Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9046 total)
604 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, nwr, Parasomnium, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (7 members, 597 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,288 Year: 4,934/14,102 Month: 532/707 Week: 87/176 Day: 16/34 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unexpected Dates.
compmage
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 1 of 33 (16759)
09-06-2002 9:56 AM


Actual Subject: Dishonost motivations (Sorry about this, I got a bit carried away, and lost my original subject)

Perhaps I should start with what I believe first. As a Christain, I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, and therefore the knowledge is eternal and complete. Science, on the other hand, is limited knowledge, that could very well be made obsolute by new discoveries. You may not agree with this view, and I respect that. I do believe that Genesis 1 could be interpreted simbolicaly, but there is certain things from it which is clear: Death is the result of sin, and the earth were made perfect ("..and God said it is good")

Since evolution require death, I must doubt it. This might be unscientific, but let's be real: If there were a period where death did not exist, the evidence could be as clear as can be, scientists will not make such a conclusion. It is just to "out there" to be believed.

And I think I have reason to distrust evolusionists. They can sometimes act just as unscientific as religious people. Example:

The incident when a human scull and a apes jaw were found, it became "the missing link" for 50 years, before its true identity were discovered. And let's not forget the ape-man that was dreamed up from a single tooth of a pig. And I have heard of several cases where scientists just assumed the age of artifacts without proper analysis. Artifacts is sometimes forced into their preconcieved ideas.

Then there is the argument of smooth evolution. For over a 100 years they told us it is a fact that evolution occured smoothly, and, even though the fossil evidence do not currently show it, as the collection of fossiles grow, it will eventually appear that way. Faith is to be certain of that which you can't proof. If this wasn't faith, I don't what is. Now they made another unscientific assumption: Species remain the same for millions of years, and then suddenly change appearance overnight. As unbelievable as this might sound, I suppose it's beter than believing that these creatures were just created, each acording to its type. I'd like to wittness this "transition" in real live.

And the cherry on the cake: We are told that everything in the universe is degrading, and everything is moving to a state of chaos. Tell me then, why has live gone the opposite why the last few billion years?

Bottom line is this. I wasn't there, so I haven't got a clue how the world was created. Maybe, I AM wrong, and God DID use evolution. But the evolusionists can blame only themselves when religious people accuse them of distorting the truth and calling evolution "the religion of the atheist". There ARE scientists who want to use evolusion to disprove the existance of God. Then they make statements that harms the credibility of evolution. And they do not follow the scientific process. When creationist scientists give scientific arguments against evolution, they are simply dismissed. In true scientific tradition, the evolutionists should seek to discuss this with evidence with the creationists, and admit when they are right, even if it turns their theory upside down. But so too, creationists should not propogate evidence which is already disproved.

People should know. This can never be a purely scientific issue. Unfortunatly, people on both sides of the debate has their own agendas, and, it's best to treat them, like with politicans, with a certain amount of distrust.

[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-06-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 09-06-2002 10:33 AM compmage has responded

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4671 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 2 of 33 (16760)
09-06-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
09-06-2002 9:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
Actual Subject: Dishonost...

[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-06-2002]


By edit: Quote truncated by Adminnemooseus - See entire quote in previous message

Kent Hovind been there (oops guess not he was in jail)? Anyway, you need to learn about what evolution really is, what the 2nd law of thermodynamics REALLY says and not bring out the same worn out litany of anti-evolutionary rhetoric. The fact that no one 'saw' things happened does not mean we are unable to piece together the story. If that were true, think of how many crimes would never be solved. Finally, if you want to trot out examples of fraud in science and claim that all science is bad---then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad. In short, why not study up on the subject and bring forth some reasonable arguments in support of your position. Christianity does not require that you 'disbelieve science'. Creation scientists have presented no evidence for their claims. They distort, manufacture and talk about evolution but eschew open discussion on the issue in the scientific literature. The scientific community is oblivious to their claims because creationists appeal to the lay person because they know emotional appeals work better.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 09-06-2002]

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 9:56 AM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 11:29 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

compmage
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 3 of 33 (16772)
09-06-2002 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Joe Meert
09-06-2002 10:33 AM


I rest my case. Maybe, it might help if you read my WHOLE letter, before replying. Did I not say : "But so too, creationists should not propogate evidence which is already disproved."? Did I not say "I wasn't there, so I haven't got a clue how the world was created?" Did I not even say "Maybe, I AM wrong, and God DID use evolution"? Instead, you make me out as a fundimentalist who disregard all science. If that was the case, I wouldn't have been able to write half my letter. I wasn't attacking science, I said Evolusionists do not always FOLLOW the PRINCIPALS of science. You just need to read my example to know that!

