View Full Version : Quick creationists! Come up with something!
LnGrrrR
10-14-2009, 12:48 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/14/darwinopterus.dinosaur.fossil/index.html
The creature's discovery has astounded scientists because their age puts them within two recognized groups of pterodactyls -- primitive long-tailed forms and advanced short-tail forms -- and they display characteristics of both.
This should be a fun thread.
nuclearfm
10-14-2009, 12:51 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/14/darwinopterus.dinosaur.fossil/index.html
This should be a fun thread.
Look, I tout evolution as much as anyone else, but I don't bring creationism into it. It's the religion that has the issue with it.
RandomGuy
10-14-2009, 12:52 PM
Good luck with that.
"God in the gaps" is good enough for a lot of people.
RandomGuy
10-14-2009, 12:53 PM
Look, I tout evolution as much as anyone else, but I don't bring creationism into it. It's the religion that has the issue with it.
But I am reasonably sure that the earth is nestled in the branches of ygddrasil. Odin created it that way, and "evolution" is simplly Loki's way of making true warriors stray from the path.
nuclearfm
10-14-2009, 12:55 PM
But I am reasonably sure that the earth is nestled in the branches of ygddrasil. Odin created it that way, and "evolution" is simplly Loki's way of making true warriors stray from the path.
http://img.skitch.com/20090310-fue4arsbcqnqj5q9327sc2gd46.jpg
LnGrrrR
10-14-2009, 12:58 PM
It'd be better if you posted a picture of Thor instead of Hercules there. :lol
SouthernFried
10-14-2009, 01:00 PM
I have known 9 yr olds that can argue religion well. Anyone over 25 that does is sorta behind the learning curve.
Tweaking people on religion, or atheism is better left to teenagers.
LnGrrrR
10-14-2009, 01:06 PM
I have known 9 yr olds that can argue religion well. Anyone over 25 that does is sorta behind the learning curve.
Tweaking people on religion, or atheism is better left to teenagers.
Cmon now, I rarely participate in the usual fact-less flame-war diatribes... can't I have some fun too?
Ah yes.
The enlightened, powerful, elitist mind of the non-believer.
Condescending to the last.
Bravo.
There is a physical explanation for all that has ever happened, and all that is written in the Bible. Curing the blind, feeding the masses, parting the Red Sea - I'm sure that if we could return to those sights, at those times with the cast of CSI, we would know EXACTLY why and how those stories got told. It still doesn't mean there is no God. I still have faith in God. I think His creation is that much more miraculous.
I pity intellectually dishonest believers who claim it is all done with a snap of his fingers and a flash of light; they fail to see the sublime beauty that is life and its evolution - and the fascinating, meaningful discoveries advanced science provides.
I pity the non-believers who have faith that this is all one big happy accident, and fail to recognize the sublime beauty of the gift that we have been given.
SouthernFried
10-14-2009, 01:17 PM
Cmon now, I rarely participate in the usual fact-less flame-war diatribes... can't I have some fun too?
Depends on your definition of fun I guess. It was fun for me to jibe people who believed in gods for a few yrs. Then I realized I liked them (on the whole) more than most of the atheists I listened to...so, I stopped.
But, I get your point...I can good naturedly banter with my religious friends. Hell, I go to church twice a week ;)
Mostly religious debates aren't really good natured tho. More of "Your an idiot for believing fairy tales, and here's why I'm so much smarter than you are cuz I don't believe in those fairy tales."
Seen too many large egoed (is that a word?) atheists trying to show how much smarter they are to enjoy the debates any longer. Most christians and churches do more good for their communities and friends, than most organized atheists groups do. And that's good enough for me.
i'll wager no one changes any ones mind in this thread. and i'll double the bet we see another one just like it in a few weeks.
LnGrrrR
10-14-2009, 01:31 PM
Ah yes.
The enlightened, powerful, elitist mind of the non-believer.
Condescending to the last.
Bravo.
Yes, because THAT rant surely did not come off as condescending or elitist. :lol
There is a physical explanation for all that has ever happened, and all that is written in the Bible. Curing the blind, feeding the masses, parting the Red Sea - I'm sure that if we could return to those sights, at those times with the cast of CSI, we would know EXACTLY why and how those stories got told. It still doesn't mean there is no God. I still have faith in God. I think His creation is that much more miraculous.
Yes, I agree there's no way to prove the existence of God. I would say that proof of some of the miracles that occur in the Bible is quite slim, but I wouldn't presume to argue there is no god/gods.
I pity intellectually dishonest believers who claim it is all done with a snap of his fingers and a flash of light; they fail to see the sublime beauty that is life and its evolution - and the fascinating, meaningful discoveries advanced science provides.
Agreed.
I pity the non-believers who have faith that this is all one big happy accident, and fail to recognize the sublime beauty of the gift that we have been given.
Are you saying atheists can't believe that this was a happy accident AND recognize how lucky we are to be alive? The two are not mutually exclusive.
LnGrrrR
10-14-2009, 01:36 PM
Seen too many large egoed (is that a word?) atheists trying to show how much smarter they are to enjoy the debates any longer. Most christians and churches do more good for their communities and friends, than most organized atheists groups do. And that's good enough for me.
That's probably because Christians are bound together by a common set of ideals, beliefs, values, etc etc, whereas the only things binding atheists together is a shared lack of belief, and nothing more, definitionally speaking. (Most atheists seem to share generally liberal views but that is not a universal truth.)
And most people won't change their political views 180 either, but we still all blather about those. :lol
Yes, because THAT rant surely did not come off as condescending or elitist. :lol
By design, thanks for noticing.
Yes, I agree there's no way to prove the existence of God. I would say that proof of some of the miracles that occur in the Bible is quite slim, but I wouldn't presume to argue there is no god/gods.
It is no easier to prove there is no God. Try it. Look up the greatest minds among the atheist set - check out their theories as to HOW all of this came to be (not life on earth, .. the existence of anything in the first place). It EASILY takes as much faith as believing in God.
Agreed.
Thanks
Are you saying atheists can't believe that this was a happy accident AND recognize how lucky we are to be alive? The two are not mutually exclusive.
No, anyone can believe anything they would like.
Are you saying atheists can't believe that this was a happy accident AND recognize how lucky we are to be alive? The two are not mutually exclusive.
i think he is saying that atheists should not dismiss the believers faith in an entity responsible for existence anymore than an atheist would not dismiss his or her's notion of pure chance.
it's all metaphysical assumption.
so i can understand the need to argue evolution as that is science but anything beyond that is just philosophy. science should only be concerned with tautology.
That's probably because Christians are bound together by a common set of ideals, beliefs, values, etc etc, whereas the only things binding atheists together is a shared lack of belief, and nothing more, definitionally speaking. (Most atheists seem to share generally liberal views but that is not a universal truth.)
And most people won't change their political views 180 either, but we still all blather about those. :lol
What makes Christians donate to charity in much higher numbers - and at a higher clip? It doesn't take an organization to cause one to feel compassion for his fellow man, and sacrifice for him/her.
Are you saying atheists can't believe that this was a happy accident AND recognize how lucky we are to be alive? The two are not mutually exclusive.
...and the rest of my answer; why I feel that as a gift, creation is more special;
If you find $10 bucks it feels good, but if your child saves and gives you $1 - it feels better. Gifts are better than accidents. To feel the love of one that would give you everything (up to and including his life) is good.
But I am reasonably sure that the earth is nestled in the branches of ygddrasil. Odin created it that way, and "evolution" is simplly Loki's way of making true warriors stray from the path.
Where you been, RG?
Entertaining movie:
vtNdYsoool8
Entertaining movie:
vtNdYsoool8
That is, no doubt, the view of most Christians many Atheists have. No wonder the condescension.
LnGrrrR
10-14-2009, 02:04 PM
What makes Christians donate to charity in much higher numbers - and at a higher clip? It doesn't take an organization to cause one to feel compassion for his fellow man, and sacrifice for him/her.
Maybe all of us atheists are greedy because we don't think we're going to get a second chance later? :D :lol
Sorry, but you missed the point of the movie.
It was about being open minded. Nobody knows the truth anyway.
LnGrrrR
10-14-2009, 02:09 PM
...and the rest of my answer; why I feel that as a gift, creation is more special;
If you find $10 bucks it feels good, but if your child saves and gives you $1 - it feels better. Gifts are better than accidents. To feel the love of one that would give you everything (up to and including his life) is good.
Eh, it's not quite the same. Getting 10 dollars isn't exactly the serendipity I'm talking about.
I'd like to think that some of the good fortunes in my life weren't "given" to me, and maybe I didn't "earn" them either, but they've just happened, and I feel all the luckier for it. But whatever works for you :)
Sorry, but you missed the point of the movie.
It was about being open minded. Nobody knows the truth anyway.
Didn't see the movie; saw your clip; in that clip the "believer" was an ignorant neophyte.
Didn't see the movie; saw your clip; in that clip the "believer" was an ignorant neophyte.
OK, you didn´t watch the movie.
It could be the other way around. The religious man standing, and the atheist on the chair. It´s the same.
The movie is about the stupidity of attacking people for thinking different.
OK, you didn´t watch the movie.
It could be the other way around. The religious man standing, and the atheist on the chair. It´s the same.
The movie is about the stupidity of attacking people for thinking different.
I've seen "Babe". Any talking pigs?
I'll watch it.
spursncowboys
10-14-2009, 03:57 PM
So this evidence is the connecting piece to proves humans were once apes?
LnGrrrR
10-14-2009, 04:02 PM
So this evidence is the connecting piece to proves humans were once apes?
See, THIS is the fun that I was looking for. :rollin
spursncowboys
10-14-2009, 04:10 PM
POPULATION STATISTICS
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.
BacktoBasics
10-14-2009, 04:12 PM
If its not Macro level DNA altering they're not interested.
spursncowboys
10-14-2009, 04:13 PM
Our world and humansare too perfectly made, for it to all be complete accidental against all odds type event.
A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17
http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm
and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago)
i think this was my favorite part.
spursncowboys
10-14-2009, 04:20 PM
i think this was my favorite part.
Is it as entertaining as the idea we were once amoebas?
from the same website:
The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.8
spursncowboys
10-14-2009, 04:23 PM
Evolution might as well be a religion since it is operated on faith.
POPULATION STATISTICS
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.
That is just all sorts of dumb
That website also believes in Giants. SnC, I'd reconsider what you link.
That website also believes in Giants. SnC, I'd reconsider what you link.
he's not going to.
Wild Cobra
10-14-2009, 06:30 PM
Evolution might as well be a religion since it is operated on faith.
They just don't get that. I'm tired of arguing when people fail to understand they are guilty of the same.
baseline bum
10-14-2009, 06:48 PM
Evolution might as well be a religion since it is operated on faith.
That's the most intellectually lazy argument that can be ever be made by creationists (and it's one of their favorites). Writing off theories because they're based on physical evidence and are not provable is nihilism at its finest. I mean, if we're going to demand some kind of infallible truth, then there's no such thing, since the deduction rule modus ponens that every other deduction rule is derived from is just an axiom. How do we really now modus ponens is right? How do we know the ZFC axioms that all of math and logic are based on are right? If you want to take this approach, then there is no such thing as truth and the world is entirely chaos. There's no such thing as knowledge in the world of someone making this argument that theory based only on evidence is faith.
Yonivore
10-14-2009, 06:50 PM
Personally, I don't think the question will ever be solved until someone determines from where and how matter originated.
spursncowboys
10-14-2009, 08:02 PM
That website also believes in Giants. SnC, I'd reconsider what you link. So fossils are acceptable except when they are found the be of men? I can't understand the logic behind big bang and the idea that we are he, by chance. Any ideas? How come apes aren't evolving still? How come humans haven't evolved more?
hope4dopes
10-14-2009, 08:38 PM
Evolution might as well be a religion since it is operated on faith. Yes and people's hold on that idea is as about open to different ideas, as fundementalists of any belief talking to stone walls.
There exists more between heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in one single philiosophy.
-- Hamlet, Act I, Sc. 5
baseline bum
10-14-2009, 08:46 PM
So you're another anti-intellectual nihilist too, micca? Figures.
Shastafarian
10-14-2009, 08:55 PM
POPULATION STATISTICS
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.
the important part of that statement.
Shastafarian
10-14-2009, 08:58 PM
So fossils are acceptable except when they are found the be of men?Are you talking about skeletons of giants?
I can't understand the logic behind big bang and the idea that we are he, by chance. Any ideas?Take a science course.
