SoSick, no one has directly answered the questions I posted. How is it opinionated to say that there is no evidence of a global flood in sea or ice core samples, and no evidence of a genetic bottleneck? And how does "ice floats and melts" address this in any way? I want to know how a model that is supposedly as viable as old earth and evolution can explain these things. This is what people want to teach children in schools. It needs to make sense and explain the actual evidence.

Russ seems to have decided to allow dissent here. If people post claims from creationists like Hovind, then others can come here and explain how they are wrong, or at least question. If he wants to disallow this then that's his call. Presumably you all are secure enough in your beliefs to feel you can defend them adequately when they are challenged? But if this becomes a creationists-only area then I will of course follow the rules and stop posting here. All I am trying to do is get explanations from people about how the claims posted here can actually fit the evidence. If that's too tall an order then perhaps the model needs to be revisited and revised.

The continually negative and contentious responses are very uninspiring.

She has made herself quite clear by now. No answer will satisfy her. She is not interested in facts or any ideas outside of her own and has repeatedly asserted herself on this point. She has repeatedly also asserted that she will continue and continue to ask the same redundant questions regardless of how many times they have been addressed by others.

It really is time to move forward.

That's fine, if people are tired of me asking them. There have been no satisfactory answers here, no models proposed for how various geological features came to exist (or not) on a young earth or from a global flood. I'm sorry these are vexing points but they need to be asked of a "theory" that people want taught in schools as an alternative to the existing ones. Do you think intelligent high school students with a decent science education are not going to be asking them as well -- or is it the idea that we don't educate them in science so that they never ask these inconvenient questions in the first place?

Should I ask about the feasible size of the ark? Some more questions about the flood and geology? Or we could move on to Bex's assertion that the Grand Canyon could have been carved in a very short time. I'd still like to hear evidence for how the geologic column and fossil sorting are fakes or lies, and how radioisotope dating is wrong, because these things strongly underpin scientific theories about the old earth and evolution. C'mon guys, if you've got good evidence against them you can shut me up.

Do you promise?

I am curious what sort of administrator response (or lack thereof) this will receive.

First, before judgement is laid, I wish to make it known that I am not a Christian and do not believe in Creationism in the same vein as the Christian Fundamentalists of this forum. May these words hereby, henceforth and forthwith prove me to be an infidel blasphemer.

... you know, that way it'll be easier to punish me while others go unreprimanded ...

So here goes.

Ya'll ready?

Russ? You're an idiot.

Linda? Go to hell. You suck.

Hey Elvis, ya reading dude? You're so dumb and have no education and clearly need to start ingesting exorbitant volumes of medication.

Dumb dumb dumb.

That's what you all are. Because I decided you are. Because I am so holier than thou.

The End.

(Please do me a favor of proving my point by reprimanding me while others are permitted to say what they want so long as they are a Christian. Honestly. I WANT you to prove your hypocricy.)

I think your hopes of being viewed as a non-biased mediator disappeared quite some time ago when it became apparent that you only popped in to defend any and all non-Christians or other persons promoting generally unaccepted immoral behavior and thus use the opportunity for your own 5 minutes of Christian bashing.

Did you have any facts or research you wanted to add to the creation/evolution forum or did you just want to take another opportune moment to do some christian bashing again, Pwcca?

I hope you have gotten it all off your chest for today.

This is actually dishonest, going back through posts, you will see links given to you, quotes given to you with references. Not everytime, but many times and I've seen things repeated ad nauseum also. You yourself have not exactly given back ups to all the info in your posts either. I missed some of your info from your posts because Linda, you love to address lots and lots of things in long winded posts, knowing full well that not everybody can go through it all and satisfy you with a detailed answer. Bombardment its called. The amount of different stuff you'll throw into one post is ridiculous, seriously. Go have a look at your post, the geologic column will be thrown up, the flood, the ark, the grand canyon, fossils, anything and everything. How very easy to throw all this into one post, sit back and rub your hands whilst other people have to work their way through it and try to answer "which POINT?". You yourself have complained about this previously. Linda, put aside your personal hang ups about Dr Kent Hovind and DEAL WITH THE ISSUES convincingly presented on his classic tape "LIES IN THE TEXTBOOKS" , where all of these things you mention are EFFECTIVELY dealt with. Why do you suppose that his offer of 250,000 US, for ONE convincing proof for evolution remains unclaimed. If he is such a scientific ignoramus and is simply an idiot as you claim, why is it he is willing to debate more than one evolutionist at a time? Yet very rarely do any of them take up his offer? Please don't use the ongoing excuses to discredit him personally by referring to him as an idiot. The issues are the key and it should be very easy for any evolutionist (particulary when more than one is debating him) to make him look like the idiot you claim he is. Yet, they can't.

Any fossil evidence the evolutionist finds in his/her mind WILL be a transitional form, rather than another example of variety within a kind. It is simply an opinion Linda and this is all I see from the links you give me, just their interpreations to make the fossil an earlier form of what we see today, rather than another variety. Whatever is missing off those fossils, can be pretty significant and should not be privy to the manipulation by the evolutionist. There are so many variations of animals of every kind, that when you consider marine life alone, it is vast. Because a mammal like a whale lives souly in the water, or a seal can live in both, do you suggest these must have evolved? Can you NEVER accept an animal or mammal for exactly what it is? This is the problem, the evolutionist has already decided it's an earlier form of the animal, rather than considering it maybe another variety of marine life - the fact that Crocodiles can walk out of the water and swim in the water does not mean crocs every did anything different or ever WILL do anything different and if you found a fossil resembling a croc, but without legs, perhaps you'd say that this is the same animal and it's simply evolved legs? Once again, I say you do NOT know this. Whales cannot live out of water. Does this mean any animal that resembles a whale in anyway, but had any legs actually lost those legs later and became what it is today? Do you EVER consider different varieties of animals for what they are? There are so many animals today of different varieties, with or without legs, it makes no sense to say they lost their legs because..... or they gained legs because....... It is down to "Im bias, I cannot accept any animals for what they are, so they will be transitional forms because I say so", rather than different varieties of marine life. You've already formed an opinion. So if you dig up an animal that may have become extinct, will it instead be an earlier form of an animal that it resembles today?

HEre is the problem, interpretation of data fits within the bias of those interpreting it Linda. You are bias yourself. Here is a comment that is clearly evident of this bias.



Yet, notice your faith in evolution, even though there is actually no conclusive evidence, just interpretation. We actually do not know if any animal was anything else, other than what it is. You cannot just dig up a fossil and decide "oh this must be an earlier form of a whale"....ever thought it's another variety of mammal? You guys are incapable of thinking anything else because you WANT evolution at all costs. Nobody knows that anything has been anything else. Fossils tell you one thing linda, "they died". Do you know if the fossil had any offspring? Did the fossil wake up and say "I'm 300 millions years of age, I lost these legs later on when I decided I didn't need them anymore". Or is it the evolutionist putting words in the mouth of the fossil and filling in the gaps himself? I think so! Frankly Linda, the past hoaxes do not give evolution much credence and your faith in them today shows that this does not even make you consider the games they are capable of playing or what they will do to fit anything into their preconceived ideas. Fossils don't prove a thing, other than it lived once and it died. They are the ones saying it became something else, it lost this or it gained this. The fossil itself doesn't actually have any say in the matter, it's a transitional form whether it likes it or not, because the evolutionist said so. Not actually a variety of animal in its own right.

The links ARE missing Linda - you talk about my apparently outdated quotes and it is interesting that one of the fathers of the evolution belief "Charles Darwin" was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:

"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

Is it any different in todays times? Dr Colin Patterson (1933 - 1998), senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, worote a book Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms (;) which I have yet to see Linda, sosick's photos have more credence than the cartoons and quotes you have so much faith in) He wrote:

"I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.....I will lay it on the line - there is not ONE such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument".

By the way, the comment about the "author's fasination in having s*x with them reflects the games you play on here. Talk about deliberately taking it out of context to hit back. Fasination? Hmmm, I don't think I have mentioned it before, was a pretty small paragraph too and simply stated the obvious.

So, you think we're a unique being now? That we aren't really advanced apes, but we evolved from a common ancestor and we're just "unique" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Yes, we most definitely are unique, at least you've admitted that. Funny how you can make the transition of beast and human when it suits. One must wonder what made human beings what we are today, and the apes what they are? I wonder who or what this common ancestor was......and if you dig anything up, be it resembling ape or human or variety of either, will they tell you? Or will you simply speak for the dead?

Linda, all breeders do is select from the information ALREADY PRESENT

So I'll simply turn this around. Again, no evidence for evolution or against Creation <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Very simple.

Bex, you actually have attempted to give evidence in a meaningful way. You have cited websites and links that I could check out. True, you have regurgiposted a whole list of quote mines that you don't seem to have read, but I honestly admire the fact that you've tried to back up what you say. As I said before, it's been enjoyable talking to you. So maybe I should have said you were the exception here when I said the posts were vague; you did force people to start being more specific in their claims and we had something substantial to talk about. And if you want more evidence, or a link, for something I say, then please ask. I try to provide these but if more are needed then I will oblige. I have no desire or need for obfuscation. I don't want to confuse anyone or blind them with science; I want them to understand how it explains the evidence we see.

I'm also trying to address most everything I see in posts, and I'm talking to three people at once here, which is probably why my own posts get so long. It isn't honestly what I want, because inevitably some of it is going to be glossed over if not ignored when people reply. What should we focus on? I'll say what I would like, narrowed down from what I've been talking about myself. If people here say that fossil sorting and dating amount to lies and fakes, then I want to see evidence for that. Specific examples. And scientific reasons for why radioisotope dating is so very, very inaccurate that it gives dates which are millions of years too old.

Further on, you seem to be saying that fossils are examples of specific animals that died . . . relatively recently? So ambulocetus and archaeopteryx were recent animals that happened to resemble whales and birds. This line of reasoning further suggests that evolutionists have a pre-existing desire to bash God and the Bible at any cost, which includes faking evidence, lying, and telling everyone that fossils are evidence of evolution when they aren't necessarily.

