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.

 

creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


theories arent evidence they are ideas.

How can you believe in one part of evolution and not the other or are we just being selective to win an argument?

To save you "repeating yourself" over and over lets approach this by a different route, give me one example of evolution, and i want actual hard facts and scientific evidence




posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   


...theories are science


when did this happen? theories about facts help us understand how things might work. but theories are not science, a theory is an interpretation of the fact. Jump frog Jump.



there is evidence to support evolution
in fact, there is a mountain of it.

a mountain of lies more like it. there hasnt been any part of evolution proven yet. just an interpretation of what we find. thats all.



...we do have fossil records of "transitional" stages

uh, no you dont, again another lie. they never show them, they just claim they have it. or they claim that some other field of science has the answer. and didnt Darwin make that prediction as mentioned earlier, that if this theory be true, the fossil record should include millions of transitional stages.... think about it, millions of years.... thats a lot of fossils... and in order to get a fossil it has to be burried alive. animals dont die and lay there for millions of years before rotting away.



...again
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
have i made myself clear?

indeed you have made it clear that you are still in denial.
it doesnt really matter where you start, all we have to do is start backtracking to come to the same conclusion.... your theory is bogus!



can someone else tackle this in another thread?
this thread is about evolution

ah as predicted. indeed it is about evolution but again you are denying that life had a beginning. if science cannot explain this then your whole theory goes to crap.



the topic is evolution, please stay on topic
you're going into a realm of chemistry that overlaps with biology.


uhm, evolution doesnt use chemistry? i could of sworn thats what DNA, RNA, proteins, etc were made from... chemicals....



i actually have already addressed this. all it would show is that life arises in X conditions.


oh wow looky here, a prediction with a negative outcome. probably shows that it doesnt work. if you dont have an egg, you cannot have a chicken.



except it wouldn't
i'll use ID's favorite posterchild, the flagellum motor. they have found a mechanism that works using only a few parts of this "irreducibly complex design" in another cell.


we arent talking about this other mechanism, we are talking about the flagellum, and how scientists cannot explain how it evolved on its own. one of many things that demand a creator.



...there's a considerable difference. the problem isn't the complexity there, it's the components. the parts of a watch cannot arise naturally, the parts that make up the "complexity" of life can all arise naturally.

ah but there you go again missing the point. placing these components together in random orders and positions will never get you watch, if you were to tumble them in a box, you would never get a watch. and even if you were able to keep pieces together that happened to fall correctly, you still would never get a watch.



hell, you're assuming that the laws of physics applied prior to the big bang. the singularity that existed prior to the big bang might have had an entirely different set of laws.


why wouldnt they exist? please provide soem evidence to backup your implication.



what i believe is that the book is either dumbing down the subject so that kids can understand it better or that it's fraudulent.


why would kids need to learn this at an early age? the theory is so complicated that they wouldnt understand it. and if dumbing it down makes the material fraudulent, then it really shouldnt be taught should it?



wow, they really need to revise this science book....
for one thing, it's got the age of the universe off by nearly 3 billion years.
for another, it complete excludes the singularity from which the big bang occured
and lastly, the big bang isn't an "explosion" it was an expansion.

of course, even tho neither theory has a good explanation.... you see kids, we know that it happened but we cant tell you how or what caused it. science? no, fairy tale.



it's about 13.7 billion lightyears across.

really? so what exactly is at the end of this 13.7 billion light years? a black wall?


show me how ID is testable.


this thread is on evolution... remember???



...you make such vague statements. which scientific laws does it violate and which assumptions does it make that contradicts it's arguments against creation and where does the speed of light fit into all of this?


bang bang theory says that the speed of light used to be faster.
but arguments against creation says that stars are billions of light years away, the earth cannot be only 6,000 years old. but what they exclude is that the speed of light is not a constant throughout all time and space.
i know you are not ignorant of this.

and my strawmen... are examples to prove a point, but you still miss the point, even on purpose because you so tightly clenched to your belief in no god.

its ok, one day you might actually snap into reality.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Both sides are jumping to conclusion. We have no idea how the universe began and everyone is already claiming one side is wrong. Frankly, the science we have today is still incomplete and therefore it is useless to say evolution occurred based on incomplete pieces. Creationists are the same. The only way we will find how it all began and came to be would be for:

a) science to have a breakthrough in how the universe was created and have a detailed story.

OR

b) for the rapture to happen and Jesus to come.

Right now both sides are arguing over useless information which is incomplete.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:20 AM
link   


...theories are science


when did this happen? theories about facts help us understand how things might work. but theories are not science, a theory is an interpretation of the fact. Jump frog Jump.



there is evidence to support evolution
in fact, there is a mountain of it.

a mountain of lies more like it. there hasnt been any part of evolution proven yet. just an interpretation of what we find. thats all.



...we do have fossil records of "transitional" stages

uh, no you dont, again another lie. they never show them, they just claim they have it. or they claim that some other field of science has the answer. and didnt Darwin make that prediction as mentioned earlier, that if this theory be true, the fossil record should include millions of transitional stages.... think about it, millions of years.... thats a lot of fossils... and in order to get a fossil it has to be burried alive. animals dont die and lay there for millions of years before rotting away.



...again
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
have i made myself clear?

indeed you have made it clear that you are still in denial.
it doesnt really matter where you start, all we have to do is start backtracking to come to the same conclusion.... your theory is bogus!



can someone else tackle this in another thread?
this thread is about evolution

ah as predicted. indeed it is about evolution but again you are denying that life had a beginning. if science cannot explain this then your whole theory goes to crap.



the topic is evolution, please stay on topic
you're going into a realm of chemistry that overlaps with biology.


uhm, evolution doesnt use chemistry? i could of sworn thats what DNA, RNA, proteins, etc were made from... chemicals....



i actually have already addressed this. all it would show is that life arises in X conditions.


oh wow looky here, a prediction with a negative outcome. probably shows that it doesnt work. if you dont have an egg, you cannot have a chicken.



except it wouldn't
i'll use ID's favorite posterchild, the flagellum motor. they have found a mechanism that works using only a few parts of this "irreducibly complex design" in another cell.


we arent talking about this other mechanism, we are talking about the flagellum, and how scientists cannot explain how it evolved on its own. one of many things that demand a creator.



