 |
| |
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
I would like to point out a few things to the creationists here(to make these things absolutely clear)...
1)A theory never becomes a "fact" or a "law".A theory explains a fact.The ntheory of gravity never became the law of gravity.A theory is put forth to explain something which has been revealed though observation or study.
2)A few of you are going on about probabilities and display an incredible knack for misunderstanding the nature of probability.
The chances of YOU winning a million dollar lottery are very slim.The chances of SOMEONE winning are absolute.
3)By using impossible twists of logic and doing a lot of semantic dancing around I can argue that The lord of the Rings is not fictional at all and totally in line with known human history.Therefore,despite your obvious ignorance of the subject matter,I am not surprised you can go on claiming no contradictions exist in the Bible if such is your mission...but I ask you this:Why would the accurate words of a perfect god be so subject to misinterpretation?
I would also point out(as Leonard Krishtalka and others have) that it is not scientists who have the explaining to do but instead creationists.Creationists must explain the following before their creation "science" can be deservingly called science at all:
Why do males have nipples?(evolution theory explains this quite well)
Why does the fossil record show localised descent with modification if all life was created at once and can be traced back to Mt. Ararat?Also why are kangaroos and their ancestors only found in austraillia and not in Japan or North America?
Why do pigs have two "extra" toes that do not touch the ground?
If we were intelligently designed then why is the human eye so POORLY designed?It is "built" upside down and backwards!?
Why are the digestive systems of rabbits so poor that they must eat their own feces to extract the nutrients they need to survive?
What honestly sounds more "scientific" to you:
The theory of evolution(which I hope you will honestly examine and have a better understanding of after this little debate)...
Or the genesis account(even assuming you don't take everything lterally and if you don't then why can'rt genesis be a metaphor for evolution?).
If you can HONESTLY say the latter after giving the matter any signifigant degree of consideration then you are beyond anyone's ability to convince you otherwise regardless of what evidence is presented.I have been on both sides of the fence and I know first hand how difficult it is to admit and openly aknowledge truth when all those around you and close to you hold contrary convictions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Osweld
I haven't been following this thread very closely, but...
Anybody who would ask the question "why aren't all apes human?" obvously has no concept of the theory of evolution - it's not some sort of game that has some sort of end level or goal to reach which every life form strives for, evoultion is how different species evolve and adapt to the enviroment they live in. Apes have evolved in the jungles and forests of the planet, and are thus adapted to climbing trees and living in a forested enviroment, humans evolved in the open planes and savannahs and are thus adapted to that enviroment. The fact that there are humans and apes - or any other example of bio-diversity - only supports evolution. |
You see here's your problem: You haven't followed this thread very closely.
I never said "Anybody who would ask the question "why aren't all apes human?"
Kids!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
As I said, willful ignorance...
We'd have better luck arguing with a brick wall, folks. These guys are just flat-out ignoring what we're saying. |
You're bringing new scientific evidence all the time. Just like your post above. And you wonder why ppl ignore you?
quote:
Because mutation is totally random, most of the time it will be horrid.
|
I pointed that out early. No one in here believed it. And those who knew kept quiet. There are som sincere and honest truth-seekers in here. Yeah right!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lars-E
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SkeleTony69
2)A few of you are going on about probabilities and display an incredible knack for misunderstanding the nature of probability.
The chances of YOU winning a million dollar lottery are very slim.The chances of SOMEONE winning are absolute. |
Exactly my point. Statistics and probabilities was my favorite at uni. Some ppl in here are not understanding it. I'm thinking of one or two kids (=evolutionists) in here.
I previously stated that "I rest my case". I have heard all the arguments, proclamations, propaganda, and the dogmas many times now. Reply to the others in here. I won't. The End.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
For the record, I am not a creationist - ie. I do not believe the world was created in 6 literal days and we are decended from Adam and Eve etc.
However, I get a little bit miffed at how some people misrepresent science. Science does not disprove creation, in any way. All that we can say, from a scientific stand-point, is that the evidence (from fossils, genetic structures, evolution of stars in the galaxy etc) supports the ideas of the big bang followed inflation etc and eventually the formation of intelligent life on this planet by evolution.
