The Dude

London, UK

#22 Mar 26, 2008
"Unless, of course, my ideas can answer all the questions. Which, for the most part, it can."

Then uh, answer MIDutche's questions. Or find someone who can.(Who isn't already up in Heaven)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#23 Mar 26, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Matthew 7:3-5 applies to everyone. It applies as much to you as it does to me.
(You'll have to forgive my copy and pasting, I haven't figured out how to show quotes like you, Bob)
"ANYTHING that says, "and then, a miracle happened" is NOT SCIENCE!"
Then what do you call the Big Bang? Oh, it wasn't a miracle, because that would be unscientific. It's a quantum fluctuation of singularity.
What do you call abiogenesis? That wasn't a miracle either, was it? Even though countless scientific studies have been done and proven it's impossibility, we still teach children that life from non-life is possible.
"They are real-- the many MANY examples of modern evolution are all around you-- but YOUR WILLFUL IGNORANCE PREVENTS YOU FROM SEEING THEM."
Name one.
"Natural selection is NOT RANDOM you ignorant dolt-- it's a directed process."
You can omit the word random if it makes you feel better. Mutations in the genetic code are random, natural selection makes it guided. Adaptation then leads to speciation.
As a side note, name-calling doesn't make you right. Let's keep this civilized.
Random or not, evolution (and the mutations that you cling to) still rely on the pre-existence of the complex biochemical pathways, and a new one has never been witnessed to come about because of evolution.
Oh, and you're right. Even if evolution was recognized to be complete nonsense, it won't mean that my ideas are correct. Unless, of course, my ideas can answer all the questions. Which, for the most part, it can. Of course, I don't claim to know it all, because who does?
"Now, go and clear the FOREST from YOUR OWN EYES FIRST."
Are you speaking of a polystrate forest? Because polystrate forests seem to be something you're ignoring when you evolutionists talk about the fossil record.
Okay, basically your argument is based on the beginning of life.

You claim that evolution could not have happened, because you cannot explain how life began.

Is that about it?

Unfortunately for you-- evolution has NOTHING TO SAY about the origins of life.

As you've been told before.

The theory of evolution works, regardless of how life actually started on earth.

Even if life was *poofed* into existence by a magical invisible friend-- evolution still works.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#24 Mar 26, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Name one.
- Wolves into toy poodles.

- Bacteria evolve the ability to eat ONLY nylon plastic.

- Domesticated corn-- cannot interbreed with any other corn species any longer, the very definition of speciation.

- bird flu virus-- didn't exist not all that long ago, is a new species of virus.

- hepatitis C virus-- new species, didn't exist prior to the 20th century.

- domestic cows; didn't exist prior to humans

These are subtle, but real examples of evolution in action.

There's more: penguins are an example of a creature that used to fly, now cannot, but swims very well-- evolution. Eventually, the penguin, if humans don't wipe it out, will evolve even more water-adapted features.

In fact-- each and every plant and animal is the end-result of evolution in action; each are transitioning into different species than their ancestors are.

For there is no artificial barrier that creationists imagine there is.

Adaptation after adaptation, eventually after enough, you get a new species.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#25 Mar 26, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Matthew 7:3-5 applies to everyone. It applies as much to you as it does to me.
Please. Stop with the Bible quotes. No one but one of your fellow Bible thumpers is going to be impressed. And they aren't the ones you are trying to convince.
CreationScience wrote:
(You'll have to forgive my copy and pasting, I haven't figured out how to show quotes like you, Bob)
"ANYTHING that says, "and then, a miracle happened" is NOT SCIENCE!"
Then what do you call the Big Bang? Oh, it wasn't a miracle, because that would be unscientific. It's a quantum fluctuation of singularity.
What do you call abiogenesis? That wasn't a miracle either, was it? Even though countless scientific studies have been done and proven it's impossibility, we still teach children that life from non-life is possible.
Now you are just trying to invoke a "God of the Gaps" argument.(A logical fallacy, BTW.) So we don't know the mechanisms of the Big Bang. I will admit it. But the evidence is pretty conclusive that a Big Bang occurred. Was its cause natural or super-natural? I think it was most likely natural. I feel that you would go with super-natural. Given the nature of the event, there may never be proof of either view. So it is moot, and will likely never be answered.

