^--- feel free to mix in a paragraph loser

quote:

Originally posted by occrider As for the cogency of my flat earth theory, it too violates no more observable law than creationist theory violates. Your theory presupposes that decay rates changed on the basis of NO scientific evidence. My flat Earth theory supposes that gravitational law and fields change under NO scientific evidence. Just because I don't have a 2000 year old book that's supposedly the word of God to back up my graviational theory doesn't mean that it isn't any more or less valid than yours. According to your reasoning that creationist theory is as equally valid as evolutionary theory of course.

Actually the flat earth theory is supported by the bible. Seventil believes in the cohabitation of science and faith, so I believe he would welcome the addition of your interpretations of gravitation law to support the flat earth theory. Check out this link that has all the biblical evidence you'll ever need -> http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

quote:

Originally posted by djverne In response to tiesto14 comments about the age of Noa and his logic on building the boat and getting the animals to Hybernate, I have One Thing to SAY EVEN AS AN EVOLUTIONIST tiesto14 YOU ARE THE BIGGEST FUCKEN DOUCH BAG , Seventil has brought logical arguments yet you are trying to disprove things like you cant build a boat that big or get all those animals.

So a wooden boat built by a few men with no modern tools then walking across the world gathering each of every animal then sailing the flood of the earth only to repopulate the earth IS logical to you? I asked him common sense legitamate logical arguements.

I brought up points that have been debated between evolutionists and creationists many times over, you are the douch bag that is blinded by religion not to see paste your pathetic vail.

quote:

Originally posted by djverne if Seventil believes these events were guided buy god dont you think maybe its logicaly reasonible and consistant in his argument to think that god might help noa out a little,

No more logicaly reasonible and consistant then my arguements.

quote:

Originally posted by djverne I myself have been presented with alot of VERY good arguments buy both Creationists and Evolutionits as to how men could live live that long and how the popultation of the world could come to what it was at that time.,

Really? Where? What authors? What sites?

Have you ever taken a biology class? Do you really honestly beleive man used to live to almost a thousand years old in a time where there was no modern medicine, no vaccines, no remedys, no hospitals, no pain killers, or any other medicinal thing that enables man today to live to a mear 80 years of age?

quote:

Originally posted by djverne And if your gonna represent are evoltuinary cause don't bother because you look like a complete ass with the lies you tell..,

Please point out one lie i wrote.

quote:

Originally posted by djverne By the way, I read through the bible a couple of times and while I dont totally understand it, you remarks that the cristian GOD is Evil is complete bullshit. I saw a Loving God that lines up with what I have seen as the christian doctrin...,

Did you really read the bible and find a loving caring God?

Maybe you missed these passages that are the words of YOUR God.

Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Genesis 7:11-24
God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history.

EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt.

EX 21:20-21 With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly.

EX 32:27-29 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay 3000 men.

LE 26:22 "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children."

EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.

NU 16:27-33 The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men and their households (including wives and children) because the men had been rebellious.

NU 16:35 A fire from the Lord consumes 250 men.

NU 16:49 A plague from the Lord kills 14,700 people.

NU 21:6 Fiery serpents, sent by the Lord, kill many Israelites.

NU 25:4 (KJV) "And the Lord said unto Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun ...."

NU 25:9 24,000 people die in a plague from the Lord.

NU 31:17-18 Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children and "... every woman who has known man ...."

DT 7:2 The Lord commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy" and shown "no mercy" to those whom he gives them for defeat.

DT 28:53 "You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you."

JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of Jericho men, women, and children with the edge of the sword.

JS 8:22-25 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly smites the people of Ai, killing 12,000 men and women, so that there were none who escaped.

JS 10:28 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Makkedah.

1SA 5:6-9 The Lord afflicts the Philistines with tumors in their "secret parts," presumably for having stolen the Ark.

Shall i go on? I can go on for hours...even NT passages.
Do you know about Sodom and Gomorrah?

quote:

Originally posted by djverne Seventil while were at opposite ends of the spectrum with are beliefs don't even bother wasting your time with tiesto14 this guys a fucking douchbag . I don't usually have much to say but when I see an ignorant human being who only wants to believe on what he inssits is truth even when it might be the same thing I believe) but he his totally willing to disregard the other side and what they have to say and even lies about what he says they believe, it pisses me off. Seventil move on this guys a fucken DOUCH, you have cleary wone this debate. I'd be happy to trade theories and debate with you some time, I wont how ever make stupid rermarks like tiesto14 and a couples of other people on this thread that will cause you to have to explain yourself 5 times over.

