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: 13
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
I will admit defeat when you can scientifically prove to me that the universe came into existance from nothing for no reason.


strawman

i'm not saying that the universe came from nothing and that has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

evolution by natural selection is biology
that twisted caricature of the big bang theory would still fall into the realm of astrophysics and cosmology.



I will admit defeat when you can scientifically show me that life can come from non-living matter.


this also doesn't pertain to evolution

i've said this many, many times (especially in this thread)

situation: universe is farted out by a giant dancing purple hippo, one single celled life form is on earth

evolution is still valid in that situation

evolution is valid so long as there is life to evolve, it doesn't matter if a god created that life or the universe



you claim, scientific victory, but nothing you claim is scientific.


you claim i'm not being scientific while showing a clear misunderstanding of science and using strawman arguments




posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
you know I can sound just like you if I worded my posts the way you do.
"you keep showing your ignorance blah blah blah" bullness.

evolution (macro) is not scientific at all.
the only thing that makes it believable is that large gap of time you throw in there.
oh if you just give it enough time species will evolve beyond what we see today. a single celled organism can evolve into everything we see today over billions of years.
eventually cows will adapt to water and evolve into hippos, dinosaurs will grow feathers and learn to fly. etc etc etc...
yet there is nothing to prove this, no observations at all, and no demonstrations. therefore not scientific at all.

I admit that my theory/hypothesis is a religous viewpoint, and I have many explanations for many quesitons brought up. some evidences weaker than others and yes assumptions are made but we have already admitted that creation is a religious viewpoint that is supported by science. more supported by science than evolution.
im sorry you cant get over your world view, but seriously dude, get a clue and learn the truth. you do some basic logical thinking, make some basic observations and stop ignoring the fact that radiometric dating does not work and you will come to know the truth. if radiometric dating was so accurate, howcome they always get wrong dates for samples of known age? and why do they redate samples when they find something underneath that shouldnt be there (according to the evolution theory)?

God made the world in 6 days, they even implied that in the Declaration of Independence. but it appears that the media as well as other groups dont want the evidences that slap evolution in the face, to get out to the public.

Evolution is a lie, but people like you believe it. there is much evidence to go against the theory but you all ignore it and claim that we are ignorant for explaining the same thing over and over. the fact is, you arent going change your mind because you have a problem with truth. you are dead wrong and you know it. just like everyone else on this site who choses to ignore simple principles that defy evolution.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
you know I can sound just like you if I worded my posts the way you do.
"you keep showing your ignorance blah blah blah" bullness.


not really, as i'm not displaying any ignorance.



evolution (macro) is not scientific at all.


you'd be right if it wasn't for all of that science



the only thing that makes it believable is that large gap of time you throw in there.


it's not something we're just throwing in there, the large gap of time exists regardless of whether or not evolution is true.



oh if you just give it enough time species will evolve beyond what we see today.


yep, that's pretty much the simplest way to put it



a single celled organism can evolve into everything we see today over billions of years.


yup...well, not necessarily 1, but that's a point of contention



eventually cows will adapt to water and evolve into hippos,


that's a strawman. nobody is saying that hippos were descended from cows

here's a wiki entry on their evolution



dinosaurs will grow feathers and learn to fly. etc etc etc...


actually, it's incredibly likely that dinosaurs like the velociraptor had feathers



yet there is nothing to prove this,


except for the evidence



no observations at all, and no demonstrations.


read the article i've put in here entitled "29+ Evidence for Macroevolution" to clear up that nasty case of being misinformed that you seem to have.




therefore not scientific at all.


except that you're wrong.



I admit that my theory/hypothesis is a religous viewpoint, and I have many explanations for many quesitons brought up. some evidences weaker than others and yes assumptions are made but we have already admitted that creation is a religious viewpoint that is supported by science. more supported by science than evolution.


except the parts where it isn't. you've not shown a single piece of science that supports your religious view. only shown a clear ignorance to scientific principles has been displayed.



im sorry you cant get over your world view, but seriously dude, get a clue and learn the truth.


it's not a question of my world view. what i can't get over is the objective reality that evolution occurs and has occurred.



you do some basic logical thinking, make some basic observations and stop ignoring the fact that radiometric dating does not work and you will come to know the truth. i


except that it does. do you know how radiometric dating works?



f radiometric dating was so accurate, howcome they always get wrong dates for samples of known age?


because those "samples of known age" tend to be things that shouldn't be tested by radiometric dating.
example: creationists, attempting to disprove radiometric dating, dated ash spewed out by a volcano
that's like looking at one of those hidden image things with an electron microscope and saying "there isn't a sailboat there at all"



and why do they redate samples when they find something underneath that shouldnt be there (according to the evolution theory)?