...there's a considerable difference. the problem isn't the complexity there, it's the components. the parts of a watch cannot arise naturally, the parts that make up the "complexity" of life can all arise naturally.

ah but there you go again missing the point. placing these components together in random orders and positions will never get you watch, if you were to tumble them in a box, you would never get a watch. and even if you were able to keep pieces together that happened to fall correctly, you still would never get a watch.



hell, you're assuming that the laws of physics applied prior to the big bang. the singularity that existed prior to the big bang might have had an entirely different set of laws.


why wouldnt they exist? please provide soem evidence to backup your implication.



what i believe is that the book is either dumbing down the subject so that kids can understand it better or that it's fraudulent.


why would kids need to learn this at an early age? the theory is so complicated that they wouldnt understand it. and if dumbing it down makes the material fraudulent, then it really shouldnt be taught should it?



wow, they really need to revise this science book....
for one thing, it's got the age of the universe off by nearly 3 billion years.
for another, it complete excludes the singularity from which the big bang occured
and lastly, the big bang isn't an "explosion" it was an expansion.

of course, even tho neither theory has a good explanation.... you see kids, we know that it happened but we cant tell you how or what caused it. science? no, fairy tale.



it's about 13.7 billion lightyears across.

really? so what exactly is at the end of this 13.7 billion light years? a black wall?


show me how ID is testable.


this thread is on evolution... remember???



...you make such vague statements. which scientific laws does it violate and which assumptions does it make that contradicts it's arguments against creation and where does the speed of light fit into all of this?


bang bang theory says that the speed of light used to be faster.
but arguments against creation says that stars are billions of light years away, the earth cannot be only 6,000 years old. but what they exclude is that the speed of light is not a constant throughout all time and space.
i know you are not ignorant of this.

and my strawmen... are examples to prove a point, but you still miss the point, even on purpose because you so tightly clenched to your belief in no god.

its ok, one day you might actually snap into reality.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bys0n
theories arent evidence they are ideas.


close, but a bit wrong

theories are ideas that are supported by large amounts of evidence

an idea that doesn't have any evidence to support it is a "hypothesis"



How can you believe in one part of evolution and not the other or are we just being selective to win an argument?


...i never said i didn't believe in abiogenesis, it's just not a part of evolutionary theory.



To save you "repeating yourself" over and over lets approach this by a different route, give me one example of evolution, and i want actual hard facts and scientific evidence


well, i'm not going to limit it to 1, i'll give you over 20

www.talkorigins.org...

happy?


Originally posted by Methuselah
when did this happen? theories about facts help us understand how things might work. but theories are not science, a theory is an interpretation of the fact. Jump frog Jump.


...theories are ideas that are supported by facts.




a mountain of lies more like it. there hasnt been any part of evolution proven yet. just an interpretation of what we find. thats all.


refer to the evidence i provided for Bys0n
and you're just ignoring the giant elephant in the room now. the evidence is there, the science is there, the theory is proven.




uh, no you dont, again another lie. they never show them, they just claim they have it.


oh really?

en.wikipedia.org...



or they claim that some other field of science has the answer.


...this is just you confusing different fields of science, not some insidious plot on behalf of the scientific community.



and didnt Darwin make that prediction as mentioned earlier, that if this theory be true, the fossil record should include millions of transitional stages.... think about it, millions of years.... thats a lot of fossils... and in order to get a fossil it has to be burried alive. animals dont die and lay there for millions of years before rotting away.


...you have quite a peculiar understanding of fossilization...





...again
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
have i made myself clear?

indeed you have made it clear that you are still in denial.
it doesnt really matter where you start, all we have to do is start backtracking to come to the same conclusion.... your theory is bogus!


i see what you did there, it's called being willingly ignorant
i'm not in denial, you just don't understand science.



ah as predicted. indeed it is about evolution but again you are denying that life had a beginning. if science cannot explain this then your whole theory goes to crap.


no, it doesn't.

again, as i've already said
if a giant dancing purple hippo farted out the universe fully formed and earth with a single organism on it, the theory of evolution still stands
so long as you have the first organism, the theory of evolution stands.
hell, you could even say "god put the first organism on earth" and evolution stands.



uhm, evolution doesnt use chemistry? i could of sworn thats what DNA, RNA, proteins, etc were made from... chemicals....


genetics and evolutionary biology do overlap, but abiogenesis is pure organic chemistry and not biochemistry

again, you're demonstrating your ignorance of not just evolution, but science in general.



oh wow looky here, a prediction with a negative outcome. probably shows that it doesnt work. if you dont have an egg, you cannot have a chicken.


...we haven't had a proper test.
especially since a truly proper test would involve hundreds of millions of years...



we arent talking about this other mechanism, we are talking about the flagellum, and how scientists cannot explain how it evolved on its own. one of many things that demand a creator.


....i just explained how it could evolve on its own
a few parts found in that motor that is supposed ic are found in a simpler mechanism. if a simpler mechanism with fewer parts exists, it doesn't demand a creator.



ah but there you go again missing the point. placing these components together in random orders and positions will never get you watch, if you were to tumble them in a box, you would never get a watch. and even if you were able to keep pieces together that happened to fall correctly, you still would never get a watch.


...you're pushing the logical fallacy of analogy. i thought hume had taken care of that...



why wouldnt they exist? please provide soem evidence to backup your implication.


i never said they didn't exist, i just stated that it isn't necessarily certain that they'd exist. for one thing, it's clear that time didn't exist prior to the big bang...but that's physics that involves a lot of complex math that i really don't have the time or character set to answer it or a proper understanding of it all

i'm just saying that the laws of physics and the dimensions of time and space as we know them quite possibly didn't exist



why would kids need to learn this at an early age? the theory is so complicated that they wouldnt understand it. and if dumbing it down makes the material fraudulent, then it really shouldnt be taught should it?


well, you kind of just threw something out without linking to what book it's from, so i was saying that it's fraudulent on your count...



of course, even tho neither theory has a good explanation.... you see kids, we know that it happened but we cant tell you how or what caused it. science? no, fairy tale.


