ICANT'S position in the creation debate

First you have to understand my arguments. Usually, I can tell you that you rarely do. What you do is jump down my throat. You throw about ten issues and fifteen strawmans in there and seem to think it's an analysis. Call me odd, but the names od biology books don't strike me as particularly memorable. If you think this makes my claim bullshit, that's your opinion, it won't change the truth of the matter. It is hard for me to find the books but I can name them if the seminar is repeated, and then I guess you will apologize? No>? I thought not. The branchial arches are not therefore "gill arches". This is basic logic Rrhain, time to study more carefully. You can term them what you want, they are irrelevant rudimentary shapes. If I need to keep up with science, why do you ask that I proclaim something isn't true if you assume I didn't know about it?You can do many things in the lab because it is a place designed to make correct conditions, and manipulate the variables. This doesn't evidence abiogenesis in the least. A basic grasp of logic will teach you this. Even the Urey/Miller experiment made the problems go away, such as oxygen etc.... but alas, there is no need for me to disprove that which is not proven in the least. Not surprisingly, that is not my argument at all. I didn't make much of an argument. Most of my argument you make for me, they're called strawman arguments. If you can't see how numerous topics were related to me in yopur initial response, then I question your comprehension. You didn't merely respond to my post, you jumped to many conclusions about many different topics.Do you really want me to show everybody the specific mistakes you made, in detail?Here's one wrong conclusion here, as an example of how you seem to consistently fail to understand anything I write; Can't justify what? That I think it would be more fruitful for you to read a normal intelligent conversation than aggressively argue with me about issues I didn't even raise, and things I didn't even say.Rrhain....I am more than happy to give you the rope. I find it highly enjoyable smashing your ad hominem strawman posts into oblivion as per usual, but if you want pain, what can I do other than oblige?

THIS is why I don't debate you. You are almost lying about me here. Why would I state tthat the fossil record is bullshit, I don't deny science, I deny naturalism. My points were about naturalism, and the fact that chemical and biological evolution are part of the same story that goes with all of the other theoretical naturalism.So you don't ask questions at all, you simply twist things in all almost immoral capacity.That's why I recommended you'd be better to read me debate an honest, intelligent, coherent person who won't twist what I say. If you read a debate between me and modulous, you'll find that despite the few struggles we have with eachother, we basically are having a fruitful conversation.I don't trust you at all. THIS is why I don't debate you, because I have lost all respect for you. Your motive is to twist everything I say to suit you own hate-agenda, and believe it or not, I simply don't want to be around such a grotesquely bizarre individual.I'm afraid your example did not show life coming from none-life in the least. No, I don't think that this means your side knows nothing, but I do believe it is reasonable for me to assume Genesis just as much as I assume abiogenesis, if experiments are still nowhere near a cell.Elaborate as your examples are, and I commend your knowledge in that area, those examples don't satisfy me personally, on an intellectual scale.Believe it or not, you do not have to think the worst of me because of this. All it means is that I believe a design-scenario is much more persuasive when we look at the facts of design, rather than the theoretics of evolution/s.Yes, I'm biased, ofcourse I am because I believe that naturalist theories are more belief than facts or evidence. I concede that an example of a transitional could be a species such as neaderthal man.Did I just say that Rrhain? Did I just say I admitt evidence of transitionals? Infact get this - the most impressive transitionals, TO ME, are the ones in the homo genus.But you don't ask - you jump. You jump, jump, jump to many, many fallacious conclusions about "mike" that are either ad hominem, or you make ad logicam allusions to what other folk have said. You should know that objectively, the notation of logic does not allow such behavior to be sound in the least, yet you do it anyway, because you hate everything about me. THAT is your real motive - your worldview, and your opposition to me, because of cynicism.It's not just me who has had problems with you at this site, it's even atheists aswell.You can respond to my posts, but if spouting lies about me is okay with you then I can't respect you at all. Infact, I reiterate, I do not trust you, and for other reasons also.I looked into some of the things you said in the past, experiments and such and it turned out that you had not given me all of the information, you hade presented it in a very specific way that would only suit your cause. it's a common behaviour, but again, it's not intellectually honest because I can only make sound conclusions based on all of the information.