...example?



God made the world in 6 days, they even implied that in the Declaration of Independence.


...the bible and the declaration of independence aren't scientific texts.
one is a religious book and the other only says the word "god" and in no way references a creation...let alone your specific 6 day story.



but it appears that the media as well as other groups dont want the evidences that slap evolution in the face, to get out to the public.


you keep saying that there's evidence that slaps evolution in the face, but you don't provide it

where's the beef?



Evolution is a lie, but people like you believe it.


you keep making these statements that are completely baseless. you've yet to prove anything but your ignorance of science.



there is much evidence to go against the theory but you all ignore it


except that it isn't.



and claim that we are ignorant for explaining the same thing over and over.


actually, i only claim you're ignorant for saying the same thing over and over when i've shown that you're wrong.



the fact is, you arent going change your mind because you have a problem with truth.


...a problem with the truth...?

nope, i have absolutely no problem with evolution.



you are dead wrong and you know it.


now you act like you can read my mind. the only thing i know is dead wrong is your demonstrated understanding of science.



just like everyone else on this site who choses to ignore simple principles that defy evolution.


like what?

you keep saying that there are so many principles that defy evolution and so much evidence that completely refutes it, but you never, ever provide anything to back up these claims.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Ok, one more FACT.


1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3



2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.


75.125.60.6...

this is the real evolution killer...........


Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17


Evolution is a mathmatical imposibility...........and this is for a single cell and billions make-up fully developed creatures............


God's real science kills mans fake science everytime.........


[edit on 25-4-2008 by heliosprime]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


misunderstanding of science? is this because i dont put it into the correct catagory?

what is the arguement against intelligent design? dont people say its because there is no god?

those statements are at the very heart of the matter. to say that life is not designed goes against the law of entropy (physics, i know). to say that intelligent design in unscientific because you cant prove that god exists is illogical (philosophy, yes i know that too).

to assume that, a person must first prove that a universe can exist without god. if it can´t, then the logical conclusion is that there is a god.

--------------

dont get me wrong, i understand what you are saying. but i do believe that the question of how life got here is significant to the thoery of how life developed.

the evolution theory does little to provide answers as to why humans are much more intelligent than the rest of the animal kingdom. it can speculate how apes can use tools and such but in the end the gap is significant. it is hard to see that and still say there isnt intelligent design.

the evolution theory is at its best inconclusive on this matter.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Ok, one more FACT.


1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." 3



2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.


75.125.60.6...

this is the real evolution killer...........


Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17


Evolution is a mathmatical imposibility...........and this is for a single cell and billions make-up fully developed creatures............


God's real science kills mans fake science everytime.........


[edit on 25-4-2008 by heliosprime]


No It doenst ! God is fictional, a concept, a creation of man, and so is "Gods science" there's no such thing, PERIOD.

Just because you can copy/past some bunch of demented ramblings from a crationist website, doesn't make your illogical delusions true...

The source you use is so beyond bias... it's ridiculous.

There is no "killer" of evolution, non at all, but anyone can believe what they want, even if ALL the evidence points to the opposite.

If you're so certain of your case why don't you jump to this thread and take up hte challenge put before you

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Looking forward to your post there....



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
There is no killer of evolution or creationism. Evolution cannot and will not answer all the questions people have about it.

No man can understand god, in his 3d body, so how can he ultimately understand everything possible.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
There is no killer of evolution or creationism. Evolution cannot and will not answer all the questions people have about it.

No man can understand god, in his 3d body, so how can he ultimately understand everything possible.


THE PROBLEM WITH DEBATING CREATIONISTS: You CANNOT reason a person OUT of position that they did not REASON themselves into.