As for abiogenesis, name one scientific study that proves it was impossible. Considering that there are numerous scientists still studying it, I feel it likely that your "proof" isn't all that good.
CreationScience wrote:
"They are real-- the many MANY examples of modern evolution are all around you-- but YOUR WILLFUL IGNORANCE PREVENTS YOU FROM SEEING THEM."
Name one.
There are many...but OK, one. Nylon eating bacteria. Actually, that's two, since two species have been discovered. The telling point is that both species can live off of ONLY nylon. They can digest nothing else. Which means that they had to have evolved after the invention of nylon in the early 20th century.

continued...

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#26 Mar 26, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
"Natural selection is NOT RANDOM you ignorant dolt-- it's a directed process."
You can omit the word random if it makes you feel better. Mutations in the genetic code are random, natural selection makes it guided. Adaptation then leads to speciation.
As a side note, name-calling doesn't make you right. Let's keep this civilized.
Random or not, evolution (and the mutations that you cling to) still rely on the pre-existence of the complex biochemical pathways, and a new one has never been witnessed to come about because of evolution.
Oh, and you're right. Even if evolution was recognized to be complete nonsense, it won't mean that my ideas are correct. Unless, of course, my ideas can answer all the questions. Which, for the most part, it can. Of course, I don't claim to know it all, because who does?
And with the nylon eating bacteria, we see that your contention that there are no new biochemical pathways is just wrong. As noted, these bacteria can eat only nylon. Thus, the species they arose from had to be able to eat something other than nylon. The enzymes they use have been studied, and the enzymes they evolved from have been identified. The nylon digesting enzymes are new...for they would have been utterly useless before nylon existed.

As for your ideas being able to answer all (or even most) questions...not really. "Goddidit" answers everything, and thus really answers nothing. It gives no insight what-so-ever. It doesn't give us a clue on how to proceed to new science. In fact, it pretty much stifles any further inquiry.

BTW, name one technology that has been developed from "Goddidit".
CreationScience wrote:
"Now, go and clear the FOREST from YOUR OWN EYES FIRST."
Are you speaking of a polystrate forest? Because polystrate forests seem to be something you're ignoring when you evolutionists talk about the fossil record.
Polystrate forests...LOL. You should read up on the geology. The answer is really rather simple. The trees are vertical because they were trapped in a deep layer of sediment laid down quickly. Some of the reasons...volcanic ash fall, which can sometime reach sever meters thick...or deep silt deposits left by large floods in a river's flood plain. Talk to Fossil Bob about the subject. He is much more knowledgeable than I about it. At any rate, polystrate forests are not a problem for either geology or evolution.
MIDutch

Hartford, MI

#27 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
(You'll have to forgive my copy and pasting, I haven't figured out how to show quotes like you, Bob)
There should be a little blue "Reply" button in the top right corner of the dialogue frame you wish to respond to. Click it and it will automatically add the quote for you.
CreationScience wrote:
"ANYTHING that says, "and then, a miracle happened" is NOT SCIENCE!"
Then what do you call the Big Bang? Oh, it wasn't a miracle, because that would be unscientific. It's a quantum fluctuation of singularity.
What do you call abiogenesis? That wasn't a miracle either, was it? Even though countless scientific studies have been done and proven it's impossibility, we still teach children that life from non-life is possible.
Saying, "we don't know that yet, but we're working on it", which is a perfectly reasonable scientific answer, is not the same as "Goddidit, scientific case closed", which is the REQUIRED answer for "creationism".

