An open letter to Creationists, page 8
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 25-11-2008 @ 05:38 AM by noobfun
Originally posted by speaker
Allow me to make an observation. I get the distinct impression that people here think there is no alternative for the non-religious person other than to believe in evolution.
no your entitled to believe anything we just ask you bring more then speculation

Granted, there is some logic to the theory, such as distinct similarities between species such as apes and humans, but there is so much that is overlooked with the theory,
id be itnrtigued to hear what?

I cannot understand how it enjoys such widespread acceptance.
that would be all the evidenec that supports the thoery and 0 evidence refutting it i guess

Aside from the obvious shortcomings (something from nothing,
nothing to do with evolution and isnt god made it from nothing the same thing? and the bigbang doesnt say somthing from nothing. science never says there was a nothing

non-living to living,
naturally occuring organic compaund naturally forming and self replicating(as observerd) bonding to form greater complexity (as observed)

impossible odds,
1:1 its been proven thats like saying the odds of our moon being the size it is is staggering, science has proven how big it is so the odds of that too are 1:1 when you look at the model of massive impact it predicts it almost perfectly

lack of transitional species),
except the thousands we have
its not even an argment anymore its just people not knowing what has been found

the national academy of science said back in the late 90's

So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species. Actually, nearly all fossils can be regarded as intermediates in some sense; they are life forms that come between the forms that preceded them and those that followed.
www.nap.edu...

www.talkorigins.org... this is 11 years old and still lists well over a hundred and makes no claims to being a complete list

that dog wont hunt anymore unless you really put your fingers in your ears scrunch your eye shuts and go 'lallalalalalallala'


some of the questions evolution raises to me are as follows:

How does a single living cell which does not think and is only able to divide itself, randomly develop into all known complex life without any direction?
natural selection it covers this

Why are there so many more species now than there were in the beginning, when natural selection is so much more efficient at reducing the number of species, than the number of new species that can evolve?
who says the differance was really that large by comparrison of habitat?

if theres a neiche somthing will find a way to fil it, we see this with inavsive species taking over then altering to fill other nieces in the enviroment

as long as there was a nieche for it somthing was there its the way it works

the gaps arnt as jawdropping as youd imagine mapped out there has even before life crawled out the ocean been wide diversity, it just has access to more diverse enviroments over time so its plots out nicely on a graph with the exception of mass extinction events

Why are there so many near-identical specimans of each species? Shouldn't they be more and more diverse within the species given the increased population?
only if natural selection allows

as for near identicle its a simple matter of what works, sharks and dolphins have very simialr shapes and fluid dynamcis becasue it works extremly well in that enviroment

again natural selection easily covers this

Why is it that cells are so much more susceptible to mutation when a new life begins than during an existing life?
they arnt

thats why the chances of cancerous mutation goes up with age

birth defects go up with age

Why is there only one species of human yet many species of ape today?
because we out competed the other human like apes and they died off

the great apes wernt in dirrect competition with us they had thier own going on, what you see alive is only the winners of the battle

unless you think we came from chimps or somthing then you really should check out the links above

Perhaps there are logical answers to these questions, but currently, to my mind, these are just a few glaring inadequacies with the theory.
then learn look into it

an hour a day for a few days is all it will take to cover those videos, it may seem a lot to set out time for but hell most of the videos are 10 minute multiparts watch 10 minutes a day for a few weeks

the links are above they cover most of this and thats just a handful of youtube users, the internet is awash with the answers to everyone one of those questions as well as a bunch of creationist sights ignoring evidence to try and prove the theory of 150 years ago wrong

the only way to truley deny ignorace is education of the subject

go follow the moto, if you still dont beleive thats ok becasue at least now you know what your denying not just acting in ignorance and in discussions it will give you a fair playing field, right now everyone who denies it and doesnt know any of it (sorry creationists this is almost all of you by the respeonses) are fighting an uphill battle through mine fields and barbed wire and your only armed with straw man armour and a few grasped straws as weapons to try and fight back





[edit on 25/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 25/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 25/11/08 by noobfun]


reply posted on 25-11-2008 @ 04:42 PM by arbiture
Originally posted by speaker
Allow me to make an observation. I get the distinct impression that people here think there is no alternative for the non-religious person other than to believe in evolution. Granted, there is some logic to the theory, such as distinct similarities between species such as apes and humans, but there is so much that is overlooked with the theory, I cannot understand how it enjoys such widespread acceptance.