It is also clear that you are not a religious person and have no idea what religion(Christianity) is about.("...then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad.") How can I be a religious person, while believing THAT??? Read my first paragraph. ("I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, and therefore the knowledge is eternal and complete. Science, on the other hand, is limited knowledge, that could very well be made obsolute by new discoveries."). You should know beter that to try and convert me with one sentence. If you are an atheist, you have no bussiness to be here anyway. No Atheis can believe in creationism, therefore this debate is a waste of your time. This is a matter concerning mainly religious people, because there has to be a God for creationism to exist. If we are so very backward, why do you concern yourself with what we believe? Or do you feel threatened by the possibility that you might be wrong and that there is a God? In that case, He won't go away by me stop believing in Him. By the way, I do not "disbelieve" in science. New (true) scientific discoveries excites me. I probably know more about science than you do about religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 09-06-2002 10:33 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 12:03 PM compmage has responded
 Message 6 by gene90, posted 09-06-2002 7:08 PM compmage has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5466 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 4 of 33 (16778)
09-06-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by compmage
09-06-2002 11:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
I rest my case.
***************************

I did not know you had one

Maybe, it might help if you read my WHOLE letter, before replying. Did I not say : "But so too, creationists should not propogate evidence which is already disproved."? Did I not say "I wasn't there, so I haven't got a clue how the world was created?" Did I not even say "Maybe, I AM wrong, and God DID use evolution"? Instead, you make me out as a fundimentalist who disregard all science. If that was the case, I wouldn't have been able to write half my letter. I wasn't attacking science, I said Evolusionists do not always FOLLOW the PRINCIPALS of science. You just need to read my example to know that!
****************************************************************

You just have to read your example to see the same hackneyed bogus anti-science arguments that creationists use over and over without success.

It is also clear that you are not a religious person and have no idea what religion(Christianity) is about.
*************************************************

How is that clear. Or if someone disagrees with you it is due to their deficiencies?

("...then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad.") How can I be a religious person, while believing THAT??? Read my first paragraph.
****************************************************

Read his post...he was pointing out the fallacy of your logic

("I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, and therefore the knowledge is eternal and complete. Science, on the other hand, is limited knowledge, that could very well be made obsolute by new discoveries.").
*****************************************************

The bible is obsolete because the middle ages are over

You should know beter that to try and convert me with one sentence.
*********************************************

You here looking to convert? Great.

If you are an atheist, you have no bussiness to be here anyway. No Atheis can believe in creationism, therefore this debate is a waste of your time.
********************************************************

Few people without a good education and a strong biological background can understand evolution either so I guess this is a waste of your time to. Oh yeah, and there are religious people who believe in evolution.

This is a matter concerning mainly religious people, because there has to be a God for creationism to exist. If we are so very backward, why do you concern yourself with what we believe? Or do you feel threatened by the possibility that you might be wrong and that there is a God? In that case, He won't go away by me stop believing in Him.
*****************************************************************

We concern ourselves when people propose that their fantasies should replace theories supported by evidence. Otherwise you could worship Marvin the Martian and nobody would care.
***************************************************************

By the way, I do not "disbelieve" in science. New (true) scientific discoveries excites me. I probably know more about science than you do about religion.


**************************************************

Which (true) scientific discoveries would those be? Which are the false ones? How did you make your determinations?

I would not take the bet that you know more about science than Joe knows about religion.

Cheers,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 11:29 AM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 3:10 PM Mammuthus has responded

compmage
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 5 of 33 (16800)
09-06-2002 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Mammuthus
09-06-2002 12:03 PM


My aren't we getting personal. Very much the scientific tradition to attack the person making a statement we don't like. Let me reply to your letter.

I rest my case.
***************************
I did not know you had one

[Unscientific, personal insult I don't easily feel insulted. sorry.]
______________________________________________________________________
Maybe, it might help if you read my WHOLE letter, before replying. Did I not say : "But so too, creationists should not propogate evidence which is already disproved."? Did I not say "I wasn't there, so I haven't got a clue how the world was created?" Did I not even say "Maybe, I AM wrong, and God DID use evolution"? Instead, you make me out as a fundimentalist who disregard all science. If that was the case, I wouldn't have been able to write half my letter. I wasn't attacking science, I said Evolusionists do not always FOLLOW the PRINCIPALS of science. You just need to read my example to know that!
****************************************************************

You just have to read your example to see the same hackneyed bogus anti-science arguments that creationists use over and over without success.

[Wrong quotation. To get the examples, please refer to my FIRST letter. And anyone who know something about the evolution of the evolution theory, would know of these unfurnunate mistakes. But if you REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY want me to add sources to them, just tell me. I'll do the effort to locate them specially just for you. PS. The problem is not so much the mistakes they made, but the amount of self confidence with which it was made. I'm sure other scientists in other fields will gladly admit if there are things they do not jet understand, and when they do, they wouldn't make the kind of assumptions like the guy that worked magic with 'n pigs tooth. Besides. You can at least credit me for being a little bit more open minded than the average creationist (See quotation above)]
____________________________________________________________________
It is also clear that you are not a religious person and have no idea what religion(Christianity) is about.
*************************************************

How is that clear. Or if someone disagrees with you it is due to their deficiencies?

[Forgive me if I'm wrong, I wouldn't want to make the same giant leap assumptions evolusionists make, but if a person says :"then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad", I think I can savely say he's not religious. Don't you agree?]

_____________________________________________________________________
("...then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad.") How can I be a religious person, while believing THAT??? Read my first paragraph.
****************************************************

Read his post...he was pointing out the fallacy of your logic

[Read his ENTIRE sentence please:"Finally, if you want to trot out examples of fraud in science and claim that all science is bad". I challange you to quote me where I refered to "all science"? If you read my letter in the "Big Bang" section, you will see the fallacy of HIS argument. Once again. It is not the mistakes I dislike, I is the self confidence with which it is made that I dislike. You evolusionists like to tell us THIS is a "FACT" and THAT is a "FACT", 20 years down the line, a new discovery is made, which disproves these "FACTS" (Not by creationists, by evolisionists.) If you could just admit that these "FACTS" are actually theories, and that the fossil record, even if completed, only give a glimse into the past, I'll be happy.]
____________________________________________________________________
("I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, and therefore the knowledge is eternal and complete. Science, on the other hand, is limited knowledge, that could very well be made obsolute by new discoveries.").

