Creationists: Here's your chance

[RedOne77]

Regardless of when the Mitochondrial Eve or Adam was about the point I am making is that the science that so many hold as God has itself proclaimed a common ancestor around 5000 years ago. This is line with bible teaching. So nit pic all you wish on side points... there you have it.

I'm not sure what there is to nit pic here. You say that science says that we have a common ancestor ruffly 5,000 years ago because a wiki article says so. I, and others, have brought in more scholarly sources that indicate otherwise. Frankly, that the 5K estimate is off by about 30-40 fold. That in itself is no trivial thing, and suggests that you may want to re-think and re-check the credibility of your claim and the original source of such a claim.

Also, I'm curious as to what you think about the Native American migration to the Americas from Asia via the land bridge "Beringia" over 10,000 years ago? Or the first settlements in the city "Jericho" dating to ruffly 11,000 years ago?

All animals are all made from the elements that can be found on the earth, there's nothing magic about humans.

Physically I agree, spiritually I disagree. But I think I missed your point on this sentence, sorry.

I see you made no refute of the substance of my point.

Your point of a 5,000 year old mtDNA Eve? Trying not to be too blunt and repetitive, there have been many sources more scholarly than wiki, including wiki itself, that say that the mtDNA Eve is ruffly 150K-200K years old, not 5K. I don't know about you, but if there is inconcistancy in the sources, I tend to go with the more scholarly source unless the scholarly source is really old, or I know from a reputable source that it is something else.

As for H. Heidelbergensis, who or whatever that is, thank God someone or something was able to create life because scientists have never been able to do it!

Just because science can't do something now doesn't mean that it can't in the future. Interestingly enough, a few days ago (June 16, 2010) scientists were able to synthesize the purines of DNA/RNA, Adenine and Gunine. And they've been able to synthesize the pyridimines (Cytocine and Thymine/Uricil) of DNA/RNA from before. Together, scientists have been able to synthesize all the bases ( A G C T U) of DNA and RNA. So there is definitely progress being made on how life originated and being able to synthesize/create life from scratch.

H. Heidelbergensis is usually considered the direct ancestor (or perhaps last direct major ancestor) of our very own species, H. Sapien.

It is difficult to refute genetics from a lay mans terms. We rely on the hypothesis of data that scientists come up with. And from the mouth of science a common ancestor around 5000 years ago is fantastic for those that believe in the inspiration of the bible as a whole. Maybe 5000 years ago mutant apes got it together to make us. That's no more a ridulous scenario than believing in creation.

Those of you that see yourselves as knowledgeable enough to dispute this finding feel free.

mtDNA genetics 101. We all have mtDNA that is passed on via the mother. Now, each time a cell divides, there are mutations, changes in the sequence of the mtDNA. These changes (when present in the gametes; sperm and egg) accumulate each generation, and through statistical analysis of mtDNA we can determine the average rate of mutations. With that information, we can analyze the mtDNA within our species, and determine how long ago our most recent ancestor was for the modern human population. This evidence/conclusion does not result in a 5,000 year old Eve, rather a 200,000 year old Eve.

 

[RedOne77]

RedOne77
I understand that, but your supports are NOT AIR TIGHT SOLID. I am hearing so many folk ASSUME it’s airtight solid, but NO IT’s NOT. If it was, I would not be QUESTIONING. Now you could say, well yea I would still question it out of being not sincere about reality, but that would be your assumption on me, to which you would be wrong because I know who I am. So that would leave me to think these folks would not be sincere since they don’t clearly realize what a NONE airtight solid support is and what it isn’t.

While there may be disagreement among biologists as to how exactly species change, or exactly what path a particular group went through, there is no disagreement that evolution is correct. Part of the problem, especially in these types of forums, is that most people on either side don't know the evidence at a professional level. I've noticed over the years on multiple forums that while people may have degrees in science related areas, most people don't have much more official biology beyond a year long intro course in college, or so it seems. In addition, because of the lack of scientific understanding among the public, these types of public debate can't go into the nitty gritty evidence for the most part because the average person simply doesn't have the background to understand it.

What do you mean by "air tight solid"? I'd say that evolution is pretty air tight solid as a scientific theory. Is it perfect? No. But neither is the theory of gravity, and I would say both are correct in the general depiction of what they are trying to explain.

True, but there are different theories. And two differing theories cannot be both right.