How come apes aren't evolving still?They are. Evolution isn't a speedy process. It's bases on mutations and propagation of those mutations.
How come humans haven't evolved more?
From what? Are you gonna claim H. erectus is faked or not an ancestor?
hope4dopes
10-14-2009, 09:02 PM
So you're another anti-intellectual nihilist too, micca? Figures.Wow talking to you is ridiculous, but whatever..look pin head scientific orthodoxy is one of science's greatest stumbling blocks. I recognize anyone as an idiot who thinks they "have the answer". The history of science is one great truth being replaced by another. I"m more interested in letting voices to be heard so the possiblities are endless.I don't pretend I have an answer or anyone else does, but I'm more interested in learning. I guess you only buy into the diverserty shit to a point.
If anyone is anti-intellectual it's you, you're so frightened of the little pink teddy bear called your world view, may be taken from you, that you try and make all assult on orthodoxy verboten. The next link in the chain of human knowledge is what the fun is about, let people feel free to think.
mouse
10-14-2009, 09:11 PM
Personally, I don't think the question will ever be solved until someone determines from where and how matter originated.
When you open your mouth doesn't shit come flying out? That is proof matter originates from the creator.
baseline bum
10-14-2009, 09:13 PM
Wow talking to you is ridiculous, but whatever..look pin head scientific orthodoxy is one of science's greatest stumbling blocks. I recognize anyone as an idiot who thinks they "have the answer". The history of science is one great truth being replaced by another. I"m more interested in letting voices to be heard so the possiblities are endless.I don't pretend I have an answer or anyone else does, but I'm more interested in learning. I guess you only buy into the diverserty shit to a point.
If anyone is anti-intellectual it's you, you're so frightened of the little pink teddy bear called your world view, may be taken from you, that you try and make all assult on orthodoxy verboten. The next link in the chain of human knowledge is what the fun is about, let people feel free to think.
You're the one arguing theory based on physical evidence is just faith, you fucking moron.
Are you talking about skeletons of giants?
Yup, his website has a picture of a replica of what they claim to be an accurate representation of a bone that was found in Turkey. The only problem is 1) No bone was ever found and 2) If that was a replica then that poor Giant must have been in a wheelchair because that femur is way too thin to support a human that size.
That website is actually very sad. It uses links to other creationist sites to prove itself.
spursncowboys
10-14-2009, 09:22 PM
the important part of that statement.
POPULATION STATISTICS
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. It helps when you read the whole thing.
Shastafarian
10-14-2009, 09:26 PM
I find a 1% growth rate for all of human history a little hard to believe. Where's the link?
spursncowboys
10-14-2009, 09:26 PM
Yup, his website has a picture of a replica of what they claim to be an accurate representation of a bone that was found in Turkey. The only problem is 1) No bone was ever found and 2) If that was a replica then that poor Giant must have been in a wheelchair because that femur is way too thin to support a human that size.
That website is actually very sad. It uses links to other creationist sites to prove itself. How is that any different from evolutionists? Do you have anything to dissipate the rest of the arguments I posted from that website?
baseline bum
10-14-2009, 09:32 PM
I find a 1% growth rate for all of human history a little hard to believe. Where's the link?
It's easy when you ignore things like lower life expectancies for adults, high infant mortality, adolescents dying at a higher rate when doing things like hunting, mothers dying in childbirth, and catastrophic events like the huge ice age that ended 10,000 years ago.
hope4dopes
10-14-2009, 09:35 PM
You're the one arguing theory based on physical evidence is just faith, you fucking moron.No shit for brains I'm the one arguing to let people think, I'd be just as dumbfounded if your moronic counterpart tried to stifle the theroy of evolution from being heard and discussed.It doesn't matter a whit to me if God created the world in 7 days or if God chose to create it through evolution.It's his gig.
nuclearfm
10-14-2009, 09:39 PM
Ah yes.
The enlightened, powerful, elitist mind of the non-believer.
Condescending to the last.
Bravo.
There is a physical explanation for all that has ever happened, and all that is written in the Bible. Curing the blind, feeding the masses, parting the Red Sea - I'm sure that if we could return to those sights, at those times with the cast of CSI, we would know EXACTLY why and how those stories got told. It still doesn't mean there is no God. I still have faith in God. I think His creation is that much more miraculous.
I pity intellectually dishonest believers who claim it is all done with a snap of his fingers and a flash of light; they fail to see the sublime beauty that is life and its evolution - and the fascinating, meaningful discoveries advanced science provides.
I pity the non-believers who have faith that this is all one big happy accident, and fail to recognize the sublime beauty of the gift that we have been given.
How do you reason the "bible" is that source, (I'm assuming the new testament) more of an authority than the Torah, or Quran alone. How do you reason it compared to other religions? You can't.
I'm not arguing against your "god". However, when you analyze the specifics of what your god's prescription in the bible, it doesn't hold much weight. Some things in that text are just flat lies, some can be construed as truths, but it takes some creative thinking.
You have to keep in mind, all of these books are written by man. When you give credibility to that book and man (or woman) in doing so, you lose credibility. Man (or woman) is in imperfect
spursncowboys
10-14-2009, 09:39 PM
No shit for brains I'm the one arguing to let people think, I'd be just as dumbfounded if your moronic counterpart tried to stifle the theroy of evolution from being heard and discussed.It doesn't matter a whit to me if God created the world in 7 days or if God chose to create it through evolution.It's his gig.
:toast I like that wording. Im stealing it.
spursncowboys
10-14-2009, 09:46 PM
rick ramashing and sir fred hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a boeing 747 from the materials therein.' "[3]
3. Sir fred hoyle (english astronomer), 'hoyle on the evolution'. Nature, vol. 294, 12 november 1981, p. 105.
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/fiftyreasons.htm
hope4dopes
10-14-2009, 09:47 PM
:toast I like that wording. Im stealing it.feel free
Shastafarian
10-14-2009, 09:48 PM
Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' "[3]
3. Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer), 'Hoyle on the Evolution'. Nature, vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.
If you can explain in your own words how they calculated this probability then I'll publicly renounce my views and become a republican. Hell if you can explain the different structures of a cell without copying and pasting I'll respect you enough to overlook your countless mistakes when you post.
If you can explain in your own words how they calculated this probability then I'll publicly renounce my views and become a republican. Hell if you can explain the different structures of a cell without copying and pasting I'll respect you enough to overlook your countless mistakes when you post.
There's no need, simply google Hoyle's fallacy. Hoyle's calculation does not factor simultaneous pairing, or even that natural selection is not random. He did have fascinating ideas on life coming from outer space though lol. Really the most horrifying (logically speaking) error is that he didn't even bother to account for symbiosis and eventual fusion of different cells.
Oh and proof that Hoyle believed natural selection was random and not selection is in his 747 analogy that creationists love. Take that same analogy and put in aircraft engineers instead of a tornado and you have yourself selection.
baseline bum
10-14-2009, 10:08 PM
No shit for brains I'm the one arguing to let people think, I'd be just as dumbfounded if your moronic counterpart tried to stifle the theroy of evolution from being heard and discussed.It doesn't matter a whit to me if God created the world in 7 days or if God chose to create it through evolution.It's his gig.
You're arguing that theory through evidence is the same thing as faith. That's exactly what you agreed with in your post where you agreed with this statement: Evolution might as well be a religion since it is operated on faith.. You ignorant fuck.
symple19
10-14-2009, 10:16 PM
http://blog.jimmyr.com/pics/183_19.jpg
nuclearfm
10-14-2009, 10:33 PM
You're arguing that theory through evidence is the same thing as faith. That's exactly what you agreed with in your post where you agreed with this statement: Evolution might as well be a religion since it is operated on faith.. You ignorant fuck.
Logic is not commonly held by this type of individual. It's all subjective
hope4dopes
10-14-2009, 10:45 PM
You're arguing that theory through evidence is the same thing as faith. That's exactly what you agreed with in your post where you agreed with this statement: Evolution might as well be a religion since it is operated on faith.. You ignorant fuck. No pin head I'm argueing that you hold onto a belief of what reality is, and that it threatens you when that belief is questioned.How many theories through evedince have been shattered once we knew more.
hope4dopes
10-14-2009, 10:46 PM
Logic is not commonly held by this type of individual. It's all subjective
Hey why don't you back and cruise stormfront for a boyfriend and leave the adolecent pot shots to Chimp.
nuclearfm
10-14-2009, 10:50 PM
Hey why don't you back and cruise stormfront for a boyfriend and leave the adolecent pot shots to Chimp.
:sleep
hope4dopes
10-14-2009, 10:53 PM
Logic is not commonly held by this type of individual. It's all subjectiveDude if you were as logical as you proffess to be you'd analyze just how limited your knowledge is in the face of what you don't know and come to only one logical conclusion, and that is your massive insecurity has turned you into an insufferable and and pathetic ass, and that you should probablly spend the rest of your days cruising stormfront looking for somebody to give you a good spanking, or stop being such a twit and stop pretending you know anything much.
baseline bum
10-14-2009, 10:56 PM
No pin head I'm argueing that you hold onto a belief of what reality is, and that it threatens you when that belief is questioned.How many theories through evedince have been shattered once we knew more.
Quit spinning. You clearly stated you thought evolution was based on faith. Just because you say something stupid doesn't mean it goes away once you move the goalposts.
nuclearfm
10-14-2009, 11:03 PM
Dude if you were as logical as you proffess to be you'd analyze just how limited your knowledge is in the face of what you don't know and come to only one logical conclusion, and that is your massive insecurity has turned you into an insufferable and and pathetic ass, and that you should probablly spend the rest of your days cruising stormfront looking for somebody to give you a good spanking, or stop being such a twit and stop pretending you know anything much.
I don't pretend to know all, in fact I'm working on it as a continual process. I probably would be better off spending less time on here and doing that instead. What I do know is blatant ignorance, hypocrisy and common failure in objectivity and logic that is require to gain knowledge.
Many people would deny sites like stormfront exist with millions of members. In fact many of them post in secrecy. Does that bother you that I bring attention to it? I'd post the same about the NOI, if it was that easy.
hope4dopes
10-14-2009, 11:04 PM
Quit spinning. You clearly stated you thought evolution was based on faith. Just because you say something stupid doesn't mean it goes away once you move the goalposts.The only thing spinning is your head I clearly stated that anybody that holds onto a theroy, and goes through life without the ability to allow that theroy to be questioned, without the ability, and even the wish to let that theroy be destroyed in order for a clearer picture of the nature of life and reality to come, is as stuck as some snake handler in appalachia.
Great theroy ........for now.
PixelPusher
10-14-2009, 11:09 PM
Our world and humansare too perfectly made, for it to all be complete accidental against all odds type event.
humans are not "perfectly made"...and I have an apendectomy scar to prove it.
hope4dopes
10-14-2009, 11:11 PM
I don't pretend to know all, in fact I'm working on it as a continual process. I probably would be better off spending less time on here and doing that instead. What I do know is blatant ignorance, hypocrisy and common failure in objectivity and logic that is require to gain knowledge.
Many people would deny sites like stormfront exist with millions of members. In fact many of them post in secrecy. Does that bother you that I bring attention to it? I'd post the same about the NOI, if it was that easy.
NO you fucking wouldn't you're an ideolouge.There are tons of sites like the NOI you choose to ignore them in your unrelenting search for the truth.
Some of the first and some of the present's most gallant and brilliant scientist have been men of faith, they found no problem with having both in thier lives. I don't see how lesser minds can not stop and ponder this before they start flinging arrows.
baseline bum
10-14-2009, 11:13 PM
The only thing spinning is your head I clearly stated that anybody that holds onto a theroy, and goes through life without the ability to allow that theroy to be questioned, without the ability, and even the wish to let that theroy be destroyed in order for a clearer picture of the nature of life and reality to come, is as stuck as some snake handler in appalachia.
Great theroy ........for now.
You clearly stated you agreed that evolution is faith and now you're backpedaling because it's an incredibly stupid idea to try to equate scientific knowledge with blind faith.
hope4dopes
10-14-2009, 11:16 PM
You clearly stated you agreed that evolution is faith and now you're backpedaling because it's an incredibly stupid idea to try to equate scientific knowledge with blind faith. Dude your needle is stuck bump the turntable you can't wrap your head around this anymore than the snake handler can wrap his head around the ascent of man.
baseline bum
10-14-2009, 11:31 PM
Dude your needle is stuck bump the turntable you can't wrap your head around this anymore than the snake handler can wrap his head around the ascent of man.