*****************************************************

The bible is obsolete because the middle ages are over

[Oh, is that so? There is a book called "I Dared to call him Father." It is about a real live story about a disabled Pakistani girl (Muslim) that seeked help from God. She went on the Hajj (pelgrimage to Mekka), believing God will cure her. God did not awnser. She got a bible, and started reading. She read about Jesus as God, and how God loved us. Jesus appeared to her in a vision and she was cured. She converted to Christianity. Now, in Islam, that is one of the worst sins posible. Her entire family and her friends turned against her. Se was threatend with death, and even locked up in prison. Tell hèr the Bible is obsolete.
When Jesus came into Jerusalem, the croud cheered. When the religious leaders told Him to silence them, He said if they would be silent, the rocks will cheer. Meaning you cannot stop the Gods Good News. As the west rejects Him, Christianity is growing fast in Africa and in Asia. They said Christianity would die in the 20th century, It had the largest growth in that century than ever before. Rest assured. The Bible is not obsolute. not now, not in the next century, not in the next millenium.]
____________________________________________________________________
You should know beter that to try and convert me with one sentence.

*********************************************

You here looking to convert? Great.

[Wouldn't you just LOOOVVEE it if I become an atheist? Seems like you're doing the converting around here]
____________________________________________________________________

If you are an atheist, you have no bussiness to be here anyway. No Atheis can believe in creationism, therefore this debate is a waste of your time.
********************************************************

Few people without a good education and a strong biological background can understand evolution either so I guess this is a waste of your time to. Oh yeah, and there are religious people who believe in evolution.

_____________________________________________________________________

By the way, I do not "disbelieve" in science. New (true) scientific discoveries excites me. I probably know more about science than you do about religion.

***************************************************************

Which (true) scientific discoveries would those be? Which are the false ones? How did you make your determinations?

[Those are the ones that can actually be proven: relitivity, quatum phyics, etc. Not ones which include speculation, presented as facts. Those which you can actually apply to every day live (Ok, ok, so I like astronomy too. What of it?)]

____________________________________________________________________
I would not take the bet that you know more about science than Joe knows about religion.

[Now why would an enlightend scientific orientated atheist concern himself with ancient religions? I grew up as a Christain, and I also took the time to find out what other religions say. (I Don't think it's right for Christians to say things like "The Muslims pray to Muhammed", and them expect to convert.) Everyday I live in dependance from God. I too have a "thorn in my flesh", and I thank God that I know him, otherwise my life would've been a mess today. Trust me. My knowledge of science is larger than his knowledge of religion. Someone from the outside just cannot understand it quite like the person inside. You seek to critisize it, but I draw strenght from it.]

This site is suppose to be a place were creationists and evolusionists DEBATE the matter like civilized people, not insult each other like barbarians! Of all religions, atheists seems perticularly sensitive about theirs. (Just as I can't proof to you there is a God, you cannot prove there isn't. Your believe is just as void of scientific evidence as mine

Cheers,
Hanno

PS. Please lighten up. You sound worse than polititions in parlement. I do not have a vendetta agaist you, I just don't aggree with you, gee wiss!!!

[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Mammuthus, posted 09-06-2002 12:03 PM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 09-06-2002 7:23 PM compmage has not yet responded
 Message 8 by frank, posted 09-06-2002 7:25 PM compmage has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Mammuthus, posted 09-08-2002 8:38 AM compmage has responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 2814 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 6 of 33 (16811)
09-06-2002 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by compmage
09-06-2002 11:29 AM


[QUOTE][B]If you are an atheist, you have no bussiness to be here anyway.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Joe can be here if he pleases, and this debate is the business of anyone interested. In fact, as I understand, Meert is a geologist. He's one of the people that Creationists claim is deliberately misleading the public and concealing evidence of their young world. I think that gives him more right to participate here than anyone else, so you might take more care in trying to limit the opposition.

No Atheis can believe in creationism, therefore this debate is a waste of your time. This is a matter concerning mainly religious people, because there has to be a God for creationism to exist. If we are so very backward, why do you concern yourself with what we believe?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 11:29 AM compmage has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 2814 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 7 of 33 (16812)
09-06-2002 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by compmage
09-06-2002 3:10 PM


[QUOTE][B] You evolusionists like to tell us THIS is a "FACT" and THAT is a "FACT", 20 years down the line, a new discovery is made, which disproves these "FACTS"[/QUOTE]

[/B]

All science works that way, everything is tentative. There are no absolutes.

[QUOTE][B](Not by creationists, by evolisionists.)[/QUOTE]

[/B]

And that implies that Creationists aren't accomplishing anything useful. It also shows that the field of evolution is being studied by through honest, open-minded inquiry.

[QUOTE][B]If you could just admit that these "FACTS" are actually theories[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Evolution is a theory and a fact. When I show you evidence that one species diverged from another that is a fact. When I explain mutation and genetic drift to you as the mechanism for the divergence, that is a theory.

[QUOTE][B]and that the fossil record, even if completed, only give a glimse into the past[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Only a "glimpse"? We could say that but we would be incorrect in doing. Actually the fossil record is a seemingly limitless source of information and that's why we have people like Meert and Moose to tease out its secrets. These secrets are vital to the continued survival of our modern society. We need oil and we need mineral and ore deposits or civilization will crumble. Without historical geology we cannot locate any of these things.

