It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How does creationism explain....

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Zip-- We already know the atheists don't fear God. That's why they're atheists, and why they believe in the lamest excuse for a religion that was ever invented -- EVOLUTION.

Scripture says, The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

Scripture also says, The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom.

Both verses are in the Book of Proverbs, the book of Wisdom.




posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Zip-- We already know the atheists don't fear God. That's why they're atheists, and why they believe in the lamest excuse for a religion that was ever invented -- EVOLUTION.

Scripture says, The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.

Scripture also says, The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom.

Both verses are in the Book of Proverbs, the book of Wisdom.


Um.... I became an aetheist because I looked at religion, decided that it was a meanlingless jumble of conflicting ideas run by a load of control freaks that have historically been against freedom of thought and speech, and walked away. I have never regretted that choice. I have also been able to benefit from an excellent education that has encouraged me to always ask questions and stretch my curiousity. Religion, I have found, is based upon faith and cold hard facts tend to dent/batter/blow that faith away.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   


We already know the atheists don't fear God. That's why they're atheists, and why they believe in the lamest excuse for a religion that was ever invented -- EVOLUTION.


Evolution isn't a religion.

If you are not sure what a religion is you can check the dictionary.


To everyone else on this thread... Springer has really good advice in his signature.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Umbrax, dont bring that up! resistance wants to change the subject to try and dig himself out of yet another hole, by bringing out the usual 'Evolution is religion' he hopes to sidetrack people!

Don't look at the eyes kids!



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Resistance, I had more or less finished with this thread but, you continue to be irrational.Alot of good evidence has been presented and all you do to counter it is rant about how evolution is a religon, tells us fairy tales about floods and quote the bible so you will have to excuse us.Atheists do not belive in anything
Evolution is not a religon, I dont think I need to say any more on that.



Figure 2.4.2. Dolphin embryo with well-developed early hindlimb bud. Embryo of the spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) at 24 days gestation. f = well-developed forlimb bud, h = well-developed early hindlimb bud. Also compare with the cat and human embryos of similar age in Figure 2.4.1 above.






The above picture is of a dolphin embryo with the beginning of lesgs and arms, these will later be reabsorbed into the body at a later stage of development,now why does this happpen resistance? Its doesnt only happen in dolphin's but whales and snakes because the animals they evolved from originaly originally had legs which they later lost through the process of natural selection.




Many species of snakes and legless lizards (such as the "slow worm") initially develop limb buds in their embryonic development, only to reabsorb them before hatching (Raynaud 1990; Raynaud and Kan 1992; Raynaud and Van den Elzen 1976). Similarly, modern adult whales, dolphins, and porpoises have no hind legs. Even so, hind legs, complete with various developing leg bones, nerves, and blood vessels, temporarily appear in the cetacean fetus and subsequently degenerate before birth (Amasaki et al. 1989; Sedmera et al. 1997). These rudimentary hindlimb buds persist longer in the embryos of baleen humpback whales (Megaptera nodosa) than in other cetaceans, a fact which may explain why atavistic external hindlimbs are found more often in baleen whales than in other cetaceans (Bejder and Hall 2002; for photographs of the large atavistic femur, tibia, and tarsus found in a female humpback whale see Figure 2.2.1 above).


Source



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
There are no reptiles with half-formed feathers

Please explain why the half-formed feathers in those species are infact not half formed.

I thought you were a stickler for facts.

I don't know about being a stickler for facts but I do try to have a logical consideration of the evidence.


There's no scales turning to feathers mentioned in anything you put up.

Like I said initially, there isn't a fossil specimin that grows living scales that morph into feathers before your eyes.


I'm not buying the book to find out about this fossil.

What book?


Platypuses lay eggs, have a bill like a duck, and are mammals. God does not have to follow any rules that people who categorize his Creation might want Him to.

IOW there are no kinds. Check.


These strange creatures God has made do not prove evolution.

I agree, they don't prove that evolution occurs. The observation of evolution in natural populations is what 'proves' that it occurs.




So all I'm asking is for one puny little example to demonstrate this theory of evolution

Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is that it happens via natural selection, acting upon variation, and leads to adaptation and speciation. Theories don't become fact. Its entirely possible that tomorrow something will be learned or observed that will refute darwin's theory. Nevertheless, evolution, the change of allele proportions within a population over generational time, is observed and isn't theoretical. If you want a demonstration of evolution, then merely look at the observations of changes in allele frequencies over time.


-- something that proves this gradualistic development of something simple into something else

You mean like speciation?

We also have billions of different life forms. If each one of these lifeforms took billions of years to evolve out of something else, then our earth must be a billion billion billion years old.

