Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 11:17 PM
389 online now:
Coyote, Davidjay, edge, marc9000, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (5 members, 384 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,758 Year: 10,364/21,208 Month: 3,451/2,674 Week: 867/961 Day: 70/109 Hour: 3/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
181920
21
2223Next
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1575 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 301 of 336 (637938)
10-18-2011 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 7:51 PM


I am not retracting anything simply pointing out that sea vegetation existed before sea life but that land vegetation came after sea lif e had existed. Your point of Genesis is that land plants exited before sea life, which is wrong.

you writes:

5. vegetation.
6. Water life.

My point was that the term vegetation was vague in that it doesn't separate the water borne flora, algae, from the land based flora shrubs, trees, grass etc. Algae existed long before the land plants and all the animal phyla existed before the land plants. All the animal phyla started in the sea.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 7:51 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:34 PM bluescat48 has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1575 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 302 of 336 (637940)
10-18-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:17 PM


No it is not a swarm, there is only one hypothesis, a swarm would have to be many hypotheses.

Edited by bluescat48, : typo


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:17 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1575 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 303 of 336 (637941)
10-18-2011 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:14 PM


Actually it is a "swarm of swarms," Numerous different species many not closely related, with billions of individual organisms.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:14 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1053 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 304 of 336 (637942)
10-18-2011 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by bluescat48
10-18-2011 9:23 PM


quote:
My point was that the term vegetation was vague in that it doesn't separate the water borne flora, algae, from the land based flora shrubs, trees, grass etc.

But it does seperate the main groups of vegetation - many groups of vegetation are listed. The waters did have those vegetation groups prior to the emergence of animated life forms in the waters, and the premise of some newly term groups of vegetation does not pose the problem you have invented as vague:

quote:
11 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind;

quote:

Algae existed long before the land plants and all the animal phyla existed before the land plants. All the animal phyla started in the sea.


Algae is a plant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by bluescat48, posted 10-18-2011 9:23 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by bluescat48, posted 10-19-2011 9:43 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1697 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 305 of 336 (637943)
10-18-2011 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 7:08 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
This was never the issue

Actually, the issue is Creationists redefining words to mean something they don't in a half assed attempt to lend credence to their claims.

As such, we are still right on target.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 7:08 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:45 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1053 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 306 of 336 (637945)
10-18-2011 9:41 PM


There were yet no animated [self propelled moving] life forms before vegetation. [Genesis]

None of the life forms were animated or living entities when they became initiated; this includes the first human. They did not move even when they were completed constructs.

Does anyone agree with this premise of Genesis?


  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1697 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 307 of 336 (637946)
10-18-2011 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 7:48 PM


Re: Swarms
If creationism is thrash, even as one of only two possibilities, why is this forum inviting a discussion of it? Which post of yours or anyone else here has shown it to be thrash

Hey dipshit, you are replying to a quote of YOU saying that my arguments are "thrash".

Now you are arguing with yourself over that subject.

I've never said that anyone's arguments are "thrash", chiefly because "thrash" is not a word.

And, THAT fits very nicely into out topic - words creationists make up or redefine to suit their purposes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 7:48 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1053 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 308 of 336 (637947)
10-18-2011 9:43 PM


All life forms, on their initiation, were dual-gendered. Namely, the first human was a dual-gendered male/female construct ['Male and female did He make them'].

Does anyone agree with this Genesis premise?


Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2011 9:47 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1697 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 309 of 336 (637948)
10-18-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 7:51 PM


Knock-knock! First you stated Genesis does NOT say that vegetation emerged before water borne life. Now, after showing your error, you say it did, but that its wrong. That's a nice way of debating.

Let's be clear.

Are you saying that the Bible states that vegetation predates other water borne life?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 7:51 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:47 PM Nuggin has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1053 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 310 of 336 (637949)
10-18-2011 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 9:38 PM


Re: Evolved Warts
You have to give an alternate reading of a statement before shouting eureka! You have not done so.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:38 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1053 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 311 of 336 (637950)
10-18-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 9:44 PM


Yes. By millions of years. And this is first recorded in Genesis - which is the earliest known scientific statement in all recorded history.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:44 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:52 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5668
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 312 of 336 (637951)
10-18-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:43 PM


Genesis is wrong (again)
All life forms, on their initiation, were dual-gendered. Namely, the first human was a dual-gendered male/female construct ['Male and female did He make them'].

Does anyone agree with this Genesis premise?

From Wiki:

Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single parent, and inherit the genes of that parent only, it is reproduction which does not involve meiosis, ploidy reduction, or fertilization. A more stringent definition is agamogenesis which is reproduction without the fusion of gametes. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaea, bacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:43 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:58 PM Coyote has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1697 days)
Posts: 2962
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 313 of 336 (637954)
10-18-2011 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by IamJoseph
10-18-2011 9:47 PM


'Nuggin' writes:

Let's be clear.

Are you saying that the Bible states that vegetation predates other water borne life?

'IamJoseph' writes:

Yes. By millions of years. And this is first recorded in Genesis - which is the earliest known scientific statement in all recorded history.

Well, that's factually incorrect.

There was waterborne life prior to that life developing the ability to photosynthesize.

Vegetation does not predate other water borne life. It can't. It's an impossibility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 9:47 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by IamJoseph, posted 10-18-2011 10:07 PM Nuggin has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1053 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 314 of 336 (637956)
10-18-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Coyote
10-18-2011 9:47 PM


Re: Genesis is wrong (again)
Read your own link fully and understand what you are reading. Meiosis is a form of cloning - which forms the duality in the egg, emulating normal repro; this form of emulation can be done in a lab as well. Otherwise [without this duality semblance ability] - no reproduction can occur.

quote:
Alternation is observed in several rotifer species and a few types of insects, such as aphids which will, under certain conditions, produce eggs that have not gone through meiosis, thus cloning themselves. The cape bee Apis mellifera subsp. capensis can reproduce asexually through a process called thelytoky. A few species of amphibians, reptiles, and birds have a similar ability (see parthenogenesis for examples). For example, the freshwater crustacean Daphnia reproduces by parthenogenesis in the spring to rapidly populate ponds, then switches to sexual reproduction as the intensity of competition and predation increases. Another example are monogonont rotifers of the genus Brachionus, which reproduce via cyclical parthenogenesis: at low population densities females produce asexually and at higher densities a chemical cue accumulates and induces the transition to sexual reproduction. Many protists and fungi alternate between sexual and asexual reproduction.

There is no alternative to the duality factor for all actions in the universe - including life and inanimated entities. Genesis wins.

[/quote]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2011 9:47 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Coyote, posted 10-18-2011 10:15 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1053 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 315 of 336 (637958)
10-18-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Nuggin
10-18-2011 9:52 PM


The vegetation emerged before photosynthesis; the latter happened later, after the vegetation was already completed, yet was not living. The photsythesis occured when light and darkness were adjusted t the correct ratio for this planet, differing it from other planets [Genesis v14] and the rain cycle was triggered.

This premise may well be above this thread's posters' thinking. It begs the question: which came first - the mother's breast milk - or the offspring? Which came first - the car - or the blueprints of a car? Which came first - the life form - or all the trillions of aligning factors necessary for that life form?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 9:52 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2011 10:18 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
181920
21
2223Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017