Creationists are pushing religious dogma masquerading as junk science, and they have NO interest whatsoever in scientific debate. All they care about is re-affirming their religious beliefs of disturbing stories of hell and damnation and devils and eternal suffering and ramming them down the throats of unsuspecting children.

See, The bible isn't a salad bar, so you can't pick and chose what parts you want to believe in, while telling everyone to ignore other parts. It's all or nothing.

Funny how Christians only interpret the Bible anyway they seem fit. Funny how they interpret it to justify their intolerance, their own politics, their hypocrisy and the self-righteous crap they impose on others huh?

For me the fundamental difference will always be
Science offers answers to those who seek to understand: If I wanted to know how cellular functions operated I could study the research and resolve most of my questions with self evident facts.

Religion offers answers to those who seek answers: If I want to know how cellular functions operated I could read a few passages from the bible and say, "God did it."

That your sole recourse when confronted with a reasonable argument against your preconditions is further semantic equivocation should be telling of the weakness of your stance.

I don't think anyone here would claim that these extreme positions are representative of the average Christian - but then that's irrelevant to the point.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 


You have to accept that evolution, has no real answer either. Do you really believe all the stuff, evolution theory throws at us.

Can i ask you, do you think man is capable of knowing everything in his 3d mind, that he thinks is ultimate?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


I will admit defeat when you can scientifically prove to me that the universe came into existance from nothing for no reason.

Can you scientifically prove, dear Miriam, that something made it?


I will admit defeat when you can scientifically show me that life can come from non-living matter.

And can you scientifically prove, good lady, that it cannot?

William of Occam (a churchman, not a scientist) said 'entities must not be unnecessarily multiplied'. Do you not agree?


you claim, scientific victory, but nothing you claim is scientific.

Could you please scientifically prove the truth of this statement? It desperately needs substantiation; on the face of it, it appears resoundingly false.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
what is the arguement against intelligent design? dont people say its because there is no god?


Have to jump in on this.

As an agnostic, I believe in God, but in a vastly different way than is commonly stated:

God is not a seperate intelligence, It is imbued in every atom to be found in this universe. It is in plants, animals as well as in humans. To put it as succintly as possible, It is the force which gives 'shape' to atoms.

Looking at It from this angle, it would seem that Evolution itself is merely a kind of 'Intelligent Design in Progress'. The Act of Creation always and ever incomplete.

God experiences through the reshaping of ALL reality to allow what works best through the process of Natural Selection (there is also more to reality than what is obvious to our senses).

Creation=an Evolving Design


... a person must first prove that a universe can exist without god. if it can´t, then the logical conclusion is that there is a god.


Good point.

There is no proving it either way. One must personally experience God to prove It's existence. I have, but sharing the proof of that is also impossible, since the experience itself is subjective rather than objective and will never stand up to the scrutiny/disection of the 'scientific method'. Let it only be said only that I have had personal evidence of the spirit within me as well as within those others who were (very) close to me.


the evolution theory does little to provide answers as to why humans are much more intelligent than the rest of the animal kingdom


Sorry, but I find this to be an arrogance. Intelligence is relative. A whale, dog or pig, for instance, while quite intelligent, have no need for any external crutches for survival. Such needs vary. Whales need nothing other than each other's company for pro-creation, dogs need dens and company just like pigs (and us). We are crafty, dogs are less crafty, but whales have no need for that kind of craftyness other than to find food and work in unity to best feed from that discovery.

That we are 'inventive' is not a sign of intelligence, it is a sign of creativity.

No doubt there are many forms of higher intelligence in the universe than humans, but it could very well be that they are not creative, having lost that need long ago simply because they are a perfect fit for their environment, whatever that may be (planetary or interstellar).

So, what IS intelligence if it isn't creativity and inventiveness? I say it's awareness. The implication of that being the same as God... aware of everything through the experience of being part of everything (omnipresent and omniscient).

We are (perhaps) more 'aware' than other life/non-life forms, but, once again, that is subjective. Who says the entire planet/solar system/universe is not aware? Surely you've heard of the Gaia Principle?