...the theory has a good explanation. sure, we may not know the cause yet, but that doesn't mean it's a bad theory. we still aren't 100% certain on where gravity comes from
hell, we don't even understand why light is both a wave and a particle
should we throw out all science related to them?

we know quite a bit, you don't throw out an incomplete theory until you have another scientific alternative.



really? so what exactly is at the end of this 13.7 billion light years? a black wall?


well, considering that it's growing by the second and expanding at the speed of light...we'll never really know...
but it's kind of weird to think about.
honestly, i'm not even sure if the human mind could comprehend what's beyond our universe...seeing as we cannot truly comprehend what 13.7 billion light years really means...


this thread is on evolution... remember???


well, you're proposing an alternative to evolution, i want to see how it works as science.



bang bang theory says that the speed of light used to be faster.


where?
i've yet to be introduced to this part



but arguments against creation says that stars are billions of light years away, the earth cannot be only 6,000 years old. but what they exclude is that the speed of light is not a constant throughout all time and space.
i know you are not ignorant of this.


the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and isn't significantly altered by much...



and my strawmen... are examples to prove a point, but you still miss the point, even on purpose because you so tightly clenched to your belief in no god.


the examples are false arguments. it's a strawman because nobody is arguing that.




its ok, one day you might actually snap into reality.


and i'm hoping you'll stop with the condescension when you don't understand the basic scientific principles you're arguing against.


Originally posted by Equinox99
Both sides are jumping to conclusion. We have no idea how the universe began and everyone is already claiming one side is wrong. Frankly, the science we have today is still incomplete and therefore it is useless to say evolution occurred based on incomplete pieces. Creationists are the same.


what does big bang cosmology have to do with evolution.

as i've stated...for the third time
the universe could have been farted out by a giant dancing purple hippo fully formed with the first living organism on it and the theory of evolution would still stand



The only way we will find how it all began and came to be would be for:
a) science to have a breakthrough in how the universe was created and have a detailed story.


that would only deal with cosmology. evolution stands independent of where the universe came from and how life got on earth. the first living thing could have been an escaped pet from an alien spaceship, it doesn't matter.




b) for the rapture to happen and Jesus to come.

Right now both sides are arguing over useless information which is incomplete.


...it's not even an A or B situation...
you're immediately failing to acknowledge the hundreds of other religions in the world and the thousands from the past as well as a hundred million other possibilities that nobody has conceived of (like my giant purple hippo)



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
O&C conspiracy has, as of late, become relatively inactive
why?
because every argument for creationism and intelligent design has been soundly refuted

so, please
admit scientific defeat
sure, creationism can be philosophically sound
but you have lost in the realm of science


Meh, you have not dissuaded me one iota with your argument.

Science tries to figure out how everything works, they have no interest in the why.

If, just if, God set up the universe with all of it's laws in place and science set out to discover those universal laws, how does that disprove a Creator?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Enrikez
 


this isn't about the "creator vs no creator" argument, it's the "evolution vs intelligent design" argument

if there is a god-thingy that set up everything and then evolution happened, it doesn't matter. what matters is whether or not this one theory in biology is valid.

we aren't debating the existence of god, we're debating something entirely different.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   


...i never said i didn't believe in abiogenesis, it's just not a part of evolutionary theory.


just a little bit closer and you will be on the line that divides truth from lies. your so close... just try to understand that you cannot have one without the other.



...theories are ideas that are supported by facts.


well the problem is, the facts to not line up with the theory.



refer to the evidence i provided for Bys0n
and you're just ignoring the giant elephant in the room now. the evidence is there, the science is there, the theory is proven.


im not ignoring anything, there is nothing to ignore other than the montra you got going.
and the weiki link you provided showed a bunch of nonsense. predictions that would make sense only if indoctrinated.



...you have quite a peculiar understanding of fossilization...

why thank you, I happen to know how fossilization works.




i see what you did there, it's called being willingly ignorant
i'm not in denial, you just don't understand science.


uhm, I dont like doing that, it makes me look stupid, not only does it do it, I know it does it while I do it. so no, I am not willingly ignorant. stop shifting blame on people. selective reasoning is not how you determine truth, but for some reason you seem to think it does.



again, as i've already said
if a giant dancing purple hippo farted out the universe fully formed and earth with a single organism on it, the theory of evolution still stands
so long as you have the first organism, the theory of evolution stands.
hell, you could even say "god put the first organism on earth" and evolution stands.


yeah it would stand, the same place where its been standing this entire time... flat on paper and no where else.
and no I would not agree with that because that goes against the bible entirely. its heresy to say that animals died before adams sin. evolution is backwards to the creation theory. its all heresy.



genetics and evolutionary biology do overlap, but abiogenesis is pure organic chemistry and not biochemistry

again, you're demonstrating your ignorance of not just evolution, but science in general.


im only demonstrating to you what you dont want to hear. truth is often times considered a bad thing when you want to believe something other than the truth.



...we haven't had a proper test.
especially since a truly proper test would involve hundreds of millions of years...


hundreds of millions of years, even though the earth cannot be more than 30,000 years old due to the decline in magnetic intensity. i have already debunked this on the other thread, you along with many others are either ignorant or are just too stuck in their belief that they dont want to admit this simple fact. earth cannot be over 30,000 years old due to the magnetic field.



....i just explained how it could evolve on its own
a few parts found in that motor that is supposed ic are found in a simpler mechanism. if a simpler mechanism with fewer parts exists, it doesn't demand a creator.

source please?



i'm just saying that the laws of physics and the dimensions of time and space as we know them quite possibly didn't exist


so just a bang and we have life and laws eh? from nothing? if the laws of physics dont exist (implying there is nothing to govern) then you do believe we came from literally nothing...




well, you kind of just threw something out without linking to what book it's from, so i was saying that it's fraudulent on your count...


oh yeah sorry bout that, book is titled "General Science"



hell, we don't even understand why light is both a wave and a particle
should we throw out all science related to them?


no because no one really cares about those, and they already exist. adn those are testable, demonstrable, observable etc. they are scientific.



we know quite a bit, you don't throw out an incomplete theory until you have another scientific alternative.

well its been incomplete ever since James Hutton so its about time we wipe the plate and start over, starting with the facts.



well, considering that it's growing by the second and expanding at the speed of light...we'll never really know...


now that is an assumption if I have never heard one before. expanding at the speed of light? major major major assumption!!!
you dont know that, and you dont even know if space itself is expanding into whatever is beyond space. no one knows.



where?
i've yet to be introduced to this part

the big bang and the speed of light it all over those big bang charts that break it down to the 10^100000 of a second after the bang.



the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and isn't significantly altered by much...


as far as you know, but last time I checked, no one has been past the moon to test light with dark energy or other mediums it might piossilby travel through in space.



and i'm hoping you'll stop with the condescension when you don't understand the basic scientific principles you're arguing against.


i dont argue science, science it solid, your theory is weak.



that would only deal with cosmology. evolution stands independent of where the universe came from and how life got on earth. the first living thing could have been an escaped pet from an alien spaceship, it doesn't matter.


but this isnt waht you believe. stop trying to get us lost in the converstation. evolution is not just life itself and how it evolves, it has to do with how everything in the natural universe evolved.



