Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[Minimalist]

Quote:Can I sum this bit of your post up as "sometimes science gets it wrong!". Granted, no one is surprised.

That is part of the scientific process which creationist morons seem incapable of comprehending.

Rather than seek to learn they cling to ancient fables with the tenacity of a bulldog on a steak and pretend that their stubbornness is a virtue.

[RaphielDrake]

(21st February 2012 19:55)Undeceived Wrote:  

(19th February 2012 19:51)RaphielDrake Wrote:  I'm annoyed now, not because of the questions but how easily you could answer them just by googling them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

The 20 total 'transitional fossils' listed on wikipedia are given no proof they are actually transitional. There is nothing to show they weren't their own organism created by God and gone extinct. You appear to have a lot of faith in evolutionists. Examine their motives for a second. Their goal is to show how life could develop by natural means (without God). To do this, they know they need to find transitional fossils. But they've only found 20 vaguely close, and those are yet to be confirmed. Scientists can't tell everything about an organism by its fossil. They used to think the platypus was transitional, and it looked that way by its fossils, but testing on the living creature revealed it wasn't even close. In fact, it was so far from everything else they put it on its own branch. I admire evolutionists' effort, but there simply isn't any conclusive evidence. Do we know if these 'adapted' organisms could breed with the source species? Maybe they could, and that would confine the observation back to microevolution. Other previous transitionals were erased too. The Archaeopteryx has recently been reclassified by paleontologists as a true bird because each of its features is either found in true birds or is absent in many reptiles. So I'm shocked (actually I'm not) that wikipedia still has it on its list-- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v47...10288.html
The Tiktaalik, thought to be the first legged-organism, has also been debunked. One year after its pronouncement as a transitional fossil, footprints were discovered in an older strata.

Quote:When you look at evolution you picture an amoebae suddenly sprouting legs, lung, eyes, a suitcase and all other kinds of extremities. That is not the case.

Agreed. My point is that a leg needs hundreds or thousands of mutations all to happen at once to even get an extrusion that is useful in a similar way to a leg. Meanwhile, scientists have yet to find one of the multitude of transitional fossils showing its development. I'm not endeavoring to disprove evolution with this one fact-- I'm only demonstrating what little evolutionists have to go on, how one wouldn't believe on so little unless they were predicated to a naturalistic solution already, and how it is quite possible for the whole theory to have been manufactured. We're not looking for how species could have fit together or how they could have evolved. We're looking for a conclusive proof that they did evolve... over the divine alternative.

Quote:As for similarities between species, just because a scientist says two species are similar and share similar properties doesn't mean that a dolphin mounted a shark at some point, it means that they are similar. That they survive in a similar way. How does this statement translate into being "selective"?

It is selective because scientists are arranging the fossil record based on similarities. They put a group of organisms together because they are similar-- and ignore other similar organisms because they can't have the fossil tree overlap a hundred times. They have to be selective and choose which similar organisms are similar because of relation and which are similar just by their environment. To make that decision they appeal to what makes the most sense for their theory: namely, that lower-complexity organisms go first. But it is circular logic to use your theory to ultimately support your theory. The same goes for dating. You claim we have too few fossils to see 99.9% of all the organisms ever existent, yet at the same time claim that the .1% we do have reveal the dates of their arrival (fossils only showing deaths due to cataclysmic events). If fossils are so scarce, how can you be sure the trilobite didn't live a billion years earlier? You aren't sure, but you hope it didn't because it would destroy the evolution theory.

Evolution has no conclusive facts. It is a theory built in response to the evidence, rather than confirmed by it, and is based on the assumption that life has a naturalistic cause. If you base any theory on an assumption and in response to evidence there is no way you can be proved wrong because your foundations are backward and circular. The source of life has no conclusive evidence from either side, as neither is observable. Both have to be taken on faith. If you have faith that all we can know is in the natural realm, then go ahead and believe that. There are three main parties: atheists or naturalists who believe they can know that a God does not exist; agnostics who believe they cannot know whether God exists; and theists who believe they can know God exists because they were created in his image and he left clues. Most people prefer not to be locked in the first bubble, since it is the more closed and arrogant of the three. But what fewer people understand is that evolution is firmly founded in it, and even uses it as one of its premises. If you use evolution as one of your reasons for atheism, rethink yourself. A premise cannot be both a support and a proof.

