 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
There is physical evidence for quantum theory! Quantum entanglement has been observed. And, there is also the double slit experiment. If you emit only one electron at a time at a double slit, you still observe an interference pattern, eventhough there is only 1 electron. |
It is not direct observation, but observational inference, which is poo-pooed by creationists, especially when they refer to the fossil record.
quote:
Creation scientists study the fossil record too, you know. |
Um, the point was that one of the major (false) claims of Creationists is that there is no fossil evidence for evolution, hence it isn't true. The repeat this lie all the time. So for one of them to say "who cares" if there is no fossil evidence is just funny, since creationists claim to care about such a thing so much!
quote:
I am not going to get dragged into another evolution-creation debate. I am secure with my position. |
Fair enough, but I find it hard to believe people who are so secure in there position will post any and every desperate attempt to refute evolution, even when a little cursory digging will show such "refutations" have been dispensed with a long time ago (i.e. that old "Top Evidences Against Evolution chestnut). Next time, just post the old Second Law of Thermodynamics argument and let it all hang out. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Why not? if the animal became a fossil, then it will be in the fossil record. |
The time frame for the creationist universe is well under a million years fr the planet earth. If you happen to find a 75 million year old fossil, well, problem, no? Besides, what could a creationist use the fossil for besides historical curiosity? It can;t possible help porve the sotry of crwation true: and disproving the current version of evolutionary theory is NOT the same as proving creation.
In genesis, God creates everything: now, since we have the story of creation since then on file (accoridng to this world view), one needs only to study it to find that there is no mention of any cataclysm on earth vast enough to destroy whole eocnsystems but one, the Great Flood. but the problem here is that the text tells us God took precussions to save his animal creations . But of course sea creatures would be in no danger (unless you count the great dilluting of the water by adding so much fresh water,,makes you wonder how the salt-water fish made it? And how would fresh water oens take the increased salts??
Sorry, but the whole notion of "creationist scientists" shows this side has lost the intellectual battle. A true creationist take it on faith period. To attempt to gather evidence (of which there can be none, save Creation itself as a true believer would say) is to try to fight the battle on the ground of the other, and you are sure to fail then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It is not direct observation, but observational inference, |
Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Quantum entanglement experiments deal with real measurements of quantum states. In addition, Quantum teleportation of particles has been directly observed. Physicists can measure the particle's momentum for example. That's real direct observation.
quote:
Fair enough, but I find it hard to believe people who are so secure in there position will post any and every desperate attempt to refute evolution, even when a little cursory digging will show such "refutations" have been dispensed with a long time ago (i.e. that old "Top Evidences Against Evolution chestnut). Next time, just post the old Second Law of Thermodynamics argument and let it all hang out. |
So you'd rather that I never debate, and just hide in a room without questioning anything?
I debate not because I am insecure, but because I enjoy discussing these things. I like the exchange of ideas. That is the only way a person is going to learn and grow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The time frame for the creationist universe is well under a million years fr the planet earth. |
I am sure you are aware that not all creationists believe in a 6000 year old Earth. Only "young Earth creationist" believe that. There are many creationists who do not belive it.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Besides, what could a creationist use the fossil for besides historical curiosity? It can't possible help prove the story of creation true |
If the Flood occured, then we can expect the animals to have been deposited, and fossilized in a certain order. The fossil record confirms this order, lending credence to the Flood. So, believe it or not, creationists can study the fossil record.
Last edited by The diplomat on 01-08-2003 at 08:19
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tuberski
Why would it be silly? Until the earth and sun are created, there are no days as we know them.
Days on Jupiter are probably longer than on earth correct?
 ACK! |
The Earth is created day one, so that is not an issue.
And no, there is no mention of any day other than an earth day (24 hours).
I am sorry, but if one begin to haggle over the meaning of words in the Bible, well, then, lots of fun then! After all, idoloatry really means.... The word is day, the same as in every time day is used. There is no textual evidence to make the claim that the length of that day is any different, and without textual evidence, there is no foundation for the claim.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
 |
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The Earth is created day one, so that is not an issue.
And no, there is no mention of any day other than an earth day (24 hours).
I am sorry, but if one begin to haggle over the meaning of words in the Bible, well, then, lots of fun then! After all, idoloatry really means.... The word is day, the same as in every time day is used. There is no textual evidence to make the claim that the length of that day is any different, and without textual evidence, there is no foundation for the claim. |
True, according to my religion(non-practicing), the Bible has lost a lot of the words that were supposed to be in there. Dark Ages and such, when it was re-written things were removed.
That is the Mormon explanation for why the Bible is, at times, contradictory, and doesn't neccesarily tell it how it REALLY happened.
I find that to have a ring of truth.
ACK!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
If the Flood occured, then we can expect the animals to have been deposited, and fossilized in a certain order. The fossil record confirms this order, lending credence to the Flood. So, believe it or not, creationists can study the fossil record. |
Twice in the other thread I refuted this. You have never backed up this assertion, and you say it here a third time. I've shown you how the geologic record contradicts the Flood story. It does NOT appear as we would expect should the Flood have happened:
"How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer? "
These are just a few problems with the flood.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...ml#implications
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/The...odnonsense.html
Even Da Vinci, hundreds of years ago, used simple common sense to show that the Flood was nonsense:
"What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood."
Once again, baseless claims! This was what I was talking about--uncritical and unthinking reiteration of common Creationist claims, regardless of any factual support for them or whether or not they've already been soundly refuted. You employ a scattershot method: Attack, get refuted, ignore refutation and post a different attack, get refuted, ignore refuation, etc. Then you come back to reposting attacks that have been refuted. Worse, you're just getting the attacks piecemeal from various Creationist sources without any sense of being coherent. Negative argumentation of this sort is devoid of merit.
Now, how is it scientists have directly observed quantum phenomena, when we can't directly see an atom, much less subatomic particles? We use observational inference. Learn the terms!
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 02-08-2003 at 11:25
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-08-2003 07:35
So quit with your creationist BAMs. 
They are the morons that slant evidence to deny evolution (like Diplomat. 
|