No, you don't have to adjust the pulse rate. You can't adjust the pulse rate; only gravity/acceleration and relative velocity can affect the pulse rate. Just adjust the divisor. As I already explained. What's wrong with it? I pointed out that he used the wrong transformation between coordinate systems, and I explained why the transformation was wrong. If you think I'm in error, explain why. Kant knew nothing of relativity. Neither Godel nor Kant wrote anyting like the ridiculous mish-mosh that your source did, which anyone who's taken freshman physics can easily detect as fallacious. If they had written anything like that "paper", they would be uneducated nutjobs. A second is defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the cesium-133 atom (at Earth's surface). Period. For the convenience of some (mostly astronomers, IIRC) there is another unit that is called a second but really shouldn't be; it's a small fraction of a mean solar day. It is not usable in most scientific fields and is not relevant to discussions of physics.We don't have to add a leap second to keep the two in sync. We decided, arbitrarily, to add leap seconds to keep the two in sync for the convenience of astronomers.I see you missed the important part of my point; no matter how we define a second, time passes differently on the satellite clock relative to the Earth clock whether the Earth clock is a cesium atomic clock or a rotating Earth or your alarm clock at home or anything that measures time. It's the four-dimensional continuum that forms the Universe and, to us, is most easily described mathematically by three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate.You want to tell me how many of my links you've read and studied until you understand what they are saying (even if you don't believe it)?Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Your argument is that because you don't know everything, then that lack of knowledge means I should believe in abiogenesis, which is proven through information you don't have?You think that because you don't know "how" abiogenesis happened, or there is not evidence "yet" of your theory, that I should believe this lack of something favours such a theory?That is perhaps the most stupid argument I have ever heard. How would objective information as yet undiscovered have a name-tag on it saying, "the theory Rrhain wants to be true", on it?You have not used your brain enough, friend. You have forgotten that YOU reject science because you don't believe in steady state or spontaneous generation or monera.I do not deny any experiments or facts of science. I deny that I must dogmatically hold to certain naturalist theories where the facts do not support such theories.Your experiment of the flaggellum for example, I do not deny natural selection, nor mutations, what I deny is a "claim" that this pathetic little adaptation somehow relates to a claim that every design came from such processes, even though the facts shows that such bacteria are fossilized, despite replicating thousands of times faster than humans.So basically, your problem is that because I don't share your belief in naturalist theories rather than say a baramin theory, I should reject gravity?Friend, that's so dumb, when I don't even technically reject evolution. I accept "possible" transitionals. I accept mutations exist, and natural selection, and hyper-adaptive bacteria.So what? Why should I go one further and accept unproven things such as abiogenesis, unless I had a motive of bias towards natural solutions? Why would I deny facts of design I have been shown?Try some thinking for a change, rather than regurgitating the same tired old refuted positions.

That is not the case.
See thread Message 1 which tells you why we can, in fact, observe that nature is clearly not designed. We have hard evidence that you are wrong.You can take your answer there if you think you have one.

It is the case. I do not need to argue that a bird can fly through a complex mechanism with all of the correct barbules etc...The "design" is the wings, the muscles. One can see that the function is very high. If you compare a human design, concerning flight, you will get something very inefficient. The power to weight ratio for example, will not be as good.Now, you get a radio control helicopter with full 3D flight, but at best the energy per-flight ratio is astoundingly poor compared to a hoverfly.Even after many years of designing, it seems the ratios in construction are exceedingly poor. We also have the facts of information being seperate to matter, ecc..You can't really state that a butterfly has not got a different design to a hoverfly, or a giraffe hasn't got a mechanism to stop it fainting, or drowning in it's own blood.I need only observe these things. I think evolution tries to deal with the problem of design but doesn't actually tell us anything useful about such wonderfully different yet brilliant design.

I don't think I have one. There are alternative explanations to naturalism that on the face of it don't seem possible because of how human history has gone. Evolution has "won" in a sense, but if you look at it objectively, organisms will always be designed. There's no escaping the things we usually think of as design, such as efficiency, ability, high funtioning capacity, information, (alll animals are the same matter, but different morphologically).This is all factual. It's not so much an argument as an observation.

Oh, Mike, why do we bother when you do all the work for us. You have just perfectly well demonstrated that nature cannot possibly use design as it is far too inefficient. We agree completely. How could one possibly mistake nature for design, when design is, as you say, so poor?What's that you say? God's design is much much better than our design? Is it? Do you have an example of this divine design, as the only examples of design I know are all examples of human design.

LORD mike the wiz,I am still looking for data in the genesis accounts of the bible that contradict abiogenesis.Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

---

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

cavediver, why are we seeking questions about human design? what does it have to do with anything? It is not contrary to evolution, ID, or creation.

---

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

mike,everything is a argument it dont matter if it is evolution, creation, ID. There is no way to be absolute about it. I hate it when people try to claim that there is but there is no way to be absolute about it. The idea of string theory is a really good example.However there are some things I can conclude as mythological. Look at history, how many faiths are there? Is it not true that every culture in history has its own faith? So why would anyone in there right mind, knowing that every culture has its own faith that christianity is truth? Come on man be objective don't assume christianity just because you want to. It is not logical to assume a god that you have never SEEN or HEARD or TOUCHED created the universe. Even if there was such a thing, I am sure you could never understand this "being". and speaking of such things, why would this being that has existed for an eternity care about moral character? all Humans live and die for peats sake.. And dont tell me that a biological being could at one time under different circumstances live for an eternity but then because he ate from a tree of good and evil that caused them to live less time or some hog wash.. We are here.. this is our reality.. henceforth, every view must be tested.. There is no absolute truth.. and faith is not science... you should not be looking at scripture to prove your views scientifically because the views of the writers were nothing like the science views of today...Edited by Sasuke, : editEdited by Sasuke, : edit

---

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

Then you didn't read the thread. Evolution tells us very clearly that you designs were not the result of any brilliance at all. They are exactly the kind that is produced by utterly mindless processes. The signature of those processes is carved into each animal and plant.