Again show me where i lied.
I have read both sides, and sorry but i agree with science and logic. if you choose to beleive in pseu-science, mysticism and the supernatural then by all means do so. Just do nto expect people not to call you on it. And that is all i was doing.

By the way your intelligence SHINES whith your choice of words and your beautiful grammer.

Religious zealotry over the centuries has been directly responsible for countless deaths, imprisonments, needless suffering, torturings, and the oppression of people on grounds of sex, race, colour, sexuality or belief.

A few obvious examples :
The Crusades.

The Inquisition.

Witch trials in Europe and America.

The demonization of other religions, e.g. Christianity demonizing Pagans ("They're devil-worshippers!"), the Romans demonizing Christians ("They're atheists and cannibals!").

Persecution of Heretics - e.g. Galileo for daring to suggest that the Earth orbits the Sun

Children dying because their parents refused them medical treatment on religious grounds; relying instead on faith-healers and prayer.

Slavery, supposedly supported by scripture ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, just as you would obey Christ.", St.Paul, Ephesians 6:5)

Holy wars - followers of different faiths (or even the same faith) killing each other in the name of their (benevolent, loving and merciful) gods.
.
The destruction of great works of art considered to be pornographic/blasphemous, and the persecution of the artists.

Censorship (often destructive) of speech, art, books, music, films, poetry, songs and, if possible, thought.

The attempted genocide of followers of a particular faith (e.g. the Jewish Holocaust, "ethnic cleansing" in former Yugoslavia).

The practice of "female circumcision" (more accurately termed genital mutilation).

The discouragement of rational, critical thought (resulting in young-earth creationists, for example).


Uncontrolled population growth caused (or at least helped) by churches prohibiting birth-control and abortion. (You can also add : unwanted pregnancies, ill-fated forced marriages, and pregnant teenagers condemned to a life in mental institutions to avoid embarrassing their families.)

The spread of sexually transmitted diseases (e.g. AIDS) due to churches prohibiting the use of condoms.

Suicide bombers taught to believe that martyrs go straight to Paradise.

Persecution of homosexuals

Abuse of power, authority and trust by religious leaders (for financial gain or sexual abuse of followers and even children).

Minor religions ("cults") stockpiling weapons to defend themselves from the Armies Of Satan (i.e. the police and the government).

"Ah, but that was all years ago." you might say. Yes, it was. Unfortunately, a lot of these things still go on today. Look through "http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/fttoday/" the Freethought Today Newsletter for "In the News", "Religious Violence", and "You won't believe you're reading this" articles. You might be surprised at how many children are killed each year by well-meaning parents trying to exorcise demons, or people killed/imprisoned by fundamentalists for trivial infringements of "holy laws". People still persecute and kill each other safe in the knowledge that God is on their side, and that they are in the right, fighting for Holy Truth and Divine Justice.

It should be noted that many of these atrocities are caused as a direct result of religious belief - if the person did not follow a particular religion, or did not believe quite so strongly, then they simply would not have acted as they did. Not only is religion used to reinforce/justify a person's prejudices, it may also cause someone to commit an act of violence that they would otherwise have considered abhorrent (i.e. the mother who spent several hours beating her young daughter in order to force out the devil that was making the child playfully turn cartwheels in the house - resulting in the death of the child).

Last edited by tiesto14 on Sep-09-2004 at 05:10

*ahem*

Uh, Seventil, sorry to intervene here, but I'm kinda wonderin', are you really asking Tiesto14 these questions, even though we've thoroughly discussed 4 out of 5 of these already?

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil For the record, I believe these are a bit open to interpretation, but many prominent scientists think these are the scientific proofs against evolution:

Well, just for the record, your term "many" is quite relative. Only 5% of scientists believe in a 10,000 yr. old or less earth:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

and please keep in mind:

quote:

The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.

I also found this interesting:

quote:

"Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things).

quote:

(from http://www.trueorigins.org) 1. Evolution has never been observed.