You'd make a good senator the way you can say stupid shit and then spin.
nuclearfm
10-14-2009, 11:47 PM
NO you fucking wouldn't you're an ideolouge.There are tons of sites like the NOI you choose to ignore them in your unrelenting search for the truth.
Some of the first and some of the present's most gallant and brilliant scientist have been men of faith, they found no problem with having both in thier lives. I don't see how lesser minds can not stop and ponder this before they start flinging arrows.
I don't have a problem with them either. Most people like that didn't confuse their lives with nonsense you're willing to propagate.
Blake
10-15-2009, 12:46 AM
Ah yes.
The enlightened, powerful, elitist mind of the non-believer.
Condescending to the last.
parting the Reed Sea
fify
Blake
10-15-2009, 12:47 AM
It is no easier to prove there is no God. Try it.
define God
Blake
10-15-2009, 12:50 AM
Evolution might as well be a religion since it is operated on faith.
this gets my vote for best line
Blake
10-15-2009, 12:53 AM
When you open your mouth doesn't shit come flying out? That is proof matter originates from the creator.
from you it does. I have proof.
Blake
10-15-2009, 01:00 AM
.....you can't wrap your head around this anymore than the snake handler can wrap his head around the ascent of man.
wtf? :lol
mouse
10-15-2009, 01:50 AM
define God
Save us all some time answering you and look in the mirror. You seem to have all the God like qualities many look for in a Creator. Your strong,smart,and very talented. If only you could apply this same passion you use hating the Christians at ST and go to nursing school.
Just think you can work in the X-Ray department and carbon date peoples bones as you check for cancer.
Evolution might as well be a religion since it is operated on faith.
Evolution is not theory.
It is verified, scientific fact - it happens.
Darwin's premise of "natural selection" is what is theory.
You don't help your cause by being ignorant.
How do you reason the "bible" is that source, (I'm assuming the new testament) more of an authority than the Torah, or Quran alone. How do you reason it compared to other religions? You can't.
I'm not arguing against your "god". However, when you analyze the specifics of what your god's prescription in the bible, it doesn't hold much weight. Some things in that text are just flat lies, some can be construed as truths, but it takes some creative thinking.
You have to keep in mind, all of these books are written by man. When you give credibility to that book and man (or woman) in doing so, you lose credibility. Man (or woman) is in imperfect
Wow. I never thought of that!
There's other religions? Who knew?
It's not like I'm 41 years old, been through the very same logical, rational, very enlightened exercise you are going through now, and ultimately came out the other side with a different perspective.
ElNono
10-15-2009, 08:12 AM
rick ramashing and sir fred hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a boeing 747 from the materials therein.' "[3]
3. Sir fred hoyle (english astronomer), 'hoyle on the evolution'. Nature, vol. 294, 12 november 1981, p. 105.
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/fiftyreasons.htm
Hoyle's Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy)
Wild Cobra
10-15-2009, 10:51 AM
Sorry Cowboy, I have to agree with ElNono on this.
The odds that one cell could change are so highly improbable, but when you throw in the mix of billions of star systems, billions of years, and countless molecules, etc, something remarkable can happen. Like the Poweball, but on a larger scale. The chances of any one ticket winning it is so ridiculously thin, but when you contemplate the hundreds of millions of games played, someone eventuality wins.
I am a believe of both evolution and intelligent design. I believe a higher power, may it be God(s) or aliens, had an influence on the natural development.
Shastafarian
10-15-2009, 11:16 AM
Evolution is not theory.
It is verified, scientific fact - it happens.
Darwin's premise of "natural selection" is what is theory.
You don't help your cause by being ignorant.
Scientific Theory isn't theory in the sense that I have a theory about who you voted for. If you knew anything about science you'd know that.
spursncowboys
10-15-2009, 11:24 AM
You clearly stated you agreed that evolution is faith and now you're backpedaling because it's an incredibly stupid idea to try to equate scientific knowledge with blind faith.
You are thinking of me. Evolution isn't based on facts. Show me how it is. It is theories and ideas.
Shastafarian
10-15-2009, 11:25 AM
You are thinking of me. Evolution isn't based on facts. Show me how it is. It is theories and ideas.
Evolution is based on observations. Religion is based on a book of stories.
spursncowboys
10-15-2009, 11:28 AM
Evolution is not theory.
It is verified, scientific fact - it happens.
Darwin's premise of "natural selection" is what is theory.
You don't help your cause by being ignorant.
So there is factual data that shows humans coming from apes?
Shastafarian
10-15-2009, 11:30 AM
So there is factual data that shows humans coming from apes?
Yeah. It's called genetics.
hope4dopes
10-15-2009, 11:30 AM
Evolution is based on observations. Religion is based on a book of stories. ?religon is based on a book of stories?
Shastafarian
10-15-2009, 11:32 AM
?religon is based on a book of stories?
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are based on books are they not?
spursncowboys
10-15-2009, 11:34 AM
Evolution is based on observations. Religion is based on a book of stories.
Merrian Webster - evolution: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
spursncowboys
10-15-2009, 11:34 AM
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are based on books are they not?
Christianity isn't.
spursncowboys
10-15-2009, 11:38 AM
Yeah. It's called genetics.
That is not factual data that shows any organism evolved to a more complex organism.
hope4dopes
10-15-2009, 11:43 AM
judaism, christianity, and islam are based on books are they not? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh..... Nah.
spursncowboys
10-15-2009, 11:45 AM
...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation (http://www.conservapedia.com/Creation) disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American (http://www.conservapedia.com/Scientific_American) article are full of examples of this fallacy.
Dr. Jonathan Safati
Shastafarian
10-15-2009, 11:45 AM
Christianity isn't.:rollin What's it based on then?
That is not factual data that shows any organism evolved to a more complex organism.Partially it is. Then you could look at homologous structures and the genes behind them. But you won't because you have no idea what I'm talking about
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh..... Nah.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh yeah
Scientific Theory isn't theory in the sense that I have a theory about who you voted for. If you knew anything about science you'd know that.
I know enough. My statement was accurate.
So there is factual data that shows humans coming from apes?
No.
But that is not what I said, is it?
Evolution happens is what I said; nothing more, nothing less.
There is plenty of evidence that there have hominids in earlier stages of development have existed at one time on this planet - some with direct characteristics to our own, some with similarities, but no direct relationship. I will not be shocked if the infamous "missing link" at some point turns up; nor will it shake my faith in God, OR that I am made in His image.
ElNono
10-15-2009, 12:48 PM
I will not be shocked if the infamous "missing link" at some point turns up; nor will it shake my faith in God, OR that I am made in His image.
Would scientific confirmation of the Big Bang theory shake your belief in God, or lack of God to be more specific?
hope4dopes
10-15-2009, 12:55 PM
Would scientific confirmation of the Big Bang theory shake your belief in God, or lack of God to be more specific? why would it.
Shastafarian
10-15-2009, 01:29 PM
I know enough. My statement was accurate.
Were you not being facetious this whole time?
ElNono
10-15-2009, 01:32 PM
why would it.
I'm trying to gauge up to which point he will rationalize God into anything and everything.
Some people would give up their faith under certain circumstances
For example, upon finding out that we're merely a freakish accident that happened after billions of years. Another example would be the discovery of an advanced alien race.
Some people would never give up their faith under any circumstance.
spursncowboys
10-15-2009, 01:59 PM
"Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." -Karl Marx
spursncowboys
10-15-2009, 02:03 PM
Some people would never give up their faith under any circumstance.
Isn't that the definition of faith?
ElNono
10-15-2009, 02:05 PM
Isn't that the definition of faith?
Not really, no... Go fetch a dictionary.
I'm trying to gauge up to which point he will rationalize God into anything and everything.
Some people would give up their faith under certain circumstances
For example, upon finding out that we're merely a freakish accident that happened after billions of years. Another example would be the discovery of an advanced alien race.
Some people would never give up their faith under any circumstance.
From the first page of this thread:
There is a physical explanation for all that has ever happened, and all that is written in the Bible. Curing the blind, feeding the masses, parting the Red Sea - I'm sure that if we could return to those sights, at those times with the cast of CSI, we would know EXACTLY why and how those stories got told. It still doesn't mean there is no God. I still have faith in God. I think His creation is that much more miraculous.
Were you not being facetious this whole time?
No.
ElNono
10-15-2009, 03:04 PM
From the first page of this thread:
Thanks, I missed that.
Sec24Row7
10-15-2009, 03:28 PM
This didn't fill in a gap... it created two new ones!
Shastafarian
10-15-2009, 08:34 PM
No.
Oh whoops my mistake. I thought you were pulling a spursncowboys.
spursncowboys
10-15-2009, 08:38 PM
Oh whoops my mistake. I thought you were pulling a spursncowboys. As long as my name isn't synonymous with cheerleading. Good job proving theory of evolution is more than a faith based belief.
Shastafarian
10-15-2009, 08:52 PM
Is faith based on observations?
hope4dopes
10-15-2009, 08:55 PM
I'm trying to gauge up to which point he will rationalize God into anything and everything.
Some people would give up their faith under certain circumstances
For example, upon finding out that we're merely a freakish accident that happened after billions of years. Another example would be the discovery of an advanced alien race.
Some people would never give up their faith under any circumstance.
Let those who have eyes see and ears hear.
To those who have faith no proof is necesarry, to those who don't ,no proof is sufficient.
hope4dopes
10-15-2009, 08:57 PM
Is faith based on observations?to a large part, for some people, I thinks so.I think people come to know God from many different angles.
Shastafarian
10-15-2009, 09:15 PM
to a large part, for some people, I thinks so.I think people come to know God from many different angles.
If faith was based on observations then what are you having faith in? That those observations are real and not something you imagined?
Blake
10-16-2009, 03:42 AM
Save us all some time answering you and look in the mirror. You seem to have all the God like qualities many look for in a Creator. Your strong,smart,and very talented. If only you could apply this same passion you use hating the Christians at ST and go to nursing school.
Just think you can work in the X-Ray department and carbon date peoples bones as you check for cancer.
you're a proven liar
Blake
10-16-2009, 03:48 AM
nor will it shake my faith in God, OR that I am made in His image.
just curious, how strong is your faith in the Bible?
Blake
10-16-2009, 03:51 AM
To those who have faith no proof is necesarry, to those who don't ,no proof is sufficient.
God showing up in person would be sufficient proof.
mouse
10-16-2009, 04:14 AM
you're a proven liar
And proud of it! who hasn't?
Do you tell your Mother you masturbate while watching Hanna Montana?
Trust me I rather people know I can admit I lied like we all do in our lives then to try and come across like I am the only human on earth who has never lied and only tells the truth like you claim to.
so which is it going to be Blake. your going to admit you have lied also , or are you going to again make a fool of yourself and say you have never lied?
Either way your foot will surely end up deep in that nasty man chowder dripping hole you call a mouth.
baseline bum
10-16-2009, 04:47 AM
"Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." -Karl Marx
Wow. Let me accept that your argument is valid. Then Beethoven's 9th Symphony is trash since it was performed here to honor Hitler's birthday, and for the enjoyment of Joseph Goebbels.
R7y08vr4ulI
You have the most fucking backwards logic of anyone who posts on spurstalk.
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 07:28 AM
Sorry Cowboy, I have to agree with ElNono on this.
The odds that one cell could change are so highly improbable, but when you throw in the mix of billions of star systems, billions of years, and countless molecules, etc, something remarkable can happen. Like the Poweball, but on a larger scale. The chances of any one ticket winning it is so ridiculously thin, but when you contemplate the hundreds of millions of games played, someone eventuality wins.
I am a believe of both evolution and intelligent design. I believe a higher power, may it be God(s) or aliens, had an influence on the natural development.
WC, do you know of any scientists who have found one specific irreducible complexity that hasn't been countered by a majority of scientists?
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 07:30 AM
Merrian Webster - evolution: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
Well, forms of evolution have been already shown to occur during our lifetime. Of course, if you want to go the BS macro/micro evolution route, then no. That could be because macroevolution usuallys takes hundreds of generations though.
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 07:32 AM
"Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." -Karl Marx
Karl Marx was a brilliant philosopher and thinker. His writings have had a profound effect on humanity, and anyone in his day and age would most likely have been affected the same way by Darwin.
I don't get what your quote is supposed to prove.
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 07:33 AM
This didn't fill in a gap... it created two new ones!
:rollin
just curious, how strong is your faith in the Bible?
I take it at face value. As a Christian, however, it is what I have to use as the basis for my faith.
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 08:19 AM
I take it at face value. As a Christian, however, it is what I have to use as the basis for my faith.