I refuse to label God with any material tags... no body, no sex, no golden throne, no preference to our planet or human populations. God just IS, and It is in eveything in existence.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   


Just because you can copy/past some bunch of demented ramblings from a crationist website, doesn't make your illogical delusions true...


uh, isnt that what you do? refer to others information... only the evolutionist side? dont tell me you find science. science is observable, demonstrable and testable. evlution is not therefore it is not scientific. AT ALL!




The source you use is so beyond bias... it's ridiculous.

yeah and you think yours is not? your scientists perform methods based on things that were written over a one and a half centuries ago. if they think they find a dinosaur bone they automatically use their dating method that is classified to test objects of that range of age. and thats not how science works. you wont walk into the room with a preconceived idea and throw out all evidence that doesnt support it. and thats exactly what the evolutionists do.



Funny how Christians only interpret the Bible anyway they seem fit. Funny how they interpret it to justify their intolerance, their own politics, their hypocrisy and the self-righteous crap they impose on others huh?


uhm, who are we talking about here? we all make mistakes, get that through your thick skull. christians/creationists are not perfect so drop that argument and fight with a real one.



Religion offers answers to those who seek answers: If I want to know how cellular functions operated I could read a few passages from the bible and say, "God did it."

way out of context and way far from the truth. get a clue and maybe you can make sense of this. yes God gave man the capability to build things (ie computers, phones, mechanics etc) but no one is just going to sit on the crutch that God did it when there is a logical answer that we can understand. something that makes physical sense to us. this right here is a straw man, oh is it ok for you set your straw man but its not ok for us? even tho ours is to make a point and yours is only to bash what you fear.



not really, as i'm not displaying any ignorance.


haha wow. just... wow, keep telling yourself that.



it's not something we're just throwing in there, the large gap of time exists regardless of whether or not evolution is true.


oh so your big bang theory does fit into the line of evolution without a big bang you cant have billions of years ago...
you just dont get it.



that's a strawman. nobody is saying that hippos were descended from cows

this seems to be your weakness, you comment on what was said and miss the concept. you missed the concept. YOU MISSED THE CONCEPT!
and no it is not a strawman, its an example of the illogical process in which you believe.



except the parts where it isn't. you've not shown a single piece of science that supports your religious view. only shown a clear ignorance to scientific principles has been displayed.

actually ive shown plenty. you just chose to ignore it because of your pride.



what i can't get over is the objective reality that evolution occurs and has occurred.

first of all you believe that it occured, there is no way to know that it occured. just because a scientist said that it occured doesnt make it true.



except that it does. do you know how radiometric dating works?


I know of a few methods that are commonly used and I also know that they have failed to give accurate results numerous times.
the decay of earths magnetic field proves them all wrong (at least the ones that give ages beyond 50,000 years)



because those "samples of known age" tend to be things that shouldn't be tested by radiometric dating.
example: creationists, attempting to disprove radiometric dating, dated ash spewed out by a volcano
that's like looking at one of those hidden image things with an electron microscope and saying "there isn't a sailboat there at all"


uh, the scientists are the ones that dated it, not the creationists. all they did was spread the message. they didnt lie, they didnt set anything up. and why should it not be dated by radiometrics? because it makes your theory look stupid? if its so accurate, it should be able to give accurate dates all the way back to time zero or pretty darn close to it. +/- 1 year. but thats not what we see. this is not our assumption. this has been observed, radiometric dating not working. and this is only one instance, there have ben plenty of instances where it didnt work and with different methods. you cant just ignore it and give excuses for them. im sorry, but you lost this one.



example?

they dates the KBS Tuff once and got something like 200 millions years... then they found a human skeleton under the layer of ash and then redated it and it came back as 2.5 millions years old.
those arent the exact numbers but they are approx. +/- 3 million years.
the point here is, they never would have redated the ash if they didnt find that human skeleton.
its selective dating, radiometric dating doesnt work, they base it off of the geologic time scale. they select the dates. we arent stupid, we know what goes on, its obvious.



...the bible and the declaration of independence aren't scientific texts.
one is a religious book and the other only says the word "god" and in no way references a creation...let alone your specific 6 day story.