Aside from the obvious shortcomings (something from nothing, non-living to living, impossible odds, lack of transitional species), some of the questions evolution raises to me are as follows:

How does a single living cell which does not think and is only able to divide itself, randomly develop into all known complex life without any direction?

Why are there so many more species now than there were in the beginning, when natural selection is so much more efficient at reducing the number of species, than the number of new species that can evolve?

Why are there so many near-identical specimans of each species? Shouldn't they be more and more diverse within the species given the increased population?

Why is it that cells are so much more susceptible to mutation when a new % life begins than during an existing life?

Why is there only one species of human yet many species of ape today?

Perhaps there are logical answers to these questions, but currently, to my mind, these are just a few glaring inadequacies with the theory.

A theory? When does any theory become fact? Only after hard core science provides tremendous proof, backed up by independent testing, observations, because of the nature of science, it must be proven or not by independent work by others. We were once the "center of the universe", and I just don't think the human race is so bloody noble. of course people often ask "if your kind, aka; science is so smart why do you change your so called theories often? We get better instruments and we make more specific, finite observations, build on that, to one conclusion or another.

Because we have to question everything, and when we have better tools we get a little smarter. Questions are asked one by one, and you need a lot of proof to over ride an established core position on a subject in science, because science is a very conservative process. and we are very conservative people.

We also question everything, we also have to deal with a HORRIBLE lack of scientific under standing in the US and that is a direct threat to national security, it threatens not just economy, but impacts our survival. People here are more likely to know who won last on star search then how many planets we've discovered in our solar system. Thats so pathetic. Regarding primitive life for example, a single cell life form does much more then divide. into something more complex, and a "mind" is not needed to direct it. There is a natural increase in complexity from physics, to chemistry, to biology, and in time some life becomes complex enough to become self aware.

Life is very stingy. It won't do any thing it does not have to, so it conserves as much energy in mutation, reproduction, etc, as it can. The more capable and robust sticks around while most other life forms bite the dust. All species here now, won. Nature tries many options, and selects the most robust for any environment.

Near identical specimens, or those that appear alike are there because they can be. Current humans are all over the world unlike Austrolapithicus that diden't move out of the African rift valley. This is a testable "theory".











reply posted on 26-11-2008 @ 03:17 AM by speaker
reply to post by noobfun


Hmmm, I don't know, doesn't sound like much of a rebuttle to me.

I'm not sure that you understand the way odds work. 1:1 indicates a certainty, the odds of life being created by some higher power are close to a certainty, but there's always the possibility that it's not the case. Also you mentioned natural selection a couple of times. My understanding was that natural selection eliminates species rather than increasing their numbers. It almost seems as though you're saying that every possible type of species has been around at some point, creating such a vast pool for natural selection to pick and choose through. I must have misinterpreted you.

reply to post by arbiture


I would have thought a theory became fact when it is proven to be factual. You are spot on with scientists changing their theories though. Although I find they try and hold on to an existing theory as long as they can and just give it a few tweaks here and there to cope with the contrary evidence they discover along the way. Eventually though, they are forced to abandon the orginal and start from scratch. Just look at quantum theory for an example. In fact, I often here people say that scientists require incredible amounts of proof and ask countless questions before accepting a theory, when in practice it seems quite the opposite in certain circumstances. You see the biggest problem I have is they persist in generating theories based on incomplete data. How often do you hear the word scientists linked with the phrases "are baffled" or " are amazed" or "are astonished"? That's what happens whenever they discover that something doesn't work the way they theorised, but honestly, what do you expect when you ignore half the information?

Life becomes complex enough to become self-aware? Is that like plants evolving into animls? Sounds pretty far-fetched.

Natural selection makes perfect sense. This is the most plausible part of evolutionary theory in my opinion. Pity about the lack of species available for selection though. With so much mutating going on, as the theory requires, I would have thought there would be far more diversity among not only humans, but all living creatures. Just think about it, there are more the 6 thousand million people who are virtually identical to one another. Going by the "fact of evolution" I would have expected there to be at least 6 thousand sub-species of humans with a million people in each, and some of those sub-species bordering on promotion to a species in their own right.

But that's just me, I don't just accept what I'm told. I DO question things.



reply posted on 26-11-2008 @ 04:09 AM by noobfun
Originally posted by speaker

Hmmm, I don't know, doesn't sound like much of a rebuttle to me.