...it's not even an A or B situation...
you're immediately failing to acknowledge the hundreds of other religions in the world and the thousands from the past as well as a hundred million other possibilities that nobody has conceived of (like my giant purple hippo)


wow you even believe in the big giant hippo. did it evolve too? must have, since its not at the top of the intellect scale with us humans.
we have already gone over this in other threads that explain why the bible is prefered over the rest of the religions. all you have to do is read the book and understand it.

Good luck



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
just a little bit closer and you will be on the line that divides truth from lies. your so close... just try to understand that you cannot have one without the other.


yes, you can. evolution is in no way dependent on where life came from.

this is at least the fourth time i've brought up that the universe could have been farted out by a giant dancing purple hippo wearing sunglasses with the earth containing a single organism and evolution would stand.

evolution is dependent on one thing: life starting. it doesn't matter how it starts.




well the problem is, the facts to not line up with the theory.


except that they do. could you please point me towards a fact that disputes the theory of evolution?



im not ignoring anything, there is nothing to ignore other than the montra you got going.
and the weiki link you provided showed a bunch of nonsense. predictions that would make sense only if indoctrinated.


...i didn't just provide a wiki link for that, i provided a great piece of evidence from talk origins that showed 29+ things that proved macro evolution

could you show me specifically what didn't make sense?



why thank you, I happen to know how fossilization works.


...you stated that things would have to be buried alive, which shows that you don't.



uhm, I dont like doing that, it makes me look stupid, not only does it do it, I know it does it while I do it. so no, I am not willingly ignorant. stop shifting blame on people. selective reasoning is not how you determine truth, but for some reason you seem to think it does.


you're the one stating that the chemical theory of abiogenesis is the same thing as evolutionary theory.
that's like saying that the laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics are the same theory.



yeah it would stand, the same place where its been standing this entire time... flat on paper and no where else.


wow, that's all you have?
can you show me where those 29+ proofs of evolution had it wrong?



and no I would not agree with that because that goes against the bible entirely. its heresy to say that animals died before adams sin. evolution is backwards to the creation theory. its all heresy.


it's all heresy to say that the earth goes around the sun
it doesn't stop the earth from doing it.




im only demonstrating to you what you dont want to hear. truth is often times considered a bad thing when you want to believe something other than the truth.


you
are
wrong

just admit it. you've even pointed towards the big bang, which is a theory in the realm of astrophysics, as related to the big bang

science specializes, often to a ridiculous degree. theories may work together, but they also function independently.

and you've yet to demonstrate how chemical abiogenesis is prerequisite for evolution.



hundreds of millions of years, even though the earth cannot be more than 30,000 years old due to the decline in magnetic intensity. i have already debunked this on the other thread, you along with many others are either ignorant or are just too stuck in their belief that they dont want to admit this simple fact. earth cannot be over 30,000 years old due to the magnetic field.


...i gave you the evidence to disprove that ridiculously stupid argument (i'm not saying that you're stupid, whoever came up with the idea might have been stupid, but not you. i think you're just misinformed)

you just said that my evidence didn't count without specifically disproving it.




source please?


here's one
rnaworld.bio.ku.edu...

i can provide more if you want



so just a bang and we have life and laws eh? from nothing? if the laws of physics dont exist (implying there is nothing to govern) then you do believe we came from literally nothing...



strawman

i never said "from nothing"
i said from a singularity. this singularity contained all the matter and energy currently in the universe

and i never said that there were no laws of physics, i said the laws of physics and dimensions of space and time as we know them might not have existed

see, you're entirely misrepresenting my statements with that quote



oh yeah sorry bout that, book is titled "General Science"


ok, you're going to have to narrow it down
ISBN please?



no because no one really cares about those, and they already exist. adn those are testable, demonstrable, observable etc. they are scientific.


just like evolution
and the scientific community really does care about the problem of why light behaves like both a particle and a wave...it's kind of freaky.



well its been incomplete ever since James Hutton so its about time we wipe the plate and start over, starting with the facts.


we have the facts, the facts support the theory so far

and the theory of gravitation is still incomplete and has been incomplete since newton..



now that is an assumption if I have never heard one before. expanding at the speed of light? major major major assumption!!!
you dont know that, and you dont even know if space itself is expanding into whatever is beyond space. no one knows.


well, we have the whole redshift stuff and all that evidence from our cosmological observations

hell, we've even measured the length of the universe




the big bang and the speed of light it all over those big bang charts that break it down to the 10^100000 of a second after the bang.


ok, this sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense, not to mention answering my question (it doesn't)
show me a legitimate scientist that says that the big bang theory says that the speed of light was at some point greater (in a vacuum, of course)



as far as you know, but last time I checked, no one has been past the moon to test light with dark energy or other mediums it might piossilby travel through in space.


test light with dark energy...
now you're just spouting things off without knowing anything
pray tell, why would we have to go past the moon for "dark energy"?

and don't all those probes we sent count?



i dont argue science, science it solid, your theory is weak.


really? because it's yet to be dismantled. the first people to dismantle it would be the scientists.



but this isnt waht you believe. stop trying to get us lost in the converstation.


what i believe is irrelevant, we're arguing over a single biological theory and you're trying to bring in geology and cosmology.



evolution is not just life itself and how it evolves, it has to do with how everything in the natural universe evolved.


no
it
doesn't

www.talkorigins.org...

evolution actually does just have to do with how life evolved after it arose. it's a very, very narrow field of study like that



wow you even believe in the big giant hippo. did it evolve too? must have, since its not at the top of the intellect scale with us humans.


...evolution doesn't tend towards intelligence (that's a common misunderstanding)

and i don't believe in the giant purple hippo, it was just a silly idea i had to use as an analogy.



we have already gone over this in other threads that explain why the bible is prefered over the rest of the religions. all you have to do is read the book and understand it.


marketing and location, location, location?
the bible isn't really preferred over other religions either...it's the biggest religion, but it doesn't hold a majority of the world...
but that's not the topic here.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Okay, my bad.