---

(21st February 2012 17:27)Phil Wrote:  

(21st February 2012 11:11)Zen Badger Wrote:  "The human eye is an example of an irreducibly complex organ."

I wonder what he would say if a trilobite gave him a stony gaze with his calcite eyes? Since trilobites are extinct I guess that will never happen but a Brittlestar can give him the same stony gaze with it's calcite (rock) eyes.

Trilobite eyes are also examples of irreducible complexity. Much to evolutionists' dismay, they are not simple at all:

http://www.create.ab.ca/the-trilobite-ey...ex-design/
http://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-d...mechanisms

I'm not sure how to respond. Those were obviously examples on wikipedia and there are more. What you're looking for is a flickbook that shows *every* transitional form and thats impossible as that would require a fossil of *all* of the billions upon billions there would be and even then you probably wouldn't satisfied. I'm not sure what scientists would have to actually do to prove evolution to you because whatever evidence they present to you you'd dismiss based on nothing.

To most, the fact that we can follow the process in many existing organisms today, that we do have transitional forms regardless of how many were fossilized and that our current adaptations fit the bill, that it is an explanation backed up by genetics, I mean the amount of stuff supporting it is untrue, to most people would consider that conclusive to Evolution being true. Although it doesn't define the origins of how it ultimately began theres sufficent proof to say that Evolution is why we have emerged from all of this.
But hold on, Undecieved has a different theory based on his meticulous research and experience... God did it. God made man out of dust and instead of doing the same with woman decided to make her out of the poor sods rib. They then mated so much that we all emerged.

I mean wow. It really is amazing when you put it like that but thats the basic premise behind everything you're saying. And what do you do to back it up? Do you present proof of your theory? No. You bring up debunked stuff, well if its debunked that means they're no longer accepted by the scientific community thanks to fellow scientists exploring it further. If theres a sizable amount of perfectly legitimate evidence still backing up evolution then its still the most plausible and conclusive theory of how life emerged on this planet.
If I came up with the theory electricity gave me superpowers and that got debunked, would electricity be debunked as default? No, of course it wouldn't. That would be incredibly stupid but that is the essence of your entire argument.
Oh and nothing is "irreducibly complex", to imply there is would be to imply a knowledge that encompasses everything. You don't know if it can be reduced in complexity because you don't have the knowledge to do so. Fortunately science is all about gaining the knowledge.

The fact people have the intellectual courage to explore these things constantly is what makes us interesting as a species. I apologize if I don't have quite as much passion in defending the theory that an entity with alot of time on his hands made us and controls everything we do despite its impressive and complete lack of evidence but what can I say?
I guess I just evolved that way.

[chi pan]

(21st February 2012 15:21)Zen Badger Wrote:  You are correct that it returns to nitrogen(sorry my bad) but how can it run out if it is being constantly renewed?

Uv rays In the atmosphere enrich the carbon atoms in carbon dioxide. It gets absorbed by plants and we eat the plants. Don't take my word for it, look up how carbon dating works.

---

(21st February 2012 18:19)Minimalist Wrote:  So I ran through Chippy's list of "doctors" and found a geologist, a biochemist, a mathematician and a physicist all of whom are members in good standing of the creation institute except the two who are dead.

So once again, Chippy, creationism is not science...it is religion. Try to come up with an evolutionary biologist who thinks that all life was created 6,000 years ago in the middle east.

And while you're at it blow jesus out your ass.

Irrelevant. All I was asked to do was point out those who have a phd in the subject and don't believe evolutionary theories which I did. It doesn't matter about their religion. Is an athiest any smarter than a deist? My point is that they know way more than you do about the subject and they don't believe it.

[Minimalist]

Quote:Agreed. My point is that a leg needs hundreds or thousands of mutations all to happen at once to even get an extrusion that is useful in a similar way to a leg

And demonstrating yet again that you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Really, you should be embarrassed to write such drivel but I know we can't embarrass a talking snake believer.

http://denisdutton.com/dawkins_review.htm

Quote:The metaphor of the title has us standing before vast mountains of life history wondering how we — or life itself — could ever possibly have scaled their sheer, vertical faces. The rubble at our feet are viruses and other simple organisms, while the pinnacles represent organisms of unimaginable complexity, elephants or human beings, along with their individual parts, such as the eye. How you climb from bacteria to the summits of evolution poses an intellectual challenge for which Dawkins offers advice: look around to the other side of the mountains to see how over eons of time the gradualist selection for slightly advantageous adaptations can get us, by way of gentle hills and gradual inclines, to the peaks.