I'm not sure that you understand the way odds work. 1:1 indicates a certainty,
its been proven to have happened and its only happened once so yes 1:1 is accurate until such time as it happens again and fails

and even if you pull bad maths to say its billions to 1 your still wrong becasue that maths only shows how impossible it is for somthing to just appear as it doesnt take into account any of the actions of natural selection

so when you see those big its so many trillions to one thats actually the odds of things just appearing(which is what ID says it did)

evolution is a rachet system not spontaneous creation

the odds of life being created by some higher power are close to a certainty,
no they currently reside at 0

until someone can prove any god exists that could or inded even cared to create somthing only then can there be a probability of that action occuring as it flys against all physical law

its the same as what of the odds of you falling off a gutter and flying into space 0 becasue it completley defies all natural law

but there's always the possibility that it's not the case.
1:1 ^_^ go Evolution

Also you mentioned natural selection a couple of times. My understanding was that natural selection eliminates species rather than increasing their numbers.
and this is how your struggaling with it, natural selection limits individuals but causes change in the greater population, greater change = more species

video time



It almost seems as though you're saying that every possible type of species has been around at some point,
nooo not by any means llok around at some of the more absurd and wierd and it can still go a long way past this if theres a practicle reason for that natural selection

creating such a vast pool for natural selection to pick and choose through. I must have misinterpreted you.
since very early there has been diversity. a single and multicelluar life is prone to mutation just like everything else they just breed a whole lot faster

faster breeding = more mutations = a wider diversity of organsims(those that survive natural selection)

when a new nieche opens up life evolves to fill the gap

so there are possably more species today then the cambrian simply becasue theres more nieches they can take on without direct competition from others


I would have thought a theory became fact when it is proven to be factual.
not mine but ill take it and ill start with a video ^_^



this explains how science really works

a scientist see's somthing happen formulates a hypothesis for what happened and why, he then does tests watches some more collects the facts together if all the facts fit the hypothesis, he then passes it to other scientists who check his work is accurate, the facts fit, no facts go against it, it then gets passed around a bit more until a concesus its accurate is agreed upon it then becomes a sceintific thoery

evolution is a fact = its been proven
evolution is a thoery = its a collection of facts showing its accurate and correct and provable

You are spot on with scientists changing their theories though. Although I find they try and hold on to an existing theory as long as they can and just give it a few tweaks here and there to cope with the contrary evidence they discover along the way.
once you have contruary evidence its gets totally reworked and re-examined to find what bit of it is wrong if it cant fit then its entirely wrong(this doesnt happen now really becasue of the understanding and testable methods we have)

its extremly rare for an actually theory to get thrown away simply becasue its already part right so they just correct it to give us a better understanding

its some of the hypothesis that are to be inserted into the theory that are often wrong not the theory its self. and it usually these that get rewritten or thrown away

Eventually though, they are forced to abandon the orginal and start from scratch. Just look at quantum theory for an example. In fact, I often here people say that scientists require incredible amounts of proof and ask countless questions before accepting a theory,
see this is the problem missuse of the word thoery

quantum thoery is accurate that eveything happens on a quantum level

its the hypothesis that try and explain what happens and how that get altered and changed that egt re-written thrown away pulled back out the garbage, and this is all theoretical physics, so its all in the head of someone who builds a computer simulation then makes predictions to try and prove it right. he cant go dig up a bone or 12 and physically prove it

when in practice it seems quite the opposite in certain circumstances. You see the biggest problem I have is they persist in generating theories based on incomplete data.
see above its not theories just the presses misunderstanding an using the wrong word

How often do you hear the word scientists linked with the phrases "are baffled" or " are amazed" or "are astonished"? That's what happens whenever they discover that something doesn't work the way they theorised,
actually its usually linked to somthing happening that wasnt predicted like the human genome

they predicted we would have 3 times the genetic data we do becasue were so complex, were less genetical complex then a grain of rice so yes they were very astonished and suprised and ran a bunch of tests to check they did it right


but honestly, what do you expect when you ignore half the information?
creationist science

Life becomes complex enough to become self-aware? Is that like plants evolving into animls? Sounds pretty far-fetched.
wrong way around the early single celluar life formns that became animals branched to form a seperate phylate tree that lead to plant life (genetic markers are a wonderful thing ^_^ )

Natural selection makes perfect sense.
your unerstanding of it is a bit off

This is the most plausible part of evolutionary theory in my opinion.
the funny part is this is pretty much the entire basis of the theory darwin proposed, the rest we added later when we had better testing methods and data available

Pity about the lack of species available for selection though.
yopu only need one that breeds and mutates you sjut have to wait around a while for the rest to appear by natural selection and micro evolution

With so much mutating going on, as the theory requires, I would have thought there would be far more diversity among not only humans, but all living creatures.
the billions of different ones not enough?

