Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
57 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   questions evolutionists can't or won't answer
Inactive Member

Message 18 of 141 (10372)
05-25-2002 10:21 PM

I must ask some of the Creationists here to quite persisting in acquainting any intelligent board such a this with Hovind, Brown, and some Wyatt material. It is comparably annoying to me as a Creationist as the question of why there are no transitionals or why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them to the Evo. There is a more logical, as well as a more intelligible way of addressing the History of the Earth as well as every other scientific study.


Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-25-2002 11:00 PM TrueCreation has responded

Inactive Member

Message 20 of 141 (10374)
05-25-2002 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Minnemooseus
05-25-2002 11:00 PM

"TC, is this because of that Hovind mp3 file link I relayed?"
--Naw, I just thought it was common sense to any sane person who ever listened to a Hovind recording. Or someone who might have a keen ear to semantics arguments and just plain idiocy.

"Might I sense that you are making the transition from YEC to OEC?"
--Well how much do I sense that you wish this were so. Off the scale I suppose. If I were dependent on the validity of Hovinds arguments, you might just say my corpse of credibility has now rotted and the remnants fossilized.

"Let's hear you say good things about uniformitarianism now!"
--Uniformitarianism, well, dunno, we would have to be specific as always.

--Hovinds material is the equivalent of...well you know what, I'll just be vague/nice and say he's beyond comparison


[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-25-2002]

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-25-2002 11:00 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Philip, posted 05-26-2002 10:08 PM TrueCreation has responded

Inactive Member

Message 22 of 141 (10386)
05-26-2002 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Philip
05-26-2002 10:08 PM

"--Who stated one cannot use ‘science’ or the ‘scientific method’ to make theories on both the existence and nature of the ‘supernatural’? The supreme court, the biologist, the physicist, the physician, Huxley, Einstein… who?"
--Don't think anyone has, seeing that to imply what mechanics are to be applied on an above natural phenomena can reasonably be inferred as arbitrary.

"--Scientific method never limits lofty inquiry because of some bigoted mutationalist point of view (or bigoted YEC point of view)."
--However, this 'lofty inquiry', should be seen as such. Subjective.

"--Please stop this cantankerous chicanery of limiting science to the ToE."
--I think it is quite irrational to say this applies to me, simply because this mind-set is not present in my line of thinking.

"Such a ‘scientist’ (falsely so called) appears to be perpetrating fraud on the unsuspecting public by his/her biased vindication, alone (like the creationists did during the dark ages). The scientific method is free to all, that workable theories be made to deal with reality."
--I agree.

"--Relativistic science phenomenon (which ‘appear’ supernatural compared to mere Newtonian ‘laws’) invalidates many dating techniques of ‘the history of the earth’, specifically many radiometric ones."
--Technically as your assertion implies, may be incorrect. However, as what your statement might reveal if it were expanded on, I can agree.

"--When might YECs, OECs, ToEs and ToMs ever include cosmic relativistic science in their ‘scientific’ scheme(s), to correct the gross inconsistencies between radiometric and solar clocks, especially, and those temporal inconsistencies found in the GC."

"--ID will always be inferred, scientifically, whether for a Honda or for a universe. The nature of the cosmic ID will always be inferred (eg., ‘creating’, ‘cursing’, ‘restoring’) based on the observed data. ID is thus without excuse, scientifically. Only the nature of the ID is open to question."
--And it is this subjective nature which admits its lack of tenability.

"--Speciation is so arbitrary and insignificant; it infers no gross ToM (theory of mutation), unless mutations are demonstrated to veritably overcome the organism’s ‘set-in’ complexities, right? So admit it. The ToM is a deluded self-deceiving fraud like the Haitian Voodoo."
--What is your definition along with potential falsification of your 'ToM'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Philip, posted 05-26-2002 10:08 PM Philip has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Joe Meert, posted 05-27-2002 12:12 AM TrueCreation has responded

Inactive Member

Message 24 of 141 (10389)
05-27-2002 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Joe Meert
05-27-2002 12:12 AM

"JM: Oh really? How so?"
--I think that he is attempting to imply that because of inconsistancies and the mobility of radioisotopes as well as other factors, radiometrics are invalid. Of course however, as I stated earlier, I would disagree with this assertion if it were not expanded on. That is, if a little more specifics and detail were not taken into consideration. Though I would agree as to where this assertion is going.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Joe Meert, posted 05-27-2002 12:12 AM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Joe Meert, posted 05-27-2002 12:58 AM TrueCreation has responded

Inactive Member

Message 27 of 141 (10393)
05-27-2002 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Joe Meert
05-27-2002 12:58 AM

"JM: Could you rephrase that in English and with some specifics to back it up?"
--Sorry, I hope you got the idea, I was trying to concentrate on finishing up my last bit of research for another post as well as it is getting late. I will read over my new posts to make sure they make more sense. And specific examples to back it up may be something along the lines of Zircon inheritance, errorchrons (apparent isochrons which are shown to be geologically meaningless), the Open-system Behavior of U-Th-Pb dating in Whole-Rock dating, Pb Loss in mineral dating, interesting patterns in mineral U-Th-Pb Ages, etc. Would you like to pick one which sounds interesting for more detail, or was this what you were looking for? Maybe another dating method?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Joe Meert, posted 05-27-2002 12:58 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 32 of 141 (10479)
05-28-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Philip
05-28-2002 1:17 AM

You have objections to whether mutations occur or not? If you do object, then what is your mechenism for building biodiversity?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Philip, posted 05-28-2002 1:17 AM Philip has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Philip, posted 05-29-2002 2:01 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 79 of 141 (14580)
07-31-2002 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by axial soliton
07-28-2002 1:53 AM

In one man's opinion, Mr. Meert has the best approach for dealing with people who devoutly believe in creationism. After all these years, this is unfortunate. At least in this Century, we can have the debate without the creationists killing us. They used to kill scientists, you know. (Creationist humor.)"
--Creationist humor, eh? Too bad it isn't funny..