We did answer this, right? I specifically cited 2 examples already, and you conceded these. Are you know going back on what you've agreed to? Would that be a form of lying? Regardless, want some more?:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

quote:

2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Well know I thought that by your absence to my response, by default you agreed to my explanation about how evolution does nothing of the sort:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...2&pagenumber=14

Or at least you did not have a response just yet. Either way, it's rather disingenuous of you to pose this question again when we have already discussed this.

quote:

3. There are no transitional fossils.

Sure there are:

quote:

1.There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil which is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they couldn't be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil which shows a mosaic of features from an older and a more recent organism. 2.Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out. Fossil transitions between species and genera: a. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them. b. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa [Pearson et al. 1997]. O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature is added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay [1997]. c. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil.). [Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978] d. Planktonic forminifera [Malmgren et al. 1984]. This is an example of "punctuated gradualism." A 10-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change. e. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost 2 million years which includes a record of a speciation event. [Miller 1999, 44-45] f. Lake Turkana mollusc species [Lewin 1981]. g. Cenozoic marine ostracodes [Cronin 1985]. h. The Eocene primate genus Cantius [Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983]. i. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change. [Ward and Blackwelder 1975; Pojeta and Springer 2001] j. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior. [Stanley 1974] Fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes: a. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking. [Richmond and Strait 2000] b. Dinosaur-bird transitions. c. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors [Tchernov et al. 2000]. Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs related to Haasiophis [Caldwell and Lee 1997]. d. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but, unlike snakes, they don't have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards. [Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000; Caldwell and Lee 1997] e. Transitions between mesonychids and whales. f. Transitions between fish and tetrapods. g. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced [Domning 2001a, 2001b]. Fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla: a. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features which connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement which is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusc's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusc's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive molluscs, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia. [Conway Morris 1998, 185-195] b. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods. Links: Hunt, Kathleen, 1994-1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html Thompson, Tim, 1999. On creation science and transitional fossils. http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html Miller, Keith B., n.d., Taxonomy, transitional forms, and the fossil record. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html Patterson, Bob, 2002. Transitional fossil species and modes of speciation. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm References: Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709. Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press. Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63. Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627. Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42. Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114. Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548. Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28. Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424. Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144. Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659. Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646. Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/...n/orbulina.html Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319. Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins. Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302. Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340. Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457. Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152. Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941. Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861. Further Reading: Godfrey, L. R., 1983. Creationism and gaps in the fossil record. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed.), Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 193-218. Zimmer, Carl, 2000. In search of vertebrate origins: Beyond brain and bone. Science 287: 1576-1579. Cuffey, Clifford A., 2001. The fossil record: Evolution or "scientific creation". http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm or http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html Strahler, Arthur N., 1987. Science and Earth History, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 398-400. Pojeta, John Jr. and Springer, Dale A., 2001. Evolution and the Fossil Record, Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute, http://www.agiweb.org/news/spot_06apr01_evolutionbk.htm , http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf , pg. 2. Cohn, Martin J. and Cheryll Tickle, 1999. Developmental basis of limblessness and axial patterning in snakes. Nature 399: 474-479. (technical) Morton, Glenn R., 2000. Phylum level evolution. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm Elsberry, Wesley R., 1995. Transitional fossil challenge. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsber...p/tranform.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

quote:

4. The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. (Abiogenesis)

Huh?

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...2&pagenumber=15

You agreed to what I stated in the first paragraph. You have agreed that abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. By posting this question you are again being disingenuous in your arguments.

Why do you persist in doing so?

Regardless, even if you didn't agree with me here, it's quite irrelevant. You will not find one evolutionist researcher that takes abiogenesis into account into evolutionary theory. Thus, the argument by trueorigins has always been a straw man, and you have continued to support it.

quote:

5. Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

Now I know we discussed this:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...2&pagenumber=13

And I continually repeated how evolution is both a fact (we can observe certain instances, like my 2 examples) and a theory (best explanation of accumulated events over time). And you agreed to my definition on this.

Are you now backing off your agreement. Why or why not? If you are, why wouldn't you state as such?

I hope you can understand why I'm rather discouraged at this point with this whole debate. I really don't understand why you persist at repeating the same claims, even though we've discussed and actually agreed to a coupla refutations to a number of them.

What gives?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

stop gang banging the fellow already...


You guys are like lions on a zebra!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1

Where were you? I was fulfilling my duties on flip-flopping. This was your end of the fort

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by djverne I would just like to add my few cents. I myself am a strong evolutionists. (I have read through this entire post wich is one of the longer ones on this site) And after reading all the posts I myself an evolutionist find that Seventil has done a really good job answering your challenges and has brought to the table a pretty logical agrument.

Do you find repeating old claims, creating straw men, misunderstanding evolution (at least in part), and quote mining from various sources that have blatantly taken researchers' statements out of context, a logical argument?

I fear. I really do.

quote:

As for Opus your trying to attack Seventil from any angle ya can and he has done a good job defending his positions.

