QUESTIONS

quote:

---

Originally posted by themediator:
2)Ya see, brilliant scientists are everywhere. The fact that one person won the nobel peace prize means absolutely nothing. The fact that most evolutionary scientist get nobel prizes is true, but that doesn't devalue creation scientists discoveries at all. The creation scientists just are disproved and shown prejudice when attempting to go for a peace prize have been met with hostility by judicators in the Nobel Peace Prize council(for lack of a better word) because people don't want to accept the truth that there may be a God. That would mean that there would be judgment day and people would have to atone for their sins, and people don't want to take responsibility for their actions. So people will try everything to disprove creation so they can sleep at night believing that they don't have to atone for the wrongs they did. That's why.

---

Or possibly their research and science are both completely spurious and not one of them has ever produced something worth a Nobel prize...I personally find this more convincing than the Global Evilutionist Conspiracy TM

quote:

---

Originally posted by themediator:
2)1)The fact that one person won the nobel peace prize means absolutely nothing...

​

2)The fact that most evolutionary scientist get nobel prizes is true...

---

1)Actually more than 1 person wins a Nobel prize every year...2)This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever, it seems to imply that you think a large proportion of evolutionary scientists are awarded Nobel prizes, they aren`t....

quote:

---

Originally posted by themediator:
1)That's the best estimate that evolutionists can come up with.

​

2)If it's any longer it disproves a large portion of evolution.

​

3)If its any shorter, it disproves a different large portion of evolution.

​

4)Even now, it disproves some of evolution.

​

5)There has never been any evidence that any kind of plant or animal has ever been able to create itself or produce any other kind of plant or animal.

​

6)We have seen thousands of changes within the created kinds but that is not evolution.

---

1)Really a guess is it? Why hasn`t it been exposed as such, oh it must be GEC TM at work again...2)How does more time available cast any doubts on the possibility of evolution?3)Possibly, possibly not it depends how much shorter a time frame we are talking about.... 10,000 yearas would be to short but then again the GEC TM have managed to supress that as a widely accepted age...4)Really? How?5)How about the fact that genetic data shows exactly the "papertrail" that evolution predicts ie chimps and humans having more shared genetic material and retroviral insertions than humans and gerbils...The GEC TM want you to think this is due to a shared ancestry....6)Would you care to define created kinds for me...For instance are chimps and orangutangs the same "kind"...Are humans and chimps the same "kind"...

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-01-2002]

Interesting I would have thought that the government would want to promote any worldview that promoted a sense of responsibility for ones actions, it would make it easier to enforce law and order....Must be GEC TM in action again....Oh and if you think separation of church and state is "bunk" try going and living in a theocracy some time Iran for example...Also how would you feel about a state church if that church were not christian? Probably the same way a non christian would feel about a state sponsored christian church..... i.e not very happy church state separation is a good way of avoiding this issue...

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-01-2002]

He is also an idiot, he thought that a decomposing basking shark was a plesiosaur....And the "challenge"?Read these and tell me if you can honestly say its not spurious... http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_bogus_challenge.htmhttp://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_phony_challenge.htmhttp://www.nmsr.org/HOVIND.HTM#Proverbs

quote:

---

Originally posted by themediator:
Dr. Kent Hovind

---

You seem really impressed by that doctorate...Its from patriot university do a web search and see what you find....

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
The DNA code is degenerate (you can designate the next amino acid to be inserted into the polypeptide chain using more than one sequence). If I were writing a code to build a new protein, I could build exactly that same protein hundreds of different ways using different codons and get the same results. The same protein would come out the end, but there are thousands of different genetic codes I could have used to make exactly that protein.

​

In fact, if we had the technology and the inclination, there is no known reason why we could not build an entire living human being that is chemically identical to the rest of humanity but with DNA that shows essentially no similarity to any other human. He would be more different from other people than a chimp is from us....

---

Now that is interesting, what does that do to Dembskis concept of specified information?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
For me I have found it is the exact opposite...

---

What, so basically , the more people understand science, the less people believe in creationism?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--lol, nice try Joz, more like 'the more people understand science, the more people would be to believe in creationism', IMHO.

​

---

Right so we have various Bsc`s, PHD`s, at least one professor (SLP at least probably more) and presumeably some Msc`s as well who, get this, think evolution is right and creationism wrong....Are you saying that those of us with scientific qualifications don`t understand science? If not your assertion falls at the first hurdle....

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)I don't think that that substantiates anything really, being an argument from athority, ie, saying that because the Ph.D.'s are Old earthers, that means the earth is old. I know your not directly asserting this, though its as it seems.

​

2)...it would not be their science that is flawed if anything, it would be their interperetation of course.

​

---

1)It isn`t an arguement from authority, you made the assertion that the more people understood science the more (likely?) they would be to accept creationism, I was meerly showing you that the people here on these boards with scientific training seem to predominantly disagree with creation....I`m not saying that because they have qualifications they are right by default, rather that they have qualifications that demonstrate their understanding of science....The fact that they are predominantly evo`s seems to disproove your original assertion....2)Science is interpretation TC the rest is just data....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale.

---

HTF did they get into different strata? Did a global flood come along and "sort" them?If they were buried (by man) I`m pretty sure that these putative future paleontologists would notice things like discontinuities in the rock strata....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"primitive species are found lower in the strata, and more modern and "advanced" are found further up. "
--Sounds like the flood to me!

---

Ok TC explain to me by what mechanism does a sudden innundation of H₂O sort dead organisms by degree of sophistication rather than by size/shape/density....Thats assuming it wouldn`t just churn everything up into a homogenous layer....

Thats what i was asking for bud, sorry TC if it wasn`t expressed clearly enough but a general model is what we want here....

Um TC you seem to misunderstand Punk Eeek, Punk Eeek IS gradual evolution in an isolated (geographically and genetically) population...The reason that we see sudden transitions is that once the isolated population overcomes its confinement it has evolved to be different from the parent population hence we see the arrival of a new species...Oh and for the record it was Darwin that first proposed some sort of Punk Eeek....."Charles Darwin wrote in 1859:Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species.
The Origin of Species, Chapter 14, p.439"

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 03-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
And then all of a soden (though the time-scale would give it a good couple thousand years for the process) it 'evolves' into something simmilar though apparently different. This is where punctuated equillibria comes in, and where Darwin got it wrong, assuming it was a gradual process (which, if not relying on the fossil record, is much more plausable). So if I am not mistaken, your looking for this smooth transition, and not this rather blocky separation of fossils.

---

Your implication that the appearence of discrete as opposed to continuous changes in the fossil record is a "dilemma" for gradualism is resolved by Punk Eeek, so it is puzzling that you mention Punk Eeeek as an alternative to gradualism....Its not an alternative it is gradualistic and as Darwin noted we don`t expect to find a smooth transition, hence no dilemma.....Also your description of species muddling along for millenia before undergoing a rapid burst of evolution and settling back down in relative evolutionary inactivity again when coupled with mention of Punk Eeeek implys a notion that Punk Eeeek = Hopeful Monster ie non gradual evolution...Do you understand that your post either a)betrayed an ignorance of Punk Eeek or b)was misleading in its representation of Punk Eeeek....