Modern science has only been a round for a few hundred years and made enormous strides in the amount of knowledge gained in every scientific discipline. The lives we have today are a direct result of those gains.

"creationism" has been around for thousands of years, and has exactly what to show for it? What great scientific discoveries were a DIRECT result of "creationism"? Can you name even ONE?

I hear they still haven't found that really big boat, even after thousands of years of searching and being told EXACTLY where to look.
MIDutch

Hartford, MI

#28 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
"They are real-- the many MANY examples of modern evolution are all around you-- but YOUR WILLFUL IGNORANCE PREVENTS YOU FROM SEEING THEM."
Name one.
Mud skippers.

I always liked the sequence: weasel, otter, sea otter, sea lion (external ear features, semi distinct rear limbs), seal (no external ear features, combined rear limbs). While some of these animals are not directly related, the progression illustrates how a species evolves from living on land to living in the ocean, and all of them illustrate examples of modern evolution.

Flying squirrel.

Flying snake (unfortunately, no talking snakes).

Flying frog.

Flying lizard.

Tuskless elephants (some elephant groups are evolving into a tuskless species in response to ivory poaching. Look it up. It's extremely interesting.)
The Paul

Regina, Canada

#29 Mar 27, 2008
mee wrote:
I should know, I've conducted my own reasearch over the past year that covers the newer sciences like quantum physics. It was mind bending but just a little understanding of it shows that there is more to everything than just the darwinist view.
That's interesting. That you think you should know from reading about quantum physics. Stuff like Hawking radiation, you know what that has to do with evolution? Nothing at all.

Instead of doing your research about evolution in "other sciences" why not try researching evolution a little. If your goal is to learn about evolution that'll be a lot more efficient.

As for Expelled in Canadian theaters... I hope it doesn't really show up here. We like to think we're better than Americans and being above this anti-science bullshit would be good for the superiority complex.
The Paul

Regina, Canada

#30 Mar 27, 2008
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
Dawkins himself was exposed in the movie by claiming life could have come about through panspermia (ie: Aliens designing and implanting life here on earth), that is in fact Intelligent Design, yet he denies "God" as a possible cause lol!
You know those interviews that were mentioned? The ones that were edited to make it look like scientists were saying things they really didn't say? The Panspermia thing is an example. Dawkins doesn't believe in panspermia. He was asked if there was any way the idea of intelligently designed life on earth might be possible and he basically said, "Well it's technically possible aliens might have seeded the earth but that's not a very satisfying answer because the aliens had to come from somewhere."

Which, by the way, is hardly any different from the logic associated with God as a designer. Where did God come from? Oh, God doesn't need a point of origin? Why's that? Oh, right, because creationists don't feel they need to explain or justify their ideas.
The Paul

Regina, Canada

#31 Mar 27, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Moreover,_ALL_ of the interviews it contains from NON-Creationists were obtained under FRAUD.
Most of the interviewees requested that their interviews be erased, and NOT be used, but were refused.
Intellectual DISHONESTY.
And THEFT of intellectual property.
So: the makers of the movie are THIEVES, LIARS and committed FRAUD.
And you think I WANT to see the product of such people?
As IF!
Let's not forget their giant exercise in Godwin's Law.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#32 Mar 27, 2008
MIDutch wrote:
I hear they still haven't found that really big boat, even after thousands of years of searching and being told EXACTLY where to look.
Except that, as everyone knows, gopher wood is semi-sentient.

It's likely the ark just up and wandered off on it's own... <eyeroll>

I understand it got together with the other biblical ark, and the two are off on a long vacation somewhere.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#33 Mar 27, 2008
The Paul wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's not forget their giant exercise in Godwin's Law.
Godwin's Law?

I'm not familiar with that term.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#34 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Are you speaking of a polystrate forest? Because polystrate forests seem to be something you're ignoring when you evolutionists talk about the fossil record.
Not at all...it's been discussed around "here" many times (and I know, because I'm the one discussing it!).