Actually... Two theories attempting to explain the same thing can both be 'correct', or at least not antithetical to one another. Take the theory of (Newtonian) gravity, it fails as a theory when you get into very large distances, yet it is very accurate and 'correct' when operating at every day level up to about the solar system level. At distances greater than this it fails, but Einsteins theory of relativity (really a theory about gravity) explains it quite well. Yet, neither theory can explain what happens at the very tiny quantum level, that requires a whole other theory which doesn't yet exist. But really, this point is trivial, and I don't know of any other exceptions to your statement other than gravity, and ideally all three theories of gravity will become one. In fact, Einstein was able to merge his theory of relativity with Newton's theory of gravity, but enough sidetracking...

Ok, but a theory is still a theory, a theory is not a fact. A theory EXPLAINS a fact, yes, I understand that, but a theory that explains a fact is STILL NOT A FACTUAL explanation of the fact it is trying to explain. And in the case of the theory of cosmic and biological evolution, I QUESTION that theory that explains the facts. I do not question the actual facts themselves.

In order to become a scientific theory, it must do more than come up with a random explanation of the facts. In order to be a theory, it must first be shown to be useful in making predictions. In the case of Tiktaalik, the scientists knew that amphibians were around 365 million years ago, but only fish 385 million years ago. So with the theory of evolution, they made a prediction that a fish like amphibian, or amphibian like fish, would be seen somewhere between the 365-385 million years old. And guess what, they found it, "Tiktaalik", and it was found in 375 million year old layer. After many predictions and tests of a model/hypothesis, if it is found to be accurate again and again, as is the case with evolution, it then becomes a full-fledged theory.

Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that scientific theories have real data to back them up. And if you want to disagree with them on scientific grounds, you better be prepared to show that it scientifically is a poor theory. But just remember, if you only disprove evolution, you don't show that creation is a better explanation, that will require its own positive evidence.

Great, so it cannot say then that they have found that the theory of evolution is the “truth”.

You got it. But it goes with everything in science. Scientifically, the Earth is not proven to be round, nor is it a scientific truth.

One SUPER important questions I have for you and it needs to be answered.

1: why can’t the supernatural (IF IT’s TRUE) be tested under the scientific method? That would mean they could never find truth.

By definition, the supernatural is above the natural; it doesn't obay the laws of nature (if it exists). Science is about discovering the natural, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this or not, but another name for science is "methodological naturalism" because it attempts to explain the natural.

If the supernatural exists, then yes, science would never find the truth.

FIRMLY disagree. The scripture is concerned with BOTH worlds, since God created BOTH worlds. Science does not OWN the physical world and God own the spirit world, that’s NOT how it goes, science owns NO WORLD, God OWNS BOTH.

Lets look at what exactly science is. Science is simply a methodology, a human idea, that we use to learn about the natural world. Science can't "own" anything. God owns both, yes, but it is also known that God sustains the natural world, in other words the physical universe is under the domain of natural law, or "ordinary providence" in a theological sense, that is held together (made possible;sustained) by the power and will of God. So we live in a place under ordinary providence (natural law) in which we can use science like a tool to discover what wondrous place God has left us. However, it is important to note that this doesn't mean that God can't do anything to the physical world, only that when God does intervene (and I'm not sure that is the right word, but for simplicity I'll stick with it) it is not part of the natural order, and is commonly referred to as 'divine intervention'.

Getting back to scripture, yes it is concerned with both the physical and spiritual side of life. Yet, it is vastly more concerned with the spiritual side of life. And in the case of Genesis 1 and 2, which is where most anti-evolution scripture comes from, the standard interpretation by both Jewish and Christian scholars agree that it makes absolutely no claims about the physical universe. And this interpretation comes from the traditional Judaic interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 as well as Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics (essentially what does the text itself indicate in which things like 'culture' are taken into consideration as well).

Ok, lets do this again, what is science and what is it’s purpose? Is it’s purpose ONLY to seek a natural explanation, or the actual explanation of things? If it’s the second, then it has to be open to the spirit realm. If it’s the first, then science is closed minded.

Interestingly enough, the purpose of science is neither. Science's purpose is essentially to better the quality of life through understanding the natural world. It is not so much that science only seeks natural explanations the way it is thought of today. In large, science is really a way to test the testable. The supernatural simply isn't testable. In order for something to be testable, btw, it must first be falsifiable. The supernatural, as it by definition doesn't conform to natural law, cannot be falsifiable therefore it cannot be testable therefore science can't do anything with it. It is not that science is close minded, but that the supernatural is just way too open to be tested.

