Evolution question of the day (America, bible, quote, pray)
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.
BTW, I'm spending some research time on Answers in Genesis this morning. It's a rich bogus milieu, a target-rich environment.
Overall, though, what astonishs me so far is that they regularly slip their definitions into the discussion all the time, with such distinctions as "operations science" versus "origins science", a distinction that no-one else makes.
But then, having floated the idea into the air as if it were true, they then go on to show how silly "origins science" is, what it's obvious failings are.
Well...yeah....... "It" doesn't exist, and then they prove it!
This is, of course, a pre-requisite to denounce the findings of the same successful science methodology that gives you the laptop you use right now, the car you drive, the antibiotics that save your life, your HDTV.
Such a proven history of functionality and correct predictions and conclusive results cannot be allowed into the same room as YEC theories. Thus they need to distance themselves by calling THAT "origins science", and then chewing it up.
It's all semi-sophisticated semantics, appealing to the un-initiated & logically challenged, but blatantly fraudulent to those with even a smattering of Basic Logic. Or science.
They also list topics and arguments to avoid discussing with knowledgeable atheists or evolutionists, knowing you may well lose the argument. In front of others! Oh No!
Well, I'll dutifully report back with as brief a summary-novella of their site and it's many many flaw-points as I can muster. I'm gonna have the little woman edit it for brevity on Word soz it's in point form, and short-to-the-point.
Folks. Good people. Let’s just all take a giant Step Back and examine this entire, 110+ page thread, shall we?
We’re now locked into arguments with someone who believes:
1 that all dinosaurs and all other species (+35 million of them) were insta-poofed into existence along with an insta-poofed pair of humans.
2. the biblical idea that only two of anything can “beget” a surviving population, though ecologists have seen species whose populations fall below about 50 die off quickly.
3. that an old man, Noah, got sufficient numbers of each type (I’d say an absolute minimum of about 10 mating pairs for each of about 25 million types; = 250 million animals, many weighing over a few tons) onto a 400 meter long wooden boat, absent proper engineering or any metal re-inforcements,
4. That the remnants of that boat now lie on a Turkish Mountain, (Mt. Ararat), though satellite pass-bys of any and all claimed Ark remnants have shown to be limestone-basalt complexes ("Purt-heavy boat, wouldn’t yah say, sailor?")
5. that said boat could carry ten T-Rexs, 10 12-tonne brontosauri, 10 stegasaurs, 10 megasaurs, 10 veloci-raptors, etc. Such a boat, would have to carry, by my rough calculation, about 75,000 tons of animals. And their food.
6. that God commanded many of them, despite their dentition and biochemical needs and digestive enzyme systems, to be functional Vegans for 18 mo. (milk sprays out my nose…)
7. that Noah had enough food for same (I quick-calculated that the actual Vegan Brontisalone would require a minimum of 200 TONNES of vegetation stored onboard. But where did they get the equally necessary fresh water? Did Noah have that in handy goat-skin containers below decks?
8. and that…. Oh but you get the picture. All kid’s fantasy stuff.
But then, oh no ,there’s so much more on other planes of thought…
9. He wants us to believe, against the vast preponderance of valid carefully researched evidence(which he dismisses as all hoax and fraud unless it magically happens to support his ideas) two fairy-tales about ceramic figurines and vases scratching, both of which have been proven to be probable hoaxes, and even in they are not, they do not disprove Evolution, because…
10. He simplistically dismisses a now-proven fact by saying that “Evolution is Just A Theory!”Blah Blah blah…. How can you disprove a now-established fact by calling it by the layman’s simplistic and kindergarten-level definition of a Theory??? We know the exact mechanism of how it works, that’s even been proven in a lab against all accusations of fraud, and against ALL questions about it's veracity & reproducability.
Other YECs have simply stopped responding to threads about this spectacular 2008 proof, because they cannot refute it, so they'll just ignore it! There Yah Go!
We have a huge fossil record, including thousands of transitionals.
We find, everywhere, evidence as PREDICTED by that so-called Theory. Exactly as it would PREDICT. in terms of geo-stratification, physiological & structural development, DNA mapping, relative location to other finds and evidence, and their "fit" as transitionals. We now have “transitionals” up the wahzoo, but Answers in Genesis (AiG) lists Ten Arguments Not to Get Into with Scientists or Atheists", says to discount and ignore them, and gives genuinely stupid reasons by which to refute them.