Hi JonF, I can't adjust the pulse rate.You explained in message 395 You say time is running faster on the satellite.You also say in the first quote where you are telling me I can't adjust the pulse rate:"only gravity/acceleration and relative velocity can affect the pulse rate."So which is it?Is time running faster on the satellite?OrDoes gravity/acceleration and relative velocity change the pulse rate to make time appear to run faster on the satellite?So whatever causes the difference all I am doing is adjusting the satellite clock so it will sync with the stationary clock on earth.Since the earth is my frame of reference that is all that matters.You know with all this talk about building things I got the idea to build me a superduper Teleporter. It is powered by dark energy. I can step inside face the console and enter June 25 4 BC Bethlehem. Press begin it takes a few moments and the dial begins to go backwards 1000 AD, 500 AD and finally 4 BC. I step outside and press my pocket remote and the teleporter disappears. I look for the Inn and find it. I go to the stable and find a young lady there who has just given birth to a beautiful baby boy. I ask the baby's name and am informed it is Jesus. I congratulate the young couple and leave.I go back to where I left my transporter press my remote, enter and press the button that says home. In a matter of moments I am back in my garage September 9, 2009. My wife says where did you go? I told you your breakfast was ready, if you don't come on in and eat it, it will get cold.Time has not passed it is still there, you are just not at the reference frame to see it.If time has not passed it does not exist.I hear it now ICANT did you fall out of your rocker and go off your rocker.No I was just dreaming about what Godel came up with when he asserted "a time that fails to pass was no time at all". Which Einstein nor anyone else ever refuted. A World Without TimeYour answer to my question concerning spacetime. Nice opinion. But I had rather been given the scientific answer which is: SourceGod Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Sasuke, I noticed a couple of things in here I would like to comment on.Genesis 1:17 tells us God created mankind in His image/likeness. That means we have body, mind, and spirit.The body will die.
The mind and the spirit are eternal.
In the resurrection everyone will receive a new eternal body.If biological man evolved from non life he has no spirit and when he dies he dies end of story.I have heard God and after I heard Him I was able to see Him. I do not expect anyone other than a born again child of God to understand that statement. So no reply is necessary.Scientific fact: non life can not produce life.Therefore we did not evolve.How can people have enough faith to believe that something that has been proven scientifically impossible come to the conclusion God does not exist.Life exists.If only life can produce life which is a scientific fact.Then it is a scientific fact that there is something that has life that beget the life we have today.ICANT'S position is we have what we have whether the design is good or bad makes no difference, it works.I choose to call the entity that gave the life we have God.He did have some things written down in a collection of books to point us in the right direction.But man from the beginning has been making his own choices.Just as you make yours and I make mine.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT, Most people consider this scripture to be metaphorical hence the word "image". The word image can and will mean many things but most assume this is refering to the characteristics of god. I really dont think god is biological nor a man either. However there is nothing in the bible that says god is a man this is an assumption. A very selfish assumption really from a galactic perspective. This defers in opinion across the planet. The body will die however some religions believe in resurrection and some don't. Another point, there is no fact of the matter to determine if we have a soul/spirit so this is an assumption as well. I was a born again christian about 8-9 years ago and after that I evolved into a latter day saint only to eventually learn all religions are mytholigcal. Anyone can see that from history alone. It is not a fact it is assumed via natural causality just like the assumption of uniformity of place and time.andI believe in creative evolution. The changes you see in the fossil record were created not mutated in my opinion. It is still evolution because there is still a type of development occuring. I also follow paranormal science, which most would agree is not a science but it is in my opinion because you're dealing with evidence. The problem with it is not that it is hard to conclude if the beings are real it is hard to conclude what they are. I have recorded many evps with many different digital recorders at various times, when only 2 people were present, me and my coinvestigator.. Nobody was near us for miles most of the time and have seen some shadows come directly up to me and depart.. I have recorded clear answers in evps to clear questions, such as, is earl amick here with us today? response........ "yes"..... Anyways, I don't follow religion I follow science... I will admit revelations are nice but however there is no reason to conclude that just because you say in the name of christ at the end of your prayer that it is in fact him responding.Edited by Sasuke, : editEdited by Sasuke, : editEdited by Sasuke, : removedEdited by Sasuke, : editEdited by Sasuke, : No reason given.Edited by Sasuke, : clarity.. sorry bout all the edits..Edited by Sasuke, : clarity 2 lolEdited by Sasuke, : clarity 3Edited by Sasuke, : clarit 4 lolEdited by Sasuke, : clarity 5 and done now..Edited by Sasuke, : I need to work on my clarity skills before I post.. sorry.. lol.. I hope this is the last time..

---

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!