"The evidence for evolution is everywhere. One just has to be inventive enough to know what he is looking at.
--Ie, a direction of interpretation.

"Remember the colds and flu that most of us get several times during our lives? Well, rhino viruses........ evolve. The reason they evolve is because we evolve to beat their infection method. it takes place by a natural selection method. Your favorite creationist has caught a cold and accidentally sneezes in the face of a fellow creationist. The 2,000 base pairs in the DNA of this particular strain of cold virus is new to his body. Grevious infection begins. His immune system rushes trial and error antibodies through tests to find out which molecular binding mechanism works best with the protein coat around this new DNA. It gets hits in the tests. 100's of billions of copies of the newly minted antibody are hurriedly made. This takes about 2-3 days. The antibodies bind to the fresh viri and incapacitate them faster than the viri can infect new cells and incubate new copies of themselves. The tide turns. This virus lost the evolutionary/natural selection race to the creationist's immune system. But, lurking in back channels is a virus that mutated a base pair and formed a slightly different protein coat. While it has to lie low in this anti-evolution creationist, all it takes is a sneeze and.... This is a continuous process of natural selection that started with the first virus and ends when there are no more humans the virus can find. Evolution."
--That's nice, doesn't play much significance, however, in the long run.

"I wonder if Mr. John Paul thinks god created dinosuar bones without dinosaur flesh around them?
--I'm not JP, so you'd have to ask him.

"Were there dinosaurs on the ark?"

"I think we all know that dinosaurs were never mentioned in any book of the bible."
--Could you read it first please?

"How do creationists resolve the fact that their myths are predated by and promulgated from those of the Assyrians?
--I don't think thats a fact axial.

"There was no first human."
--According to your interpretation, there may not have been, according to me, your wrong.

"There was a series of steps in the transition between the animal that looked australopithecine and the one that looked H. neanderthalansis. Like the evolving virus. Now there is us."
--See above.

"It is hard for me to believe that an alien created us by intelligent design, or life in general, when life develops all by itself through chemical processes."
--Okedoky, its hard for me too.

"Evolution is real."
--No problem there.

"The process of natural selection that fuels it began with the beginning of our solar system, in space."

"Creationists are in for an even bumpier ride."
--I must be a good driver.

"How about this:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=1779 Mars once had oceans. Titan still does. Anthrax spores have survived in Antarctica for 90 years: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/22/tech/main515899.shtml
There is a reference to the discovery in a US lab of how to make viruses by the vat. I will be on the look-out for that for a different reason. Making life is learning to control chemical processes. The only mystery is that some people choose not to try and understand the step-by-step process scientists and engineers use when they do something new.
--Still, no problem.

--BTW, I take the perspective of the YEC and welcome to the forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by axial soliton, posted 07-28-2002 1:53 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by John, posted 07-31-2002 7:58 PM TrueCreation has responded

Inactive Member

Message 92 of 141 (14754)
08-02-2002 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by John
07-31-2002 7:58 PM

"No it isn't; but accurate."
--Accurate by your view of the Creationist, obviously, this is not a universal definition of acceptance when using the context of his 'creationist humor'. I don't think that way. Besides, the vocab is incorrect in that he is not pointing out the Creationist but the YEC, extremely different concepts.

"It must be nice to be able to dismiss the evidence with a magic wand."
--No, I didn't nor did I attempt to dismiss this segment of evidence. My point was that speciation happening today, is not the same as speciation millions of years ago, in that it was not observed.

"You're joking. The ark, had it ever existed, wouldn't have been big enough to hold two of all of the currently living critters, much less all of the extinct ones."
--I know your headed for the 'define a kind' paradigm because you want exact numbers. But either way, a dinosaur would have been no more of a problem size-wize than many of the other larger animals.

"I've read it. Didn't see no dinosaurs."
--Behemoth, leviathan and another one somewhere in Job. I don't think that thousands of years ago the term 'dinosaur' was available for use.

"Don't know your comparative mythology do ya?"
--No I do, I've been given more than plenty time-lines for various ancient cultures. However I have found the older dates given to be flexible in the line of acceptence for archaeologists. Even in that, I have seen very very little direct data for the dating of these old ages, this is what would rightly be called for here.

"But all you have for evidence is a book of fairy-tales."
--I don't use the bible as my evidence, never have. In my perspective, there should be no evidence of a 'first human'.

"You mean up where you dismiss the evidence?"
--Nope, I just don't do that John.

"Sounds like you just admitted to abiogenesis? Life is just chemistry."
--I just 'admitted to abiogenesis' is much too vague for me. I simply made the assertion that with the fact that biological processes are chemistry, we should be able to make them in the lab if we figure out how to pinpoint the correct series of steps.

"Welcome back TC."
--Thank ya


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by John, posted 07-31-2002 7:58 PM John has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020