What's new
  • Do not use Chrome Incognito when registering as it freezes the registration page.
  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • No longer will OSAS vx OSNAS be allowed to be debated, argued, or discussed in theology forum. Too much time is required to monitor and rescources used to debate this subject which hasn't been definitively decided in 3,000 years.

[_ Old Earth _] Evolution Vs Evolution Concerning Textbooks

R

Rebecka

Guest
Creation is obvious. It is not hard to grasp.

Tell me this; when was it in your thinking and you claim to have knowledge, that things needed to be made, instead of just appearing? Do you have a date? Is it recorded? Who recorded it? Not the Sumerians, and they were the first that gave us writing. Not the Assyrians, nor Persians, nor the Greeks, or Romans, not the babylonians and they have all been around long before so called scientists.

Was it in 500 B.C. that things stopped apearing on their own? Or was it the 12th century? The 3rd? The 17th? Recorded history doesn't tell that something suddenly appeared without God, it isn't there. Recorded history tells us that God spoke the worlds into existence. We have the record, but there is NO record that something appeared from nothing for no apparent reason.

So, when, going by your sources, did things stop appearing from jelly or fish?

Since it is obvious that something cannot appear from nothing, or nothing in it's full meaning or lesser meaning would have no meaning, it would then become something, which isn't possible since nothing and something are two different things, so there has to be an explanation for how things came into existence.

Things have to thought of in order to come into existence.

There has to be a NEED before there is a reality.

What records do you have from the ancients that things appeared for no apparent reason? We have about 6,000 years of recorded history and thanks to archaeology we have information about the people before us and what they did.

For as long as recorded history has existed, there is no record that things suddenly appeared and evolved, but we do have records of God speaking and things appeared. Where are your records? Darwin himself was a mere man who feared that transitional fossill would never be found. His fear was birthed by his obvious humanity picking up on reality. he somehow knew it.

A thought has to exist that something is needed, then the thing is made and the need is met.

To believe that something came from nothing for no apparent reason is denying every law that governs the universe, and every sound reasonable thought that could enter the minds of men as stable.

God's mind thought of all this and he spoke and it happened, but to think that nothing produced something is not even reasonable intelligence because nothing is not something and something is not nothing or they would be each other and not seperate things.



.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
Re: Excellence?

Rebecka said:
Exactly what do you mean by "excellence"?

What do you mean by "ladder of excellence"?
I said it in a mocking tone. I was referring to the often-repeated creationist mis-assumption that natural selection promotes species which are successively 'better and better'.
-This is evidently not the case. Species will adapt via natural selection to their own particular environmental niche and it's peculiarities. No universal evolutionary standard for excellence exists.

Hence, the point about the 'superbugs' being 'superwimps' is 100% invalid, as was my point. They were better adapted for their niche, which is what occurs.

Remember Matthew the young homosexual who was beaten to death in Laramie, Wyoming by certain individuals who deemed him less than excellent?

Their minds which were products of their environmental teachings saw Matthew as a wimp, a misfit, a blemish in their "excellent" world? Natural evil in them eliminated him from our society because in their opinion, he was less than "excellent" or "perfect" like the men who killed him.

You cannot deny that this evil teaching was a product of Darwin's teachings that not all things were necessary, not all things are excellent, so in natural selection, what is not excellent is easily removed simply by natural selection. Beauty will select beauty and strength will select strength and so on and anything not in line with what is excellent and beautiful will be eliminated by natural selection. As some think that AIDS is nature's way of eliminating the Negro race. Or Hitler's thought that all Jews must die as they are inferior.
Rubbish. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not a moral guideline, so attacking it by moral means is invalid. If I dropped someone off a cliff, would that make gravity an evil idea?

Nature has no 'plan'. AIDS did not evolve with a purpose. People who think such are ignorant.

Birds remain birds even though they have different beaks or wings. Never does one thing change into another. It is the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy. (not sure which law, but one of them)
No. Neither the 1st nor 2nd laws of thermodynamics prevent evolution. Try actually studying them as I have and come back with the specifics before making ridiculous statements.

Speciation has been observed. Fact. This is the ultimate step necessary to show that the creation of separate species by natural selection exists. The only other factor needed is time and our ever-changing ecosystem.

