(February 18, 2012 at 7:26 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:The conversation did not start with the burden of proof that he was perfect it started YOU saying its not possible because it contradicts the very definition. That's it. I answered the question and that's all I'm obligated to do.

More sophistry.


A philosphical question does not preclude the provision of physical proof,unless one happens to be a neo platonist. I reject the notion that truth can be revealed by reason alone,I demand evidence.

The statement there is god is a metaphysical question. Never the less,to accept the truth of the proposition I demand evidence. That a question may be unprovable or unfalsifiable is not my problem.

The claim that Jesus was perfect in his actions is in fact provable by observation. It is also falsifiable by observation of ONE imperfect act. I can think of one beauty off hand: His behaviour towards the money lenders was so wrong I've long though it was a later inclusion by some REALLY ignorant gentile. Be happy to explain it to you. Oh, I've also discussed this with a Rabbi at an on-line yeshiva.


Bored now,but my fault entirely. I should know better than to try to have a rational discussion with a presuppositional apologist. It's like playing chess with a pigeon;it knocks over the pieces,craps on the board and starts cooing in victory.

Look my goal from the beginning was not to prove that Jesus was perfect. It was simply to prove your statement wrong saying that it is impossible for Jesus to be man and perfect because it contradicts the definition; which succeeded in doing. If you would like to change the subject to whether there's any evidence of this I suggest you ask first or at least notify me. Changing the topic randomly is confusing. I also don't think it's fair for you to claim victory when you change the game in the middle. What you ask for me to do is impossible. In order to prove that Jesus was without sin I would have to be present with him to observe everything he did to ensure he did not secretly lie or steal or whatever. Not Only that but Jesus said if you think about sinning then you have already sinned. So I would have to be present with him his whole life and a mind reader to prove this which last time I checked is not possible. On the other hand, you address Jesus' behavior towards the money exchangers outside the temple as a case for his sin. I don't need to be informed about this I know very well the story. First, though you may think it to be wrong that's not the argument here. The argument is whether he sinned and so I raise the question what commandment did he break here? In addition, I can justify his action in doing this. He turned the tables yelling you turn my father's house into a den of thieves. Why does he think that? Well the exchange. Booths originally prove a great service by exchanging money for offering. Not bad right? But the problem was they raised their exchange rates so high it was like stealing. This is why he reacted this way.

(February 18, 2012 at 4:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Did you know that C-14 dating organisms in the oldest stratum makes the world out to be 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

Real scientists know that C-14 is useful only to about 50,000 years ago.

That is a non factor and red herring. If the earth happens to be young, obviously C-14 is okay. You're already assuming the earth is old before we've even done any testing. Suppose the world is young. C-14 would work. And K-Ar would be inaccurate in the exact same way that it is. The problem is, you don't know if the earth is old or young to begin with. You must know whether it is old or young before you date. If the earth is 6,000 years old, you get the dates we get with both C-14 (6k-10k) and K-Ar (4-5B) K-Ar is thrown off because it is not supposed to be used on younger ages, by the very same logic as your above statement. Dating therefore supports creationism, period. Next thought. If the earth is billions of years old, you get the same K-Ar you get if the earth is 6,000 years (4-5Billion) and you shouldn't get a C-14 at all, yet you do. All traces of C-14 should be gone. Yet not only is there enough C-14 to date, but it happens to come out to the near exact age the Bible implies the earth is. Do you think that's mere coincidence?

---

(February 18, 2012 at 3:44 pm)teblin Wrote: The evidence for evolution can be made from four main sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species

There is no 'change' recorded in the fossil record. No before and after or evidence of cause and effect. All we have are fossils of separate species that scientists piece together according to similarities. We should have transitional fossils, since theoretically gradual evolution requires hundreds of forms between most of our known species. Why is it we have 20+ fossils of many extinct organisms but not a single one of the necessary hundred between them?

Quote:2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

These are the similarities behind the fossil record. But similarities don't mean one came from another, it just means they're similar. If God wanted to make 10 types of cats, they would all be similar or they wouldn't be cats. Scientists have a difficult time arranging the fossil tree using this method because there are organisms on opposite sides that are oftentimes more similar than ones close by. They call this 'convergent evolution' which is basically the assumption that two separate trees of species will be so lucky as to evolve the same traits, as if they weren't lucky enough to gain them in the first place. The chances of the eye forming is something like 10^20 and scientists want us to believe it could have happened multiple times in different places? That's real faith.