You have my permission to carry on.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


read some of these caveats involving phylogenetic inferences before you can make any claim to solid evidence. The 'evidence' is subjective at best and includes some interesting backtracking which makes me think that this is an inexact science with hypotheses instead of 'evidences':


Caveats with Phylogenetic Inference
As with any investigational scientific method, certain conditions must hold in order for the results to be reliable. A common premise of all molecular phylogenetic methods is that genes are transmitted via vertical, lineal inheritance, i.e. from ancestor to descendant. If this premise is violated, gene trees will never recapitulate an organismic phylogeny. This assumption is violated in instances of horizontal transfer, e.g. in transformation of a bacterium by a DNA plasmid, or in retroviral insertion into a host's genome. During the early evolution of life, before the advent of multicellular organisms, horizontal transfer was likely very frequent (as it is today in the observed evolution of bacteria and other unicellular organisms). Thus, it is questionable whether molecular methods are applicable, even in principle, to resolving the phylogeny of the early evolution of life near the most recent common ancestor of all living organisms (Doolittle 1999; Doolittle 2000; Woese 1998).

The list below gives some of the more important caveats that scientists must keep in mind when interpreting the results of a phylogenetic analysis (Swofford 1996, pp. 493-509). In general, the contribution of each of these concerns will be "averaged out" by including more independent characters in the phylogenetic analysis, such as more genes and longer sequences.

Correlated characters: each character used in the analysis optimally should be genetically independent. Characters that are strongly functionally correlated are better thought of as a single character. There are statistical tests that can help control for unrecognized character correlation, such as the block bootstrap and jackknife.

True structural convergence: structures that have undergone convergent evolution can artificially result in incorrect tree topologies. Including more characters in the analysis also aids in overcoming convergent effects.

Character reversals: characters that revert to an ancestral state pose a challenge similar to convergence. Because DNA and RNA only have four different character states, they are especially prone to reversals during evolution.

Lost characters: lineages that have lost characters (such as whales and their hindlimbs) can also pose cladistic problems. Often, if a cladistic analysis indicates strongly that a certain character has been lost during evolution, it is best to omit this character in higher resolution analyses of that lineage.

Missing characters: incomplete fossils are problematic, since they may lack important characters. Better fossils are the answer.


Link to talkorigins



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Heronumber0
 


i never said the theory was 100% perfect, but it's by far the best thing we have right now and the only scientific theory available to explain things.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   


i never said the theory was 100% perfect, but it's by far the best thing we have right now and the only scientific theory available to explain things.


we never said that our theory was 100% perfect either, we believe it is just like you believe your theory makes perfect sense. and dont deny that you believe it either, we all know you do because of the amount of effort youve put towards defending it that you believe in your theory.

and evolution is not the only "scientific" theory to explain things. you act like you have the only valid theory when you are not the only one. and by the way, evolution is not scientific, its based on many assumptions, too many in fact.
Creation Science proposes theories that are are supported by science and we are sure to make clear that they are theories that perhaps explain our creators design and how things might have worked in the past as well as how things work now, reasons, etc.
Evolution is based purely off of the assumption that the things we havent seen happen, happen... and yet they call it science and they call ours a religious belief. This is slanted journalism and you do a good job at believing in the media when it comes to this topic, you really do.

we already know that species change over time but as far as we have seen, these changes dont go as far as to change dinosaur into a bird over millions of years. this is where your faith kicks in, you just dont know it yet.



hell, you could even say "god put the first organism on earth" and evolution stands.

the only part of evolution that would stand is that part I already believe in. Micro evolution, this is the only kind of evolution that is observable and has been demonstrated, its factual. no one is going to argue that because its scientific and does not contradict the bible whatsoever.
but saying that is caused macro evolution is an assumption, a leap of faith, stretching logic and all in your mind. never seen in real life and it probably will never be seen anywhere on planet earth.

oh yeah I forgot it takes millions of years.... good bedtime story tho.



really? because it's yet to be dismantled. the first people to dismantle it would be the scientists.

and the first to mantle would be who? dont give me names give me the profession... lets hear it!

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Methuselah]

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Methuselah]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
This is ridiculous. There are mountaints of evidence that support evolution. There's the fossil record. There's the discovery of DNA (and how it works). There's the speciation observed in isolated groups of fast-breeding organisms (both in the lab and in the outside world). Saying that's all lies is ridiculous, as you can find actual peer-reviewed papers on each subject (many, in fact), that stand up to the harshest scrutiny.

There are two kinds of theories - scientific theories, and normal theories. The difference is a scientific theory outlines an explanation for observed phenomenon, can be falsified (demonstrated to be incorrect by actual evidence), can have experiments performed on its claims, and can be used to predict the outcome of something affected by the basis of the theory. Gravity is another scientific theory, yet I've yet to hear from a Christian saying Gravity doesn't exist. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it's just a theory. Theories (as opposed to scientific theories) don't have to be based on any observable phenomena. They don't have to be falsifiable. They don't have to be able to predict anything. Anyone can make a theory, but it takes a long time to construct a scientific theory.

When I see someone who says evolution doesn't exist, either they value strict interpretation of the Bible more than using their God-given intellect, or they just don't understand the scientific theory. So, either they're religious fundamentals, or ignorant.

Your choice.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 



This is ridiculous. There are mountaints of evidence that support evolution


this statement is ridiculous being that these so-called "mountains of evidences" are purely based on assumption and have no scientific backbone to them.



There's the fossil record.

The fossil record is not really a record at all. its not the same in all locations and the only thing it tells you is that something died. Evolutionists like to through their interpretation in there and convince everyone else that their interpretation is the more scientific or correct version.
The Fossil record does not prove anything. its all based off of Charles Lyells book, "Principles of Geology". a book that was written long before any sort of radiometric dating was invented. oh and by the way, evolutionists also ignore the fact the carbon dating doesnt work, at all, period. and most all other methods give inaccurate readings all the time. so I wouldnt call that science either.



There's the discovery of DNA (and how it works)

yeah and its pretty freakin amazing how this one came together by chance. DNA is information, not just chemicals. DNA is evidence of design, not natural selection. claiming DNA is the result of random chemical reactions guided by natural selection requires a little bit of faith as there is no way to observe this theory in action. (oh yeah I forgot it would take millions of years)



There's the speciation observed in isolated groups of fast-breeding organisms (both in the lab and in the outside world).

speciation (micro evolution) is indeed something we have seen. but quit ignoring that fact that we have never seen it produce somethign other than its own kind. yourve never seen a lizard evolve into a bird, nor a dog into a horse, nor a fish into a land animal. we do discover new things and its very clear that the evolutionists just right in and automatically make the assumption that it evolved from something else or is in the process of adapting to a new environment (ie land to water or vise versa).
this could be the furthest thing from the truth but they still throw it out there like its a fact when it isnt.

