Evolution vs. Creation

[Charles Idemi]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
Gaps.... to date!
Charles, concrete evidence wouldn't phase you if it were in the form of a brick wall that just landed on you. Stop lying.

More lies. Send them him.
Next?

[anonymous]

straa wrote:

<quoted text>
If you don't believe that humans evolved from apes, then where do you think we came from, the earth is four billion years old, but thete are no bones of ancient humans, so we are a relatively new species, do you think that we just suddenly sprouted out of the ground from nothing, what is your alternative

You'll just get her started again with her belligerence and irrelevant links. She probably will claim that our origin is not relevant. She just wants to put those "evos" in their place.

Others have labelled this a "Gish Gallup" which I've just found a definition of.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

It fits.

[anonymous]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> More lies. Send them him.
Next?

I think your situation is better defined as "Fractal Wrongness".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongnes...

......You asked!

[Charles Idemi]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
No, but you're the one who's invoking statistics, and banking on religiosity among the young is a bad bet.

Do you disagree with Einstein's view which says, " Science without Religion is lame" ?

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

In other words, you're backpedaling from your claim that Germans can "understand" Old English. Yeah, we get that. You lost the debate.
<quoted text>
Provide a relevant quote. If not, you still lose.

Liar and loser. I gave you an authority in that field by name, Cyril Babaev, you refuse going through.

[Drew Smith]

In other words, you're backpedaling from your claim that Germans can "understand" Old English. Yeah, we get that. You lost the debate.

Provide a relevant quote. If not, you still lose.

Charles Idemi wrote:

Liar and loser. I gave you an authority...

What part of "provide a quote" do you not understand? It's written in English. Do you not understand English?

Until you provide an actual *quote* that supports your position, your handwaving at some "authority" is meaningless.(In fact, when you can't provide a quote, it tells us that you haven't even read the material you're citing as an authority.)

[Charles Idemi]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
I think your situation is better defined as "Fractal Wrongness".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongnes...
......You asked!

Grow up and stop being naive.

[TheBlackSheep]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Lastly, if according to researches, history and sources( the internet), modern English is a language evolving or developing from many European languages, but the language came as a single language, to became one unique language, which is unique to England( the English people).

The German's created the English language and the English stole it.

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

In other words, you're backpedaling from your claim that Germans can "understand" Old English. Yeah, we get that. You lost the debate.
<quoted text>
Provide a relevant quote. If not, you still lose.

The truth, you are just too ashamed and afraid to go to the works of Cyril Babaev. Every answers to your questions are there.

[superwilly]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no first-hand record of Jesus' existence.
Evolution is not misleading. It does not just happen on a small scale.
Animals do evolve into new species. The defining of species may be considered subjective but once one variant can no longer interbreed with another variant of a parent species, they are considered separate species.
A tarantula is an arachnid, not an insect.

Wrong, there are "first hand" extra biblical records.

They are few, but they exist.

There is more than any "evidence" for the existence of socrates.

[anonymous]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Do you disagree with Einstein's view which says, " Science without Religion is lame" ?

Nope! Not a bit!

...and you're a liar.

[MazHere]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
I already did. You are not an expert in this subject and neither am I. So far you have posted nothing that made the experts in this field to even blink. You made the claim, it was up to you to make it in the first place, you failed. You could not find anyone who new anything of the subject to support your claim.
And there is no such thing as flood geology. That bit the dust before Darwin even made the scene.

Listen you silly person. You have no clue. The laat time you pathetically sprooked about some defence you presented you it was based on prattle a s some vague priori that I need to accept creation has not support if I were to be truthful.

Would you like me to requote that crap you posted again?

Then you took one of many examples that do NOT support TOE, in the modern bird footprints, driibled about how the term used was bird lke, was refuted on the fact that terminology was baseless said because evos can't have modern birds flying around 212mya and that was that.

You've made chalenges and then ran away when you lost ground and realized your silly theory is not the glossy picture evos like to make it out to be.

The above is your version of debating. You actually have no idea.

You cannot out debate me and you now speak to imaginary replies to save face on this forum.

[Charles Idemi]

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
The German's created the English language and the English stole it.

Ask the Angles, Jutes and the Saxons that question, why did they left Germany without a single trace( deserted).

[anonymous]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Grow up and stop being naive.

Don't be temperamental when the description fits you to a "T".

Like the Mandelbrot graph whose border one can never walk, you can't walk it either as demonstrated by your inane obsession with English, royalty, proving negatives and on, and on and on. Your defense is to keep adding irrelevancy to it.

It's some kind of psychologically maladjusted defense mechanism, I'd assume. The obvious truth is that we aren't the only ones to observe it. It's well documented in the world of rational debate.

Charles, you should consider seeing a doctor. I'm no expert, but my first guess would be Asperger's Syndrome. They can't cure it, but they can help you to live with it. I'm not joking.

[anonymous]

superwilly wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong, there are "first hand" extra biblical records.
They are few, but they exist.
There is more than any "evidence" for the existence of socrates.

Show us then! I'm not too worried about the actual existence of Socrates. He's remembered for his ideas, not his mythology. Some people claim that Shakespeare is a pen name given to several authors too. It doesn't change the artistic value of his work any more than the philosophical value of Socrates' works are changes by his actual existence.

The story of Jesus is laden with miracles. People claim that science is invalidated by the "proof" of his miracles, so I want to see that proof under the same rigors that are used in science. Not just proof of his existence, but physical evidence of those miracles as well.