That hardly makes sense. No one is claiming that it takes a billion years for one species to diverge into two speicies or anything like that. Besides, everything is evolveing at once, its not like only one species can evolve at a time like in the example you give.



It's a desperate and lame attempt by people to explain God away

Since evolution doesn't explain away god or, indeed, say anythign about god, your statement is incorrect.

so they won't have to worry that He's looking over their shoulder and they can live their life without guilt.

I think that most people who accept evolution, who are christians (or any other number of faiths) would strongly disagree with that bizzare statement.


It can be made in the laboratory in several hours.

What specific experiment and paper are you talking about? What conditions does it use and how do those conditions relate to what occurs in nature?



The oil and coal we have are from the massive catastrophe that occurred in the flood -- whereby trees and animals and dirt and rocks were uprooted and hurled and swirled in the flood,

And yet, there is no such flood debris deposit across the globe, and the coals and oils you are saying formed in the flood are in completely different strata.


One look at the rocks going straight down to the shallow water below would indicate a catastrophic earthquake to anyone not peering through "evolution tinted" glasses.

I don't think that there's a single geologist that states it was formed by an earthquake, including creationist geologists.


The Grand Canyon was formed when the earth just split open and the plates moved apart.

There is no evidence of rifting in that region.


The changes in the terrain around Mt. St. Helens happened in a matter of hours and days, not years.

Change can happen quickly, yes. So what? It can also happen slowly.

You just need a catastrophe.

A catastrophe would do it, however you'd actually need evidence of a catastrophe to be able to say that it did it. Also, uniformitarianism exist before darwinism, so how can it be that only darwinian evolutionists can 'see' uniformitarianism?


I'm not impressed by all the names of the dynosaurs you're putting out.

I wasn't trying to impress, you specifically asked for the names.

This is the typical ploy of the evolutionists

Respondig to the questions of creationists and addressing their arguments? Yes, it is rather typical.



I'm not interested in your producing for me fully formed creatures, fully complete creatures, who have feathers. I want to see a partially formed feather that's evolving over ions of time from a scale into a feather.

Did you actually bother to look at the integumentary structures of the animals involved? They do not all have full feathers. Also, what, precisely, is a 'fully formed creature'??? How can an animal not be fully formed, short of being a fetus or something???

If evolution is as you say it is, then there must be at least one example of it in existence somewhere.

I can point to examples of creationism, special creation -- because everything we see around us in nature is fully formed, indicating special creation.

Again, what precisely wouldn't be 'fully formed'???


Of course we also have the other evolution theories -- like punctuated equilibrium that says evolution did not occur gradually but in giant leaps;

This, infact, is not what punctuated equilibria postulates, and even gould, one of the co-creators of the theory, states that its merely an addition to darwinian evolution.


and the pans spermia theory of evolution or whatever it's called.

Pan spermia merely states that life originated off earth and in one way or another came to earth. Its not a theory of how evolution works.

You guys can't even agree on your theory

But old earth creationists, intelligent design advocates, and young earth creationists can??? Even amoung young earth creationists there is wide disagreement, like between AIG and Kent Hovind on what arguments support creationism. The vast majority of people working in evolution accept darwin's basic idea as being well supported by the evidence.


But even though you're clueless, you claim it's all "scientific."

You do understand that science doesn't mean 'having an answer for everything, ever' right??


One more thing.

You have yet to say anything substantive so perhaps this one more thing will be it?

When the NWO comes crashing down,

There is no NWO, its not going to come crashing down.

will you suddenly decide maybe God is real after all?

You have no idea what my religious predilictions are or aren't.


Why should He listen to you then when you were on a campaign to prove he did not exist

I have done no such thing.


Scripture says -- no excuse.

Then why all the palather about ther is no evidence of this or that or 'show me evidence'? You are stating that you will not be swayed by evidence or any rational consideration, and are instead only swayed by your own irrational faith. Fair enough, but why bother asking people for evidence? There is no evidence that can possibly or even theoretically convince you.


So that kind of says it.

Indeed, but not in the way you intend.

They even admit it's a theory

Thats because it is a theory. All ideas about how animals are related to each other are theories. Every cladogram, every phylogenetic reconstruction, is a theory.

Again I say, show me one example of a scale turning into a feather. Just one.

Why?

Quit crying and just prove your theory. If you have no proof, then stop lecturing me about how "unscientific" and misled I am

You don't seem to understand what science actually is. Theories, like the theory that evolution occurs via a mechanism of natural selection, are never proven. The theory that birds descend from dinosuars will never become a fact, indeed, how could it, we can't obvserve it happening in any real way. The theory of gravity will never become a fact, no matter how many apples fall off no matter how many trees. The theory that matter is made up of atoms and the theories about the structure of these atoms will never be proven and become a fact, they are all theories.


