Evolution is Not Science

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LudvanB:
[B]Well then Jet...lets take another approach,shall we?1-Myth: The world was formed within 6 days by an invisible,intangible,mysterious God some 6000 years ago.***Provide the scriptural references that confirm this statement. Especially the part about "6000 years ago".***Fact: There is simply NO EVIDENCE whatsoever,of any kind imaginable that this was the case. There is nothing anywhere on this planet that can allow one to come to that conclusion...Hell,there isen't even any evidence that there actually IS a God...its purely a personal,spiritual choice for each individual to believe in God...meaning that since there is no evidence of God,people who dont believe in God like you or i CANNOT be faulted for it.***This is obviously a matter of perspective. For some, the mere existance of complex organisms is enough evidence to convince them that an Intelligent Designer is the only possible author of life. Your personal beliefs on the matter have significance only to you personally. Opinions are negated from one person to the next. Finally, if God is God, is He not able to find fault in you for any reason He chooses? Do you actually think you could enter into a debate with such a creature?***2-Myth:6000 years ago,God created two people in a heavenly garden who were effectively immortal until they ate an apple....then,their longevity dropped to ~900 years and those two people fathered the entired human race.***"Effectively Immortal" until they ate an "Apple"? I have never read anywhere in scripture where it says this. Please offer the scriptural references so that I may examine them.***Fact: Not only is there no single shred of evidence anywhere that there ever was an Adam and Eve but it is medicaly impossible for people to life for 9 centuries and 2 people do not possess the genetic diversity required to engender an entire race.***Not so long ago, it was medically impossible for someone to live for over an hundred years. Today, we see many people living that long. As for the genetic diversity angle, I am afraid that even some evolutionists would disagree with you there.***The characters of Adam and Eve come not from the hebrew but from an ancient Sumerian Myth,where the Gods(plural) created both Adam and his first wife Lilith AT THE SAME TIME from the dust of the earth. But in that story,Lilith would not submit to Adam's will as an obediant wife and left him for the company of Angels and Demons. Adam bitched about it to the Gods who then cursed Lilith,plunging her into the ocean and than fashionned a mild,obediant wife for Adam creating her from his rib to insure her devotion and called her Eve. The hebrew simply recycled that old legend,gave it a new twist,and Voila! we have the story of Genesis.***Interesting little tale. I would love to see your references on this little tale, along with the historical and physical evidence of it preceeding the Genesis story. What other cultures, if any, believed in this tale, and what sort of physical documentation is available?***3-Myth:At some point in the distant past,there was a water vapor/ice canopy around the earth,which disapeared at the Flood.Fact: The absurdity of this belief really confounds the mind and illustrates a clear ignorance in matters of astronomy and earth sciences. The fact is that any such bubble,weather is be water vapor or ice,would have been blown right off the planet by the solar winds in a matter of days,if not hours following the formation of the earth and appearance of the sun,since its not said to be part of the atmosphere but in fact is placed ABOVE the atmosphere by scripture,and thus,outside the protection of the ozone layers who break down the solar winds as they enter our atmosphere.***You got all that information from the scriptures? Reference the appropiate scriptures please. I would love to read them.***Furthermore,the whole water bubble theory is born of the scriptural description of a FIRMAMENT set to separate the waters below from the water above. What this argument fails to take into consideration is that in the context of the Bible,firmament meant "solid dome" in which the stars were "embeded".***Again, please provide scripture references, along with concordance references to confirm this interpretation.***This description is consistant with all other description of the world in the bible which illustrates clearly their belief that the world was in fact a small,immobile flat disk.***You should really be willing to supply us with all of the scriptural references, along with concordance corroboration, if you expect to be taken seriously when making these kinds of statements, not that it would really help when you make such outlandish statements as this. Sorry, but I assume that your canopy statement is made from pure ignorance concerning this subject. Even if one accepts the concept of a canopy or not, neither the existance or non-existance of such a canopy can be falsified without going back in time. The feasability of a canopy, and its' subsequent effect upon the environment and the species within, can be falsified, and there are attempts underway to do so at this time. But to make the bold assertion that you make, and to state it as an established fact, is to make the type of claims that gives evolution and evolutionists a reason to be ridiculed.***

If anyone needs to get serious here, it is you. Your polemic sermons of a wonderful fossil record that simply does not exist other than in your own mind, and your inordinate desire for someone to rebutt your nonsensical posts is cause for questionable concern. Either post something with some real substance or accept that you are hereby considered as irrelevant and incoherent as your previous posts have been.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Sorry Mark, but your post is little more than a rehash of material that has been rebutted and refuted so many times that to do so again would be a truly pointless endeavor. Your inability to grasp the enormity involved in the discussion of contrary perceptions of data and evidence from an highly intellectual point of view, coupled with your tremendous inability to engage in any sort of meaningful interlocution based upon the intellectual understanding of those scientists who are directly involved, not to mention your gross misunderstanding of the proper etiquette necessary for a productive intercourse and exchange of ideas, joined with your arbitrary dismissal of concepts that you obviously do not comprehend on the same level as the scientists who are engaged in the various fields of science, does make for a rather ordurous experience for anyone of an opposing view who may wish to engage you in discussion. Possessing a proclivity for verbosity is not necessarily a negative characteristic. I would, however, consider you the exception to the rule. Sorry!