Gravity straight up exists and we know how it works for the most part. very few things about gravity that we dont know. enough said here. anyone denying gravity is an idiot.



When I see someone who says evolution doesn't exist, either they value strict interpretation of the Bible more than using their God-given intellect, or they just don't understand the scientific theory. So, either they're religious fundamentals, or ignorant.

Wow! the theory is not too hard to comprehend. any 12 year old student can understand the theory with few questions.

Creationism is a scientific theory, I agree that some parts cannot be explained by science (God said let there be and there is was) but that doesnt exclude it from the field of science. just because we cant explain where God came from doesnt make it non scientific. there are plenty of scientific theores that support the creation theory and much of the biblical history as well as other legends.

uhm it doesnt take long at all to construct a scientific theory. its depends on how often you make observation as well as how often what you are observing, occurs.

So basically what you are saying is that Christians who dont accept this so called scientific theory because they have scientific support for their theory... you are saying they are ignorant? or stupid? this is very far from the truth frankly its very ignorant on your part to make such a statement.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
we never said that our theory was 100% perfect either,


...you don't have a theory
you have a hypothesis.

theories have evidence
your hypothesis has none



we believe it is just like you believe your theory makes perfect sense.


i believe my theory makes perfect sense because there is evidence to support it...



and dont deny that you believe it either, we all know you do because of the amount of effort youve put towards defending it that you believe in your theory.


well, it's not my theory, but i do believe it. in the same way i believe that the sky is blue and water is wet.



and evolution is not the only "scientific" theory to explain things.


...yes, it is.

even behe admitted that you'd have to include astrology as a science to make id a science.



you act like you have the only valid theory when you are not the only one.


again, yes, it is
the other ideas aren't theories. a theory has evidence. each one of the other theories is just an idea without evidence, and thus a hypothesis.



and by the way, evolution is not scientific, its based on many assumptions, too many in fact.


assumptions like...?



Creation Science proposes theories that are are supported by science


...can you provide examples?



and we are sure to make clear that they are theories that perhaps explain our creators design and how things might have worked in the past as well as how things work now, reasons, etc.


again, any evidence of this?

in fact...i mean, to have the ID "theory" you need to first prove that there is a creator...
it's kind of a circular "theory"

once more, it doesn't make any predictions.
evolution makes a prediction: we will find fossils of a transitional form between limbed lizard and snake
...then we find that fossil after the prediction is made



Evolution is based purely off of the assumption that the things we havent seen happen, happen...


you don't have to see something happen to know it happened



and yet they call it science and they call ours a religious belief.


because evolution is a science and yours is a religious belief.



This is slanted journalism and you do a good job at believing in the media when it comes to this topic, you really do.


...the media are the ones who would like to portray that there is actually a controversy surrounding the issue in the scientific community when there isn't one at all.

the media is slanting to your side on this one.



we already know that species change over time but as far as we have seen, these changes dont go as far as to change dinosaur into a bird over millions of years.


...yes they do.



this is where your faith kicks in, you just dont know it yet.


it's faith in the same way that i have faith that if i throw the laptop i'm working on up into the air it'll come back down again.




the only part of evolution that would stand is that part I already believe in.


...it's the same thing. it's just on a different timescale



Micro evolution, this is the only kind of evolution that is observable and has been demonstrated, its factual. no one is going to argue that because its scientific and does not contradict the bible whatsoever.


except that science isn't concerned with whether or not it contradicts the bible...



but saying that is caused macro evolution is an assumption, a leap of faith, stretching logic and all in your mind. never seen in real life and it probably will never be seen anywhere on planet earth.


well, it will never be seen directly, nobody lives that long

however, it isn't an assumption or a stretch of logic, there is plenty of evidence to support macro evolution



oh yeah I forgot it takes millions of years.... good bedtime story tho.


says the person that holds to the falsified argument regarding earth's magnetic poles as a reason for why the earth can't be billions of years old.



Originally posted by Methuselah
this statement is ridiculous being that these so-called "mountains of evidences" are purely based on assumption and have no scientific backbone to them.


except they do
...like genetics
or the fossil record



The fossil record is not really a record at all. its not the same in all locations


...of course it's not the same in all locations. there were different species at different time periods in different areas. you wouldn't expect to find a woolly mammoth fossil in an area that was a dessert during the time of mammoths.



and the only thing it tells you is that something died.


...and they tell you when it died through radiometric dating.



Evolutionists like to through their interpretation in there and convince everyone else that their interpretation is the more scientific or correct version.


well, considering that it tends to be based on concrete scientific evidence, it is more correct.



The Fossil record does not prove anything. its all based off of Charles Lyells book, "Principles of Geology". a book that was written long before any sort of radiometric dating was invented.


but it still relied on sound scientific principles. when radiometric dating was introduced it merely added further weight to his conclusions.



oh and by the way, evolutionists also ignore the fact the carbon dating doesnt work, at all, period. and most all other methods give inaccurate readings all the time. so I wouldnt call that science either.


...the only time carbon dating doesn't work is when you're using it on the wrong timescale. you don't use carbon dating on a dinosaur fossil just like you don't use a yardstick to measure the grand canyon's depth. you'll come up with the wrong measurement because it's not the right measure.

for a trex fossil you'd use argon dating, a method that fits in with the timescale better.


seriously, falsify radiometric dating for me.
i'd really enjoy seeing that.




yeah and its pretty freakin amazing how this one came together by chance.


not really, considering it had billions of chances over billions of years.



DNA is information, not just chemicals.


...well, it's chemicals as information.