As an atheist, I use to think of myriad things that God could do to "prove" himself to me. But as I've grown older, I've realized that wouldn't work either... then I'd "know" God's existence as I would a regular person. That's not quite the same feeling that believers have, I'm relatively sure.
I've come to the acceptance that if there is a God, and he wants me to follow him, he already knows exactly what he has to do for me to believe. So it's pretty much up to him. :) And I'm completely fine with that.
Wild Cobra
10-16-2009, 10:13 AM
WC, do you know of any scientists who have found one specific irreducible complexity that hasn't been countered by a majority of scientists?
I couldn't cite you the evidence or link, but I've seen such things illustrated before, and I believe it.
Evolution, I have no doubt is real. There are just some leaps in organisms that nobody has been able to explain by evolution alone.
Find any "creationists" yet? I assume by the term, you mean the more fundamental thinker that believes in radical creation in just 6ix days.
Shastafarian
10-16-2009, 10:15 AM
Evolution, I have no doubt is real. There are just some leaps in organisms that nobody has been able to explain by evolution alone.
Such as?
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 10:19 AM
I couldn't cite you the evidence or link, but I've seen such things illustrated before, and I believe it.
You're probably thinking of the "flagella" argument, proposed by Michael Behe. However, that has been debunked by quite a few scientists, and I believe a real example of an alternate evolution has been found as well.
The eye is also often said to be of irreducible complexity, but different stages in the evolution of eyes have been found.
Evolution, I have no doubt is real. There are just some leaps in organisms that nobody has been able to explain by evolution alone.
Such as? Also, this is usually referred to as "God of the Gaps" theory, where if one theory does not have the answers, "God" fills them in.
Find any "creationists" yet? I assume by the term, you mean the more fundamental thinker that believes in radical creation in just 6ix days.
Only a few. :D
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 01:19 PM
And proud of it! who hasn't?
Do you tell your Mother you masturbate while watching Hanna Montana?
Trust me I rather people know I can admit I lied like we all do in our lives then to try and come across like I am the only human on earth who has never lied and only tells the truth like you claim to.
so which is it going to be Blake. your going to admit you have lied also , or are you going to again make a fool of yourself and say you have never lied?
Either way your foot will surely end up deep in that nasty man chowder dripping hole you call a mouth.
You are sick.
SnakeBoy
10-16-2009, 01:22 PM
I have known 9 yr olds that can argue religion well. Anyone over 25 that does is sorta behind the learning curve.
Tweaking people on religion, or atheism is better left to teenagers.
Well said.
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 01:29 PM
Karl Marx was a brilliant philosopher and thinker. His writings have had a profound effect on humanity, and anyone in his day and age would most likely have been affected the same way by Darwin.
I don't get what your quote is supposed to prove.
Over 200 million murdered by their socialist government which originate from Karl Marx. But yeah I was going to add a Hitler quote about Darwin to show the type of people who used this to murder religious leaders, and cultures. I would love to show the link of these type of mad men but don't have the time to spend on finding the information. That is why all I did was paste the quote, I didn't add my opnion.
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 01:35 PM
Over 200 million murdered by their socialist government which originate from Karl Marx. But yeah I was going to add a Hitler quote about Darwin to show the type of people who used this to murder religious leaders, and cultures. I would love to show the link of these type of mad men but don't have the time to spend on finding the information. That is why all I did was paste the quote, I didn't add my opnion.
Karl Marx did not cause those deaths though; someone took some of his ideas, transformed them into something else, and used that as justification. I don't think Karl Marx was claiming that it was necessary to eliminate an entire people for his philosophy to work.
If anything, I would say Neitzche or Heidegger's philosophical works would have had a more direct impact on the Nazi movement.
Why are these new findings between the time periods of long tail/short tail? In this same vein, what proof do we have concerning the time periods themselves? Why is one considered later in time than the other, and these in the middle of that timespan?
Why is one more 'advanced' than the other, while the newest find is in the middle in terms of 'advancement'?
How are their ages ascertained? Are only pterodactyls found?
What killed them, and why were they grouped together?
Why did they fossilize?
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 02:50 PM
Why are these new findings between the time periods of long tail/short tail? In this same vein, what proof do we have concerning the time periods themselves? Why is one considered later in time than the other, and these in the middle of that timespan?
Why is one more 'advanced' than the other, while the newest find is in the middle in terms of 'advancement'?
How are their ages ascertained? Are only pterodactyls found?
What killed them, and why were they grouped together?
Why did they fossilize?
Zosa, let's not play dumb. The first question is merely an opening so you can claim the supposed faultiness of carbon dating, the second and third are variations on the first, the fourth doesn't make a difference, and the fifth is easily explained by this wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilization
Zosa, let's not play dumb.
I'm not. Answer the questions, quick evolutionist! Come up with something!
The first question is merely an opening so you can claim the supposed faultiness of carbon dating,
Wrong. You can't carbon date ancient fossils - or anything that is more than thousands of years old. DUH.
the second and third are variations on the first,
They are expansions on the same question (which you do not have any idea why I asked), which I duly noted.
the fourth doesn't make a difference,
Then come up with something, quick!
and the fifth is easily explained by this wikipedia page.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilization
It doesn't explain WHY these animals fossilized, only HOW the process occurs. So answer the question.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 02:59 PM
Fossils need a reason to fossilize.
Fossils need a reason to fossilize.
Indeed, or evolution would be a defunct theory regarding the huge lack of total fossils, regardless of interpretations on existing ones.
TFloss32
10-16-2009, 03:01 PM
I've come to the acceptance that if there is a God, and he wants me to follow him, he already knows exactly what he has to do for me to believe. So it's pretty much up to him. :) And I'm completely fine with that.
What does He have to do, exactly?
Alex Jones
10-16-2009, 03:04 PM
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-240637.png
clambake
10-16-2009, 03:04 PM
fossils were planted?
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 03:04 PM
Indeed, or evolution would be a defunct theory regarding the huge lack of total fossils, regardless of interpretations on existing ones.:lol That's a new one.
So from a creationist viewpoint, why do fossils fossilize?
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 03:06 PM
What does He have to do, exactly?
I've realized that I have no clue what he could do to convince me. But I'm assuming he would know, since he is God.
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 03:07 PM
Fossils fossilize because they realize if will make them famous. They're like martyrs. Sheesh chump, everyone knows THAT! :)
:lol That's a new one.
How many lives of animals and plants were lived and ended in some 3.5 billion years, Dump? Any estimate you'd like to make? Now why aren't there more fossils showing this huge loss of life? Your friendly scientists already answered this for you, because its a major argument against evolution, so go ahead and google it Dump.
RandomGuy is here. Now, I will get actually debatable, intelligently thought out answers. Props to RG, regardless of whether he insults me or whatever.
RandomGuy
10-16-2009, 03:12 PM
Zosa, let's not play dumb. The first question is merely an opening so you can claim the supposed faultiness of carbon dating, the second and third are variations on the first, the fourth doesn't make a difference, and the fifth is easily explained by this wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilization
Remember that carbon-14 dating will only really get you so far.
Much other dating of older fossils and rocks is done by studying radioactive decay of other atoms with MUCH longer half-lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
One has to be aware that many people who describe themselves as "creationists" have odd concepts of what the theory of evolution actually is. Many creationist websites pretty much outright lie about what evolution actually says in rather obvious attempts at strawman arguments (i.e. distorting an idea to discredit it).
Others seem to lump many disparate disciplines, such as physics, astronomy, etc. as being "evolutionist", simply because these other discplines have data that show the universe as being older than the 10,000 years or so biblical literalists say it is.
TFloss32
10-16-2009, 03:13 PM
I've realized that I have no clue what he could do to convince me. But I'm assuming he would know, since he is God.
How do you know He hasn't already done it? You can't find something if you don't know what you're looking for.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 03:14 PM
How many lives of animals and plants were lived and ended in some 3.5 billion years, Dump? Any estimate you'd like to make?More than seven.
Now why aren't there more fossils showing this huge loss of life? Your friendly scientists already answered this for you, because its a major argument against evolution, so go ahead and google it Dump.Actually, a lot of it goes into my car, the power plants that light my home, the plastic container that held today's sandwich. All made possible by ______ fuels -- I can't quite think of the first name yet. Maybe it starts with an F.
You know, conservatives are always saying that there are vast undiscovered reserves of this magic fuel, so perhaps there is a lot more evidence of this huge loss of life. Enough to fill several billion barrel-like containers.
I have a hard time believing a man built an ark big enough to carry millions of animals, including dinosaurs (if dinosaurs and humans coexisted as stated in - Job 40:15-19 -)
SnakeBoy
10-16-2009, 03:21 PM
So from a creationist viewpoint, why do fossils fossilize?
They're not fossils, just throw aways from young Jesus' pottery classes.
baseline bum
10-16-2009, 03:21 PM
Over 200 million murdered by their socialist government which originate from Karl Marx. But yeah I was going to add a Hitler quote about Darwin to show the type of people who used this to murder religious leaders, and cultures. I would love to show the link of these type of mad men but don't have the time to spend on finding the information. That is why all I did was paste the quote, I didn't add my opnion.
Hey jerkoff, so does that make Beethoven's 9th trash because it was used heavily for Nazi propaganda? If your stupid fucking argument about Darwin's theory being invalidated because Marx was a follower is valid, then surely my point about Beethoven is also true, since it was admired and used by Hitler to advance the Nazi movement. Unless you want to argue that being directly responsible for murdering 6 million people is worse than writing a book.
RandomGuy
10-16-2009, 03:26 PM
I http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-240637.png
Distortion #1
"Circular reasoning forms the basis of dating things from fossil/rock strata".
Many believe that carbon dating is a primary method of dating the fossil record, but this is not the case. Scientists do not use it beyond 50,000 years ago, because the proportion of isotope left is too small for accurate measurement.
The main techniques for absolute dating of fossils is the dating of the geological strata in which, or between which the fossils are found. Generally, a fossil should be as old as the rocks within which it is found. However, scientists also check for factors such as geological upheavals and, for archaic humans, deliberate burials, which could change the record.
There are now many scientifically sound and verifiable techniques for dating a rock stratum. And because there are so many, they can be often used to cross-check each other to prove any conclusions reached.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_process_of_dating_fossils_often_an_exam ple_of_circular_reasoning
The reason this is a distortion is that strata are NOT dated by fossils.
Fossils are ONLY dated by strata, and NOT the other way around.
TFloss32
10-16-2009, 03:29 PM
I have a hard time believing a man built an ark big enough to carry millions of animals, including dinosaurs (if dinosaurs and humans coexisted as stated in - Job 40:15-19 -)
Almost every religion dating back to the ancient Sumerians has some kind of flood story. It probably originated due to the constant flooding of Mesopotamia being that it was located between the Tigris and Euphrates River(s). A form of this story (on a much, much smaller scale) probably happened in ancient times, but the world that they knew was only a fraction of what we know now (so it probably looked to them as if the whole world was flooded). It's basically just a bedtime story to show what will happen if you commit sin.
Job doesn't state anything about dinosaurs. The word "behemoth" is used, but that is all.
How many lives of animals and plants were lived and ended in some 3.5 billion years, Dump? Any estimate you'd like to make? Now why aren't there more fossils showing this huge loss of life? Your friendly scientists already answered this for you, because its a major argument against evolution, so go ahead and google it Dump.
Oil, Coal, etc....is where they are; we're burning them now - because they existed in the past we have them to use now to better our lives. Convenient if you ask me. For many this is, again, happy coincidence. I choose to see that as evidence of a God. By denying the wonder and beauty of His creation, you are demeaning it, and making yourself VERY easy to dismiss.
More than seven. Actually, a lot of it goes into my car, the power plants that light my home, the plastic container that held today's sandwich. All made possible by ______ fuels -- I can't quite think of the first name yet. Maybe it starts with an F.
You know, conservatives are always saying that there are vast undiscovered reserves of this magic fuel, so perhaps there is a lot more evidence of this huge loss of life. Enough to fill several billion barrel-like containers.
I'm not getting your point, Dumpy, or maybe you're trying to prove mine? I asked why the pterodactyls fossilized (as they did is unmentioned to its its obvious quality). Often this ties in with how it died. Answer the question, instead of deflect it, Dump.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 03:38 PM
Oil, Coal, etc....is where they are; we're burning them now - because they existed in the past we have them to use now to better our lives. Convenient if you ask me. For many this is, again, happy coincidence. I choose to see that as evidence of a God. By denying the wonder and beauty of His creation, you are demeaning it, and making yourself VERY easy to dismiss.Yeah, I don't see how the fact that there was a shitload of life that got squeezed and heated into stinky blobs of goo is necessarily evidence against God.
