is NOT Greenlander.

...never take a creationist book or website's word on anything. they are almost always knowingly lying to you.

This has always perplexed me. These fundies have absolutely no problem with lying to persuade people. The have that "ends justify the means" mindset.

No one has responded to my Celestial Arguments for a Young Universe theory... Or the disproval of the Archaopteryx... or the fact that Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because of a lack of transitional specie... Or the fact that Darwin was a racist and a sexist... Or about any other number of my arguments...

And I know, I haven't replied to Soviets' list of hominid human 'progenitors'. I'm working on it.
Wrong on all counts, except the celestial arguments perhaps. Care to repost them?

The Archaopteryx disproval was debunked. Hell, you still were claiming that "evolutionists" (read: the scientifically adept) were claiming that it was half bird half reptile.

Punctuated Equilibirum has been shredded humerous times recently.

Darwin being racist isn't actually an argument as has been pointed out numerous times. Furthermore, Christianity when taken literally from the bible is sexist.

Transitionsal species, as has been pointed out applies to any creature that has offspring. Every species is transitional.

Oddly enough, Darwin was a creationist. Old-Earth one, though. Still, most people today would find Darwin to be a fair-sight of a fundie.

Yes. Was. Past tense. He turned in rebellion against God.

Old Earth Theory essentially requries that the Bible not be absolutely literally true. You see, if Adam evolved, then God did not make him personally, which would be unbiblical. However, the Hebrew word "Yom", for "day", can mean "long period". This point is currently a subject of secondary debate. This would allow for periods longer than a day, but still rule out any possibility of evolution as a tool for God's creation.

And he wouldn't be a "fair sight of a [fundamentalist]."

This has always perplexed me. These fundies have absolutely no problem with lying to persuade people. The have that "ends justify the means" mindset.

yup. its kinda scary to think that there are creationists out there who actually do scan through books looking for quotes and such, and then drop all of the relevant context in order to make the quote say the opposite of what it really did. there is no way to possibly explain such behavior execpt as actively going out of their way to lie. pretty fucked up.

Darwin being racist isn't actually an argument as has been pointed out numerous times.

even worse, darwin borders well on the enlightened end of the spectrum for his time period. as opposed to, for example, the biblical literalists of his day who believed that god had commanded that africans be kept as slaves.

Wrong on all counts, except the celestial arguments perhaps. Care to repost them?

The Archaopteryx disproval was debunked. Hell, you still were claiming that "evolutionists" (read: the scientifically adept) were claiming that it was half bird half reptile.

Punctuated Equilibirum has been shredded humerous times recently.

Darwin being racist isn't actually an argument as has been pointed out numerous times. Furthermore, Christianity when taken literally from the bible is sexist.

Transitionsal species, as has been pointed out applies to any creature that has offspring. Every species is transitional.

Yes. Every species is transitional. Only one problem. Fossils are lacking for the species which came before and afterward.

The validity of the origin of an argument is also the validity of the argument itself, in today's society today, at least. However, Christianity is not sexist when taken literally. Let's see... Ruth, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Sarah... etc.

I ask you this, if Christianity was sexist, would Mary mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene have found the empty tomb? In such an anti-female culture, if the Ressurrection were a myth, men would likely have been the ones who found the empty tomb; but they are not.

You see, in Heaven, all will be equal. Here on earth, each person has their own role to play.

I challenge you to find an errancy in the Bible. We have archaeological proof of all the events recorded in the Bible. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls. We have over five thousand early, and preserved, manuscripts. Todays translations are different only in style and spelling.

You see, the Bible has not been wrong, and never will be. This proves its testimony on the Sovereignty of Christ and the Creation of the World.

Your arguments shall have no validity whatsoever, because the Bible is not errant.

even worse, darwin borders well on the enlightened end of the spectrum for his time period. as opposed to, for example, the biblical literalists of his day who believed that god had commanded that africans be kept as slaves.

God never commanded any such things.

May I remind you that Darwin believed the Africans (actually, he referred to them as Negroes) were physically weaker, mentally deficient, and barbaric?

Do not call Darwin enlightened. He was wrong on all counts from the moment he started rebelling against God.

Yes. Was. Past tense. He turned in rebellion against God.

Actually, no. He was a pretty devout Christian until the day he died.

Old Earth Theory essentially requries that the Bible not be absolutely literally true. You see, if Adam evolved, then God did not make him personally, which would be unbiblical. However, the Hebrew word "Yom", for "day", can mean "long period". This point is currently a subject of secondary debate. This would allow for periods longer than a day, but still rule out any possibility of evolution as a tool for God's creation.

How would it require that Genesis was wrong?

I mean, if God is omniscient, then he would know the end result of any path he set into motion. And we all know that it's more fun to watch something put itself together (s'long as it doesn't take too long! But this wouldn't be a concern for an a-temporal deity) than to just give up and put it together yourself.

In fact, most educated people of his day were Old-Earth creationists. Discoveries in geology and the like were in such contradiction to established Young-Earth creationism that they did what any good Christian human would do: reconciled the problem with their faith without changing the literal meaning of the Bible.

And he wouldn't be a "fair sight of a [fundamentalist]."