DNA is evidence of design, not natural selection.


natural selection =/= random chance
in fact, nobody links DNA to natural selection...you're just showing a further misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.



claiming DNA is the result of random chemical reactions guided by natural selection requires a little bit of faith as there is no way to observe this theory in action. (oh yeah I forgot it would take millions of years)


...nobody said that DNA is a result of natural selection. natural selection applies to the first life form

chemical "evolution" doesn't have anything to do with darwin's theory



speciation (micro evolution) is indeed something we have seen. but quit ignoring that fact that we have never seen it produce somethign other than its own kind.


what is a "kind"?

give me the scientific classification that is equivalent to "kind"
species?
genus?
family?

what?



yourve never seen a lizard evolve into a bird, nor a dog into a horse, nor a fish into a land animal.


well, we do have the archaeoptryx fossil (which, contrary to creationist propaganda, is legitimate)

...nobody is claiming that a dog would evolve into a horse

and we have the transitional form from water dwelling fish to land animal in a tetrapod fossil



we do discover new things and its very clear that the evolutionists just right in and automatically make the assumption that it evolved from something else or is in the process of adapting to a new environment (ie land to water or vise versa).


it's not something we automatically make an assumption with.



this could be the furthest thing from the truth but they still throw it out there like its a fact when it isnt.


...do you even have anything to back any of your statements up aside from slandering the name of honest scientists?



Gravity straight up exists and we know how it works for the most part. very few things about gravity that we dont know. enough said here. anyone denying gravity is an idiot.


we aren't even exactly sure where gravity comes from...
some say that it's "waves"
but we aren't sure

and, like evolution, it's "just a theory"



Creationism is a scientific theory, I agree that some parts cannot be explained by science (God said let there be and there is was) but that doesnt exclude it from the field of science.


...actually, yes it does.
anything that isn't 100% scientific is excluded from the field of science. that's exactly how science works.
anything that includes *poof magic* isn't a theory in the realm of science



just because we cant explain where God came from doesnt make it non scientific.


but we can inherently never explain where god came from in the realm of science, so it does exclude it from the realm of science

when people came up with theories in the past and didn't have an explanation for that little beginning bit they only included it if that little beginning bit fell under the umbrella of "crap we can study with science"



there are plenty of scientific theores that support the creation theory and much of the biblical history as well as other legends.


such as?



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
...continued, ran out of romo



uhm it doesnt take long at all to construct a scientific theory. its depends on how often you make observation as well as how often what you are observing, occurs.


actually, it does take a bit

and your observations actually need to provide direct evidence

"stuff is complex, that means god made it because i find it impossible to comprehend how it came about otherwise" isn't science, it's a limited worldview.



So basically what you are saying is that Christians who dont accept this so called scientific theory because they have scientific support for their theory... you are saying they are ignorant? or stupid? this is very far from the truth frankly its very ignorant on your part to make such a statement.


you're right, he'd be ignorant to call creationism a scientific theory when it is nothing more than a religious belief.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 07:50 AM
link   


you're right, he'd be ignorant to call creationism a scientific theory when it is nothing more than a religious belief.


I think a response to this one will sum it all up for ya.

uhm, religious belief/theory based off of and supported by scientific laws as well as scientific theories.
Creation is based off of written documentation of the events that took place. and there are laws of science that support it. example. the meisner effect supports the canopy theory. the decline in earths magnetic strength supports creation. (dont even try saying that magnetic reversals occur, there is no proof and its not possible for it to happen based off how electromagnetic induction works).
there are plenty of things that support creation. how just because we cant explain what is beyond our "natural" world, doesnt mean it either doesnt exist or is impossible. and saying that God used evolution makes the suggestion that God is stupid and a liar. now God said that animals and plants would bring forth after their kinds... (a "kind" is not the same thing as a "species" just in case youve been fed twisted information)
there are different variations within these different kinds of animals. some occur and produce some crazy variations and others produce changes that end up, after generation, cause an incapatability for certain varieties to produce offspring. but this is still micro evolution/speciation/ divergent evolution. whatever you want to call it.

now here is where you religous belief comes in. I believe (you dont know this and there is nothing to prove it, you assume it happens because its the only way to support your belief that single celled organisms evolved into everything we see today over millions of years. and yes that is exactly what you believe. you can google it all you want, you will find that life was started from non-living material (somehow, magic maybe) and then that little life form evolved into everything we see today through natural selection, mutations along with both micro and macro evolution.

this is not scientific at all because first of all this is not demonstrable, its not observable and its not even testable. its not even a scientific theory because there is too much data missing. with these so called missing links are found, they are often times mistaken to be other things because other assumptions are made that are likely to be wrong.

its automatically assumed that we evolved from lower life forms whien the evidence we see on the history channel says otherwise.
its automatically assumed that the universe along with earth is billions of years old when the evidence from a couple observations says otherwise. (ie, the moon/distance, the sun, size, mass etc, the magnetic field...etc), its automatically assumed that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago because of some book Charles Lyell wrote. by the way, he was a lawyer, not a scientist. his theory was based on fantasy due to his hate for religion.
radiometric dating doesnt work, none of it works. there are many examples of it not working. you just chose to ignore it because it makes your theory look stupid.

earths layers being different ages. well we already determined that its not billions of years old. in fact its less than 25,000. and we already know how hydrologic sorting works... so lets see.... world wide flood + lots of dirt, (yes we assume the bible is correct, there was water under the crust of the earth and less on top (oceans) there was a lot more vegitation and a lot more animals) hmm... if you put those together, you can explain a few things here. you can explain where coal and oil, polystrate fossils and event horizons.
that actually makes more sense than what you believe in.

and science is not hard to understand so quit calling people ignorant. im not stubborn and im not crossing my arms saying im not changing for whatever reason. if your theory didnt have a huge hole in it, I would believe it. but since its not scientific and its based off of many flawed assumptions im not going to believe in it. you can show me 2+2=4 you are trying to say 2+2=22 when it does not. the logic of evolution is based on its own imaginitive process. yes if you add 2 to 2 you get the number 22. but in real life if you have 2 of something and you add an additional 2 of the same thing, you are not going to have 22. you are going to have 4.

I hope this helps your understand. I know its hard to let go of what you wish to be true. but true denial of ignorance only comes when you look at all sides and learn them.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Methuselah
 


Creationism is only supported by the Bible. There is nothing observable that demonstrates it's true. It is as far from a scientific theory as you can get - the writers saw something (the world), couldn't understand how it came to be, so wrote down the only possible thing they could imagine (a god). And you fell for it.

You've clearly demonstrated you have no idea about the scientific method, evolution. Just what's written in the Bible. Fantastic work.

Here's Ricky Gervais on the subject: YouTube

[edit on 16/4/08 by dave420]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
I think a response to this one will sum it all up for ya.


yeah, but it won't address all of the points you made that i refuted.



uhm, religious belief/theory based off of and supported by scientific laws as well as scientific theories.


except where it isn't. because it isn't. demonstrate something that supports your religious belief and holds it up as a scientific theory.