Also we use the Theory of Evolution, and more specifically, the evolutionary history of man, in medical research. We have to know what genes are conserved across species in order to know which drugs can be tested on which animals. This will become even more important when we begin to investigate gene therapies. Evolution is important today and has been for a long time. Back in the earlier half of the 20th century Stalin's regime was disfavorable to Darwinian evolution
and put a "biologist" (actually a poorly educated fellow who was related to some important member of the party) who was favorable to Lamarckian evolution instead of Darwinian evolution in charge of the agricultural production of seed. His attempts to improve the strains of plants by using the wrong theory of evolution resulted in starvation across the Soviet Union, millions died. The other countries have not had that problem because they used the Darwinian model.

The moral of the story is that this debate is not academic, it is serious business and Creationists that push incorrect models are bringing a great and unnecessary peril upon any nation that listens to them.

[QUOTE][B]Many became convinced evolution can't have happend THROUGH biology. [/QUOTE]

[/B]

Who?

[QUOTE][B]Please lighten up. You sound worse than polititions in parlement. [/QUOTE]

[/B]

You compared us to Nazis. What really do you expect?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 3:10 PM compmage has not yet responded

frank
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 33 (16813)
09-06-2002 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by compmage
09-06-2002 3:10 PM


Hanno,

I'm not sure what it is that you wish to debate, it certainly does not appear to be related to dates and dating. Perhaps faith and belief, or is it science would be more appropriate forums for statements such as :

quote:

("I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, and therefore the knowledge is eternal and complete. Science, on the other hand, is limited knowledge, that could very well be made obsolute by new discoveries.").

or

quote:

[Those are the ones that can actually be proven: relitivity, quatum phyics, etc. Not ones which include speculation, presented as facts. Those which you can actually apply to every day live (Ok, ok, so I like astronomy too. What of it?)]

Proven ? (BTW, I like astronomy too.)

I would not know how to classify :

quote:

First there was Nazism, then there was Communism, now there is Evolutionism.

And don't you have this backwards ? Should not the order be : evolution (Darwin) 1830s, communism (Russian Revolution @1917), Nazism (Hitler 1930s and 1940s). I do not understand how you compare a scientific theory with forms of government, apples and oranges.

quote:

Evolusion is becoming so unbelievable now, that some EVOLUSIONISTS now propose that live must have been planted by aliens, because it appeard to soon on earth.

Would you document this please ? Who are the evolutionists ? What are the aliens ?

quote:

If you are an atheist, you have no bussiness to be here anyway.

I am not an atheist, but this IS an open forum. I personally think Mammuthus makes excellent points.

quote:

You can at least credit me for being a little bit more open minded than the average creationist

I'm afraid I've never met an *average* creationist, so no, I can't give you credit.

Not your quote Hanno but -

quote:

I would not take the bet that you know more about science than Joe knows about religion.

I suggest you take this advice very seriously.

Clear Skies !

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 3:10 PM compmage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Joe Meert, posted 09-07-2002 7:37 AM frank has not yet responded

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4671 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 9 of 33 (16846)
09-07-2002 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by frank
09-06-2002 7:25 PM


Hanno,

Two quick points. (1) How do you know what my religious or scientific backgrounds are? and (2) What makes you think that atheists cannot be knowledgeable about the bible?

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by frank, posted 09-06-2002 7:25 PM frank has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5466 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 10 of 33 (16904)
09-08-2002 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by compmage
09-06-2002 3:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Hanno:
My aren't we getting personal. Very much the scientific tradition to attack the person making a statement we don't like. Let me reply to your letter.
**********************************

I have seen no evidence from your post that you know anything about the scientific tradition.

I rest my case.
***************************
I did not know you had one

[Unscientific, personal insult I don't easily feel insulted. sorry.]
**************************************************

Please define a scientific personal insult

______________________________________________________________________
Maybe, it might help if you read my WHOLE letter, before replying. Did I not say : "But so too, creationists should not propogate evidence which is already disproved."? Did I not say "I wasn't there, so I haven't got a clue how the world was created?" Did I not even say "Maybe, I AM wrong, and God DID use evolution"? Instead, you make me out as a fundimentalist who disregard all science. If that was the case, I wouldn't have been able to write half my letter. I wasn't attacking science, I said Evolusionists do not always FOLLOW the PRINCIPALS of science. You just need to read my example to know that!
****************************************************************

You just have to read your example to see the same hackneyed bogus anti-science arguments that creationists use over and over without success.

[Wrong quotation. To get the examples, please refer to my FIRST letter. And anyone who know something about the evolution of the evolution theory, would know of these unfurnunate mistakes. But if you REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY want me to add sources to them, just tell me. I'll do the effort to locate them specially just for you. PS. The problem is not so much the mistakes they made, but the amount of self confidence with which it was made. I'm sure other scientists in other fields will gladly admit if there are things they do not jet understand, and when they do, they wouldn't make the kind of assumptions like the guy that worked magic with 'n pigs tooth. Besides. You can at least credit me for being a little bit more open minded than the average creationist (See quotation above)]
*****************************************************

I don't credit you with being open minded in the least. Go ahead lets see all your wonderful references. Since I am an evolutionary biologist I am sure I will get a big laugh from your references.

____________________________________________________________________
It is also clear that you are not a religious person and have no idea what religion(Christianity) is about.
*************************************************

How is that clear. Or if someone disagrees with you it is due to their deficiencies?

