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.
Then you should be able to prove God does not exist. I won't hold my breath until you do that.
Science does not make up stuff, but evolution is not based on science and all it does is make up stuff.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"It can't be proven that there is no God, this is true. Much in the same way that it can't be proven that there is no Santa Claus. It CAN be established that these claims are entirely derived from the imagination however, and in no way correspond to anything that can be demonstrated to have physical reality."
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Then you should be able to prove God does not exist. I won't hold my breath until you do that.
What do you imagine God looks like? Can you describe Him to me?
Here is South Park's interpretation of what God looks like. Since God can only be imagined,, this is as good as any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Science does not make up stuff, but evolution is not based on science and all it does is make up stuff.
Is it also your position that the earth is only about 5,000-6,000 years old, and that claims to the contrary as simply not scientific?
By your own statement, science was originally wrong. No shame in being wrong as long as the errors is corrected when more info comes to light.
That's fine with me. Keep in mind that differences do not mean contradictions, but if you have any contradictions in the gospels, bring them one. Maybe you just lack understanding.
If you think 99% similar translates into man evolving from apes you have shot yourself in the head.
At the murder trial, the DNA will tell them an ape did not shoot the person, it was a man. Then the DNA will tell them if it was the man on trial. DNA is exact and specific.
That is truly ludicrous. That isn't an argument - that is a wordsalad (2).
I am sure I mentioned contradictions before, and it would be a relief to get back to topic, rather than exhibit your total lack of understanding of evolution.
(1) the nativities
In Luke the family come from Galilee for the tax census (1) and after the circumcision rite (less than a fortnight for sure) go back to Galilee. But Matthew has them already living in Judea and, after a flight to Egypt (and that's probably more than a year after the birth - (2.7 and 2.16) they evidently intend to return to their home in Judea but are warned to go somewhere else for fear of Herio's son - years before the Romans ever took over.
(2) John has no transfiguration. He absolutely has the loaves and fishes and the return by walking on the water - same trip to Bethsaida, but no transfiguration.
(3) total conflict in the Resurrection. John has no angels when the women first go to the empty tomb, Mark says the women ran away in fright and said nothing to anyone, in Matthew they run away in Joy, slap into Jesus, then go to the disciples and talk their heads off. John says they go back and say Jesus is gone and they don't know who took him away.
Luke has an appearance to Simon that nobody else even mentions (to make it agree with I cor.15.5). And of course, Luke denies both the absence of Thomas (the eleven, minus Judas, of course) are there, and the spear because Jesus does not show a wound in his side. Finally because in Luke the disciples do not go to Galilee, Luke changes the angel's message at (24.7) from going to Galilee to what He said in Galilee.
These are the touchstone contradictions, and, if you can't give a plausible explanation, they unloads the ton of others almost as good, and indeed all the others hat just look odd.
Which debunks the whole gospel story.
Off you go.
(1) the long discussion with pneuma looked at this in detail, but he couldn't get over that Luke in Acts 5.37 shows that his tax/census was the one that Josephus (with the revolt of Judas the Galilean) shows was after the Romans took over Judea
(2) now suppose that the science showed Ape DNA on the gun? Then it would prove that an ape really had done the shooting. Sure, it would have had to have been trained to do it - but what an alibi, eh? And what a total debunk of your foolish argument. That a chimp or gorilla is not a human is known, but the DNA being closer than any other (and the minor differences only say the same thing in reverse) show we are all apes - in the "kinds" category, and humans are merely 'Micro' evolved. You're done, son. If you accept Micro evolution, you can't deny human evolution - except on Genesis -literalist Creationist denialist dumb, blind and closed -mindedist grounds.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-03-2017 at 08:57 AM..
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
"It can't be proven that there is no God, this is true. Much in the same way that it can't be proven that there is no Santa Claus. It CAN be established that these claims are entirely derived from the imagination however, and in no way correspond to anything that can be demonstrated to have physical reality."
