|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is Not Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7883 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: you did nothing there but make yourself into a jerk and point out to me again that evolution is nonsense. You didnt even bother to back your alligations up with any evidence, you just said no. well evolution isnt a religion from what i know so back up your claims. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7883 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: you have got to be the single worst debater ever. your not going to convince any creationists with attitude and disrespect like that. your better off just not saying anything, but go ahead and reply to me with some more whines. ill probably skip over this thread the next time im come in. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7883 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
thanks for such a good response to TC, Ludvan. some of these evolutionists are getting unbearable. Ill give my two cents on it and here it comes. In science everything is assumed to be probable and thus theyre are a dozens of explanations of life and of death. We dont really know for absolute what causes them but science does give us a very good approximation. Science also only provides a limited description of the past in that it doesnt measure actual time. Christianity doesn't explain anything either because if you didnt have to overcome obstacles to be saved then there really wouldnt be much point to living here on earth. maybe you dont have to have faith in Jesus to get into heaven but we need to believe that we need to have total faith so that we can accomplish something here on earth. Thats the basic drive behind all relgions, motivate your people. Christianity is right in my eyes because its based on love rather than some of the other religions that are based on hate and control. We dont believe for the sake of believing, we believe because we love and we know that we need to be loved and share love.
plz try to make sense of this.------------------ "Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi [This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 03-21-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Who said I was trying to convince creationists of anything? All I was pointing out was that if TC's rant were correct, it would have sterilized all life on earth. If I offended I am truly sorry, but maybe some folks need to lighten up around here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7883 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: thanks. yeah we all are a bit too serious but showin disrespect is going to far. i try my hardest not to, but you can get pretty angry. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)Damm the secrets out boys we`re all going to have to get proper jobs as missionaries and stop lazing around all day doing science.... Science is LAZY????? Try it sometime KP it may surprise you, its actually quite demanding.... 2)Oooops your first attempt at being a lazy scienticic person and you screwed up already.... Time proceeds at exactly the rate we measure here on Earth under acceleration of 1G as per the equation:(delta t1 - delta t2)/delta t = (Phi2 - Phi1)/c2..... So according to Einstein it can`t be done thus your statement of "okay einsteins wrong your right" in response to Marks statement of "Even if you CAN show that time can be altered under 1G (earths gravity) by 1,000,000%, which I sincerely doubt" is quite interesting given that his position is based on Einsteins theory of general relativity... Oh and P.S Mark your right to be skeptical if GR holds time can`t be made to go faster under a constant acceleration..... [This message has been edited by joz, 03-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3216 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Oh G whiz, well your new here so I won't get skeptical about the skeptics. The water is in the oceans silly. And it came from polar glacier masses. [/B][/QUOTE] Hi, yes I am new to this board but I am not new to the debate. I have been going at it to varying degrees for about 20 years now. As to the water, there is not enough in the polar ice caps to cover all of the land masses. I have this from a number of reputable sources, one was from a grad school friend who was in teh space physics department and was working on plate techtonics and models that could be applied to extrasolar bodies. Here is a different source that outlines the , prety much, most up to date data concerning the earths past,
http://www.ps.ucl.ac.uk/~awayne/polar/geology.html so you see, even with plate movements and no caps there is still uncovered land mass, and a good deal of it as well There was a model put out by a researcher at Los Alamos that has been used to demonstrate fast movement of the plates by creationsts, problem is that some model also demonstrates the slow movement postulated by geologists who are not young earth creationists. It also fails (the creationist model) to account for the massive offgassing which would accompany the fast movement model and pretty much give us a Venuvian atmosphere and the extinction of all non-bacterial life on this planet. Oh well, I have a great deal of work to do today so please consider this my answer to your reply on the other thread as well. Got to run. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Since my casual dismissal of TC's statement regarding geological evidence was excessively offensive to some people here, I will attempt to address TC's points more respectfully.
quote: Sometimes it is basic. Unfortunately, it is always basic to the professional creationists.