It could well be that there is some other explanation which also fits all the data which we have not yet tought of. I am fairly sure that if you had asked someone in the early 19th Centuary if Newtonian gravity was 'right' they would have said yes, but it is wrong - the alternative explanation leads to exactly the same manifestations in our low-velocity world, but is fundamentally different. It may be that in 100 years time we have some other explanation our origins which is similarly supported by all the fossil evidence.
It could even be possible that the universe is only 1 day old and that everything (including your memory) has been set up to make it seem like it is 14 billion years old. It is not a very scientifically 'pleasing' theory, but it does fit the data, so it can't be ruled out....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lars-E
Exactly my point. Statistics and probabilities was my favorite at uni. Some ppl in here are not understanding it. I'm thinking of one or two kids (=evolutionists) in here.
I previously stated that "I rest my case". I have heard all the arguments, proclamations, propaganda, and the dogmas many times now. Reply to the others in here. I won't. The End. |
You are not making any sense here(or in any post you have made).You have not been able to offer ANY refutation to any of the points made by us "evolutionists" here but like David Lynch you seem to think if you throw enough nonsense at us no one will notice the lack of substance and then mistake you for someone of reasonable intellect or even genius.
And of course you end your part in the debate by saying something like "I have done this before and now I'm tired of it so I won't reply any more".Typical creationist tactic designed to absolve you from ever having to address the holes in your argument or the irrefutable logic and evidence presented by others.
Also,when you constantly write off another's argument with a statement like "these [b]kids[/i] crack me up!" or something similarly,thinly disguised insult you concede that reason and rational are not on your side.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
For the record, I am not a creationist - ie. I do not believe the world was created in 6 literal days and we are decended from Adam and Eve etc.
However, I get a little bit miffed at how some people misrepresent science. Science does not disprove creation, in any way. All that we can say, from a scientific stand-point, is that the evidence (from fossils, genetic structures, evolution of stars in the galaxy etc) supports the ideas of the big bang followed inflation etc and eventually the formation of intelligent life on this planet by evolution.
It could well be that there is some other explanation which also fits all the data which we have not yet tought of. I am fairly sure that if you had asked someone in the early 19th Centuary if Newtonian gravity was 'right' they would have said yes, but it is wrong - the alternative explanation leads to exactly the same manifestations in our low-velocity world, but is fundamentally different. It may be that in 100 years time we have some other explanation our origins which is similarly supported by all the fossil evidence.
It could even be possible that the universe is only 1 day old and that everything (including your memory) has been set up to make it seem like it is 14 billion years old. It is not a very scientifically 'pleasing' theory, but it does fit the data, so it can't be ruled out.... |
I would agree that some people will misrepresent science and that science does NOT disprove ANYTHING (unless you consider falsification of a theory to be a form of disproving).
However,I disagree with the notion that we cannot "rule out" certain ideas about the universe no matter how incredible.On the contrary we MUST rule out certain claims which lack supporting evidence(such as elves,ghosts and yes GODS!) as being credible or we will not be able to function very well.In the empirical sense,I cannot disprove the idea that the universe is only one day old or that everything we know to be real isn't actually illusion but if we are going to live at all then we must do so by accepting certain "useful assumptions" as truth absolute such as "I see a cliff ahead...if I keep walking forward I will walk off and die".
If you give credibility to every single notion or existential claim out there then science,rationalism,logic and reason lose all meaning and value.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
If you weren't so arrogant you would have read this thread from the beginning and realized Lars-E is tired of pointing out really valid arguments, and how ridiculous some "so-called" evolutionists argument about their beliefs.
I can confidently say that this thread is the biggest evolutionist dogma holder. Nowhere in Apolyton I have seen so many dogmas. Feel free to scorn at will. |
I have read the thread from the beginning and if you could abstain from the ad hominem attacks long enough to offer some clear refutation I would be happy to listen to you.