The error here is that evolutionists do not have this pre-existing burning desire to "believe." This point has been made before, but when talking to people who do have this need to believe, it's perhaps asking you to get into a different mindset in order to understand. Speaking for myself, I look at the actual evidence and let it lead me. The question is, then, what is the evidence?

Scientists do not just dig up fossils and make guesses about them, which is what you seem to believe. The rock in which the fossil was found is dated, which gives an idea of when the organism died and places it within the geologic column, for which there are known series of dates. If the fossil itself is more recent than 40,000 years, it can be carbon dated. There are also many fossils existing already of different species, spectrums which usually include the species of the fossil itself, plus those from which it evolved, and species that in turn it gave rise to. Furthermore, these are layered in the fossil record so that you will see earlier species lower down and later species higher up, consistently, with no mixing. All of these puzzle pieces are compared with each other. Experts spend years studying the characteristics of each species and how these can be studied in fossils.

Finally, transitional fossils are named as such because they display characteristics of both the species that came before and after and yet themselves are neither but something in between. This data is arrived at via the methods discussed above. Archaeopteryx, for example, is dated by the rock in which it is found and comparatively through the fossil record as having lived concurrently with theropods, and not long before the appearance of what we begin to classify as modern birds. It has characteristics of each. This is the definition of a transitional fossil. Though as I've said, technically all fossils are transitional, because evolution does not stop.

About the author of your bestiality quote . . . I was simply making an observation. He could have said that he thought humans cannot be "brutes" like animals, that they were created to have mastery over them, that humans are the only beings that have souls . . . not that I agree with this myself, but I think that's the sort of thing he was driving at. He seemed to want to talk about sex with animals for some reason. Why that enters into it I don't know, but I find it bizarre.

What's wrong with saying we're unique? We are a species called homo sapiens. No scientist is going to tell you we are apes, though they will tell you we evolved from apelike creatures. All species are unique, whatever they are, because of their nature as a species. As I said, it does not bother me that my ancestors were not humans like me. I find it fascinating and wonderful.

You said:


Point being-? These are human-made changes within a species. Over time you might end up with new species, as probably happened with the wolf and the dog. Whether this happens through random mutations, the influence of morphic fields, human intervention, or even the guiding hand of God, it is still evolution in progress.

[color:"brown"]I'll do ya' one better.[/color] <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twoandtwo.gif" alt="" />

I'll repost your entire post here so you get double the exposure.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/babypacifier.gif" alt="" />

You see PWCCA, I learned a long time ago that when people say bad things about other people, it is not a reflection on the person being spoken about. It is actually a reflection on the person doing the speaking.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mirrormirror.gif" alt="" />

I don't want to reprimand you or threaten banning you because you actually contribute useful information to this forum (usually). Whether or not I agree with it (which I usually don't) is immaterial.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/zzz.gif" alt="" />

I did threaten to ban BrownCoat because (as I explained twice before), they made 6 posts to the system and 5 of them were nothing but trolling and the other one was a single sentence of agreement with someone in a controversy (a subversive form of trolling). You see, in online moderator talk, that kind of activity is useless and harmful and is not tolerated on most worthy forum systems.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/quickdraw.gif" alt="" />

I don't allow trolling on my forum. It's that simple, and even though BrownCoat called me an idiot, I still didn't ban them. I just gave them a warning. Had they begun to contribute useful content, they would have had no further threat of being banned even though they would obviously disagree with all of my positions. Furthermore, I have not even deleted their useless and derogatory comments towards me.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/vacuuming.gif" alt="" />

I'm honestly surprised at your conduct and ill-logic in saying the things you are saying and doing the things you are doing, nevertheless, there's no need to worry. You're under no threat of being banned, unless of course, you start trolling and don't stop after I warn you.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/copper.gif" alt="" />

If nothing else, you are an outstanding source of entertainment.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/junkfood.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/reallymad.gif" alt="" />

All the best.

Russ, all I'm after is seeing a little respect requested by the powers-that-be here. Namely, yourself. The reason being, as on just about every other forum across the internet, I want to see name calling forbidden. I don't want to see people called an idiot or told they lack an education or that they need to take medication. Not only do I not want to see these things, I don't want to see them said

every

single

post

by the same poster time and time again.

It's rude, offensive, and the only reason it continues is because it's allowed. When the same poster was posting anonymously to use her juvenile insult posting tactics, these conveniently came to an end the moment you disallowed anonymous posting. Things have really improved since then. Now they just have one more step to go before this place resembles something like a bona fide discussion board.

No one's asking you to be a policeman. I think it's appalingly obvious when it's time to intervene. When someone says "I will punch you" or "You're an idiot with no education," etc.

But I'll aree with what you've said about the person who continually posts the insults here, Russ.

Russ said:

Funny.

Gosh, are you talking about me Pwcca?

If you could only find a post where I called someone an idiot you might actually look like an honest person for a few moments. I can point some out where Linda has done it. perhaps yourself and Elvis the equivalent also.

You know, no one has ever said anything to you.... but it actually is not possible to post a picture anonymously using the forum, so you might want to rethink that a little bit... I know... why didn't anyone say anything?? Because it's so funny you all for fell for it probably. heh I must admit...

Here try this on for size:

Russ, all I'm after is seeing a little respect requested by the powers-that-be here. Namely, yourself. The reason being, as on just about every other forum across the internet, I want to see name calling forbidden. I don't want to see people called an idiot or told they lack an education or that they need to take medication. Not only do I not want to see these things, I don't want to see them said

every

single

post

by the same poster time and time again.

It's rude, offensive, and the only reason it continues is because it's allowed. When the same poster was posting anonymously to use her juvenile insult posting tactics, these conveniently came to an end the moment you disallowed anonymous posting. Things have really improved since then. Now they just have one more step to go before this place resembles something like a bona fide discussion board.

No one's asking you to be a policeman. I think it's appalingly obvious when it's time to intervene. When someone says "You are a Christian bigot" or "You are unfair" or "Do not ever present an opposing argument to Linda or repeat what she has said' etc.

But I'll aree with what you've said about the person who continually posts the insults here, Russ.


If the shoe fits, wear it.

Here's another joke:

Bex, you actually have attempted to give evidence in a meaningful way. You have cited websites and links that I could check out. True, you have regurgiposted a whole list of quote mines that you don't seem to have read, but I honestly admire the fact that you've tried to back up what you say. As I said before, it's been enjoyable talking to you. So maybe I should have said you were the exception here when I said the posts were vague; you did force people to start being more specific in their claims and we had something substantial to talk about.


Right. heh. Russ, very vague posts, all of them. You never give any evidence in a meaningful way. What is your problem, buddy? All your posts are very vague. Mine too. You should at least provide a link once in a while.

Bex, quit regurgitating. Just make stuff up.

heh I think I will be laughing about that one all evening.

what a farce.

One thing life has taught me Pwcca, is that people are not stupid.

The may be uneducated, they may be misinformed... they may be underachievers who lack drive to succeed... they are often manipulative, they are sometimes even dangerous.

But with the rare exception, people are not stupid.

so.. search the board well and find me just one single post where i called someone stupid or an idiot unless it a mimick or play on a previous comment doing exactly that from that person, because I actually hate when people do that to others.

Good luck. Because I do not ever call anyone stupid or an idiot. The last time I did do it I was around 13 years old. Quite a while ago.

Another thing life has taught me, is that when a person consistently calls other people stupid, an idiot, or ignorant... it's most always a sign of their own ignorance, and arrogance.

Hi Linda, thanks but I don't think any post is going to satisfy you to be honest. And I did indeed read the "mine quotes" as you call them. But I most definitely have not superceded Russ in providing information/links/resources.

Because the word evolution has actually been soiled by bias assumptions of our ancient origins/past, it has bad connotations attached to it. So when you use this word to describe the obvious (variation - micro evolution) to me there is a sense of deviousness involved, which is why it's not a term we like to use due to how it's been used to describe mere assumptions of our past.

Because the evolutionist believes in processes that take place over billions of years from single celled organisms, to the incredible complexity we see today. When you try and use the word evolution on the agreed variation observations, it is a clever way to fit that word in there and hopefully all the other connotations attached with it (single celled organsims, big bang, primordial soup etc) will hopefully be accepted as well. The more a person associates the word evolution with truth -variation, the more likely they'll be to assume evolution on a whole.

When you describe an observable fact like variation within a kind, human intervention in breeding to bring out desired traits and call it evolution, to me it's quite clever in a sense. Use the word to describe something true, to hook others into the rest that comes along with it.

All the stuff we've been saying and seeing all along is now having the word evolution applied to it.

Just because the science arena right now has evolution ruling, does not mean they are right about our origins, right about we're we going as a "species", or correct in their interpretations of the past based on fossil findings of the present.

Any fossils found, do not have a label attached to them. The evolutionist is the one who puts the label on them. There is quite a lot of manipulation here towards the layperson.

We can disagree fully on our beginnings, that I feel is most definitely down to faith because nobody here saw it or filmed it. And we obviously don't disagree on the obvious - micro evolution (variation), but again this is NOT one kind becoming something else. In fact, micro evolution is a contradicotry and unsatisfactory term. This is limited to shuffling or loss of genetic information NOT added genetic information that evolution requires.

It makes no sense when there are ancient fossils of animals and plants that look no different than they do today...The fossilised Koelruteria leaf was found in "Pliocene" depsoites at Willershausen, Germany. Fossil seed pods of this genus are also found in the USA in deposits allegedly 50 millions years old. Today this plant lives in its natural state only in China, Japan and Korea.... The fossil and the modern plant are one and the same, "after their kind". No evolution has taken place.



If they don't make guesses about them Linda, what are they making? They didn't dig it up with data attached. In regards to fossils? All we know is the fossils are there - we don't know their parents or offspring (if any) The rest is fiction, pure fantasy or guess work presented as fact.

