Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist quotes and citations reflects a greater level of academic dishonesty
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 70 (110552)
05-26-2004 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
05-24-2004 12:48 AM


Re: Classic Creationist Dishonesty.
1859.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 05-24-2004 12:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 05-26-2004 1:09 AM almeyda has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 70 (110554)
05-26-2004 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by almeyda
05-26-2004 1:01 AM


Re: Classic Creationist Dishonesty.
Okay.
You copied and pasted a list of Scientists that you said supported Creationism over Evolution.
Now which of the Scientists listed in Message 27 were Dead, Dead, before the Origin of the Species was even published?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 1:01 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 1:39 AM jar has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 70 (110563)
05-26-2004 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
05-26-2004 1:09 AM


Re: Classic Creationist Dishonesty.
Johann Kepler (1571—1630)
Blaise Pascal (1623—1662)
Robert Boyle (1627—1691)
John Ray (1627—1705)
Nicolas Steno (1631—1686)
Isaac Newton (1642—1727)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646—1716)
John Woodward (1665—1728)
Carolus Linneaus (1707—1778)
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-26-2004 12:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 05-26-2004 1:09 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Jack, posted 05-26-2004 6:50 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 60 by jar, posted 05-26-2004 10:34 AM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 70 (110569)
05-26-2004 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by almeyda
05-26-2004 12:54 AM


But lord Kelvin discovered the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Right, which proves not only that evolution can occur, but that it must. The second law after all is what makes all chemical processes possible. Nothing can ever happen in the world without the second law.
Energy cannot be created/destroyed which disproves the big bang theory as evolution suggests.
A) Evolution says nothing about the big bang. That's two different theories.
B) That's not the second law of thermodynamics. You might want to look it up in a physics text.
Evolutionists come up with all sorts of refutes to this but this solid argument remains hard on the origins on evolution.
What argument? You've made up a fake law and pretended that evolution contradicts it.
What you really mean is that they supplied groundwork for biology. Not evolution.
No, evolution. I meant what I said. The theory of evolution is based on the contributions of these scientists, especially Linneaus and Mendel. Linneaus outlined the hierarcheal model of taxonomic classification, which suggested common decent of creatures. Mendel explained the mechanisms and patterns of heredity, on which evolution relies.
Maybe you would have been better served if you had looked up what these scientists had discovered, because then you wouldn't have presented the forefathers of evolutionary theory as "creationists." If it was creationists who came up with evolution, that sort of destroys your "interpretation" argument, doesn't it?
And today their are thousands of fully qualified biologists who disprove evolution and believe creation.
No, there's really not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 12:54 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 1:59 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 57 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 7:46 AM crashfrog has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 70 (110571)
05-26-2004 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
05-26-2004 1:52 AM


lol. Crashfrog your always putting a smile on my face. Your priceless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 05-26-2004 1:52 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 05-26-2004 2:05 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 54 by NosyNed, posted 05-26-2004 6:33 AM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 70 (110574)
05-26-2004 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by almeyda
05-26-2004 1:59 AM


Your priceless.
And you're a piece of work - lying, dissembling, and promoting mistruths. Why do you think it's ok to lie for God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 1:59 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Maxwell's Demon
Member (Idle past 6229 days)
Posts: 59
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 52 of 70 (110577)
05-26-2004 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by almeyda
05-26-2004 12:54 AM