Hmmm, pointing out the logical fallacies, explaining in great detail what exactly evolution is and isn't,

ah hell, each to his/her own I guess.

quote:

I myself admit there is alot of bulshit in are evolutionary theories and I myself have found that I will try to make a theorie valid even if I know it is bullshit just to spite a creationist.

Are you really an evolutionist? Just out of curiousity, what is your education level?

For a supposed "evolutionist", you really seem not to have a very firm grasp of what evolution is, and the theories that comprise it.

Regardless, explain in detail what theories exactly you consider "bulshit".

quote:

Both sides take faith but I will admit we evolutionists have changed are minds and reworked are theories on a hell of alot more subjects than creationists have, and I find that we are wrong on ALOT of things.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you're an undercover spy creationist posing as an evolutionist!

***starts Mission Impossible music***

You do realize that theories are subject to change as technology and new data arise, don't you? You do realize that this is the very essence of science, right?

Boy, I'd venture to guess that you rather stink as an "evolutionist" so far. You really should read up a little more on your supposed line of science.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Where were you? I was fulfilling my duties on flip-flopping. This was your end of the fort

Dick, you'd better be drunk posting if you're up this late!

Ahh, I'm on vacation. Actually, I was at a swim club reunion thingy over the weekend in my hometown, and I vowed not to jump on the computer 'till today.

Anyway, gotta get some sleep. I'll start some more useless posts tomorrow. Sorry for the abandonment.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Dick, you'd better be drunk posting if you're up this late! Ahh, I'm on vacation. Actually, I was at a swim club reunion thingy over the weekend in my hometown, and I vowed not to jump on the computer 'till today. Anyway, gotta get some sleep. I'll start some more useless posts tomorrow. Sorry for the abandonment.

Meh ... I never sleep. Sleep is for the weak . And unfortunately I can't drink ... apparentely I irritated my stomach lining. Can alcohol and caffeine really do such a thing??? Damn those redbull vodkas!

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

b. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa [Pearson et al. 1997]. O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature is added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay [1997].

It's quite striking IMHO:

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I believe you should read the entire argument we've been having here. You came in pretty late. If you have read it all, I think you took whatever I said out of context. Let me "sum up" what I've said before about evolutionary theory. I have given nothing but respect to evolutionary theory and the advances it's made. I have never (except in igottaknow's case, where his questions were just downright silly) personally attacked anyone, or called anyone unintelligent. I have merely been exploring the differences between Creation and Evolution. I have been patient and I believe courteous in answering everyone (I'm quite outnumbered, as you can see). In the instances I have called your "facts" absurd or ridiculous it is because of exactly that; you believe they are "facts" and not open to interpretation.

Yes, I do know that you said you accept the theory of evolution as a valid one. However, you are trying to say that both the theory of evolution and creationism are equally valid, and that's where we start to disagree. As for the absurdity of my posts about dinosaur bones, I never thought at the time that creationism infact endorses a sped-up evolutionary process. That's why dinosaur bones wouldn't be explainable in any other way than being odd natural occurances. Since you have, however, explained that evolution is an essential part of creationism, I do agree that I have made an inaccurate assumption.

quote:

I find it sad how defensive you are about your religion. I have not got upset about you attacking mine; yet I question yours and you throw a tantrem.

Look, I do not hold blind faith in evolution. The second you prove to me that it is fake, I will accept it. You have so far only made a series of inaccurate and bizarre assumptions.

quote:

I most certainly have not. If you believe this, you have seriously misunderstood what I have been doing here. I am NOT attacking evolution based on Biblical "facts" - I am, and have been (since about the middle of this thread) simply been stating that each theory deserves merit. I have never said my beliefs do not rely on faith.

I can't see how both theories deserve equal merit. Infact, I can't see how creationism deserves any more merit than occrider's flat earth theory.

quote:

I've given logical and scientific evidence for everything possible here. If you wish for me to elaborate on one I haven't, I will. It's kind of a mute point though, isn't it? Since you've already discarded anything I have to say without even hearing it first.

No, it isn't a mute point. If you make a coherent argument, I'll listen. I didn't discard everything you said. For example, I didn't discard the proposition that god made a universe that was infact young but only seemed like it was 15 billion years old. Kinda like making a 50 year old person from clay. I didn't discard that as a theoretical possibility.

quote:

The way you state these 9 "illogical Biblical facts"; clearly shows how open minded and mature you are. Your grasp for Creation theory is weak. I recommend you honestly and open mindedly research the topic more thoroughly before spouting off with rhetoric like you did here. You'll come off looking like an ignorant, pretentious asshole if you ever talk like that in "real life" to someone.

