|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5084 days) Posts: 33 From: Kenosha, WI. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not only Intelligent Design - but DIVINE DESIGN! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Anita Meyer writes:
Why would we want to provide subjective data? Objesctive data is so much more reliable.
All very good rebuttals, but you know what, they are all typical of one sided evolutionists thinking of always finding lame excuses and never truly coming head on with subjective data! All your data does is serve you from the painful job of thinking rationally.
Oh please, we're not creationists, you know.
I refuse to go spiraling down that path. Again, nothing anything that any of you have said here has disclaimed anything that I have said.
You have been completely and totaly refuted.
There is not one thing that any of you guys here said, that I didn’t already hear many times before.
And you didn;t learn anyrthing from those previous experiences, it seems. A shame really.
You claim that I get my info from creationists websites (which is not the case), but you guys are guilty of not thinking outside the box. You remain trapped in professor evil-lutionist class 101!
So, because we follow the evidence, we're trapped in a box, yet you, who needs to interpret everything in light of your religious view is "thinking outside the box"? What a weird position to hold.
Now we can keep going around and around with this argument on both Creationists verses Evolutionists scientific data, but it remains a vicious circle both ways that only serves to meaningless ends.
Creationists have no scientific data.
I’ve decided to take a different route with dealing with you people here. I am going to post things that have no other logical explanation but to suggesting that all your postulations that you have learned in science need serious questioning.
Oh goody.
Question 1, can anyone here tell me why it is that when a poisonous snake is placed in a hyperbaric chamber that its venom becomes nontoxic?
Source for this claim?
I will give you the answer What you guys need to do is start examining the Bible for answers. What is so spectacular about the Bible is that literally every answer one is looking for can be found in the Bible and backed-up by both history, archeology and all the sciences.
Then I'd like you to find the answer to the question "What is 7 times bigger than me?" in the bible.
For example people think that the curse caused by Adam and Eve disobeying was just a mythical story. People cant seem to phantom how two people can live so long or subsequently many of the ancient patriarchs mentioned in the Bible.
Fictional people will live as long as the author wants them to, there's nothing hard to fathom about that. Or do you have evidence that they lived that long? Heck, do you have evidence they existed at all?
Science does not realize that there are numerous telltale signs that the earth readily supplies. We find these little secrets trapped inside the fossil record. For instance (as I was saying in a previous posting in this thread) we know that living things (ones that still exists today) grew much bigger because we find giant specimens in the fossil record. The obvious reason for this is because there was more oxygen in the earlier atmosphere than there is today. In Genesis it tells us that the earth had a different atmosphere during the time of Adam and Eve and before Noah’s Great Flood.
So? Does it tell the compostion of this atmosphere? Does it even allude to giant creatures, that are still around, just smaller today, at all?
This mist that came up from the face of the ground is the exact effect expected if the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy.
If the earth was surrounded by a vapour canopy everything on the earth would've been cooked.
This atmosphere was likened unto a hyperbaric chamber. Hospitals today use hyperbaric chamber to treat certain medical ailments. Basically what a hyperbaric chamber is, is pressurized oxygen twice the normal amount. These chambers have been proven to heal open wounds and bone breakages in half the time it normally takes to heal.
Prove that more oxygen makes things live longer.
So this would mean that the high oxygen content of the early Earth would have played an enormous factor pertaining to LONG LIFE! Did you also know that BACTERIA and CANCER CELLS cannot grow in an oxygenated rich environment. Did you also know that when a snake is placed inside a hyperbaric chamber its venom becomes nontoxic.
Source please?
Now with this aspect in mind it can then lend credence to understanding how things in the environment might have changed after Adam and Eve sinned, and subsequently after Noah’s Great Flood.
It would, if any of that actually happened, which it dind't.
What I am getting at here is that these things all have a valid scientific explanation. The word "curse" should not be looked at as being all mythical.
The trolling and the deniably ignorant one just typed a message full of nonsense that I responded to, no need to wait any longer.
I await the trolls and the deniably ignorant to respond.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hotjer Member (Idle past 4572 days) Posts: 113 From: Denmark Joined: |
Sources
Sources Sources Sources You are addressing a mio. subjects and as coyote says, you avoid to answer his post to you because of.... you claim scientists do not think rationally because of "all your data". Is it not a bit arrogant to say that 99,99% of all scientists are close-minded and irrational? Why is it you supposely know more about science than scientists when you only took a few classes in criminology and read the hebrew bible :S? You come up with the same claims as all other creationists (sites). Furthermore, how come you try to prove god with logic (but you fail though) when the paradox of God is not to understood through logic but faith?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
All very good rebuttals, but you know what, they are all typical of one sided evolutionists thinking of always finding lame excuses and never truly coming head on with subjective data! All your data does is serve you from the painful job of thinking rationally. I refuse to go spiraling down that path. Again, nothing anything that any of you have said here has disclaimed anything that I have said. There is not one thing that any of you guys here said, that I didn’t already hear many times before. You claim that I get my info from creationists websites (which is not the case), but you guys are guilty of not thinking outside the box. You remain trapped in professor evil-lutionist class 101! Now we can keep going around and around with this argument on both Creationists verses Evolutionists scientific data, but it remains a vicious circle both ways that only serves to meaningless ends. If you don't like being proved wrong, you should spend more time trying to be right and less time whining about the people who prove you wrong.