Water can turn to ice, then back to water, but never into something else unless, ie: you add sugar, coloring and taste and it is now called Kool Aid, but the water is there, so is the ice, but all in different forms, but never does one thing change to another.
So?

Excellence means excellence and since man's mind has so many opinions, no telling what excellence is to one in comparsion to another man's , but the fact remains that the word "excellence" has a per se meaning and cannot be changed though opinions vary. There are absolutes and apply to all life and principles.
Define it, then. Go-on.

Since you have so far completely failed to define your absolutes (including, of course, order and disorder) so far, I have little doubt you will fail, but by all means try.

Natural selection is not happening, but revealings are. God reveals, not evolves. God allowed sin and came to redeem us from our "natural selections."
GIVE. ME. EVIDENCE.

Unbacked opinion does not an argument make. Hold up your side of the debate.

For experiment they placed a man alone in a pitch dark room for seven days. He had nothing but pitch darkness and coolness and he began to experience lonliness and fear, confusion and panic.

After 3 days, they placed one small candle in there and it cheered him, it comforted him and provided warmth. He needed these things to survive.

Man could never adapt to darkness. Someone told me man could adapt after millions of years, but he failed to take into account that the first generation would die if left alone in pitch darkness. In other words, there would be no one alive to go into the next generation for anyone to adapt.

If eyes evolved as needed, how could they have evolved in the dark, why would they be needed except to see? Man cannot see in the dark. And if they evolved in the light, how is it they cannot look into the sun? If they evolved in twilight, then why do they need to look on light more than darkness?
Waitasec; back up here.

You are criticising evolution because eyes are not perfectly adapted to all light levels?

Are you on crack or something? This makes no sense at all.

Many questions and all have answers found in the Bible, not in Darwin's theory which has never been proven, but have been disproven.
1) Show me these questions and answers.
2) 'Disprove' it, then. The entire scientific community disagrees with you on this matter, so I expect you to back your assertions up.



Once again I see no reasoning behind your assertion. Back yourself up with evidence, I say for the nth time.
 
S

saved4life

Guest
If eyes evolved as needed, how could they have evolved in the dark, why would they be needed except to see? Man cannot see in the dark. And if they evolved in the light, how is it they cannot look into the sun? If they evolved in twilight, then why do they need to look on light more than darkness?
Species that go to live into completely dark caves have lost their eyes over many generations of not needing them.

Other animals have evolved superior nocturnal vision for hunting at night. Of course, there has to be some light for that.
 
R

Rebecka

Guest
Unbacked opinion does not an argument make. Hold up your side of the debate.

You have failed to prove anything, all your arguments are old hat, things I've heard before.

Your opinions are based on what "scientists" say or rather evolutionists, but many scientists are christians and know there is a God.
I read of a surgeon who when looking upon the brain for the first time hd to say; "Someone made this." he knew it just by looking at it. He was intellkignet enough to see it was an obvious creation by a Mastermind.

If it just evolved, it sure as heck wouldn't need him to repair it. Think, man, think!

Your illustration that if you threw someone off a cliff, would it make gravity evil?

It would show YOU as evil using gravity for evil as Darwin's theory is used for evil. Gravity isn't evil per se, but it is also powerless unless it has an object to prove it's existence. How can I know there is gravity unless I see it or experience it.

I can use fire to cook my food , but fire can be used for evil, like committing arson, even as Darwin's theory was and is used for evil. Darwin had a thought, now his thought have far reaching results for stupid people who believed him.

It is pure rubbish to think and believe that the universe evolved by itself, or created itself, that what it created, MAN, is now trying to figure out how it did it. In other words, the universe is trying to figure out itself, or better yet, it is not aware of what it did and how to continue, so is using what it made (man) to help it, which would, in turn make the evolved thing (man) greater than the evolver, which is the universe.

Hogwash!
 
S

saved4life

Guest
Natural selection is not happening, but revealings are. God reveals, not evolves. God allowed sin and came to redeem us from our "natural selections."
Natural selection is very much still in control.

Go to any nightclub (pray before you do!) and you'll see which features on the human species are getting the mates. Hot babes with hot bods. :lol:
 
B

Blue-Lightning

Guest
But what is "hot", S4L? Didn't post-Renaissance England prefer larger women with a receeding hair line? To them, that was very "hot". So perhaps it is not truly what will advance the species, but only a contextual perception of valuable qualities.