I do want to hear zosa's creationist reasoning for fossilization. There really doesn't need to be a "why" from an evolutionist standpoint. Shit happens and that was a record of what happened. If God made some life into stinky goo and some into fossils, he would be the one who needs a reason to do so.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 03:43 PM
I'm not getting your point, Dumpy, or maybe you're trying to prove mine? I asked why the pterodactyls fossilized (as they did is unmentioned to its its obvious quality). Often this ties in with how it died. Answer the question, instead of deflect it, Dump.Actually I answered a different question of yours -- where is all this evidence of life.
Some of it is in my car, which I am going to drive in a minute to probably by something made from stinky goo that used to be alive.
Some things die and get covered up. Those things could fossilize -- or they could turn into goo.
Other things die and don't get covered up. Those things don't fossilize.
I was under the impression that fossilization was not a typically common process. If God says it is, I'd like a link to his quote.
Thanks.
Oil, Coal, etc....is where they are; we're burning them now - because they existed in the past we have them to use now to better our lives. Convenient if you ask me. For many this is, again, happy coincidence. I choose to see that as evidence of a God. By denying the wonder and beauty of His creation, you are demeaning it, and making yourself VERY easy to dismiss.
Fossil fuels or mineral fuels are fuels formed by natural resources such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms. The age of the organisms and their resulting fossil fuels is typically millions of years, and sometimes exceeds 650 million years.[1]
Bolded text by me. So, let's assume the oldest fossil fuels are 1 billion years old (which is likely a far stretch). Doesn't that leave 2 billion years of unaccounted-for fossil fuels, especially considering we have definitive evidence the Cambrian explosion occurred around our oldest known fossil fuels (basically, that incredibly varied biodiversity, and anatomically complex animals/plants appeared without previous transitional forms at this point, therefore one must conclude that many of these existed, in lesser forms, for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years previous)?
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 03:55 PM
Bolded text by me. So, let's assume the oldest fossil fuels are 1 billion years old (which is likely a far stretch). Doesn't that leave 2 billion years of unaccounted-for fossil fuels, especially considering we have definitive evidence the Cambrian explosion occurred around our oldest known fossil fuels (basically, that incredibly varied biodiversity, and anatomically complex animals/plants appeared without previous transitional forms at this point, therefore one must conclude that many of these existed, in lesser forms, for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years previous)?So your assumption is there is unaccounted-for fossil fuels. Are you saying it doesn't exist or that no fossil fuel that old has been dated?
Seems like a straw man to me.
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 03:59 PM
How do you know He hasn't already done it? You can't find something if you don't know what you're looking for.
If God already did, then I should know. I have no idea how I could be convinced so how am I to look? If he wants me to look for him, then he'll give me that motivating, I suppose.
So your assumption is there is unaccounted-for fossil fuels.
Wrong. That is your assumption, which you proved:
so perhaps there is a lot more evidence of this huge loss of life
Why do you make this assumption?
Are you saying it doesn't exist or that no fossil fuel that old has been dated?
It's a fact no fossil fuel that old has been dated. Why do you assume more exists? And what current evidence points to this fossil fuel being older?
You haven't yet touched on the fact that if fossil fuels are as young as science thinks, it is proof against gradual evolution's current timeline - basically, that it has not occurred for nearly as long as most advocate. Without the almighty Time, gradual evolution is essentially impossible.
Alex Jones
10-16-2009, 04:11 PM
Distortion #1
"Circular reasoning forms the basis of dating things from fossil/rock strata".
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_process_of_dating_fossils_often_an_exam ple_of_circular_reasoning
The reason this is a distortion is that strata are NOT dated by fossils.
Fossils are ONLY dated by strata, and NOT the other way around.
Then why is it still in the text books?
That's my point when you ask the tour guide at the Dinosaur museum or a Evolutionist how old something is they use the chart I posted.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-257418.png
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 04:16 PM
Wrong. That is your assumption, which you proved:
Why do you make this assumption?I said that was the assumption of conservatives.
I personally think there are some reserves that haven't been discovered, but I don't know how vast they are.
Do you personally think there are undiscovered reserves of fossil fuel?
It's a fact no fossil fuel that old has been dated. Why do you assume more exists?I didn't. I was asking you why you are constructing a straw man.
And what current evidence points to this fossil fuel being older?I never said there was any evidence. You are really pushing this straw man.
You haven't yet touched on the fact that if fossil fuels are as young as science thinks, it is proof against gradual evolution's current timeline - basically, that it has not occurred for nearly as long as most advocate. Without the almighty Time, gradual evolution is essentially impossible.Nah. The straw man you have constructed is this -- according to evolutionary theory, anything that lived and died in history must become either a fossil or fossil fuel or the entire theory falls apart.
It's simply not true. Both processes are pretty rare considering where most dead things end up -- above the ground, at air regular temperature in the presence of oxygen.
I suggest you bring a real argument to the table.
And tell me why God made fossils and measurable radioactive decay.
I don't have all the answers, and I think evolution and belief in a higher being are not mutually exclusive.
You seem to have all the answers, so give them to me.
LnGrrrR
10-16-2009, 04:23 PM
By denying the wonder and beauty of His creation, you are demeaning it, and making yourself VERY easy to dismiss.
So you say. Your word, however, does not constitute a proof alone, anymore so than you denying my Flying Spaghetti Monster* makes you easy to dismiss.
*Bless his noodly appendages
I said that was the assumption of conservatives.
So if it has nothing to do with your position, and since we all know you're not a conservative, why did you bring it up? I
Do you personally think there are undiscovered reserves of fossil fuel?
Most likely. Not accounting for some 1 billion years of biodiversity before the cambrian age, though.
I didn't. I was asking you why you are constructing a straw man.I never said there was any evidence. You are really pushing this straw man.
Oh I love it when people assume they know what my point is.
Nah. The straw man you have constructed is this -- according to evolutionary theory, anything that lived and died in history must become either a fossil or fossil fuel or the entire theory falls apart.
False. I said it is major proof against evolution that no fossil fuels exist before the Cambrian explosion. Not that the theory somehow falls apart because of it.
Neither did I say everything that has lived or died in history must fossilize in some form. It is simply this point I make, and quite well thanks to you: 3.5 billion years is a VERY long time, with hundreds of trillions of individual, different lifeforms having lived and died (not species or kinds or types - one life for each individual).
It's simply not true. Both processes are pretty rare considering where most dead things end up -- above the ground, at air regular temperature in the presence of oxygen.
3.5 billion years makes mathemtically improbable things like evolution happen over millions of generations, why couldn't it leave more fossil evidence for us to see?
suggest you bring a real argument to the table.
You don't even understand my argument, Dump.
I don't have all the answers, and I think evolution and belief in a higher being are not mutually exclusive.
I'd reckon most western Creationists agree evolution occurs. In fact, I have found that many creationists accept all creatures evolved, excepting that man alone was special creation (IMO, this is your average bible-thumping creationist, not the "6000 years evolution never happened" ones)
give them to me.
I don't have the answers, just a different interpretation of the evidence.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 04:37 PM
So if it has nothing to do with your position, and since we all know you're not a conservative, why did you bring it up?Because I figured you for a conservative, and thought it might get your goat. Looks like it did.
Most likely. Not accounting for some 1 billion years of biodiversity before the cambrian age, though.You keep saying this like it's some kind of smoking gun. Again, the processes of fossilization and fossil fuel formation aren't exactly common.
Oh I love it when people assume they know what my point is.You assumed my points also. Very wrongly.
False. I said it is major proof against evolution that no fossil fuels exist before the Cambrian explosion. Not that the theory somehow falls apart because of it.
Neither did I say everything that has lived or died in history must fossilize in some form. It is simply this point I make, and quite well thanks to you: 3.5 billion years is a VERY long time, with hundreds of trillions of individual, different lifeforms having lived and died (not species or kinds or types - one life for each individual). And you insist that they have to fossilize or become fossil fuel.
3.5 billion years makes mathemtically improbable things like evolution happen over millions of generations, why couldn't it leave more fossil evidence for us to see?Why couldn't it? Again you are trying to anthropomorphize a process. God needs a reason, not a process.
You don't even understand my argument, Dump.I understand it perfectly. It's a crappy argument. They haven't found four billion year old oil so the earth can't possibly be four billion years old. Simplistic.
I'd reckon most western Creationists agree evolution occurs.Do you agree evolution occurs?
I don't have the answers, just a different interpretation of the evidence.And what is that interpretation?
Spell it out.
Tell us your theory of the origins of lfe.
RandomGuy
10-16-2009, 05:02 PM
Then why is it still in the text books?
That's my point when you ask the tour guide at the Dinosaur museum or a Evolutionist how old something is they use the chart I posted.
No,they don't.
Observation: Car A has large fins.
Observation: Car A has VIN # X
Research: A search of company records regarding VIN #X shows that it was manufactured in the period 1950-1969
Observation: Car B, C, D, E, F, ... etc have large fins.
Further research on the vin numbers of the specified cars all show that they were manufactured in the period, 1950-1969, without exception.
Logical conclusion: If one observes a car with large fins, it was very very likely to have been manufactured in the period 1950-1969.
--------------------------------------------------
Observation: Fossil A is in rock layer X
Observation: Rock layer X was dated to be Y years old.
Research: Further rocks from layer X were sampled, all yielding radiometric dating to a certain age, 500,000,000 years with a high degree of probability.
Observation: Fossils of same species as A are found in rock layers Y, Z, Q, R, S scattered globally on all continents.
Research: Rocks from all the specific layers were sampled, almost all yielding radiometric dating within a narrow range of age from 470M years to 520M years ago.
What is the logical conclusion from this compilation of data and observations?
RandomGuy
10-16-2009, 05:10 PM
Observation:
Radioactive isotopes of element X are observed to decay at the following rate:
1/2 of any given sample decays in 1 year.
Half life of this sample is then given as one year.
If you manufacture 100 lumps of pure isotope X of 16 grams, and come back after a certain period and find that 98 of those lumps now consist of 4 grams of that isotope and 12 grams of the inert decay product...
How much time has elapsed?
Because I figured you for a conservative, and thought it might get your goat. Looks like it did.
I couldn't give a shit less about conservatives or liberals or any political party. Hence why I don't spend much time in here.
Second, what's getting my goat?
... are you hitting on me?
You keep saying this like it's some kind of smoking gun.
No, I don't. First lie. It's simply a good challenge against the theory. Sorry that you consider it a smoking gun.
Again, the processes of fossilization and fossil fuel formation aren't exactly common.
But they would have occurred at some degree before the Cambrian era, yes?
You assumed my points also.
At least you admit you assumed my points.
And you insist that they have to fossilize or become fossil fuel.
Second lie. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I know - because you have none of your own to say so you must make what I am saying inherently wrong in order to respond.
Why couldn't it?
So you have no answer?
Again you are trying to anthropomorphize a process. God needs a reason, not a process.
Who brought God into this? I'm talking rational, naturalistic terms only here.
I understand it perfectly.
You do? Really? What argument have I made concerning the pterodactyls?
They haven't found four billion year old oil so the earth can't possibly be four billion years old. Simplistic.
You know what's simplistic? Correlating the age of the earth by the leftovers of its inhabitants. Why'd you do that for, Dumpy?
And what is that interpretation?
Spell it out.
Tell us your theory of the origins of lfe.
You're a troll, Dump, and the only reason you want my views is to ridicule them. Thanks for asking though.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 05:26 PM
I couldn't give a shit less about conservatives or liberals or any political party. Hence why I don't spend much time in here.
Second, what's getting my goat?
... are you hitting on me?You think your goat is your genitalia or something?
Don't flatter yourself.
No, I don't. First lie. It's simply a good challenge against the theory. Sorry that you consider it a smoking gun.Not that great a challenge for the reasons stated.
But they would have occurred at some degree before the Cambrian era, yes?Not that I know of. Can you say with any certainty all the conditions necessary existed in these times and occurred in large enough quantities that it could be easily found, isolated and measured billions of years later?
At least you admit you assumed my points.You still haven't admitted you assumed mine.
Second lie. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? I know - because you have none of your own to say so you must make what I am saying inherently wrong in order to respond.Nah, I know what you are trying to do. It's not my fault I'm ahead of you.
So you have no answer?I just gave you the reasons.