[Forgive me if I'm wrong, I wouldn't want to make the same giant leap assumptions evolusionists make, but if a person says :"then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad", I think I can savely say he's not religious. Don't you agree?]
****************************************************

Only if by open minded you mean your brain fell out of your right ear. If you actually read Joe's post you will understand why he made that statement. You hardly seem to be much of an authority on religion either.

_____________________________________________________________________
("...then you must also agree that there is fraud in religion and therefore all religion is bad.") How can I be a religious person, while believing THAT??? Read my first paragraph.
****************************************************

Read his post...he was pointing out the fallacy of your logic

[Read his ENTIRE sentence please:"Finally, if you want to trot out examples of fraud in science and claim that all science is bad". I challange you to quote me where I refered to "all science"? If you read my letter in the "Big Bang" section, you will see the fallacy of HIS argument. Once again. It is not the mistakes I dislike, I is the self confidence with which it is made that I dislike. You evolusionists like to tell us THIS is a "FACT" and THAT is a "FACT", 20 years down the line, a new discovery is made, which disproves these "FACTS" (Not by creationists, by evolisionists.) If you could just admit that these "FACTS" are actually theories, and that the fossil record, even if completed, only give a glimse into the past, I'll be happy.]
************************************************

Evolutionists like to tell people what is a fact and are overconfident? LOL!!!!!!!!!! Listen to your own statements about the truth of the bible which is completely unsupported. Why is the bible true and the Vedas not?
____________________________________________________________________
("I believe the entire Bible is inspired by God, and therefore the knowledge is eternal and complete. Science, on the other hand, is limited knowledge, that could very well be made obsolute by new discoveries.").

*****************************************************

The bible is obsolete because the middle ages are over

[Oh, is that so? There is a book called "I Dared to call him Father." It is about a real live story about a disabled Pakistani girl (Muslim) that seeked help from God. She went on the Hajj (pelgrimage to Mekka), believing God will cure her. God did not awnser. She got a bible, and started reading. She read about Jesus as God, and how God loved us. Jesus appeared to her in a vision and she was cured. She converted to Christianity. Now, in Islam, that is one of the worst sins posible. Her entire family and her friends turned against her. Se was threatend with death, and even locked up in prison. Tell hèr the Bible is obsolete.
*******************************************************

And crackheads might see visions of Elvis...how is this relevant?

When Jesus came into Jerusalem, the croud cheered. When the religious leaders told Him to silence them, He said if they would be silent, the rocks will cheer. Meaning you cannot stop the Gods Good News. As the west rejects Him, Christianity is growing fast in Africa and in Asia. They said Christianity would die in the 20th century, It had the largest growth in that century than ever before. Rest assured. The Bible is not obsolute. not now, not in the next century, not in the next millenium.]
********************************

Do you have any proof for this? Can you actually prove that Jesus ever existed? No you cannot. If the bible is not obsolete within the next century it will be due to declining education standards.

____________________________________________________________________
You should know beter that to try and convert me with one sentence.

*********************************************

You here looking to convert? Great.

[Wouldn't you just LOOOVVEE it if I become an atheist? Seems like you're doing the converting around here]
********************************************

Actually I would like to see you converted into a lucid and logical person but I doubt that is possible. As to your becoming an atheist..why would I care?

____________________________________________________________________

If you are an atheist, you have no bussiness to be here anyway. No Atheis can believe in creationism, therefore this debate is a waste of your time.
********************************************************

Few people without a good education and a strong biological background can understand evolution either so I guess this is a waste of your time to. Oh yeah, and there are religious people who believe in evolution.

********************************************

Hey Hanno, up your dosage of Prozac pal. Your last paragraph illustrates that in addition to a complete lack of scientific background you don't know anything about history either...sheesh...nazisim, communism, darwinism...how about brainless assertion, zealotry, and hanno-ism. I also think it funny how many of you fundie's try to link anything that conflicts with your religion with nazism or communism....I bet you don't even know what nazi stands for.
_____________________________________________________________________

By the way, I do not "disbelieve" in science. New (true) scientific discoveries excites me. I probably know more about science than you do about religion.

***************************************************************

Which (true) scientific discoveries would those be? Which are the false ones? How did you make your determinations?

***************************************

Sort of like you not knowing anything about science I presume.

This site is suppose to be a place were creationists and evolusionists DEBATE the matter like civilized people, not insult each other like barbarians! Of all religions, atheists seems perticularly sensitive about theirs. (Just as I can't proof to you there is a God, you cannot prove there isn't. Your believe is just as void of scientific evidence as mine
*******************************

No you are being inconsistent. You claimed earlier that atheist evolutionists have no place here...now you claim this is the purpose of the forum? I am attacking your statements. If you find that insulting then grow a thicker skin. If you make completley unsubtantiated comments about evolution then you will be called on it by me and by many others.

Cheers,
Hanno

PS. Please lighten up. You sound worse than polititions in parlement. I do not have a vendetta agaist you, I just don't aggree with you, gee wiss!!!
**********************************************

I have no vendetta against you either...however this is a forum for debate and disagreement...not the "I agree with you" forum.