Quote:3. the geographic distribution of related species

There are birds, flies, primates, felines, ect. all over the world. Species are too well distributed to have evolved and found their places before Pangea supposedly split. Specific species are in specific habitats because they are suited for that habitat. They could have evolved to fit that habitat or God could have put them in that habitat to begin with. As climates change, they migrate. I'm using the dichotomy of the God of the Bible versus evolution here. Evolution fits, but so does God. We haven't moved anywhere. Evolution, you will find, always fits given enough time because it is a 'response theory,' meaning scientists see what they need and conform evolution to it. Anytime something contradicts evolution, they alter their theory. So don't accuse creationists of doing that, because it's mutual.

Quote:4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

Provide a link to these recorded changes, please. My bet is you mean microevolution, or variance, which is not true evolution in terms of increasing complexity. In microevolution, non-useful genes die out over time and the stronger ones take precedence. Maybe, if you're lucky, you'll have a mutation in there. Creationists wholeheartedly agree that microevolution occurs. If it didn't, we couldn't breed special cows that provided more milk or engineer disease-resistant tomato plants. It's macroevolution, or long-term speciation, that we are still looking for. One species must become another, and new information (like new tissues) must be added to the genetic code. The organism must gain complexity, and we have never observed an organism gaining complexity except in 1-1000 odds in which the majority of the test subjects died. There should be a tendency to increase complexity, and so far scientists have not been able to demonstrate that. If they can't show it in a lab, what makes you think it will happen in real, uncontrolled environments?

Quote:Natural selection itself is sufficient evidence to explain the functionality and complexity of the biological world.

Natural selection by definition reduces complexity. The organism with the suitable gene lives and the organism with the less-suitable gene dies. The less-suitable gene is lost and the gene pool shrinks. Ex: We had black and white rabbits before. We only have white ones now because we're in the arctic. No new tissues have been gained in the process, and species go extinct rather than break into separate species. Genes need to come from somewhere before natural selection takes place.

"Anytime something contradicts evolution, they alter their theory. So don't accuse creationists of doing that, because it's mutual. "

The thing is, religion starts off with all the answers and looks for claims to support itself. Science starts from the ground up and works towards a sound conclusion. I'm not sure why God would reveal himself to Middle-Eastern tribesmen and not some civilisation far more capable of interpreting such information, like the Ancient Greeks.

Of course we can't explain creationism because there is no evidence. It's based on belief without reason. DNA supports evolution, you can see the countless ways in which DNA has evolved over the centuries. The 16S rRNA protein molecule stays the same within one species but in others it changes often. The species in which it sees no change is the ancestor species, the changes are not seen until later contact with other species. This shows when different species appeared and mutated due to evolutionary changes. Intelligent beings such as your 'God' do not come into existence magically, out of nowhere. And saying you can't apply usual rules of science to God achieves nothing. You have done nothing to prove his existence. Humans came about after a very long evolutionary journey. Just look at the Galapagos bird evolution.

Creationism also supports a 6000-year old Earth. Leading creationists admit to believing that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, yet fossils of both have never been found together. I am also aware, however, that there are old-Earth and new-Earth creationists; one of the many forms of religious explanation produced to avoid the tide of evidence disproving religious theories that were once widely believed. Science doesn't know everything, that much isn't hidden by everyone. But it certainly has more answers than religion:

If we are all God's children why is Jesus so special?
Why are there so many religions that claim to be right?
How can a homosexual be labelled a morally evil individual?

If you believe humans and dinosaurs were living on Earth at the same time you are deluded. If you are persuaded by Creationism you are welcome to it.

(February 19, 2012 at 2:54 am)Undeceived Wrote:

(February 18, 2012 at 4:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Did you know that C-14 dating organisms in the oldest stratum makes the world out to be 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

Real scientists know that C-14 is useful only to about 50,000 years ago.