Just think about it, there are more the 6 thousand million people who are virtually identical to one another.
virtually but not, is you bone density so great its impoosable to fall and break a bone? theres a family in the us that has that mutation

theres a small region in italy i think it is that have a mutation that almost totally eliminates the risk of collesteral absed heart attacks and medical problems

how about the family that have increased muslce mass mutations, thier son has double the average muscle mass even as a babay he looked like a body builder

HIV immunity in small groups of the population in africa

Going by the "fact of evolution" I would have expected there to be at least 6 thousand sub-species of humans with a million people in each, and some of those sub-species bordering on promotion to a species in their own right.
except we keep breeding and mixing our genes an generally arnt cut off from other groups of humans for very long

we were heading that way, thats why the various ethocentric groups all have a certain genetic marker inside as well as the external adaptions like eye, skin colour

but then we all got together and interbreed some more and trashed the whole process ^_^

But that's just me, I don't just accept what I'm told. I DO question things.
good dont just accept it becasue your told(thats the creationists way my friend) go look into i can give you plnty of sources if youd like

if you still want to deny it fine, at least you know what your actually denying then


reply posted on 26-11-2008 @ 08:29 AM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by noobfun


please link the references to the scientific experiment that demonstrated a creature evolving into a different class of creature over generations. I.e fruit fly evolving into a different fly for a start, never mind something not a fly.

you wont be able to do this because it is impossible, you see it is written in their DNA, so without physically manipulating the DNA you will never get a different creature from the original. Yes you will get lots of adaptions from the original but not something other than a fruit fly. same with dog breeding (I believe that german shepherds are only a couple hundred years old as a breed), you will never breed anything other than a dog.

therefore evolution has not been proven. All you have is experimentation showing some adaptions to the original and then shed loads of extrapolation to say what they would evolve into, no wait a minute, they never predict what new class of creature they will evolve into do they? only the adaptions to the original that could take place. Now if evolution was fact then the scientist could predict what sort of creature the fruit fly will evolve into, then test it, then once it had done that they could claim to have proof of evolution. I have a feeling they will not manage that with the fruit fly or any other creature.


reply posted on 26-11-2008 @ 09:13 AM by noobfun
Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Interesting response here, evolution violates ALL KNOWN LAWS OF SCIENCE, but yet you claim one is true that does it and another is not that does it.
funny science says all kown laws support it

and as you cant tell the differance between the theory of atomic energy and the velocity of light ....ill go with them

Can you spell hypocritical goofball?
theindependentjournal yes yes i can

The Laws of Thermodynamics PROVE evolution never happened,
which ones and how? lets see how badly you mess this up too

these are known Laws, repeatable Laws, and accepted Laws.
unfortunatley they dont seem to be known to the people saying they prove evolution wrong

ever read them? ever studdied them? have any clue even a guess what they are about?

Statistics is also a known science and there is a statistical probability of NO CHANCE that evolution ever occurred in the first 5 sections.
wrong

the statistics show its near impoosible for things to just appear, luckily thats a lot more to do with ID then it is evolution


Only what is called Micro-evolution is observed,
wrong macro evolution IS a snap shot of micro evolution, cant have one with out the otehr thats like having elements without stars ....... totally 100% provably wrong

learn what the words mean then try and use them correctly

this is really Adaption within the species genetic code,
yes they both are ^_^ at least somthings right

all the information is already in the code for all the variety seen.
wrong

mutations can and do lead to new information all the time and guess what they arnt all bad and gonan kill us all

Stop acting like a scientist you are NOT one,
i know never said i was i know a lot more about what im talking about then some ..what was the phrase 'hypocritical goofball'

you're a poster on a thread and not a very logical one at that.
yes i bother to respond to this junk when you still wont have a debate framed only on evolution becasue you have to try every other means to try and prove it wrong like calling it names

keep up the good work or ya know just go read some books ..for a change ..... hey maybe even try one about evolution ... and i mean a real book written by sciencey type people not chralatons like ham and hovind

sorry independant copy/paste hovind wont win you any debates and will just make you look a bit silly

[edit on 26/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 26/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 26/11/08 by noobfun]


reply posted on 26-11-2008 @ 10:20 AM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