If you don't mind I'd like to bring up an anecdote. When scientists first discovered that the universe was expanding, therefore showing that the big bang happened, the Pope of the Catholic church immediately said that science has proven God/Genesis. Now, the Catholic church has catholic scientists of their own. One of these catholic scientists, who works for the church, wrote a letter to the Pope essentially saying that the big bang was a scientific theory, and shouldn't be used to prove God. He was basically saying that science simply cannot comment on the supernatural, and to leave science with the natural and God/Scripture with the supernatural where they belong.

So your saying science is only seeking a natural explanation of things? They make preconceived notions that a spirit realm is not there to bother with?

Science doesn't say that the supernatural doesn't exist, only that science can't say anything about it, it is silent on the issue. That is why you can have people from all different faiths and those without faith from every corner of the globe do science and get along just fine as scientists.

 

[RedOne77]

Hold on their, how do you know it’s hallucinations they are seeing and not real things?

Like I said, the chemicals that are rushed into the brain can cause hallucinations - it doesn't have to. In 10th grade one of my classmates tried to commit suicide, and he was literally dead for several minutes. The doctors were somehow able to revive him, he told us in class that he didn't see or experience anything. Obviously if someone is an atheist they will say that every single time someone experiences something from death it is a hallucination or effects of intense euphoria. Obviously if you are not an atheist, such experiences may be seen as the Divine, but not necessarily so. Based on my own experiences and understanding of science and theology, I think such events are natural based while others are not, and perhaps some are naturally based but God uses such opportunities to reach out and change people's lives.

Your wrong there, there are cases where people left their body and saw some stuff while out and then verified it when they reentered.

How do they know the chemicals was giving them the experience? And how do they know it was a hallucination and not real? And how do they account for cases where things were verified?

It is impossible to verify the near-death experiences, but I haven't seen anything scientifically convincing for out of body experiences. Again, people have claimed to have had them, yet they could not mention any items specifically placed (in the operating room) for them to identify if such a thing ever happened, and many times they are wrong about what the doctors physically did when they were under as they try to recall what they claimed to have saw. I personally have been under the knife many times in my life and never experienced an out of body experience. From what I know of dreams, and how they can be influenced by outside stimuli (like people talking), I think these people physically heard the surgeons talking about the procedure, twisted it up a little in the interface between the ear and brain, and made a freaky dream out of it. Either that, or they made it up for fame and/or money.

 

[newhope101]

While there may be disagreement among biologists as to how exactly species change, or exactly what path a particular group went through, there is no disagreement that evolution is correct. Part of the problem, especially in these types of forums, is that most people on either side don't know the evidence at a professional level. I've noticed over the years on multiple forums that while people may have degrees in science related areas, most people don't have much more official biology beyond a year long intro course in college, or so it seems. In addition, because of the lack of scientific understanding among the public, these types of public debate can't go into the nitty gritty evidence for the most part because the average person simply doesn't have the background to understand it.

I think you're spot on with this comment. It's probably why both sides of the argument go around in circles. One new set of bones can change thinking dramatically. Then there is the validity of the evolutionary clock. It has been demonstrated many times, that “evolutionary clocks” are terribly flawed (see Jackson 2003). Here is a recent example: Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radiometric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! With this sort of thing going on it is difficult to accept some "facts" that are derived from research even when it sounds convincing.

 

[Krok]

I think you're spot on with this comment. It's probably why both sides of the argument go around in circles. One new set of bones can change thinking dramatically. Then there is the validity of the evolutionary clock. It has been demonstrated many times, that “evolutionary clocks” are terribly flawed (see Jackson 2003). Here is a recent example: Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radiometric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! With this sort of thing going on it is difficult to accept some "facts" that are derived from research even when it sounds convincing.

This is an excellent example of why some scientifically uneducated people are so easily lied to. Think about the following facts:

1. Wayne Jackson has an MA in religion. He is not a scientist. What would he know about dating methods?
2. It has also never been demonstrated that “evolutionary clocks” are "terribly flawed"; dating is done by "Geologists", not "evolutionists"; they are not "evolutionary" clocks, they are dates; there's a lot more than one method, some are radiometric, others not; Geologists find them to be very accurate;dates obtained are cross-checked and they all get the same dates. No exceptions.
3. The dating at that lava dome was done by creationists, who deliberately used a method that they knew would never be able to accurately date young rocks. Then they also included xenoliths in their samples to make doubly sure that the dates would be incorrect. They were dishonest and they keep on repeating that lie. Yet some people still believe them.
Read a scientific (not creationist) article on K/Ar dating and see why that method can never work on young rocks. You can even find that fact on Wiki . It is not a secret.

Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough Argon 40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable. K–Ar dating was instrumental in the development of the geomagnetic polarity time scale.[2] Although it finds the most utility in geological applications, it plays an important role in archaeology. One archeological application has been in bracketing the age of archeological deposits at Olduvai Gorge by dating lava flows above and below the deposits.[8] It has also been indispensable in other early east African sites with a history of volcanic activity such as Hadar, Ethiopia.[8] The K–Ar method continues to have utility in dating clay mineral diagenesis.[9] Clay minerals are less than 2 microns thick and cannot easily be irradiated for Ar–Ar analysis because Ar recoils from the crystal lattice.

4.Ask yourself the question: Why do creationists have to deliberately lie and deliberately do very bad "science" to try and discredit all radiometric dates? And why do the scientifically uneducated keep on believing them?
5. Oh, and, trying to prove dating systems wrong is just that: trying to prove dating systems wrong. Even if you can prove them wrong, it is not evidence for creation. This thread is about evidence for creation, not evidence against evolution. Even if evolution is wrong (somehow), it does not make creation automatically the right theory.

 

[Hawkins]

In order to become a scientific theory, it must do more than come up with a random explanation of the facts. In order to be a theory, it must first be shown to be useful in making predictions. In the case of Tiktaalik, the scientists knew that amphibians were around 365 million years ago, but only fish 385 million years ago. So with the theory of evolution, they made a prediction that a fish like amphibian, or amphibian like fish, would be seen somewhere between the 365-385 million years old. And guess what, they found it, "Tiktaalik", and it was found in 375 million year old layer. After many predictions and tests of a model/hypothesis, if it is found to be accurate again and again, as is the case with evolution, it then becomes a full-fledged theory.

Oh no, you are in a totally twisting concept of what predictability is. If you call your theory of evolution, you need to predict evolution, not a bone locate miles away. Gee.

With the formula 2H2O = 2H2 + O2, you predict that water anywhere should be able to disolve into hygogen and oxygen. If you your formula is suspect of inaccurate, the use of critical data (say you can get the water from Mar) to attempt to falsify the forumla. If the formula is wrong, it will be falsified. You see that the prediction is about the rule developed and there is a way for such a prediction to be wrong to falsify the rule, in the case that the rule is wrong. You don't use your forumla to predict that there is a test tube around just because you are in the chem lab doing its experiment. And predictability works along side with falsifiability.

 

[Hawkins]

ImmortalFlame



Listen to me very carefully Mr, when I say something is too technical, that is I don’t understand the point, that does not mean I am CORNERED, that means I don’t understand what your saying. That’s EXACTLY what that means. It means exactly what I say. I’m not a liar, so put that in your dam pipe and smoke it.

In other words, i am not going to admit your right if i don't understand something you say! So back off with implying i am a liar.

You made a good point. And they are sneaky.

 

[David M]

Here is a recent example: Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radiometric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! With this sort of thing going on it is difficult to accept some "facts" that are derived from research even when it sounds convincing.

The good old Mt St Helens dating has cropped up has it. This claim is propaganda because the people who put it forward dishonestly hide the important facts about dating eruptions.

The dating method that was used relies on the physical properties of molten rock and the gas Argon that is produced when potassium decays. When rock is molten the argon gas escapes and when the rock solidifies any argon produced after that is then trapped.

The first important point that is not revealed is that the lava that erupts from a volcano is not all molten rock, mixed in with it are rocks that remain solid termed [FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]xenoliths (foreign rocks) and xenocrysts (foreign minerals)[/FONT]. So collection of samples must be done carefully to ensure that the correct samples of rock are being dated. The second point is that because dating relies on rates of radioactive decay a young sample will have such tiny amounts of the elements used that even modern equipment cannot detect the ratios accurately. This means that dating tests have a lower boundary at which point we know that they become unreliable with existing equipment.

So lets look at what the creationists say about the case themselves.

Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really 1 Million Years Old?

In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that "low argon" should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St. Helens and was only 10 years old.

[SIZE=+1]1. "Whole Rock"[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] 0.35 ± 0.05[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] 2. Feldspar, etc.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] 0.34 ± 0.06[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] 3. Amphibole, etc.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] 0.9 ± 0.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] 4. Pyroxene, etc.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] 1.7 ± 0.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] 5. Pyroxene[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1] 2.8 ± 0.6[/SIZE]

The lab that they sent the samples to stated in its publications that it was unable to accurately date rocks using K/Ar dating that were less than 2 million years old. In the paper Austin admits that [FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]"the mineral concentrates are not pure" and "[/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]The 'pyroxene concentrate' (DOME-IP) was dominated by orthopyroxene and much less clinopyroxene. Because it was composed of finer particles (170-270 mesh), it contained far fewer mafic particles with attached glass fragments than DOME-IH. This preparation is the purest mineral concentrate."[/FONT]. So there you have it, Autin himself admits that the samples contained contaminants.