That is a non factor and red herring. If the earth happens to be young, obviously C-14 is okay. You're already assuming the earth is old before we've even done any testing. Suppose the world is young. C-14 would work. And K-Ar would be inaccurate in the exact same way that it is. The problem is, you don't know if the earth is old or young to begin with. You must know whether it is old or young before you date. If the earth is 6,000 years old, you get the dates we get with both C-14 (6k-10k) and K-Ar (4-5B) K-Ar is thrown off because it is not supposed to be used on younger ages, by the very same logic as your above statement. Dating therefore supports creationism, period. Next thought. If the earth is billions of years old, you get the same K-Ar you get if the earth is 6,000 years (4-5Billion) and you shouldn't get a C-14 at all, yet you do. All traces of C-14 should be gone. Yet not only is there enough C-14 to date, but it happens to come out to the near exact age the Bible implies the earth is. Do you think that's mere coincidence?

---

(February 18, 2012 at 3:44 pm)teblin Wrote: The evidence for evolution can be made from four main sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species

There is no 'change' recorded in the fossil record. No before and after or evidence of cause and effect. All we have are fossils of separate species that scientists piece together according to similarities. We should have transitional fossils, since theoretically gradual evolution requires hundreds of forms between most of our known species. Why is it we have 20+ fossils of many extinct organisms but not a single one of the necessary hundred between them?

Quote:2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

These are the similarities behind the fossil record. But similarities don't mean one came from another, it just means they're similar. If God wanted to make 10 types of cats, they would all be similar or they wouldn't be cats. Scientists have a difficult time arranging the fossil tree using this method because there are organisms on opposite sides that are oftentimes more similar than ones close by. They call this 'convergent evolution' which is basically the assumption that two separate trees of species will be so lucky as to evolve the same traits, as if they weren't lucky enough to gain them in the first place. The chances of the eye forming is something like 10^20 and scientists want us to believe it could have happened multiple times in different places? That's real faith.

Quote:3. the geographic distribution of related species

There are birds, flies, primates, felines, ect. all over the world. Species are too well distributed to have evolved and found their places before Pangea supposedly split. Specific species are in specific habitats because they are suited for that habitat. They could have evolved to fit that habitat or God could have put them in that habitat to begin with. As climates change, they migrate. I'm using the dichotomy of the God of the Bible versus evolution here. Evolution fits, but so does God. We haven't moved anywhere. Evolution, you will find, always fits given enough time because it is a 'response theory,' meaning scientists see what they need and conform evolution to it. Anytime something contradicts evolution, they alter their theory. So don't accuse creationists of doing that, because it's mutual.

Quote:4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

Provide a link to these recorded changes, please. My bet is you mean microevolution, or variance, which is not true evolution in terms of increasing complexity. In microevolution, non-useful genes die out over time and the stronger ones take precedence. Maybe, if you're lucky, you'll have a mutation in there. Creationists wholeheartedly agree that microevolution occurs. If it didn't, we couldn't breed special cows that provided more milk or engineer disease-resistant tomato plants. It's macroevolution, or long-term speciation, that we are still looking for. One species must become another, and new information (like new tissues) must be added to the genetic code. The organism must gain complexity, and we have never observed an organism gaining complexity except in 1-1000 odds in which the majority of the test subjects died. There should be a tendency to increase complexity, and so far scientists have not been able to demonstrate that. If they can't show it in a lab, what makes you think it will happen in real, uncontrolled environments?

Quote:Natural selection itself is sufficient evidence to explain the functionality and complexity of the biological world.

Natural selection by definition reduces complexity. The organism with the suitable gene lives and the organism with the less-suitable gene dies. The less-suitable gene is lost and the gene pool shrinks. Ex: We had black and white rabbits before. We only have white ones now because we're in the arctic. No new tissues have been gained in the process, and species go extinct rather than break into separate species. Genes need to come from somewhere before natural selection takes place.

Hi, I'm RaphielDrake. Pleased to meet you.

Bacteria can be used to demonstrate evolutions workings easily,
bacteria leads short lives and so reproduce, live, die and evolve at an accelerated rate. When bacteria adapts to be immune to an anti-biotic thats micro-evolution. Bacteria that does not adapt to a mass vaccination would quickly die out as proven by the near eradication of small-pox. They will also develop different adaptations to cope with the immune system yielding many different types of bacteria. Some will survive, some will not. No species of bacteria as a whole becomes an entirely different one. Most of the older generation would simply die out because they didn't adapt.