The eye, that standard example of God’s intelligent handiwork for anti-Darwin creationists, is shown to have evolved separately at least forty times on the slopes of the far side of Mount Improbable. And so it is with other adaptations which seem so far-fetched. In billions of years of geological time, the statistically improbable becomes biologically likely.

Dawkins finishes with a sketch of the astounding coevolution of fig trees and fig wasps — each fig an enclosed flower garden tended according to its kind by a specialised species of wasp — leaving the reader with a glimpse of the staggering complexity of evolved life. It’s a sublime view.

As long as you are going to pontificate about creationist drivel you can expect to be treated like a creationist moron.

[Phil]

(21st February 2012 19:55)Undeceived Wrote:  Trilobite eyes are also examples of irreducible complexity. Much to evolutionists' dismay, they are not simple at all:

http://www.create.ab.ca/the-trilobite-ey...ex-design/
http://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-d...mechanisms

I found a picture of you and chiapet at work.



Why am I not surprised?

[Godschild]

(21st February 2012 07:04)Minimalist Wrote:  

Quote:Again you show your lack to debate, name calling must be your major in the sandbox, bet you do not have any competition either, you probably send the rest of the kids home crying.

Hey, fuckhead...you've got nothing to debate. All you have is a book of fairy tales and your idiotic vision of a god who played in the dirt and made fools like you.


When you have any evidence that the world began 6,000 years ago let me know. I can have another good laugh at your expense going over it.

I've never claimed the earth is 6000 years old and have stated it could be 50,0000.

[Minimalist]

Quote:I've never claimed the earth is 6000 years old and have stated it could be 50,0000.

I can't keep track of all of your silly claims...and they are legion.

BTW, are you trying to say 50,000 or 500,000 ( oh what a difference a little comma makes) which would be an improvement but still incredibly wrong.

[Stimbo]

(22nd February 2012 05:30)Godschild Wrote:  I've never claimed the earth is 6000 years old and have stated it could be 50,0000.

'Scuse me...










Thank you. Carry on.

[KichigaiNeko]

(21st February 2012 17:27)Phil Wrote:  

(21st February 2012 11:11)Zen Badger Wrote:  "The human eye is an example of an irreducibly complex organ."

I wonder what he would say if a trilobite gave him a stony gaze with his calcite eyes? Since trilobites are extinct I guess that will never happen but a Brittlestar can give him the same stony gaze with it's calcite (rock) eyes.

On the subject of eyes, calcite and "crystal" vision

http://news.discovery.com/earth/navigati...sense.html

[Zen Badger]

(21st February 2012 23:59)chipan Wrote:  

(21st February 2012 15:21)Zen Badger Wrote:  You are correct that it returns to nitrogen(sorry my bad) but how can it run out if it is being constantly renewed?

Uv rays In the atmosphere enrich the carbon atoms in carbon dioxide. It gets absorbed by plants and we eat the plants. Don't take my word for it, look up how carbon dating works.

---

In this you are wrong, nitrogen is converted to C14 which is then along with stable C12 absorbed by plants which are in turn eaten by animals.

C14(as you correctly pointed out) then decays back into nitrogen.
It is the ratio of remaining C14 to C12 that allows science to determine the time of death of an organism.

(21st February 2012 18:19)Minimalist Wrote:  So I ran through Chippy's list of "doctors" and found a geologist, a biochemist, a mathematician and a physicist all of whom are members in good standing of the creation institute except the two who are dead.
So once again, Chippy, creationism is not science...it is religion. Try to come up with an evolutionary biologist who thinks that all life was created 6,000 years ago in the middle east.

And while you're at it blow jesus out your ass.

Quote:Irrelevant. All I was asked to do was point out those who have a phd in the subject and don't believe evolutionary theories which I did. It doesn't matter about their religion. Is an athiest any smarter than a deist? My point is that they know way more than you do about the subject and they don't believe it.

It very does matter about their religion.
AnswersinGenesis have a statement of Faith that declares that evidence is secondary to scripture. And that if said evidence contradicts the bible then it is the evidence that is wrong.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...NOTcqZQ0bA

With that sort of attitude how can it be real science?