What do you imagine God looks like? Can you describe Him to me?
Here is South Park's interpretation of what God looks like. Since God can only be imagined,, this is as good as any.
Is it also your position that the earth is only about 5,000-6,000 years old, and that claims to the contrary as simply not scientific?
Cue the "Gap" theory. Now, if he says "No; the first earth is millions of years old, then there was a second earth with life on" then he know we have Eusebius. If he says "No, the Gap theory is unbiblical (as he did before) and the earth from creation from formless chaos to the appearance of man is just ten thousand (or less) years, I will give him benefit of doubt.
The first problem is that Adam never existed. Neither did Noah exist. Using the logic that God exists because we cannot prove he does not exist, you cannot prove that either Noah or Adam existed therefore they did not exist..
here is one of the proves for Adam
if I ask you who is the first one to name the apple as apple or the tree as tree or the water as water ..etc
I am sure that you will come with a stretching theory or research ... etc but I can give you one direct answer
he was Adam and Adam got them from Allah and we got them from Adam and that is recorded in final Holy book and the previous holy books
And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful.The Holy Quran 2:31
Karl Benz invented the car
The Wright brothers invented the airplane
and if I ask you who is the first one who invented the ship you will come with a similar answer
but I tell you a direct answer The Messenger of Allah Noah peace be upon him invented the Ship by Allah Revelation
"And construct the ship under Our Eyes and with Our Revelation,
and call not upon Me on behalf of those who did wrong; they are surely to be drowned." The Holy Quran 11.37
.
Quote:
The second problem is that you have no basis for establishing the dates or times between these alleged characters.
.
if I ask you who is the first one to name the apple as apple or the tree as tree or the water as water ..etc
I am sure that you will come with a stretching theory or research ... etc but I can give you one direct answer
he was Adam and Adam got them from Allah and we got them from Adam and that is recorded in final Holy book and the previous holy books
And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful.The Holy Quran 2:31
Karl Benz invented the car
The Wright brothers invented the airplane
and if I ask you who is the first one who invented the ship you will come with a similar answer
but I tell you a direct answer The Messenger of Allah Noah peace be upon him invented the Ship by Allah Revelation
"And construct the ship under Our Eyes and with Our Revelation,
and call not upon Me on behalf of those who did wrong; they are surely to be drowned." The Holy Quran 11.37
.
Quote:
The second problem is that you have no basis for establishing the dates or times between these alleged characters.
.
Why didn't you post the name of the first person to make a shipment a canoe, kayak or raft? I doubt you would no. What about the first kettle, wagon, saddle or shoe? How could we possibly know who did something hundreds or thousands of years before copywriter or patents were even used let alone important. What did Allah name the pineapple or the duck bill platypus or any of the dinosaur fossil species? Why did he name the potato a ground apple for the French, change the name of pigeon hawk to merlin or call both two unrelated species of birds robins?
So people had names for things and never write down who first came up with the name therefore Allah. Sorry but that is the least evidence for any god presented in a long time here.
Lloking up the origin of the word apple it originally meant a fruit of any kind hence Allah was not very specific.
Last edited by mensaguy; 08-03-2017 at 05:01 PM..
Reason: fixed quote
I wonder how Allah would have given Adam the name of the kiwifruit. As far as we can tell, Adam was illiterate and had no pen and paper or even clay tablets (they were running around naked back then, eating forbidden fruit). It would seem unlikely that he passed on the name of this strange fruit from down under that was not to be discovered for another six thousand or so years. It was never mentioned in the bible or the Quran.
if I ask you who is the first one to name the apple as apple or the tree as tree or the water as water ..etc
I am sure that you will come with a stretching theory or research ... etc but I can give you one direct answer
he was Adam and Adam got them from Allah and we got them from Adam and that is recorded in final Holy book and the previous holy books
And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful.The Holy Quran 2:31
Karl Benz invented the car
The Wright brothers invented the airplane
and if I ask you who is the first one who invented the ship you will come with a similar answer
but I tell you a direct answer The Messenger of Allah Noah peace be upon him invented the Ship by Allah Revelation
"And construct the ship under Our Eyes and with Our Revelation,
and call not upon Me on behalf of those who did wrong; they are surely to be drowned." The Holy Quran 11.37
tell me, what are your arabic names for pisang (banana in malay) shara, ranginan or durraqin (persian names for kinds of peaches) manzana (apple in spanish) or jangu, chinese for orange?