I just feel so very sad for you ... you'll never see something that you really don't want to see.
There's plenty of evidence you just can't see it.
At least there is historic reference to the existence of Jesus.
Evolution is still only a therory with no proof ?!
No one checks to see if at the end of his life Charles Darwin himself admits he thinks he made a mistake.
There are no facts as far as I have seen to prove evolution either.
From personal experience I have seen and experienced far too much to ever be able to deny God's existence.
Evolution is creating generations now with no purpose in life and suicide is on the increase.
What a sad place this world would be if you are right but in the meantime I know I am loved and appreciate it.



reply posted on 26-11-2008 @ 11:07 AM by noobfun
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

please link the references to the scientific experiment that demonstrated a creature evolving into a different class of creature over generations. I.e fruit fly evolving into a different fly for a start, never mind something not a fly.
wonder why you didnt log in to make this comment

you wont be able to do this because it is impossible,

then prepare to be dazzled with the supposedly impossible ^_^

actually first ill let you know exactly what micro/macro evolution and speciation means

so you dont get confused with the silly straw men monkey into men and crocoducks silly people created becasue they cant argue it on its actual merits

speciation(low level macro evolution) is when 1 form of animal(lets take felines) splits into different groups lion cheetah lynx

given enough time these groups can no longer breed together and have formed distinct sperate species (lions and tigers can still reproduce so are still subspecies not seperate species within a genus)

its all around us we see it everywhere including in labs

micro evolution(Chronocline) is a misnomer its a phrase used to represent the many change that happen over short periods of time in living reproducing mutating organisms, better known as all life including plants and animals and anything in between(sponges ) such as a small population group of people over tiem havign the blue eyed gene become the dominante colour

or resitance to a drug by bacteria

remember its a simple chain of (usually) small changes over short amounts of time these can result in big changes small changes or be completley benign

(the average human generates 4 fresh mutations within thier life time and many of these can be passed on, most are benign some offer advantages (disease resitance incresed musclemass) other disadvantages (inheretd genetic defects)

and micro evolution is a phrase used to describe these short term changes, but is just part of evolution not a real actual thing despite best efforts to change it to be

macro evolution(phyletic evolution) a misnomer like micro its used to describe the point those long chains of small changes become identifyable as a large change so a new species, but is in itself like micro evolution not a seperate thing just a way to describe a time frame in evolution when changes have built up to make it different from how it started and we class these biological change over time as a new species

think of it like a baby

each day you look at the baby and its practically idneticle to the day before and the day after it looks the sam as yesterday and while still looking like it did the day before its now a todler *jump in time* while still looking the same as it did the day before its now a young adult *jump in time* and still looking like it did the day before its now an adult middle aged then old

minor changes all add up to make massive differances else we would all look like babies still

now look at snap shots of the babys life stretch them all out and decide which one is baby which is todler which is child which is young adult so on and so on

this is macro evolution pointing to times when the minor changes have produced big results and trying to classify them

which is why birds are birds(an adult) but they are still dinosaurs (the person that was once a baby)

microevolution then speciation and a whole lot more microevolution and suddenly baby(dinosaurs) has grown up to be adult (birds)

so if you can prove micro scale evolution and speciation happens = macro evolution happens
1+1=2

unless your a creationist
1+1=3 and suddenly macro evolution gets strawmanned to be somthing entirely different by trying to shift the goal posts and change the meaning go you guys

and usually involving crocodiles and ducks


*quack* *quack* somthing even evolution says is impossible[but we know what the last common ancestor of both was] (they learnt when they mocked the legged whales which evolution said must have existed and they were found and they shut up for a while so now they hold up the impossible to prove evolution is wrong, kinda like saying unless you can jump up and float gravity is wrong silly really isnt it)

so lets prove microevolution first huh?

evolution.berkeley.edu...
i dont think it needs more even creationists agree it happens they just try to change the name and make it somthing different

so now speciation!

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).


5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)
Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
www.talkorigins.org...

so we have multipul lab examples in both plants and animals, as well as just opening our eyes

so 1+1=2 ^_^

this is further backed up by the fossil records(the thousand of transitional species which they will say dont exist but you can lie all you like its funny you have to) expecially clearly in the change from