Circular reasoning is totally unacceptable as an argument - e.g "The layers are dated by their index fossils and the fossils are dated by their surrounding layers" - is as silly as a dog chasing its tail - yet many people fall for it. Radiometric dating is not acceptable as a 'back-up' as it is less than 50% reiable having serious well-known flaws, concealed from the public by academics with an agenda that has little to do with truth! Flaws included total ignorance of conditions at start and during datings (nobody there!) Falsely assuming things were always the same!

There is no complete or near complete geological column anywhere except in text books! Layers form and sort rapidly by hydrologic sorting (lab proven). 85% of earth layers don't even have 3 layers in 'correct' geological order (ie.Cretaceous/Jurassic/Cambrian/Permaian/Carboniferous/Devonian/Silurian/Ordovian/Cambrian). It was a hoax perpetrated by Charles Lyell and perpetuated by evolutionists. At St Mt Helens in 1980, as I have mentioned before, there was, in a matter of hours, gouged out a rapidly softly stratified canyon 600' high! called "the little Grand Canyon' (witnessed and recorded on film) The world-wide energy resources (oil/coal/gas) were quickly formed from vast quantities of Flood-stripped vegetation being sealed in by up to mile-high self sorted sedimentary layers. These created the required conditions of pressure and self-generating heat (like compost?)

Here is the evolution belief - The Grand Canyon was formed by a little water (Coloradio River) over a lot of time (millions of years) N.B> The Grand Canyon, long regarded as a "showpiece" for evolution is now seen as a monument to a great catastophe by many.

Here is the creation belief - the grand canyon was formed by a lot of water (vast lake emptied through a burst spillway) over very little time! And based on the observable present with the "little grand Canyon" it makes perfect sence.

River details: Enter canyon at 2800' drops to 1800 over 270 miles. as the Canyon sides rise to 4000, how could the river erode up hill? Erosion absence in individual layers, shows all strata formed together. Delta absence but huge dirt removal shows widespread dispersal. Side anyons at both acute and obtuse angles, suggest huge 'forward' flows and raging 'back flows'! Oldest strata found on top suggests quick strata formation (as at Mt. St Helens) shoreline evidence on canyon top suggests a vast and ancient lake exploded through a spillway at tremendous speed.


Yu talk about archaeopteryx as being evidence for evolution? "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earthbound feathered dinosaur. But it's not. IT IS A BIRD, A PERCHING BIRD, and no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that" (Alan Feduccia, world authority on birds). Every single feature (e.g. wings, claws, beak, teeth) is found on existing or extinct birds.

Reptiles could never evolve into birds. It is genetically impossible. Reptiles have 4 legs. Birds have 2 wings and 2 legs! How will the reptile survive the supposed transitional stage when its fore-arms are half leg/half wing, when it can neither walk run nor fly? Insurmountable problems exclude evolution as follows:
1) The reptile and bird lungs are totally different
2) Modern birds are found in layers with or below dinosaur fossils.
3) Scales and feather are attached to the body differently and are genetically vastly different.
4) Birds have 4 chambered heart; most reptiles have 3.
5)reptiles lay leathery eggs unlike birds.
6)birds have hollow bones. Reptiles don't!
(NB there are dozens of other radical differences, e.g. tail, hip bones, reproduction etc, No fossil evidence exists for any transition from reptile to bird.

PS, I was the author of the bestiality comments Linda, nobody else. So I take your comments as personal. I did not mention it for any "deviant" reason.

Calling me "dumb" and "fake" don't count then SoSick? You seem to have a selective memory.

And yes, if you can find one instance where I called someone on the forum an idiot, post it and show everyone. I don't do that kind of thing.

No post is going to satisfy me until the fundamental questions I asked are answered, because at the moment those questions are invalidating just about everything the creationists here are saying. You have taken those points up in your previous post though, so we can look at that in a minute.

Also, my sincere apologies about the animals passage you wrote. If I’d realised you’d written it yourself I would certainly have been more tactful about what I said. I won’t refer to it again, I will stick to discussing the science of evolution.

Most of what you say that the beginning of your post is a re-assertion that scientists are making arbitrary guesses about fossils, and that these guesses are made according to a pre-determined “need to believe” in evolution. I addressed both of these points in my previous post. What we again need to talk about is how fossils are dated. Firstly, though, I’ll just say that I don’t like the term “microevolution” either. And that yes, whether or not something is a species is a decision made by scientists, not one that is determined in an absolute way. However, scientists do have classification systems based on the range of differences in organisms. For example, the lion and the tiger are going to be more closely related in the classification system than the lion and the amoeba.

I’m not familiar with the plant example you gave, but I gave you some myself: the crocodile and the scorpion. They have not essentially changed either, and they have been around even longer than 50 million years; they pre-date the dinosaurs. The vast majority of other species have changed, if they managed to avoid extinction. The question that then needs to be asked is, why not crocodiles and scorpions? One reason is because they are so perfectly adapted to their ecological niches. Any mutations that occur detract from this and are eliminated. There’s simply nowhere for them to go, from an evolutionary standpoint, unless their habitat changes. You can see an example of this with mammals. The first ones appeared when the dinosaurs ruled the earth. They remained more or less unchanged – small and nocturnal – for 20 million years. Once the dinosaurs were extinct they, like many other species, began to evolve rapidly because new ecological niches opened up that were previously monopolised by the dinosaurs.

Another reason is because certain species are so readily adaptable, and can live and thrive in many different places. The cockroach for one, which people agreed here is a pretty ubiquitous creature. You can read more about “living fossils” in this article, which is easily accessible to the layperson: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg16422094.900 “The Creatures Time Forgot”

Many scientists define evolution as the change in the frequency of alleles over time. This doesn’t specify what is driving the process, though most scientists will tell you it’s random mutations and natural selection working on them. Personally I think there’s room here for exploration and discovery, but looking at the evidence I don’t see how you could deny that life has existed and changed on earth for billions of years. Let’s talk more about the evidence then, and how it is analysed.

You said:

Which makes me wonder if you read the example from my own quote which you posted just above this. I explained why studying fossils is not just guessing. Scientists always look to date the rock in which the fossil was found and usually are able to do so through radioisotope methods. Also, some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means. Finally, as a point about scientists having a “need to believe” in evolution, you might be interested to know that the geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution. By Christian creationist geologists. Look up William Smith.


Incorrect. The Williston Basin of Montana, North Dakota and southern Canada is one example of a place where the geological column is complete. As for places where the geological column is incomplete, Karen Bartelt explains here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt3.html


You said:

IF ANYTHING IN YOUR POST NEEDS EVIDENCE IT IS THIS. I have said that radioisotope dating is a major underpinning of paleontology, geology, and other scientific disciplines. You are telling me it is wrong and giving me a figure out of the ether. Who said this and what was their basis for it? I can make up figures too. Would you believe me?


The geological column is never out of order in areas that have not been greatly disturbed by earthquakes or other great forces within the earth. It’s not hard to see why creationists would want to try to discredit Lyell, who greatly influenced Darwin. Tell me where you got your 85% figure from and give me an example of a place where the geological column is out of order, and the area has been undisturbed by geomorphological processes. Layers of delicate, undisturbed sedimentary rock would do nicely.

You’ve brought up points about the Grand Canyon again but this is going to necessitate quite a lengthy discussion involving various aspects of geology. You said my posts are too long. Why don’t we put this to the side for now and deal with the other issues we are discussing at the moment. I’ll take your archaeopteryx points next because they are pretty easily addressed.

Your source mentions Alan Feduccia. He is considered to be “on the fringe,” i.e. most scientists do not agree with his ideas. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s wrong, but that his ideas need to be viewed with caution because many other “world authorities” in the subject disagree with him. At any rate, as I’ve said before, scientists who disagree in these areas are disagreeing about ways that evolution occurred; they are not questioning the theory itself. Here is what Feduccia said:


Carrying on, you said:

This is the much-repeated creationist mantra, “What use is half a wing/eye/etc”.

Here are some uses for “half a wing.”

In insects, half a wing is useful for skimming rapidly across the surface of water (Marden and Kramer 1995; Kramer and Marden 1997; Thomas et al. 2000).

In larger animals, half a wing is useful for gliding. Flying squirrels and lemurs have skin between their legs which assists with this.

In immature chickens, wing-flapping enhances hindl imb traction, allowing the chickens to ascend steeper inclines. This function could be an intermediate to the original flight of birds. (Dial 2003)

In some flightless birds (e.g., penguins), wings are used for swimming.


O'Connor, PM and LPA Claessens (2005). Basic avian pulmonary design and flow-through ventilation in non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Nature 436, 253-256.

From the abstract:


There’s a lot of scientific jargon here, but what this study is saying is that these specialisations imply the existence of avian lung-type characteristics in theropod dinosaurs, indicating that flow-through ventilation of the lung is not restricted to birds but is probably a general theropod characteristic. In other words, you can’t assume that the dinosaurs from which archaeopteryx evolved had lungs that were the same as those of modern reptiles. The lungs of theropods already had some birdlike characteristics. It’s not difficult to imagine how these would have continued to evolve in archaeopteryx.


This is an outright lie. Unless, of course, you can give me a specific example of where this is the case. The world of science will reel in shock.

To make a long story short, why don’t you actually read about archaeopteryx yourself and you will see why it is a good example of a transitional fossil, and how it shares characteristics of birds and reptiles. Try looking here, “All About Archaeopteryx” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html It lists characteristics of each that archaeopteryx shared.

Bex, when are you going to stop pasting quotes from creationist websites and say something that reflects your own thinking on these subjects? For every claim from people like Gish, Ham and Hovind, there are scientists who have refuted them. Please, at least try checking the veracity of these claims yourself before you give them as evidence for anything.

One of the most important points I've been attempting to convey all along is this:

When people attempt to tell a lie that is so obviously a lie, the only intellectual tactic they can resort to is "distraction". If they are desperate, they will often resort to character assassination as well.