It won't happen but if faith is what matters to you, I'm not going to kill you over it.

[Drew Smith]

In other words, you're backpedaling from your claim that Germans can "understand" Old English. Yeah, we get that. You lost the debate.
<quoted text>
Provide a relevant quote. If not, you still lose.

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> The truth, you are just too ashamed and afraid to go to the works of Cyril Babaev. Every answers to your questions are there.

Then provide the quote. The burden of proof is upon *you*.*You* made the claim.

It's not *my* responsibility to do research to support *your* claim.

If you can't provide the quote, it tells us that you haven't even read Babaev.

[Dogen]

Charles Idemi wrote:

<quoted text> Do you disagree with Einstein's view which says, " Science without Religion is lame" ?

Do you disagree with Einstein's view which says, "Religion without science is blind."?

What about this view of Einstein's: "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

[Dogen]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Listen you silly person. You have no clue. The laat time you pathetically sprooked about some defence you presented you it was based on prattle a s some vague priori that I need to accept creation has not support if I were to be truthful.
Would you like me to requote that crap you posted again?
Then you took one of many examples that do NOT support TOE, in the modern bird footprints, driibled about how the term used was bird lke, was refuted on the fact that terminology was baseless said because evos can't have modern birds flying around 212mya and that was that.
You've made chalenges and then ran away when you lost ground and realized your silly theory is not the glossy picture evos like to make it out to be.
The above is your version of debating. You actually have no idea.
You cannot out debate me and you now speak to imaginary replies to save face on this forum.

Actually it is you who seems unskilled in debate. The ground of your arguments is 'evolution can't happen, therefore goddoneit.'

Of course that is hardly what one would consider to be a rational argument.

[MazHere]

straa wrote:

<quoted text>
If you don't believe that humans evolved from apes, then where do you think we came from, the earth is four billion years old, but thete are no bones of ancient humans, so we are a relatively new species, do you think that we just suddenly sprouted out of the ground from nothing, what is your alternative

Are you serious? It is you evos that believe life sprouted out of the ground from elements, not me.

I actually believe in a God that has the power to do many things we don't understand and can't explain.

Does it surprise you that there are things science cannot explain at present?

Indeed what has progressed in relation to a deities ability to create a living organism out of the elements of the earth is that it has been demonstrated that energy, what God is, can be transformed into matter. Theist evolutionists do not believe in this power. They believe in miracles yet deny the power of God as being limited to their ability to explain it, which of course is ridiculous.

For me, who does not really care how God created, I am curious as to just how well TOE is supported. I have demonstrated that TOE is not supported as robustly as evolutionists would have the community believe.

Indeed both sides of the debate can present interpretations of data and algorithmic magic to support their view.

The best evidence evos had was 'junk' dna and vestigial organs that were functionless. These were remnants of evolution. That was great support for TOE. Although there is some algorithmic magic at play here it appeared to be a more substantive form of evidence than guessworking and speculation around deep history.

That evidence was in contrast to creationist predictions, which have remained stable, that in time non coding dna will be found to have function and that vestigial organs will also be found to have function.

This set the battle up between opposing views. This was actually testable with time.

What has happened with junk dna is that indeed there is now evidence that at least 80% of the genome is functional. Some researchers now conclude that it is very likely that 100% of the genome will be found to have function.

What has happened with vetigial organs is that more and more researchers are finding that these so called functionless organs do indeed have function but that function may be different. So much so were these finding confirmed that the definition of vestigial organ was changed by evolutionists to reflect 'different function' as opposed to no function at all. eg appendix

So in actual fact, although the whole lot of the debate for either side, is based on speculative and assumptive interpretations of data, it appears to me that creationists hold the upper hand.

Evolutionists, as far as I am concerned, have lost the very best they had to offer.

Of secondary importance to me is this fossil record. Moses wrote Genesis that already spoke to what would be found with plants first, creatures of the sea, then land animals and last mankind. Evolutionists have copied this idea and continue to confirm the biblical account, but whales and birds in TOE are out of alignment with Genesis as whales are creatures of the sea and birds were created after the creatures of the sea. Genesis gives creos a scenario to falsify or support. Evos have no scenario past 'it all evolved' and make it up as they go along.

Modern birds appear in the record at 212mya, a newly found basilosaurus 49myo predating its supposed ancestor Indohyus and a line of other almost codated fossils, unexplained whale fossils in Michagan in strata dated to 290mya that researchers cannot explain.

I do not see evos fossil evidence as being convincing and certianly no more convincing than any creo interpretation I can offer on the data available.

The above is why, although I don't really care how God created I choose to support creationism in general.

[superwilly]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
Show us then! I'm not too worried about the actual existence of Socrates. He's remembered for his ideas, not his mythology. Some people claim that Shakespeare is a pen name given to several authors too. It doesn't change the artistic value of his work any more than the philosophical value of Socrates' works are changes by his actual existence.
The story of Jesus is laden with miracles. People claim that science is invalidated by the "proof" of his miracles, so I want to see that proof under the same rigors that are used in science. Not just proof of his existence, but physical evidence of those miracles as well.
It won't happen but if faith is what matters to you, I'm not going to kill you over it.

Your original post stated emphatically that there is NO empirical evidence that Jesus ever existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...

Here you will find a fair, though incomplete, exposition of the historicity of Jesus.

There is more evidence than there is for the existence of socrates.

As for your comment regarding socrates "He's remembered for his ideas....", we have no first hand record of anything he wrote or said, just apocryphal stories.

Same level of proof as, for example, gospels.