Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The evangelical woos have this theory we are still in the 6th day of creation aka the whole 1 day = 1000 years aka 6000 years and counting aka dispensationalism.
The return of christ merged with some apocalyptic nonsense kicks off the 7th day of the millennial reign where everything is the "day of rest"
This version tries to remove the overwhelming data for an old earth and still allows the sheeple to hold onto their delusions. There is no creator as depicted in the biblical references and even though science does not have the answers yet, the quest continues whereas with the woo crowd, the godunnit answer negates the human curiosity factor and they can go on with their mundane existence as the church and state requires of them.
They cannot however say maybe the bible is wrong based on new evidence, easier to simply accept the folklore and become mushrooms.
This thread has become a beautiful mess. How we ever got on the topic of evolution is beyond me. Myself and others, both theists and atheists alike, stated several times that evolution should not be brought into the topic to show HOW life started because it does not address it (to my amazement, my advice was then taken out of context by Nozzferrahhtoo as if I was trying to use this fact to justify a creator god).
I can't speak for everyone here, but I find it quite sad that science is viewed as supposedly against the concept of a god. I find them to be compatible, just like many theists before me. Saying otherwise is being just as exclusive as the "fundamentalist theist" and their crazy belief in a god.
Yep: the nonsense approach first and foremost, and ad nauseum. Escapist, Delusionary and pathologically selective Beliefs of Convenience arise!
"Quick now, men! Light your torches and grab your pitchforks! Weez gots some truths to stab and burn!"
Hear This: Life did, yuppers, arise somehow. However, you assume some mystical, illogical and improbable insta-poof version, while science has postulated, tested and discovered how this likely happened. "Prediction theory" must be a bear to you guys, huh?
Anyhow, once life did arise, even if it was by Your Mystical Hand of God (), it most assuredly evolved into the diversity we see today. This has been well proven to those with a mind not welded shut, by Dr. Lenski, and those damned recent life-creators-outa-nothing down in San Diego (Look up Dr. Craig Ventor and weep...).
But you folks go right ahead and deny it all: THAT sure looks good on yah!
(I'd be so ashamed of such wild ignorance, I'd have to go and hide under a rock. Or maybe in a church....)
We meet again. You never told me how you made out with that hospital visit you had. Hope all is well.
You should note from the following responce that I have learned from the master [you] how to be sarcastic.
Only you and the like can create logic out of illogic. That is why half your reasoning powers are missing and you can't even reason it out that it is missing! It is what I call circular reasoning within ones own self emposed misguided logic because one lacks the foundation of scientific facts to prove there point. What a fairytale it is to assume that the physical world let alone the mind, emotion, will, love, hate and all things spiritual came from nothing or a singularity. Perhaps you think they evolved from the elements that came from nothing or from a black hole that even light can not esape from. For some unknown reason half of some peoples brain power did escape and we are now confronted with it.
The fact that all is in symbiotic relation to one another yet unique in there essense both in the elements and in life forms are proof that they were created rather than evolved. I have read somewhere that some one tryed to turn lead into gold. Not going to happen! The elements where created distinct from one another as was the DNA codes that only work when in right relation and empowered by life, not matter, and they did not come from nothing but rather by design. The evolutionary theory is nothing but fanciful conjecture and assumes to predict that lower life forms evolved to higher forms with brains of thinking ability and metaphoric thought ability. I sure wish those hold outs from the plant world and the animal world would catch up to me in the evolution of things, as I would like to have an intelligent conversation for once. It is hard to keep up with the dumbing down of reason.
It is however proven quite to the contrary in nature that evolution did not, nor can it happen. DNA is a living system and all the computers in the the world now or ever shall be, will not be able to trace its origin nor fully understand its functions. Close but no cigar! The Mapping of DNA is only just that; a physical map of relative functions and outcomes. But who is driving the car to its distination and who started the engine in the first place? Sure, Ya, Ya, it all came from nothing or a singularity. Blah, blah, blah goes the babble. Really, you should take up a shovel and stick to geology and stop your moonlighting as a biologist.
Not only can the evolutionary theory not predict anything, but to do so it would have to have a history of millions of billions of transitions but not a one has been found to date. It is not even a scientfic theory because it has no empiracal data that is even remotetly provable in the lab or in the field. It is only conjecture cloaked as science, imployed by the gullible to impress the gullible because half their reasoning powers did not escape the black hole of a singularity. Only the absolute distinctions between the species is evident in the fossil record and in DNA.
All that Dr. Craig Venter did was to manipulate an already living bacterium called mycoplasam mycoides found in cattle and goats with a chromosome. I can hardly call him a creator. Change within the species is not evolution but mutation as it is with dogs of different breeds who mate and produce a different breed within the species of the dog family. The following quote was taken from the article on Dr Venter:
[LEFT]"But the American researcher has been dubbed ‘biology’s bad boy’ in the past for his aggressively commercial approach and slick public relations."