Or if you want a larger diagram of natural diversity and natural selection then look no further than the dinosaurs. All of them reptilian creatures but look how many forms they took. Masters of the sea, land and air. Most of which died out thanks to a massive calamity yet we are left with their reptilian descendants that thrive today. Note how all of these descendants are either water-fairing or small.
If you want a more modern diagram of diversity look at the 30000 different *known* species of spider.

Now we've established natural diversity is a fact as is natural selection we must look at the theory of spontaneous genetic mutation, also known as evolution. We all have different genetic code, within that genetic code are various mutations that have been passed down from generation to generation. This is, to a very slight extent, evolution.The mutations passed down from many parents over the course of 10000 years would undoubtedly produce a noticeably different human-being than seen today. What mutations are passed down are dependent on who survives to pass down their mutations, this is dependent on circumstance and the suitability of the individuals genes to cope with it. i.e. A human born with extremely poor swimming skills and a tendency toward low technical aptitude who hadn't yet mated would find it very difficult to pass down his genes in the event that the worlds surface became almost completely engulfed by the sea. Of course factors like him being born on an island with a ship or others who were capable of swimming or building sea-craft would improve these odds.

To answer some of your other queries:
This process is constant so *every* form is a transitional form, also I suggest you look up homo habilis. Ignoring the fact that fossils are very rare occurances and we're lucky to get the ones we do, there are many examples of transitional forms. To clarify an example of a transitional form is *not* one creature merged with another. It is an example of a creature who has developed an adaptation.

Many different species evolving in similar conditions would yield multiple species with similar traits, this isn't to say they are the same species or even of the same tree. This is to say they share characteristics thanks to their environment.

Genetic code changes to varying conditions over the course of a very long period of time, while we do lose some through natural selection we also gain some through adaptation over a long period of time.
Remember, the numbers of a species aren't made up in thousands or even tens of thousands. We're talking hundreds of thousands and more. Yes, many die in a species and sometimes all of a species die out but sometimes just enough make it through to continue its survival. Considering how many species have lived on this planet it is no surprise that some made it despite the odds.

Science is not dogmatic, it alters its theory based on evidence, Creationism alters its belief *because* of evidence. The difference being that one pursues truth through evidence and the other insists it knows the truth in-spite of evidence and occasionally being forced to give ground begrudgingly. Rest assured, if scientists one day examine DNA through a microscope and it shifts to form a picture of Jesus then they'll closely research that and alter their perception.

All of this combined outlines a very good case for evolution. If I were in your position I would probably fall back to a position of "God created the process of evolution and thus sparked all of this off", no-one would be able to come up with proof that wasn't the case. Evolution has been proven by looking at what came before and what we see now and although open to debunking you're not doing your faith any favors by trying to undermine it with nothing but circular reasoning and easily countered points.

Hope this has helped clear things up.

(February 19, 2012 at 2:51 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(February 19, 2012 at 2:54 am)Undeceived Wrote:

(February 18, 2012 at 4:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Did you know that C-14 dating organisms in the oldest stratum makes the world out to be 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

Real scientists know that C-14 is useful only to about 50,000 years ago.

That is a non factor and red herring. If the earth happens to be young, obviously C-14 is okay. You're already assuming the earth is old before we've even done any testing. Suppose the world is young. C-14 would work. And K-Ar would be inaccurate in the exact same way that it is. The problem is, you don't know if the earth is old or young to begin with. You must know whether it is old or young before you date. If the earth is 6,000 years old, you get the dates we get with both C-14 (6k-10k) and K-Ar (4-5B) K-Ar is thrown off because it is not supposed to be used on younger ages, by the very same logic as your above statement. Dating therefore supports creationism, period. Next thought. If the earth is billions of years old, you get the same K-Ar you get if the earth is 6,000 years (4-5Billion) and you shouldn't get a C-14 at all, yet you do. All traces of C-14 should be gone. Yet not only is there enough C-14 to date, but it happens to come out to the near exact age the Bible implies the earth is. Do you think that's mere coincidence?