Chew on that psychology...

BL
 
S

saved4life

Guest
all your arguments are old hat, things I've heard before.
"Old hat" arguments in science don't persist. If they lack sufficient base or are tenous, the scientific community will seek to disprove them, pat them on the head, and say "better luck next time."

So, if you've heard these arguments before it's most likely because they are viable to the scientific community.

Christians always choose science over God when it comes to their health. Only the completely fanatical refuse to go to a doctor, go under a knife, take drugs, etc. They don't live long. :lol:

The rest of them will go to a medical doctor when they're sick, and not to a church. They'll gladly take medications versus making a sacrifice to their god. They'll pray at the same time they take the medications, but they certainly won't just rely on their prayer. And when they get better, they'll thank God but not necessarily science.
 
S

saved4life

Guest
Blue-Lightning said:
But what is "hot", S4L? Didn't post-Renaissance England prefer larger women with a receeding hair line? To them, that was very "hot". So perhaps it is not truly what will advance the species, but only a contextual perception of valuable qualities.

Chew on that psychology...

BL
You're hot, BL. :lol:

This all goes back to our "cultural relativity" debate a while ago.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
Rebecka said:
You have failed to prove anything, all your arguments are old hat, things I've heard before.
If they are so old hat and self-evidently false, why on Earth have you completely failed to debunk any of them? I have heard not a jot of evidence or logical deduction on your side of the argument and you have still not approached the issue of backing creationism.

Your opinions are based on what "scientists" say or rather evolutionists, but many scientists are christians and know there is a God.
Yes indeed. These scientists also, almost entirely, back evolution too.

And the thing is with science is that it can be investigated further, as I have in many areas. Furthermore, so can you. The references of speciation experiments and the transitional fossils have been listed so you can go and research them, in order to criticise them properly with an informed argument. You have so far failed to do so.

I read of a surgeon who when looking upon the brain for the first time hd to say; "Someone made this." he knew it just by looking at it. He was intellkignet enough to see it was an obvious creation by a Mastermind.
And I've read of thousands of scientists, the majority in fact, all intelligent men and women, believing in and backing the theory of evolution. Do you have a point?

If it just evolved, it sure as heck wouldn't need him to repair it. Think, man, think!
HA!! :lol:

Do you honestly think that evolution by natural selection, a blind process, would produce a 'perfect' design, without any possibility of flaw!!?

If you honestly believe that I feel rather sorry for you. Natural selection leaves masses of flaws. We are filled with potential design flaws, indeed; flaws which a 'perfect god' would probably not make, if he weren't an idiot. Flaws like the appendix, masses of junk DNA and RNA, our co-joined windpipe and throat, our backwards-wired retina etc etc.

If you think evolution tends towards a 'perfect' or 'perfectly reliable' design, you are sadly mistaken.

Your illustration that if you threw someone off a cliff, would it make gravity evil?

It would show YOU as evil using gravity for evil as Darwin's theory is used for evil. Gravity isn't evil per se, but it is also powerless unless it has an object to prove it's existence. How can I know there is gravity unless I see it or experience it.
Exactly my point. The theory of evolution is not evil and preaches no moral constants, and so cannot be judged by moral means.

And as for 'see and experience', I believe I just went over some of the evidence, repeatedly, earlier. You still haven't answered on that issue. Try to investigate it instead of ignoring it.

I can use fire to cook my food , but fire can be used for evil, like committing arson, even as Darwin's theory was and is used for evil. Darwin had a thought, now his thought have far reaching results for stupid people who believed him.
Ditto for the Christian faith. The inquisitions, crusades and hundreds of years of Christian churches stealing the wealth of the population in European countries is hardly a 'nice' result. I could insert the 'stupid people' comment here too.

It is pure rubbish to think and believe that the universe evolved by itself, or created itself, that what it created, MAN, is now trying to figure out how it did it. In other words, the universe is trying to figure out itself, or better yet, it is not aware of what it did and how to continue, so is using what it made (man) to help it, which would, in turn make the evolved thing (man) greater than the evolver, which is the universe.

Hogwash!
Again, for at least the 5th time now:



BACK YOURSELF UP!!!