You he would. Getting creationism in schools is only one of the facets of the fundie movement in the states, he'd agree with virtually everything else they're trying to do.

Fossils are lacking for the species which came before and afterward.

no, they aren't

so which transition do you wish to discuss in detail? we only need one to disprove your entire case, so why don't you do the choosing. i've already given you some info on hominid evolution. we've also got good stuff on dinos-to-birds, reptiles-to-mammals, whale evolution, and many more for particular lower orders of life. pick your poison.

no, it doesn't.

it actually says that in at least some cases - particularly for widespread species - most evolutionary changes will occur over a limited geographic region through cladogenesis rather than anagenesis. and that these daughter species that branched off can sometimes quickly outcompete the parent ones, leading to geologically abrupt changes over the entire range of the species. but the geographically restricted bit of evolution happens through the same process of gradual change as always, just acting under different selective pressures on a smaller group and probably amplified by the founder effect.

never take a creationist book or website's word on anything. they are almost always knowingly lying to you. their faith is weak, and they have decided to worship false idols rather than the reality of god's creation.

"PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one."

"PE is essentially and exclusively directed to questions at the level of speciation and processes affecting species. The basis of PE is the neontological theory of peripatric speciation. The criteria by which "punctuations" are recognized by Gould and Eldredge involve temporal issues and geographic issues. PE is not expected to be as useful at lower or higher levels of change."

"Gould and Eldredge did not specify any particular genetic mechanism for PE."

no, they aren't

so which transition do you wish to discuss in detail? we only need one to disprove your entire case, so why don't you do the choosing. i've already given you some info on hominid evolution. we've also got good stuff on dinos-to-birds, reptiles-to-mammals, whale evolution, and many more for particular lower orders of life. pick your poison.

How about the North American Horse? That's one of the best.

no, they aren't

so which transition do you wish to discuss in detail? we only need one to disprove your entire case, so why don't you do the choosing. i've already given you some info on hominid evolution. we've also got good stuff on dinos-to-birds, reptiles-to-mammals, whale evolution, and many more for particular lower orders of life. pick your poison.

Here's something for you. Before you throw anything else out, let me answer the hominid thing, and then have you address the other points I've made throughout the past... 26 pages or so?

Including the Celestial arguments...

And as for the transitions, you don't need one to disprove the case. You need transitions for every single change in species to actually prove evolution.

You see, burden of proof lies upon the accusator. Evolution has long accused Theism and Creationism of being incorrect. Why don't you disprove the Bible? Darwin's Origin of Species has been shown to contain so many errors, it is not even comical.

Yes. Every species is transitional. Only one problem. Fossils are lacking for the species which came before and afterward. False, Free Soviets already demonstrated this.

The validity of the origin of an argument is also the validity of the argument itself, in today's society today, at least. Not in a scientific context. However, Christianity is not sexist when taken literally. Let's see... Ruth, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Sarah... etc. Right... and america wasn't racist either, I mean, Martin Luther King Jr. is a legend from the time and he was black. :rolleyes:

I ask you this, if Christianity was sexist, would Mary mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene have found the empty tomb? In such an anti-female culture, if the Ressurrection were a myth, men would likely have been the ones who found the empty tomb; but they are not. One example does not sisprove the rule.

You see, in Heaven, all will be equal. Here on earth, each person has their own role to play. Do we have roles or free will?

I challenge you to find an errancy in the Bible. We have archaeological proof of all the events recorded in the Bible. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls. We have over five thousand early, and preserved, manuscripts. Todays translations are different only in style and spelling. How about where it says Jealousy is a sin and that God is Jealous? Or that there was a global flood while the global geological record says otherwise?

You see, the Bible has not been wrong, and never will be. This proves its testimony on the Sovereignty of Christ and the Creation of the World.
Circular argument. The Bible is not wronf therefore the bible is right.

Your arguments shall have no validity whatsoever, because the Bible is not errant.
Way to look at all the evidence.

Where are those celestial arguments? I want to destroy them.

Why don't you disprove the Bible?
You mean that the earth is about 6000 years old?
Or that two of every animal fit on a boat?

"The essential features of "phyletic gradualism" are described by Eldredge and Gould.

In this Darwinian perspective, paleontology formulated its picture for the origin of new taxa. This picture, though rarely articulated, is familiar to all of us. We refer lo it here as "phyletic gradualism" and identify the following as its tenets:

New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.
The transformation is even and slow.
The transformation involves large numbers, usually the entire ancestral population.
The transformation occurs over all or a large part of the ancestral species' geographic range.
These statements imply several consequences, two of which seem especially important to paleontologists:

Ideally, the fossil record for the origin of a new species should consist of a long sequence of continuous, insensibly graded intermediate forms linking ancestor and descendant.
Morphological breaks in a postulated phyletic sequence are due to imperfections in the geological record."

No, not due to imperfections in the geological record. This would only account for a few transitional specie. However, by the sheer number of ancient organisms, there should be an equally large number, at minimum, of transitional specie, all of which cannot be explained away by Punctuated Equilibria and "Imperfections in the geological record."