In other words the methodology of the entire study was seriously flawed. They were not rigourous enough in their collection methods and used an inappropriate test.

Its a bit like me pointing a police radar speed gun at some grass and then claiming that grass is not growing because the speed shown was 0.

A more detailed analysis of why Austin's results are unreliable can be found here:
Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If someone says “that is too technical to respond to” and uses that as a motive to avoid admitting they are wrong, THAT IS DISHONEST. Why are you bull crapping me? I don’t have time for that.

No it isn't, despite whatever way you try and twist it.

And no, I'm not.

You can call it cheap all you want, it still means the same thing, dishonest, liar, whatever. It’s not good whatever you want to call it. But in my case, it IS good, just not BEST since I don’t understand YET all the technical language.

It's good to admit that you don't know something.

It's bad to ignore the fact that you don't know something and continue to assert that you are right - despite admitting ignorance.

You did not make it to me specifically, but you generalized, and used something that I spoke about. Concerning technical language.

I never once directed anything at you - or anyone else - directly. I simply said it was a common tactic. Why are you being so defensive about this?

I had mentioned in this thread already that there are some technical language that I don’t yet understand. I did NOT say that to try to COVER up being stumped by a point, I said that because it is REALLY the truth.

For God's sake, I never once aimed this accusation at you or anything you said - I was talking in generalities.

Here is what don’t make sense to me. You guys realize that we young earth creationists (or fundamentalists, whatever you want to call us, I personally don’t care what you call us at this moment) are SOOOOO strict about genesis chapter 1 and the flood story, but you’re so bent on thinking we are dishonest. Does it not occur to you by SIMPLE logic that if we are so strict about Genesis chapter 1 and the flood story, would we also not be just as strict with the rest of the bible, such as the commandments to be HONEST! Like ding dong, clue in. If we believe in genesis, we are also going to believe in the other parts of the bible to be honest. Come on now, logic.

Putting aside the fact that I have never made any assertion about your belief in Genesis, your logic is still completely fallacious. Believing that lying is bad does not suddenly exempt you from the capacity to lie. In fact, if you believe that what you are supporting is a good thing - in spite of any kind of factual basis whatsoever, and that what you are opposing is a bad thing - in spite of any kind of factual basis whatsoever, you are more inclined to lie about it.

Once again speaking in generalities, I have heard creationists accuse evolution of everything from justifying the holocaust to slavery. I have heard it blamed for the downfall of society and some people even believe that it will literally turn men into monsters. Now, imagining for a moment that this is what you believe, of course you'd be inclined to fight it by any means necessary - even dishonest means. So the whole "I'm a Christian so I wouldn't lie" argument just doesn't gel with me.

What's more, the entire Intelligent Design movement is based on misinformation.

Maybe the creationists that you have experienced time with REFUSE to respond to your points, but I CERTAINLY am not like them. And I personally get VERY ticked off if someone runs from responding to my case about ANYTHING. I think it’s cowering. And cowering and hypocrisy is the two things I hate the most in this whole world. But anyway, I will not run from ANY of your questions and arguments. Even if I have to research something MORE, or READ some more, I will DO so, but I certainly will not run or refuse. I don’t care HOW HARD your argument or point or question is, I will not refuse. And in ANY debate I have EVER done in my life, I have NEVER refused. Also as a side note, there has been atheists and agnostics who have REFUSED to answer some of my questions. So, no need to pick on SOME of those creationists, even SOME atheists do the same thing. It really depends on the type of PERSON your dealing with whether he is an idiot or not. That is what it boils down to. And I assure, I am not an idiot, I may get mad, but I am not an idiot. If I get mad, it’s for a GOOD reason.

Once again, I never once made any of these accusations against you. You're flying off the handle for no reason.

Admitting ignorance and then still asserting they are correct is not wrong if what they are asserting by faith is correct. Also if I admit I am ignorant in my understanding of some of the techno language used in biology textbooks, that is not admitting that I am ignorant of what I believe and that also is not an admittance to not knowing ANYTHING of the subject whatsoever.