If you haven't any evidence or logical deduction (or, better still, a workable model hypothesis of creationism) then shut up and stop preaching. Back up your bloody arguments as I have been doing throughout the thread.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
saved4life said:
all your arguments are old hat, things I've heard before.
"Old hat" arguments in science don't persist. If they lack sufficient base or are tenous, the scientific community will seek to disprove them, pat them on the head, and say "better luck next time."

So, if you've heard these arguments before it's most likely because they are viable to the scientific community.
Read this, Rebecka. Unlike religion, the scientific method checks itself frequently. Hypotheses that don't work with the evidence are discarded.
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
Blue-Lightning said:
But what is "hot", S4L? Didn't post-Renaissance England prefer larger women with a receeding hair line? To them, that was very "hot". So perhaps it is not truly what will advance the species, but only a contextual perception of valuable qualities.

Chew on that psychology...

BL
I'm quite fond of the larger lady myself, come to that. Not the receding hairline, though, thank goodness. ;)
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
It may be a bit off-topic, but it occurs to me that I haven't done any writing (of the fictional variety) for well over a month now.

I should get on with completing my latest offering really. So much work has been getting away (along with delightfully addictive discussions like this one).
 
S

saved4life

Guest
I'm quite fond of the larger lady myself, come to that.
Natural selection at work, Victor.

You don't want her to die of hunger when you lose your livelihood from spending too much time on the net. :lol:
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
Pattern Recognition.

All things have a beginning.
It began as a thought, and progressed as an impulse.
And ended as an action.
All places have a boundary.
A flat plane met its limits, fractures spreading and disassociation building. Falling apart as it moved to its new equilibrium state, the object came through, looked out in surprise and marvelled at the constellation of fragments he had created. Refracting, reflecting. They were motes on the wind; tiny meteors lost to sky and gravity.
And as he looked upwards, they fell away from him.
All planes have a horizon.
He stared and marvelled as the constellation disappeared, vanishing in empty infinity shot through with light and clarity, and looked instead at the building. Each pane a flat surface, devoid of imperfection and possessing of purity. Each join between the panes simply white, featureless material.
And the whole was a wall. It was the ground and the sky. The sea and the cosmos, reflecting all but itself. –And the horizon it created for him was beautiful, splitting and refracting the light from that glowing orb so infinitely far above him… or below.
All acceleration has a cause.
The air roared like a thing possessed, or a force given a soul. The pressure sucked at his ears and the turbulence surged at his eyes as backwards he fell. His wake, though invisible, churned the air and sucked at him further. But not enough.
The horizon retreated from him, but less so now. Lesser speed or increased perspective? It would, at some point, freeze in his sight and move no further, though further it would still be moving.
Infinity and reality. Both are defined by perspective.
All patterns have a soul.
The Pattern screamed at him, even now. Within his mind it roared it’s intent and it’s personality. It’s purpose. It’s goal. It’s mind.
And it was insane.
What could have been a creation of his mind was not. Not in this case. The Pattern was real. The Pattern had focus. It was a separate entity inside him and he could not bear it’s torment.
And so; to end.
All routes have a destination.
He focused instead on the horizon. That wonderful, artificial, horizontal sunrise over a vertical ground.
Or sunset? Could it be that?
The Pattern raged a quite final provocation at his consciousness.
He did not have time. Sunrise or sunset; to find out which required time he did not have. He turned back from the abstract to the real.
And turned away from the horizon to look at the ground beneath him. He had no idea it would move so fast.
All patterns have an end.