almeyda writes:
PHYSICS - But lord Kelvin discovered the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created/destroyed which disproves the big bang theory as evolution suggests. Evolutionists come up with all sorts of refutes to this but this solid argument remains hard on the origins on evolution.
First of all
"As Evolution suggests"?
While the word evolution is often used in the context of cosmological phenomena, i.e. "The evolution of the Universe", in no way can it be used in a sentence the way you just did. In a cosmological context the word is used to describe a general process of development.
Maybe you're talking about the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? But in this case you're still skating on thin ice, because the ToE says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. All it does is state that all life on the planet is related through Common Descent.
So as you see, evolution suggests nothing about the Big Bang.
Second of all
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not state that energy cannot be created/destroyed (this is the 1st Law). It states that the Entropy in a closed system never can decrease (or in other words, the available energy in a closed system can never increase).
So which is it going to be? The 1st Law or the 2nd?
1st Law:
Big Bang theory states that the entire known universe was at one time a lot smaller. Space itself was incredibly "dense" (I hope that's a proper description)... then at one point all of space started to expand.
That's the Big Bang theory. Note that it doesn't say anything about where space or energy came from, only in what state it was a very short while after.
So clearly Big Bang theory can't go against the 1st Law, it doesn't say anything about energy being created or destroyed.
2nd Law:
Noone knows if one should consider the Universe a closed or open system. So there's really not much to discuss here.
Your solid argument from the 2nd (1st?) Law doesn't exist. It's just one of the many straws creationists grasp at.
This message has been edited by Kent, 05-26-2004 01:17 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 12:54 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 53 of 70 (110600)
05-26-2004 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by johnfolton
05-26-2004 12:25 AM


Re: Satans the bad dude!
Are you on drugs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by johnfolton, posted 05-26-2004 12:25 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 54 of 70 (110605)
05-26-2004 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by almeyda
05-26-2004 1:59 AM


Not an answer
And that is not an answer almeyda.
Have you begun to realize that you are out of your league?
You have almost no idea what you are talking about. You don't seem to be able to handle the responses to what you post. It is time you decided to learn a bit before making unfounded, incorrect assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 1:59 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 55 of 70 (110611)
05-26-2004 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by almeyda
05-26-2004 1:39 AM


Re: Classic Creationist Dishonesty.
So... All of them!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 1:39 AM almeyda has not replied

  
MonkeyBoy
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 70 (110620)
05-26-2004 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by johnfolton
05-26-2004 12:31 AM


Jesus did say the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has no where to lay his head, etc...
P.S. Yes, I believe Jesus is sitting at the right hand of his Father in heaven in the flesh, think it was in Luke that said he was carried up into heaven, etc...
I read, reread and reread the post that you replied to, and I cannot understand what you are trying to say.
Thanks for replying, though....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by johnfolton, posted 05-26-2004 12:31 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by johnfolton, posted 05-26-2004 9:31 AM MonkeyBoy has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 70 (110622)
05-26-2004 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
05-26-2004 1:52 AM


Alrite NosyNed. I didnt answer Crashfrog because there was no need to. Everything he said sounded like nonsense to me. Ill do it anyway just for you.
Lord Kelvin - Evolution must occur? What does that mean. Yes it can occur without natural processes and that is if a creator has made all. As the Bible suggests of course.
Here we go again with the big bang has nothing to do with your theory. You have to realise that the foundation of your theory lies in its origins. Do you realise how simple it is to make up stories about how natural selection gives rise to higher and higher forms. But evolution is not even passed the first stage on how it all started. And thats why evolution is still a theory.
My argument is that the chances of life evolving. And the universe making itself are very very high. It is a big matter of belief and faith.
No these scientist did not make the groundwork for evolution. They made the groundwork for biology. Evolutionists can of course then apply this form of science to their scientific theories. Its not about evolution making biology or evolution being the only way of using biology. This is definately not true. Biology is biology and can used to support any theory creation or evolution.
Umm yes there is. AiG have biologists. Every other creation scientific community have them. We have them down here. Theres creationists many countries. Fully qualified scientist working on a different theory about the past. We seriously should be way ahead of this stage by now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 05-26-2004 1:52 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 05-26-2004 8:30 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 61 by Maxwell's Demon, posted 05-26-2004 11:59 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 62 by Lithodid-Man, posted 05-26-2004 7:32 PM almeyda has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 70 (110627)
05-26-2004 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by almeyda
05-26-2004 7:46 AM