In order for something to evolve it first has to exist.
Non-sequitar to anything I just said to you. You simply took my post and replied to something I never said. Evolution has nothing to do with origins or how things first existed. If you want to discuss where things came from first then evolution is not the subject to be discussing. It is just a subject change on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baylorguy
evolution should not be brought into the topic to show HOW life started because it does not address it (to my amazement, my advice was then taken out of context by Nozzferrahhtoo as if I was trying to use this fact to justify a creator god).
I was using your text as an example of the claim, no more or less. I am following on from what you said... that it does not address that subject.... to extend it to a further question of why we should even expect it to.... because many people do.
The point is that those who point out that evolution does not address origins have actually stopped talking about evolution and have just changed the subject. Like the user tigetmax above.
TaoistDude asked you a specific question. You really didn't answer it.
Questions about me are off topic. Clarifications of ignorance about PhD's is just clarification and rebuttal of the arguments against the qualifications of the arguer . . . which do not address the topic or any substantive content either.
Non-sequitar to anything I just said to you. You simply took my post and replied to something I never said. Evolution has nothing to do with origins or how things first existed. If you want to discuss where things came from first then evolution is not the subject to be discussing. It is just a subject change on your part.
Please check the topic of the thread. The topic is creationism i.e., origins. My advice is that you start a new thread or revive one of the thousands of old threads which concern the topic of evolution.
Priceless. You hijack the thread and then accuse others of trying to change the topic.
Try reading the thread yourself before replying. I was not the first person to bring up either Evolution OR origins. Threads on here, and their contents, are not dictated by the title alone, but where the conversation goes following the OP.
So as I said your reply was a total non sequitur to anything I actually said to you... and my point still stands that if you want to talk origins then evolution is the wrong topic to do it with as it is not concerned with origins.
Try reading the thread yourself before replying. I was not the first person to bring up either Evolution OR origins. Threads on here, and their contents, are not dictated by the title alone, but where the conversation goes following the OP.
So as I said your reply was a total non sequitur to anything I actually said to you... and my point still stands that if you want to talk origins then evolution is the wrong topic to do it with as it is not concerned with origins.
Sounds like both of you are arguing the same point (evolution and origins are seperate issues). Am I missing something?
What you are missing is that the conversation went like this:
1) The user asked in post #10 how the physical evidence is support for the theory.
2) I answered that it is support because science works based on prediction and the physical evidence fits prediction. Post #81
3) The user completely ignored what I said and came out with a complete non-sequitur of “In order for something to evolve it first has to exist.” Post #87
4) I pointed out that this reply had nothing to do with the points I had made. Post #97.
5) The user has now gone off on a rant about the topic title and acted as if it was me that first changed the rail of the topic to evolution and/or origins.
I hope this clears up any confusion. In short the user asked a question and when given an answer the user ignored it and went off on a completely irrelvant tangent.
What you are missing is that the conversation went like this:
1) The user asked in post #10 how the physical evidence is support for the theory.
No. The "user" (me) responded to another "user" in post #10 asking for an explanation as to how the so called "physical evidence" (note the quotes - the statement did not originate with me) proves the 'time + chance + matter' hypothesis to be anything more than an hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
2) I answered that it is support because science works based on prediction and the physical evidence fits prediction. Post #81
Here is a direct and complete quote of your response to me in Post #81:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Simple. Because it fits prediction. The strongest test of any scientific Theory (capital T as opposed to theory in every day speech) is that the Theory must make very specific predictions, and those predictions then later get verified.
Evolution predicts some very specific things indeed, and when we go looking for the predicted fossils... we find them.
Now, please note who was actually the first one to bring the term EVOLUTION into the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
3) The user completely ignored what I said and came out with a complete non-sequitur of “In order for something to evolve it first has to exist.” Post #87
Wrong again. The "user's" answer was on target with respect to the topic at hand - namely, EVOLUTION being forwarded as proof for the viability of the 'time + chance + matter' hypothesis.
(If any response qualifies as a "non-sequitur" response, it was your response to me in post #87)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
4) I pointed out that this reply had nothing to do with the points I had made. Post #97.
Wrong. Post #97 was where you attempted to chide me for, according to you, supposedly attempting to insert EVOLUTION into the discussion. As illustrated above, YOU were the one who first introduced the term EVOLUTION into our exchange.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
5) The user has now gone off on a rant about the topic title and acted as if it was me that first changed the rail of the topic to evolution and/or origins.
I can assure you that the "user's" blood pressure has remained 'flat-lined' throughout our discourse. The "user" also stands fully behind all of the "user's" statements - especially with respect to the statement concerning the off-topic nature of your responses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
I hope this clears up any confusion. In short the user asked a question and when given an answer the user ignored it and went off on a completely irrelevant tangent.
I'm going to be kind here by opting not to give the sort of reply that is obviously demanded by such an absurd assertion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