I suggest you read it again. and pay attention this time.



you keep saying that there's evidence that slaps evolution in the face, but you don't provide it


ive provided solid evidence that you continue to ignore. just a few very simple facts that dont even consume brain power thats how simple they are. and you sitll ignore them.



actually, i only claim you're ignorant for saying the same thing over and over when i've shown that you're wrong.


uhm you havent shown me wrong. you shown me other peoples BS as well as your hope in it.

what evidence are you looking for? apparently whatever I give is going to be considered BS. ive provided several theories on how things might/might have worked. theories supported by laws of science.


Heliosprime
they are melting in their shoes. they just dont know it yet.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Can you scientifically prove, dear Miriam, that something made it?


the fact that it cannot be proven that the universe exists without being made should logically allow you to conclude it was made.

isnt there a scientific law that says matter and energy cannot be created or destoryed, only changed. we have never seen something created from nothing. never. it isnt even theorized because it just doesnt happen.

even if you were going to say that the bigbang wasnt the beginning and that the univrse is in an endless loop of exploding and imploding from and infinate singularity, there is NO evidence of it. only suppositional theories.

all evidence points to a universe that has a beginning.

elementary question... can something become from nothing for no reason? all evidence in our existance says no.




I will admit defeat when you can scientifically show me that life can come from non-living matter.

And can you scientifically prove, good lady, that it cannot?

William of Occam (a churchman, not a scientist) said 'entities must not be unnecessarily multiplied'. Do you not agree?


law of biogenesis.

has anyone observed this law being broken?


you claim, scientific victory, but nothing you claim is scientific.

Could you please scientifically prove the truth of this statement? It desperately needs substantiation; on the face of it, it appears resoundingly false.


simple... noone has observed life spontaniously form. hell they can even make life in a lab in controled conditions

all evidence points to a universe that came into existance....

so the evidence points in one direction but scientist still formulate thoeries in the opposite direction. its like they are forcing a round peg into a square hole.

does that seem scientific to you?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
placeholder: everyone, i will respond to you in a timely fashion...tomorrow...late tomorrow...

i'd rather sleep now and give you a proper, less grouchy answer



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


thats a good theory. while i dont agree, i still believe it has more scientific merit than a universe without any god.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
placeholder: everyone, i will respond to you in a timely fashion...tomorrow...late tomorrow...

i'd rather sleep now and give you a proper, less grouchy answer


sleep tight grumpy



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
To all, C14 dateing is terribly flawed. It does not acount for outside infulence like solar flux, fire, and other things that the system holds as a constant.

The layering theory for dateing also assumes a slow constant flow to indicate time lapsed. Yet there are examples of boots found in coal mines that date to millions of years old.

My all time fav is the pig tooth that became the missing link..........


Evolution is more a religion than fact...........



posted on Apr, 26 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Something to chew on

Originally posted by miriam0566
The fact that it cannot be proven that the universe exists without being made should logically allow you to conclude it was made.

I think you need to look at the logic in that conclusion again. The universe exists. That much we can both agree on. I cannot prove it wasn't made, but you can't prove it was, either. Impasse.

What is clear -- transparently clear -- is that the universe is a process. It is something (more accurately, everything) in the process of becoming something else. The objects in the universe and their relationships to each other are ever-changing.

But here's the rub: we observe it changing, and we see that the changes follow a set of rules we call the laws of physics. Following these laws, the universe changes in ways we can predict. We can even trace its evolution back in time and make educated guesses about how it will evolve in the future.

What we don't see (pardon me, believers in levitating Buddhist monks, Catholic ones with stigmata and miraculous flights to heaven from the Temple Mount) are miracles. We don't see matter and energy behaving in ways that contravene the laws of physics.

We don't see, in other words, evidence of divine intervention in the universe.

You might reply that the laws of physics themselves are god-given, and that the marvellous variety and complexity and interdepency of the universe is evidence enough of God. But that is merely to return to where we started: yes, the universe exists and it works. But we can't say it only works because something made it; it seems to be working pretty well on its own.


isnt there a scientific law that says matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed?

Yes, there is. It's the First Law of Thermodynamics. Not matter and energy but 'mass-energy', but you've got the idea.


we have never seen something created from nothing. never. it isnt even theorized because it just doesnt happen.

even if you were going to say that the bigbang wasnt the beginning and that the univrse is in an endless loop of exploding and imploding from and infinate singularity, there is NO evidence of it. only suppositional theories.

all evidence points to a universe that has a beginning.