Cheers,
Mammuthus

[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-06-2002]



This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by compmage, posted 09-06-2002 3:10 PM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by compmage, posted 09-09-2002 9:21 AM Mammuthus has responded

compmage
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 11 of 33 (16974)
09-09-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mammuthus
09-08-2002 8:38 AM


Well, I did say if one is wrong, one has to admit it, so here goes. Seems like I went to war, leaving my amunition(sources) at home. I must admit that was pretty stupid. . I'm not going to reply to everyting, but here is what I feel I need to clearify.
1. With "Unscientific insult", I mean it's not a proper scientific response to through insults. And, if it appears as if I have done so too, I appoligise. It was not my intension.

2. It's pretty silly to propose Jesus never existed. The Apostiles based their teachings on witness accounts, and when you read the first chapters of the book of Acts, you'll notice there were quite a view wtnesses. If Jesus did not exist, it is doubtful that Christianity would've existed. It's like saying Mohammed never existed. I don't believe his teachings, but I'm not going to pretend he was a mirage.

3. You say the bible is totally unsupported? So too the believe that there is no God. The proof of the existance of God cannot be proofed or disproofed by the natural sciences. Nuture is Gods creation, not God Himself. Similarly, you will not find the proof that a car was manufactured by, say, BMW by examining how it works. You'll just have to trust the label.

4. I DO know my history, by the way. Evolution and communism was invented in the 19th century. And if you want to be technical, the Soviet Union wasn't Communist. It was Socialist. Communism require that the government to disolve. I placed Evolution after communism, because it was in this order that these ideoligies became intolerant toward ideas chalenging it, while enjoying dominance. (I.e. in America, it is a criminal offence to speak of Genesis in public schools, but evolution is taught to everyone, whether you like it or not. (At least, that is the perseption.)

5. Crackheads see elvis, but Elvis doesn't miraculously make crippled
people walk.

6. "I have no vendetta against you either". I'm glad. Now we both know this is not a game of personal insults. However it would be more appearent if you do not use phrases like "Only if by open minded you mean your brain fell out of your right ear." Oh, and ofcause this place is for disagreement. I like to disagree. The reason I was wondering why an atheist would be interisted in this debate, is that you know before hand, you cannot be convinced. Likewise, I wouldn't expect someone that believe Genesis 1 is absolute to bother with this debate. (Unless you, like me, enjoy a good argument.)
I am more open minded than what you credit me: I do not have any specific believes on the details of creation, I just have a frame work. I happen to believe in the Big Bang, because it fits into this framework. It might not be your idea of an open mind, but it's more than you'll get from fundementalist creationists.

Now for my arguments.
Acording to the dean of microbiology of the University of Pretoria, Genes has a number of cromosones.(I'm not sure if that is the correct term, but I think you'll know what I'm talking about.) It is (according to him) scientifically impossible for the offspring to have a different number of chromosones than it's parent. It is thus not possible for one animal to have evolved from another animal with a diffirent number of chromosones.

The dreamed up man from a pigs tooth was Hesperopithecus. I'm sure, being an expert in the field, you know about this incident. [by the way, can you please tell me how they can tell it's a pigs tooth, if for 5 years, it was mistaken as human?] It incidents like this that made me say evolusionists are over confident. Think about it. If cosmologists found a theory to reconcile Relitivity with quantum phisics (Which is the workings of gravity) It would be thoroughly investicated before being accepted as fact. Very much unlike this incident.

Then I printed an article of Hansruedi Stutz. (www.answersingenesis.org) Now, before you lol, just remember his personal believes is not evidence against him if he does a scientific experiment. He went to Magenwil (Swizerland) and collected sandstone with fossilized mussels from the Upper Tertiary era. Along with this, he also took some samples of coal right next to it. Theoretically, an evolusionist would've assumed it to be 2 milion years old of where it was found. But he went and carbon dated it, and found it to be 36000 years old. Now I do not necesarily agree with his conclusions, but the point is this: I'm not sure if this is true, but sometimes you make age assumptions based on where an item was found. If you work thorougly, however, you sould date every single item you extract.

And tell me. The human footprints that were found in limestone along with dinasaur footprints near the Paluxy river in Texas. Has that been explained yet, or was it simply ignored?

Lastly. The dating techniques I still not sure one way or the other. It is based of the deteriation cicles of certain elements in the bones, but how can you be sure what the element ratio was in the beginning? A living Mollusk was carbon dated, and found to have been dead for 3000 year. This must be because there were already of the deteriated material in the Mollusk.(Science, Vol 141 (1963) pg 634)

Lava rocks were dated by the more reliable Potassium Argon Method to be 3 billion years old, yet the volcano errupted in 1801. (Journal of Geophysical research Vol 73 July 15, 1968, Pg 4601)

You would note, not all these are creationist sources. As I said, I'm not going one way or the other on the dating techniques. Not yet, anyway. Can you explain these contradictions? Please don't tell me this is Creationist hog wash. If it is, please proof it then with more rational explanations than "this is the work of a crank". Somehow, if you say that, I get the feeling you've got something to hide.

Please exscuse my spelling. If there is typing mistakes, it is because I'm typing in my lunch hour.

regards

Hanno.

[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mammuthus, posted 09-08-2002 8:38 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Mammuthus, posted 09-09-2002 9:55 AM compmage has not yet responded
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 09-09-2002 9:58 PM compmage has responded
 Message 20 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-10-2002 1:01 PM compmage has responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5466 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 12 of 33 (16984)
09-09-2002 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by compmage
09-09-2002 9:21 AM


Greetings Hanno

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hanno:
[B]Well, I did say if one is wrong, one has to admit it, so here goes. Seems like I went to war, leaving my amunition(sources) at home. I must admit that was pretty stupid. . I'm not going to reply to everyting, but here is what I feel I need to clearify.
1. With "Unscientific insult", I mean it's not a proper scientific response to through insults. And, if it appears as if I have done so too, I appoligise. It was not my intension.