Why? Please tell me how creationism can cope without making a single one of those assumptions? If you want me to elaborate why I think all of those assumptions are necessarry, I will.

quote:

Once again, I've never said that evolutionary theory can be proven wrong (even though many creationists will argue that it can.) I believe it is the best non-religious account of what we think happened as far as evolution in a non-Diest sort of way. I've stated this many times in the past, but you seem to have ignored this.

No, I noticed that, but to say it again, I am only trying to explain why evolution is much more likely than creationism.

quote:

Your second comment scares me a bit... you call "evolutionary" theory logical; yet a Biblical creation illogical. Can you call yourself open minded? I'd say not. Both theories are just as logical... your open hostility toward Creation shows me how much you want to believe in evolution...

No they are not, because evolution relies on observed evidence, while creationism relies on mythology, false assumptions about the universe, stretched-out biological proposals, and a belief that science and technology back in the days were years ahead of what we have now.

quote:

We've discussed these before. I'll list them again, however, since you obviously haven't been paying attention. For the record, I believe these are a bit open to interpretation, but many prominent scientists think these are the scientific proofs against evolution: (from http://www.trueorigins.org)

Well, although Opus did answer you those, if I think he missed something I'll add it here. And as he said, 5% isn't many, and having a degree doesn't make people prominent scientists. I'll have a degree in electrical engeneering in 2 years. Does that mean I know much about biology? Not necessarily. I have a friend (and this is sadly indeed true) who's about half a year from getting his master's degree, and he thought until about half a year ago that chickens are not birds and humans are not mammals.

quote:

1. Evolution has never been observed.

Here's a research that Mr Opus talked about a few months ago:

quote:

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses. WH X WH - 75% P1 X P1 - 95% P2 X P2 - 80% P1 X P2 - 77% WH X P1 - 0% WH X P2 - 0% They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations. Source: J. R. Weinberg et al. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Science 46(4):1214-1220.

I would also point out to you the nylon eating bacteria. An essentially anti-creationist, web page, sure, but you can't deny that the bacteria exists and that nylon was invented in this century.

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

quote:

2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This is one of my favorite arguments as it shows a total lack of scientific understanding. A system can be made that locally does reduce entropy, take a refrigerator for example. It's like saying that a moon can't be circling around the earth because the laws of physics say that an object not affected by force will either be still or it will be moving in the direction it's already going. So moon should fly off in a straight line out of the solar system. This theory takes on a false assumption that there is no external force being exherted upon the moon. The same goes for thermodynamics and evolution theory. Yes, the theory of evolution would not be in accordance with the law of thermodynamics if there would be no external force exherted upon the creatures to increase their complexity. However, there is such an external force, and it is natural selection. While it certainly is natural for complex objects to degrade and for their entropy to increase over time, that is not the case if those objects are forced to become more complex. Evolution is not happening for the sake of evolution, it is happening because creatures are sometimes forced to evolve in order for their species to survive. When they are not forced, their physical characteristics do infact degrade over time. Take for example flightless birds from galapagos, or the extinct dodo bird. They are not under pressure from other species to develop any new survival methods, so their complexity is infact being reduced over time.

quote:

3. There are no transitional fossils.

I guess Opus answered that completely. Just look at human ancestry. There are so many fossils since our common ancestor with the chimpanzee to the present that I can't see how you can make such a claim. Those claims were made 100 years ago when there indeed haven't been many transitional fossils. Many of them have been found since then.

quote:

4. The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. (Abiogenesis)

These here are 2 claims, so we'll do them one by one. Let's take the second one first, that evolution proceeds by random chance. Mutations are random occurances, true. But what the theory of evolution really relies upon is natural selection. Only those beneficial random occurances are carried on to the next generation.

Now, about the first claim, that life originated by random chance. That proposal is correlated to the theory of evolution, but is not an integral part of it. Even if god made the first bacteria, evolution would still be carried on the way it is unless god kept making divine interferences every once in a while. Perhaps it is not random. Perhaps abiogenesis is a likely process in early earth like environments. That subject is still a matter of intense research.

Now that these 2 claims are corrected, I can't see how they are proof against evolution.

quote:

5. Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

Again, the fossile record, the nylon eating bacteria, the mutated worms...

quote:

You disprove my claims because of a priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences? And you're attacking my logic? The fact that you don't understand this clearly shows your ignorance on exactly what you believe and why you believe it.