"Did he leave a note?" Came the voice on the wind, carried to the air through the remains of the window.
"No. No he didn’t." Came the reply, from that cramped space on the inner side of the window frame, separated from the air and the vertiginous beauty of the scene outside. The woman from whom the statement had come shrank back from the scene and made a successful effort to ignore it.
The two were a man and a woman, detectives both, and both dressed as such. The conservative jackets, the too-ordinary shirts and trousers and, more importantly, the expressions of analytically harnessed suspicion worn by each of them.
"That’s a pity." Spoke the man, one Peter Dartmoor. "This means of course that we will have to… investigate." He spoke the word as a sigh. He was a short man, his build slight and his mouth almost too small for his face, but his eyes betrayed an intent and passive competence entirely at odds with his general appearance. "Irritating, that." He shrugged.
"No-one leaves nothing when they suicide."
Peter frowned at this. "If, Susan, by that you mean that there is always a note of some form, you are being prize-winningly naïve."
"No, I-" Came the protestation, which was cut-off with some rapidity.
"But if you mean that some clue is always left, then perhaps." He grinned, turned away from the window and leant on the wall. "Though separating the one useful clue from the dozen worthless ones is the problem."
"So…." Continued the one known as Susan. "Cause of death: Push or jump?"
"‘Ground’, I’d say." Came the reply. A brief period of silence bloomed gently, caressing the walls of the tiny apartment.
"That was tasteless." Her face, normally set into an impassive neutrality, allowed a frown to crease it marginally. It disappeared just as quickly and with just as little fuss.
"Probably. I have never much managed to get into the swing of Mondays." His eyebrows arched together and he looked at the carpet, his boot vaguely rubbing a small burn mark. "Too much fatigue, too much caffeine and far too little joviality." He looked around. And what a pleasant place to start this particular Monday, indeed. Another high-rise rat-hole, and one with more bloody machinery than space.
The latter point was most certainly true; he had rarely seen a place like this. It looked almost inconceivable that someone might actually live in it. The sole concession to comfort was a lone bed, it’s sheets thin and stained, it’s mattress of the foam-sheet kind, uncomfortable to look at, nevermind sleep on. The whole precarious arrangement was constructed so as to fold up into a recess in the wall, though that was currently inhibited by a tangle of cables, partially blocking it. A closer inspection revealed that the recess itself had been used to store another computer of some form, small lights even now flickering on and off over it’s gutted and caseless carcass.
The lighting of the whole sordid affair was a faint blue flickering from the small panel in the ceiling, currently more than out-competed by the daylight flooding in from outside, through the torn remains of grey curtains, fragments of which were hanging on the shattered remnants of the window-pane.
And the machines were everywhere. From the floor to the ceiling they were there, piled up and imposing upon the rest of the room. –The rest of the room being, in this case, a narrow path from the door to the window, passing the bed en-route. Cables and more machinery overhung the tiny strip of uncovered floor, themselves covering every square inch of ceiling save for the single light panel. They were all computers, their innards humming faintly and tiny lights, signifying power or transmission or somesuch, blinking on and off at their own behest. Peering further into the suffocating assemblage, he saw what might be tiny gaps between the electronic monoliths. Maintenance pathways, perhaps, sufficient for a slight person to worm their way through with some effort. They seemed to go on, twisting out of sight, for some distance.
He stuck his head briefly into the general assemblage to his side, encasing his sense in the noise of a hundred tiny machines operating all around him, before ducking out again. "How far does this all go?" He asked.
Susan turned round again to face him, and, anomalously, allowed a smile to cross her petite face. She brushed her hair back and replied. "Quite some distance. The guys have gone into five rooms now, all on this corridor. They are all stuffed with computers. The building clerks claim that a couple more rooms downstairs might have belonged to him too."
"How is that possible?" It shouldn’t have been. Housing was strictly regulated, and no tech worker should have had the resources to-. He paused and thought about it. “Were these rooms actually in his name?â€Â
“No.â€Â
“Then whose were they? And how do you know they were his?â€Â
“We don’t ‘know’ much of anything right now.†She indicated with a shrug, a raised eyebrow and a half-smile. “What we do know is that not one of the occupants of the ‘suspicious’ rooms have ever been seen by the residency clerks, now they come to think of it.â€Â
He sighed, mockingly. “‘Now they come to think of it.’.â€Â
“Hmm?â€Â