Ambulocetans natans to modern whales

also shown to be true by genetic testing
shared ervs
atavisms
Phylogenetic trees

to name a few

none of these are explained by anything but evolution, creationsim ignores them becasue it cant disprove them ^_^


traaadaaaaa and as if by magic heres the impossable



you see it is written in their DNA, so without physically manipulating the DNA you will never get a different creature from the original.
lol you really need to learn more about genetics

its not written into the genetics the genetics constantly change they add information duplicate information loose some of the dupilicates all kinds of fun stuff happens and 70% of it doesnt really do anything until its switched by by mutation

which is why we can grow flys with 4 wings (like they once had back before macro evolution made them flys)

why we can grow chickens with teeth (like they did back before macro evolution made them birds)

the funniest one of all? feathers are just fancy scales (same gene) which is why we can turn the gene back on when it normally shuts off and chickens have feathery legs and feet instead of scales

and then we can do the same with a reptile and have a feathery reptile, and we havnt changed anything just turned a gene for making scales back on

and why would feathers be handy for a reptile? help regulate body heat in large ones like dinosaurs that later became birds ^_^

saying you havnt seen macro evolution from satrt to finish doesnt work sorry

we know the start point we know the end point we know the some of the inbetween bits too

thats like saying you need to see this little fellow here



every single day of his life or theres no way he could turn into this



or this



or this



or turn into the antichrist ... i mean or this




so please feel free to try and relabel, move the goalposts, lie. misdirect. create strawmen, use circualr logic, red herrings, ad hominims, appeals from ignorance, appeals form concensus or even just wave crocoducks around

becasue

If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack.
Winston Churchill
and i shall ^_^

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.
Winston Churchill
and the truth it shall remain

evolution is proven fact! now deal with it


[edit on 26/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 26/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 26/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 26/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 26/11/08 by noobfun]


reply posted on 28-11-2008 @ 04:39 AM by noobfun
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

I just feel so very sad for you ... you'll never see something that you really don't want to see.
thats called a denial despite the evidence

if anyone could prove a god any one of the thusands exist then youd have an influx of comnverts from athiesm and probably evey other religeon

an athiest after all is just someone that wants proof

There's plenty of evidence you just can't see it.
a 2000 year old book, ive seen it i own one ive read several .... why do you think im an athiest i actually read it subjectivley

At least there is historic reference to the existence of Jesus.
there are several references to christo which is a title not a name and many people were called by that title as even the bible states it just decided to call them antichrists as they didnt agree with what the others stated so villified them

so no way to directly link it to jesus

and some of those have been proven and accepted as fakes created by the early church even church scholars agree on this (except the fundamentalists as its the only proof the have)

Evolution is still only a therory with no proof ?!
well its got as much proof as atomic thoery, gravity theory, thoery of trigonometry, theory of atomic energy, theory of relativity, theory of chemical annalysis

and to be a yound earth creationist you have to deny everyone of them ... yes even maths

and why is the evidence for evolution so questioned but not gravity? or maths? or medicine? or nuclear weapons? or nuclear power stations?

No one checks to see if at the end of his life Charles Darwin himself admits he thinks he made a mistake.
hahah funny you should say that

there was a myth put about that he had a sudden and dramatic converstion on his death bed, unfortunatley the witnesses all said no he didnt including several christians

lying for jesus is still lying

There are no facts as far as I have seen to prove evolution either.
then maybe you should actually look at them? plenty out there login u2u me and we can discuss them

they all back up evolution and come from many varied sources within science even taxonomy created by linneaus (a well know creationists and often found on scientists through history that believed creationism lists) independatly build taxonomy trees of classification which again support all findings that support evolution

atavisms, erv's, genetic comparrisons the fossil record all over lap near perfectly with the trees designed (using his classifictaion method) to the work started by linneaus

evolution is a thoery(built on facts) to explain linneaus's trees

From personal experience I have seen and experienced far too much to ever be able to deny God's existence.
no you have seen and experienced things you attribute to god

you have no evidence it was god, it could also have been a good luck charm, a curse, a bad/good day, allah, the flying spahegetti monster, fairies, alien intevention, yoda

you choose it to be god to support your beliefs in a similar way an obsesive compulsive attributes his obssessive action to the prevention of a possible fate

belief breeds evidence of belief. the more you beleive the more you see (unsubjective)evidence to support your belief. and belief and evidence are very seperate entities

Evolution is creating generations now with no purpose in life and suicide is on the increase.
so is fundamentalism in religeon(abrahamic (judaism,christianity,islam) and hinduism), life expectancy, religeously motivated killings and terrorism, average temperatures, divorce in christian marriages are all on the rise also, are they all evolution as well? do you blame evolutionary theory for your belief???

no purpose in life? they still have the same purpose as everyone else they just dont get on thier knees and beg for forgivness to an unprovable higher power that has decided not to do what he always did .... make him self widley known through physical manifestation to the masses

for an unchanging god he sure has changed

this is a poor attempt to tie morality into the bible as the creator, exactly the same kind of morality is found in every religeon and every culture wether they pray to god allah budda or forest spirits and the same morality is displayed by the none religeous too

and animals that have social orders, did they read the bible too?