Question 1, can anyone here tell me why it is that when a poisonous snake is placed in a hyperbaric chamber that its venom becomes nontoxic? I can't even tell you if this is true, since the claim seems to stem from the notorious creationist liar Carl Baugh.
In Genesis it tells us that the earth had a different atmosphere during the time of Adam and Eve and before Noah’s Great Flood. Genesis says no such thing.
Science does not realize that there are numerous telltale signs that the earth readily supplies. We find these little secrets trapped inside the fossil record. For instance (as I was saying in a previous posting in this thread) we know that living things (ones that still exists today) grew much bigger because we find giant specimens in the fossil record. So, you're going to believe scientists when they study the geological record and tell you that the atmosphere was once richer in oxygen --- and ignore everything else they say about the geological record? Well, that's mighty convenient for you. But I am more fortunate still, because I can take the whole of reality into account, instead clinging to tiny little fragments of it and ignoring all the rest.
This mist that came up from the face of the ground is the exact effect expected if the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy. Show your working.
This atmosphere was likened unto a hyperbaric chamber. And who likenethedeth it, yea verily, unto a hyperbaric chamber? Only that's not in the Bible either.
So this would mean that the high oxygen content of the early Earth would have played an enormous factor pertaining to LONG LIFE! Oxygen toxicity Did you also know that BACTERIA and CANCER CELLS cannot grow in an oxygenated rich environment. So when, according to you, did bacteria come into existence? Obviously for your fantasy world to be consistent they can't have been created by God "in the beginning". They must at least post-date Methusalah.
Did you also know that when a snake is placed inside a hyperbaric chamber its venom becomes nontoxic. You may wonder why? The reason is because venom is a toxin that is created from BACTERIA! Bacterial Protein Toxins But this is not true, which is one reason why the link you have provided does not say that it is true. The genes for snake toxins have been identified. Guess what, they're in the genomes of snakes, not of imaginary symbiotic bacteria. If you'd even been interested in this subject for thirty seconds or so, you'd know this. Google is your friend here.
I can think of several environmental factors that changed off hand, such as thorns and thistles. Evidence?
What I am getting at here is that these things all have a valid scientific explanation. There's not even scientific evidence for creationist fantasies, let alone a scientific explanation. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anita Meyer Member (Idle past 5084 days) Posts: 33 From: Kenosha, WI. Joined: |
quote: Coyote, its not that I’m snowing over your posts concerning radiocarbon dating - just redirecting them. And I am not saying that you are not educated in your field. No my statements are not wrong they just don’t fit into your narrow perspective of understanding. Therefore, I’m simply riding over them to prove my point. You cant just focus on one thing and ignore the other. Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
No my statements are not wrong they just don’t fit into your narrow perspective of understanding. Nonsense. They are wrong and anyone who knows that field is aware of that.
Therefore, I’m simply riding over them to prove my point. You made outlandish statements about radiocarbon dating, a field about which you know little and understand less. You were corrected, and rather than admit your error you are dodging and weaving.
You cant just focus on one thing and ignore the other. It seems like you are ignoring the criticisms of your statements and just continuing to make additional outlandish and unsupported statements. Are you here to discuss these matters with those who might just know more than you do, and to learn, or are you here to preach? It would seem the latter. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anita Meyer Member (Idle past 5084 days) Posts: 33 From: Kenosha, WI. Joined: |
quote: Dr Adequate, you fail miserably to comprehend! The wheel is turning but the hampster is dead! Everyone can see the idiosyncrasies in your posts. The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences. Better luck in your next posting. Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Dr Adequate, you fail miserably to comprehend! The wheel is turning but the hampster is dead! Everyone can see the idiosyncrasies in your posts. The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences. Better luck in your next posting.
What are you talking about? What does open-mindedness have to do with it? Snake venom doesn't come from bacteria. A simple glance at wikipedia could've told you that:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anita Meyer Member (Idle past 5084 days) Posts: 33 From: Kenosha, WI. Joined: |
quote: Is that the only thing you have to cling onto, I have yet to see you expand your horizons. With the Carbon dating issue - I have given up in the area with you, not because I’m wrong as you would front, but simply because I quickly realized that there is no winning with you in the different perspectives between Creationism and Evolutionism. Both have their positive and negative points. I merely just point out that there are differences in dating processes which harbor anomalous readings. This is what I have been saying all along. You on the other hand are fully fledged on believing that evolutionary scientist make no mistakes and that their dating methods are 100% accurate. Now I’d like to move beyond this hang-up. Why do you think that a hyperbaric chamber has that kind of effect on a poisonous snake? Is there a science here that we are not understanding? Could this have played a part in the earths history in some way? You know exactly what I am talking about here, so don’t revert to asinine answers. Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given. Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anita Meyer Member (Idle past 5084 days) Posts: 33 From: Kenosha, WI. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist,
quote: Move beyond wikipedia in understanding just what snake venom is: Bacterial Protein Toxins Edited by Anita Meyer, : No reason given. Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Anita Meyer writes:
If that's what you would like to believe, then keep on deluding yourself.