Second, not the word "postulated" in the last quoted sentence. This means that there is no proof for the phyletic sequence. It is merely in the mind of a researcher seeking to find a way to 'prove' evolution.

Some of the greatest fakes in history have been pulled by the evolutionist community. Archaeopteryx, Haeckle's Embryos, the Brontosaurus, etc...

I ask you this, if Christianity was sexist, would Mary mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene have found the empty tomb? In such an anti-female culture, if the Ressurrection were a myth, men would likely have been the ones who found the empty tomb; but they are not.

I dont think the idea of the two Mary's being the ones to open the tomb means much of anything, and cant really be laid at the feet of any anti-female ideals within Christianity.

But...I'll tell you what can.

The very idea that Mary Magdeliene was a prostitute.
Evidence suggests that not only was Mary not a whore, but very likely the most favored of all disciples, and the wife of Jesus.

Apparently, the theory goes, early church members had big problems with having a woman in such a place of promincence, and even possibly...authority.
It seems that they may have purposefully intertwined the stories of Jesus's encounter with the prostitute who washed his feet. etc..to make Mary's role as favored disciple, a distant memory, and forgotten over time.

What say you to that?

Darwin's Origin of Species has been shown to contain so many errors, it is not even comical.

we obviously don't live in the same universe

I dont think the idea of the two Mary's being the ones to open the tomb means much of anything, and cant really be laid at the feet of any anti-female ideals within Christianity.

But...I'll tell you what [i]can[i/].

The very idea that Mary Magdeliene was a prostitute.
Evidence suggests that not only was Mary not a whore, but very likely the most favored of all disciples, and the wife of Jesus.

Apparently, the theory goes, early church members had big problems with having a woman in such a place of promincence, and even possibly...authority.
It seems that they may have purposefully intertwined the stories of Jesus's encounter with the prostitute who washed his feet. etc..to make Mary's role as favored disciple, a distant memory, and forgotten over time.

What say you to that?

I say to that,

We have manuscript evidence dating from, at earliest, about seven years after the Death of Christ. This was before any possible tampering from the Councils of (Bah... name, name... Er... It'll come... I'll edit eventually), and, any Biblical writers would have seen Mary Magdalene as a sister in Christ, no longer as a prostitute, and so would have written about her truthfully.

May I remind you that Jesus washed the feet of His desciples? This was an act of service, an example of what Christianity is about.

we obviously don't live in the same universe

Oh man, this is priceless...

His claim that Women were mentally inferior to Men is one clear and easily proven fact that he was in err. Secondly, the "Negro races" are not inferior to the "Civilized races of Europe" in any way (genetically, which is what counts in Evolution).

May I also remind you that his papers were written before the discovery of the Double Helix, and as such it contains many mistakes on the order of the workings of genetics, upon which the entire theory of evolution is based!

The simple fact that 'Science' has revised the Theory over and over again with each new disproval shows the fallacies of Darwin, and, indeed, the entire Theory of Evolution.

Oh man, this is priceless...

His claim that Women were mentally inferior to Men is one clear and easily proven fact that he was in err. Secondly, the "Negro races" are not inferior to the "Civilized races of Europe" in any way (genetically, which is what counts in Evolution).

May I also remind you that his papers were written before the discovery of the Double Helix, and as such it contains many mistakes on the order of the workings of genetics, upon which the entire theory of evolution is based!

The simple fact that 'Science' has revised the Theory over and over again with each new disproval shows the fallacies of Darwin, and, indeed, the entire Theory of Evolution.

No, the fact it is revised and not destroyed entirely is proof of just how much evidence there is in favor of it.

False, Free Soviets already demonstrated this.
Not in a scientific context. Right... and america wasn't racist either, I mean, Martin Luther King Jr. is a legend from the time and he was black. :rolleyes:
One example does not sisprove the rule.
Do we have roles or free will?
How about where it says Jealousy is a sin and that God is Jealous? Or that there was a global flood while the global geological record says otherwise?
Circular argument. The Bible is not wronf therefore the bible is right.

Way to look at all the evidence.

Where are those celestial arguments? I want to destroy them.

Looked through pages of stuff to find your arguments. You find mine. (I have no idea where they are, truly).

Circular argument? If something is not wrong, it must be right. For instance, if the Bible is infallible, than its claim to infallibility is true, and thus all other things within are true. This is proven by validating all other claims, which many, if not nearly all, have been proven through archaeology and other various Truly Scientific means.

And yes, we do have free will. God has given us free will. Look at it this way:

We can 'see' events which have happened in the past, however, we may have had no part in these events, yet they occurred. In the same way, God can see the past, but also the future. However, just because He can see the future does not mean that He controls our future actions.

The simple fact that 'Science' has revised the Theory over and over again with each new disproval shows the fallacies of Darwin, and, indeed, the entire Theory of Evolution.

Think about what you just wrote there. It's ridiculous.

You are saying that because science has continually refined and improved his basic theory over time that it must be wrong. That's like building a house so well it ceases to exist.

