It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

[macumazahn]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
I did address it. The major faux pas was by MF!

*sigh*

Biblically, was the Earth made before the Sun?

Or did the deity make the Sun beforehand, but just kept in his back pocket for a later "peekaboo"?

[macumazahn]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Genesis 1:16-19 addresses the sun's relationship to the earth. The Hebrew word used is not the same word for create used in Genesis 1:1, thus denoting a different type of activity.

Sure. That's a matter of case.

"Fish" is not the same word as "fishing".

Sorta.

[KAB]

MikeF wrote:

My "So what?" was in response to your question:
<quoted text>
Perhaps I should have said "How does it matter?". However, I doubt you would have replied to that either. You have a history of ignoring things.

I did reply. It doesn't matter to me because I didn't raise the point. I just made an observation stemming from the data provided. You know I love to take note of how data is used.

[Thomas Robertson]

Dogen wrote:
scientific community is NOT divided on the subject of evolution.

GH wrote:
Keep repeating it; you might its the best way to convince yourself.

But as long as person within that scientific community dont accept the theory as valid; there is a division in the scientific community on the matter.

Well, unless "division" means something else to you.

If we spent more time discussing facts and less time on semantic quibbling, we might accomplish something.

[KAB]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have so little shame in your blatant quest to discredit other posters that you even throw "data" from your own Holy Bible onto the compost heap? What a disgustingly low bar of ethics and morality you creationists set for yourselves.
Gen 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth"(day one)
Gen 16 "God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day..." (day four)

Did you notice that "create" and "made" are different words? Why is that do you think?

[Thomas Robertson]

GH, #108844 was a really lovely post.

[KAB]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
We've been over this. You invoke ridiculous interpretations such as equating the use of the word "day" in Genesis 2 to have the same meaning in Genesis 1 - which it clearly doesn't have. Hell, it's not even the same author.

What's clear is what the possibilities are since that's determined entirely and objectively by language mechanics. That's data! Your desire (not data) is for your view to be the only possible conclusion. Get use to disappointment.

[KAB]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Optimistic speculations by GH are your newest source of data? Genesis states all the Earth, not a hypothetical basin somewhere north of the Persian Gulf.

I agree.

[KAB]

ChromiuMan wrote:

And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
No matter how an ideologue wants to waffle, interpret or rationalize, "day" is definitively 12 hours +/- of daylight in one breath and (light, dark, evening plus morning) a 24 hour "day" in the next. Whether it's in Godian, Godese or Godoslavian, in the biblical creation myth a "day" must be a literal 24 hours and a week is 168 hours.
Now KAB, Mark, GH... quit yer diatribes, posturing, sidestepping, hypothesizing and blustering and fit the known FACTS to your story.

How do evening and morning relate to day?

[ChromiuMan]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you notice that "create" and "made" are different words? Why is that do you think?

You ask that in English - by far and away the most populated language in the world. Would you care to speculate on how impoverished the Hebrew language was by comparison 4500 years ago? Phooey. Why am I even contemplating semantics and nuances with the likes of you?

---------
Why don't we cut to the chase with all integrity and the bullshyte aside; there is only one rigorously honest reason threads like this one are created and continue for more than a page and a half.

"Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me."

Go suck your thumb.

[KAB]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>*sigh*
Biblically, was the Earth made before the Sun?
Or did the deity make the Sun beforehand, but just kept in his back pocket for a later "peekaboo"?

You're beginning to get the idea. From the perspective of the earth, which is the perspective of the first chapter of Genesis, the sun was not initially "made" visible as a luminary until the "cloud cover" eased a bit.

[KAB]

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>Sure. That's a matter of case.
"Fish" is not the same word as "fishing".
Sorta.

I the Hebrew Genesis case it's not two different forms of the same word.

[KAB]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
You ask that in English - by far and away the most populated language in the world. Would you care to speculate on how impoverished the Hebrew language was by comparison 4500 years ago? Phooey. Why am I even contemplating semantics and nuances with the likes of you?
---------
Why don't we cut to the chase with all integrity and the bullshyte aside; there is only one rigorously honest reason threads like this one are created and continue for more than a page and a half.
"Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me."
Go suck your thumb.

I see you've run out of data before getting a conviction.

[The Dude]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
None of that effectively answers any of my questions.
You used 32 words and you have not said a single thing.
How do you do it?