Due to the average creationist's complete lack of geological knowledge, I guess it's easy to come up with bizarre conclusions...but such fossils commonly formed along river floodplains, within down-dropped fault blocks, along sinking coastlines...

Creationist misconceptions that every foot of sediment MUST represent 1,000 or 1 million years cause most of the conceptual problems...

Check out this site:

http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/research/coal/fossil...

A whole standing forest covering many square miles...a nice example of "polystrat" fossils!

“Creation Science!”

Since: Mar 08

Grand Island, NY

#35 Mar 27, 2008
Domesticated cows, flying frogs and flying squirrels are examples of speciation. You seem to be labeling the non-evolutionary processes as evolution again.

Tuskless elephants. That is interesting. But, that's actually quite anti-evolutionary isn't it? However, it's still adaptation!

Never found a huge boat? Well, considering it was made of wood and on the top of a mountain, I would expect it to be pretty much eroded away by now, would you? Unless there was some evidence of wood once being up there, maybe fossilized or petrified?
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news...

I also love when evolutionists claim that creationists never do anything.

I would mention Francis Collins, but he just thinks that "goddidit".

We've got:
(Physics) Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
(Chemistry) Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
(Biology) Ray Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
(Geology) Buckland, Cuiver, Steno, Woodward, Kepler
(Astronomy)Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
(Mathematics) Pascal, Leibnitz and Euler.

Currently practicing scientists include:
Humphreys (nuclear physics)
Baumgardner (plate tectonics)
Boudreaux (physical chemistry)
Giertych (Genetics)
Damadian (invented the MRI)
Raymond Jones (bacterial symbiosis studies)
Gish (Biochemistry)

There are also no theaters in New York State playing Expelled (my local theaters said it's because it's controversial). But of course, hundreds of local theaters played documentaries like: Sicko, An Inconvenient Truth, Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11.
Bud

Tallahassee, FL

#36 Mar 27, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Godwin's Law?
I'm not familiar with that term.
It's a play on words:

God wins.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#37 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Domesticated cows, flying frogs and flying squirrels are examples of speciation. You seem to be labeling the non-evolutionary processes as evolution again.
Dude-- it's ALL evolution!

If things were FIXED as SPECIFIED BY CREATIONISM, then we'd NEVER, EVER see such things!

Ever!

Hmmm.

Inconsistent, much?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#38 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
I would mention Francis Collins, but he just thinks that "goddidit".
Now I KNOW you're LYING.

Collins is NOT A CREATIONIST!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_...

He claims to be a believer, so?

_Lots_ of people believe, but are NOT CREATIONISTS.

Collins FULLY supports EVOLUTION!

Geeze, dude.. you put your FOOT in it AGAIN.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#39 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
We've got:
(Physics) Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
(Chemistry) Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
(Biology) Ray Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
(Geology) Buckland, Cuiver, Steno, Woodward, Kepler
(Astronomy)Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
(Mathematics) Pascal, Leibnitz and Euler.
None of these are creationists.
CreationScience wrote:
Currently practicing scientists include:
Humphreys (nuclear physics)
Baumgardner (plate tectonics)
Boudreaux (physical chemistry)
Giertych (Genetics)
Damadian (invented the MRI)
Raymond Jones (bacterial symbiosis studies)
Gish (Biochemistry)
Either these are NOT experts in biology, or else you're lying again-- for there are NO reputable scientists in creationism.

It ain't SCIENCE.
CreationScience wrote:
There are also no theaters in New York State playing Expelled (my local theaters said it's because it's controversial).
Nope. False.

It's not being shown, because it's producers LIED to gain content, and because it STOLE intellectual property, and is apt to be sued.