This distraction—in order to be effective—must be so overwhelming in quantity so as to cause the one being deceived (the target) to completely forget the basic facts of the lie—the fundamentals. The target must be continuously distracted from the obvious fundamental truth because if they were allowed to think about it for enough time, they would realize how obvious it is that they are being lied to. Of course, this is much easier to accomplish if the target is a willing subject, in which case you only need to appeal to the predispositions of the victim, and these predispositions themselves can be shaped through youthful conditioning.

This tactic of "distraction" is what I call "magic" because it is the same tactic used my magicians.

Magicians (illusionists) make you look over "there" so you don't consider the obvious thing that must be going on over "here". They do this to create an illusion. The marketing of evolution uses this very tactic to promote it's wares for the ultimate profit of its promoters (covered in another thread).

With this in mind, let's reexamine is the fundamental truth in this entire discussion about evolution.

Here is the distraction:

We have been told about about butterflies and moths and cosmic molecules and signaling molecules and transitional forms and mutations over and over again, but the simple, fundamental problem with the logic behind both rock-to-cell and cell-to-man evolution is this:

Science—being at its core, the discovery of the rules of nature—has not discovered rules that would facilitate the formation of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines from known matter. In fact, science has not even begun to approach the level of discovery that would be required to facilitate even the smallest steps of evolution.

Let me give you an example and attempt to make this concept clear.

There are rules that exist in nature that consistently cause hydrogen and oxygen molecules to bond. These rules are well-known and act very consistently. (See Hydrogen Bond)

They are relatively simple rules (to the chemist anyway) that cause many known reactions to occur between hydrogen and other compounds. These rules are so well known that it is possible to predict how hydrogen will react in a given chemical environment.

Now, we also know the resulting condition brought about by these rules, and that is—these rules that cause these simple bonds do not cause the formation of complex machines. We know this because our level of understanding of these rules—which is so thorough that it allows us to make accurate predictions about hydrogen bonding—understands what their limits are.

To attempt to simplify this concept even further, lets say you have a lego set, and in this set there are only 20 types of blocks. Now there are most certainly rules associated with each type of block that dictate how these blocks join together.

With these rules in place, there are many wonderful things that you can make, but you will never be able to make a book with turning pages and intelligible type on each page. It's impossible to do because you are limited by the rules that govern how each type of block can fit together, and by the block shape, size, and color itself.

Now, we have to bring this example into a more biological scope.

We would all agree that the pieces of matter that are the building blocks of a human body can be fit together to make a human body. We all would agree that this is so because we can see human bodies and we can see that they are made of of all these natural "lego" blocks.

But then, when we translate this example from the realm of the lego to the realm of biological life, we are no longer asking the question:

Can these building blocks be put together to create a human body?

Instead, we are asking the question:

What is the process that put these building blocks together?

And so, that is the subject of evolution: the process.

In our example about the lego blocks, there was clearly an intelligent being assembling the parts together and anyone who would see a small toy house built out of lego blocks would have to agree that this house did not form in the lego shipping container while the container was being delivered to someone's house. It was assembled by an external intelligence—an intelligence external to the house itself.

We would all agree that no matter how much the shipping container was shaken, even if it was shaken for decades, a beautiful toy house will never self-assemble.

Now, the really interesting part to consider is this following idea:

The rules that allow a house to assemble are already in place, they do exist.. In other words, we know that you can create a toy house from the parts, and we know this because the rules that allow the pieces to come together will allow this (we've tried it and seen the house we've built), but what we learn when we shake the shipping container for decades and never see a house form teaches us that these rules which cause the pieces to come together are simply not enough in-and-of-themselves to form the house. This process—shaking—just doesn't do it. There must be something more.

So we have to ask ourselves:

What kind of rules would have to exist in order for this shaking process (a "random" process) to form something complex, like a toy house?

Well, we might need to make legos that have some kind of special snapping hinge on them so that certain types of the 20 lego blocks only join together a certain way. Of course, this hinge would have to be perfectly designed to work and join and not break under the conditions of the shaking. There might also need to be another kind of connector on another kind of lego block that allows a different kind of block to join together a certain way, again, carefully designed so it will work in the particular environment it is in but without breaking.

Now this process of developing these hinges and connectors in just the right places and at just the right angles to allow lego blocks to join together to form a toy house when they are all put into a shipping container and shaken together would be a daunting task, in fact, it may be very nearly impossible because not only do the legos have to fit together the right way to make a house, with the random process of shaking their container, there is no guarantee that they will join in just the right places, in the right order, with the right force to form the toy house, and all this without breaking.

However, you say, with all these hinges and connectors, you would certainly end up with something that has some degree of complexity, and this is most certainly the case. You would likely end up with something that is agreeably complex to some degree, but you would virtually never end up with something that is complex and symmetrical. Yes, you may end up with 3 or 4 parts (simple) that join together in a symmetrical fashion, but the probability that the 5th or 6th part is going to join together in just the right fashion so as to make the resulting structure symmetrical diminishes exponentially with each new part.

Now, lets say we were really smart and wanted to join parts together using random processes (shaking) that would end up with a structure that would be able to reproduce new items just like itself. Well, this would be no easy task.

We should be able to see that one approach to solving this reproduction problem would be to build a toy house that contains a device that shakes a shipping container that contains lego blocks that eventually comes together by itself to form a toy house that contains a shipping container that contains lego blocks that eventually comes together by itself to form a toy house; and so on.

Now, using this demonstration using simple lego blocks that have a few associated rules, any intelligent person can see that accomplishing the task described above is virtually impossible. But even while we view the impossibility of this task, we have to consider one thing that was necessary to make this valiant effort possible:

We have to consider the fact that, throughout this entire process, there was an intelligence outside the device that was designing and then building the whole thing, and even with all this intelligence, this was a virtually impossible task.

At this point, an evolutionist would likely say that increasing the number of the types (or shapes) of lego blocks and increasing the number of hinges (rules governing processes) would increase the likelihood of producing a complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machine.

The fundamental problem with this assumption is this:

Increasing the number of hinges actually decreases the likelihood of symmetry because now lego blocks can be joined at many more angles than before. This makes naturally-occurring symmetry far less likely.

But what if we increased the number and types of lego blocks that are in the shipping container. That would surely increase the likelihood of symmetry, right?

No. In fact, this also dramatically decreases the likelihood of symmetry because now there are even more chances that each block will be joined in a non-symmetrical way, and on top of this, each new block that is joined creates more opportunity for asymmetry (non-symmetry).

So, if you follow this example to the biological level and apply many types of elements and many type bonding rules for these small parts, the chance of symmetry occurring decreases exponentially and rapidly fades into oblivion.

The clear and simple conclusion is that it takes a very intelligent being to take building blocks that have numerous and flexible connection options to make complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines.

But now for the fun part: Magic.

The countless arguments that attempt to pull us away from these basic, fundamental truths—as contrived and inaccurate as so many of them are in reality—don't matter because of this simple premise of logic:

If it takes 3 steps to get from A to D (A->B, B->C, C->D) and if you can never take the first step (A->B), then all the other steps you dream about, wish for, or imagine don't matter one bit. The fact is, you're never going to get to B, much less D.

Because of the lack of bonding rules that support those that would be required for self-assembly, evolution could never even get off the ground. The only explanation is an intelligence that is external to the machine.

People who fall into the trap of evolutionary thinking are generally what are called emotionally-based—that is, they make a higher ratio of decisions based on emotions than do intellectually-based people. These emotionally-based people are just the kind of people who are able to be distracted by the magic of evolution's so-called details, and this causes them to forget the fundamentals.

Don't forget the fundamentals.

Now, there are so many other fundamental problems with evolution that people don't often talk about because they're caught up in the magic. One of them is transitional forms.

Fossils clearly show an abrupt appearance of complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines. This is crystal-clear evidence of intelligent design.

If evolution is occurring, then all fossils are transitional forms, and if this is the case, and if symmetry formed over time, why is there an ominous lack of non-symmetrical complex animals. How on Earth can you explain all this amazing and abrupt symmetry.

You can't because there is no natural explanation. There is only extremely frail speculation by emotionally-based evolutionists who continue to attempt to drown themselves in the magic to help themselves forget about the logic and reason staring them bluntly in the face.


"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."
—Luke 10:21


Children often see logic that evades the aged soul.

I'm not actually here to satisfy you Linda, people are here to give both sides of the argument. Your side is not the first and final say on the matter, however much you believe it to be so.



Apology accepted.



Linda, through many of my past posts, I have typed my own comments, have you misinterpreted it as all being copied and pasted? I feel as though I'm repeating myself ad nauseum here. There is nothing wrong with copying/pasting or getting information from books, plus adding your own comments through when you feel like it....I cannot figure out why you're accusing me of something that everybody including you does. I guess this is how you win arguments? Baiting people and using up a lot of energy doing so.



You speak as though the fly is surviving in an unfinished state of transition without considering the wings are exactly right for the needs of the fly. You've already decided that this is "half a wing" without considering the fact it cannot be "half" of anything if it's to be fully functional to the fly, because "half" insinuates a state of incompletion. Animals or insects that do not have their full faculties are sitting ducks literally. They do not last long in the wild. it's simply designed that way for the needs of the fly, rather than being in any kind of state of "transition". This is what I mean by indoctrination. Half a wing, is an attempt so say their wings are not fully formed/half finished, how do you know this? THere are wings of all different shapes/sizes and designs, perfectly suited to the animals needs. Once again, we have a variant of insect/animal deliberately misinterpretated and put across as a case for evolution.



They do not have half a wing. They are fully functioning as they are, without any sign of a halfway evolved structure, as you are attempting to make out here, which is what evolutionists have to do. Flying squirrels have a blanket skin stretched between their front and hind legs. As flying squirrels leap out of a treetop and spread out their four limbs, they look like Aladdin's magic carpet, gliding gracefully across the nighttime sky. Miraculously, flying squirrels are able to maneuver in mid-air and steer toward their desired destinations. And you want to compare this with......"half a wing" congrats on pulling out all stops, this makes your arguments even more questionable and desperate.