Firstly, no, asserting something "by faith" as being correct - in spite of having no real knowledge of the subject - is still wrong. In fact, that's called willful ignorance.

Secondly, again you keep acting as if I leveled any such accusation as you specifically. You need to get this idea out of your head.

Your acting like I am suppose to know everything if I talk about the subject. Give me a break man, you don’t know everything, no one knows everything.

For God's sake, not knowing is not what bugs me - it's not knowing and yet still asserting that you are right.

I have explained this now four times. Why is it so hard for you to understand this very simple distinction?

Also immortal, my response to RedOne77 was to him, not you. There is a reason why I wanted him to respond to what I said TO him and not you. It’s because we had a previous posts to each other, and my questions to him were built from there, to which you cannot appreciate that short history. If he does not respond, then I will respond to your points. But if he does, then I will respond to his points, but it will be like responding to yours, slightly, since his responses will probably be slightly different. Perhaps, less frustrating to me. And this is not me “REFUSING your challenge, this is me having TIME management and order to my conversations.

This is an open forum where people can respond to other people as they see fit. When multiple people respond to my posts - even if they weren't intended for them - I take the time to respond to them. For example, this entire back and forth between you and me came from a post I made to Newhope101, and then you interjected.

So forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of your "time management" excuse, but you don't have to make any kind of excuses whatsoever. Your'e free to respond or not respond to anything on this forum. That's kind of the point of it, it's a forum.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I just hope science will one day support the validity of the bible with or without creationism.

Thus lies the underlying problem with Creationism and ID. The natural sciences really do not give a hoot if they match up with the reveled revelations of man. All that matters is where the evidence leads. With no preconceived notions or dogmatic beliefs.

To allow the Bible to direct research would be to ignore any evidence counter to the Bible. This is not science. It is pseudoscientific nonsense. A huge part of the scientific method is to accept that what we now think may in fact be wrong. To never end our search for the truth of nature, no matter where it leads. And if the evidence leads away from Biblical dogma, so be it.

 

[newhope101]

There are many members that have an over inflated sense of self importance in these forums. Evolutionists believe life was magically bought into existence despite its' complexity, despite the fact that even in a controlled lab scientists have been unable to mimic that natural occurence, despite their knowledge of the complexity of a living cell, yet whole heartedly believe it must be so because there is no creator. Evolutionists are just a guilty of believing in magic as they propose creationists or believers in God are. One set of bones can change the evolutionists thinking in a moment. There are more hypthesis about the 'evidence' that you can poke a stick at. You use the same genetic clock that dated a 20 year old lava flow at something like 198 millions years. Yet despite it all you insinuate creationists are the morons.
And I won't even go near discussions of why on earth an atheist would spend their time, and alot of it, on a religious forum. I'm on leave that's why I'm here as much as I am. Don't you lot have a life. Or do you get your jollies out of this.
Being egocentric, nasty and twisted is not a good look!
None of you are genetisists and rely on hypothesis that are driven by scientists with their own agenda. You all choose to accept the 'evidence' that suits your paridigm of life, which we all do.

Some of you are skilled at giving information respectfully, and debating points. Others of you are just a waste of time. Let those of us that want to learn get on with it. If you know it all...what are you doing here?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yet despite it all you insinuate creationists are the morons.

This is simply incorrect. Insinuation is totally unnecessary.

And I won't even go near discussions of why on earth an atheist would spend their time, and alot of it, on a religious forum.

Well, you're saving yourself at least one embarrassment then.

None of you are genetisists and rely on hypothesis that are driven by scientists with their own agenda. You all choose to accept the 'evidence' that suits your paridigm of life, which we all do.

Indeed, we accept the agenda of verifiable facts and objective evidence. You know, it's our paradigm of life - facts, reality, etc.

Some of you are skilled at giving information respectfully, and debating points. Others of you are just a waste of time. Let those of us that want to learn get on with it. If you know it all...what are you doing here?

I'm here for the laughs.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

There are many members that have an over inflated sense of self importance in these forums. Evolutionists believe life was magically bought into existence despite its' complexity,

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That's a subject called "Abiogenesis". You would do well to learn the difference between the two.

and just FYI, magic isn't involved in either of them. Magic is more of a creationist concept.

despite the fact that even in a controlled lab scientists have been unable to mimic that natural occurence, despite their knowledge of the complexity of a living cell, yet whole heartedly believe it must be so because there is no creator. Evolutionists are just a guilty of believing in magic as they propose creationists or believers in God are.