Arrogant?Not even close.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SkeleTony69
|
|
Tacoma,WA.,USA
Jan 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
Incidentally...what is an "evolutionist"?I have met evangelical christians who believe the theory of evolution as well as atheists,buddhists etc..How do I identify an evolutionist?What sort of characteristics do all evolutionists have in common?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tolls
|
 |
Hereford, UK
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Lars:
re: published PhDs
I'm sure he (and the other PhDs on ICR) have published in peer reviewed literature, but I would lay money that Kurt Wise's thesis did not deal in any way with a 6000 year old earth...which was my question, how many creationist articles are there in peer reviewed literature? If they have evidence then it will be printed, but they never do...in fact I don't htink they submit the bloody things in the first place!
as for:
"Why would evolutionist magazines bring in something that oppose their views. Be rational. "
Smacks of conspiracy here...and I'm the one who isn't being rational?
The intermediates thing was pure and simple pointing out to you that you brought up intermediates, unlike your statement.
And you can rest your case, that's fine, doesn't prevent me from replying to some of your comments...
...oh one more thing...I know this wasn't addressed to me, but:
"You see here's your problem: You haven't followed this thread very closely.
I never said "Anybody who would ask the question "why aren't all apes human?" "
No, it's true, you didn't...but Zealot did, and that is who Osweld was replying to...now who isn't following the thread?
Kids!£
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SkeleTony69
However,I disagree with the notion that we cannot "rule out" certain ideas about the universe no matter how incredible.On the contrary we MUST rule out certain claims which lack supporting evidence(such as elves,ghosts and yes GODS!) as being credible or we will not be able to function very well. |
But that doesn't change the fact that these 'ridiculous' theories may be correct. It may be true, for example, that the laws of physics change over time in some chaotic way. Gravity may switch off tomorrow. Your reasoning makes the assumption that the laws of nature are universal and unchanging (or change in some predictable way). While I agree that one should make this assumption when trying to figure out how the world works in order to make some sort of progress (or even function in everyday life), one should keep in the back of one's mind that this is just an assumption and may not be true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Yes, we do. There are thousands of transitional fossils throughout the fossil record. Denying their existence won't make them go away. The creationist view is "the Bible is the Word of God, therefore Genesis is true, therefore there cannot be any tansitional fossils, therefore there ARE no transitional fossils". Dogmatic thinking at its finest.
I didnt bring up the bible. And is that the creationist view? Their is a difference of opinion on the transitional fossiles. Some actually think those found are not transitional. |
Yes, that is the creationist view. There is no non-Biblical basis for acceptance of creationism or rejection of evolution. All creatioists are either religious fundamentalists or victims of fundamentalist propaganda.
Only religious fundamentalists assert that there are no transitional fossils (or very few transitional fossils). It is a creatioist lie, pure and simple.
quote:
To refute the claim that "there are no beneficial mutations", it is only necessary to produce examples of beneficial mutations. This has been done, therefore the claim is FALSE. End of argument.
Yeah, and turn a blind eye to the ones that fail and they are many, but who cares, right? We must keep our dogmas! |
Nobody should expect to witness beneficial mutations in creatures that have already had millions of years to adapt to their current environment. Mutations in modern organisms can be beneficial when the organism needs to adapt to a changed environment. That is exactly what scientists observe.
quote:
Stephen J. Gould is made a moron again. See my other post. |
Stephen J. Gould is not a moron (nor is he a creationist, of course). But Dr. Kurt Wise IS a religious fundamentalist. He freely admits that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution: he chose to reject it ONLY because it contradicts his religion. Here is what happened after he took a pair of scissors and cut out the parts of the Bible that contradict evolution:
quote:
". . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science." |
quote:
PS I rested my case above so just leave it at that. It's getting tiresome answering such as "this is false, this is right" and providing no more. Also the same arguments keep repeating. It's not gonna become true just because you repeat it or is this an attempt of indoctrination. |
There is the little matter of evidence: scientists have it, creeationists do not. It isn't just a matter of personal opinion, every single shred of physical evidence supports only one side. Unless you're accusing the whole scientific community of fabricating that evidence: there comes a point where the scientist can say no more and the psychiatrist must take over.
quote:
Because mutation is totally random, most of the time it will be horrid.