“Wouldn’t the world be a nicer place, Susan, if people ‘thought of it’ before the event and not after it? People just aren’t suspicious enough. People should think to keep an eye on their neighbours once in a while. ‘Dimitri from next door’ is no less likely to be unhinged than anyone else.â€Â
She carried on, allowing him his minor monologue. “The rooms are in the names of the individual’s co-workers, and one or two relatives. Interesting.†She looked up from her reference sheet. “I wonder how many are still alive, or were on Earth at the time the contract was signed.â€Â
“Good point. It looks like either fraud or collaboration.†He raised a hand to cup his chin, fingers briefly analysing the unshaven surface, and frowned introspectively. –An unconscious bit of amateur dramatics, really. “And what of the equipment?†He indicated the massed ranks of technological excess towering all around them. “Where did it come from? He did not have the funds, and purchases of such computing power is well-monitored.â€Â
“You suspect a conspiracy?â€Â
“I suspect something.†He tapped the nearest machine. Why all this computing power? What has been constructed inside all of this?
“We should try to contact the family members involved in this. To question them.â€Â
This received a raised eyebrow from Peter. Perhaps, he thought, a tiny flame of sympathy flickering for the family of the lost man, they should be contacted to notify them of the suicide, or whatever it was. He shook his head, faintly. No. Procedure. They are suspects now.
There were certainly better ways to start a Monday, indeed. –A suicide with complications. Some poor bugger had tired of his life and ended it a hundred stories further down, neglecting even to leave a note to loved ones. A tiny speck on the eyeball of society, falling obscurely by steel and concrete monoliths, to be annihilated on a ground-level roadway that never asked for his presence.
Stupid sod. He thought. There were many cleaner ways of ending ones life, ways that wouldn’t leave a mark on an expensive road or halt traffic for an hour or so. Ways that, with just a taste of the right chemicals, would distil one’s blood to a toxin and send him irreversibly to oblivion with no more than a fading heat signature left to advertise the fact, their flesh turned poisonous and uncorruptible and their intestinal waste fossilised to an inert state. It would have been easy to arrange, quick, painless and silent.
And yet he had chosen to dash himself to juice instead, overdosed on terminal velocity. Strange.
He looked again at the assemblage of machinery, whirring away in it’s own world of unknowable concern and operation, and thought of this new oddity. Something, certainly, had been going on here, and his views on it were limited.
The usual array of paranoic fantasies sprung to mind. Is he an offworld spy? A dissenter? A publisher of banned articles? They were dismissed rapidly. No spy, surely, would be this bloody obvious, and few spies hurl themselves out of windows, generally speaking.
He looked out of the window and noted that there was absolutely nothing preventing anyone else looking straight back, to the apartments and the suspicious machinery. Incautious.
And yet there was something, catching the edge of his mind with an insistent whisper and delivering a fresh suspicion. A tiny voice pointing out a single correlation, distant and fleeting, with some other instance, long past.
I’ve seen this once before. He thought.
I’ve seen this once before, but was never allowed to finish my investigation. There. The seed of suspicion was planted and extending it’s fragile roots. His investigation had indeed been cut down, back then, before it had even had a chance to begin. Why, of course, was the question he had never had a chance to answer. He looked up at the dark ranks of computers and thought darker thoughts.
"Sir." Came Susan’s call from the other side of the room, shattering his chain of thought. He turned accordingly.
"Yes?"
"We’ve found something. Some sort of a log."
"What?" He looked at her, and the grey-faced ‘tech currently pulling a neural link band from his head and nodding to her, handing the tool over. Banned technology, he thought.
"It’s a logbook of some kind. Runs back years. This guy has obviously been recording his goings-on, or just a diary of some kind. This might be useful, intact as it is. No crypting, no passwords, nothing."
Peter was taken back for just a second, puzzling it over in his head, but he returned to attention with a jolt. This might just be it. A crack at finding out what was really behind that most puzzling of unsolved cases, and why it was repeated here, of all places. A chance to look into a mystery he had been wondering about ever since that day, ten years ago, when that investigation had been snatched away from him and anyone else in his department, by shadowy people with even shadier connections and methods. A gate into the cover-up.
He grinned, reached out his hands and approached her, past the humming of the machine-canyon in the tiny room.
"Why, hand it over."
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
saved4life said:
I'm quite fond of the larger lady myself, come to that.
Natural selection at work, Victor.

You don't want her to die of hunger when you lose your livelihood from spending too much time on the net. :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Too true. :biggrin
 
R

Rebecka

Guest
Victorhadin says......BACK YOURSELF UP!!!
Follow your own suggestion!
You have presented virtually nothing and have given proof of nothing.

If and I say IF..IF you had even the remotest proof of evolution, you would be collecting $100,000.00 from Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind has done a great thing..he shut the evolutionist up. Kent Hovind knows there is no proof, only talk. You have nothing to present to him even as you have nothing to present here except the same old hat arguments I've read and heard by atheists.

I have given you much, it is not my fault you don't see it.
Your arguments are the same old, same old and the books I have read by the men of God who are scientists understand all this and easily refute you. My own thoughts also refute you. The Bible refutes you.

I do not expect you to see anything.
To think you can leave out the spirit man is ridiculous. Man is a spirit housed in a body of clay.

Psalm 53:1
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

Notice God didn't say.."a fool" but God said..."THE fool.."
If there were a thousand fools being fools for a thousand different reasons, still the fool who said there isno God is THE fool among fools.
 
S

saved4life

Guest
Notice God didn't say.."a fool" but God said..."THE fool.."
Is that kinda like Clinton's "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is?"


:lol:
 
R

Rebecka

Guest
saved4life said:
Notice God didn't say.."a fool" but God said..."THE fool.."
SAVEDFORLIFE SAYS........Is that kinda like Clinton's "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is?"


NO. God is God and Clinton is only a man.
You're kidding, right???????????
 
V

victorhadin

Guest
Rebecka said:
Victorhadin says......BACK YOURSELF UP!!!
Follow your own suggestion!
You have presented virtually nothing and have given proof of nothing.

If and I say IF..IF you had even the remotest proof of evolution, you would be collecting $100,000.00 from Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind has done a great thing..he shut the evolutionist up. Kent Hovind knows there is no proof, only talk. You have nothing to present to him even as you have nothing to present here except the same old hat arguments I've read and heard by atheists.

I have given you much, it is not my fault you don't see it.
Your arguments are the same old, same old and the books I have read by the men of God who are scientists understand all this and easily refute you. My own thoughts also refute you. The Bible refutes you.

I do not expect you to see anything.
To think you can leave out the spirit man is ridiculous. Man is a spirit housed in a body of clay.

Psalm 53:1
"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

Notice God didn't say.."a fool" but God said..."THE fool.."
If there were a thousand fools being fools for a thousand different reasons, still the fool who said there isno God is THE fool among fools.
You know Rebecka, because I am a nice, if slightly anal person, I am going to be helpful and draw out a quick summary of this thread regarding you and I:

1) I mention the 'order-disorder' definition problem to bjdea1, saying that he cannot make a blanket statement about disorder and evolution without defining disorder.
2) You state that order and disorder is not the problem because someone ('logically') must have set it all in motion anyhow. You say there are no transitional fossils. You mock the long-since debunked piltdown man.
3) I say what I meant by the oil/ water explanation and point out the logical errors in assuming the god-of-the-gaps. I point out that Piltdown man is recognised as a hoax by the scientific community and that there are indeed transitional fossils.
4) You say that 'chaos is the opposite of order' (without defining one or the other in a testable fashion). You assert that there are no transitional fossils. You assert that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is stated in the bible. You assert that a tendency towards 'disorder' is inevitable because people die. You assert that people cannot make sound judgements due to mortality.
5) I ask for a testable definition of 'order' and 'disorder'. I assert (no direct evidence quite yet) that transitional fossils do indeed exist.
6) You make a woolly statement about chaos being order's servant. You fail to define either in a testable fashion.
7) I give two sample definitions of different types of order to help you in your quest to define them as general absolutes. I give several examples of scientists and individuals who have obviously exerted sound judgement in the past.
8 ) You attemt to define order and disorder again, via allusions to myth and god. Again you fail to give a testable definition!
9) I ask you to justify yourself better, especially regarding the idea that no human has made a sound judgement ever.
10) You assert that since people die, they cannot look at the world and deduce it's age. You assert that since christians are numerous, they are correct. You make first reference to Hovind's site.
11) I point out how mortality is not an issue in science as the bedrock of scientific knowledge extends beyond the efforts of any single lifetime. I give examples of devices which utilise sound scientific principles in their operation, showing it's validity and 'sound thought'.
I point out two isolated ecosystems for you to investigate. I point out several examples of selected mutations, and allude to demonstrated speciation in fruit flies (gone into in more depth on the 'evidence' thread, should you wish to look). I also mention genetic similarities and genetic evidence for common ancestry with primate species. I give nine separate examples of transitional fossils.
I state dictionary definitions for atheism and religion, showing that one is not the other and point out historical examples of how christianity was not the single motivating factor for sociological change.
I then point out the nature of Hovind's challenge as being logically impossible (showing god has no part to play in anything).
12) You assert with zero evidence or backing reasoning, that god is the source of all of mankind's creativity and technological endeavours.
13) I ask you to back yourself up on this matter. I point out several inconsistencies with this idea of technological and scientific advance. I point out that christianity's 'being true due to popularity' is rubbish as it isn't even a majority in the world.
14) You assert again, without evidence, that all knowledge comes from god and that all incorrect hypotheses are the work of the devil's whispering.
15) I ask you, oddly enough, to back yourself up. Again.
16) You allude to authority by quoting Newton and Coleridge, neither in a scientific capacity. You say that Islam is rubbish whereas the words of Jesus are the truth.
17) I point out the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy. I point out most scientists are in fact theists, and so the 'evolutionist conspiracy' idea is in fact rubbish. I ask you to back up your claims about Jesus.
I also ask you to create an internally-consistent hypothetical model for creationism, and to back it up with available evidence.
18 ) You assert (without evidence) that 'right thinking' came from god. You assert that there are no transitional fossils, completely ignoring my earlier examples! You asked whether the mind or the brain came first.
19) I point out the logical problem with Hovind's demands (again). I point out that I have given many indicators to evolution and you have backed creationism not one jot. I point out that pre-Judeaic civilisations and the moral conduct of non-christian faiths in the world contradicts your idea that morality started with the ten commandments.
I say that the brain, in small creatures, appeared first (depending on definition of the mind).
20) You do a cut-and-paste about the 'superbugs', entirely missing my point.
21) I answer that cut and paste, explaining the details of natural selection that you obviously overlooked in your haste to cut-and-paste. I again ask for backing for creationism and the model I asked for.
22) You said that you meant a human brain. You said, bizarrely, that it would take a mind to 'know' it should evolve a larger brain. (What!?) You attempt to connect the theory of evolution with moral dubiousness. You claim that eyes cannot have evolved as they are not perfectly adapted to all light levels (!?)
You say that 'creation is obvious'. You assume that creation is a conscious act.
23) I ask you again to define your terms and give evidence for your assertions, as I have.
24) You say that 'all my arguments are old hat' (without addressing even one of them) and assert that it is 'pure rubbish' to think the universe could have come into being without a creator, as the man within the universe is trying to figure it out, making it 'greater than the evolver'. Seriously; are you on crack?
25) I ask for evidence. AGAIN!