Who brought God into this? I'm talking rational, naturalistic terms only here.As am I. Give me all your evidence that widespread fossil fuel processes should have taken place four billion years ago.
You do? Really? What argument have I made concerning the pterodactyls?Have I mentioned anything about pterodactlys specifically? I don't really care about one fossil, we're taking big picture here.
You know what's simplistic? Correlating the age of the earth by the leftovers of its inhabitants. Why'd you do that for, Dumpy?And the decay of radioactive elements, etc. What do you have to determine the age of the earth?
You're a troll, DumpYou're a coward l0sa
and the only reason you want my views is to ridicule them. Thanks for asking though.Are they they so ridiculous that you are ashamed and frightened to post them?
We can only conclude the answer is yes.
Good talk.
RandomGuy
10-16-2009, 05:27 PM
(crickets)
Man, can I kill an emotional debate or what?
No one tried to answer my questions... :depressed
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 05:31 PM
(crickets)
Man, can I kill an emotional debate or what?
No one tried to answer my questions... :depressedYou'll never get anything more than a drive-by from mouse.
As for posters like z0sa, they tend to clam up after enough uncomfortable questions are asked. I know it ultimately all comes down to faith with either side of the argument whether the proponents want to admit it or not. I just like to find the point where that happens.
atxrocker
10-16-2009, 05:34 PM
these threads never get old
Alex Jones
10-16-2009, 05:35 PM
Observation:
Radioactive isotopes of element X are observed to decay at the following rate:
1/2 of any given sample decays in 1 year.
Half life of this sample is then given as one year.
If you manufacture 100 lumps of pure isotope X of 16 grams, and come back after a certain period and find that 98 of those lumps now consist of 4 grams of that isotope and 12 grams of the inert decay product...
How much time has elapsed?
You think because you toss out all these large numbers your going to convince the masses we evolved from snails? I like how the Darwin lovers try to throw you off with large numbers. 4 Billion years ago this.....25 Million years ago that...Look pal if i could add and subtract like your UTSA ass can you think I would be at home all day wouldn't i be working for AT&T?
You can save your math smack for the others I like to keep it simple so here is a simple question if the earth is 4 billion years old? why is the oldest tree less than 10,000 years old?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html
More bullshit lies in the text books.....V
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-257669.png
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 05:37 PM
why is the oldest tree less than 10,000 years old?How long should all trees live?
RandomGuy
10-16-2009, 05:37 PM
Observation:
Radioactive isotopes of element X are observed to decay at the following rate:
1/2 of any given sample decays in 1 year.
Half life of this sample is then given as one year.
If you manufacture 100 lumps of pure isotope X of 16 grams, and come back after a certain period and find that 98 of those lumps now consist of 4 grams of that isotope and 12 grams of the inert decay product...
How much time has elapsed?
[I don't like large numbers.]
I used no number larger than 100 in my example.
You did not answer my question.
RandomGuy
10-16-2009, 05:41 PM
why is the oldest tree less than 10,000 years old?
Trees are not the oldest living things. There is one colony of Posidonia Oceanica that is approximately 100,000 years old. (http://www.ibiza-spotlight.com/news/2006/monster_plant_280506_i.htm)
Alex Jones
10-16-2009, 05:46 PM
All this bullshit about natural selection? Why would man evolve from ape? I thought Darwin said creatures evolve to better themselves?
Why would an ape want to lose fur to stay warm, and who wants to lose 90% of your strength, and have thin skin where you can't walk barefoot? it makes no sense, Maybe Man to ape sound much more believable
In fact there are many times I wish I still had my tail.
Think of all the great things you can do? You can text someone while holding your drink and still drive your car. Not to mention opening doors.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-266276.png
RandomGuy
10-16-2009, 05:46 PM
You'll never get anything more than a drive-by from mouse.
Actually what mouse does is desperately try to change the subject when the answer gets too simple and obviously contradictory to his dogma. I know this already, but it is fun to get to the really basic parts to see how much you really have to twist, ignore or simply lie about to hold onto the set of beliefs that the world is only 10,000 or so years old.
You think your goat is your genitalia or something?
Don't flatter yourself.
I still don't know what the hell getting someone's goat is :lol
Not that great a challenge for the reasons stated.
So we have tons of fossil fuels from the past few hundred million years, and none from before.
Again, you have no answer, just admit it and be through with it. Maybe years down the road when you've trolled for 200,000 posts you will understand that concession makes for good debate.
Can you say with any certainty all the conditions necessary existed in these times and occurred in large enough quantities that it could be easily found, isolated and measured billions of years later?
Can you say with certainty they were not? Indeed, this is the entire point I intended to make of your stupid leading questions - you don't know and in fact, the evidence indeed proves that incredible biodiversity, in lesser forms (which would not affect our fossils/fuels), must have existed for a very long time before our earliest fossil fuels.
You have no rebuttal, I understand.
You still haven't admitted you assumed mine.
Your only points are to relate Toros info and troll.
Nah, I know what you are trying to do. It's not my fault I'm ahead of you.
Ahead of me? You trolled me before I could even begin on the pterodactyls. How would you know what point I was going to make when you're the one who decided to start an unrelated argument about fossil fuels when you criticized my questioning?
I just gave you the reasons.
If dating methods prove creatures were becoming fossil fuels around the Cambrian era, it must be concluded according to evolutionary theory that said creatures were also becoming fossil fuels long before hand during their extended evolution.
As am I. Give me all your evidence that widespread fossil fuel processes should have taken place four billion years ago.
I've simply made a point - a strongly supported challenge - that is debatable. I know you don't know jackshit about debating, so I will forgive you're inability to understand what I've done.
Have I mentioned anything about pterodactlys specifically? I don't really care about one fossil, we're taking big picture here.
I'm far more interested in the OP article and its ideas/contentions than a random, though good point you made for me (that there's not enough fossil fuels).
And the decay of radioactive elements, etc. What do you have to determine the age of the earth?
:lol it was a joke, because creatures didn't exist on a forming earth 4 billion years ago and that was never my argument. See? You really don't understand my argument.
You're a coward l0sa
You throw that poo, Dump.
Are they they so ridiculous that you are ashamed and frightened to post them?
I stated my reasoning. It is the be all, and end all of why I will not relate them. Further inquiry can only produce the same results.
We can only conclude the answer is yes.
Who is we? The 'royal' we? The editorial 'we'? lol
Good talk.
Thanks for the insults and lack of perspective. Let's not do this again.
RandomGuy
10-16-2009, 05:47 PM
Observation:
Radioactive isotopes of element X are observed to decay at the following rate:
1/2 of any given sample decays in 1 year.
Half life of this sample is then given as one year.
If you manufacture 100 lumps of pure isotope X of 16 grams, and come back after a certain period and find that 98 of those lumps now consist of 4 grams of that isotope and 12 grams of the inert decay product...
How much time has elapsed?
[I don't like large numbers.]
I used no number larger than 100 in my example.
You did not answer my question.
RandomGuy
10-16-2009, 05:54 PM
All this bullshit about natural selection? Why would man evolve from ape? I thought Darwin said creatures evolve to better themselves?
Why would an ape want to lose fur to stay warm, and who wants to lose 90% of your strength, and have thin skin were you can't walk barefoot? it makes no sense, Maybe Man to ape sound mush more believable
In fact there are many times I wish I still had my tail.
Think of all the great things you can do? You can text someone while holding your drink and still driver your car. Not to mention opening doors.
Humans and apes evolved in areas that were warm. There is no detriment to losing insulating fur in warm environments. Evolution does not take place because a species "wants" to do anything, it takes place because natural selection will pick adaptations that give reproductive advantages.
Given two sets of traits:
the ability to use tools, be relatively weaker physically, and be able to conceive and communicate complex ideas
or
being physically strong, but have no ability to use tools, no complex concepts/language
We can run to otherwise identical populations through the passage of time.
Given that intelligence and tool usage has allowed human beings to thrive in every climate on the planet, from deserts, to jungles, to plains, to forests, to arctic tundra, to mountains, to coasts, one could conclude that such a combination of traits quite easily provides a reproductive and survival advantage.
Losing fur and strength do not matter to tool users who can more than compensate for the lack of either. That is quite within evolutionary theory.
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 06:02 PM
Humans and apes evolved in areas that were warm. There is no detriment to losing insulating fur in warm environments. Evolution does not take place because a species "wants" to do anything, it takes place because natural selection will pick adaptations that give reproductive advantages.
Given two sets of traits:
the ability to use tools, be relatively weaker physically, and be able to conceive and communicate complex ideas
or
being physically strong, but have no ability to use tools, no complex concepts/language
We can run to otherwise identical populations through the passage of time.
Given that intelligence and tool usage has allowed human beings to thrive in every climate on the planet, from deserts, to jungles, to plains, to forests, to arctic tundra, to mountains, to coasts, one could conclude that such a combination of traits quite easily provides a reproductive and survival advantage.
Losing fur and strength do not matter to tool users who can more than compensate for the lack of either. That is quite within evolutionary theory.
So is your theory that in the near future there will not be anymore apes? They will all be humans? Will another species evolve to apes, and then that species will be extincted? At some point in the future will there no longer be certain bottom species because of evolution?
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 06:03 PM
I still don't know what the hell getting someone's goat is :lolYes, that is laughable.
So we have tons of fossil fuels from the past few hundred million years, and none from before.
Again, you have no answer, just admit it and be through with it. Maybe years down the road when you've trolled for 200,000 posts you will understand that concession makes for good debate.I have agreed that there are no recorded fossil fuels from that time and given reasons why that could be so.
Can you say with certainty they were not? Indeed, this is the entire point I intended to make of your stupid leading questions - you don't know and in fact, the evidence indeed proves that incredible biodiversity, in lesser forms (which would not affect our fossils/fuels), must have existed for a very long time before our earliest fossil fuels.
You have no rebuttal, I understand.I can't prove a negative. My rebuttal was and is that life at a certain time does not necessarily lead to fossil fuels from the same time.
You have no rebuttal for this, I understand.
Your only points are to relate Toros info and troll.Nah, I like getting to the heart of someone's argument. Often, as you have done, the person I ask gets butthurt and pissy, and starts to change the subject and bring up Toros smack or something similar.
Your act is not a new one around here.
Ahead of me? You trolled me before I could even begin on the pterodactyls. How would you know what point I was going to make when you're the one who decided to start an unrelated argument about fossil fuels when you criticized my questioning?As I said, way ahead of you. I like to cut through the crap, but people like you want to throw up more crap. It happens.
If dating methods prove creatures were becoming fossil fuels around the Cambrian era, it must be concluded according to evolutionary theory that said creatures were also becoming fossil fuels long before hand during their extended evolution.Nah, you need to prove the conditions for widespread fossil fuel process existed at all those times. it is quite possible those conditions did not exist. I mean, what could your evidence be other than actual fossil fuels?
I've simply made a point - a strongly supported challenge - that is debatable. I know you don't know jackshit about debating, so I will forgive you're inability to understand what I've done.You made a point that is rather easily countered. Then you got upset that it wasn't as string a point as you thought. Get over it.
I'm far more interested in the OP article and its ideas/contentions than a random, though good point you made for me (that there's not enough fossil fuels).Now that your butt hurts, I can imagine you would want to change the subject.
You throw that poo, Dump.You did it first.
I stated my reasoning. It is the be all, and end all of why I will not relate them. Further inquiry can only produce the same results.You're a coward.
Who is we? The 'royal' we? The editorial 'we'? lolWe on the message board. Everyone is watching your little tantrum.
Thanks for the insults and lack of perspective. Let's not do this again.What is your theory on the origin of life?
The fact that you refuse to answer a question like this when you clearly have a theory makes you no better than a truther in my opinion.
I have great respect for people of faith, but little respect for people who are afraid to post what they believe on a message board because they think someone might make fun of them. It's easy to draw the conclusion that your faith isn't quite what you thought it was.
Prove me wrong.
Alex Jones
10-16-2009, 06:04 PM
Observation:
Radioactive isotopes of element X are observed to decay at the following rate:
1/2 of any given sample decays in 1 year.
Half life of this sample is then given as one year.
If you manufacture 100 lumps of pure isotope X of 16 grams, and come back after a certain period and find that 98 of those lumps now consist of 4 grams of that isotope and 12 grams of the inert decay product...
How much time has elapsed?
.
About as long as it takes you to answer my tree question. I already told you save your math smack for the others,
not only are you looking desperate but if I have to repeat myself over and over only confirms you may still have primate DNA in you.
