[_ Old Earth _] matter and energy(and other fallacies of atheism)

[Barbarian]

Are you saying that people are forced to be truthful with theorys and ideas?

Obviously not. Is is possible you don't know what a theory is?

It has a very precise meaning in science. Hypotheses do not become theories until they are sufficiently tested to be sure that they explain the evidence.

You sound like because someone comes up with an idea, that they are forced to make it be based on evidence?

In science, that's all that counts.

People are dishonest.

Science depends on honesty. However, honesty is checked. If the results of an investigation can't be reproduced, the guy who did the study is in big trouble.

Such things usually ruin careers.

Evolutionary theory is so solid because there's a great mass of evidence, all of it supporting the theory.

 

[Featherbop]

And here we go again, where it stops noone knows.

You say evolution, I say non-evolutionary processes created by God.

yadyadayadayada

___

What about you saying the Bible is literal when its conveniant? You say the earth bringing forth life in the Bible is literal, but you say other parts of it aren't literal. Youi interpret how its conveniant to.

 

[Featherbop]

If you answer that, then get back on the topic "matter and energy" do not continue diverting the topic, and avioding the issue.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

If you answer that, then get back on the topic "matter and energy" do not continue diverting the topic, and avioding the issue.

*Pulls out beating trout
Reply to my post why don't you?

 

[Barbarian]

You say evolution, I say non-evolutionary processes created by God.

The difference is evidence. Science has it. You don't.

 

[Gary]

"Evidence" of evolution

"Evidence" of evolution...... LOL... sure.

The Barbarian: "Theories become theories when the evidence is sufficient to make it perverse disagree. That's where evolutionary theory is now."

Gary: huh??? Please explain!

The missing LINKS....

Evolutionists believe in the common ancestry of all plants and animals, including humans. This theory of macro-evolution entails the belief (not PROOF) that all higher forms of life evolved from lower forms by small changes over multimillions of years. However, they acknowledge that the fossil record studied by paleontology does not reveal such a finely graded series of animal forms in the proper time sequences. These transitional fossils that should be in the ground but are not are called “missing links†in the evolutionary chain.

So much for the "evidence"...... your "god" has failed you

 

[Gary]

The "faith" of the "missing links" religion

Although the failure to find “missing links†has disappointed evolutionists, few have given up the theory for lack of them. Their "religion" is based on "faith":

(1) Some transitional fossils exist to support evolution, so perhaps others will be found. Horse fossils are cited as an example of an existing fossil series.
(2) A tiny fraction of all the animals that ever lived have been preserved in fossils. And only a very small fraction of all fossils have been unearthed. So, we should not expect that many “missing links†will be found.
(3) By their nature transitional fossils were few. This adds to their rarity.
Many species had soft parts that perished easily and would not have been preserved.
(4) Many evolutionists favor a view called “punctuated equilibrium,†which contends that evolution occurred more rapidly than previously thought. There are leaps in the fossil record. Evolution, they claim, is more like a ball bouncing up a staircase than one rolling up a hill. (LOL)
(5) Crucial links have been found between primates and human beings. These include Neanderthals, Peking Man, Austriapithicus, Lucie, and others. (yeh.. right. Next they will find the tooth fairy!!)

.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Um, all fossils are transitional, the evolution of populations is an ongoing process.
The evidence is fairly conclusive on a great many matters.
Fossils show us that almost none of the animal or plant species that exist today were around millions of years ago. And the only observed process by which new species form is evolution.

Evolution, they claim, is more like a ball bouncing up a staircase than one rolling up a hill.

Strawman fallacy, that is not what punctuated equilibrium proponents claim.
They claim that there are times when huge amounts of change happens in populations and this accounts for fast changes in the fossil records within populations, though I'm not a biologist so I can't say whether or not they mean that this punctuation happens during major catastrophic environmental change or simply because random things like to happen.

(5) Crucial links have been found between primates and human beings. These include Neanderthals, Peking Man, Austriapithicus, Lucie, and others. (yeh.. right. Next they will find the tooth fairy!!)

What are the grounds on which you disregard all fossil records of homonids?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Theories become theories when the evidence is sufficient to make it perverse disagree. That's where evolutionary theory is now.

[/quote] huh??? Please explain! [/quote]

Hypotheses are informed guesses as to what the explanation for observed phenomena might be. They aren't upgraded to theories until there is a large body of evidence testing them to assure that they are correct.

In the case of evolutionary theory, we have the following:

Observed incidents of speciation
Fossil evidence of transitional organisms
Living transitionals
Phylogenies based on conserved biological molecules
Phylogenies based on DNA
Embyrological evidence

The missing LINKS....

"Missing links?" No, it's "Missing lynx." And it's been found. Seriously, though, "missing link" is not a scientific term. It means whatever anyone who uses it wants it to mean.

Evolutionists believe in the common ancestry of all plants and animals, including humans.

Many do.

This theory of macro-evolution entails the belief (not PROOF) that all higher forms of life evolved from lower forms by small changes over multimillions of years.

In science, there is no such thing as proof. We collect evidence, and eventually, it becomes strong enough to make doubt unreasonable. And then we have a new theory.

However, they acknowledge that the fossil record studied by paleontology does not reveal such a finely graded series of animal forms in the proper time sequences.

No, that's wrong. Horses for example show this. Even Gould, who was the proponent of punctuated equillibrium admitted that horses showed a finely graduated line of transitionals. If you like we could go over them and see whether they qualify or not. Would you like to do that?

These transitional fossils that should be in the ground but are not are called “missing links†in the evolutionary chain.

Not by scientists. And we find important new transitionals almost monthly. We are far, far from finding all the fossil species that exist.

So much for the "evidence"......

You might want to get acquainted with some of it. Shall we begin?

your "god" has failed you

My God is the God of Abraham. And He never fails.

 

[Featherbop]

You say evolution, I say non-evolutionary processes created by God.

The difference is evidence. Science has it. You don't.

What? I just said its the same thing. Relgious people are offended by the word evolution many times. People don't get what agrees with them and what doesn't.

You just want to argue for heck of it or something?

 

[Featherbop]

There is a christian veiw of evolution, and there is an atheistic veiw of evolution.

Evolution is more of an atheist "thing" and therefore relgious people think evolution=atheism. To believe that God created, and then created it so that creatures can change over time is logical.

People don't know what agrees with them.

I really don't mind if its called evolution. If I want to call it "superkewlchangetastiction" then its still the same thing.

As I said before "what happens, happens".

I disagree with the atheist relgion, and how it views "evolution".

 

[Featherbop]

Now, everyone, please return to the topic of "matter and energy".

We were discussing the big fallacy of atheism.

Now, either we can get back on topic, or the atheists can further prove their cowardliness.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Now, everyone, please return to the topic of "matter and energy".

We were discussing the big fallacy of atheism.

Now, either we can get back on topic, or the atheists can further prove their cowardliness.

*raises trout to beating position.
Will you reply to my post on page three or not? You keep whining about this thread getting off topic and yet you never return to it yourself.

 

[Barbarian]

What? I just said its the same thing. Relgious people are offended by the word evolution many times.

It's like being offended by gravity. Makes no sense at all.

People don't get what agrees with them and what doesn't.

I think most people are down on what they aren't up on. Most of those who think they hate evolution feel differently when they learn what it is.

 

[Featherbop]

What? I just said its the same thing. Relgious people are offended by the word evolution many times.

It's like being offended by gravity. Makes no sense at all.

[quote:8f22e]People don't get what agrees with them and what doesn't.

I think most people are down on what they aren't up on. Most of those who think they hate evolution feel differently when they learn what it is.[/quote:8f22e]

Right, people didn't get some weird, preconcieved notion that gravity contradicts their relgions. with the idea that the living world changes in some ways, they did. whats the point of discussing that any longer. Talk to them, not me.

Lots of it isn't even proven true, or is any more than guesswork. Most of it, i see no way it contradicts creation or the Bible. People just get notions. I guess the atheists picked up on it first, and christians saw it as eqauling atheism.

 

[Featherbop]

Syntax: Repost what is is you want me to respond to, and maybe I will.

And then, lets get back to the fallacys of atheism, matter and energy.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian observes that being offended by evolution is like being offended by gravity)

Right, people didn't get some weird, preconcieved notion that gravity contradicts their relgions.

Well, not microgravity, which we observe on Earth. But macrogravity, which we seen in star formations is highly offensive to many, on exclusively religious grounds.

Lots of it isn't even proven true, or is any more than guesswork.

Nothing in science is ever "proven". However, we do have abundant evidence for common descent.

Most of it, i see no way it contradicts creation or the Bible.

This is true. It contradicts creationism, not creation. But then, Genesis contradicts creationism as well.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Scientists have theories and models but we don't know yet. Cosmology is still asking itself the question "How did the universe come about?" We've been able to answer a great deal of that. The Big Bang theory creates a model for the universe that fits extremely well with what we know about the universe, but we still lack a few fundamental tidbits of knowledge. We are however, sure that we are on the right track because our current model has been only slightly modified by the WMAP findings of the state of the early universe.
So the answer is no one knows everything about it yet, but from what we've seen of the puzzle so far, we can say it with 99.9999999% certainty that the Big Bang happened.

 

[Featherbop]

(Barbarian observes that being offended by evolution is like being offended by gravity)

Right, people didn't get some weird, preconcieved notion that gravity contradicts their relgions.

Well, not microgravity, which we observe on Earth. But macrogravity, which we seen in star formations is highly offensive to many, on exclusively religious grounds.

[quote:ad1b2]Lots of it isn't even proven true, or is any more than guesswork.

Nothing in science is ever "proven". However, we do have abundant evidence for common descent.

Most of it, i see no way it contradicts creation or the Bible.

This is true. It contradicts creationism, not creation. But then, Genesis contradicts creationism as well.[/quote:ad1b2]

Common descent. Depends on what you mean. If you mean that humans and the chimpys are related, then I do not believe that. Anyone could go either way. some yes, some no. I don't. If you mean we have common anscesators in that we are all descended from the first 2 humans then yes. And some say no, and some say yes on that as well.

Isn't the only requirment for being a creationist is believing that God created the universe? If so, then I am one. If its a bigoted type of belief system, then I might want to stay away from that, and just say I believe that God created the universe, without putting a name on it.

and barbarian, how do you distinguish between what you should take literally what the Bibles says, and what not to?

 

[Featherbop]

Scientists have theories and models but we don't know yet. Cosmology is still asking itself the question "How did the universe come about?" We've been able to answer a great deal of that. The Big Bang theory creates a model for the universe that fits extremely well with what we know about the universe, but we still lack a few fundamental tidbits of knowledge. We are however, sure that we are on the right track because our current model has been only slightly modified by the WMAP findings of the state of the early universe.
So the answer is no one knows everything about it yet, but from what we've seen of the puzzle so far, we can say it with 99.9999999% certainty that the Big Bang happened.

You could have just quoted yourself syntax. hahahaha.

___

If God used the big bang to create the universe, and maybe He did, I certainly don't know, but I'm fine with that. I think that in years and ages of knowledge to come, ideas will be taken back, new ideas of the universes start will come. Thats also a lot of certainty about something. but noone can really know. evidence for one thing may in fact be evidence for something else. I understand that coming up with theorys and models for the universes beginning doesn't require acknowldgiong God. I think its ludacris to believe that the universe came to "happen" for no reason, randomly, without any significance, then living things evolve from oceans and turn into intelligent people. thats why, if I ever made a theory or idea about the universe's beginning, I would acknowledge god for doing it.