This debater cannot even define “transitional”, and fights this evidence by simply recycling, again and again, that “you have no transitionals!”. But then we show him pages and pages of photos, and remind him that everything is a transitional because Evolution never stops. He also won’t look in the mirror to see one.
And so what do we get here? His complete rejection of all of it, followed by another recycled comment.
I’d strongly consider taking a break, folks, unless you are...
a) Entertained by simple things that never stop going “ba-zoink, bah-zing, bleepity-blongo, ring-a-ding-ding”, or…
b) You think you’ll convince this one or his various buddies to accede to any of your logical points. Ever.
Nope. It’s not in his DNA, ergo it’s not functionally possible.
Actually, my belief about the creation of the universe is that it was created over thousands of years. Scientists believe according to James Sweitzer director of astrophysics education at the American Museum of Natural History's Rose Center for Earth and Space. That the entire observable universe was once less then (ONE MILLIONTH OF A METER ACROSS.) And then in a (NANOSECOND) it exploded outward and expanded continually untill present time. And the entire universe we see today, came from an object so small, (YOU WOULD NOT OF BEEN ABLE TO OBSERVE IT WITH THE NAKED EYE). When you see what science is talking about, all of a sudden, the story of Noah seems just as believable. And of course, the story of Noah has the backing from many oral traditions found across the globe.
rifleman, do you really believe that the entire universe we see today, would of long ago require us to use a microscope to observe it? You say it would be impossible for Noah to fit all the animals on the Ark, yet, do you believe it was possible to view are entire universe under a microscope?
SPACE.com -- The Universe: Still Boggling The Minds of 'Finite Creatures' (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_overview_010605-1.html - broken link)
Campbell, the big bang is only an unproven hypothesis...Unlike you we can say we do not know and may never know how it all began. Yet again you are deflecting this thread away from the topic.
Campbell, the big bang is only an unproven hypothesis...Unlike you we can say we do not know and may never know how it all began. Yet again you are deflecting this thread away from the topic.
I remind you again....The topic is evolution
So, is not the evolution of the universe part of that evolution? And is it not also true that evolution is also an unproven hypothesis? And the topic really is. When did man become human, and it was wrong to kill each other?
So based on the topic, it would appear we are all off topic. Why do you just point your finger at me, when it appears we are all eqaully guilty?
rifleman, do you really believe that the entire universe we see today, would of long ago require us to use a microscope to observe it? You say it would be impossible for Noah to fit all the animals on the Ark, yet, do you believe it was possible to view are entire universe under a microscope?
' (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_overview_010605-1.html - broken link)
Anything's possible, but the evidence cosmologists continue to find has tended to MEET THE PREDICTIONS of their best hypotheses, while those observations certainly do not fit what Creation would predict.
As in, a rapidly expanding universe (which therefore would have to have been smaller yesterday, and a long time ago, it was just a tiny point. Just logically, you understand...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
So, is not the evolution of the universe part of that evolution?
No, Tom. No.
And is it not also true that evolution is also an unproven hypothesis? And the topic really is. When did man become human, and it was wrong to kill each other?
So based on the topic, it would appear we are all off topic. Why do you just point your finger at me, when it appears we are all eqaully guilty?
No Tom. Evolution specifically does NOT involve any discussion of the Origins of The Universe. That is a spectacularly different topic. Of course Evolutionists are quite interested in those Origins, being basically curious types, but in no rational way is there any direct or even abstract affiliation between cosmological Origins and organistic Evolution.
#1:Evolution (do I really have to explain this AGAIN? GAWD...) discusses the methods and mechanisms by which ALREADY EXISTING LIFE ,on AN ALREADY EXISTING PLANET, which had the necessary ENVIRONMENT FOR SURVIVAL OF LIVING THINGS, how that existing life differentiated itself from the simplest single-celled organisms into you and I and dolphins.
Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please... Get it right this time!
Don't try to confuse the argument ever again. Yes, we're interested in Cosmic theories of the origins and initiation dynamics of the Universe, but that's such a massive topic, and fundamentally unrelated to Evolution, which is, oh GAWD, please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please... unrelated!
Read Number 1 above. Again and again, until you sorta maybe kinda understand it!
Then we can proceed.
Otherwise, I've just got to conclude you're either rather dense, or that you enjoy irritating us for the sole purpose of being irritating, or that you're a fundamentalist TROLL. Or that you really just don't understand the differences yet.
Which shall we conclude?