A gliding stage is not intermediate between a land animal and a flier. Gliders either have even longer wings than fliers (compare a glider's wingspan with an airplane's, or the wingspan of birds like the albatross which spend much time gliding), or have a wide membrane which is quite different from a wing (note the shape of a hang-glider or a flying squirrel). Flapping flight also requires highly controlled muscle movements to achieve flight, which in turn requires that the brain has the program for these movements. Ultimately, this requires new genetic information that a non-flying creature lacks.



Or, the chicken could simply be designed just as it is as another variety of farm bird. Here again we have a theory attempting to be put across as fact. Chickens do quite nicely as they are and can indeed fly when they require it, but they are barnyard birds, suited for the farm, rather than the tree tops.

The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the ribcage during falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (emus will run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional, allowing these birds to move their wings?



Penguins "wings" are more aptly described as flippers designed exactly for swimming (flying through water in a sense). I cannot honesty see your points here in respect to this ludicrous claim of dinosaur to bird evolution. Talk about pulling out all stops. Any winged flightless birds are not evidence for dinosaur to bird evolution Linda. And no amount of flapping and 'winging it" will make that transition realistic or even possible/probable

DID BIRDS REALLY EVOLVE INTO DINOSAURS OR ANYTHING ELSE?, CHECK OUT THIS LINK ALSO:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinobird.html



Also known as the North Dakota Column, this is claimed to contain the entire geologic column. The total theoretical column depth is 100 miles, but the depth of the Williston Basin is only 3.4 miles. This means that much of the column is missing. Such large amounts of sedimentation are possible during a year-long global Flood, because it was laid down sideways making it quite possible to lay down such large amounts of sediment very quickly, the main factors being available sediment and the rate of current flow.

Now it does have rocks labeled as all ten ages, but some interesting data can be found in, The Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.. The Williston Basin is part of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.

Here is how they labeled some these strata:

Hay River Embayment (van Hees, 1964) - a depositional area northwest of the Peace-Athabasca Arch, developed on the Interior Platform, containing remnants of rocks that have been interpreted as being equivalent to Lower and Middle Cambrian units of central Alberta. The rocks have not been dated, and some of the strata may be younger than here interpreted. The embayment extends westward into the mountains of northeastern British Columbia. This indicates that when lacking fossils, they find rocks that they can interpret as equivalent to the rocks they are dating, so as to set a geologic age. Biostratigraphy according to Williston Basin, "biostratigraphy based on pollen and spores has been used to determine the age of the coal beds." [7] Other fossils include shells and fish but many layers have few if any fossils. In general these layers have not been dated by fossils. Furthermore, there is little reference to radiometric dates beyond the pre-Cambrian. The one set that is mentioned produced inconsistent results.

Local lithostratigraphy and sedimentology are generally well known. However, the paucity of reliable radiometric dates and the absence of biostratigraphic control has hindered correlation within and between the assemblages and precluded accurate dating of each assemblage.
There are several other cases where poor or no biostratigraphic data is mentioned, as well as no reference to radiometric dates. As a result it seems that many of these strata were assigned geologic ages based on comparing rocks. Then the comparisons were interpreted based on the geological column. They seem to be assuming that because of the geologic column, the gaps must contain ages for which they have no fossils

The conclusion that they have a complete geologic column in this area is based on the assumption of the existence of the geologic column. This is circular reasoning.

If that is not enough there is a place where a rock layer labeled Devonian can be found between rock layers labeled Carboniferous. Devonian is alleged to be older than Carboniferous, but this would suggest that they are really the same age.

Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.

Morton's claim - "A detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota.’[5]
Is it misleading? http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp



LOL, vice versa, you provide arguments that agree with your own bias, so you really need to quit accusing people of what you are doing constantly on here. Nobody ever sees any solid evidence. There should be, you're claiming it's science, where are the visuals evidences? No cartoons please.

In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.

Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.3 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.4 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.

Radiometric Dating uses the following three primary assumptions in determining age:

Assumption One: The radioisotope decay rates have been constant throughout the past. As I previously mentioned, we know that some elements decay over time into another element, i.e., uranium (parent) changes into lead (daughter). Since these decay rates are now very stable, this has seemed to be a reasonable assumption. However, there are several clues that past rates have changed, or that some other process dominated.

For example, the existence of short, half-life polonium halos in rock are evidence of rapid formation of host rocks. Even evolutionists admit that the halos are a mystery. Yet nearby a full uranium halo might be found which would take a long period of time to form. These two "mutually-exclusive" facts convince one that something has been overlooked.

Assumption Two: No parent or daughter material has been added to or taken from the specimen. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwater’s otherwise the dating will absolutely be useless. It is very difficult for one to argue the system has never been contaminated through ground water leaching.
Furthermore, since the dynamic Flood of Noah's day covered the entire globe, what rock could have escaped its effects?

Assumption Three :No daughter material was present at the start. Only rocks and minerals, which formerly were in a hot molten condition (like lava), can be dated. But what if the original melt already had some radiogenic lead? The resulting rock would inherit a deceivingly "old" date. In recent years, the "isochron" method has been derived to differentiate between inherited material and true daughter material. Unfortunately, even this has now come into disfavor. Many "pseudo-isochrons" have now been published which yield bizarre, useless dates.

This assumption actually denies the possibility of creation, for God may have created an array of radioisotopes, which, if analyzed with false assumptions, could be misinterpreted as age.

The problem with all of this, of course, is that if your original assumption is flawed then the dates you get mean absolutely nothing. As there is with so much about the theory of evolution, there is circular reasoning involved in radiometric dating as it uses the geologic column to verify it's age.

The smallest steps in evolution, point mutations, isn't where our knowledge is lacking. There's plenty about evolution we do not know, there's always lots to learn in science, but claims that we know almost nothing cannot be considered accurate.


There's nothing magic about evolution. At heart it's just very complex chemistry.


That's correct.


An interesting question, but I think your real point is that if the evolutionary origin of symmetric body plans can't be explained, then God must have done it. But the whole history of science is one of figuring out things we didn't previously know. At every stage of scientific progress, including the current one, there have been tons of scientific mysteries. For example, it might have been said, "There's no explanation for lightning, therefore God did it," or "There's no explanation for the northern lights, therefore God did it," or "We don't know what keeps the planets in their orbits, therefore God did it." The list of solved scientific mysteries is nearly endless, and not one of them has ended with, "Well, what do you know, God did do it!"

--Percy

Could you explain this further? "chemical complexity" that apparently isn't "magic" can occur and is responsible for what we observe around us....that somehow all this arrived from ....single celled organisms?? that somehow had all the necessary information for life itself....(how?) to begin the process of evolution which seemed to have a mind of its own, life and intellect. All that was required was just billions of years to allow this to come to fruition...that somehow everything can be traced back to chance or an inanimate process? Something that we were not there to see ourselves, with no known record of this (in oral or recorded history) other than what the modern day scientists are telling us. If that's not magic or miraculous? I don't know what is.

First of all, you or myself do not know if all fossils are transitional forms. Again, a fossil does not tell you anything other than it "died". The scientist is the one placing the label, not the fossil.

God must of done it? That is based on my "faith", yes. But in plain observation shows me that random chance and lots of time just don't cut it, rather I see intent, intelligence and life in everything around me reproducing after its own kind, as it has always done through history. All require the input of life in order to begin and all that life produces to survive and be sustained. To remove one of these necessities? Would not enable life to exist, let alone be sustained. Everything is somehow in a state of balance, perfectly orchestrated to compliment the other in such a way as to make even the most hardened atheist wonder....Take one of these life necessities away and watch what happens to everything else. It dies! Everything requires the other. How do you explain that these chance beginnings are responsible for this?

All this can be put down to some lucky chance random processes, with no real intent or intelligence/life/purpose? I'll stick with my belief of a divine author/creator thank you, it makes so much more sense when you consider all things in life require an author and producer as a rule.

Keep searching, that's good. It is healthy to do that, regardless of belief. But I think one should be careful also not to be so cocksure with this opposing view of denying any sign that might point to possible design at all costs because one might not wish to accept the implications. One can be willing to hold onto evolution at all costs, irrespective of anything. Is it really worth gambling with the possiblity of a soul to do that? Seriously, if you guys are right, nobody wins in the end, death. But if we are right? That holds very serious and possible eternal consequences and it amazes me that people hold so much faith in fallible human beings (scientists) who are constantly changing their ideas or contradicting eachother (either on the same side or opposing side) and have yet to answer the riddles of the universe and make ongoing human errors throughout.

Seriously, the world around us is far more than we can imagine and to put it down to chance, based on everything around us, is not exacty logical either!



I'm interested in hearing what "mysteries" have been solved and how you're so certain there's been no hand of the divine involved. I'm not sure whether the evolution scientist is even CLOSE to having the answers, let alone the layperson. They can have guesses based on their observations, but their answers unfortunately lean toward bias and the fact that their opinions seem to be the only thing evolving - doesn't lend your comments here much validility! However, it maybe a comforting thought!

Percy,

I understand your position about people saying "God did it." Yes, this has happened throughout history because people will quickly arrive at their conclusions. But, there is an enormous difference here, and it is this:

We already know enough to know not to say, "evolution did it."

As hard as it may be to believe, there is an enormous medical and educational fraud that has been perpetrated (for the sake of money) that has kept you from hearing the other side of the story. You have not been presented all of the evidence.

I grew up in a medical family, have been in the herbal/nutritional industry for over 10 years. I have studied the lies told by mainstream media since about 1990 and I have concluded that the lies that are sold to us as truth from newspapers to textbooks to the nightly news is astounding and very hard for most to believe. I didn't accept it for years until I experienced it a number of times myself (it took a while because I am by nature skeptical).

Are you aware of the many evolutionary frauds that have been uncovered?