I, for one, am not questioning that evidence. I believe there was a Big Bang. It seems to have happened about thirteen and a half billion years ago.

But the universe is also, in a different way, eternal.

You see, one of the things that began in the Big Bang was time. There was no time before the Big Bang, so there was no 'before'. As far as time is concerned -- and I'm not concerned here with definitions of time, any definition will do -- the universe has always existed.

And it always will. For when the Second Law of Thermodynamics has finally had its way (someone on my Proof of ID thread is trying to use it as their proof of creationism), and matter and energy are distributed evenly through the entire volume of space, there will be no events to mark passing duration. Time will have a stop.

So something didn't really come from nothing. It was always there.


law of biogenesis.

has anyone observed this law being broken?

I believe the 'law of biogenesis' is a creationist expression used to mean that life cannot come from non-life. So what you're asking me is whether anyone has seen life arise from non-life.

Well, there's no chance of that, is there? Do you know what life is? Life is organic chemicals -- proteins and amino acids and stuff. The simplest forms of life are viruses -- some would argue that they aren't strictly life at all. A virus is just a bit of RNA or DNA wrapped in a protein coat. One step down from that -- into non-life -- would be individual proteins and other complex organic molecules.

Biochemists have polysyllabic names for thousands of these molecules, but life, as a rule, knows them by a single name:

Food.

Any life trying to evolve from non-life on planet Earth today would be gobbled up before it ever got going.

Life from non-life only happened once. We know this because all life today is genetically related -- it all dates back to a single ancestor. The original badass, as Neil Stephenson called it.

My apologies, Ma'am your Honour. I can't show the court the evidence for abiogenesis. The defendant ate it.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   


Life from non-life only happened once. We know this because all life today is genetically related -- it all dates back to a single ancestor. The original badass, as Neil Stephenson called it.


now see this is where religion kicks in. you believe this to have happened.
you do not know this. your conclusion based on your observation is made by assumptions, but by testing and demonstrating and then repeating. a 1 billion years is a long time, many people dont realize how long of a time that is.

life cannot evolve from non-living material. thats already been proven. but it is assumed to have happened because if it didnt and God made everything like the bible says then you have to call the evolutionists liars, and they dont like that.
evolution, to include the origin of life is pure fantasy. its not observable, its not demonstrable.
two people can look at two things and comes to very different/opposite conclusions based on the same evidence and observations.
someone is wrong, and the evidence doesnt point to evolution, it points to a creation.



posted on Apr, 27 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Methuselah
uh, isnt that what you do? refer to others information... only the evolutionist side? dont tell me you find science. science is observable, demonstrable and testable. evlution is not therefore it is not scientific. AT ALL!


then forensics isn't science either. you cannot directly observe the events involved in forensics, but you can indirectly, just like in evolution.

with science you do not have to witness the event happening, just the evidence that it happened. you can demonstrate evolution and you can test it. clearly you haven't read a single link i've posted on those issues.



yeah and you think yours is not? your scientists perform methods based on things that were written over a one and a half centuries ago.


...the scientific method is a tiny bit older than that. and it's stood the test of time, as the computer you're working on can attest to.



if they think they find a dinosaur bone they automatically use their dating method that is classified to test objects of that range of age. and thats not how science works.


...and if they don't get an answer that's within the dating range, they go onto a different method
seriously, if you try potassium-argon dating on a bone that's either too old or too young for it, you get a result that's obviously wrong.



you wont walk into the room with a preconceived idea and throw out all evidence that doesnt support it. and thats exactly what the evolutionists do.


except that they don't

you've yet to provide evidence that doesn't support evolution.



way out of context and way far from the truth. get a clue and maybe you can make sense of this. yes God gave man the capability to build things (ie computers, phones, mechanics etc) but no one is just going to sit on the crutch that God did it when there is a logical answer that we can understand.


then practice what you preach and realize that evolution is the logical answer that we can understand.



haha wow. just... wow, keep telling yourself that.


if you can display the ignorance i've demonstrated, i'd be happy to admit that i was wrong. however, you've repeatedly made claims that i've shown to be 100% false...so i'm not going to expect any of that from you.



oh so your big bang theory does fit into the line of evolution without a big bang you cant have billions of years ago...
you just dont get it.