Merkeva
Dolphin embryo with well-developed early hindlimb bud.

What is the sense in showing this man evidence, he has stated that no evidence, regardless of what it is, can trump his faith. He is not here for a discussion of the evidence.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Nygdan -- I am here for evidence. You don't even have one feather of evidence. Not one feather. You admit it's all a "Theory," a theory with NO EVIDENCE. What a sham, desperately digging and searching for something, anything, to back up this ludicrous, preposterous idea that complex DNA genetic material can form itself out of dead matter and turn a turnip into a bullfrog.

What utter nonsense.

If gradual evolution were a fact, we would be seeing this happening NOW. But we do not. Every creature is what it is, fully formed, fully complete. We don't see anything that's on its way to being something else. We see countless varieties of reptiles from which the evolutionists claim the birds come. Well, where is one reptile that is growing feathers, where some of those scales are starting to turn into feathers? This is in fact what the evolutionists claim happened. So let's see some proof, just one little feather. Just one. All you have is a theory with NO PROOF.

Creationists have literally a whole world of proof. Just look around. Everything is an amazing and wonderful and complete creation, a remarkable work that requires a remarkable Creator. If you spill paint on a canvas by accident you don't get a Mona Lisa.

FACT: Feathers are complex structures in no way like a scale. The idea that a scale would "turn into" a feather is utterly silly. Just plain silly. But, hey, if I could see this happening in nature I'd be forced to admit it's true. But it's NOT HAPPENING. The opposite is what we see-- we see that everything is all made, all finished. Like produces like, and life produces life. This is what we see, and it never, ever changes.

Speciation is not evolution. The species that may emerge suddenly from the parents are not evolving. They already existed in the genetic material of their parents. They come forth fully formed and complete. They do not come forth as a mutation. Mutations are destructive. Mutations destroy genetic material, not build new material.

Species are not mutations. Species are emerging variants from the kind from which they came.

Merkeva -- To be honest this is the first I'd ever heard about phantom arms and legs that disappear on embryos. I will have to check this one out.



For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrightousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 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: Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed hte glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Romans 1:17-25



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
What a sham, desperately digging and searching for something, anything, to back up this ludicrous, preposterous idea that complex DNA genetic material can form itself out of dead matter and turn a turnip into a bullfrog

What utter nonsense.

Yes.. you seem to excell at it. You have already tried to use this argument before:

From page 5:

Choke. You may call it science to believe that turnips can turn into bumblebees, but I call it PSEUDOSCIENCE. Or worse. But why should you believe your lying eyes?


Aside from hypocricy, this shows that you have not been absorbing or understanding the information given to you at all.. please go back and review the answers you were given. The 'Dead matter' issue was also answered the last time you brung it up. Please stop using arguments that have already been rebutted.. it would save us from having to repeat ourselves. Where are you getting this disinformation from? Perhaps you should look elsewhere.


If gradual evolution were a fact, we would be seeing this happening NOW. But we do not. Every creature is what it is, fully formed, fully complete. We don't see anything that's on its way to being something else.

:shk:


NEW FLY SPECIES.
A newfound insect shows that two species can combine to create a third species, and that humans may be unknowingly encouraging evolution, according to researchers.



Creationists have literally a whole world of proof. Just look around. Everything is an amazing and wonderful and complete creation, a remarkable work that requires a remarkable Creator.


Rainbows are very pretty as well.. does that prove lepricauns exist?

[edit on 20-10-2005 by riley]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Resistance:
Also, I'm positive there are no creatures that ever existed with partially formed feathers.

Nygdan:


The specimins are fairly new, having been discovered in the late 90's and the past few years. Here is the webpage for a good exhibit from a few years back that was in London.
Dino-birds at the Natural History Museum

But thats a site for the general public. The species involved in general are:
Sinornithosaurus
Sinosauropteryx
Dilong paradoxus
Caudipteryx
Cryptovolans
Epidendrosaurus
(aka Scansoriopteryx)
Protarchaeopteryx
Microraptor
Unenlagia
Shuvuuia
Beipiaosaurus


These is a wide variety of skin structures on these animals, ranging from ful blown flight feathers back down to tiny short primitive shafts of simple feather material.

Here is an intersting dinodata page:
dinodata.net...
Acording to it Rahonavis and Avimimus have anchor points for feathers, but feathers haven't been found. I had actually thought that feathers were found for Rahonavis, but there ya go.



wolfofwar
The Coelurosaur was a form of Velociraptor which was covered in Feather.
Coelurosauria and Maniraptora is a class of dinosaurs. Coelurosaurus is a particular dinosaur but doesn't have feathers. Some Coelurosaurs (the group) are feathered. The maniraptor(a or iformes) are a group within Coelurosauria.