Do you know about the moths that were glued to the trees?

Why weren't you told about these things?

Let me tell you, it a fascinating study, and just because you sound like you've only had only minimal exposure to it, let me post some links for you to check out:

Hovind: Lies In The Textbooks

Deadly Immunity

New Age Bible Versions

The Conspiracy Thread

Junk Science: Global Warming Myth Busted

The Lincoln Assassination and the Jesuit Connection, Jon Eric Phelps (MP3)

Biblical Sorcery and Modern Drugs

Kennedy On Secret Societies

Bush Nazi Family Ties

Loose Change

The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast

One Nation Under Siege

Our Solor System

From Freedom To Fascism

Biological Warfare: Experiments On the American People

Confessions of An Ex-RX Drug Pusher

The Government Always Tells the Truth

The New Order of Barbarians

Return of the Nephilim, Chuck Missler


I know there's a lot to digest here, but for those who have an ear, it's well worth the time.

Russ, I don't know how many times I need to repeat this. People aren't here to debate entire websites with you. Most of us have dipped into the kinds of things you listed. I watched pieces of the very first Hovind video you linked for me, I've seen plenty of his ideas since, and they are scientific gobbledygook.

If you feel any of these sites contain points relevant to this discussion then please summarise those points here, along with the evidence for them. This includes glued moths and evolutionary frauds.

Bex, you essentially asked “what use is half a wing”? The examples I gave you could be interpreted as “half a wing,” i.e. they are not fully-formed wings. Creatures do not suddenly evolve half-parts that are not useful to them either as limbs or wings. Such unbeneficial mutations would lead to the death of the organism. However, we do see gradual changes in the morphology of species over time in the fossil record, such as the incremental disappearance of limbs in the whale. Flightless birds have other uses for their wings. The penguin is a wonderful example of how a bird that once flew, now has a new and very useful function for those wings, which have evolved into flippers. I’m not arguing that vestigial wings are functionless, and lack of functionality is not part of the definition of a vestigial organ.

Why do scientists say that penguins’ flippers used to be wings? The fossil record.

Fossil Penguins: A Journey to the Bottom of the World


You said:

You need to give citations when making assertions like this, but I think I found where you got it from – Henry Morris, “What is Creation Science?”, 1987.

There is absolutely no geologist who believes that the geological column must be 100 miles thick. There were some calculations made which added from around the world in many different basins what the thickest sediment of each age were. For example (numbers and places made up) they might take 20,000 feet of Cambrian strata from the Arbuckle mountains and add that to 25,000 feet of Ordovician strata from Bolivia etc. This then adds to 100 miles. However, this is taking the most rapid sedimentation rates found on earth and saying those rates must be found all over the earth everywhere. The Mississippi River and the Amazon river pour lots of sediment into a limited area. The rate of deposition is quite high. It is higher at the mouth of the
Mississippi than anywhere along the east coast of the United States. Yet every day new sediment is deposited at both places. Both places have an entire record of sediment for the past 2 million years. The Mississippi mouth has about 5000 feet and the Georges Bank region off Massachusetts has only about 100 feet (See Geological Studies of the COST Nos. G-1 and G-2 Wells United States NOrth Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf US Geological Survey Circular 861, p. 46.)


Lesson one: stop using sources that are decades old.

from Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology; December 1999; v. 47; no. 4; p. 534-547


This area is now well-studied because people are prospecting for oil there.

Lesson two: Morris doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Radiometric dating next. It’s getting tedious to laboriously refute your pasted links from creationist websites.Here is a pasted link of my own that answers Morris’ perceived problems with potassium-argon dating.


What’s more, RATE was a team of creationists with legitimate credentials who set out to attack the validity of radiometric dating. They ended up having to admit that large amounts of radioactive decay had occurred and have been trying to come up with a YEC explanation for this. You can read about them here.

Morris states, rightly, that there can be some problems with getting an accurate radiometric result. These potential problems are recognised and provision is made for them. No geologist takes a single sample from a single rock and assumes a completely accurate date from it. You can read about radiometric dating at Wikipedia:


If radiometric dating were as wildly inaccurate as Morris seems to want to claim, then there should be nothing but random scatter showing up on radiometric graphs. On the contrary, the dates agree with each other quite well and most anomalous dates, which are rare, are due to a variety of possible errors. Does Morris think that geologists are not aware of this?

from Consistent Radiometric Dates:



Addressing Morris’ comments about pseudo-isochrons, a geologist has given me the following information:

He also adds, about isochron dating:


Radiometric dating is one of the best methods there is of obtaining geological dates. For a more detailed explanation of how it works, including graphs which plot dates obtained by these methods, then please have a look at any of the links provided here.

How did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

Tell me, i want to know.

I insist you tell me.

If we're talking science here (and I hope we are), then a scientific hypothesis is either sufficiently supported by evidence to be successfully replicated and eventually accepted as theory, or it isn't (or it could be in the process of accumulating evidence). Failed hypotheses are not "magic". It sounds like you believe that evolution should be considered a failed hypothesis rather than an accepted theory, and if that's so then the way to make your case is by examination of the supporting evidence to show how it is insufficient or perhaps misinterpreted.


I was just agreeing with Russ's brief statement about fossils, but the more accurate way of stating this principle is that all species, except those that go extinct, are transitional. This is because of imperfect reproduction - the next generation never receives a perfect copy of the genome of the previous generation.

Much of your skepticism appears to be fueled by what you see as the unlikelihood of random processes creating and evolving life, and if randomness were all that were involved then you'd be right. But randomness is only seen in reproduction, which is the imperfect copying of the genome from one generation to the next that I just mentioned. Selection operating on variation, both pre-existing and new due to mutation, is the real engine behind evolution, and it is believed to have played a significant role in the origin of life, too.


All scientific things we know began as things we did not know, i.e., mysteries, though we don't have to use that term if you don't like it. But what was wrong with the three examples I already provided, lightning, northern lights and gravity as the force guiding the planets? At one time these were all attributed to the divine.

There is no scientific way to be certain that there's no hand of the divine involved. In science there's no way to be certain of anything, as tentativity is a prime tenet of science. But what we can say is that from a scientific perspective the divine has no supporting evidence, indeed not even any definition or description, and certainly no scientific evidence of its involvement in any natural phenomena.

--Percy

True, but the "we" you're referring to is Biblical literalists, not the scientific community. Not that there aren't some scientists who aren't also Biblical literalists, a number estimated to be around 1% of the scientific community, but the vast preponderance of scientific opinion disagrees with Biblical literalists. The objections to evolution are social/religious, not scientific.


I would never have guessed. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />


To address this concern you need only ask yourself what your answer would be to someone trying to persuade you of the falsity of Christianity because of the many Christian frauds.


Wow, a veritable cornucopia of fringe ideas!

--Percy

Pardon me for interrupting here. I know folks are trying to have a serious conversation or debate . . . but, ROFL!!!

I laughed so hard at this that I choked on my tea and scared the living daylights out of my betta fish. The poor dearie nearly hopped out of his bowl here on the desk. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laughroll.gif" alt="" />

I know, and those are serious questions Sharon.

How did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

watch Linda try to skate by that one.

are you going to answer the question, Linda? How can you try to prove evolution is superior to creation when you will not even address the basics of creation and the miracles that Jesus performed?

why is this such a one sided discussion anyway?

Answer the question Linda, how did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

I'm new to this forum, so with the request to respond to the inquiry about Jesus I'm wondering, do you guys try to stay on-topic here? I thought this was a science thread about evolutionary issues.

--Percy

What is the name of the forum Percy?

Hows the weather on your end of the mountain?

well, back to the topic.

How did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

The name of the forum is "Creation and Evolution", and the resurrection doesn't seem related to the creation/evolution debate. This particular thread, while it has drifted somewhat from the origin of oil, is about the evidence for evolution. The resurrection seems off-topic for this thread no matter how you look at it.

But I'm new here, just figuring things out. If any topic is valid anywhere, fine. How about Petrino skipping to Arkansas?


White.

--Percy

You may believe in the resurrection, or not. It is a religious belief, not a verifiable scientific fact; and as such, I don't see how it relates in any way to evolution.

Are there any verifiable scientific facts in creationism? I keep asking for evidence of a global flood but no one has presented any yet. I've pointed out to you a number of places where it is lacking.

Percy, this is sort of an "anything goes" place. No admins, no OT. You've got to work to get the focus back sometimes <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

How can the ressurection not possibly be related to creation?

Jesus is God's first born son.

Do you think he evolved from a fish?

Actually Linda, you have been given numerous examples of flood related information.

I don't think you comprehend it though.

The science behind the examples of flood artifacts and whathaveyous that you have been given NUMEROUS times is quite a bit more solid than any of the so-called evidence for evolution you have presented.

If, IF, you were able to present a single hard unarguable fact for evolution you would have been able to stop arguing quite some time ago.

But that hasn't happened. so either you are trying to deceive everyone else with your junk science or you are continually trying to somehow convince yourself.

because you sure have not made a dent toward convincing me.

Cold and snowy in NH huh? yeah, Jesus said it's going to a VERY cold and snowy winter. he told me that a couple months ago. It's still actually still autumn you know, not officially winter yet. you might want to batten the hatches.

I think the theory of global warming has a lot to do with how cold its going to get this winter. That one really has me convinced. Especially when I read in the newspaper that it has been snowing in parts of India the past couple winters for the first time in many many years.

Did you know there is a dent in our universe? they just learned that a couple days ago. Blows away a lot of previously conceived space theory.

Well, back to topic.

How did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

If you want to think about how that is related to evolution for a little bit, I am patient and will wait for a reply.

The question that follows that is; How did Jesus turn water into wine? You might want to study ahead for that one.

A gift for Linda

Our Solor System


<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/arroweater.gif" alt="" />

Hi Russ,

You posted that video once already a couple weeks ago.

Since you initiated this thread, what do you see as the focus of discussion? Evolution? Age of the Earth? Origin of oil? Origin of the solar system? The great flood? Darned if I can figure it out.