And so far as boatbuilding goes, there is evidence of mesolithic boatbuilding and maritime trade from the Indian sub continent to the Red sea. But not the sort of boats that were anything like the picture you gave (which resembles a 15th century carrack anyway). That requires a totally new kind of boat in a world that had no infrastructure or expertise for it.
It is simply more feasible to suggest that Flood and ark story is true, especially since the evidence of such a global flood is refuted by geology, and the Ark story is traceable back to a Meospotamian story of a floating box built to survive a local river -basin flooding, inflated by the Bible -writers to a global flood..
You have no leg to stand on with these claims which, going by your link seem pulled out of thin air or guesswork based on lack of any valid information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy
I wonder how Allah would have given Adam the name of the kiwifruit. As far as we can tell, Adam was illiterate and had no pen and paper or even clay tablets (they were running around naked back then, eating forbidden fruit). It would seem unlikely that he passed on the name of this strange fruit from down under that was not to be discovered for another six thousand or so years. It was never mentioned in the bible or the Quran.
Or indeed the new world plants that are now Old world staples that were unknown until the 16th century. The evidence it quite against an origin of all this stiff from some place in Uratu.
They don't share the same DNA, that is how scisence can tell them apart.
Eusebian garbage, old son. like all your posts above, I know we discussed Gould before and I recall that he was seriously misrepresented. (1) And your denial of transitional fossils is very familiar. Just as you claim that DNA and science refutes evolution and "God" (your own Bible -based Faith -beliefs) refutes it.
If you aren't Eusebius, then you are about to be as terminally discredited as he was, because the Cetan sequence, Pakicetus to modern whales, proves Evolutionary change of a land critter to a sea -critter and DNA with the gaduated differences supporting the 'Tree of life' model does support -indeed -prove evolution.
What's your argument? harping on the differences that is like denying that I am not descended from my father because I only resemble him 90% and I look 10% different.
Your twaddle about not passing on personal traits shows your utter lack of understanding of how evolution works. Indeed, if you were an atheist posing as a bonehead Creationist to make it look foolish, you could hardly dio a better job of it.
Yes, if you aren't Eusebius (and if you post that miserable old creationist video that I debunked several times but you kept posting it, I'll KNOW it's you) you are, like he was, worth two divisions to us.
(1) I am sure I remember posting this to Eusebius several times and he kept making the same claims.
Quote #3.1
[Transitional forms do not exist and the evidence fits creation better than evolution]
"This notion of species as 'natural kinds' fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz, even argued that species are God's individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are "instituted by Divine Intelligence as the categories of His mode of thinking. But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature?" - (Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'A quahog is a quahog', Natural History vol LXXXVIII(7), August-September, 1979, pg. 18)
Representative quote miners: The Evolution of a Creationist: Ch. 4, "Missing Links" Are Missing, Stephen E. Jones: Creation/Evolution Quotes: Creation #2: Evidence, and Evolution Is Dead: Divisions In The Organic World
[Editor's note: A more accessible citation for this article is: Gould, Stephen Jay 1980. "A Quahog is a Quahog", The Panda's Thumb. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., pp. 204-13.]