quote: I am confused. I thought you wanted it to be faster. And how is "must be ... sea floor spreading" evidence? Evidence should indicate that sea floor spreading actually was slower.
quote: "Must be?" Well, there either is or there isn't. What does the evidence say? And what is a "frantic outer-core?" How do yo know it is frantic? What is the evidence? Are you one of those creationists who ridicules evolutionists for being speculative?
quote: What? Why is the temperature increasing? Was it cooler at one time? What about the rest of the earth? Was not radioactivity increasing there also? What did this do to life on earth?
quote: How do yo know this? What is the evidence? You are telling stories without any supporting data. We actually see evidence of rifting far back in the geological record, long before the break up of Pangea. I thought you said we were going to look at the evidence...
quote: This is another story. What is the evidence? What tells you that the convection cells were once slower, then speeded up and then slowed down again? Tell us how this directly relates to polarity of the earth?
quote: What do you mean by "must be?" Are there such mountain ranges? If so, that would be evidence. Tell us which mountain ranges you are talking about and then perhaps explain the older mountian ranges that are eroded away.
quote: Actually, plate tectonics does not require this. It may and does occur but it is not a requirement.
quote: Sounds like Baumgardner here. Do you know that the only reason he needs heat is to make his model work? So, Baumgardner's model actually explains Baumgardner's model! There is no evidence for such heat flows in the geological record.
quote: And is explained more than adequately by standard plate tectonics. How is your plate tectonics better? What evidence do you have that contradicts standard plate tectonics that makes CPT better?
quote: The core is leaking? To the surface? How do you know this? How do you know that the radiogenic energy is burned out? These things would be data. What you are giving us is a (kind of fragmentary) story.
quote: Indeed. Now how is this different from standard plate tectonic theory? All you have thrown a bunch of ideas, stories and and scientific nonsense, along with a dash of evidence, up against the wall to see if it sticks. Care to try again? [This message has been edited by edge, 03-22-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brachinus Inactive Member |
quote: So which Cambrian forms did they "microevolve" from? Can you put forth a candidate for their Cambrian ancestor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3822 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
TC, if you're going to claim that lobsters and crayfish came from something that doesn't even look like a lobster, isn't that a far bigger leap than from monkeys to man? That's macro if I've ever heard of it.
Anyway I think I'm going to look for ASU's "Tree of Life" website and see what lobster-like crustaceans predate lobsters and crayfish and when.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Indeed, and in a much shorter period of time than evolutionary time scales.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: OK, show how your explanation is more logical and more plausible than current explanations by Geologists. ALso, did you look ONLY at the physical evidence and come up with your model (which would be scientific), or did you look at the Bible story first, and then figure out a model trying to incorporate as much of natural phenomena as you could in order to make the Bible true (which wouldn't be scientific)? It doesn't matter, really, even if you can explain where all the water comes from in a way that makes sense and doesn't require magic (althought I don't think you can). You have an enormous amount of evidence which strongly tends to refute the flood having happened. Also, how do you explain why there are no flowering grasses, no flowering trees, and, in fact, no flowering plants, mammoth or miniscule, in the top layers of the Geologic strata? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: mmm, I still think that you believe because you were taught to believe from a very young age. The largest determinant of an individual's religious persuasion is where they live. That's why you don't find a lot of Hindus in your neighborhood, and why there aren't a lot of Christians in Tibet, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: So you actually deny the POSSIBILITY that transitionals exist. KP, it isn’t possible to have a more closed mind. Alarm bells a ringin’!
quote: If anything’s possible, what about transitionals? You still haven’t answered the question. I’ve always been told by creationists that the number of mutations for macro evolution is vast. So, to support your statement that an organism could retro-evolve into what it was before you need at least to demonstrate it’s likelyhood. It’s that odds thing again. If it takes a thousand fixed mutations in a genome of say, 3 billion nucleotides then the chance of a mutation reversing it is 1/3,000,000,000. For that to happen ONLY 1,000 times is 3^9 to the 3^9th power. My scientific calculator can’t display this figure as it is so large. So would you agree that its probably as likely that a species could evolve into what it was before and mess up the order is NOT a feasible argument for explaining fossil record patterns?