I pointed that out early. No one in here believed it. And those who knew kept quiet. There are som sincere and honest truth-seekers in here. Yeah right! |
You are lying, Lars. Nobody here has DENIED that most mutations are not beneficial (actually most are pretty neutral, but the "horrid" ones greatly outnumber the beneficial ones). That's where natural selection comes in.
quote:
Exactly my point. " was my favorite at uni. Some ppl in here are not understanding it. I'm thinking of one or two kids (=evolutionists) in here. |
There is nothing "improbable" about evolution. So far, you have not demonstrated any real grasp of "statistics and probabilities".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SkeleTony69
I have read the thread from the beginning and if you could abstain from the ad hominem attacks long enough to offer some clear refutation I would be happy to listen to you. |
What do you want me to refute that I haven't already? It's pretty exhausting to go over and over on the same subject! I think you did well to ask what is an evolutionist. I won't respond to that question, since I don't know the complete answer to that issue. But I can tell you what have made me disconsider the evolutionist theory of the origin of life!
I have read some biology and chemistry information, and what is needed for life to appear from unliving matter. Well, what can I say? The odds are inferior to what mathematicians consider statisticaly possible, wich is 10^50. There are just so many components, that it's just not possible for life to appear that way. Randomness just isn't viable. I know I'm not proving anything, but I have exposed what I know in previous threads. So we have to end it this way.
quote:
Originally posted by SkeleTony69
Arrogant?Not even close. |
That's nice to know, but then why did you attack Lars-E, saying that he didn't provide any evidence whatsoever to support his point of view? He did! Others didn't! How should I grade your behaviour? I can't remember you posting in this thread before! If you did, it must have been in along time, since I don't remember you.
Yet, I apologize. But we're clearly having some communication problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
There is the little matter of evidence: scientists have it, creeationists do not. It isn't just a matter of personal opinion, every single shred of physical evidence supports only one side. Unless you're accusing the whole scientific community of fabricating that evidence: there comes a point where the scientist can say no more and the psychiatrist must take over.
|
This is not true. It is a matter of personal opinion. There is 'evidence' for both creation and evolution. The evidence for evolution is the fossil records etc, and the evidence for creation is the word of God.
Now, you personally may not credit the word of God as being valuable or even relevent evidence, and that is your right, but that is subjective. Creationists place more importance on what they believe God has told them than on the fossil records, so they have more 'evidence' in favour of creation.
If a host of angels came down into your living room tonight to proclaim the truth of creation, would you not lay aside the fossil evidence? Or would you put it down to a bad pretzel?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I understand and agree with what you say, but I personally use the word "proven" in its non-mathematical form, to mean "having a great preponderence of evidence for". Obviously if you want to bring an omnipotent God into things then I can't state for certain what is "actually" the case, but I think you'll find that most of the "evolutionists" here are at least attempting some semblance of scientific argumentation instead of engaging in factless and foundless speculation as are the "creationists". |
I agree (almost) entirely of course. My objection is, in part, that many of the evolutionists are not scientific in their approach. Somehow because evolution is the accepted belief in today's society most people believe in it not because they have examined the evidence for themselves, but because they have faith in what the scientists tell them.
This is very dangerous. I am a scientist, so I know what a load of bollocks scientists tell the popular press! Indeed, I see this as analagous to the people believing everything the priests told them 1000 years ago.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Now, you personally may not credit the word of God as being valuable or even relevent evidence, and that is your right, but that is subjective. Creationists place more importance on what they believe God has told them than on the fossil records, so they have more 'evidence' in favour of creation. |
This is not true, Rogan. I never discarded the fossils! Neither do I know anyone who has! If someone does that and proclaim himself to be a creationist, that's his problem.
In fact, one of the reason that makes me reject the theory of evolution is because of the lack of fossils of continuous evoluting beings. Earth has a huge bio-diversity. That bio-diversity must be explained. If there wasn't at one point a garden called Eden on Earth, then I want to see step-by-step the evolution of such bio-diversity. From the ant to the giraffe.
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
If a host of angels came down into your living room tonight to proclaim the truth of creation, would you not lay aside the fossil evidence? Or would you put it down to a bad pretzel? |
Look, God has already done that, but history tells us that the people, as a whole, still were rebels, and wanted to live their lifes as they're pleased (I'm talking about Hebrew history, of course). So do you really think every one deserves to have his personal signal of God's existance?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Rogan:
quote:
This is not true. It is a matter of personal opinion. There is 'evidence' for both creation and evolution. The evidence for evolution is the fossil records etc, and the evidence for creation is the word of God.