Evolution must occur? What does that mean.
It means that because organisms reproduce chemically, they can't do so perfectly. Entropy causes changes, which we call "mutations." The second law necessitates imperfect reproduction.
Any time you have imperfect reproduction, you have variation in a population. Any time you have variation you have differential survival. That's natural selection.
Random mutation and natural selection, both inevitable results of the second law. That's evolution. Because the second law always applies, evolution must happen, and it does.
You have to realise that the foundation of your theory lies in its origins.
No. The foundation of evolution, like all science, is observation, not other theories. Evidence is the foundation of evolution, not the big bang. Evolution is true no matter where the universe comes from, be it the big bang, or Genesis, or a steady-state universe.
No these scientist did not make the groundwork for evolution.
Says you, but I've already shown that they did.
And anyway, why should I believe you? It's obvious that you don't know anything about evolution, biology, or science. Am I supposed to believe that, in an hour, you've become an expert on the history of science? Please.
AiG have biologists.
Maybe one or two. They certainly don't have "thousands." What they have thousands of are shysters, hucksters, and mountebanks. Folks with fake degrees and bogus credentials.
We seriously should be way ahead of this stage by now.
We'll never get past it until you stop lying and start telling the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 7:46 AM almeyda has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 59 of 70 (110638)
05-26-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by MonkeyBoy
05-26-2004 7:33 AM


Furthermore, do you really think that God is floating in space?
Jesus did say the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has no where to lay his head, etc...
P.S. Yes, I believe Jesus is sitting at the right hand of his Father in heaven in the flesh, think it was in Luke that said he was carried up into heaven, etc...
The scripture says many will say that he is he, but Jesus when he returns will be like the lightning coming out of the east to the west, because he will be coming out of the heavens, when he comes, etc...
kjv Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
kjv Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
kjv Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
kjv Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Why do we not see any images from Hubble (or other) to support this?
The invisible created the visible, God the Father is a spirit, however The Son the Word, came and became clothed in flesh, now has a physical body, and is sitting aside his Father in Heaven cause Jesus is the Word, he is God, one savior, but he is one, the bridge, so that we can be born of the Spirit, and be one with the Father through the Son, Jesus is the resurrection and the life, he was before the World was, the Father sent him to the earth from heaven, if someone rejects Christ then they are rejecting the Father who sent him. Jesus said it was to our benefit that he return to his Father in heaven, Cause they are one and the Father is Greater than the Son, though when we die, if a Christian our spirit goes up(into heaven), not down(the footstool), to be with our Lord in heaven to behold the glory that was his before the world was, Jesus said not to take us out of the world but to keep us in the world, but when we die to go up to be with him, until the resurrection, those that are worthy in the first resurrection, incorruptible bodies for the thousand year rule, and don't have to worry about the second death when the second resurrection occurs, where everyone else will then be judged, cause God will resurrect all people that has ever lived, to be judged and those that are saved that are written in the lambs book of life, and them that are not will experience a second physical death, as they are cast into the lake of fire, with the false prophet and the beast, and even satan at this point in time will be in the lake of fire, so those that reject Christ will be with their lord which is not Christ, etc... Those that reject the Mark of the Beast cause they are in the Lambs book of life and are killed will be a part of the first resurrection, those that take the Mark of the Beast will be cast in the lake of fire. Then out of heaven will come the New Jerusalem as a jewel out of heaven created by God, and heaven and earth will be made new, no more death, its all about becoming an overcomer in this life through Christ, interestingly the New Jerusalem it says will be over 1,500 miles square, but God controls gravity, it will set down upon the earth, Jesus said in my Fathers house are many mansions, if it was not so I would of told you, I go and prepare a place for you, etc...
kjv Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
This message has been edited by whatever, 05-26-2004 08:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by MonkeyBoy, posted 05-26-2004 7:33 AM MonkeyBoy has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 70 (110648)
05-26-2004 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by almeyda
05-26-2004 1:39 AM


Re: Well, that's close...
But IIRC, Buckland, Cuvier, Copernicus, Galileo, Hershel, Leibnitz and Euler were also dead before Origins was published.
Aren't you even slightly embarrassed to present an argument that says a whole bunch of people opposed a theory that had not even been published before they died? To say they supported Creationism when the alternative, Evolution had not even been proposed is about as lame as imaginable.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by almeyda, posted 05-26-2004 1:39 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024