This one is interesting because the dishonesty of the quote mine was exposed at least as far back as 1984 in an article, "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion" by Laurie R. Godfrey that appeared in Science and Creationism (Ashley Montagu, ed. 1984. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 167-81). That was, in turn, a revision of an earlier article, "The Flood of Antievolution" that had appeared in Natural History, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 4-10. Specifically, Godfrey addressed the use of this quote (along with David Raup's widely mined "120 years after Darwin" quote) by creationist Gary Parker in "Creation, Selection, and Variation," that appeared in the Institute for Creation Research's newsletter, Acts & Facts in 1980 and which is still available.
To better understand Gould's intent, here are the first two paragraphs of the article:
Thomas Henry Huxley once defined science as "organized common sense." Other contemporaries, including the great geologist Charles Lyell, urged an opposing view -- science, they said, must probe behind appearance, often to combat the "obvious" interpretation of phenomena.
I cannot offer any general rules for the resolution of conflicts between common sense and the dictates of a favored theory. Each camp has won its battles and received its lumps. But I do want to tell a story of common sense triumphant -- an interesting story because the theory that seemed to oppose ordinary observation is also correct, for it is the theory of evolution itself. The error that brought evolution into conflict with common sense lies in a false implication commonly drawn from evolutionary theory, not with the theory itself.
Thus, Gould made it plain from the outset that he was discussing something that he does not see as a difficulty in either the theory of evolution or the evidence for it. Immediately after this opening comes the section the quote is mined from:
Common sense dictates that the world of familiar, macroscopic organisms presents itself to us in "packages" called species, All bird watchers and butterfly netters know that they can divide the specimens of any local area into discrete units blessed with those Latin binomials that befuddle the uninitiated. ...
This notion of species as "natural kinds" fit splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age. Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God's individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message. Species, Agassiz wrote, are "instituted by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking."
But how could a division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental fact of nature? Both Darwin and Lamarck struggled with this question and did not resolve it to their satisfaction. Both denied to the species any status as a natural kind.
Darwin lamented: "We shall have to treat species as ... merely artificial combinations made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at least be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species." Lamarck complained: "In vain do naturalists consume their time in describing new species, in seizing upon every nuance and slight peculiarity to enlarge the immense list of described species.''
Gould then discusses two traditional responses to this seeming dilemma: 1) that the "world of ceaseless flux alters so slowly that configurations of the moment may be treated as static" (i.e. that evolutionary change, though constant, is so slow that species appear to be separate and distinct to ephemeral creatures as ourselves); or 2) to deny (as J.B.S. Haldane did) the reality of species in any context. To these arguments, Gould replies:
Yet common sense continues to proclaim that, with few exceptions, species can be clearly identified in local areas of our modern world. Most biologists, although they may deny the reality of species through geologic time, do affirm their status for the modern moment. As Ernst Mayr, our leading student of species and speciation, writes: "Species are the product of evolution and not of the human mind." Mayr argues that species are "real" units in nature as a result both of their history and the current interaction among their members.
It is clear from this that Gould is not saying, as the creationists would have it, that creationism better explains the evidence. While the "common sense" notion that species are real "natural kinds" is well suited to creationism, there are at least three possible resolutions of the apparent (but not substantial) difficulty with evolutionary theory that arises when it is viewed as requiring constant change. Gould declares himself to be "a partisan of Mayr's view" and proceeds to spend the next five-plus pages discussing non-Western folk taxonomies in support of that position.
When Gould returns to the issue, he states:
But are these Linnaean species, recognized by independent cultures, merely temporary configurations of the moment, mere way stations on evolutionary lineages in continual flux? I argue ... that, contrary to popular belief, evolution does not work this way, and that species have a "reality" through time to match their distinctness at a moment. An average species of fossil invertebrates lives five to ten million years (terrestrial vertebrates have shorter average durations). During this time, they rarely change in any fundamental way. They become extinct, without issue, looking much as they did when they first appeared. ...
Species are stable entities with very brief periods of fuzziness at their origin (although not at their demise because most species disappear cleanly without changing into anything else). As Edmund Burke said in another context: "Though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable."