(Oh, and BTW, when you DO understand the fundamental difference between these two radically diffeernt topics, could you then humor me with your definition / explanation of transitional forms? Please?
I'm pretty sure, from the evidence you've provided, that you don't understand that one either, but I'm here to help, Tom.!
I have a sense of humor also, but In life I had the crazy friends that got me into trouble. And realized I want truth, loyalty, and belief that there is a reason for everything. I believe we are not the only ones on this earth. I think I'm extremely open-minded. When people do or say mean things there is a reason behind it. They are sad, depressed,insecure, and I either want to help them, or remove myself from the gloom they bring. But you are right life is short I need to lighten up.
So we're looking at woo woo science as proof of a young earth and Captain Noah's flood?
From your link:
The existence of prehistoric civilisations
The earth was not like this at its beginning. It has experienced countless numbers of crust changes, volcanoes, floods, ice ages, and so on. The earth as it appears now has experienced myriad changes. Let us look at the “Near-Water-Ancient-Land” as an example. This place is 2600 meters deep, and only 90 kilometres from the Japanese Gulf. However, 67-25 millions years ago, it was high above the Pacific Ocean, some 120 kilometres east of the Japanese islands. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine that if civilisation existed during prehistoric times, natural catastrophes and geographical realignments would change the landscape, and only a very few remnants would be forever kept under the sea.
Methinks you just shot yourself in the foot (AGAIN).
I do not think anyone will object to ancient civilizations now being under water. I mean we have pics and just like evolution we see that cities like Venice are sinking.
Just our models make it plausible whereas your model (singular) does not allow for it.
So the crust "collapsed" did it. Collapsed onto what/from where/what?
Oh does that now mean the spin of the mountains being pushed up after the flood as the water receded can now be ignored? Oh wait, they said there are underwater trenches and cravens we do not know about, so if the crust "collapsed" I guess those must have been destroyed then too.
Oh BTW, how come we have Antarctic ice cores that date SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND 750,000 years old if your flood was 4-5k years ago?
Ice floats remember and melts too if you did not notice.
EPIC FAIL!
Looking at cities like Venice is one thing, finding cities 2,000 feet below the surface of the ocean is something else again, and we are not just talking about one city attached to some local land that sank 10 feet. We are talking about a major collapse of the earths outer crust. And in numerous spots around the globe. It appears the crust of the earth was fragile and was subject to such a collapse. And that is why we are looking at cities 2,000 feet below the ocean. Otherwise are you suggesting those cities use to be on dry land, until the water rose over them?
It appears the crust of the earth was fragile and was subject to such a collapse. And that is why we are looking at cities 2,000 feet below the ocean. Otherwise are you suggesting those cities use to be on dry land, until the water rose over them?
First of all what cities have been located 2,000 below sea level? Please tell me it's not Atlantis. I've heard people talk about California just dropping off into the ocean as though the ocean actually went underneath it and the land was just some sort of shelf perched precariously at the surface. That's just ridiculous. It you've ever seen that hot red stuff that comes out of volcanoes you'll realize that that's what the interior of the earth is like if you go down far enough. It's true that the surface of the earth is constantly changing due to the forces of the tektonic plates and that one plate might either push over the top of the adjacent plate or else be pushed below it but I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that the crust of the earth had a vast ocean below it and one day it just gave way and a city sank to the bottom of it. Is that really what you're trying to say?
Looking at cities like Venice is one thing, finding cities 2,000 feet below the surface of the ocean is something else again, and we are not just talking about one city attached to some local land that sank 10 feet. We are talking about a major collapse of the earths outer crust. And in numerous spots around the globe. It appears the crust of the earth was fragile and was subject to such a collapse. And that is why we are looking at cities 2,000 feet below the ocean. Otherwise are you suggesting those cities use to be on dry land, until the water rose over them?
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.
It’s not in his DNA, ergo it’s not functionally possible.
Off Topic Again! And He Knows It!
I've heard people talk about California just dropping off into the ocean as though the ocean actually went underneath it and the land was just some sort of shelf perched precariously at the surface. That's just ridiculous. It you've ever seen that hot red stuff that comes out of volcanoes you'll realize that that's what the interior of the earth is like if you go down far enough. It's true that the surface of the earth is constantly changing due to the forces of the tektonic plates and that one plate might either push over the top of the adjacent plate or else be pushed below it but I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that the crust of the earth had a vast ocean below it and one day it just gave way and a city sank to the bottom of it. Is that really what you're trying to say?