I have given up in the area with you, not because I’m wrong as you would front, but simply because I quickly realized that there is no winning with you in the different perspectives between Creationism and Evolutionism. This is what I have been saying all along. You on the other hand are fully fledged on believing that evolutionary scientist make no mistakes and that their dating methods are 100% accurate.
He uses those methods. Are you telling him he doesn't know what he is doing?
Now I’d like to move beyond this hang-up.
Of course, if you can't back it up, move away claiming victory anyway.
Why do you think that a hyperbaric chamber has that kind of effect on a poisonous snake?
Because you made that up. Or can you back this one up?
Is there a science here that we are not understanding?
No, just stuff you made up. Or other people made up and you are repeating.
Could this have played a part in the earths history in some way?
If it were true.
You know exactly what I am talking about here, so don’t revert to asinine answers.
About made up stuff. There settled it. Either back up your claims with actual evidence, or admit you made that stuff about snakes up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
With the Carbon dating issue - I have given up in the area with you, not because I’m wrong as you would front, but simply because I quickly realized that there is no winning with you in the different perspectives between Creationism and Evolutionism. Both have their positive and negative points. I know the differences. Science follows the data where it leads, while creationism ignores, distorts, misrepresents, and denies data that is inconvenient. You have shown us how that works in this thread.
I merely just point out that there are differences in dating processes with harbor anomalous readings. This is what I have been saying all along. I know about anomalous readings. Scientists examine these, run more dates, try different dating methods, and eventually figure out what is going on and what the correct dates are. Creationists start blowing about a young earth, global flood, or some other cherished religious belief that has nothing to do with the issue. In essence, they lie, misrepresent, and spout nonsense.
You on the other hand are fully fledged on believing that evolutionary scientist make no mistakes and that their dating methods are 100% accurate.
Nonsense. You clearly know nothing about this subject. On my last large project I ran 31 radiocarbon dates to make sure that I understood the time periods I was dealing with. If radiocarbon dating was as inaccurate as you seem to believe I should have been getting random results. That was not what I got. And I cross-checked my results with other dating methods. Just admit that you were spouting creationist nonsense and wishful thinking about the diamonds and the general inaccuracy you claim for radiocarbon dating, and we can move on. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2322 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Anita,
Nowhere in that article does it say that snake venom comes from bacteria. They compare bacterial venom to snake venom, but nowhere does it say that snake venom comes from bacteria. Will you now finally admit you made that up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anita Meyer Member (Idle past 5084 days) Posts: 33 From: Kenosha, WI. Joined: |
quote: Coyote, in no way will I do this! If you can solve this problem satisfactorily, the Nobel prize awaits you and you will become a hero to all the evolutionists in the world as the man who finally shut the creationists up over the origin of life. On the other hand, if you remain a convinced evolutionist, perhaps you will follow the example of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins and his modern-day followers by avoiding the issue of how life began without a designer and maker, or saying that it isn't a problem and doesn't matter. Here again, I have given ample proof: http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...nation.pdf What have you done? Author Anita Meyer anitameyer1@hotmail.com The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...guage.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Move beyond wikipedia in understanding just what snake venom is: Bacterial Protein Toxins One of the rules here is not to debate by link. I shouldn't have to dig through your sources to find support for your claims. That link does not say that snake venom comes from bacteria. Quote that link, like I did for mine, on where it says snake venom comes from bacteria. You should spend more time providing support for your assertions rather than just jumping from one to the other without any. You're really loosing credibility by doing that. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: Coyote, in no way will I do this! If you can solve this problem satisfactorily, the Nobel prize awaits you and you will become a hero to all the evolutionists in the world as the man who finally shut the creationists up over the origin of life. On the other hand, if you remain a convinced evolutionist, perhaps you will follow the example of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins and his modern-day followers by avoiding the issue of how life began without a designer and maker, or saying that it isn't a problem and doesn't matter. Here again, I have given ample proof: http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpubli.../...nation.pdf
Nice Gish gallop! You totally avoided the subject we are discussing and went off on an unrelated tangent. You seem to be living proof of that old adage: You can always tell a creationist, but you can't tell him much.
What have you done?
I have shown you where your comments on diamonds and radiocarbon dating are incorrect. Isn't that enough? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024