Atheism and Evolution are two different things and it might surprise you to learn that they are not mutually exclusive. One can accept evolution and still believe in god. Don't believe me? Google "Theistic Evolution".

One set of bones can change the evolutionists thinking in a moment.

Well, unlike creationism, science is always open to new information. No theory is untouchable in science, not even evolution. Science is a self-correcting process. That's why it works so well.

There are more hypthesis about the 'evidence' that you can poke a stick at.

Not anymore. There were multiple hypotheses about species and the variation of life but evolution by natural selection is the only one that has stood the test of time.

You use the same genetic clock that dated a 20 year old lava flow at something like 198 millions years.

A "genetic" clock to date a lava flow? I think maybe you're confused here.

Yet despite it all you insinuate creationists are morons.

I don't insinuate that. The only time I would consider a creationist to be a moron is when they prove that they are unwilling to think for themselves and learn any new information.

And I won't even go near discussions of why on earth an atheist would spend their time, and alot of it, on a religious forum. I'm on leave that's why I'm here as much as I am. Don't you lot have a life. Or do you get your jollies out of this.

Well, personally, I enjoy debate. I came here because this place isn't devoted to just one religion. I wanted to get exposed to all sides of the various arguments and actually, I was a christian when I first signed up. After I became an atheist I decided to stay for basically the same reasons. RF is a more well-rounded group than an atheist-only forum. You get exposed to a lot more points-of-view here, both the intelligent and the asinine.

Being egocentric, nasty and twisted is not a good look!

I agree, so I suggest you stop putting that look forward.

None of you are genetisists and rely on hypothesis that are driven by scientists with their own agenda. You all choose to accept the 'evidence' that suits your paridigm of life, which we all do.

As Auto said in another thread.

"No, that's not how science works. You don't get to cherry pick. Either the scientific method works or it doesn't. If it works, then part of it is a commitment to accept the results, even if they don't "fit your paradigm of life," whatever that means. If you only choose to accept the results that fit your preconceived notions, you're not doing science, and you're dishonest."

 

[Autodidact]

There are many members that have an over inflated sense of self importance in these forums. Evolutionists believe life was magically bought into existence despite its' complexity, despite the fact that even in a controlled lab scientists have been unable to mimic that natural occurence, despite their knowledge of the complexity of a living cell, yet whole heartedly believe it must be so because there is no creator.

Well, I said that you would have a chance to demonstrate your character, and you have done so. Unfortunately it seems to be lacking in integrity. I would very much appreciate it if you would share your thinking with us, and I am curious as to what goes on in a creationist's mind--is it dishonesty, wilful ignorance, or something else? At this point several people have patiently explained to you that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says nothing at all about the origin of life, yet you keep claiming it does. So what's going on inside your head? Do you not believe us? I'm happy to provide credible sources. Are you too stupid to understand what we're saying? Are you dishonest, and just don't care about the truth? Please, explain it to me.

Evolutionists are just a guilty of believing in magic as they propose creationists or believers in God are.

Again, another very basic error. You seem to think that there is something called an "evolutionist" who subscribes to some sort of philosophy that denies the existence of God. You are mistaken. That is called "atheism." If you want to debate the existence of God, you should start a thread about that. ToE is entirely consistent with the existence of God. There is no such thing as an evolutionist (this is the second time I've told you this.) The people who study evolution are called "biologists." People who accept science, including Biology, are called "normal."

One set of bones can change the evolutionists thinking in a moment.

Science is always open to new data.

There are more hypthesis about the 'evidence' that you can poke a stick at.

No, as I already told you, there is a single, accepted, mainstream theory, evolution.

You use the same genetic clock that dated a 20 year old lava flow at something like 198 millions years.

God you're ignorant. Do you want to Google "genetic clock" so you can see how far off you are, or do you want us to explain it to you.

Yet despite it all you insinuate creationists are the morons.

Well you seem to be trying to demonstrate it for you. Only a moron would call geology a "genetic clock." It's just so ignorant. So the only question left is whether you prefer to remain ignorant, or are interested in learning anything.

And I won't even go near discussions of why on earth an atheist would spend their time, and alot of it, on a religious forum.

Search the forum for the answer. Do you realize there is a difference between "atheist" and "person who accepts evolution?"

I'm on leave that's why I'm here as much as I am. Don't you lot have a life. Or do you get your jollies out of this.

Let me get this: you're criticizing us for participating in a forum you're participating in? Here's a button for you:

Being egocentric, nasty and twisted is not a good look!

Better avoid mirrors then!