Well here's some more then:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T5V...

But since scientific evidence is NOT your area of interest, what would convince you of common ancestry?

Answer - zip.

That's not our problem.(shrug)

[The Dude]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
Even you cant deny that his logic is failing.
You are nothing but propagandists.
Where did I make any claims about a Jewish Wizard etc?

Seen your moniker?

[The Dude]

God Himself wrote:

No your childish crap doesnt work here.
The fact that humans can plant trees does not suggest that all trees were planted by humans.
BUT
The ability of a human to plant a tree demonstrates the control his mind/intelligence has over the process of planting that tree.
Unless a person who plants a tree does not use his mental faculties in the process; you have nothing to dispute here.

Yet you miss the point that trees get by perfectly well without any intelligent intervention.

God Himself wrote:

The mechanisms of intelligence involve the ones that make the person conscious of how to prepare the soil and plant the seed.
Intelligence manifest there as the digression to not plant the seed too deep, not to plant it in muddy ground to rot the seed, not to plant it in the shade where it will not get enough sunlight etc.
We can also observe this influence of intelligence on natural process in a hydroponic environment; where the person determines conditions and necessities that will make the plant survive outside its "natural habitat" and creates those conditions through intelligence.

Again, trees do not require us to do this.

God Himself wrote:

And why skip the bit about the jug of water?
Intelligence controls the health and vitality of the plant by determining that and when and how much water it should get.

Again, trees don't need that. Water falls of its own accord sometimes. It's called rain. The reason however I said to skip the bit about the jug of water is that once the seed has been planted, and has water, there are no intelligent processes (as far as we know) that cause the tree to grow. It's all a natural occurrence. Just like a baby developing in the womb, no intelligence is required once we have a zygote.

That is why Markie's assertion fails. Just because scientists can recreate natural conditions does not necessarily mean that an intelligence was required. Yes, we CAN get a jug of water and pour it on a seed. But water falling by itself from the sky and feeding plants is a common every day natural occurrence which has no intelligent intervention required.

[The Dude]

KAB wrote:

<quoted text>
As I stated, because you can't!
Infinite declarations of "been done" will never substitute for the simple saved post link example which would take no more effort to post than "been done" everytime I issue the challenge. Again, you won't because none exist. There's one simple way for you to prove me wrong. The ball's (dead ball) in your court!

Of course they don't exist. Just as long as you ignore it every time someone posts data.(shrug)

[Thomas Robertson]

On page 5335, GH shared with us his collection of Creationist scientists.
On page 5339, I asked GH why he posted that list.
On page 5343, GH responded to my question, or should I say, didn’t respond to it.

Maybe GH doesn’t know why he presented that list, but I probably do.
It is because our inner brain, inherited from our paleomammalian ancestors, is still in operation, but is millions of years behind the time.
The inner brain won’t kick off no matter what the outer brain does.
We are tempted to interpret every stimulus as it would be interpreted millions of years ago.
There were no Internet debates over Evolution and Creation, and the closest thing to it would be a battle.
In a battle, you could intimidate an enemy by showing him a battalion of warriors.

GH’s inner brain probably thinks that we are fighting a battle, and it probably thinks that those names on that list are fellow warriors.
So GH probably thinks that once we see that list, we will fall to our knees in submission.

Funny how people like GH preach Creationism but demonstrate Evolution.

[Thomas Robertson]

The Dude wrote:

That is why Markie's assertion fails. Just because scientists can recreate natural conditions does not necessarily mean that an intelligence was required.

Did Markie say that?
Interesting!
If scientists can recreate natural conditions, that means that intelligence was required.
Therefore, God did it.
But since scientists cannot create life from non-life, that means that a being higher than ourselves was required.
Therefore, God did it.

Any way you move, I gotcha!

[Dogen]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
100% of atheists have religious bias too.*shrug*

True. Atheism is a belief system.

[QUOTE who="God Himself"]<quoted text> Keep repeating it; you might its the best way to convince yourself.
But as long as person within that scientific community dont accept the theory as valid; there is a division in the scientific community on the matter.
Well, unless "division" means something else to you.

This is incorrect. There is no field in science for which there is 100% agreement on much of anything. Anytime you get over 99% agreement on anything you are on fire. Think of politics. It is hard to get 55% consensus in the electorate on who should be president.