What a sad place this world would be if you are right
when you take down the wall of god did it suddenly the universe becomes massive and complex and beuatiful in its unaltering interactions there is so much more to understand and discover

sad day? i look forward to the day all humans realise that stars were sprinkled in the sky on the 6th day just isnt even trying to do justice to the billions of stars the many variations each with a different process of action and reaction each doing a seperate job and all working perfectly within the universal laws of nature

but in the meantime I know I am loved and appreciate it.
its always nice to be loved, its just better when its from a bieng that displays it and shows it rather then just writes it down then you never see them again




[edit on 28/11/08 by noobfun]


reply posted on 28-11-2008 @ 03:57 PM by speaker
reply to post by noobfun


Perhaps you're onto something here, but it's not coming through in your posts, because your responses are most unconvincing. You seem to like using the "Is not, Is too" defence to prove your prowess in statistics. Probably not the most effective tool to adopt. The remainder of your argument harps on the very parts of the theory I have a problem with, vast mutation volume to harness the full power of natural selection by conquering unchartered niches. Of Course there are more species today than in the Cambrian time, that is my point. There should be less according to your fact of evolution.

This is the problem with your type. You claim I don't understand how the theory works, then you go onto to educate me by explaining the exact thing I already know. If I didn't understand, your explanation should be able to clarify what exactly I don't understand and in turn solve the issue I have with the theory.

Again, perhaps you may have something, but you are going about it the wrong way if you think it will convince anyone to your way of thinking.


reply posted on 28-11-2008 @ 04:01 PM by noobfun
Originally posted by speaker

Perhaps you're onto something here, but it's not coming through in your posts, because your responses are most unconvincing. You seem to like using the "Is not, Is too" defence to prove your prowess in statistics.
not really

what are the chances of a past event happening the answer is only ever going to 1:1 becasue its happened there is no possability of time reversing and having a do over to reach a different conclusion

on the odds of a god doing it i was a little dishonest i said it was 0

there are an infinate number of possible creators(until one actually steps forward and proves himself) so the chance of picking out a specific god did it are

1:infinity
the odds of him creating this world are 1:1 its here were on it

so the odds remian 1:infinity

which as close to 0 as you can get

unless you go for a pascals wager which makes it 1:2 but only ever takes 1 possible god into account and we know people have and do worship more then 1 so the infinity rule applies again

and it becomes 1:infinity unless the abrahamic god steps forward


Probably not the most effective tool to adopt.
but the most honest

The remainder of your argument harps on the very parts of the theory I have a problem with, vast mutation volume to harness the full power of natural selection by conquering unchartered niches.


1+1=2 2+2=3 keep at it long enough and theres radical chnage from the start point

Of Course there are more species today than in the Cambrian time, that is my point. There should be less according to your fact of evolution.
how?

This is the problem with your type. You claim I don't understand how the theory works, then you go onto to educate me by explaining the exact thing I already know.
well if you undertsood the mechanism then youd realise why there are many more species and why its exactly what evolution and natural selection predicts

If I didn't understand, your explanation should be able to clarify what exactly I don't understand and in turn solve the issue I have with the theory.
im going to need you to explain what your understanding of it is

and ill see what i can do to explain the how and the why we have so much variety

Again, perhaps you may have something, but you are going about it the wrong way if you think it will convince anyone to your way of thinking.
first prority im afraid is to beat the creationist(ID'ers they are same just using a different disguise) lies strawmen and 1/2 truths into submission, so people like your self can ask how and why and not be slapped with wetrock comments and more sillyness

[edit on 28/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 28/11/08 by noobfun]


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 12:28 PM by papabryant
Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
I saw somebody post that this forum is openly hostile to creationists and another that said that this forum was too strict which compelled me to make this thread. While I do not speak for GoodWolf, noobfun, or any other defender of Evolution on this board this is my position on the subject.

Good, good... At least you aren't plagerizing like a few skeptics I've encountered around here.

1. Why don't we accept "evidence" for Creationism? The main source is a 2000 year old book that has been translated from whatever local languages the stories were written in, to Greek, to Latin, then probably German, to English, with a natural corruption of information and content with each translation, and the current King James Bible.


Hmmm, your familiarity with the Big Bang controversy is a little.... incomplete.