In short, this is nothing more than Gould expounding on the implications of Punctuated Equilibria for what we should expect to see in the fossil record. To Gould, Mayr's view has the advantage of corresponding with the "common sense" view as to the reality of species, at least after an initial period of fuzziness, while speciation is underway. Of course, creationists are free to quibble with any or all of those resolutions to the issue, as long as they present them fairly. But to use Gould's words, intended merely to set up an apparent dilemma as an introduction to his discourse about the evidence for a particular solution (out of several possibilities) without mentioning those solutions or even their existence, is quote mining at its worst.
Gould closed his article with:
Evolution is a theory of organic change, but it does not imply, as many people assume, that ceaseless flux is the irreducible state of nature and that structure is but a temporary incarnation of the moment. Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates. We live in a world of structure and legitimate distinction. Species are the units of nature's morphology.
All this and more was noted by Godfrey in her article 20 years ago:
Gould's article is also about problems with Darwinian gradualism. It takes to task those biologists and anthropologists who argue that species boundaries are artifacts of the human capacity to classify, and construct artificial divisions. Gould argues, as Ernst Mayr did years before, that species are real biological entities, but he does not suggest that they are genealogically unrelated to one another or that they cannot give rise to new species.
Gould and his colleagues are widely cited by creationists in their effort to establish that the fossil record documents "no transitions." To creationists this is taken to mean that there are no evolutionary links between "created kinds." But Gould, Eldredge and Stanley are talking about the failure of the fossil record to document fine-scale transitions between pairs of species, and its dramatic documentation of rapid evolutionary bursts involving multiple speciation events -- so-called adaptive radiations. They are not talking about any failure of the fossil record to document the existence of intermediate forms (to the contrary, there are so many intermediates for many well-preserved taxa that it is notoriously difficult to identify true ancestors even when the fossil record is very complete). Nor are Gould, Eldredge, and Stanley talking about any failure of the fossil record to document large-scale trends, which do exist, however jerky they may be. Furthermore, fine-scale transitions are not absent from the fossil record but are merely underrepresented. Eldredge, Gould. and Stanley reason that this is the unsurprising consequence of known mechanisms of speciation. Additionally, certain ecological conditions may favor speciation and rapid evolution, so new taxa may appear abruptly in the fossil record in association with adaptive radiation. Since creationists acknowledge that fine-scale transitions (including those resulting in reproductive isolation) exist and since the fossil record clearly documents large-scale "transitions," it would seem that the creationists have no case. Indeed. they do not. Their case is an artifact of misrepresentation to the lay public of exactly what the fossil record fails to document.
All of this points to the shallowness of creationist use of quotes. In scholarly work, the use of quotations is intended to show an understanding of the relevant literature and is, in effect, a representation on the part of the person using the quote that she or he is intimately familiar with the author's work and positions. Not only are the people using this quote unfamiliar with the article it came from or Gould's work in general, they are even unfamiliar with the literature on the creationism/evolution conflict. Either that . . . or they are just being dishonest.
You are right about one thing Gould did, he destroyed the theory of gradualism.
Gould said something like this: New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates. That basically eliminates intermediate fossils. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be intermediates, but you only have a handful and they are doubtful. He was not talking about "fine scale" transitions. It really doesn't matter. Gould shows us that the fossil record can't be used to support evolution. The folks at the ICR are familiar with the quote and they understand what it says. You evolutionists have to do the tea berry shuffle to try and make it says something it does not, just as you have just done.
Mayr also said basically the same thing as Gould and he also said the fossil record remains woefully inadequate.
Evolutionists object to creationists quoting evolutionists, when it shows the shallowness of evolutionary theology. Yet they have no problems quoting the Bible when they think it supports their theology.
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.
Cue the "Gap" theory. Now, if he says "No; the first earth is millions of years old, then there was a second earth with life on" then he know we have Eusebius. If he says "No, the Gap theory is unbiblical (as he did before) and the earth from creation from formless chaos to the appearance of man is just ten thousand (or less) years, I will give him benefit of doubt.