"The essential features of "phyletic gradualism" are described by Eldredge and Gould.

phyletic gradualism is something of a strawman created by gould and eldredge to throw their theory into sharp relief. punctuated equilibrium is really nothing more than a better articulation of what the neodarwinian synthesis always held, paying more attention to just what exactly we would expect to find in the fossil record if most speciation occurs through geographical seperation of populations - as darwin himself held that it did.

Some of the greatest fakes in history have been pulled by the evolutionist community. Archaeopteryx, Haeckle's Embryos, the Brontosaurus, etc...

only one of those is at all faked. can't you even use real frauds?

Looked through pages of stuff to find your arguments. You find mine. (I have no idea where they are, truly). Then repeat them. Odds are good someon refuted them all already anyway, as they did with the rest of the list of stuff that you claim was never addressed.

Circular argument? If something is not wrong, it must be right. For instance, if the Bible is infallible, than its claim to infallibility is true, and thus all other things within are true. This is proven by validating all other claims, which many, if not nearly all, have been proven through archaeology and other various Truly Scientific means. The argument went that the bible is always right, therefore it is never wrong. The Bible is never wrong, therefore it is always right. Further, geology has disproven, as mentioned above, the global flood idea.

And yes, we do have free will. God has given us free will. Look at it this way:

We can 'see' events which have happened in the past, however, we may have had no part in these events, yet they occurred. In the same way, God can see the past, but also the future. However, just because He can see the future does not mean that He controls our future actions.
He created the universe out of a potentially infinite number knowing exactly what each universe would bring. He chose this future as is the nature of omnipotence, omniscience, and being the creator of all existance.

No, the fact it is revised and not destroyed entirely is proof of just how much evidence there is in favor of it.

It is revised in the hopes of prolonging its life just a little bit longer, and in the hopes of wearing down the opposition.

There is not much evidence in favor of it.

Oh, and, to whoever made the claim of there being to proof of a global geological record of the Deluge, that is false.

A layer of soil has been found world-wide which indicates a massive flood.

This deluge would also explain Fossilization and mass-extinction. It has been described by scientists that fossilization would require quick, almost instant burial in mud, soil, water, whathaveyou.

This would also explain the fact that many different species became extinct. Just because they survived through the Ark doesn't mean they survived afterward.

Then repeat them. Odds are good someon refuted them all already anyway, as they did with the rest of the list of stuff that you claim was never addressed.
The argument went that the bible is always right, therefore it is never wrong. The Bible is never wrong, therefore it is always right. Further, geology has disproven, as mentioned above, the global flood idea.

He created the universe out of a potentially infinite number knowing exactly what each universe would bring. He chose this future as is the nature of omnipotence, omniscience, and being the creator of all existance.

How do you know what He did? No man can know the Mind of God. Stop making claims.

How do you know what He did? No man can know the Mind of God. Stop making claims.

Take your own advice! :D

I say to that,

We have manuscript evidence dating from, at earliest, about seven years after the Death of Christ. This was before any possible tampering from the Councils of (Bah... name, name... Er... It'll come... I'll edit eventually), and, any Biblical writers would have seen Mary Magdalene as a sister in Christ, no longer as a prostitute, and so would have written about her truthfully.

May I remind you that Jesus washed the feet of His desciples? This was an act of service, an example of what Christianity is about.


actually, I'll gaurentee you no theology expert will say that any biblical text was written before about 40 years at least, after Jesus's death.

Furthermore the texts I referred to is "The Gospel Of Mary"..in wich it is implied everything of wich I spoke of earlier.

You may of course, not that the gospel of mary is considered an "Apocryphal" (I know I didnt spell that right.) text.
That descion was made by an Italian Pope a few centuries ago, If im not mistaken.....you must admit that such knowledge would have a an extreme change in the way we percieve the church, and Jesus' life.

Can you not say that it is possible that that Pope was a touch mysoginistic, like most men at the time?

Therefore, it also would mean that the very religion of Christianity, was created in such sexist beliefs.

Take your own advice! :D

Oh, I explained this to myself along ways ago... Just look...

Oh, wait, I forgot... You evolutionists are blind... Which is the cause of all this...

actually, I'll gaurentee you no theology expert will say that any biblical text was written before about 40 years at least, after Jesus's death.

Furthermore the texts I referred to is "The Gospel Of Mary"..in wich it is implied everything of wich I spoke of earlier.

You may of course, not that the gospel of mary is considered an "Apocryphal" (I know I didnt spell that right.) text.
That descion was made by an Italian Pope a few centuries ago, If im not mistaken.....you must admit that such knowledge would have a an extreme change in the way we percieve the church, and Jesus' life.

Can you not say that it is possible that that Pope was a touch mysoginistic, like most men at the time?

Therefore, it also would mean that the very religion of Christianity, was created in such sexist beliefs.

Uh... Gospel of Mary? It's not Canon... Therefore, not subject to inclusion in the Inspired and Inerrant Word of God.

Oh, I explained this to myself along ways ago... Just look...

Oh, wait, I forgot... You evolutionists are blind... Which is the cause of all this...

Hoisted on your own petard!!!! LOL! :D

For instance, if the Bible is infallible, than its claim to infallibility is true, and thus all other things within are true. This is proven by validating all other claims, which many, if not nearly all, have been proven through archaeology and other various Truly Scientific means.
Are you serious?
Because some of it may be true (note it is only some historical accounts that have been proven), but that doesn't mean you can fit a pair of every animal on one boat, or that the earth is only 6000years young.