We could go through all these creatures one by one, but from what I understand you guys haven't a feather of a clue on this. Your own evolutionist scientists even say none of these are links to birds. Scientific American even admits there's no way birds could come from dinosaurs. AIG covers the 10-page story published in Scientific American w/ footnotes. www.answersingenesis.org...

[edit on 20-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
This is another classic example of creationists pulling the wool over people's eyes by making one thing appear to be another. There has never been any claim that I am aware of that scales became feathers. What there has been is proof that hairs evolve into feathers. And recent discoveries have shown that some dinosaurs were hairy little buggers. There's the required link. As for putting up yet another link to the AIG website, please keep doing this as a) it's only harming your credibility still further and b) their site has given me hours of pleasure due to the fits of giggles and outright laughter that some of their claims provoke.
What makes you think that existing species are 'complete'? Why are you unable to fathom - or open your eyes to - the fact that evolution is happening all around us. Man has evolved from a primitive biped to our current form. We're not complete by any means. We've seen the proof for evolution all around us. Evolution is seen as the correct theory in most of the world. Why is it only in America that this is still debated?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
This is another classic example of creationists pulling the wool over people's eyes by making one thing appear to be another. There has never been any claim that I am aware of that scales became feathers. What there has been is proof that hairs evolve into feathers. And recent discoveries have shown that some dinosaurs were hairy little buggers. There's the required link. As for putting up yet another link to the AIG website, please keep doing this as a) it's only harming your credibility still further and b) their site has given me hours of pleasure due to the fits of giggles and outright laughter that some of their claims provoke.
What makes you think that existing species are 'complete'? Why are you unable to fathom - or open your eyes to - the fact that evolution is happening all around us. Man has evolved from a primitive biped to our current form. We're not complete by any means. We've seen the proof for evolution all around us. Evolution is seen as the correct theory in most of the world. Why is it only in America that this is still debated?


Darkmind -- You've chosen a good name for yourself. The reason I think things are complete is because the only things I see around me which are not complete are things that are variants, deformed mutants of what otherwise are complete creatures of God. I know I shall never see some turtle or some snake or some lizard whose scales are starting to turn into feathers, or hair either for that matter. Any reptile I shall ever see will be a reptile, with eyes that work and scales lying all nice and flat and orderly the way God made them to be.

When the speciation DOES occur (and nobody's disputing this happens), it does not happen over billions of years. It happens immediately. The new species is born from the parents, and they are what they are, the new species. They are complete, meaning they don't have to form wings out of legs or feathers out of scales. There is a change from what the parents are, but it's a change of species, not of kind, and it is immediate and complete. The species may or may not be able to interbreed with the kind from which it came or with other species that came from that same parent "kind."

This is how things actually occur in the real world, the world of observable facts, of real true science. The genes for all the species are already within the DNA structures of the "kinds" from which they came.

And I don't see why you have such derision and lack of respect for AIG. AIG is crammed with good science information, and it's all laced with common sense (something lacking totally in the evolutionist websites). Furthermore, show me an evolutionist website that covers the extent of information that AIG does, as completely, that has cogent answers to nearly any topic that may arise on this subject.

As to evolution happening all around us, you're speaking of so-called micro evolution. It's possible to LOSE genetic material but not to gain it . Of course speciation occurs within a kind, resulting in creatures who may or may not be able to interbreed (i.e. from loss of genetic material).

It is NOT POSSIBLE for new genetic material to create itself. This has never happened one time in the history of the world.

Speciation and the loss of genetic material are not in dispute. What IS in dispute is the unfounded and contrary-to-nature claims that genetic material can invent and create itself. (now that I've repeated myself three times perhaps it's sunk in what I'm saying, having said the same thing three different ways?)

A turnip has no genetic material within itself to become a bullfrog. It never has and never will have that. An ape or a monkey do not have within themselves the genetic material to ever become a human. They never did and never will have that genetic material. A horse will never become a squirrel and a squirrel will never become a porcupine. A daisy will never become a grasshopper. Likewise a salamander will never become a robin.

From what I've read, the more the evolutionists go looking for proof that birds came from reptiles (or dinosaurs), the more they end up disproving their own theories. If they'd just read the Bible they'd see that birds were created on the fifth day, before reptiles which were created on the sixth day.

So shine some light into your dark mind and realize these common sense things that anybody would know just from looking out their front window at what they see around them (anybody who hadn't been propagandized to believe evolutionist nonsense.)



[edit on 20-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind
Why is it only in America that this is still debated?


Because the Fundamental christian right is constantly gaining power and trying to enforce a puritan style lifestyle. I honestly believe here are a few serious scientist who are proponents of intellegent design and believe they can look at it scientifically. However, they have not been able to gain anything scientifically. Now the FCR is using it as another front of it's push to install christian morals into our politics and onto the people. The discovery institute is now nothing more than a political pawn for the FCR. Thats where the conspiracy comes in.



originally psted by resistence
And I don't see why you have such derision and lack of respect for AIG. AIG is crammed with good science information, and it's all laced with common sense (something lacking totally in the evolutionist websites).

AIG is no different than any BS creationist sight. They do not use good science. Their articles are easily debunked and have been numerous times on ATS.



Furthermore, show me an evolutionist website that covers the extent of information that AIG does, as completely, that has cogent answers to nearly any topic that may arise on this subject.

Talkorigins



It is NOT POSSIBLE for new genetic material to create itself. This has never happened one time in the history of the world.

This has been covered numerous times.



Speciation and the loss of genetic material are not in dispute.

This right here is evolution. Speciation is evolution. If over time a species loses genetic information and this causes it to form a new species, you have evolution.



A turnip has no genetic material within itself to become a bullfrog. It never has and never will have that. An ape or a monkey do not have within themselves the genetic material to ever become a human.

An ape and monkey are very, very similar to humans genetically. In fact if you look at the the DNA of a chimp and the DNA of humans, you will see that almost all of the differences are commonly known mutations.



They never did and never will have that genetic material. A horse will never become a squirrel and a squirrel will never become a porcupine. A daisy will never become a grasshopper. Likewise a salamander will never become a robin.

Yet you say that a dolphin can just pop an elephant out after mating with another dolphin.



From what I've read, the more the evolutionists go looking for proof that birds came from reptiles (or dinosaurs), the more they end up disproving their own theories. If they'd just read the Bible they'd see that birds were created on the fifth day, before reptiles which were created on the sixth day.

LOL no. they go out to disprove theories and so far they have found more evidence to support evoultion.



So shine some light into your dark mind and realize these common sense things that anybody would know just from looking out their front window at what they see around them (anybody who hadn't been propagandized to believe evolutionist nonsense.)


You say to realize some common sense? Okay, lets see you want to base everything on a collection of books, written by different authors, designed to fit a society 2000 years ago, that has been rewritten and translated who knows how many times and then say that all knowledge gained through science should be thrown out for not following this book. You are the one spreading propaganda.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I would say it all comes down to one thing.

You don't base your scientific views on a non-scientific book.

You don't learn biology from anything but valid scientific texts. You don't learn mathematics from anything but a valid mathematical text.


And you don't learn anything about biology or math or physics or biochemistry or animal husbandry or quantum physics from the Bible, or from the Koran, or from any other religious text written millenia ago.

They used to think sacrificing a dozen virgins to the gods would bring a good crop, but now we know about weather systems and meteorology and have doppler radar tracking wind and rain patterns. Should they still be sacrificing virgins even if we know all this?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
SilentLoneWolf -- Speciation is not evolution. Here's why.

Evolution says with speciation you go from simple to complex, that DNA is built upon DNA ad infinitum, and the simple works on up to the more complex.

In fact, with speciation you are going from the complex to the more simple. There is a dividing off from the genetic material that's there. The species are contained within the kind already, as God placed them there. At the right time and the right place, God causes them to emerge. They do so suddenly. They don't gradually change over ions of time, with some worm growing buds that turn into eyes, budding out some legs and later some fur and toenails.

The types, breeds and species are all contained within one kind. When the species emerge it is with a loss of genetic material, not an acquisition of it. And the emerging species or type or breed may or may not be able to breed with its parent or with other different species emerging from that same kind.

Don't you see the huge difference here? You need to contemplate what I'm saying here. You can call this "micro evolution" if you want. Creationists don't dispute there is speciation occurring. But that is not evolution. The genetic material was there already. It did not evolve. It was already there.

Jakomo -- The Bible is scientific. If I didn't think the Bible was accurate in every respect I would not believe any of it. Who is able to tell us better how He created the world than the Creator Himself? He was the only one around at the time. So that means I have a witness, God Himself who does not lie, and I have my own two eyes to see. Who would ignore those two things and go running after silly stories and hypotheses and wishful thinkings that contradict all things that are directly known and observed? Only someone desperately loyal to his "religion."

Personally, I hate religion. Christianity is a way of life, and God is truth, and I want truth and a relationship with my God, not a religion. I'm not interested in hocus pocus superstition. I want to get right and be right with my maker, the one who I will someday stand before and give an account of my life to, and hopefully be able to spend an eternity with. I wouldn't say I'm a religious person at all, a spiritual person maybe, but not religious.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   


Jakomo -- The Bible is scientific.