quote: What are you on about? Half lives are demonstrably constant, why would you think they weren’t? Do you have any evidence that they weren’t from earths formation onwards? Saying it might have been, or Godidit is baseless assertion.
quote: Abiogenesis DOESN’T state DNA arose spontaneously. To do that it would have to appear in a solution of constituent molecules ready made. DNA requires a battery of enzymes to replicate efficiently. RNA has the property of self catalyation, & is a candiate for a predecessor of DNA, before that PNA, who knows? But DNA was never thought to have spontaneously appeared. In fact it is the sheer odds of such an occurrence that weighs against it. Why is it that evolutionists can accept such bad odds, & dismiss an argument, but you can’t dismiss a 6,000 year old earth hypothesis in the face of 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1 odds? If science is a gift from God why does it contradict the bible? Like turkeys voting for Christmas? Also science in the form of the scientific method is demonstrably man made.
quote: It COULD be, but would you back this horse with your life savings? You’re stating the obvious. How can these methods be MORE THAN LIKELY HORRIBLY WRONG? The odds suggest they are more than LIKELY right!
quote: Sorry, KP, drivel, utter unsubstantiated drivel. Radiometric dating methods measure time, by definition, not anything but. The assumptions are that half lives are constant, based on solid experimental evidence. The truth, as an absolute 100% known factor doesn’t exist. But we base likely-hoods on the strength of evidence. Radiometric dating has been questioned by YECs. I have provided an example where the chance of radiometric methods getting the assumed YEC date wrong is 13,858,587,006,250,000 : 1. Now, tell me. What is more LIKELY, a 6,000 year old earth, or an older earth based on the statistics provided by evidence?
quote: How have I lost credibility? You are eschewing evidence (radiometric) in favour of a substance-less position. This is an awful intellectual hypocrisy. You believe in an evidence-less God, & claim other evidence-less religions are incorrect. HOW can you claim anything is wrong without a basis for doing so. How can you claim anything is true without evidence? Much less, you are claiming science, with a basis in evidence, is wrong at the expense of unsubstantiated supernatural scripture. It is the person that argues from an evidence backed position who has credibility, not the other way around. So, do you have evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old?
quote: The earth will appear as old as it is, not as old as it wants, & it appears old. Your argument is with radiometric dating & the corroborative odds produced by the example I provided. No, me & Einstein are in perfect agreement, it’s you who disagrees. You need to show that under 1g of gravity, at the speed the earth rotates about the sun that time can vary by 1,000,000%. If you think that 1g, or the earths velocity about the sun varied, then show that it did by a factor as large enough to cause a 1,000,000% time dilation. If not, then time isn’t as easily altered as your argument requires.
quote: Geological time is based on evidence. If you can’t produce evidence of YEC time, then I can say with EXACTLY the same intellectual basis that the earth is 50,000 years old, or 100 billion years old, etcetera, ad infinitum. Any claim to know the age of the earth without any presented evidence is meaningless.
quote: Baseless assertion. How do you argue the above odds with a basis in evidence? Saying Godidit without showing SOME positive evidence of Gods existence is simply denial. Do you understand this? It would be like you being tried for a crime you never committed, you weren’t in the country, the gun had someone else’s prints on it, & all the witnesses said it wasn’t you, but judge believes it was, so you get the chair. In order to argue a position you must have some basis to successfully do so. What basis do you have? The bible? What basis in evidence do you have for assuming God to exist because of what is written in it? Because it looks to me that you have no basis for believing God to exist, no basis for believing that God wants to test us, no basis for denying colossal odds against a 6,000 year old earth, no basis in EVIDENCE whatsoever. In fact, in light of this, it looks to me that anything, no matter what the odds/evidence, if they contradict the bible you’re sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes & saying GODIDIT, GODIDIT, GODIDIT! Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024