Uh... Gospel of Mary? It's not Canon... Therefore, not subject to inclusion in the Inspired and Inerrant Word of God.


Precisely my point!

Do you not think that the certain pope could have seen that book as destructive to a male dominated society?

The same goes for the Gospel of Thomas, wich may pre-date the others.
That text does not point to any miracles or ressurection or indeed any sort of divinity at all, instead calling Jesus "Teacher".

Those texts were not omitted because they werent true....there were excluded becuase they didnt fit the mold of dogma that had been created.

Surely, you can see my point.

How do you know what He did? No man can know the Mind of God. Stop making claims.

Good answer chuckles. I never claimed to know the mind of God, I merely pointed out he was an all knowing creator with the power to actualize any universe he could imagine. That is the nature of omnipotence. Combine that with omniscience, that he would always know perfectly the results of his choices, including creation, thus everything was predetermined God created the universe.

You also ignored where I demonstrated the Bible was not infallible.

It is revised in the hopes of prolonging its life just a little bit longer, and in the hopes of wearing down the opposition. And then other scientists eager to build their own reputation would have demoished it. The fact this didn't happen once again just how much evidence you are pretending you can't see.


There is not much evidence in favor of it. All science to the contrary...


Oh, and, to whoever made the claim of there being to proof of a global geological record of the Deluge, that is false. Wrong again.

A layer of soil has been found world-wide which indicates a massive flood. No, it doesn't. It indicates a big flood in the area of the Mediterranean and nothing more.

This deluge would also explain Fossilization No, actually it would create decomposition at a greater pace because it would allow sea life to access and eat the drowned creatures, increase the moisture, etc. It would not fossilize them.
and mass-extinction. There is no evidence of a mass extinction five thousand years ago.

It has been described by scientists that fossilization would require quick, almost instant burial in mud, soil, water, whathaveyou. Mud yes, water no.


This would also explain the fact that many different species became extinct. Just because they survived through the Ark doesn't mean they survived afterward. There is no evidence of a mass extinction 5000 years ago.

phyletic gradualism is something of a strawman created by gould and eldredge to throw their theory into sharp relief. punctuated equilibrium is really nothing more than a better articulation of what the neodarwinian synthesis always held, paying more attention to just what exactly we would expect to find in the fossil record if most speciation occurs through geographical seperation of populations - as darwin himself held that it did.



only one of those is at all faked. can't you even use real frauds?

Not going to deal with the first paragraph. Already done so enough times.

The Brontosaurus was the body of one animal and the skull of another. Thus, a fraud. The Archaeopteryx was claimed to be a transitional specie between lizard and bird, and thus claimed to have reptilian characteristics. This is false. All characteristics of the Archaeopteryx were Avian in nature.

Haekle's Embryos are a known fraud.

Oh, then there's "Nebraska Man". He was created around a single tooth. Quite hilarious, if I do say so myself.

What's that phrase? A mountain out of a molehill?

Y'know, pretty soon I'm going to disown myself from the debate. I really am tired of this whole thing.

It's up to you folks to try to disprove the Bible. Up to you folks to find those thousands of transitional specie. Up to you folks to prove that Io could sustain its heat through the inadequate tidal forces of Europa, Jupiter, etc. Up to you folks to prove how Saturn's rings could have survived billions of years. Up to you folks to prove how early organisms survived Atmospheric pressure. Up to you folks to prove how the first proteins were created (Miller experiment was falsified) and then somehow formed organisms. Up to you folks to prove why the fossils of "Man's Progenitors, the Hominids" are usually only a skull, or a bone, or even a single tooth (Lucy and a few others are exceptions. Heck, maybe they were apes? You don't have genetic material to prove their appearances, or anything else, really, for that matter)!

Anyway, the burden of proof is upon Evolution, and so far there are far too many discrepancies to allow its teaching, even as a theory. However, until the Bible is proven to be errant (Which will be never), Christianity will always have a solid base upon which to make its valid claims of truth.

Oh, I may end up responding in a longer fashion to the Hominid thing, but I think that's about it...

Unless I get an equally large team of competent pro-ID debate partners.

Adieu, and I shall pray for you (plural noun).

Surely, you can see my point.

um... he hasn't seen any points yet. Don't hold your breath.









Conan wins!

So..your backing out when everyone calls your bluff?

So..your backing out when everyone calls your bluff?
Don't worry, usually it takes him at least three attempts to leave before he actually does. :p

Conan wins!


What?!

By Kromm, your insane!

Good answer chuckles. I never claimed to know the mind of God, I merely pointed out he was an all knowing creator with the power to actualize any universe he could imagine. That is the nature of omnipotence. Combine that with omniscience, that he would always know perfectly the results of his choices, including creation, thus everything was predetermined God created the universe.

You also ignored where I demonstrated the Bible was not infallible.

And then other scientists eager to build their own reputation would have demoished it. The fact this didn't happen once again just how much evidence you are pretending you can't see.