---

(February 18, 2012 at 3:44 pm)teblin Wrote: The evidence for evolution can be made from four main sources:
1. the fossil record of change in earlier species

There is no 'change' recorded in the fossil record. No before and after or evidence of cause and effect. All we have are fossils of separate species that scientists piece together according to similarities. We should have transitional fossils, since theoretically gradual evolution requires hundreds of forms between most of our known species. Why is it we have 20+ fossils of many extinct organisms but not a single one of the necessary hundred between them?

Quote:2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms

These are the similarities behind the fossil record. But similarities don't mean one came from another, it just means they're similar. If God wanted to make 10 types of cats, they would all be similar or they wouldn't be cats. Scientists have a difficult time arranging the fossil tree using this method because there are organisms on opposite sides that are oftentimes more similar than ones close by. They call this 'convergent evolution' which is basically the assumption that two separate trees of species will be so lucky as to evolve the same traits, as if they weren't lucky enough to gain them in the first place. The chances of the eye forming is something like 10^20 and scientists want us to believe it could have happened multiple times in different places? That's real faith.

Quote:3. the geographic distribution of related species

There are birds, flies, primates, felines, ect. all over the world. Species are too well distributed to have evolved and found their places before Pangea supposedly split. Specific species are in specific habitats because they are suited for that habitat. They could have evolved to fit that habitat or God could have put them in that habitat to begin with. As climates change, they migrate. I'm using the dichotomy of the God of the Bible versus evolution here. Evolution fits, but so does God. We haven't moved anywhere. Evolution, you will find, always fits given enough time because it is a 'response theory,' meaning scientists see what they need and conform evolution to it. Anytime something contradicts evolution, they alter their theory. So don't accuse creationists of doing that, because it's mutual.

Quote:4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

Provide a link to these recorded changes, please. My bet is you mean microevolution, or variance, which is not true evolution in terms of increasing complexity. In microevolution, non-useful genes die out over time and the stronger ones take precedence. Maybe, if you're lucky, you'll have a mutation in there. Creationists wholeheartedly agree that microevolution occurs. If it didn't, we couldn't breed special cows that provided more milk or engineer disease-resistant tomato plants. It's macroevolution, or long-term speciation, that we are still looking for. One species must become another, and new information (like new tissues) must be added to the genetic code. The organism must gain complexity, and we have never observed an organism gaining complexity except in 1-1000 odds in which the majority of the test subjects died. There should be a tendency to increase complexity, and so far scientists have not been able to demonstrate that. If they can't show it in a lab, what makes you think it will happen in real, uncontrolled environments?

Quote:Natural selection itself is sufficient evidence to explain the functionality and complexity of the biological world.

Natural selection by definition reduces complexity. The organism with the suitable gene lives and the organism with the less-suitable gene dies. The less-suitable gene is lost and the gene pool shrinks. Ex: We had black and white rabbits before. We only have white ones now because we're in the arctic. No new tissues have been gained in the process, and species go extinct rather than break into separate species. Genes need to come from somewhere before natural selection takes place.

Hi, I'm RaphielDrake. Pleased to meet you.

Bacteria can be used to demonstrate evolutions workings easily,
bacteria leads short lives and so reproduce, live, die and evolve at an accelerated rate. When bacteria adapts to be immune to an anti-biotic thats micro-evolution. Bacteria that does not adapt to a mass vaccination would quickly die out as proven by the near eradication of small-pox. They will also develop different adaptations to cope with the immune system yielding many different types of bacteria. Some will survive, some will not. No species of bacteria as a whole becomes an entirely different one. Most of the older generation would simply die out because they didn't adapt.

Or if you want a larger diagram of natural diversity and natural selection then look no further than the dinosaurs. All of them reptilian creatures but look how many forms they took. Masters of the sea, land and air. Most of which died out thanks to a massive calamity yet we are left with their reptilian descendants that thrive today. Note how all of these descendants are either water-fairing or small.
If you want a more modern diagram of diversity look at the 30000 different *known* species of spider.