Evolutionists do play with the figures at times too. When a radiometric “date” is out of line with their premise it is rejected and another found. For instance, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil bearing strata give dates of 23 Ma or 23 million years by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old’, according to their beliefs about the place of fossils in their evolutionary scheme. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get a more acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other samples gave much older dates but the authors decided they must have been contaminated and discarded them.
G. WoldeGabriel et al., ‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,’ Nature, 371:330-333, 1994
Radiometric Dating is not Evolution’s Friend
Radiometric dating is a very plausible and understandable premise. In fact many good dates can come from it if the data is interpreted correctly. But with some technical issues and the evolution world view pressure radiometric dating is part of the propaganda of the evolutionists that is not friendly to evolution.
What is Radiometric Dating?
Radiometric dating is based on the premise that there are radioactive isotopes in nature that decay at a regular rate from the parent element to the daughter element. If we know three things we can use them to date items that contain those isotopes.
The original concentration of the parent isotope.
The concentration of the daughter element or isotope
The beta decay rate
For instance all living things contain carbon-14, or 14C, or radio carbon that decays to normal carbon 12C. 14C decays to 12C at a particular rate defined as half-life. One half-life of 14C is 5,730 years or half of the 14C is 12C in that amount of time. In 11,460 years another half will be gone leaving only a quarter of the 14C and so on. Because of the speed of 14C decay rate the range of dates that can be derived before any detectable 14C is left, is about 50,000 years. Anything over that has a bit of speculation built in.
There are other radiometric dating methods too. For example potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. All these methods are used in igneous rocks and are normally given as the time since solidification.
But these methods are not as infallible as the evolutionists would have us think. Let us look again at the three things we need to know to set a date.
The original concentration of the parent isotope. We must know how much of the parent was originally there and that there was no parent injected in during the time we are measuring.
The daughter concentration must not be compromised by an injection of daughter element or isotope during the time line.
The decay rate must be constant.
But evidence proves that all these assumption are fraught with error. It is well know that argon gas does intrude into igneous rock and skew dates in the most popular K-Ar dating method. In fact all the parent and daughter elements are water soluble and are known to leach into and out of igneous rocks thus potentially skewing the dates derived from their ratios.
Maybe you need to get out more?
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-890795.png
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 06:08 PM
Yes, that is laughable.
I have agreed that there are no recorded fossil fuels from that time and given reasons why that could be so.
I can't prove a negative. My rebuttal was and is that life at a certain time does not necessarily lead to fossil fuels from the same time.
You have no rebuttal for this, I understand.
Nah, I like getting to the heart of someone's argument. Often, as you have done, the person I ask gets butthurt and pissy, and starts to change the subject and bring up Toros smack or something similar.
Your act is not a new one around here.
As I said, way ahead of you. I like to cut through the crap, but people like you want to throw up more crap. It happens.
Nah, you need to prove the conditions for widespread fossil fuel process existed at all those times. it is quite possible those conditions did not exist. I mean, what could your evidence be other than actual fossil fuels?
You made a point that is rather easily countered. Then you got upset that it wasn't as string a point as you thought. Get over it.
Now that your butt hurts, I can imagine you would want to change the subject.
You did it first.
You're a coward.
We on the message board. Everyone is watching your little tantrum.
What is your theory on the origin of life?
:stfu
Yes, that is laughable.
I have agreed that there are no recorded fossil fuels from that time and given reasons why that could be so.
I can't prove a negative. My rebuttal was and is that life at a certain time does not necessarily lead to fossil fuels from the same time.
You have no rebuttal for this, I understand.
Nah, I like getting to the heart of someone's argument. Often, as you have done, the person I ask gets butthurt and pissy, and starts to change the subject and bring up Toros smack or something similar.
Your act is not a new one around here.
As I said, way ahead of you. I like to cut through the crap, but people like you want to throw up more crap. It happens.
Nah, you need to prove the conditions for widespread fossil fuel process existed at all those times. it is quite possible those conditions did not exist. I mean, what could your evidence be other than actual fossil fuels?
You made a point that is rather easily countered. Then you got upset that it wasn't as string a point as you thought. Get over it.
Now that your butt hurts, I can imagine you would want to change the subject.
You did it first.
You're a coward.
We on the message board. Everyone is watching your little tantrum.
What is your theory on the origin of life?
The fact that you refuse to answer a question like this when you clearly have a theory makes you no better than a truther in my opinion.
I have great respect for people of faith, but little respect for people who are afraid to post what they believe on a message board because they think someone might make fun of them.
:lmao:lmao
I can't believe I actually got to this forum's best troll.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 06:10 PM
:stfuWhat is your theory on the origin of life?
:lmao:lmao
I can't believe I actually got to this forum's best troll.:lmao:lmao
I can believe I got to you.
Alex Jones
10-16-2009, 06:11 PM
You'll never get anything more than a drive-by from mouse.
Have you ever tried to use a laptop with 5mb of free WiFi while taking care of costumers at the Bill Millers drive through?
Bitch just be glad you get what you do now. I have to flush this HD and put XP back in so don't freak out if I don't return until around 9ish!
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-243756.png
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 06:14 PM
What is your theory on the origin of life?
Book of Genesis
I can believe I got to you.
:lol You seem so sure. Please relate this information, then, with quotes to prove your stance:
1) Relate where the first insult was thrown.
2) Relate which of your responses caused me to be "butthurt." Follow up with your reasoning why I would become "butt hurt."
3) Relate why withholding personal information from an obvious troll, or any anonymous internet figure, is cowardice.
4) Prove I even have a belief system, or am not an atheist who simply finds evolution an unsatisfactory explanation.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 06:20 PM
4) Prove I even have a belief system, or am not an atheist who simply finds evolution an unsatisfactory explanation.Are you an atheist?
Are you an atheist?
Are you a troll? Answer honestly.
Strange Love
10-16-2009, 06:26 PM
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-263130-1.png
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 06:26 PM
Are you a troll? Answer honestly.I probably am in some cases.
Are you an atheist? Answer honestly.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 06:30 PM
Book of GenesisLiterally?
I probably am in some cases.
Then you surely understand why I will not relate the information you seek.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 06:38 PM
Then you surely understand why I will not relate the information you seek.I completely understand your cowardice.
You are afraid I will make fun of you.
On an anonymous message board.
On the internets.
I completely understand your cowardice.
You are afraid I will make fun of you.
On an anonymous message board.
On the internets.
4)Relate why withholding personal information from an obvious and self-admitted troll, or any anonymous internet figure, is cowardice.
It's not my fault you feel the need to ridicule others.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 06:43 PM
4)Relate why withholding personal information from an obvious and self-admitted troll, or any anonymous internet figure, is cowardice.I am not being a troll in this case, and the cowardice is self-evident.
It's ok, there are many posters who are just as scurred as you. Once I ask a few questions that make them uncomfortable, they shut up about whatever the thread subject is and start whining about me.
I am not being a troll in this case, and the cowardice is self-evident.
First off, you are always a troll unless relating toros information.
Second, if you honestly feel so compelled to continue calling me a coward, continue on unabated.
It's ok, there are many posters who are just as scurred as you.
yeah, you are so scary, that anonymous face, the overuse of leading questions since you have nothing to contribute, the admission of trolling along with that big post count. I am dreadfully frightened. In fact, since you're so sure, you could just answer these statements, with quotes to prove your stance:
1) Relate where the first insult was thrown.
2) Relate which of your responses caused me to be "butthurt." Follow up with your reasoning why I would become "butt hurt."
3) Relate why withholding personal information from an obvious troll, or any anonymous internet figure, is cowardice.
4) Prove I even have a belief system, or am not an atheist who simply finds evolution an unsatisfactory explanation.
Once I ask a few questions that make them uncomfortable, they shut up about whatever the thread subject is and start whining about me.
You take a lot of pride in being a douchebag. :lol
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 06:55 PM
First off, you are always a troll unless relating toros information.Nah.
Second, if you honestly feel so compelled to continue calling me a coward, continue on unabated.The shoe fits.
yeah, you are so scary, that anonymous face, the overuse of leading questions since you have nothing to contribute, the admission of trolling along with that big post count. I am dreadfully frightened.Then why can't you answer a simple question?
Are you an atheist?
Nah.
The shoe fits.
Then why can't you answer a simple question?
Why are you so eager to know?
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:02 PM
The shoe fits.Nah. Not in this case.
Why are you so eager to know?I'm curious. Knowing might make the thread more interesting than just saying I'm a troll.
Are you an atheist?
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 07:04 PM
The shoe fits.
Why are you so eager to know?
Him and Shasta do this game all the time. When they cannot answer your question (happens alot) they get into a ridiculously off topic thing like this and harp on it. Then they do this peer pressuring tactic of asking why. It's lame and I try not to even read or respond to their nonsense but sometimes they get me.
They add nothing to the conversation except a view of our one-sided college education system.
Nah. Not in this case.
Past words dictate otherwise. In fact, there's never been a non-dleague related post I've seen from you that wasn't troll oriented.
The shoe fits.
I'm curious.
I don't believe you.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:06 PM
Him and Shasta do this game all the time. When they cannot answer your question (happens alot) they get into a ridiculously off topic thing like this and harp on it. Then they do this peer pressuring tactic of asking why. It's lame and I try not to even read or respond to their nonsense but sometimes they get me.
They add nothing to the conversation except a view of our one-sided college education system.Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:07 PM
Past words dictate otherwise. In fact, there's never been a non-dleague related post I've seen from you that wasn't troll oriented.
The shoe fits.Nah. There have been plenty otherwise. I doubt you have read all my posts at any rate.
I don't believe you.I believe it would make the thread much more interesting than just calling me a troll. I truly believe that.
Him and Shasta do this game all the time. When they cannot answer your question (happens alot) they get into a ridiculously off topic thing like this and harp on it. Then they do this peer pressuring tactic of asking why. It's lame and I try not to even read or respond to their nonsense but sometimes they get me.
They add nothing to the conversation except a view of our one-sided college education system.
Five years at this forum has educated me well on Chump's tactics. When he doesn't have anything to say (which is often), he simply asks leading questions. He never reveals his own position besides inferences made from the type of questions he asks. It's fine, I enjoy many of his troll attempts but it doesn't change the fact he is one.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:09 PM
Five years at this forum has educated me well on Chump's tactics. When he doesn't have anything to say (which is often), he simply asks leading questions. He never reveals his own position besides inferences made from the type of questions he asks. It's fine, I enjoy many of his troll attempts but it doesn't change the fact he is one.I am not an atheist.
Are you an atheist?
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 07:09 PM
Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?
No way am I getting in your retarded game. I like zosa's stand and feel I already told you too much. Stay on a topic.
"get off Obama's balls" -Jay Z
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:10 PM
No way am I getting in your retarded game. I like zosa's stand and feel I already told you too much. Stay on a topic.
"get off Obama's balls" -Jay ZThe origin of life is the topic.
This has nothing to do with Obama or his balls that you are on.
Nah. There have been plenty otherwise. I doubt you have read all my posts at any rate.
Fair enough. And how exactly have you deduced I am a coward, other than my freely admitted 'fallacy' of not relating personal information to trolls?
Wouldn't an objective view of my position essentially guarantee I am not a coward?
I believe it would make the thread much more interesting than just calling me a troll. I truly believe that.
This thread isn't just about me calling you a troll. Don't flatter yourself.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:12 PM
Fair enough. And how exactly have you deduced I am a coward, other than my freely admitted 'fallacy' of not relating personal information to trolls?
Wouldn't an objective view of my position essentially guarantee I am not a coward? Not really. Refusing to discuss on a discussion board because one fears ridicule is cowardly.
This thread isn't just about me calling you a troll. Don't flatter yourself.You've pretty much made it that.
You aren't the first.
I am not an atheist.
Are you an atheist?
Not really. Refusing to discuss on a discussion board because one fears ridicule is cowardly.
That's true how you wrote it - but it does not apply in our current exchange. Discussion can only be held when what is related directly pertains to the subject matter at hand. Whether or not I am an atheist does not pertain to the OP's post, nor my arguments.
And, anyone who defends creationism or criticizes evolution in this day and age is the opposite of a coward, IMO. You are free to continue holding your belief that I am coward, however unsubstantiated it is.
You've pretty much made it that.
Just like you've pretty much turned this thread into your own personal trolling z0sa ground.
You aren't the first.
There's that pride showing again.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:22 PM
That's true how you wrote it - but it does not apply in our current exchange. Discussion can only be held when what is related directly pertains to the subject matter at hand. Whether or not I am an atheist does not pertain to the OP's post, nor my arguments.I previously asked you what your theory of the origin of life is.