--Percy

Linda doesn't usually actually check out the links and rarely watches the videos so you have to keep posting the same stuff back to her because she keeps asking the same questions or asserting the same 'you never explained this' tactic even though it was explained.

she was probabkly just doing that again today.

SoSick, apparently in response to what I said about lack of flood evidence from a 40,000 year old ice core -- which I posted information about regarding how it is dated and the kind of information it holds -- you said that ice floats and melts. Maybe I didn't understand what you were getting at. Would you like to explain further?

I also said that seabeds contain fossils sorted in the same way they are on land. Cores from them do not contain the huge layer of sediment you would expect to see from a flood, nor do they contain the mix of dead creatures you would also expect to see. As above, so below: datable layers containing fossils.

I've explained why I don't refute entiure websites and I think that's fair. I don't ask anyone here to do that. In a debate you present opinions or ideas to each other and discuss them. If there is a website with one or two ideas you find interesting and relevant to this discussion, then by all means post them.

You are mixing theology with science as well. There are many Christians who accept evolution and they believe in the things you are listing. Why don't you check out RAZD's definition of evolution, which he provided for you on another thread, and explain how that relates to the miracles of Jesus.

Of course I am mixing theology with science. How do we approach a discussion of Naoh's ark and the flood otherwise?

There is absolutely no way Linda, that if a world wide flood of immense proportions occured, that it would not have melted or at minimum, caused the floating movement of, any, even massive chunk of ice pre-existing on this earth. The glaciers do not simply exist in places because the air temperature is cold there. the water temperature has to also be considered, streams, like the gulf stream, do move and affect water temperatues in various places for instance. If a flood occured, any 'streams' of that nature would have been rendered insignificant, more probably non-existent, for a period of time. You might consider even that some of the glaciers are actually remnants of the flood, a result and remainder of it.

There is no argument among geololgists that sea water covered a good portion of the planet at some time in the past. Himalayan sea salt is an excellent example of proof of that. Fossils of deep sea life are found in extreme places. the timeline is thrown off quite a bit once it encapsulates the needed lingth of time for 'evolution' to take place though. Do you truly believe that the Himalayan sea salt sitting on my kitchen table is hundreds upon hundreds of millions of years old?

Sediment gets washed away by floods generally, not vice versa. So I am not real sure you can even consider a static model of any sort in that respect. try diuping a pile of mud into a puddle while it's still raining, raining hard and see if anything at all is left in the morning. It will probably actually end up half a mile down the road. Imagine that on a large scale. the most i think you can hope for are areas of dried up seabed in enclosed valleys where things clustered in a last attempt to survive (because they did not move on when waters were still deep enough) but died when the waters receded.

there are many Christians who accept evolution. i would argue however that they are not Christians but simply like to call themselves that for some strange reason. they are theists of some sort i guess or claim to be. Maybe a different religion... but the bible clearly teaches that God created life, not that it evolved. so they actually lose any hope of their true christianity right there in the first sentence. Jesus is the son of God, the bible speaks often of God creating and God knowing persons even before they were born. There isn't much room for evolution in there.

though you may say 'many' believe that, many many more Christians believe that God created life, spoke this world into existence. the evolutionist 'christians' really are a minority in the category, and outside of their minority category are viewed with huge disdain by the rest of the christian community.

You should try to at least answer the question 'how did Jesus raise himself from the dead?' I am not making a joke, this actually leads to some very interesting places that seem to be being overlooked.

It's difficult to respond to this unless you can give me more clarity on what it is you personally believe about the flood.

How old do you think the earth is?
At what point were all living things created on it?
Do you believe the fossil record could have existed before the flood, or were all fossils deposited in the flood?
Did mountains like Everest exist before the flood?
Where do extinct creatures like dinosaurs fit into the picture?

I can base my answers on yours, thanks.

Gen:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep..

The earth may be only 7000 yrs old, it may be much much older, I really have no idea. That's what the bible says above about the first acts of creation concerning the earth... it was void and without form... darkness was upon the face of the deep... void and without form... the earth when it was first created was not the earth as we know it today according to the bible... the deep/// the deep what? space? possibly I guess. None of us willl ever really know in this lifetime. The earth, without form and void, could have existed for a thousand years, possibly aeons before God moved into the next act of creation, we aren't given specific dates. If you need a perfect answer on that one, you'll have to ask the only witness, God himself. All you can really get from that passage is that the matter which formed the earth existed somewhere in space.

Gen 2 ... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

etc etc you can read the rest read of Genesis at home.


If the fossil 'record' exists now, it existed before the flood. why would anyone ask such a simple obvious question? Is the idea of pre-flood and post-flood fossilization a problem? It's the same earth.

Of course mountains like Everest existed before the flood. You are aware of Mt Ararat right?

I think a lot of extinct creatures were killed by human beings Linda. Some may have died out for other unknown reasons, lack of habitat, who knows, some may of been killed by the flood. hard to say. But, i think being killed by human beings is a top of the list item, same then as it is now.

I would prefer not to rehash these points if you don't mind, you argue the same points every day if given an opportunity. I think we all know your (non) views on those points (you love to argue endlessly) quite well by now.

I was asking ... how did Jesus raise himself from the dead?

He didn’t. The reason being, Jesus is nothing more than a plagiarized mythological character extracted from numerous religions, all of which predate Christianity by several centuries, including (but not limited to) such personas as Dionysus, Osiris and Attis.

Unsurprisingly, the cross of the zodiac (a symbol plagiarized many centuries later by Christianity) is one of the oldest conceptual images in human history. It reflects the sun as it figuratively passes through the twelve major constellations over the course of a year. It also reflects the twelve months of the year, the four seasons, and the solstices and equinoxes. The term zodiac relates to the fact that constellations were anthropomorphized, or personified as figures or animals. In other words, the early civilizations did not just follow the sun and stars, they personified them with elaborate myths involving movements and relationships – myths which far predate Christianity by hundreds of thousands of years.

The sun, with its life giving and saving qualities, was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god (later tuned into the Christian god). God’s sun, the light of the world, the savior of human kind. All of these ideas were supplanted from far more ancient religions and into Christianity. This is precisely why there is absolutely zero factual evidence for the existence of a Jesus Christ outside the Bible. Historically speaking, it is infinitely more easy to prove the existence of, say, Julius Caesar (or many other identities from similar eras) than Jesus Christ. This is because he was neither a charlatan nor an amateur poseur such as “David Koresh”; rather, he never existed at all - he was a copied persona from a multitude of pagan belief systems and compounded into one ideal. From virgin birth to the three Wise Men to a death followed by the resurrection, and even the dates of the holidays Easter and Christmas, all were ideas thought up long before the character Jesus Christ was plagiarized into existence.

Ok... I see linda is going to skate this question so I appreciate the sincere response Pwwca.

But... if Jesus never really existed why is he mentioned, ever so briefly in roman history? why is he mentioned for instance, if I remember correctly, in writings by someone named 'Pontius Pilate' who actually seems to have lived and left a bit of record to roman history? Of course Julius Caeser is written about quite a bit more, he was Caeser after all so he is written about more than anyone of the era.

What about the apostles though... John, Mark, James, Paul... Peter? None of them existed either or were the tales they told simply complete nonsense from the get go? Did they get together and conspire these stories?

The cross is a very old symbol I agree. I think the Christians picked it up not because of it's prior signifigance to other cultures or religions (keep in mind that life was different then, the world much much smaller in an informational sense) but to symbolize the cross Jesus was crucified on and also to symbolize the crosses they were being crucified on. Crucifixion was one of the ways the romans killed slaves. saying christians 'plagiarized' it is like saying mathematics plagiarized it. It's one of the most common geometric symbols, like a circle, square, triangle, or simply, a line.

I'm not skating the question. There's just no ice here to skate on. The resurrection of Jesus is not a verifiable historical fact and as such, people are free to believe or disbelieve it. I'm still not clear on what you think this has to do with evolution. Evolution explains how life on earth has changed since it began. Or, to be more accurate, you can choose one of the definitions RAZD has presented to you.

OK so you are saying it's possible that the earth could be 4.3 billion years old. Presumably I can skip the YEC rebuttals with you then.



Because many creationists claim that the entire fossil record was deposited in the flood. They claim that every species that ever existed on earth, was alive up to the point of the flood. Apparently this is not what you think either. So you are looking at some of the scientific evidence.



Some creationists also believe that tall mountains did not exist before the flood, and that the cataclysmic events during the flood caused them to rise.

You don't seem to be very aware of the sorts of things your fellow creationists believe, including so-called leaders in the field. For a theory that is supposed to be sound enough to be taught alongside, or in place of, evolution, it's a pretty patchwork of inconsistencies.



The problem here is the fossil record, which you admit could have existed before the flood. So there's no reason for you to believe that the fossils ought to be mixed together instead of sorted. Why is it, then, that most extinct species are found deeper in the fossil record than hominid fossils, in rocks that have been dated to a few billions of years old in some cases? This would seem to be pretty clear evidence against humans causing all the extinctions unless a) you can explain why the fossil record shows specific sorting everywhere apart from where geological processes have disturbed the strata; and b) you can do better than Henry Morris at trying to explain how radiometric dating is flawed.



You mean you prefer not to be shown how these claims are scientifically inconsistent? If you want to find the truth, you look at the evidence.

I'm sorry Linda. But I learned more about life and truth in one moment, than I ever did in 17 years of schooling, when I was saved by our living God, through Jesus Christ.

You want to argue about what you perceive as scientific fact all day long. But you ignore the actual fact that there is more real evidence for God, through Jesus, than any of the numerous conjectures you use to ignore him.

I want you to actually provide some evidence that creationism, which people want taught in public schools, is at least as good an explanation as the theory of evolution. One of the first requirements is that it needs to marry with what we understand to be scientific facts. What you are doing is ignoring the fossil record, ignoring the ways we date it and the geological column, and then claiming that there is more evidence for God -- and presumably creationism -- than anything else.