And here ends this debate...Ok Resistance since you have made the claim the bible is scientific I would like an example of an invention that was invented useing information form the bible?How many peoples lives does the bible save through its "so-called" science.How about you show us how the bible is scientific, where in the bible are experments done ? Where are the conclusion from these biblical experments?Because im sick of giving you evidence which you disreguard and then bring up the arguement again 2 pages later.Its time for you to show us some hard evidence for creationisim instead of trying to debunk evolution (which aint going to well for ya, might I add)

Resistance we have alot of creationists on this site,I think you have to wonder why they haven't been forthcoming in backing you up in this debate.
Your making the real creation scientists look bad , at least they will provide scientific data to up hold there theory.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Jakomo -- The Bible is scientific. If I didn't think the Bible was accurate in every respect I would not believe any of it. Who is able to tell us better how He created the world than the Creator Himself? He was the only one around at the time. So that means I have a witness, God Himself who does not lie, and I have my own two eyes to see. Who would ignore those two things and go running after silly stories and hypotheses and wishful thinkings that contradict all things that are directly known and observed? Only someone desperately loyal to his "religion."
[edit on 20-10-2005 by resistance]


??? No, the Bible is not scientific. It is the history of a Bronze and later Iron-age people, and as such is filled with their legends. It is not complete either - there are a number of books which have fallen out of it. Saying that it is the word of god is highly questionable. It would be better to say that it is the word of people trying to explain the world around them. It's not even very accurate at times and I suspect has been pruned and nicked bits from other cultures. There's nothing wrong with that, it's the way the world works. The Flood is a lift from Gilgamesh, and if you look very hard at the Bible (and at some of the archaeology) God once had a female consort. There are precisely two references to the Hittites, one of the Ancient World's great superpowers. Joseph's trip to Egypt is probably a dim memory of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt.
Saying that some mystical being created light before he made the sun is not scientific. Saying that God took a rib out of Adam and created Eve is not scientific (by the way, men have same number of ribs as women). Saying that God created things on the days before there was a sun is not scientific, because how can that be a day? Saying that the sun stood still in the sky is not scientific, but it plays merry hell with the rotation of the earth (and would have caused global earthquakes and devastation). Saying that there was a global flood is not scientific, because there is absolutely no evidence at all anywhere. You have been talking about your faith in God. I have faith in science and in cold hard fact.
Taking the Bible literally is a great way to get arrested, because that means condoning slavery and condemning women who are having their period for being unclean. I could go on, but I suspect that I'd start to froth at the mouth.
You have mentioned silly stories. No offence, but that is one way of describing the bible. Stories. Fables. People's ideas on how the world came into existence. We have outgrown this. Science has moved on from the Bronze Age and has given us the Greek Philosophers, The Enlightenment, The Scientific Revolution, and modern life by looking forwards, not back. Silly stories? No. Life in this world. Life in this universe, of which we are a tiny speck, an atom on the canvas.
And by the way, I chose Darkmind because I am cynical and suspicious git. There is more than enough light in my head, as I am also a widely read git.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
SilentLoneWolf -- Speciation is not evolution. Here's why.

Evolution says with speciation you go from simple to complex, that DNA is built upon DNA ad infinitum, and the simple works on up to the more complex.

In fact, with speciation you are going from the complex to the more simple. There is a dividing off from the genetic material that's there. The species are contained within the kind already, as God placed them there. At the right time and the right place, God causes them to emerge. They do so suddenly. They don't gradually change over ions of time, with some worm growing buds that turn into eyes, budding out some legs and later some fur and toenails.

The types, breeds and species are all contained within one kind. When the species emerge it is with a loss of genetic material, not an acquisition of it. And the emerging species or type or breed may or may not be able to breed with its parent or with other different species emerging from that same kind.

Don't you see the huge difference here? You need to contemplate what I'm saying here. You can call this "micro evolution" if you want. Creationists don't dispute there is speciation occurring. But that is not evolution. The genetic material was there already. It did not evolve. It was already there.

If you are going to use a standard creationist claim at least get it right.
The creationist claim is that micro evolution is changes inside the species that allows them to adapt but not speciate. Basically like gaining an immunity to a disease over time. What you are describing is Evolution. Evolution does not state that you have to go in a set path, less to more complexity. All that needs to occur is some genetic change that gives a competitive advantage. It could be a deletion of a gene (which is a mutation!!) which is then loss of genetic material. Therefore what you are describing is Evolution. Spieciation is Evolution.



Who is able to tell us better how He created the world than the Creator Himself? He was the only one around at the time.

Except the book was written by men, and not even the same man but multiple people. It was obviously inspired by the social climate of the time period it was written in. Wether or not that was part of some "master plan" who knows. But it is not scientific and to say it is, well is asanine



So that means I have a witness, God Himself who does not lie,

I would like his autograph if it isn't too much of a bother.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Nygdan -- I am here for evidence. You don't even have one feather of evidence. Not one feather. You admit it's all a "Theory,"

What do you mean admit? I've never said it was anything but.

a theory with NO EVIDENCE.

Please explain why the species listed don't fit your criteria. Why are the prot-feathers on things like sinosauropteryx not, infact, protofeathers, and what would you require of a structure to be a protofeather?


What utter nonsense.

Utter nonesense is saying that there was a global flood when in fact the deposition record contradicts it. Utter nonesense is saying that dinosaurs are in deeper stratigraphic layers than cows because they were 'bad swimmers'. Utter nonesense is saying that a series of animals evolving more and more complex skin structures until they actually have flight feathers isn't evidence for the evolution of feathers.


If gradual evolution were a fact, we would be seeing this happening NOW.

We do see it. We see changes in allele frequency. This is what we'd expect if evolution is gradual. I think you got your rhetoric mixed up, you meant to say 'if evolution is fast and punctuated, we'd see new kinds popping up now'.


Every creature is what it is, fully formed, fully complete.

Please explain what an 'incomplete creature' is supposed to look like.



. Well, where is one reptile that is growing feathers, where some of those scales are starting to turn into feathers?

I have already given you a list of just such organisms. You apparently haven't even looked at the organisms.

FACT: Feathers are complex structures in no way like a scale. The idea that a scale would "turn into" a feather is utterly silly.

Whats utterly silly is some guy who's so stunningly ignorant of the evidence and yet so obstinately insisting that it doesn't exist.


But, hey, if I could see this happening in nature I'd be forced to admit it's true.

Gosh, how generous. If you see a lizard jump off a tree and sprout feathery wings in midflight you'd say that it can happen. Actually, I bet you wouldn't, i bet you'd say that god merely designed the lizzard as such.

Speciation is not evolution.

Speciation is evolution. I honestly suggest that you try to understand what evolution is, before rejecting it.



The species that may emerge suddenly from the parents are not evolving.

Species don't emerge suddenly from parents. And yet, if they did, you'd still say that thats not evolution???


They already existed in the genetic material of their parents.

How the heck can it be any other way? This is not at all a problem for evolution. Again, you really need to know the basics of the theory before you can claim that its wrong.


Mutations destroy genetic material, not build new material.

Utterly false.


Species are not mutations.

No one is claiming this. Again, you need to learn what evolution, or even biology, is about before you can criticise it.


the kind from which they came.

There is no such thing as 'kinds' of animals, it has no biological basis. There is no mechanism that maintains 'kinds', as opposed to species, where a number of biological factors maintain them.

Scientific American even admits there's no way birds could come from dinosaurs.

The board at Scientific American makes no such statement and you are simply spreading a lie. The consensus amoung the paleontological community is that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

which are not complete are things that are variants, deformed mutants

Evolutionary theory does not postulate that some weird freaked out barely alive mutant is born and that that gives rise to new varieties of animals.

When the speciation DOES occur (and nobody's disputing this happens), it does not happen over billions of years

No one claims that it does.

It happens immediately. The new species is born from the parents,

Incorrect. This is not how it forms.

They are complete, meaning they don't have to form wings out of legs or feathers out of scales.

Then why does the fossil record show just that??

The species may or may not be able to interbreed with the kind from which it came or with other species that came from that same parent "kind."

The biological species concept states that two species can be distinguished when the populations can't interbreed (or at least produce viable offspring). There are other species concepts, but this is the more commonly accepted one.

The genes for all the species are already within the DNA structures of the "kinds" from which they came.

There is no such thing as 'kinds' in biology.

And I don't see why you have such derision and lack of respect for AIG.

AIG is a group of hacks who pretend that they are scientists but in reality are either ignorant and unthinking or just plain liars.

It is NOT POSSIBLE for new genetic material to create itself

Absolutely false.

Speciation and the loss of genetic material are not in dispute

Speciation does not involve loss of genetic information.

A turnip has no genetic material within itself to become a bullfrog.

Turnips don't give birth to frogs, check. This, however, hardly refutes evolutionary theory.

From what I've read, the more the evolutionists go looking for proof that birds came from reptiles (or dinosaurs), the more they end up disproving their own theories

Perhaps this is a result of reading creationist literature, like AIG or possibly kent hovind, rather than the actual reports and studies of the discoveries.