I admit to having been to heavy handed in my responses as well and likewise apologize.

2. It's pretty silly to propose Jesus never existed. The Apostiles based their teachings on witness accounts, and when you read the first chapters of the book of Acts, you'll notice there were quite a view wtnesses. If Jesus did not exist, it is doubtful that Christianity would've existed. It's like saying Mohammed never existed. I don't believe his teachings, but I'm not going to pretend he was a mirage.

I don't necessarily buy this argument. Biblical text cannot be used to validate biblical texts. However, I admit using the absence of direct evidence for jesus to get a rise out of you

3. You say the bible is totally unsupported? So too the believe that there is no God. The proof of the existance of God cannot be proofed or disproofed by the natural sciences. Nuture is Gods creation, not God Himself. Similarly, you will not find the proof that a car was manufactured by, say, BMW by examining how it works. You'll just have to trust the label.

I think proving the bible true and god true are two different issues. However, one cannot prove something is true. One can find supporting evidence. Once can find contradictory evidence. That is how science works. i.e. you can never prove a theory is correct, for example a theory of gravity cannot be proven. Only supported. However, regarding god, there is no testable hypothesis so it is outside the realm of science. I have never seen any evidence for god and therefore do not believe.

4. I DO know my history, by the way. Evolution and communism was invented in the 19th century. And if you want to be technical, the Soviet Union wasn't Communist. It was Socialist. Communism require that the government to disolve. I placed Evolution after communism, because it was in this order that these ideoligies became intolerant toward ideas chalenging it, while enjoying dominance. (I.e. in America, it is a criminal offence to speak of Genesis in public schools, but evolution is taught to everyone, whether you like it or not. (At least, that is the perseption.)

Actually, evolutionary theory in various forms has been around for several centuries. Darwin basically brought them all together. I see no link between Darwinsim and Communism however. One is a theory of speciation and the other is a social political system. Secondly, under Stalin, Darwinism was flatly rejected and Lysenkoism supported. Anyone disagreeing with Lysenko (who was a neo-Lamarkian dingbat) was either censored or killed. As to not teaching Genesis in schools as a mandatory subject, speciation is part of biology which is science. Genesis is a component of a group of religious worldviews. They do not belong in the same class in a school. America is free partially(for the time being) because no one religious ideology (or lack thereof) is taught over others in school. I many people would be outraged at their children being forced to learn native American creation stories in their chemistry classes.

5. Crackheads see elvis, but Elvis doesn't miraculously make crippled
people walk.

He could make everyone dance

6. "I have no vendetta against you either". I'm glad. Now we both know this is not a game of personal insults. However it would be more appearent if you do not use phrases like "Only if by open minded you mean your brain fell out of your right ear." Oh, and ofcause this place is for disagreement. I like to disagree.

Point taken.

The reason I was wondering why an atheist would be interisted in this debate, is that you know before hand, you cannot be convinced. Likewise, I wouldn't expect someone that believe Genesis 1 is absolute to bother with this debate. (Unless you, like me, enjoy a good argument.)

I think you got it with the last sentence in part. I do enjoy a good argument. In addition, I am facinated with other peoples views on life. I also see a grave danger to accepting philosophies based on faith over hard scientific inquiry. It is equally dangerous to religion...Lysenkoism (which was in essence a state sponsored religion) absolutely crippled Russia's biology programs.

I am more open minded than what you credit me: I do not have any specific believes on the details of creation, I just have a frame work. I happen to believe in the Big Bang, because it fits into this framework. It might not be your idea of an open mind, but it's more than you'll get from fundementalist creationists.

Do you take the bible literally or as a metaphor? There are also christians, muslims, etc who believe in evolution. I am a minority as an atheist evolutionary biologist.

Now for my arguments.
Acording to the dean of microbiology of the University of Pretoria, Genes has a number of cromosones.(I'm not sure if that is the correct term, but I think you'll know what I'm talking about.) It is (according to him) scientifically impossible for the offspring to have a different number of chromosones than it's parent. It is thus not possible for one animal to have evolved from another animal with a diffirent number of chromosones.

Not entirely true. You can cross plants and animals with different numbers of chromosomes and get viable hybrids..this is particularly true of plants. There is plenty of evidence from the various genome projects for large scale duplications and changes of chromosome content even among mammals. Marsupials for example, have an entire portion of the eutherian X chromosome as an autosome.

The dreamed up man from a tooth was Hesperopithecus. I'm sure, being an expert in the field, you know about this incident. It incidents like this that made me say evolusionists are over confident. Think about it. If cosmologists found a theory to reconcile Relitivity with quantum phisics (Which is the workings of gravity) It would be thoroughly investicated before being accepted as fact. Very much unlike this incident.

Actually, the fraud was discovered by scientists and the data thrown out. It invalidates that data point without disproving the theory. I think it is reassuring that fraud in science is usually vetted out rapidly by the scientific community. Science is not faith based so we do not necessarily just trust each others results...especially if the claims are extraordinary.