Now we've established natural diversity is a fact as is natural selection we must look at the theory of spontaneous genetic mutation, also known as evolution. We all have different genetic code, within that genetic code are various mutations that have been passed down from generation to generation. This is, to a very slight extent, evolution.The mutations passed down from many parents over the course of 10000 years would undoubtedly produce a noticeably different human-being than seen today. What mutations are passed down are dependent on who survives to pass down their mutations, this is dependent on circumstance and the suitability of the individuals genes to cope with it. i.e. A human born with extremely poor swimming skills and a tendency toward low technical aptitude who hadn't yet mated would find it very difficult to pass down his genes in the event that the worlds surface became almost completely engulfed by the sea. Of course factors like him being born on an island with a ship or others who were capable of swimming or building sea-craft would improve these odds.

To answer some of your other queries:
This process is constant so *every* form is a transitional form, also I suggest you look up homo habilis. Ignoring the fact that fossils are very rare occurances and we're lucky to get the ones we do, there are many examples of transitional forms. To clarify an example of a transitional form is *not* one creature merged with another. It is an example of a creature who has developed an adaptation.

Many different species evolving in similar conditions would yield multiple species with similar traits, this isn't to say they are the same species or even of the same tree. This is to say they share characteristics thanks to their environment.

Genetic code changes to varying conditions over the course of a very long period of time, while we do lose some through natural selection we also gain some through adaptation over a long period of time.
Remember, the numbers of a species aren't made up in thousands or even tens of thousands. We're talking hundreds of thousands and more. Yes, many die in a species and sometimes all of a species die out but sometimes just enough make it through to continue its survival. Considering how many species have lived on this planet it is no surprise that some made it despite the odds.

Science is not dogmatic, it alters its theory based on evidence, Creationism alters its belief *because* of evidence. The difference being that one pursues truth through evidence and the other insists it knows the truth in-spite of evidence and occasionally being forced to give ground begrudgingly. Rest assured, if scientists one day examine DNA through a microscope and it shifts to form a picture of Jesus then they'll closely research that and alter their perception.

All of this combined outlines a very good case for evolution. If I were in your position I would probably fall back to a position of "God created the process of evolution and thus sparked all of this off", no-one would be able to come up with proof that wasn't the case. Evolution has been proven by looking at what came before and what we see now and although open to debunking you're not doing your faith any favors by trying to undermine it with nothing but circular reasoning and easily countered points.

Hope this has helped clear things up.

Smallpox is a virus not a bacterium.

Quote:You're already assuming the earth is old before we've even done any testing.

No, as usual you miss the point. I am assuming that you are a creationist asshole who believes that fairy tales are true.

Are we fucking clear on this now, genius?

My mistake but the point still stands. Viruses also live, die and adapt at a substantial rate.

@ RalphielDrake, true however both never change into a different species. You would think if evolution be true they would change into something else so medication would not be poured at them.

(February 19, 2012 at 8:15 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ RalphielDrake, true however both never change into a different species. You would think if evolution be true they would change into something else so medication would not be poured at them.

... They're not Transformers. They can only be of a certain mass otherwise they couldn't get into our systems. They do adapt but then so do our immune systems so its a constant game of cat and mouse... unless you've caught something particularly effective like aids, then its more like cat and jaguar.
I explained everything in detail, please read carefully and if you feel I genuinely haven't answered a question ask away.

(February 19, 2012 at 9:39 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(February 19, 2012 at 8:15 pm)Godschild Wrote: @ RalphielDrake, true however both never change into a different species. You would think if evolution be true they would change into something else so medication would not be poured at them.

... They're not Transformers. They can only be of a certain mass otherwise they couldn't get into our systems. They do adapt but then so do our immune systems so its a constant game of cat and mouse... unless you've caught something particularly effective like aids, then its more like cat and jaguar.
I explained everything in detail, please read carefully and if you feel I genuinely haven't answered a question ask away.

But you see that's the problem. You make excuses for the lack of observation of this process but that's no excuse to call it fact. I know it's a theory but many call it fact. If I said every 10,000 years the earths poles shift dramatically you would ask for evidence no doubt. If I said well we can't observe it because it only happens once every 10,000 years that's no excuse for my lack of evidence.