All science to the contrary...

Wrong again.

No, it doesn't. It indicates a big flood in the area of the Mediterranean and nothing more.

No, actually it would create decomposition at a greater pace because it would allow sea life to access and eat the drowned creatures, increase the moisture, etc. It would not fossilize them.
There is no evidence of a mass extinction five thousand years ago.

Mud yes, water no.

There is no evidence of a mass extinction 5000 years ago.


Let's see.. water is an ingredient in mud, yes? Therefore a precursor, yes?

As for no evidence five thousand years ago, we have no exact date of its occurance. We do, however, know that the estimated amounts of Carbon-17 in fossilized organisms is likely incorrect, and, if followed back far enough in fossil terms, would require extremely large amounts of radioactive carbon in the early earth. If there were such radioactivity, early creatures would have been unable to survive, and, thus, carbon dating measurements must be in err, or the estimated amount of radioactive elements present at time of death.

There is much Humanity knows not with regards to the sciences. Just know this: I will never change your mind, you will never change mine. I know I'm right, and that is all that matters to me.

I know this is not a good position to take in terms of my faith, as we are not to be haughty or prideful, however, I shall no longer waste my time with this endless futile competition. I will not find hapiness in the proof of my point. For this proof is self-evident. I need not argue with you, for only the Holy Spirit can soften your hearts and prepare you for the Gospel.

Jesus was Son of Man and Son of God. He was Perfect in all ways. He came to this earth and was crucified on the cross so that all who believe in Him shall not die, but have eternal life.

He loved all of you so greatly, and it is my duty to spread this word. All you need do is Seek for Him, and you will find.

However, The Gate which leads to destruction is wide, and there are many who find it, but the path which leads to salvation is narrow, and there are few who find it.

Good day.

I know I'm right, and that is all that matters to me.
Hehehe...it would be funny if it wasn't such a farce.

Hm, GZ, I apologize greatly for having to do this, but you've been spinning so much that we could likely power all of northern and large parts of southern California if we hooked you up to a generator. You can't spin numbers:



Ok, as we know, there are 1.35882728 × 10^18 cubic meters of water on the Earth, spread between surface water, water vapor in the atmosphere, and ground water. This amount of water is indeed impressive, it's several hundred million trillion gallons.

However, the Earth herself is a big thing, she has a diameter of 12,756,300 meters. Also don't forget that this is only at sea level, since most other differences are negligable, but let us include them anyway, since the biblical flood claims all mountain tops were covered to a height of fifteen cubits, or about 7 meters.

Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on the planet, topping out at 8,850 m. It would be wise to add in those 7 meters, but let us be generous to our bewildered friends, the flood "geologists" and try and account for the fact that this was thousands of years ago and use a round figure of 8,800 m. We add this into the known diameter of 12,756,300 meters and we get 12,765,100 meters.

Now, this means that the flood waters would need to cover the partial volume of a sphere with radius 6,382,550 m and an exclusion at 6,378,150 m. All we need to do is find the volume of both spheres and then find the difference between them to get the volume of the partial sphere.

The equation for the volume of a sphere is 4πr^3/3.

For the larger sphere, we take the cube of the radius, which comes out to 2.60005 x 10^20, multiply this by four times π, or 12.5663 (roughly), which comes out to 3.26732 x 10^21. We then divide this total by 3, which ends us up with a volume of the larger sphere of 1.089108848 x 10^21 cubic meters.

We go through the same process for the smaller sphere:

4π(6,378,150)^3/3
4π(2.59468 x 10^20)/3
12.5663(2.59468 x 10^20)/3
3.26057 x 10^21/3
1.0868579725 x 10^21

which leaves us with 1.086857972 x 10^21 cubic meters (I'll refer to this as m3 from now on so I don't have to type out cubic meters all the time).

Then it's a simple matter of subtraction:

1.089108848 x 10^21 - 1.086857972 x 10^21
2.250876 x 10^18

which means the total volume the waters have to had covered was 2.250876 x 10^18 m3.

Since we know how much water there is on the Earth and that there isn't enough to cover this area, there is obviously missing water. But how much missing water? Well, let's find the difference.

2.250876 x 10^18 - 1.35882728 x 10^18
8.9204872 x 10^17

Meaning there is 8.9204872 x 10^17 m3 of water missing, that is 892,048,720,000,000,000 m3 of water that doesn't exist on Earth anymore.


Where'd this water go GZ? And how'd it get off of the Earth without vaporizing itself and raising the atmospheric temperature enough to flash-burn the ark and all its inhabitants? You have to balance the equation GZ, the energy required to lift this water (ignoring the fact that there is no imaginable mechanism to do so) has to go SOMEWHERE.

Let's see.. water is an ingredient in mud, yes? Therefore a precursor, yes? Yes, but adding too much water leaves you with dirty water, not mud because it becomes so diluted the mud no longer means anything.