Then I printed an article of Hansruedi Stutz. (www.answersingenesis.org) Now, before you lol, just remember his personal believes is not evidence against him if he does a scientific experiment. He went to Magenwil (Swizerland) and collected sandstone with fossilized mussels from the Upper Tertiary era. Along with this, he also took some samples of coal right next to it. Theoretically, an evolusionist would've assumed it to be 2 milion years old of where it was found. But he went and carbon dated it, and found it to be 36000 years old. Now I do not necesarily agree with his conclusions, but the point is this: I'm not sure if this is true, but sometimes you make age assumptions based on where an item was found. If you work thorougly, however, you sould date every single item you extract.

I agree...I find dating surroundings of fossils to be poor in many cases. I work with fossils from the Siberian tundra from time to time and the ground there shifts so much I would never trust a date of a fossil taken from the surrounding soil.

And tell me. The human footprints that were found in limestone along with dinasaur footprints near the Paluxy river in Texas. Has that been explained yet, or was it simply ignored?

To date, every single example has been shown to be a falsification.

Lastly. The dating techniques I still not sure one way or the other. It is based of the deteriation cicles of certain elements in the bones, but how can you be sure what the element ratio was in the beginning? A living Mollusk was carbon dated, and found to have been dead for 3000 year. This must be because there were already of the deteriated material in the Mollusk.(Science, Vol 141 (1963) pg 634)

Lava rocks were dated by the more reliable Potassium Argon Method to be 3 billion years old, yet the volcano errupted in 1801. (Journal of Geophysical research Vol 73 July 15, 1968, Pg 4601)

You would note, not all these are creationist sources. As I said, I'm not going one way or the other on the dating techniques. Not yet, anyway. Can you explain these contradictions? Please don't tell me this is Creationist hog wash. If it is, please proof it then with more rational explanations than "this is the work of a crank". Somehow, if you say that, I get the feeling you've got something to hide.

Actually, as a molecular biologist I will let the geologists answer your questions about the various dating methods as that is not my expertise so any information I would provide you would be less thorough...Joe Meert..this is your cue

Please exscuse my spelling. If there is typing mistakes, it is because I'm typing in my lunch hour.

No problem...I am sure I a great many spelling and grammatical mistakes throughout most of my posts.

Cheers,
Mammuthus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by compmage, posted 09-09-2002 9:21 AM compmage has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 2814 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 13 of 33 (17031)
09-09-2002 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by compmage
09-09-2002 9:21 AM


[QUOTE][B]It incidents like this that made me say evolusionists are over confident.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Actually few took it seriously in the first place. Read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

[QUOTE][B]I.e. in America, it is a criminal offence to speak of Genesis in public schools[/QUOTE]

[/B]

It is against the Constitution of the United States for the government to teach religion. This is part of our Freedom of Religion.

[QUOTE][B]but evolution is taught to everyone[/QUOTE]

[/B]

So is gravity, what's your point?

[QUOTE][B]Theoretically, an evolusionist would've assumed it to be 2 milion years old of where it was found. But he went and carbon dated it[/QUOTE]

[/B]

It is impossible to carbon date anything older than 50,000 years.

[QUOTE][B]If you work thorougly, however, you sould date every single item you extract.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

The cost of dating one sample runs about $5000 USD.

[QUOTE][B]A living Mollusk was carbon dated, and found to have been dead for 3000 year.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

You cannot carbon-date molluscs and that was done to find out how far off the dates would be. That is why, in case you are wondering, somebody actually tried C14 on a living mollusc. I could explain this to you but I think you should read some basic texts on C14 first.

[QUOTE][B]The human footprints that were found in limestone along with dinasaur footprints near the Paluxy river in Texas. Has that been explained yet[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Weathered dinosaur tracks. Not even many creationists take them seriuosly.

[QUOTE][B]Lava rocks were dated by the more reliable Potassium Argon Method to be 3 billion years old, yet the volcano errupted in 1801.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Did you read that article or are you quoting a secondary source? This is important because I may check this out next time I go to the library and I don't want to waste my time otherwise. Also I don't want to wrongly accuse you of misrepresentation if that is the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by compmage, posted 09-09-2002 9:21 AM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 3:13 AM gene90 has responded
 Message 30 by compmage, posted 09-11-2002 3:44 AM gene90 has not yet responded

compmage
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 14 of 33 (17052)
09-10-2002 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by gene90
09-09-2002 9:58 PM


Well, actually, all my sources are secondary. Unfortunatly, I do not have the time to do the thorough research, because I'm not a scientist. However, I would like to see evolusionist scientists and creationist scientists go head to head on these matters, instead of just accussing each other of misinterpretation on these matters.

But I would love to know if this IS misinterpretation. As I said in the beginning. Evolusionist should admit error if something is disproved by creationists, BUT ALSO, creationists should not use evidence that has all ready been disproved.

I'll be doing some more reading. I'll be comming back later for more questions.

PS. I am aware of Carbon datings limits. But wouldn't It then show an infinite reading, instead of 36000 years?

Cheers

Hanno

[This message has been edited by Hanno, 09-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 09-09-2002 9:58 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by frank, posted 09-10-2002 11:10 AM compmage has responded
 Message 17 by Joe Meert, posted 09-10-2002 11:48 AM compmage has responded
 Message 28 by gene90, posted 09-10-2002 9:54 PM compmage has not yet responded

frank
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 33 (17085)
09-10-2002 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by compmage
09-10-2002 3:13 AM


Hi Hanno,

I'm still wondering about your statement concerning life being brought to earth by aliens. Is this something you would like to retract and forget about ?

Clear Skies !

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 3:13 AM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by compmage, posted 09-10-2002 11:19 AM frank has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021