I could use the same willful blindness and bizarre logic to say that the tooth fairy exists and that the world was sneezed up by the Great Green Arkleseizure. Ignore everything that seems to you to be fact, for lo this is so because I say so.

Some people may want creationism taught in public schools, I personally do not support that idea. The teaching is only as good as the teacher so a lot of room would be available there for error trying to teach that in a public school. However, neither should evolution be taught as a scientific fact. I have no problem with either being mentioned briefly since either one or the other are believed to be true depending on who you speak to. In order to mention creationism, the Christian version, other creation stories from other religions also need to mentioned. I truly do believe in comprehensive education, especially in the public schools.

You are using willful blindness and bizarre logic to say that the tooth fairy exists and that the world was sneezed up by the great whoknowswhateape, aomeba or trilobite.

Just because a fossil record exists is hardly proof that creation did not happen. Logically, it is proof that it did happen, it is proof of life.

Ignoring accounts and factual records of christian history is hardly the way to win a creation/evolution debate.

Though i've been called a bigot and whoknows what here how many times, i think it's pretty obvious who the bigots are since they refuse to even explore that facts on the other side of the argument.

RAZD has explained the ways "evolution" is defined better than I could. I hope you've taken note. Evolution itself, that life has changed over time, is not in dispute by scientists. The theory of evolution explains those changes by the processes of mutation and natural selection. You're telling me a "brief mention" of it in a science class is OK, when it is a fundamental part of so many scientific disciplines?



The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as fact. You would be hard-pressed indeed to find a biologist or geologist who rejected it outright. The people who do reject it tend to betray fundamental scientific ignorance and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one who wasn't a religious fundamentalist. So a lot really does depend on who you speak to, but I know which group of people are qualified to be setting the science curriculum.



None of them have any more place in a science classroom than creationism does. On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents". In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".



But the sorting of that record, and the dating of the strata, are crucial elements. The fossil record directly contradicts the idea that God simultaneously created all life that ever existed on earth. It is compelling evidence that life evolved.



I fail to see any relevance between Christian history and the issue of evolution.



What facts-?

See Mithraism:


Merry Christmas ...

Also see Hinduism and the concept of sin.

Enjoy.

ps - modified policy: [color:"blue"]My time is limited, but I have time to answer more than one response it seems. Therefore, I will continue to post on threads that interest me, but may reply to more than the first response if they discuss the issue(s).[/color] I expect other people to do the same. Thanks for your consideration.

You will encounter variations of the spiritual dimension within all religions, and many similarities as well as contrasts. In science, quantum mechanics actually works with that.

However, I would suggest you stick with what is actually known factually. Within Christianity, the apostles and early church are an excellent place to start. You can continue to deny they exist, but history states otherwise.

Hello again SoSIck


The problem is that there are facts of evolution, there are the facts that the theory of evolution is based on, the evidence of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Speciation has been observed. These are facts, not theory, not fantasy, not falsehood.

The problem is that the theory of evolution explains these facts, just as other scientific theories in other sciences explain the evidence those sciences are based on. The science of evolution demonstrates how well the theory explains these facts.

But then, you have already demonstrated\admitted that you have no idea what evolution really is haven't you?


Funny how you demonstrate it once again. It's like you can't help yourself.


Of course that is a possibility. Now let's test that concept. When does the fossil record say that creation occurred - at what level? How many "kinds" were involved? (What's a "kind?)


So the fact that Jerusalem exists proves what? It proves that Jerusalem exists. We can validate that with other historical evidence, so this information is trivial as an addition to knowledge.

The fact that Kansas exists must also prove that the Wizard of Oz is true to eh?


When you behave like a bigot you should expect people to notice.

As far as facts that support concepts go, finding facts that appear to support a concept is trivial, like the existence of Jerusalem. I can use a roadmap as evidence that the world is flat, I can use sunrise and sunset as evidence that the earth is at the center of the universe orbited by the sun, planets and stars. I can use fresh lava as evidence that the earth is young.

The existing of supporting evidence on its own does not validate a concept. The real issue, the test of ideas is how you deal with evidence that invalidates the concept.

We don't believe in a flat or geocentric earth because there is evidence that invalidates those ideas. Likewise there is evidence that the earth is old - how do you deal with that? Evidence of young parts of the earth do not invalidate the fact that the earth is old, but the evidence of old parts of the earth do invalidate the concept of a young earth, just as much as the flat or geocentric earth are invalidated concepts.

So if you want to discuss facts we need to specify that the important ones to discuss are the ones that invalidate concepts, the others are trivial and a waste of time.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Thanks for the reply SoSick


Can I quote you on that? Are yyou now saying that all religions are equally valid?

So other churches with variations in spiritual dimensions are just demonstrating the diversity of belief, and the concept of "so-called" churches and "so-called" christians is not a reflection on their spiritual dimension? The catholic church is just another dimension?


There is independent historical record of Gautama Buddha and concern about the crowd that was gathering to meet with him.

Can you provide similar independent (non-christian) historical evidence?

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

To the people that believe them, all religions are equally valid RAZD. All people are essentially equal in their ability to have spiritual experiences. The bible even speaks of many other gods that are worshipped by other cultures. to those other cultures, their gods and their spiritual experiences with them are quite valid.

Yes Buddha was a real guy, just like Jesus was a real guy.

As I mentioned above there are notes about Jesus and his followers in Roman history. The jews also have notes in their history about him. The NT is a collection of writings from his first followers.

There's actually quite a bit of stuff.

Yes, you can quote me on that btw. Quantum mechanics works with dimensions and energy and matter. It's proved all sorts of stuff that people wouldn't otherwise believe could be possible. elementary school children are starting to experiment with it on a simple level. I don't remember where I read it but it was recently, about some school kids and two bowls of rice... I will try to remember and find that for you. essentially, they turned the rice into wine (started anyway) by telling it they loved it everyday. the other bowl of rice, they told it they hated it everyday and it rotted. took them 30 days or so to get it going. Jesus turned water into wine in a few minutes.

Energy affects matter RAZD. God is spirit. God is love.

You are the one arguing for evolution RAZD, not me. If Jerusalum is trivial across the board, since you left that wide open... use the same logic when you try to make one fossil or another a key in your evolutionary theory.

Because according to what you just said, as far as facts that support concepts go, finding facts that appear to support a concept is trivial, like the existence of fossils.

SoSick, I think the rice was within water in sealed jars, and the idea was to see what effect the words and attention would have on the water and thus what was in the water. This is described in a book Sunshine lent me called The Hidden Messages in Water by Masaru Emoto.While I personally find this interesting though, I don't see how it logically has anything directly to do with God, or with evolution for that matter.

RAZD said:

The existence of Jerusalem does not invalidate evolution. If Jesus were a historical figure, that does not invalidate evolution. The history of the tribes of Israel does not invalidate it. So discussing these things in a debate about evolution is trivial and a waste of time.

The existence of fossils is much more pertinent to a discussion of evolution, as are the places in which they are found. Would you like to make a point about how you think fossils invalidate evolution?

The rice thing was just a few weeks ago so i doubt it's been written about and published in a book yet. Maybe someone else has done it too. well, proof that it's replicable how about that.

Linda I have never seen so much illogic spouted as truth in my life. I don't expect you make any logical correlations at ths point.

The only thing I am convinced of so far is that both you and your friend RAZD are bonafide nutjobs.

As has been pointed out, ad hominem remarks tend to surface when the poster is unable to refute or to add any meaningful points of their own. RAZD and I have been trying to focus on the science here, as presumably you believe in "creation science." Any theory worth its salt needs to be able to explain evidence that would appear to invalidate it, and there are truckloads for creationism.

Why don't you answer my questions about the flood? I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

Linda, you are insane. Your friend RAZD is insane.

the only thing either of you have proven is a blatant disregard for fact and every other discipline.

The both of you have done nothing except provide an exceptionally strong argument for the delusional propensity of eviloution as a social science.

And unless you start backing these kinds of statements up with evidence, then they are empty rants. Show either of us how we are deluded please. I think RAZD has actually called you on that count a few times, based on various things you have said.

Thank you SoSick for the kind response.

So you disagree with the poster that said that "so-called churches" (link provided by the poster) and "so-called christians" were hypocrites eh? Now you say they all have valid beliefs. Glad you cleared that up. Do have a single valid statement left in The cost of Evolution, and other things, or failing that, one that you will stand by?


I'd like some references for the non-christian sources (ie unbiased) ones. References also to be non-christian please. Just curious, as I've never heard of any such elsewhere.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]

Thank you SoSick for another kind response.

To quote from the Russ Tanner Manifesto (posted in many places, repetition being another common tactic of distraction, and thus easy to find)
(Color/bold added for emPHAsis. Note that Russ then goes on to describe common creationist methodology rife with distractions and void of factuality)

Aren't you getting a little desperate SoSick, when you need to portray several people as being insane? Of course another choice is that we are right and you are wrong, but incapable of recognizing that (for any one of several reasons).

Yet geology, chemistry, physics and astronomy confirm a very old earth, evolution does happen, has been observed ...

Evolution is a natural science while the social sciences include disciplines like anthropology, economics, education, geography, history, law, linguistics, political science, psychology, and sociology. It looks like, once again, you are confused about what evolution is, the process, the theory, and the science. Or in denial.

Let me refer to this definition again:
And note that the distinction between delusion/2 and delusion/3 is the denial of invalidating evidence (which needs to have been presented),

... and you have yet to provide a single fact to back up your position on any argument I have seen.

For information from yet another discipline, please see cognitive dissonance:
Of course a simple way to discount the information is to decide that all the people telling it are insane.

By the way, I'm new here so I was wondering what the 5 stars under my name (vs 2 under yours) mean? Just curious, as I haven't been here that long.

Enjoy.

Note: [color:"green"]My time (too) is limited, so I post on threads of particular interest to me, but I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]