As for no evidence five thousand years ago, we have no exact date of its occurance. True, we have no exact date. We do, however, know that the estimated amounts of Carbon-17 in fossilized organisms is likely incorrect, False, it was funny watching creationist scientists try to prove this too. Eventually their proof was that if you superaccelerate material, something that does not happen in nature since perhaps the big bang itself, ever, decay rates change. and, if followed back far enough in fossil terms, would require extremely large amounts of radioactive carbon in the early earth. Nonsense. It is like saying that for you to be able to keep dividng by two and never reaching zero there must have been a tremendously large starting number. If there were such radioactivity, early creatures would have been unable to survive, and, thus, carbon dating measurements must be in err, or the estimated amount of radioactive elements present at time of death. No, see above.

There is much Humanity knows not with regards to the sciences. And there is much that we know today we did not know a century ago. And much we knew a century ago we did not know a millenia ago. And a millenia ago we knew things we didn't know at the dawn of civilization. Just imagine what we will know tommorrow. Just know this: I will never change your mind, Not before you form a cogent argument. you will never change mine. True. I know I'm right, I'm sure you do. and that is all that matters to me. If that were true you wouldn't be here yelling at me.

I know this is not a good position to take in terms of my faith, as we are not to be haughty or prideful, however, I shall no longer waste my time with this endless futile competition. I take it Greenlander is coming back? I will not find hapiness in the proof of my point. For this proof is self-evident. I need not argue with you, for only the Holy Spirit can soften your hearts and prepare you for the Gospel. Then you should tell the lazy spirit to get off its butt and start softening. I don't have all eternity you know.

Jesus was Son of Man and Son of God. He was Perfect in all ways. He came to this earth and was crucified on the cross so that all who believe in Him shall not die, but have eternal life. So says the Bible.

He loved all of you so greatly, and it is my duty to spread this word. All you need do is Seek for Him, and you will find. Well, I have been looking for truth for probably half a decade now. No luck yet.

However, The Gate which leads to destruction is wide, and there are many who find it, but the path which leads to salvation is narrow, and there are few who find it. Assuming of course that God doesn't give second chances.

Good day.
And you.

Hm, GZ, I apologize greatly for having to do this, but you've been spinning so much that we could likely power all of northern and large parts of southern California if we hooked you up to a generator. You can't spin numbers:



Where'd this water go GZ? And how'd it get off of the Earth without vaporizing itself and raising the atmospheric temperature enough to flash-burn the ark and all its inhabitants? You have to balance the equation GZ, the energy required to lift this water (ignoring the fact that there is no imaginable mechanism to do so) has to go SOMEWHERE.

Out of curiosity would that much pressure appearing out of nowhere do anything appreciable to the plates beneath it?

His claim that Women were mentally inferior to Men is one clear and easily proven fact that he was in err. Secondly, the "Negro races" are not inferior to the "Civilized races of Europe" in any way (genetically, which is what counts in Evolution).

you'd be hard pressed to find a single european from darwins time that didn't believe such claims. but darwin was also an abolitionist and believed in the fundamental unity of humanity and the rough equality of human faculties.

"The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, showing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate. He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits."
Descent of Man, Chapter 7

besides, what does that have to do with anything? darwin's social attitudes have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that his theory has survived every test thrown at it. and if darwin's alleged racism counts against him, then creationism is in really fucking sorry shape. the people who kicked off the modern creationist movement were pretty much all vastly more racist than darwin.

May I also remind you that his papers were written before the discovery of the Double Helix, and as such it contains many mistakes on the order of the workings of genetics, upon which the entire theory of evolution is based!

you don't need to have the slightest clue about how genetics really works to understand evolution. as long as there are heritable traits and selective pressures on them, you have everything you need. the mechanism for inheriting traits can be treated like a magic black box for all i care.

Out of curiosity would that much pressure appearing out of nowhere do anything appreciable to the plates beneath it?

Well, truthfully, it would be a release of pressure when the water left the Earth. Perhaps. It all depends on what mechanism you define and how the mechanism works when it comes to getting rid of the water.

That's a big problem with IDists and creationists in general. They never stop to define a mechanism. They only claim that this evidence supports that so nyah nyah a boo boo.

Well, truthfully, it would be a release of pressure when the water left the Earth. Perhaps. It all depends on what mechanism you define and how the mechanism works when it comes to getting rid of the water. Good point. Hadn't thought of how the release itself might effect it.

That's a big problem with IDists and creationists in general. They never stop to define a mechanism. They only claim that this evidence supports that so nyah nyah a boo boo.
Indeed.

Not going to deal with the first paragraph. Already done so enough times.

no, you haven't. i suspect that you don't even understand the terms of the discussion on this point.

The Brontosaurus was the body of one animal and the skull of another. Thus, a fraud.

wasn't done to intentionally mislead anyone, and the skull was from a fairly close relative. no fraud at all, just a bit of sloppy work coming out of the dinosaur wars. by the way, brontosaurus hasn't been the name of that species since 1903. do try to keep up to within at least a century.


The Archaeopteryx was claimed to be a transitional specie between lizard and bird, and thus claimed to have reptilian characteristics. This is false. All characteristics of the Archaeopteryx were Avian in nature.

so you keep saying. and it's still utter fucking bullshit. show me a single bird with big claws on its front limbs. and a long bony tail. and fucking teeth.


http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rhmiller/archaeopteryx/archaeopteryx/archae1.jpg

Oh, then there's "Nebraska Man". He was created around a single tooth. Quite hilarious, if I do say so myself.

and it only ever existed in a popular (as in non-scientific) magazine article. and its discoverer was the one to point out that it wasn't a hominid at all within a year of the find. you'll have to do better than that.