---

I attempted to show the so called myths you claimed, weren’t. My arguments fell into 3 categories.1/ Exposing straw men (4)
2/ Providing evidence contrary to your claims (By experts in their fields), at the same time asking what you would accept as good evidence. (1)
3/ Asking how a high degree of corroboration (again provided by an expert in his field) could be reasonably dismissed. (1)I thank you for your kind words, but fail to see how I have arbitrarily dismissed anything. I have provided evidence/points raised by experts in their fields, & find myself wondering how I have could possibly have breached etiquette & passed port the wrong way around the table in so doing?It may well be that my points have been a rehash of material that has been rebutted and refuted so many times that to do so again would be a truly pointless endeavor. But I have never seen them answered, despite pushing the million percent argument several times. Did it occur to you that your post was EXACTLY the same as you claim mine to have been? If my answers have been so obviously refuted before, why on earth did you think you were posting anything original deserving of a reply in the first place?Nevertheless, it was YOU who made those statements, it is for YOU to defend them.Put up or shut up.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Interesting use of his earlier statements as a refutation of his later statements. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:.......why on earth did you think you were posting anything original deserving of a reply in the first place?***Deserving of a reply? I don't recall ever making such a claim. I honestly could not care less if anyone chooses to reply to any of my posts. You choose to do so on your own and at the risk being labeled by me as just another nefandous proponent of that most unscientific of theories, which you refer to as Darwinian evolution!*** [QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:"Put up or shut up."***What number is that one on the forum guidelines list? I must have missed it!***

quote:

---

JET'S COMMENTS SNIPPED

---

JM: When are we going to get something more than argument by quotation? Can you actually support your arguments using real world data? Start with something simple like the age of the earth. How about it? Argument by quotation, argument by ad hominem is useful only to a small degree. What I would love to see is a meaningful discussion of scientific data. Are we going to get this from you or not?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:

​

.......why on earth did you think you were posting anything original deserving of a reply in the first place?

​

***Deserving of a reply? I don't recall ever making such a claim. I honestly could not care less if anyone chooses to reply to any of my posts. You choose to do so on your own and at the risk being labeled by me as just another nefandous proponent of that most unscientific of theories, which you refer to as Darwinian evolution!*** [/b][/QUOTE]

​

I'll take the "risk".

​

Were your comments undeserving of a reply, then?

​

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mark24:

​

"Put up or shut up."

​

***What number is that one on the forum guidelines list? I must have missed it!***

​

[/B]

---

The same guideline as evasion.YOU made those statements in message 33, it is for YOU to defend them, no one else. If your not prepared to defend your own statements then there's no point you being here. If you want to simply transmit, write a book.If you want a debate, then stay in this DEBATE forum. But debate is a two way exchange. Put simply, this means a reply to message 36, OK?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Sorry Mark, but your post is little more than a rehash of material that has been rebutted and refuted so many times that to do so again would be a truly pointless endeavor. Your inability to grasp the enormity involved in the discussion of contrary perceptions of data and evidence from an highly intellectual point of view, coupled with your tremendous inability to engage in any sort of meaningful interlocution based upon the intellectual understanding of those scientists who are directly involved, not to mention your gross misunderstanding of the proper etiquette necessary for a productive intercourse and exchange of ideas, joined with your arbitrary dismissal of concepts that you obviously do not comprehend on the same level as the scientists who are engaged in the various fields of science, does make for a rather ordurous experience for anyone of an opposing view who may wish to engage you in discussion. Possessing a proclivity for verbosity is not necessarily a negative characteristic. I would, however, consider you the exception to the rule. Sorry!

---

Violation of rule 2 of the guidelines. This is your third warning for such a violation, so I'm assessing a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. See you tomorrow night at 9 PM eastern time.--Percy (EvC Forum Administrator)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
If anyone needs to get serious here, it is you. Your polemic sermons of a wonderful fossil record that simply does not exist other than in your own mind, and your inordinate desire for someone to rebutt your nonsensical posts is cause for questionable concern. Either post something with some real substance or accept that you are hereby considered as irrelevant and incoherent as your previous posts have been.

---

Gee, Jet, when you decide to spread the abuse you really don't hold much back.Debaters here are required to treat those with whom they disagree with respect, or at least stick to the issues and avoid becoming personal. When you registered with this board you agreed to abide by its rules. If you don't like the rules you shouldn't participate here. If you feel I'm enforcing the rules unfairly then please contact me at Percipient@.--Percy

i cant disagree with you since you really didnt say anything none of us already knew. actually i dont think you said anything other than numbers are big, but ill agree with it.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

i agree with everything Jet is saying and thats what ive been trying to explain to all of you evolutionists and nonbelievers.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

are critizing jet or his post? i think your just critizing him and trying to discredit him, it wont work.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

evolutionist do the same thing and actually debate plz.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i agree with everything Jet is saying and thats what ive been trying to explain to all of you evolutionists and nonbelievers.

​

---

Jet, for all his quote mining and hand-waving has not really said all that much with substance. I've been encouraging him (and so I shall you too) to come forth with evidence in the form of data and analysis that supports your conclusion. You should also note that lumping evolutionists with non-believers could lead some to conclude that you must be one in order to find the other compelling. Many atheists I know don't care a hoot about evolution and many evolutionists I know are devout Christians, or Muslim's or etc... What exactly do you mean by the statement and will you, in JETS absence provide us with some compelling data and analysis that supports your points. I'd love to discuss some.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
Q&A

​

This site is interesting- it gives very simple and straight-forward responses to the most common issues raised by YECs.

​

http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~wmwines/WASP/creationist_arguments.html

---

providing a link isnt debating. you didnt even address his statements yet. also the site was a bit dated, info from 1983.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

​

[This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 03-17-2002]