I have given multiple levels of evidence, explaining several different testable definitions of order, explaining natural selection, pointing out two isolated ecosystems where evolved species and subspecies can be seen to have come into being, gave nine different examples of transitional fossils, pointed out the issue of genetic similarity and common genetic ancestry, gave several examples of speciation (more detail in 'evidence' thread), gave multiple examples of beneficial mutations being selected for and gave multiple examples of 'sound thinking' in many now-dead individuals.

By contrast, you have:

1) Failed to define, in a testable fashion, order or disorder.
2) Failed to define the absolute 'right' and 'wrong' you allude to.
3) Failed to define absolute 'excellence'.
4) Failed to provide a reasoned hypothetical model of creationism (necessary for scientific analysis).
5) Failed to back up with empirical evidence your assertion that technological and scientific advance is down to god.
6) Completely ignored all my examples of speciation, transitional fossils etc etc, hoping that they will go away if you don't mention them.

So before you wax poetic, consider the above points and sort them out. This is not to be a one-sided debate in which you can blither away merrily without supporting your own side of the argument. I expect you to attempt to back creationism and similar viewpoints with empirical data, examples or, at least, an internally-consistent hypothetical model which explains the processes of your assertion.

Consider this before you make your happy little assumptions; I have been providing all the evidence in this very one-sided argument, so move your arse and do something to redress that balance!
 

Bryan

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
230
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
victorhadin,

I apologize for jumping into this at this late stage, but I have to address something. You keep talking about all the evidence you've posted, but I looked through the thread from top to bottom, and you haven't posted any. All you've done is make long winded posts telling us that you have evidence.

Unlike some others, I certainly wouldn't go so far as others as to say that the creationist model is the only correct one. Evolution MAY be correct, but the fact is, it is just a theory that doesn't have very much to back it up at all. If you want to believe in evolution, that's fine, but don't go telling people that it's a proven fact, because that would be dishonest at best.
 

2020 Hosting Fee

Total amount
$10.00
Goal
$667.40
Top