Intelligent design is such an oxymoron.

just thought i'd bring this back up.

creationists and creationists pretending they aren't, please:

1. explain the existence of the twin nested hierarchy of life. why a nested hierarchy, rather than a random jumble or a great chain of being or any of the numerous other possible ways to organize things?

2. explain why fossilized life fits right in to the same nested hierarchy.

3. explain the precise ordering of fossil life, in exactly the order we would expect based on common descent and evolution. why are pigeons never found in earlier strata than velociraptors? why are homo sapiens never found in earlier strata than trilobites?

4. explain all the wonderfully detailed transitional series we have, that occur at the right times, and in the right orders.

5. explain how population containing variations + reproduction + selection of some traits over others + a source of new variation could possibly add up to anything other than evolution.

please put up or shut the fuck up.

Let's see.. water is an ingredient in mud, yes? Therefore a precursor, yes?

As for no evidence five thousand years ago, we have no exact date of its occurance. We do, however, know that the estimated amounts of Carbon-17 in fossilized organisms is likely incorrect, and, if followed back far enough in fossil terms, would require extremely large amounts of radioactive carbon in the early earth. If there were such radioactivity, early creatures would have been unable to survive, and, thus, carbon dating measurements must be in err, or the estimated amount of radioactive elements present at time of death.
Which is why carbon testing isn't really used that much. Your point is moot.

There is much Humanity knows not with regards to the sciences. Just know this: I will never change your mind, you will never change mine. I know I'm right, and that is all that matters to me.
What has that got to do with science?

I know this is not a good position to take in terms of my faith, as we are not to be haughty or prideful, however, I shall no longer waste my time with this endless futile competition. I will not find hapiness in the proof of my point. For this proof is self-evident. I need not argue with you, for only the Holy Spirit can soften your hearts and prepare you for the Gospel.

Jesus was Son of Man and Son of God. He was Perfect in all ways. He came to this earth and was crucified on the cross so that all who believe in Him shall not die, but have eternal life.

He loved all of you so greatly, and it is my duty to spread this word. All you need do is Seek for Him, and you will find.

However, The Gate which leads to destruction is wide, and there are many who find it, but the path which leads to salvation is narrow, and there are few who find it.

Good day.It really sucks that you try to worm your way out of loosing an arguement by hiding behind the Bible. And in case you haven't noticed, an "evolution vs. creationism" thread is not a "how would you like to become a Christian" thread. (And Germanische Zustande is still spelled wrong :p)

I always thought that ID is not used to explain about the origin of life, but to have an alternative to "random" evolution. I.e. evolutionary theory saying "life mutates and turns into other life, if the mutation is beneficiary to the survival of said species" (very simplified) v.s. ID saying "God guided the development of the species according to some masterplan" (again simplified for the sake of argument).

My question now is, what kind of picture of god is given by ID? Is it that of a tinkerer who always corrects the development because this is needed, i.e. the development of life starys from the path originally chosen? What kind of god is that supposed to be?

In my opinion ID was created to try and reconcile scientific facts with belief, resulting in a watered down religion with no scientific merit. It actually weakens faith without weakening the theory of evolution.

Evolution still leaves space for faith (as a catholic, I even belong to a church which accepts evolution), but ID leaves no space for science and precious little for faith ;)

My question now is, what kind of picture of god is given by ID? Is it that of a tinkerer who always corrects the development because this is needed, i.e. the development of life starys from the path originally chosen? What kind of god is that supposed to be?
The kind of God that would let a bunch of dwarves steal a map to the universe from his supermarket, only it wouldn't be part of an intricate plan to kill some kids parents with a toaster oven, it would just be one of a great many screwups he had to fix.

I can't help but wonder... is there any research in the field of creationism? I just can't imagine a university setting up a faculty of creationism and intelligent design, nor fund research in that field.

Then again, creationsim only claims to be science in the USA, I never heard of any other country seriously considering it to be anything but historical theology.

I can't help but wonder... is there any research in the field of creationism? I just can't imagine a university setting up a faculty of creationism and intelligent design, nor fund research in that field.

Then again, creationsim only claims to be science in the USA, I never heard of any other country seriously considering it to be anything but historical theology.
There was a guy some years ago who was actually a serious researcher with a position at a major American university who was seriously, and rigorously, researching creationism. He was of some advanced years at the time, and this is a decade after the fact, so he may have passed on.

There are plenty of religious people of course involved in even hard fundemental sciences, high energy physcis etc. But I don't know how many, if any, are hardcore creationists. Those I've met were more of the "And God said: [ Maxwell's equations ]" cast.

I think there is a pair at Oxford, UK, who are proponants of creationism, but they do it on their own time, and out of their field as I recall.

It's not that people aren't out there. It's more that the US celebrates differences, and conflicting viewpoints more. The spectical is far more important than getting everyone on the same page and making sure it's the right one.