I've read a number of reviews about it-- see the following links:
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
ROFL!!!
PZ Myers, one of the scientists "interviewed" for "Expelled", was...well...expelled from a showing of the movie. For his story, see...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/ex...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_...
PZ's daughter was not expelled from the movie, and gives a review. See...
http://skatje.com/...
What if really hilarious is that while PZ was expelled, the DI guys overlooked Richard Dawkins, who apparently asked some embarrassing questions in the Q&A following the showing.
CreationScience wrote:
But of course, hundreds of local theaters played documentaries like: Sicko, An Inconvenient Truth, Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11.
So? These didn't STEAL their content.....!
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#40 Mar 27, 2008
>>>>>CreationSc ience
Domesticated cows, flying frogs and flying squirrels are examples of speciation.

>>>Gillette
speciation
The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

Want to take that one back?:)

>>>>>CreationSc ience
Tuskless elephants. That is interesting. But, that's actually quite anti-evolutionary isn't it?

>>>Gillette
Only to fundamentalist Christians who harbor, mistaken, straw-man versions of evolution, and don't really understand the real thing -- or worse, actually DO understand the real thing, but misrepresent it in order to push their religious beliefs. Know anybody like that?

>>>>>CreationSc ience
I also love when evolutionists claim that creationists never do anything.

>>>Gillette
You've been asked to provide examples of oil companies or drug companies or medical technology companies that have made discoveries and advancements based on Christian "Creation Science." Nothing yet from you.

>>>>>CreationSc ience
I would mention Francis Collins, but he just thinks that "goddidit".

>>>>Gillette
Collins also EXPLICITLY teaches that God uses EVOLUTION to "do it" He's a Theistic Evolutionist, and not Creationist. So I wouldn't mention him, if I were you.

>>>>>CreationSc ience
We've got:
(Physics) Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
(Chemistry) Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
(Biology) Ray Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
(Geology) Buckland, Cuiver, Steno, Woodward, Kepler
(Astronomy)Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
(Mathematics) Pascal, Leibnitz and Euler.

>>>>Gillette
Bullsh!t. It's pretty disingenuous to claim scientists that lived years (or centuries) before Darwin and before the era of modern science were "Creationists."

The more intriguing question is "If those great early scientist were alive today, what would they believe and propound?"

It's hard to imagine a genius like Isaac Newton being a brain-dead Young Earth Creationist. He was barely a Christian at all, by orthodox 18th century standards. He clearly be on the cutting edge of quantum physics, and he'd accept the findings of modern biology with regard to evolution. I suspect he would describe himself as a Theistic Evolutionist.

Perhaps Newton and the others would be atheists today, or agnostics. Certainly, they lived in eras when it was improper, if not dangerous and illegal and potentially fatal, to be known as an atheist.ruth, Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11.

There's a distinct difference, by the way, between believing in God and being a Creationist (literal Genesis interpretation). You are deliberately and dishonestly blurring that distinction.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#41 Mar 27, 2008
CreationScience

This is from a nearby thread. I thought it demanded repeating for you.

>>>>EADGBE
If you invoke magic, then one can always make the evidence fit the model. The same cannot be said of science and the ToE. In the end creationism cannot be disproven if one allows for God to create in a manner that covers up the magic by making it look natural ("last thursdayism"). The invocation of magic is exactly why creationism can never be science as there is no mechanism.

For this same reason, there has never been an applicable "discovery" to arise from AIG, ICR or Grisda, no pharmaceutical companies employ "creation research", no oil companies employ "flood geology", no patents, no predictions and no technologies.

Question the ToE all you wish but understand it will remain our best scientific explanation and the most fruitful framework for answering questions of medicine, agriculture and ecology.

You're not the first and certainly won't be the last to offer negative arguments of incredulity and to believe anything less than certainty renders the ToE suspect, however, do you ever question why you make such demands for evidence for the ToE yet make no such demands for your beliefs?

End Quote

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min Blitzking 132,775
How would creationists explain... 1 hr jbandelin 344
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 4 hr MikeF 546
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 6 hr Brian_G 13,622
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... 23 hr nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Fri Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) Fri Ricky F 2,936
More from around the web