Now, you personally may not credit the word of God as being valuable or even relevent evidence, and that is your right, but that is subjective. Creationists place more importance on what they believe God has told them than on the fossil records, so they have more 'evidence' in favour of creation. |
But the fossil record (and astronomy, geology, radiometric dating etc etc etc) don't just support evolution, they also contradict the Biblical account. Biblical creationism cannot be true, unless we assume fakery by God, mischievous aliens with godlike powers, or the ubiquitous Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Falsification is an important part of science, and creationism has been shown to be false.
Of course, some people who call themselves "creationists" simply believe that "God is responsible for it all" (though why they choose to use the same label as the modern equivalent of Flat-Earthers is beyond me). It is not possible to show that there has NOT been a supernatural agent at work. But, whenever creationists (of any sort) have attempted to show that a supernatural agent is required, such claims have been without substance. Therefore, irrespective of whether there actually is a God, creationist claims are unsound.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
But the fossil record (and astronomy, geology, radiometric dating etc etc etc) don't just support evolution, they also contradict the Biblical account. Biblical creationism cannot be true, unless we assume fakery by God, mischievous aliens with godlike powers, or the ubiquitous Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Falsification is an important part of science, and creationism has been shown to be false.
|
Don't get me wrong - I agree with you.
But your argument goes both ways. One could also say that the word of God does not just support Creation, but it also contradicts evolution. The fossil records cannot be true since they do not fit with the known word of God.
quote:
Of course, some people who call themselves "creationists" simply believe that "God is responsible for it all" (though why they choose to use the same label as the modern equivalent of Flat-Earthers is beyond me). It is not possible to show that there has NOT been a supernatural agent at work. But, whenever creationists (of any sort) have attempted to show that a supernatural agent is required, such claims have been without substance. Therefore, irrespective of whether there actually is a God, creationist claims are unsound. |
There is of course, the non-literal creationist lobby too, who espouse that God created the universe via the mechanism of the Big Bang and subsequently us via the mechanism of evolution. This is fair enough in my opinion, since our theories make no attempt to explain 'why' the Big Bang happened or indeed the physics at the singularity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tolls
There are loads, as we keep pointing out!
therapod to bird |
I love your comparison of a therapod to a sparrow, a chicken, an eagle, etc... 
By the way, what led for wings and feathers to appear?
Where did the therapod come from?
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
But the fossil record (and astronomy, geology, radiometric dating etc etc etc) don't just support evolution, they also contradict the Biblical account. |
You're just considering that the 6 days creation are literal, and that man was put on the garden after the completion of Earth. But what if what the radiometric dating is only showing the time needed to Earth to "age" without any interference, when it might just have been how God creates a planet, bombarding it with radiation, and such?
You could even get some Playdoh, bombard it with radiation for 1 month, and then make a measurement of radiation. What could prevent the value you obtain be different than if you left that piece of Playdoh under the sun, at Earth's current distance from it?
This thought might not be "scientific", but at least I'm not resting assured on your dogmas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Zealot:
quote:
You're just considering that the 6 days creation are literal, and that man was put on the garden after the completion of Earth. But what if what the radiometric dating is only showing the time needed to Earth to "age" without any interference, when it might just have been how God creates a planet, bombarding it with radiation, and such?
You could even get some Playdoh, bombard it with radiation for 1 month, and then make a measurement of radiation. What could prevent the value you obtain be different than if you left that piece of Playdoh under the sun, at Earth's current distance from it?
This thought might not be "scientific", but at least I'm not resting assured on your dogmas. |
How would living creatures survive these bursts of radiation? Radiometric dating indicates that life is millions of years old.
But this does nothing to explain the sequence of the fossil record, the order in which the fossils appear. It's precisely the order required by the "tree of life" pattern of common descent from shared ancestors. No form of literal-Genesis creationism has ever explained this miraculous coincidence. In fact, the creationists cannot even admit that this arrangement exists, because it contradicts Genesis (birds evolved from land animals, grass appears after the dinosaurs died, and so forth).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-01-2002 15:40
|