...yes you can. thor dammit, what do i need to do to make it clear?
the earth is objectively around 4 billion years old (not going to go for a more exact figure because that's plenty old). that's regardless of whether or not the big bang theory is correct.
if a giant dancing purple hippo farted the earth out 4 billion years ago, it's still 4 billion years old
if god made the earth 4 billion years ago, it's still 4 billion years old
if the earth formed about 9.73 billion years after the big bang, it's still 4 billion years old

it doesn't matter where it came from, it's still 4 billion years old



this seems to be your weakness, you comment on what was said and miss the concept. you missed the concept. YOU MISSED THE CONCEPT!


that you outright misrepresented the facts to further your argument? no, i got the concept perfectly.



and no it is not a strawman, its an example of the illogical process in which you believe.


no, it isn't. you're entirely misrepresenting the theory of evolution just to make evolution seem absurd...
which is basically the only way you can make such a well-established theory look that way.



actually ive shown plenty. you just chose to ignore it because of your pride.


...and you just choose personal attacks.
i didn't ignore any supposed evidence, i systematically refuted it.



first of all you believe that it occured, there is no way to know that it occured. just because a scientist said that it occured doesnt make it true.


...i don't have to trust what a scientist said (unlike the people who are directly trusting what a book said), there is a mountain of evidence i can look at that supports it.



I know of a few methods that are commonly used and I also know that they have failed to give accurate results numerous times.


...you just make these baseless statements. the only times they've given inaccurate results is in instances where they were intentionally misused.



the decay of earths magnetic field proves them all wrong (at least the ones that give ages beyond 50,000 years)


i've already refuted this argument a half dozen times, stop using it.



uh, the scientists are the ones that dated it, not the creationists. all they did was spread the message. they didnt lie, they didnt set anything up.


evidence.
the money, show it to me.




and why should it not be dated by radiometrics?


for the same reason that a truckstop scale shouldn't be used to weigh infants.



because it makes your theory look stupid? if its so accurate, it should be able to give accurate dates all the way back to time zero or pretty darn close to it.


...yeah, you're just showing a clear misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works.

please read up on it



+/- 1 year. but thats not what we see. this is not our assumption. this has been observed, radiometric dating not working. and this is only one instance, there have ben plenty of instances where it didnt work and with different methods. you cant just ignore it and give excuses for them. im sorry, but you lost this one.


you aren't providing any examples, you're merely making ridiculously baseless claims about things that display your entire ignorance of basic scientific concepts.



they dates the KBS Tuff once and got something like 200 millions years...


...evidence, not statements. i want sources



I suggest you read it again. and pay attention this time.


i suggest you stop being condescending.



ive provided solid evidence that you continue to ignore. just a few very simple facts that dont even consume brain power thats how simple they are. and you sitll ignore them.


no, i've refuted them
repeatedly
and i've repeatedly repeated the statement that i've repeatedly refuted them



uhm you havent shown me wrong. you shown me other peoples BS as well as your hope in it.


...it's not bs when it's scientific material that's concrete.



what evidence are you looking for? apparently whatever I give is going to be considered BS. ive provided several theories on how things might/might have worked. theories supported by laws of science.


i'm looking for evidence that doesn't rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of science.


Originally posted by heliosprime
To all, C14 dateing is terribly flawed. It does not acount for outside infulence like solar flux, fire, and other things that the system holds as a constant.


...carbon 14 dating isn't used on things that were burnt unless they're dating a fire and solar flux would have absolutely no effect on radioactive decay

and how would alter potassium-argon dating or any of the other radiometric dating methods?



The layering theory for dateing also assumes a slow constant flow to indicate time lapsed. Yet there are examples of boots found in coal mines that date to millions of years old.


i keep hearing that ridiculous assertion, but nobody has ever been able to prove the boots in coal claim. not a single shred of evidence has been provided for it.



My all time fav is the pig tooth that became the missing link..........





...you mean the one that scientists showed wasn't a missing link?
Evolution is more a religion than fact...........


...all you have is a bunch of claims that you cannot back up
you have no science, evolution is the only science here.




top topics



 
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join