None of you are genetisists and rely on hypothesis that are driven by scientists with their own agenda.

Actually, some of us are. So basically you don't trust or accept science?

You all choose to accept the 'evidence' that suits your paridigm of life, which we all do.

No Buddy, we're not all as close-minded as you. Some of us follow the evidence.

Some of you are skilled at giving information respectfully, and debating points. Others of you are just a waste of time. Let those of us that want to learn get on with it. If you know it all...what are you doing here?

You have yet to demonstrate that you want to learn anything. In fact you seem to be striving valiantly to avoid learning anything. At least, I've explained several things to you which you have ignored, preferring to persist making the same ignorant claims. Why?

 

[painted wolf]

I'm really curious how they got genetic material from a volcano...

I'm sure this was just a simple mistake and they meant radioactive decay... though the Mount St. Helen's "experiment" was a totally dishonest farce. (This example was one of the specific causes of my abandoning creationism actually.)

When I learned how blatantly dishonest this experiment was I was furious.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

This word dishonest bothers me. It implies that we all have the same experiences in life and see things the same...and if not there is dishonesty. I'm so glad we are all so different from each other. I do not see other views and not seeing the intelligence behind the bible I see, as being dishonest or stupid. Nor do I believe that those of you that cannot see it are damned in any way. The bible clearly speaks over and over about a resurrection of the dead and of the rightious and unrighteous, both in new and old testaments. So it's not about looking good before God. When I say I do not understand I do not expect to be put down about it. I, unlike some of you, do not know everything. I do not understand how the testing is done and I do not have nearly enough knowledge to challenge the individual research papers as I do in my field of expertise. In that way I am not unlike you. I need proof and I do not understand it enough. My flaw is that I am unable to stop hoping in life after death without evidence I understand. You give me a psych paper I do not agree with and I can pull it apart and argue using other research as to why I do not agree. So when I say I do not understand I mean I do not understand. But some of you did give me some great info but still it's over my head. However I can handle God and evolution together. Can you discuss this a little? How and when did man become something special to God? That sounds interesting.
The one thing I can say is that my experience of life and my hope has not led me to believe I am a better person than those of you who are being down right nasty.

...Now.. just to put the spanner back in the works (it is fun, isn't it?).... How does one explain the use of such a small portion of the brain? Does this fit in with evolution? One might see the huge capacity of the brain as an argument for creation. It does not appear to fit in with evolution in that we are usually given only a little more than we need.

 

[David M]

...Now.. just to put the spanner back in the works (it is fun, isn't it?).... How does one explain the use of such a small portion of the brain? Does this fit in with evolution? One might see the huge capacity of the brain as an argument for creation. It does not appear to fit in with evolution in that we are usually given only a little more than we need.

We explain it by the simple fact that the "we only use 10% of our brain" factoid is a myth, its not true.

Over the course of a day we use 100% of our brain, the "10%" probably stems from the fact that only about 10% of our brain consists of neurons, the rest are mostly glial cells (which are still needed as they encapsulate and support the neurons) and other types of cells.

In light of the fact that evidence from reality shows that we do use all of our brains do you accept that the "huge capacity of the brain" is not in any way an argument for creation?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

However I can handle God and evolution together. Can you discuss this a little? How and when did man become something special to God? That sounds interesting.

Theistic Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.

 

[newhope101]

Thanks Evelyonian. The site was very informative. My problem right now is that if there is a God why on earth not exert some influence on this sacred text? This notion has been my way of thinking for so long. God left us the bible and we do not get to see miracles. I thought generally that although not a scientific text it would be accurate with scientific information as it is in many places. I will have to ponder this one!
Then there is the question of any life after death in which ever way one believes that to be. At what point do the various faiths, or us as individuals, believe the resurrection of the dead became inforced? eg do neanderthals get a resurrection? This may not be the thread for it, but it has my interest. Thanks...

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Thanks Evelyonian. The site was very informative.

No problem.

My problem right now is that if there is a God why on earth not exert some influence on this sacred text? This notion has been my way of thinking for so long. God left us the bible and we do not get to see miracles. I thought generally that although not a scientific text it would be accurate with scientific information as it is in many places. I will have to ponder this one!
Then there is the question of any life after death in which ever way one believes that to be. At what point do the various faiths, or us as individuals, believe the resurrection of the dead became inforced? eg do neanderthals get a resurrection? This may not be the thread for it, but it has my interest. Thanks...

As for your questions, I would suggest starting a new thread. Maybe in the Science vs. Religion section. Hopefully you can find your answers.