Creation is based off of written documentation of the events that took place.


ok, that's a ridiculous argument
if the creation account is right the events were written down about 2000-3000 years after the fact..
if the science is right (which it probably is) it was written about 13.7 billion years after the fact.



and there are laws of science that support it. example. the meisner effect supports the canopy theory.


...ok, i'll bite
how the hell do you get superconducters to levitate water?
the meisner effect means that things with a magnetic field can levitate above a superconducter.


here's some info on how the canopy theory doesn't hold water
more info
further stuff
not done giving you info
look under A2 on this one




the decline in earths magnetic strength supports creation.


why do you repeat arguments that i've already refuted?
i sent you a link, you immediately dismissed it because you didn't agree, even though the science provided was 100% concrete





(dont even try saying that magnetic reversals occur, there is no proof and its not possible for it to happen based off how electromagnetic induction works).


...there is proof the magnetic reversals occurred. archeology, for example.

here's some info about earth's magnetic field

source 1
source 2 (look under heading 11)
source 3



there are plenty of things that support creation.


well, you've yet to show one.



how just because we cant explain what is beyond our "natural" world, doesnt mean it either doesnt exist or is impossible.


but it does mean that it's inherently unscientific.



and saying that God used evolution makes the suggestion that God is stupid and a liar.


actually, it's just saying that you have a poor interpretation of the bible

why is it that christians automatically assume that their interpretation of the bible is god's perfect word?

and how would it imply that god is stupid? i'd say it would imply that he's kind of cool to come up with a way to have things change on their own to add more variety.



now God said that animals and plants would bring forth after their kinds... (a "kind" is not the same thing as a "species" just in case youve been fed twisted information)


but what is a kind? you've yet to define it.



there are different variations within these different kinds of animals. some occur and produce some crazy variations and others produce changes that end up, after generation, cause an incapatability for certain varieties to produce offspring. but this is still micro evolution/speciation/ divergent evolution. whatever you want to call it.


and there's that little problem that you've never been able to define what a kind is.

and then there's the evidence for macro evolution



now here is where you religous belief comes in.


oh not this **** again (self censored)



I believe (you dont know this and there is nothing to prove it, you assume it happens because its the only way to support your belief that single celled organisms evolved into everything we see today over millions of years. and yes that is exactly what you believe.


wow, you can read minds now!

well, yes, that's what i believe. and i can prove it. i've provided evidence to support the theory.



you can google it all you want, you will find that life was started from non-living material (somehow, magic maybe)


...no, it's called chemistry...
chemical reactions. not magic.

carbon compounds formed life, that sums it up



and then that little life form evolved into everything we see today through natural selection, mutations along with both micro and macro evolution.


yep, that pretty much sums it up.



this is not scientific at all because first of all this is not demonstrable, its not observable and its not even testable.


actually, it's all of the above. you don't need first hand observation to prove something (if we did, forensics would be as scientific as divination)

turnabout is fair play. there is absolutely nothing you can test, observe, or demonstrate with creationism

and to add something, you forgot that a scientific theory must make predictions. evolutionary theory has made many that have come true, creationism makes none



its not even a scientific theory because there is too much data missing.


...data such as?



with these so called missing links are found, they are often times mistaken to be other things because other assumptions are made that are likely to be wrong.


i'm going to paraphrase dawkins here. if we found the exact middle point between two species, the creationists would ask for the two newly created middle points

we have 1 and 3
we find 2
creationists then ask for 1.5 and 2.5

can't win the "missing links" battle because it's not really a battle
but we are finding transitional forms all the time



its automatically assumed that we evolved from lower life forms whien the evidence we see on the history channel says otherwise.


...the history channel? that's all you have?

can you show me the evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory?



its automatically assumed that the universe along with earth is billions of years old when the evidence from a couple observations says otherwise.


...really? because we can actually measure the age of the universe

here comes the evidence




(ie, the moon/distance, the sun, size, mass etc, the magnetic field...etc),


ok, what does the distance of the moon have to do with the age of the universe? or the sun? or size mass etc?
i've already thoroughly debunked the magnetic field argument...



its automatically assumed that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago because of some book Charles Lyell wrote.


today we have potassium-argon dating to back that "assumption" up (not an assumption, but you're clearly misinformed with regards to other sciences so i'm not surprised that you don't have a proper grasp of geology)



by the way, he was a lawyer, not a scientist. his theory was based on fantasy due to his hate for religion.


wow, slander!

actually, he was a geologist.
hell, he's the geologist.

and you have nothing to substantiate your argument that it's based on his "fantasy due to his hate for religion"



radiometric dating doesnt work, none of it works. there are many examples of it not working. you just chose to ignore it because it makes your theory look stupid.


the only thing that looks stupid is the argument that radiometric dating doesn't work without any evidence to support it

the only times it doesn't work is when a creationist scientists takes a walnut and tried to use argon dating on it. it's like trying to measure length of a walnut using a car's odometer. of course it's going to be off when you deliberately misuse the method

seriously, provide evidence when you make these ridiculous arguments.




earths layers being different ages. well we already determined that its not billions of years old. in fact its less than 25,000.


and i've already debunked the downright stupid argument that hovind tried to bolster about earth's magnetic field.



and we already know how hydrologic sorting works... so lets see.... world wide flood + lots of dirt, (yes we assume the bible is correct, there was water under the crust of the earth and less on top (oceans) there was a lot more vegitation and a lot more animals) hmm... if you put those together, you can explain a few things here. you can explain where coal and oil, polystrate fossils and event horizons.


this shows such a misunderstanding of geology that i'm afraid my head would explode if i was a proper geologist


that actually makes more sense than what you believe in.


except for the part where it's all unsubstantiated nonsense that shows a complete lack of understanding of basic scientific knowledge and a blatant disregard for reality.



and science is not hard to understand so quit calling people ignorant.


ignorance is about knowledge, not understanding. einstein was ignorant to the finer points of thrash metal, doesn't mean he was stupid.

you are ignorant to many scientific concepts, you demonstrated it repeatedly throughout your post. you simply don't know what you're talking about.



im not stubborn and im not crossing my arms saying im not changing for whatever reason.


actually, you kind of are when you're denying the basic science of things.....
damn, i have to go on to another post.

[edit on 4/16/08 by madnessinmysoul]




top topics



 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join