No, I am not a priori rejecting your claims based on philosophical differences, I am saying that they are either false or remarkably stretched-out.

quote:

I suggest you CLEARLY read http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp -- after that, go to: http://www.talkorigins.org And after that go to http://www.trueorigin.org Trueorigin site isn't working. I've seen talkorigins before. [quote]And please, try to hide your defensive nature in the future... it's very unbecoming.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my rhetoric to be overly defensive because you believe that I am basing my posts based on faith. They may have seemed such because you made many very stretched out theories and I really didn't have time to write 15 page long explanations on why I think they're wrong because I'm studying for exams these days, so I just discarded them without a lot of backing. I have more time now, so I'll try to improve on my explanations more.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 6) Sediment layers and their bizzare correlation with fossiles (older ones lower, newer ones higher) is just a freakish odd occurance of nature.

Just to expound on this point a little further, here's a pretty good paper I ran across the other day explaining this phenomenon (in pdf):

quote:

Stratigraphic Consistency Index - Michael Benton The SCI metric may also be summarized either as a mean value for each taxonomic group or as a proportion of cladograms that score SCI values of 0.500 or more, an indication that half, or more, of the branches are consistent with stratigraphic evidence. By both measures, fishes and echinoderms score better than tetrapods. Mean SCI values are: echinoderms (0.773), fishes (0.757), and tetrapods (0.701). Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $0.500 are tetrapods (100%), echinoderms (94%), and fishes (93%). For both measures, values for all three groups are indistinguishable according to binomial error bars (Fig. 3). Within the sample of echinoderm cladograms, nonechinoids show somewhat better results than echinoids but not significantly so (Fig. 3). The mean SCI value for echinoids is 0.724, and for nonechinoids 0.849; moreover, 90%of echinoid cladograms have SCI values $ 0.500,compared with 100% for nonechinoids. SCI values for fish groups are variable but not significantly different (Fig. 3). For mean SCI values, the order is as follows: sarcopterygians (0.904), teleosts (0.744), placoderms(0.741), agnathans (0.733), and actinopterygians (0.722). In all cases, all sampled cladograms show SCI values > 0.500. The rankings of tetrapod groups by both aspects of the SCI metric are comparable. Mean SCI values give this sequence: mammals (0.837), “mammallike reptiles” (0.729), lepidosauromorphs (0.714), dinosaurs (0.698), archosauromorphs (0.660), and turtles (0.586). The low value for turtles is significantly lower than the high values for synapsids, mammals, and “mammallike reptiles”. Proportions of cladograms with SCI values $ 0.500 give this sequence: mammals (100%), “mammallike reptiles” (100%), lepidosauromorphs (100%), turtles (100%), dinosaurs (86%), and archosauromorphs (78%). http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/publs/...999SystBiol.pdf

Why is the SCI so high? Why do cladograms & stratigraphy match on the whole if evolution is not indicative of reality? Given that cladograms & stratigraphy match relatively well, how else can this significant correlation be explained?

Given there is a clear signal of "evolution" in the rock stratigraphy & morphology combined, it therefore stands to reason that where these phylogenies would infer large scale morphological change (Cetaceans, basal tetrapoda, & basal amniotes, for example), evolution can be reliably inferred. Even more reliably than phylogenetic analyses, cladistics & stratigraphy on their own, that is.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I'm sorry but I can't help laugh at the detailed scientific replies by you guys. Seventil and for that matter most creationists aren't interested in fact based arguments. Scientific findings and theories are merely a resource that modern creationist cherry pick from to create a pseudo science that supports the bible.

Creationist tactics remind me of mud slinging political campaigns whose purpose is to discredit the opposition while leaving the false impression that their cause is creditable. Responding to their attacks plays into their hands by putting you on the defensive and giving them equal footing. It's unrealistic to think you can have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes in a propaganda based belief system.

Even I was lured into this discussion because it seemed easy enough to disprove these idiotic claims. I'm also troubled by the growing movement of creationist who are trying to prevent the teaching of evolution in school. Its a disturbing trend of the church trying to meddle in science and education, that needs to be met with vocal opposition from we who value logical thinking. Just look at Middle Eastern countries that have allowed religion to dictate the curriculum in education. Creationism share a similar ideology as Islamic Fundamentalist who reject modernization and desire to return to backward thinking of biblical times.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

Last edited by igottaknow on Sep-09-2004 at 18:52