Robert Jastrow, the former head of NASA, once wrote that he thought that the Big Bang theory would "cause some of my colleagues to run out and join the first Church of Jesus Christ of the Big Bang." This was due to the simularities between Genesis and what science says occured at the creation of our universe. This simularity was so troubling that efforts were made to refine the BBT to show an ossilating universe. But this proved to be fruitless, as the data didn't fit. (Of course this was discovered AFTER people made the connection between ossolating universes and the Hindu conception of God - thus ensuring that we're all assaulted at the airport by Hari Krishnas and that the Beatles' music became insufferable as they explored Hindu mysticism.)

NOW, we have "string theory"... which has exactly NO proof at all - yet another in a long line of scientific "explanations" that avoids the simularities between Genesis and BBT.It seems that there is a lot of effort taken to distance "science" from that "2000" year old book (actually, that part is more like 3500 years old) - that actual HISTORIANS concider the most accurate ancient history written.

Scientific Evidence? I've yet to see any. Any process I've seen creationists to describe anything involves "And then God did something" which immediately discounts it. When a paper comes out giving an actual scientific way the Noahian Flood Story could've happened, I'll read it, see if it has merit, and if it does, I might even go to church for the first time in forever.


Its not about the flood per sey, but your wish is my command:
Beer and Theology: The Kalam and Teleological Argument for the Identity of God; or, Sherman, Please Set the Wayback Machine for the Big Bang (Scroll past the appendix article for the main body. This was a paper I submitted for a Medieval Philosophy class. Got an A+, from an atheist professor too.)

2. Why are we so hostile to creationists? I don't think that's our intent, but you know, there's a reason a lot of my posts in this forum are at least partially written in sarcasm. ... It gets old trying to beat back their claims which should have been refuted in your average high school Biology class.


You might find things more pleasant if atheists would realize that not every Christian is a young Earth creationist. ID is NOT the same as YEC. Stop stereotyping the argument and actually engage what's being said. And learn a little about the Biblical text - I don't know how many times I have had to correct ignorant atheists that there aren't two creation stories and that Gen 1 is the chronological description and Gen 2 is supporting details in order of importance, typical of semitic literature. Do this and we won't think of YOU guys as ignorant.

I'm not trying to convince you there is no God, just simply that maybe, just maybe, it didn't happen like the two different accounts in Genesis say it happened.

Oops, spoke too soon.


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 12:50 PM by FSBlueApocalypse
I'm not sure why you brought string theory into the discussion. That's trying to tie together quantum mechanics with general relativity.

Secondly, any historian who didn't totally waste his cash getting his degree will tell you the Bible is a load of bollocks when telling a historical event. Theres not a shred of evidence the Jews were ever kept captive in Egypt. Among other historical "Facts" in the Bible.

Submitting a paper in a philosophy class and turning in a paper to a scientific journal are two very different things. That doesn't excuse the fact there is still no evidence.

ID isn't Young Earth Creationism in a t-shirt tux? News to me, considering a conservative Christian judge ruled it to be as much in the Dover case. And I do realize alot of Christians aren't Young Earth Creationists, but sadly, a great deal of them in the United States are.

As for Genesis, Chapter 1
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Chapter 2
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[edit on 12/2/2008 by FSBlueApocalypse]


reply posted on 2-12-2008 @ 04:22 PM by nj2day
reply to post by SamuraiDrifter


If you are trying to use the o'l "a closed system not in equilibrium will move towards entropy" argument... it is false...

you forget a few other things... forces like gravity that make earth a separate closed system from the universe... as matter has to achieve escape velocity in order to escape the gravitational pull of earth... so it cannot disperse into the universe...

Once you understand that earth is a closed system and the Planet is in equilibrium... it will be easier to see why this is false...

here is a great article to help explain my point.



[edit on 2-12-2008 by nj2day]


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 02:33 AM by noobfun
reply to post by Canadianduder


thats scientific creationism

no magic allowed

you also missed fully synthetic virus's built from scrath we have a few of those news.bbc.co.uk... for study purposes


reply posted on 3-12-2008 @ 02:39 AM by Canadianduder
reply to post by noobfun


"thats scientific creationism"

You are damn right it is. I don't rely on magic.

Nor can you see the Future: You have no idea what the species we have genetically modified will evolve into.

They might one day evolve into an intelligent being and have stupid conversations such as this one....

*You cannot see the Past either: You don't how how the first life arrived on earth - you are assuming (like a moron) that all life originated here, which is wrong.

We can see the Present: and presently Humans are creating new species using a form of scientific creationism via genetic modification in the laboratory.
Pages: <<  5    6    7    8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags