[_ Old Earth _] Even scientists know there's a God

[John]

Scapegoat..?


we have millions of fossils of animal A and C but no animal B my claims still stand, no matter how delitcate the fossil bussnies is, there should be tons more transsinal fossils. you fail.

 

[Dunzo]

Scapegoat..?


we have millions of fossils of animal A and C but no animal B my claims still stand, no matter how delitcate the fossil bussnies is, there should be tons more transsinal fossils. you fail.

Are you drunk? Read his post again and make sure to UNDERSTAND it.

 

[John]

This is ridiculous. First of all, there are lots of transitional fossils. just do a web search. creationists like to claim that there are no transitional fossils. This is a claim made by many creationists seeking to distort or flat-out ignore the evidence that exists.

This claim fails for me, i don't belive in transitional fossils because there is too much not known, and general contraversy suronding them.

Secondly, "gaps" in the fossil record are not evidence against the ToE, only evidence that fossilization is delicate business, requiring specific conditions for fossilization to occur, instead of allowing the animal to decay and disintegrate. we find new fossils all the time. Archaeopteryx is the most cited transitional form, so I'll use that example. We can see that Archeopterix had a breast bone, but paleontologists can't be sure if the muscle attachments were large enough to support powered flight, and Archeopterix bones aren't hollow like modern birds, so If it did fly it was more like the flight of a road runner than the flight of an eagle. Archeopterix does have feathers, their impressions are clearly visible on most of the fossil specimens. Archeopterix also has a wish bone. It also may have an opposable big toe (it's hard to tell on the fossils) which would be another Avian feature. Finally the Archeopterix has an elongated and backward facing pubic bone, another characteristic of birds.

?
Gap = a lack of evidence, if you have lack of evidence then that part of a thoery cann't be easly supported.

but don't birds have bills? Does Archeopterix have a bill? No, it has very dinosaurian jaws. Bird's trunk vertebrae are always fused but Archeopterix trunk vertebrae are not. Birds do not have bony tails, Archeopterix does, as do dinosaurs and reptiles. Apart from the pubic bone pointing backwards, the entire structure of the Archeopterix pelvis is mostly dinosaurian, including the pelvic "peduncle" (I had to look that word up.) which is a very prominent feature in such dinosaurs as the Tyrannosaurus. There are more reptilian/dinosaurian features on Archeopterix than there are Avian features, and to me the most interesting fact is that the Archeopterix had teeth. When was the last time you saw a bird with teeth? But then, when was the last time you saw a reptile with feathers? It is clearly a transitional.

then its simpy a mosic form, i see those everyday, you for example your half human have idiot, soon we shall have 100% idoits as evolution progresses (i don't mean that, just a joke, i know your not an idiot..just confused, it happens to the best of us.)

Another common argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features, This is also used by people trying to prove irreducable complexity. It is true, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to a wing, for example, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings often still retain all of these functions, while also being used for active flight.

or wings have always been used in flight, mating displays, gliding etc since creation.

While Archeopterix is the most cited transitional form, it is not the only one. An extremely interesting set of fossils links the modern whale with a land-dwelling ancestor. Finding the land-going ancestors of the whale was anticipated by scientists using the precepts of ToE, which shows that the theory has predictive value. The same is true with horses and the Hyracotherium. It was predicted in the 1800's that a small ancestor to the horse would be discovered in the early Eocene Epoch. It was named Eohippus, or " Dawn Horse" This is something that "Creation Science" could never do. Since it is not a valid scientific theory no predictions could be made from it.

The Thoery of horse evolution was disporved over 50 years ago, get with the program.

As I pointed out in my above post, all living organisms are in fact to be regarded as intermediate, transitional forms when they are compared to some other related life-form. there are many species alive today that can be considered to be transitional between two or more groups. We have found fossils showing the transition from fish to amphibian. The time when this transition should have occurred is known, so finding these fossils was only a matter of looking for the right kind of rock formation (i.e. a sedimentary rock formation from the right time period) and start looking for fossils. They found fossils that shared traits of both fish and amphibians. Evolution has predictive value as any rigorous explanation of natural phenomenon should.

regarded by evolutionists, but just because you claim we are transitional forms now, untill "millions of years" in the future when the race of super humans looks back and sees this as fact , your claim is 100% empty.

the platypus is an intermediate form between reptiles and mammals because it retains certain reptilian traits no longer found in modern mammals and also possesses traits of a highly specialized aquatic animal, and it is alive today.

mosaic

Evolutionists blanket cover = trasitional
Creationist blantek cover = mosaic

niether can be proven or disproven, i would be willing to drop my claim if you dropped yours, what makes yours so "true" i'll tell you, becuas emy god can't exist and that is all the reasoning you need, well sorry my god exists and your wrong.

.[/quote]

 

[Jayls5]

Johnmuise, you totally ignored the fact that it made predictions and found it, then you simply say "FALSE!" and then you don't even offer a shred of proof or mild support.

Not surprising though. All I ever seem to hear from your side is, "blah blah blah, god of the gaps, missing link, therefore creation is supported even though it's a false dichotomy."

Come back with something substantial.

 

[Heidi]

Johnmuise, you totally ignored the fact that it made predictions and found it, then you simply say "FALSE!" and then you don't even offer a shred of proof or mild support.

Not surprising though. All I ever seem to hear from your side is, "blah blah blah, god of the gaps, missing link, therefore creation is supported even though it's a false dichotomy."

Come back with something substantial.

Sorry, but we've explained a lot more than what you claim. We've given you; mathematical odds against evolution, shown you why apes can't breed human descendants, pointed out that no one in history can document our vine-swinging ancestors and a lot more evidence against evolution. So your post once again false. So stop wasting our time with false statements.

 

[John]

Thanks Heidi :wink:

 

[Jayls5]

Johnmuise, you totally ignored the fact that it made predictions and found it, then you simply say "FALSE!" and then you don't even offer a shred of proof or mild support.

Not surprising though. All I ever seem to hear from your side is, "blah blah blah, god of the gaps, missing link, therefore creation is supported even though it's a false dichotomy."

Come back with something substantial.

Sorry, but we've explained a lot more than what you claim. We've given you; mathematical odds against evolution, shown you why apes can't breed human descendants, pointed out that no one in history can document our vine-swinging ancestors and a lot more evidence against evolution. So your post once again false. So stop wasting our time with false statements.

I'll address your points one by one, even though I still think you're a parody of a dumb creationist. Just in case someone is swayed by your hilariously bad arguments, I'll entertain this.

1)Those mathematical odds are based on false premises, and someone pointed that out. We have no idea what the odds are of abiogenesis. Most of the attempts to calculate those odds are based on speculation of attributes of the old earth such as temperature, chemical composition, amount of electricity, rate of circulation of fluids - none of which are known for sure. The odds of the compounds themselves coming together are based on the assumption that smaller links in the chain don't have a natural tendency to bond themselves, which we know does happen. The analogy of a coin flip occurring on heads a million (or whatever number was claimed) times in a row would be incorrect. By analogy, I could argue that the chances of me being produced by natural means is statistically impossible, and here's how: The chances of the particular sperm hitting the particular egg of my grandfather is infinitesimally small. An average ejaculate can have as little as 40,000,000 sperm, and the chances of the sperm of my grandfather hitting the particular egg that would make my grandfather is obviously even less. We then take that number, and we apply the same odds of my father being created and divide it by the odds of the grandfather. We then take that number, and apply the odds of me coming about as a result of the ridiculously low odds of my father coming from my grandfather. Now, of course, this occurs down a chain of thousands of years of descendants (even according to biblical accounts). The chances of me being created is essentially zero just going back a few generations! Yet, I am alive... and by NATURAL means! The chance of just about everyone right now being alive is statistically so small it's almost inconceivable. Yet, it NATURALLY happens - undeniably. So, we obviously have an error in our thinking here if you take that argument seriously. It's not a simple matter of 1 out of some number we invent. It's a complex series of situations each with a probabilistic possibility of its own. Once my grandfather was made, the chances of any other sperm and egg meeting from my great grandfather/grandmother and eventually creating me is ZERO. Once my grandfather was made, that was the only "combination of sperm an egg" (grandfather) that would be passing on genetic material any further. We simply don't know what conditions existed when (or if) the first living cell was made.

The fact that the conditions recreated by Miller's experiment results in an unlikely possibility of life merely shows that Miller's conception of what conditions created life have a good possibility of being wrong. It doesn't mean that abiogenesis can't occur by other means. It's a fairly obvious non sequitur if you're trying to assert it. I simply do not subscribe to a particular view of abiogenesis. I just say, "I don't know" and leave the possibility open due to lack of evidence.

2) You have not shown how a common ancestor cannot breed a human descendant. You have only offered straw man arguments about some ridiculous notion of humans popping out of apes. That isn't what evolution says, END OF STORY. STOP ASSERTING IT. I HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES THAT YOU ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST EVOLUTION.

3) The fact that nobody has documented a vine swinging ancestor is probably the same reason why I have no idea who my great great great great great great great great great grandfather was. I just don't care past a certain point. The fact I don't know what he did doesn't mean he doesn't exist. If you can't see the faulty reasoning here, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. We didn't have recorded documentation of lots of things that humans did, but they still did it. We can infer through evidence. We don't need some ridiculous manuscript saying "Mah grandfather sure did like swingin' on them vines!" Never mind the fact that this has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[John]

evolution in whole is based on a false premise.

and all you did was reword our claims, you did not prove/disprove anything.

 

[Heidi]

Johnmuise, you totally ignored the fact that it made predictions and found it, then you simply say "FALSE!" and then you don't even offer a shred of proof or mild support.

Not surprising though. All I ever seem to hear from your side is, "blah blah blah, god of the gaps, missing link, therefore creation is supported even though it's a false dichotomy."

Come back with something substantial.

Sorry, but we've explained a lot more than what you claim. We've given you; mathematical odds against evolution, shown you why apes can't breed human descendants, pointed out that no one in history can document our vine-swinging ancestors and a lot more evidence against evolution. So your post once again false. So stop wasting our time with false statements.

I'll address your points one by one, even though I still think you're a parody of a dumb creationist. Just in case someone is swayed by your hilariously bad arguments, I'll entertain this.

1)Those mathematical odds are based on false premises, and someone pointed that out. We have no idea what the odds are of abiogenesis. Most of the attempts to calculate those odds are based on speculation of attributes of the old earth such as temperature, chemical composition, amount of electricity, rate of circulation of fluids - none of which are known for sure. The odds of the compounds themselves coming together are based on the assumption that smaller links in the chain don't have a natural tendency to bond themselves, which we know does happen. The analogy of a coin flip occurring on heads a million (or whatever number was claimed) times in a row would be incorrect. By analogy, I could argue that the chances of me being produced by natural means is statistically impossible, and here's how: The chances of the particular sperm hitting the particular egg of my grandfather is infinitesimally small. An average ejaculate can have as little as 40,000,000 sperm, and the chances of the sperm of my grandfather hitting the particular egg that would make my grandfather is obviously even less. We then take that number, and we apply the same odds of my father being created and divide it by the odds of the grandfather. We then take that number, and apply the odds of me coming about as a result of the ridiculously low odds of my father coming from my grandfather. Now, of course, this occurs down a chain of thousands of years of descendants (even according to biblical accounts). The chances of me being created is essentially zero just going back a few generations! Yet, I am alive... and by NATURAL means! The chance of just about everyone right now being alive is statistically so small it's almost inconceivable. Yet, it NATURALLY happens - undeniably. So, we obviously have an error in our thinking here if you take that argument seriously. It's not a simple matter of 1 out of some number we invent. It's a complex series of situations each with a probabilistic possibility of its own. Once my grandfather was made, the chances of any other sperm and egg meeting from my great grandfather/grandmother and eventually creating me is ZERO. Once my grandfather was made, that was the only "combination of sperm an egg" (grandfather) that would be passing on genetic material any further. We simply don't know what conditions existed when (or if) the first living cell was made.

The fact that the conditions recreated by Miller's experiment results in an unlikely possibility of life merely shows that Miller's conception of what conditions created life have a good possibility of being wrong. It doesn't mean that abiogenesis can't occur by other means. It's a fairly obvious non sequitur if you're trying to assert it. I simply do not subscribe to a particular view of abiogenesis. I just say, "I don't know" and leave the possibility open due to lack of evidence.

2) You have not shown how a common ancestor cannot breed a human descendant. You have only offered straw man arguments about some ridiculous notion of humans popping out of apes. That isn't what evolution says, END OF STORY. STOP ASSERTING IT. I HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES THAT YOU ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST EVOLUTION.

3) The fact that nobody has documented a vine swinging ancestor is probably the same reason why I have no idea who my great great great great great great great great great grandfather was. I just don't care past a certain point. The fact I don't know what he did doesn't mean he doesn't exist. If you can't see the faulty reasoning here, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. We didn't have recorded documentation of lots of things that humans did, but they still did it. We can infer through evidence. We don't need some ridiculous manuscript saying "Mah grandfather sure did like swingin' on them vines!" Never mind the fact that this has nothing to do with evolution.

Do you know why humans don't breed zebras as descendants? Please explain it. If you don't know, then you don't know enough about basic biology to be considered credible. Remember, I'm not asking you to tell me if humans could breed zebras in the imaginations of men. I'm asking you to explain why we don't breed zebras in reality. Until you can explain that, Jay, you won't know why we've proven that apes can't breed human descendants.