Speciation is not evolution. Here's why

Incorrect. Evolution is any change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Darwinian Theory is that this change occurs via a mechanism of natural selection acting upon inheritable variation which leads to adaptation. Speciation is a type of change.

Evolution says with speciation you go from simple to complex,

Wrong.

There is a dividing off from the genetic material that's there.

Wrong.

The types, breeds and species are all contained within one kind.

Wrong.

When the species emerge it is with a loss of genetic material, not an acquisition of it.

Completely and utterly wrong.

acquisition of it.

The offspring generation is almost allways going to be able to interbreed with the parental generation, which is irrelevant, since organisms don't produce offspring that are a different species than them (short of say, plants and the like, or rare instances where there actually is massive duplication of the chromosomes and the like)

If I didn't think the Bible was accurate in every respect I would not believe any of it.

So you have no faith? You merely accept (what you incorrectly) think is scientific?

They don't gradually change over ions of time, with some worm growing buds that turn into eyes, budding out some legs and later some fur and toenails.

And yet that is what the fossil record shows.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Nygdan -- I think you should have read what I said over a bit more carefully instead of just rejecting it out of hand.

I really don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I explained it clearly, reexplained it in different words, and used examples. You just say wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Why am I wrong? What makes you think that DNA can form itself? What about the laws of thermodynamics?

I'm telling you that in a way I believe in "evolution" -- but turn it upside down and inside out and you'll understand what my idea of "evolution" is. It's complex to simple (as in the law of thermodynamics), rather than the other way around (which defy both common sense and the natural laws we can observe) .

When God created the kinds, he put within those kinds all the genetic material for all the species within that kind or family or genus, whatever. That's science, can be verified, as this is what we observe that there are families of creatures. There may be some question as to which is the originating parent in these families, but nonetheless they are families.

This is the part that is strictly my opinion that I share at the risk of being jeered off the board. I believe God directs the choice of sperm to impregnate the egg, and I believe no person or creature is an accident. For some reason God wanted you to be you and nobody else.

But as to the subject of speciation, when God wants a species to appear, He just has to pull the switch. The genetic material is already in place within the creature. When that species/ variant/type appears, God will isolate it with another like itself and multiply it.

I do not agree with Calvinists who think God runs the entire show. I think God mostly doesn't run the entire show, but there are some things He always intervenes in and Scripture says God is the author and finisher of life.

It's just my opinion about God choosing which among a million sperm will impregnate an egg. I'm sure you will jeer me off the board for that one. It is an explanation of how and why new species suddenly and completely appear.

I also realize there is an alternative explanation, which is that the species were always there to begin with, like the brown and white moths example, and different environments will select out which is best suited to thrive. But I'm speaking here of something completely different than natural selection. I'm speaking of how we get speciation in the first instance.

Where do we get them? From the parent kind. They arrive on the scene fully formed and complete. They are lacking in certain genetic material their parents had, and thus may not be able to interbreed with the parents. So it's complex to more simple, not the other way around as evolutionists state.

So my kind of "evolution" goes from complex to more simple, and can only go so far as the genetic material will allow it to within the kind.

Without the genetic material, there is no speciation, no change -- gradual or otherwise. Genetic material does not fabricate itself and that's why I say a turnip will never turn into a bumblebee.

The speciation follows certain rules -- like produces like and life produces life. But in speciation the "like" may differ in size, shape, coloring or something that will make it a separate species and probably prevent it from breeding with the parent or other species within that family or kind.

Why do you think this is not what happens? This is what we see in the fossil record, what we see around us in the real world. We do not see things gradually turning into something else. Everything is as it is, fully formed and complete. If for some reason something is not fully formed and complete it's because mutation has caused a loss of or damage to genetic material, deformity, not an improvement or an enhancement to that material.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
I really don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I explained it clearly, reexplained it in different words, and used examples. You just say wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Why am I wrong? What makes you think that DNA can form itself? What about the laws of thermodynamics?

So.. what about the law of thermodynamics Resistence? Care to provide a source for us all? The laws are usually misinterprited by creationalists to suit their conclusions for uses in propaganda.. in it's correct context I do not think it supports the creationalist view.. however feel free to prove me wrong by providing your own evidence.

It's just my opinion about God choosing which among a million sperm will impregnate an egg. I'm sure you will jeer me off the board for that one.

Poor victimised you.. being chastised for ignorance at a place where it's supposed to be denied..

It is an explanation of how and why new species suddenly and completely appear.

See the strongest and fastest little tadpole makes it to the egg first..

So how does he choose the egg thats 'just right' for the sperm he's remote contolling? That is not a scientific explanation for the appearance of species. It is make-believe.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by riley]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join