Let's go with that one.
Just like you've pretty much turned this thread into your own personal trolling z0sa ground.Not really. Just trying to find out what your theory of the origin of life is.
There's that pride showing again.It's a mere statement of fact.
So now that we can get back to the subject:
What is your theory of the origin of life?
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 07:30 PM
The origin of life is the topic.
This has nothing to do with Obama or his balls that you are on.
I was joking about the Jay Z. It popped in my head. My view on the origin of life I care not discuss at this time or with you. I believe however that the theory of evolution is just that- a theory. It is ridiculous how our school system has took and ran with this and refuse to teach the theory of creationism. Alot of people I talk to believe in evolution because they think it is a proven truth. I was also only taught evolution my entire educational career. I had to read up on how 1. evolution is not a proven science, and 2. what creationism is. I have no problem our school system teaching evolution, but it should be taught as a theory, and theory of creationism should be taught as well.
I doubt you would give it an open minded chance but Ben Stein did a movie about the shutting out of creationist teaching and anyone who questions evolution.
What is your theory of the origin of life?
What does this have to do with intermediate pterodactyls? Keep in mind you are admitting to a troll attempt if it has no relation.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:34 PM
I was joking about the Jay Z. It popped in my head. My view on the origin of life I care not discuss at this time or with you. I believe however that the theory of evolution is just that- a theory. It is ridiculous how our school system has took and ran with this and refuse to teach the theory of creationism. Alot of people I talk to believe in evolution because they think it is a proven truth. I was also only taught evolution my entire educational career. I had to read up on how 1. evolution is not a proven science, and 2. what creationism is. I have no problem our school system teaching evolution, but it should be taught as a theory, and theory of creationism should be taught as well.
I doubt you would give it an open minded chance but Ben Stein did a movie about the shutting out of creationist teaching and anyone who questions evolution.So what would a creationist curriculum entail? It seems like it could be covered in one class period if not less.
I'm just trying to see how a creationist education could prepare one for scientific work.
I was joking about the Jay Z. It popped in my head. My view on the origin of life I care not discuss at this time or with you. I believe however that the theory of evolution is just that- a theory. It is ridiculous how our school system has took and ran with this and refuse to teach the theory of creationism. Alot of people I talk to believe in evolution because they think it is a proven truth. I was also only taught evolution my entire educational career. I had to read up on how 1. evolution is not a proven science, and 2. what creationism is. I have no problem our school system teaching evolution, but it should be taught as a theory, and theory of creationism should be taught as well.
I doubt you would give it an open minded chance but Ben Stein did a movie about the shutting out of creationist teaching and anyone who questions evolution.
I think the main reason evolution is preached in public school is because it involves no supernaturality, so to speak. It's the only way to truly separate church and state, sadly. Additionally, almost any religion can learn it and fit it in somehow, and in this same way, no specific religion is required to believe its principles. Creationism gets you into the topic of religion, inevitably - and religion at odds with a different religion in the same area, usually means conflict. It'd most likely be worse in a classroom with children or young adults who (mostly) aren't even sure of their own beliefs yet.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:36 PM
What does this have to do with intermediate pterodactyls? Keep in mind you are admitting to a troll attempt if it has no relation.The theory of evolution has everything to do with the origin of life. Like I said, I like getting to the heart of an argument.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:38 PM
I think the main reason evolution is preached in public school is because it involves no supernaturality, so to speak. It's the only way to truly separate church and state, sadly. Additionally, almost any religion can learn it and fit it in somehow, and in this same way, no specific religion is required to believe its principles. creationism gets you into the topic of religion, inevitably - and religion at odds with a different religion in the same area usually means conflict.Right. Creationism quickly becomes comparative religion.
Which creation theory should be taught?
clambake
10-16-2009, 07:39 PM
small dino's snatching larger dino's in flight.
i think these intermediate's would be todays modern midget.
The theory of evolution has everything to do with the origin of life. Like I said, I like getting to the heart of an argument.
This popular atheist website disagrees. (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/evolution.htm)
I also disagree. The origin of life, and the evolution of said life, are two wholly separated, if related, concepts.
One could very easily tie the two together concerning the evolution of that first cell, but since our fossil record starts some 2.5 billion years later, I wouldn't count on there being very effective arguments, or it being an interesting subject to discuss.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:43 PM
This popular atheist website disagrees. (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/evolution.htm)Is this what you believe?
I also disagree. The origin of life, and the evolution of said life, are two wholly separated, if related, concepts.Related enough to include in a discussion.
One could very easily tie the two together concerning the evolution of that first cell, but since our fossil record starts some 2.5 billion years later, I wouldn't count on it being a very effective, or interesting subject to discuss.I would find it very interesting to discuss.
It's irrelevant to the subject material.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:48 PM
It's related. You admitted it.
We have been discussing the related topic of creationist education, that reasoning doesn't work.
clambake
10-16-2009, 07:49 PM
you blew it with "irrelevant".
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:50 PM
you blew it with "irrelevant".He blew it when he started discussing related topics.
clambake
10-16-2009, 07:55 PM
He blew it when he started discussing related topics.
yeah, but he's serious.
think about that.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 07:56 PM
yeah, but he's serious.
think about that.:lol
The origin of life can always be left out of public schools - no one knows, and no one should play like they know. That's why every religion professes faith - you don't know shit and never will, so just have some faith.
As for a "theory of creationism" to be taught in schools, it must simply be put at odds to abiogenesis. An "either/or" situation should exist, leaving the door open for any belief or idea. Too many scientists, in too many fields, profess evolution to leave it out of textbooks. It should just be mentioned that much of evolution's factual evidence is based on is assumed premises, and that there are various ideas that have been refuted and objections that have been raised against aspect of the theory throughout its history.
you blew it with "irrelevant".
it has essentially nothing to do with intermediate pterodactyls. Irrelevant is a great word IMO. But, I will humor myself with this discussion because I was thinking about this very idea today.
Edit: Dump if you simply ask a leading question, the discussion ends. Make your opinion known about what I've said.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 08:02 PM
The origin of life can always be left out of public schools - no one knows, and no one should play like they know. That's why every religion professes faith - you don't know shit and never will, so just have some faith.That had nothing to do with intermediate pterodactyls.
Why did you discuss it?
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 08:03 PM
right but I don't think seperation of church and state was supposed to mean you cannot bring up or use the word god. The other part of my problem was the idea that evolution is the only way and that it is a proven science. Like I said evolution is just as much theory as creationism.
Also there are different types of Theories of Creationism. If none of it is a proven idea then they should all be taught. Not just the extreme side of evolution.
You're too predictable, Dump. :lol
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 08:06 PM
it has essentially nothing to do with intermediate pterodactyls. Irrelevant is a great word IMO. But, I will humor myself with this discussion because I was thinking about this very idea today.
Edit: Dump if you simply ask a leading question, the discussion ends. Make your opinion known about what I've said.It would only be a leading question if I were leading to something.
I'm not.
So what other theory should be taught other than evolution, and what positive evidence of the other theory should be presented -- not just refutations of evolution?
I'm asking because that's all I've ever heard -- criticisms of evolution.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 08:07 PM
You're too predictable, Dump. :lolYou're the one who broke your own arbitrary rule.
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 08:08 PM
To the subject: How is this pterodactyls the missing link?
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 08:09 PM
right but I don't think seperation of church and state was supposed to mean you cannot bring up or use the word god. The other part of my problem was the idea that evolution is the only way and that it is a proven science. Like I said evolution is just as much theory as creationism.
Also there are different types of Theories of Creationism. If none of it is a proven idea then they should all be taught. Not just the extreme side of evolution.So, ballpark figure, how many creation stories do you think there are to be taught?
This is a leading question, because I think that may take a lot of time in school.
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 08:10 PM
To the subject: How is this pterodactyls the missing link?There are many missing links, and I'm sure most of them will remain missing, seeing as fossilization is considered a pretty rare occurrence.
spursncowboys
10-16-2009, 08:16 PM
So, ballpark figure, how many creation stories do you think there are to be taught?
This is a leading question, because I think that may take a lot of time in school.
I didn't say stories. I said theories. I am not talking about bible study.
teacher: "Here is the theory of evolution and all of it's degrees"
teacher: "Now here is the theory of creationism and all of it's degrees"
same teacher:"No where is it written that you cannot intertwine these two. They are both unproven to be considered a science but we will teach it in science class anyway. Oh by the way global warming is a theory too just like second hand smoking causing cancer."
ChumpDumper
10-16-2009, 08:19 PM
I didn't say stories. I said theories. I am not talking about bible study.
teacher: "Here is the theory of evolution and all of it's degrees"
teacher: "Now here is the theory of creationism and all of it's degrees"
same teacher:"No where is it written that you cannot intertwine these two. They are both unproven to be considered a science but we will teach it in science class anyway. Oh by the way global warming is a theory too just like second hand smoking causing cancer."So how would you teach your particular theory of creation?
Not a leading question. I don't know where this is going.
jman3000
10-16-2009, 08:53 PM
I think this one might work:
In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.
Uranus and Gaia had many children together and eventually they had grandchildren. Some of their children become afraid of the power of their children. Kronus, in an effort to protect himself, swallowed his children when they were still infants. However, his wife Rhea hid their youngest child. She gave him a rock wrapped in swaddling clothes, which he swallowed, thinking it was his son.
Once the child, Zeus, had reached manhood his mother instructed him on how to trick his father to give up his brothers and sisters. Once this was accomplished the children fought a mighty war against their father. After much fighting the younger generation won. With Zeus as their leader, they began to furnish Gaia with life and Uranus with stars.
Soon the Earth lacked only two things: man and animals. Zeus summoned his sons Prometheus (fore-thought) and Epimetheus (after-thought). He told them to go to Earth and create men and animals and give them each a gift.
Prometheus set to work forming men in the image of the gods and Epimetheus worked on the animals. As Epimetheus worked he gave each animal he created one of the gifts. After Epimetheus had completed his work Prometheus finally finished making men. However when he went to see what gift to give man Epimetheus shamefacedly informed him that he had foolishly used all the gifts.
Distressed, Prometheus decided he had to give man fire, even though gods were the only ones meant to have access to it. As the sun god rode out into the world the next morning Prometheus took some of the fire and brought it back to man. He taught his creation how to take care of it and then left them.
When Zeus discovered Prometheus' deed he became furious. He ordered his son to be chained to a mountain and for a vulture to peck out his liver every day till eternity. Then he began to devise a punishment for mankind. Another of his sons created a woman of great beauty, Pandora. Each of the gods gave her a gift. Zeus' present was curiosity and a box which he ordered her never to open. Then he presented her to Epimetheus as a wife.
Pandora's life with Epimetheus was happy except for her intense longing to open the box. She was convinced that because the gods and goddesses had showered so many glorious gifts upon her that this one would also be wonderful. One day when Epimetheus was gone she opened the box.
Out of the box flew all of the horrors which plague the world today - pain, sickness, envy, greed. Upon hearing Pandora's screams Epimetheus rushed home and fastened the lid shut, but all of the evils had already escaped.
Later that night they heard a voice coming from the box saying,
"Let me out. I am hope."
Pandora and Epimetheus released her and she flew out into the world to give hope to humankind.
jman3000
10-16-2009, 08:56 PM
This one has some legs too:
In the beginning of time, there was only chaos. The elements and gases of the heavens and earth freely mingled, and the organizing principle was dormant. It lay dormant somewhere inside this elemental cosmos, awaiting the right moment to begin the transformation. The shape of this primeval mass was something like an egg.
For 18,000 years the universe remained in this state, until the incubation was finally complete, and the egg hatched. Then the heavens and the earth came into existence. The lighter, most pure substances floated upward and became the heavens. These elements were named yang. The heavier, more impure substances descended and became the earth. These were named yin.
From the same forces, a third, the giant Pan Ku, was born as well. As he grew, his sheer size divided the heavens and the earth. The giant lived for another 18,000 years. With the assistance of four creatures, a tortoise, a phoenix, a dragon, and a unicorn, he labored daily to mold the earth. Together they created the world as we know it today.
When Pan Ku finally died, his body was transformed. His left eye became the sun and his right eye became the moon. His blood became the rivers and oceans, his breath became the wind, his sweat became the rain, and his voice became the thunder. His flesh became the soil, and from the fleas living on his body, the human race sprang into being. In this way, the stage was set for the pageant of history to unfold.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.