And considering that no one has ever witnessed an ape turning into a human, then that increases the odds against evolution. So reality itself opposes evolution.And since you admit, no one knows the conditions of the earth when scientists claim that apes turned into humans, then no one can know whether evolution actually happened which is precisely why it's still considered a theory because it's not a fact.

And the lack of historical evidence speaks for itself. There are zero cultures who have no records of their ancestors. In fact, the odds that a whole group of half-man half-beasts wouldn't be mentioned by anyone in history are more unfathomable than the odds that evolution can happen. So what scientists do is they throw out accounts of over 200 cultures that there was a flood and they make up people that can't be documented by anyone in history. But that reasoning, I can say an ancient tribe called "ohonothohitst lived in Africa a billion years ago because I says so. That's what some people call "science." :

 

[Dunzo]

Do you know why humans don't breed zebras as descendants? Please explain it. If you don't know, then you don't know enough about basic biology to be considered credible. Remember, I'm not asking you to tell me if humans could breed zebras in the imaginations of men. I'm asking you to explain why we don't breed zebras in reality. Until you can explain that, Jay, you won't know why we've proven that apes can't breed human descendants.

You haven't proved jack. Like Jay said, all you've done is present strawman after strawman. These arguments are INVALID!

And considering that no one has ever witnessed an ape turning into a human, then that increases the odds against evolution. So reality itself opposes evolution.And since you admit, no one knows the conditions of the earth when scientists claim that apes turned into humans, then no one can know whether evolution actually happened which is precisely why it's still considered a theory because it's not a fact.

No, you imbecile, read Jay's post again. You have this habit of refuting people's refutations of your arguments by using the same argument again.
And once again you've messed up the definition of "theory", which quite frankly I find astounding as I've covered it so many times. In all seriousness, do you have a learning disorder or something? Or are you willingly ignorant? I mean, no one can fail to take in this simple information. I've repeated so many times that a theory is an explanation of the facts, not a half-arsed guess.

And the lack of historical evidence speaks for itself. There are zero cultures who have no records of their ancestors. In fact, the odds that a whole group of half-man half-beasts wouldn't be mentioned by anyone in history are more unfathomable than the odds that evolution can happen. So what scientists do is they throw out accounts of over 200 cultures that there was a flood and they make up people that can't be documented by anyone in history. But that reasoning, I can say an ancient tribe called "ohonothohitst lived in Africa a billion years ago because I says so. That's what some people call "science." :

I can't believe that you think this is a valid argument. How do you expect ancestral stories to transcend the barriers of time, space and language? Probably our closest relative, the Neanderthal, became extinct 30,000 years ago. There's absolutely no way stories could have spread by word of mouth and lasted 30,000 years.
Does anyone know if art from ancient humans or neanderthals (as in 30,000 BC or before) has survived?

 

[Heidi]

Do you know why humans don't breed zebras as descendants? Please explain it. If you don't know, then you don't know enough about basic biology to be considered credible. Remember, I'm not asking you to tell me if humans could breed zebras in the imaginations of men. I'm asking you to explain why we don't breed zebras in reality. Until you can explain that, Jay, you won't know why we've proven that apes can't breed human descendants.

You haven't proved jack. Like Jay said, all you've done is present strawman after strawman. These arguments are INVALID!

And considering that no one has ever witnessed an ape turning into a human, then that increases the odds against evolution. So reality itself opposes evolution.And since you admit, no one knows the conditions of the earth when scientists claim that apes turned into humans, then no one can know whether evolution actually happened which is precisely why it's still considered a theory because it's not a fact.

No, you imbecile, read Jay's post again. You have this habit of refuting people's refutations of your arguments by using the same argument again.
And once again you've messed up the definition of "theory", which quite frankly I find astounding as I've covered it so many times. In all seriousness, do you have a learning disorder or something? Or are you willingly ignorant? I mean, no one can fail to take in this simple information. I've repeated so many times that a theory is an explanation of the facts, not a half-arsed guess.

[quote:576c2]And the lack of historical evidence speaks for itself. There are zero cultures who have no records of their ancestors. In fact, the odds that a whole group of half-man half-beasts wouldn't be mentioned by anyone in history are more unfathomable than the odds that evolution can happen. So what scientists do is they throw out accounts of over 200 cultures that there was a flood and they make up people that can't be documented by anyone in history. But that reasoning, I can say an ancient tribe called "ohonothohitst lived in Africa a billion years ago because I says so. That's what some people call "science." :

I can't believe that you think this is a valid argument. How do you expect ancestral stories to transcend the barriers of time, space and language? Probably our closest relative, the Neanderthal, became extinct 30,000 years ago. There's absolutely no way stories could have spread by word of mouth and lasted 30,000 years.
Does anyone know if art from ancient humans or neanderthals (as in 30,000 BC or before) has survived?[/quote:576c2]

Is the following an historical fact? Simon Johnson once ruled the world. Yes or no. I can tell you one thing, no historian would consider that an historical fact. That's because no one knows anything about Simon Johnson, what he did, what he looked like, where he lived, nothing.

But let's say I make up stories about Simon Johnson from my imagination. Let's say i say he was a big tall man who fought many battles. I'll even tell you what he wore like evolutionary scientists do with these apemen. : : Let's see, I'll put a toga on him because I'm going to make him live in200 BC. Never mind that there are no historical accounts of this man, if I say he did those things, then I can call them facts because I found a skull in the desert and I claim that it belonged to Simon Johnson. : I don't need historical corroboration, in fact, I can contradict history and rewrite my own because I'm God and anything I say is the truth. That's what evolutionary scientists do and they think they can fool everybody. No, they only fool those who can't think for themselves. :roll: Their lies aren't even subtle!!!!

 

[Dunzo]

What the hell are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything? Are you going to address my points or ignore them (again) and continue your nonsensical story? Grow up!

 

[Patashu]

The conservation of mass and energy is a law that only applies under the same universal rules and conditions that this universe abides by. Should those rules have changed or differed before the universe's beginning the law would not apply. All we know and all that scientists assert is that mass and energy are conserved NOW, in THIS current universe.

 

[Heidi]

What the hell are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything? Are you going to address my points or ignore them (again) and continue your nonsensical story? Grow up!

Again, no facts, no explanations, just personal attacks. So there are no points of yours to address as you prove in every one of your posts. :crazyeyes:

 

[BobRyan]

Since according to scientists, energy can never be created or destroyed, then that means it has always existed and always will. So they know there's a God because they know that an eternal force exists. They just don't call energy God even though they acknowledge that it's a powerful unseen force whose power is limitless and infinite. So they have just defined God yet they deny Him at the same time. :o Incessant contradictions. :roll:

you need to qualify that "scientists" comment to be "Atheist scientists" or possibly "those scientists following the doctrines and dogmas of atheist darwinism". A large number of well published scientists do NOT follow those darwinian myths.

If you buy into the dogma that the junk science and half truths that we know today as Atheist Darwinism is in fact "science" and represents "scientists" in general then you have already adopted one of the key myths of atheist darwinism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Is the following an historical fact? Simon Johnson once ruled the world. Yes or no. I can tell you one thing, no historian would consider that an historical fact. That's because no one knows anything about Simon Johnson, what he did, what he looked like, where he lived, nothing.

But let's say I make up stories about Simon Johnson from my imagination. Let's say i say he was a big tall man who fought many battles. I'll even tell you what he wore like evolutionary scientists do with these apemen. : : Let's see, I'll put a toga on him because I'm going to make him live in200 BC. Never mind that there are no historical accounts of this man, if I say he did those things, then I can call them facts because I found a skull in the desert and I claim that it belonged to Simon Johnson. : I don't need historical corroboration, in fact, I can contradict history and rewrite my own because I'm God and anything I say is the truth. That's what evolutionary scientists do and they think they can fool everybody. No, they only fool those who can't think for themselves. :roll: Their lies aren't even subtle!!!!

I see. Kinda like "Simpson's Horse series" now lamented by atheist darwinists themselves who claim that the series presented "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE".

Ok - I get it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heidi]

Is the following an historical fact? Simon Johnson once ruled the world. Yes or no. I can tell you one thing, no historian would consider that an historical fact. That's because no one knows anything about Simon Johnson, what he did, what he looked like, where he lived, nothing.

But let's say I make up stories about Simon Johnson from my imagination. Let's say i say he was a big tall man who fought many battles. I'll even tell you what he wore like evolutionary scientists do with these apemen. : : Let's see, I'll put a toga on him because I'm going to make him live in200 BC. Never mind that there are no historical accounts of this man, if I say he did those things, then I can call them facts because I found a skull in the desert and I claim that it belonged to Simon Johnson. : I don't need historical corroboration, in fact, I can contradict history and rewrite my own because I'm God and anything I say is the truth. That's what evolutionary scientists do and they think they can fool everybody. No, they only fool those who can't think for themselves. :roll: Their lies aren't even subtle!!!!

I see. Kinda like "Simpson's Horse series" now lamented by atheist darwinists themselves who claim that the series presented "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE".

Ok - I get it.

in Christ,

Bob

: