There is no fossil evidence to support the theory that life emerged from nonliving chemicals, or that life gradually underwent a series of changes until new and different species were formed.

The following quotations by Drs. Leo Hickey, Preston Cloud, and Vincent Sarich are from a film entitled, The Evolution Conspiracy: A Quantum Leap Into the New Age. (1*) This video contained interviews with these eminent evolutionary scientists, in which they were asked to comment about the prevalence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their initial reply was that transitional forms were numerous This answer was based on their definition of "transitional." To them, since they believe evolution is unquestionably true, any fossil of an extinct species is probably a transition between what it evolved from, and what it evolved into later. After these claims were made, they were given the chance to list examples of transitional fossils, fossils clearly showing themselves to be between species. This is the creationists' definition of "transitional." When faced with this definition, they had to admit that there were few or none. Initially they made it sound like evolution was a proven fact, but when questioned by knowledgeable experts, they had to admit that they lacked support from the geologic record.

Dr. Leo Hickey, Director of Yale Peabody Museum:

1. "There are myriad transitional forms. There's really no problem finding transitional forms."

versus his statement of:

2. "One of the things that also makes it a little more difficult in the fossil record is the rapidity with which evolution acts, in very short bursts. It doesn't leave many transitional forms behind."



Dr. Preston Cloud, Director of Geology, UCSB:

1. "In fact there are so many transitional forms between species that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one from the other."

versus his statement of:

2. "The problem of transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologists have a problem with. The geologic record is incomplete. It's incomplete because of erosion that has eroded things away."



Dr. Vincent Sarich, Professor of Anthropology, UCB:

(commenting on how creationism was overthrown by the fossil evidence for evolution)

1. "We have to remember that after all, creationism was what everybody thought not all that many years ago. And creationism was overthrown in the scientific community by evolutionary thinking."

versus his statement of:

2. "Although there must be, from an evolutionary perspective, many transitional forms out there,the likelihood of finding any one of them is extremely low."


The video went on to give another example of an evolutionist who admits there aren't transitional fossils. Luther Sunderland, a creationist and aerospace engineer comments on a letter he wrote to Dr. Colin Patterson, Director of the British Museum of Natural History, concerning transitional fossils. Dr. Patterson, a well known and highly respected evolutionist, had just finished writing a book about evolution. Even though he believes in evolution, Dr. Patterson failed to illustrate any interspecific fossil forms. Dr. Patterson didn't include any pictures of transitional fossils.

"I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter:

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

In case you happened to skim over that and missed it, I'm going to repeat this direct quote from Dr. Patterson.

"THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL FOR WHICH ONE MIGHT MAKE A WATERTIGHT ARGUMENT."

Above taken from http://www.bibleprobe.org/objection.html

By the way, if anybody starts accusing me here of "quote mining" and taking out of context, I will tell you now that I have seen the video myself where these evolutionists were interviewed and heard these statements on there myself in full. They were self evident.

I think these evolutionists have dug so deep looking for nonexistent fossils and relics they are having difficulty climbing out of the ditch they have found themselves in.

You know what I was thinking?

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

My Tanakh says shrewdest instead of subtil.

But anyway, a talking snake. And very shrewd, the most subtil of all.

Just a thought to mull over.

Yeah, but as you said earlier, they would have to re-write the textbooks! Once you start, you have to keep it going, or the entire thing collapses and what will the repercussions be? Your quote was apt, it's a question of pride too and what happened then, is the same thing happening now. History repeating itself I'd say.

Anything extinct gets a label from the evolutionary perspective. No fossil is safe! It's an earlier transitional form/ancestor. They get to speak for it. But what happens when they discover the "so-called" fossil still happens to be alive and well somewhere in the world and has been discovered? It can be embarrassing, considering the fossil is labelled to be millions of years old.....yet it hasn't changed! and as for an earlier transitional form/ancestor? That gets blown out of the water as well because it's still alive and producing after it's own kind, right along with the rest.

E.g.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/tgsmqzsqob.jpg">

New DNA analysis confirms that the Laotian rock rat (above) is a "living fossil" that belongs to a family of rodents thought to have gone extinct 11 million years ago.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070424-fossil-rodent.html

Consider the Coelacanth fish!

From 1839 - 1938, evolutionists alledged this fish was a "missing link" in the evolution of fish to amphibians. Supposedly 400 millions years old. Evolutionists believed that it had become extinct 70 million years ago [about the same time dinosaurs died out] because their fossils are not found in any deposits higher than this. In 1938, however, a living coelacanth was brought to shore in South Africa. It was caught in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar, and since that time more than 200 other specimens have been sighted or caught.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/jpmurrspvk.jpg">
A 1998 find of "a living fossil" off Sulawesi, Indonesia (the Coelacanth pictured above).
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/COELAC.htm
Because coelacanths have lobed fins, evolutionists thought them to be ancestors of the first amphibians (which is one such example of how evolutionists misinterpret the fossil record to promote their idea). Other creatures, such as the nautilus, brachiopod, horseshoe crab and even the ubiquitous cockroach, are virtually unchanged from fossils paleontologists date to hundreds of millions of years ago.

Another example is here in New Zealand (where I live), where have a lizard-like creature called a "tuatara". Another "living fossil"....The Encyclopaedia Britannica adds that the tuatara is "a reptile that has shown little morphological evolution for nearly 200,000,000 years since the early Mesozoic" ("Evolution").
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/kpzzsszkmf.jpg">

Antelope fossil - "apparently 83 million years old" (according to evolution).
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/yyoazxxovj.jpg">
If evolutionist claims were true, then there should once have been a very odd creature bearing features of both the antelope and some other life form. These animals, of which there is no trace in the fossil record, should immediately be identifiable, due to their sharing characteristics belonging to two different species, and should also exhibit an example of the supposed forebear-descendent relationship claimed by evolutionists. Yet not one single such intermediate form has ever been exhibited in evolutionist publications, which are filled with countless other myths and fictitious scenarios. That is because no such fossil exists. And that is in turn because no such life form ever existed at any time. Like the 83-million-year-old antelope in the picture, all living things have come down to the present day in exactly the same form in which they were first created. Natural history refutes evolutionist claims.
http://fossil-museum.com/fossils/fosil.php?Id=2897


Evolution theory predicts a fossil record that would contain:
Simple life forms gradually appearing with similar predecessors.
Simple life forms gradually changing over time into more-complex forms.
Countless transitional links between kinds of creatures.
Beginnings of and partially completed features such as new limbs, bones and organs.

The biblical account of creation predicts a fossil record that would contain:
Complex life forms suddenly appearing with no evolutionary predecessors.
Complex life forms multiplying "after their kinds" (Genesis 6:20), but with limited variety within those kinds.
No transitional links between kinds of creatures.
No partial features such as new limbs, bones and organs; all parts are complete and fully functional.

After years of study and research, what does the fossil record show?
Complex life forms suddenly appearing with no evolutionary predecessors.
Complex life forms multiplying "after their kinds,"
variety within each species.
No transitional links between kinds of creatures.
No partial features such as new limbs, bones and organs; all parts are complete and fully functional.
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/evolution/forecord.html

And what do we find? Fossils in their complete state, and showing little to no change over the millions of years that they have been apparently "evolving".

Yeah there's a new one pops up everyday, it's been happening for as long as the theory of evolution has existed and they still teach the same old crap in school.

I imagine if someone really wanted to make a case and avoid accusations of pandering to creationists, they could simply take a high school textbook, take their kid that is being taught that all these so-called species are extinct and other aggregious nonsense, take all the photos of all the evidence that these so-called species are not extinct, heck even take some living samples in cages or tanks..

..and just sue the stupid school system for teaching false information to their kid and thus causing obviously very intentional harm to the child and the child's future.

They could probably win a case that simple. Maybe I will consider doing that myself downline, sounds like an easy way to make a few big bucks.

Other professions don't get away with it. If your kid's math textbook was full of erroneous computations and your kids was seriously studying math you could win that one too. It truly would be harmful to the kid, a real blunder on the part of the teacher and the school system for allowing it. You could sue the shirts off their backs because now instead of having to just teach math you literally have to un-teach and then re-teach which could take years. Quite a bit of harm in there, basically an attempt to cause the kid to never amount to anything.

I am quite interested in finding links to the talking snake.

But where's one to find an honest judge? And what happens when the case is appealed? The school system's budget is public money, so they don't care too dearly how much they have to spend.

You mean the burden of proof would be with me? What a unique idea.

Not sure how to interpret this joke. Proof has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Example

Yeah, kind of reminds me of the amalgam issue. If a dentist has been trained to believe mercury is safe in your mouth, he tends to believe that for a lifetime, well till he's on his deathbed or becomes crippled from the mercury himself anyway. At the end of their careers, they sometimes finally admit the truth, or rather, the lie.

Did you know the average lifespan of doctors/dentists is only mid-fifties or so?

I felt this was worth repeating on this thread (from another thread on here). In case anybody missed it:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html

Why do so many scientists endorse Evolution?

The obvious reason that so many scientists endorse the theory of macroevolutionary process as the best explanation for life origins and development here on earth is because they really believe such to be the case. But is that true, really? Is it possible that there's a lot more to the story than meets the eye?

Wayne Friar, Ph.D., AIIA's Resource Associate for Science and Origins, says this:

"Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.

Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.

Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington:

One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (Godless) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.

Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

G: What elephant?

J: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!


Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research:

[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself.

Bex stated in message 254066:


This is a misquote as you've (or AIG, or whatever site you took this from) left out the rather important final sentence:

"The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." (emphasis mine)

From here.

This is an important point. This is why you don't find many genuine quotes by scientists (especially Evolutionary Biologists) in favour of Creationism.

Bear in mind also that Evolution is a separate topic from the origin of life (that is known as Abiogenesis). Evolution "is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." From here.

K

Not a misquote since someone else spoke it but... generally a quote is suppose to direct you to look it up and finish reading more of the same...can't expect to know all about everything from a quote or two.. but anyway it just reiterates the point he is making about materialism.

It's not 'in favor of' or 'against' statement, he is speaking about two different disciplines/schools of thought which contrast each other. Materialism is incapable of including anything beyond matter is all he's saying. Which. if you had read the thread above and elswhere here, is what we have been discussing.

There is no room for miracles in materialsim. But that does not mean miracles do not happen and neither of the above mentioned claim that.

Ask your doctor if he has ever experienced a patient that seemed to get cured miraculously for instance, most doctors who have been around a while have.

Unfortunately, it's beyond the scope of materialistic science. Meaning, science is not to be seen as answer for everything. You can rely on it totally if you'd like, but it will kill you in the process because science cannot even explain why your heart beats. And neither can abiogenesis btw.

I think you missed the point of the discussion, k.

Hi SoSick,


I would like to believe that readers would research into quotes more fully, but I doubt that is often the case. This quote was cut in such a way that it did not include the contrasting side.


I agree, but that quote was cut in such a way that it did not represent materialism at all. I have been following the thread, it's a topic which interests me.


You never know. Materialism is that which can be empirically tested. There was a lot that seemed miraculous, or supernatural in this world such as earthquakes, lightning and thunder, etc; and via our senses, advancing technology and collaboration of knowledge, these things were explained. The subject becomes material once it becomes testable.

K

Kakariki wrote:


Just to back up what kakariki is saying here, I see a lot of remarks indicating that "science can't explain everything". I disagree with this perspective. More appropriately we could argue that mankind can't explain everything. Science has nothing to do with it.

Having said that, yes, it is important to remember that in earlier days many unexplainable phenomenon were rationalized with superstition and deity worship. People didn't understand that thunder was two clouds in collision -- and in fairness, how could they? Therefore it was explained as a spirit or god, etc. While there are a great many things humans will never be able to explain, that does not necessarily put it into the category of the supernatural. That's not to say it isn't potentially supernatural but therein lies the key. Potentially so. Sure, maybe the things we (as of yet) cannot explain are superntural, mystical, etc. But then again, maybe they aren't too. There's always that possibility that we simply haven't unriddled the explanation. I certainly don't want to stop people from trying -- and I'm not about to ridicule them for their efforts, whether they're right or wrong.

Earlier days?

People still pray for rain, etc, and attribute calamities to an angry God.

It's even been done many times on this board by the evos. Even you have made similar comments as a way of defending your rationale of not believing in God.

Keeping in mind that probably not everyone feels God has slighted them or deserted them, separating your opinion from you is the same as saying science exists without input from it's human creators, as you seemed to have done. Kind of a bend on a very existential attitude, not one everyone shares with you however.

When mankind has nothing to do with science, well, that'll be the day.

In fact, pagans and neo-pagans still desire to practice human sacrifice where they are able, believing the shedding of blood will appease their gods, bring them favor, or enable them to gain spiritual power from the soul or spirit of the sacrificed individual.

There is in fact a school of thought which traces evolution and materialism back to the pagan beliefs of Sumeria and Babylon, both of which cultures practiced human sacrifice and worshipped inanimate objects.

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/dna/dnamiracle1.php

The materialist philosophy, once imposed on the mass of humanity under the guise of science, is ironically being defeated today by science itself. Materialism, the philosophy which holds that everything is composed of matter and which denies the existence of God, is actually the contemporary version of paganism. Ancient pagans used to worship non-living beings like wooden or stone totem poles and considered them divine beings. Materialist philosophy, on the other hand, bases its claim on the belief that man and all other beings are created out of atoms and molecules. According to this superstitious view, non-living atoms somehow organised themselves and over time acquired life and consciousness, finally bringing man into being.

This superstitious belief based on materialism is called "evolution." The belief in evolution, first introduced in the pagan cultures of the ancient Sumerians and then the ancient Greeks, was in a way revived in the 19th century by a group of materialist scientists and brought on to the world agenda. Charles Darwin is the best known of these scientists. The theory of evolution he advanced wasted the time of the world of science for 150 years, and despite its flawed nature having been widely acknowledged, it has been sustained until quite recently for purely ideological reasons. ...


http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter3.php

The roots of evolutionist thought go back as far as antiquity as a dogmatic belief attempting to deny the fact of creation. Most of the pagan philosophers in ancient Greece defended the idea of evolution. When we take a look at the history of philosophy we see that the idea of evolution constitutes the backbone of many pagan philosophies....



...the connections being obvious in themselves to anyone with a knowledge of ancient religions, including some that still exist today under various names but still pagan nonetheless as regards their belief system and direct, undenied, lineage from the ancient beliefs.

Paganism is alive and well, we have an example right here among us, and evolution is it's creation story. Deny it as evolutionists most certainly will, it is like saying they invented the beliefs themselves, which they didn't. they simply should have spent more time in history class and perhaps done a more comprehensive study of religion before ever claiming evolution is a new idea, because the basic tenets of evolution are as old as the hills and move hand in hand with the same superstitions that enabled ancient peoples to believe a rock was a god, capable of powerful things, and killing virgins or drinking blood would bring them blessings, power, or somehow extend their own lives.

Bex wrote:


Sure it's possible. But it's also equally possible that "macroevolution" -- a term coined by the creationist school of thought, incidentally, and not evolutionists themselves -- is accurate.

It's been said by posters on this forum that evolution is the most ridiculous sounding theory they've ever heard of. As a neo-pagan I've been told by a fair few that my beliefs are outlandish, absurd, fantastical and so on (even satanic, which is wildly ironic since I don't believe in the Christian mythos, of which "Satan" is a part of). Yet despite this I refuse to stoop to the level of the accusers and transfer these accusations onto evolution -- or anything else for that matter.

This is a statement to the forum readers at large by the way (those who I've chosen to maintain dialog with) and not any one poster in particular.

So even if evolution is 100% false, as a theory it is by no means a ridiculous notion nor hard to understand why anyone would accept it as a plausible explanation for life. We already know "microevolution" exists. Even the most steadfast creationist does not deny that bacteria change over time to better combat the latest antibiotics. Living creatures are known to change in small doses over short, and sometimes long, periods of time to compete with the ever changing world. This fact cannot be refuted. It's not so unrealistic, then, that someone might take this idea one step further by suggesting that life changes in larger strides over even greater periods of time. Even if it's wrong, even if tomorrow it's completely and irrevocably disproven, it's certainly not outlandish or hard to understand why someone might assume this to be the case.

I'm not arguing for "macroevolution" as a wholly true and utterly factual concept here and this is by no means an invitation to debate the validity thereof. I'm simply stating that, true or false, it's not an unreasonable notion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Blessed be.

CTD wrote:


I've always felt that the newer Star Wars films are utterly lacking in storyline, depth and creativity. The original movies, volumes 4, 5 and 6, on the other hand are rife with metaphor and meaning, substance and depth. Yet there are quite a few fans out there who believe the opposite, that the new Star Wars films far outshine the older ones from the 70's and 80's. They hold to this stance with "ardor and faith". No deities. Therefore, this is their religion (according to good ol' Webster -- in fact I'm confident that's exactly what Webster meant when he put that definition of the word in there).

At any rate, it's a good thing we have freedom of religion in America because if people weren't allowed to practice religion in the United States I sure bet the religion of the-newer-Star-Wars-films-are-way-cooler-than-the-older-ones-are would probably be the first faith to be ousted from existence, followed closely by the Batman-One-is-better-than-all-the-rest religion and the I-think-the-color-blue-is-nicer-than-the-color-red relgion. Oh, I suppose somewhere along the line they might decide to ban "religions" like Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and even my faith, but those don't fall under category 4, so, you know...

Thanks for the clarification on the definition of religion, I completely get where you're coming from now.

It's a little hard to remember your claims of indifference & take them seriously, Pwcca, when you repeat such propaganda. The term was not coined by a creationist. It's an evolutionist term that fell into disuse because when one uses the terms 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' it's too easy to see that one has always been observed and the other hasn't.

They decided to employ bait & switch strategies instead, defining 'evolution' as any change at all & then claiming this is a "proven fact", etc. Real science doesn't need deceptive sales techniques.

CTD wrote:



Really? They did? Cool. Who are They anyway, if you wouldn't mind teling me when you have the chance? Do you mean every single evolutionist? Every single scientist? Did They all get together in some secret tower and cackle madly as they decided that they could convince everyone else to go along with their "strategy"?

If the whole micro/macro evolution terms were not coined by creationists then I stand humbly corrected. However, I'd very much appreciate your taking the time to expose the lies and deceits that They have created regarding certain terminology. Because I'd hate for someone to accuse you of simly blowing hot air when I'm more than certain you can lay down the proof for us right here.

Having said that, the point of my post on the alleged ridiculousness of evolution was not about refuting what this, that, or the other thing are called. I don't give a toss if macroevolution is called borborygmous -- or nothing at all for that matter. The point stands, if a species can change in small amounts over short spans of time, it's not that unresonable that someone might suspect a species can therefore change in large amounts over greater periods of time. Again, as I've said and may continue to have to say (ad nauseum), at this point in the debate I am neither trying to prove nor disprove evolution. I'm simply correcting the comment that belief in evolution is so outlandishly absurd when, in fact, true or false, it's not hard at all to see why someone might come to this conclusion. You don't have to look very hard at nature to see why someone might suspect evolution to be real (again, even if it's completely false).

Moreover, it's a little curious that for a group of people who call evolution a religion they spend a lot of time badmouthing it. So much for respecting other people's religions, I guess huh? I don't believe in the Christian god -- nor Christ for that matter -- but I don't laugh and scoff at people who do, and I certainly would never say something like "Believing in god is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of". But, no, I guess you're right. I take back everything I've said. The evolutionists are assholes. I mean look at the titles they give to their threads! Always some belitting remarks. Let me give you a few examples of how rude and disrespectful they are towards other people's beliefs. Look at these titles they've given to some threads...

Creationism: The Big Joke
The Most Arrogant Lie Spun by Creationists
(Il?)logical Errors Used by Creationists When Discussing Origins
Open Conspiracy by Creationists
Creationism: The Big Joke II: The Faith and Fear of Rust
Creationism and THE BIG LIE
Creationism Solves all Kinds of Problems

Here's what's even more intersting, you godforsaken heathen evolutionists, you! There isn't a single creationist thread out there with a derogatory or belitting title. Don't you think that's odd? That's why I've converted to creation science. At least we stand for integrity in our arguments. At least we're honest, decent, compassionate human beings who debate fairly and don't stoop down to insults like all of you. F*u*c*k you you f*u*c*k*i*n*g evolutionists! Linda, go to hell. You too LinearAq. You're all filthy pigs who don't know how to write a polite title to a thread even. There's not one insulting pro-creationist title here, but just look at all of the rude pro-evolutionist titles above. I can see how strong an argument you must have with your stupid science by starting a thread which belittles creationism. The only reason you do that is because you don't have a strong argument to begin with. Stupid evolutionist pigs!

&%#* &*!

*%#&!!!!!!!

[/turrets syndrome]

Evolutionists commonly call I.D. and creation science "religion". And they don't have many kind words to say about either. I.D. is called "religion" merely for claiming a creator is extremely likely to have been involved. Such a claim doesn't meet too many definitions of the term.

Why should I be sensitive about a religion someone doesn't even realize they've been duped into following? Tolerance is one thing, but anything more's just about out of the question. If an evolutionist wants respectful treatment of his religion, let him acknowledge worshiping natural selection and the god of chance-based-upon-one's-own-wishes a.k.a. self. Let him acknowledge that the evobabbler is his high priest/prophet.

I'm guessing the real reason you'd hate to see someone make a false accusation against me is you'd hate to see the record set straight as it has been on more than one occasion. In this arena, slanderers tend to harm themselves a lot more than they harm others.

But since I'm taking the time to post, here is something we can all laugh at:Further onNeither the professional evolutionists conducting the study nor the journalists reporting the story caught this glaring error.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070309103157.htm is a sister article about the sheep.

I've been busy doing other things and I am not well. Stopping by here, I'm pretty amazed at the number of claims being made by creationists. I'll maybe discuss a few at a future time. This one stood out particularly though:


If you are seriously claiming that the intelligent design movement has nothing to do with creationism, I'm afraid you're going to have a difficult time convincing people of this unless you can find some very sound evidence.

The following is an interchange between the Foundation for Thought and Ethics President Jon A. Buell and Pepper Hamilton lawyer Eric Rothschild. This occurred during the Dover court case, which the intelligent design movement lost, because the judge decided that ID was creationism re-labelled and as such, being a religion, had no place in the school science curriculum.

“Q” indicates Eric Rothschild and “A” indicates Jon A. Buell. The book is Of Pandas and People, the supplemental textbook published by FTE, for those who don't know.



Q Actually in this version of the book it describes who creationists are, doesn’t it, if you look at pages 22 and 23 and 24. It says there’s different types of creationist’s literature. There are older [old earth] creationists, younger [young earth] creationists, agnostic creationists, right?

A Yes. We were trying to give some articulation to the breadth of what that term means.

Q And then if you could turn back to page 22, you explain that “Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.” That’s how you defined creation, correct?

A Yes.

Q All right. And I would like to take – you to take a look at an excerpt from Pandas and People. Turn to page 99 in the excerpt I gave you.

A All right.

Q Says, “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.”

Do you see that?

A I see it.

Q So that’s pretty much the exact same sentence substituting creation for intelligent design, isn’t that right?

A The reason that you find the similarity in the two passages is because this obviously was at a time when we were developing the manuscript. We had not chosen the term “intelligent design” at that point. We were trying to – this was just a place holder term until we came to grips with which of the plausible two or three terms that are in scientific literature we would settle on. And that was the last thing we did before the book was revise – I mean was sent to the publisher.

Q It was creation, creation, creation until the end and then it was intelligent design.


Tell me CTD, how is ID not associated with religion? Also, can you produce any evidence that the creator stipulated by ID is intended to be anything other than the God of the Bible?

CTD wrote:


Then why do you slander evolution with belitting titles to your threads and not simply hold an honest debate? Disprove evolution at your leisure, I'm just not certain why you need to take that extra step by being insulting about it. Especially since you always post such flawless arguments.

I'm hoping your situation improves.

Not what I said. I.D. is most accurately described as a philosophy of science. It is compatible with nearly anything aside from atheism.

In strict terms, I'd define Creation Science as a philosophy of science which conforms to the doctrine(s) of creation. It is common to employ the term "creationism" when referencing either the doctrine(s) or the science which is compatible therewith.

You're confusing issues. Earlier you argued about I.D.'s relationship with creationism. Now you question its relationship with religion.

Both creationism and I.D. are compatible with multiple religious doctrines. Since I.D. only concerns itself with the origin of the first life form(s), it is compatible with a wider variety of philosophies and worldviews.

I.D. stipulates no specific creator(s). By employing testable scientific hypotheses, I.D. can never provide absolute proof of anything; so the strongest claim available from I.D. would be that one or more creators are extremely likely to have been involved.

I have not slandered evolution. But I do see where others appear to have done so.

Russ has a thread with the title Evolution Solves All Kinds of Problems
LindaLou has posted Evolution is real as a topic title.

I don't think these slanders were terribly excessive, but you're welcome to your opinion. Depending on one's interpretation, these aren't necessarily slanderous, anyhow. I try not to be hypersensitive most of the time.

I think it's clear from the example I gave here, plus countless others on the internet, that Of Pandas and People was originally a creationist book that underwent some slight revisions, .e.g replacing the word "creationist" with "intelligent design." Are you now claiming that creationism has nothing to do with religion? The authors of Of Pandas and People were a fundamentalist Christian group in Texas. The vast majority of creationists in the world are fundamentalist Christians, though there is a small group of fundamentalist Muslims who believe their own version.

You also seem to be claiming above that creationism is legitimate science. Science is an empirical method of testable observations. Please suggest some empirical tests to me that would be comaptible with "creation science." How would you test for things being "designed"? Arguments from incredulity (i.e. "this organism/organ/system etc etc is too complex to have evolved, therefore it was created") are not testable hypotheses.

See my "strict" definition of creation science. The book was intended for use in schools as a science text. Therefore it was not written to promote any religion, but to teach science.

The fact that some religions are compatible with legitimate science does not invalidate the science or the teaching thereof. I haven't read the book, but I understand it's been carefully inspected by evolutionists, and this is the best you can come up with to link it to religion: guilt by association. Well, you need to throw out a whole lot of other sciences in that case! I don't know any type of science which isn't accepted by some member of some religion.

Oops! I overshot & responded to this above.

Ever read Mendel on genetics? Really, any empirical test is compatible with creation science, although those based on flawed or unwarranted assumptions may be of little use.

Here's how.
But "this X is too complex, based upon a, b, c" is not incredulity.

These arguments need to be countered by something more than blind faith a.k.a. credulity. The abiogenesis thread was still open last time I checked...

For so many years, decades even, I have walked around with a bit of guilt concerning things the church has done in the past... things like burning witches at the stake etc. But you know, suddenly, I feel immensely relieved of that guilt. Aside from all those who may have been wrongly accused and fell to the politics of the day rather than actual justice.. but from this perspective today at this moment it's actually not difficult for me to understand, finally truley understand, how a small community, in an unsure time, would feel the need to eliminate from it's midst, deviant, lying, unrepenting, hateful and accusing souls of murderous pasts and possible futures. It is what any reasonable, caring, loving parent would do to try to secure the future of their own childen in an unsure time. It is, from this perspective today, at this moment, a wholly reasonable and acceptable solution, perhaps the only solution available to a people trying to somehow assure their own survival in an unsure time.

Um, okaaay . . .

Anyway, CTD, I thought you might be linking me to an article somewhere. The thread you linked me to never really got anywhere as far as I can tell. If you want to go back there and try to elaborate on your proposed hypothesis, that's fine.



Which is an oxymoron until you can show creationism to be scientific. That's why the court ruled that this book could not be used in science classes.



It originated as a creationist text. The revisions to turn it into an ID text were not significant and most of them consisted of replacing "creationist" with "ID." The God of the Bible is now an unnamed creator. It is specious to claim that this is anything other than Biblical creationist religious teaching. In order to strengthen your case, maybe you can present an example of a person who is not a fundamentalist Christian yet who accepts ID. My thinking is that they'll be pretty hard to find.



Explain?



I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a specific example. Before the invention of the microscope, when people realised that large things look very different when viewed on a very small scale, do you think many people would have believed it if you'd told them about the existence of atoms? After all, you can't see them. Common substances would have appeared to be irreducible. But now we know about atoms, and quarks and leptons and gluons, and all sorts of things with crazy names. We're not even sure if they are the final reductions of matter. How would we ever learn about these things if we delcare them to be irreducibly complex, and walk away?

While scientists in other countries continue to learn about the world and how it works, it appears that you would have American scientists abandon their labs and get all their information from the Bible. While people then congratulate themselves about how holy they are, they will be technologically surpassed by much of the rest of the developed world. Fortunately this is unlikely to happen.

No. If the book teaches science it's a science book.

Don't expect me to take your word on the court's motive(s). Your capacity to assess history & motives has not impressed me thus far.
The book is claimed to be a science book. You claim it teaches religion? How come none of the dozens (minimum) of evolutionists who've gone over it with a fine-toothed comb haven't been able to find even one single reference to religion in the book? Are they all just too stupid? I'm confident the only thing in that book is science & I suspect you are also. If not, what's your excuse?

It's a pretty simple sentence. Which term is giving you trouble?

Based upon the observation that a helium balloon rises, I don't think gravity works. That's an example of an argument which isn't based upon incredulity.

See any other argument I've ever made for more examples (excepting the ones which openly state that I base them on incredulity).

It may appear so in your imagination. Nothing I've said indicates this. But I will say this: even your goofy imagined scenario beats having people get their information exclusively from talkdeceptions. Beats it all to pieces!

You presume an awful lot to tar me or any other creationist with your slime. I have growing reservations about your intent. YOUR clowns are the ones ACTIVELY GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY to obstruct any creation or I.D. scientist from even having the opportunity to work! If I wanted them to give up science, I'd be on your side.

Whoa, dude. Like, why all the hostility and stuff?

Give the guy a break! This is more than justified. In my view, keeping your patience on this forum consistently would be the hallmarks of a Saint. Hostility? I'd say it's overdue blunt honesty! You yourself seem ok with yourself to show any hostility or sarcasm on here but constantly "thought police" others if you see them showing any signs themselves.

funny, I didn't notice any hostility.

just more p posturing on a pedestal.

very dramatic.

Does my use of caps hurt someone's feelings? Too bad.

Attacking a person's livelihood in that manner is an act of COWARDICE. I reserve the right to fail to remain calm when discussing the issue.

Now for the good news, one persecutee has found employment elsewhere.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080420/NEWS/80420009
Those who wish him ill may now <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sadblownose.gif" alt="" /> or put on an act and <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

I gave an example a while ago of a creationist scientist who says on AiG that he is struggling to find a YEC explanation of the life cycle of a star. Instead of considering that there might not actually be one because stars have been around for billions of years, he continues to look for ways to show that his predetermined ideas must be right. This is not how science works -- scientists do research and base their ideas on observations. Yet AiG openly says that people need to form their ideas first and then find the evidence to support them. Any person calling themselves a scientist, who works in this way, is nothing of the kind and I have no sympathy if they lose their job.



You have so far been unable to give evidence that what it teaches is science. If you want to pursue the idea of moving parts you presented in another thread, which petered out foggily, I'll repeat that you are welcome to go there and take it up again.



No, you just say that the judges and the courts are dishonest when they don't rule in favour of what you believe in.



ID=creationism=religion. I repeat my invitation to you to present a single example of an IDer who is not also a fundamentalist Christian.




I'd like to know what test is compatible with creation "science." How do you test for a creator?



You claimed that "this X is too complex, based upon a, b, c" is not incredulity." This is still just an argument from incredulity which explains why someone is incredulous. I think you've illustrated the whole point well with your example above, which illustrates why the argument from incredulity is not scientific.

The rest of your inflammatory rhetoric would bring the house down on me if I were to say similar things here, and lead to more accusations of how I am a hateful Christian-basher. I'll remind people of how you call people "clowns" etc. next time they complain.

Science works like this: observe, then form an hypothesis, then test the hypothesis. Your version goes observe, then fantasize, than brag about how your fantasy fits the observation. I'll take the first method any day.

The straw man you seek to employ against AIG has almost no merit. How can we believe anyone forms their hypothesis without any observations? I mean it just doesn't happen very much. Einstein's about the only one I can think of who had any success - he imagined a fourth spacial dimension & sold the idea. It still hasn't been observed. Others have imagined up to 25 dimensions I'm told, but I don't care enough to get into pseudoscience like that.

Oh! How could I forget Öort! Okay, you guys have at least 2, although Öort was inspired by observations of comets. Maybe that's why I forgot him. Does he count?

Show me the book.

Lame response. Pure evobabble; not even close to true. Circular as a matter of fact.

Is there religion in this ID textbook?
ID textbook = religion

Marvelous!

Now how about answering my question? Why can't evolutionists find even one reference to religion in the book? Hmmmm?
I don't suppose the name Behe rings a bell with you, does it?
Creation science is compatible with all legitimate observations and experiments. It's not compatible with assumptions or conclusions which exclude a creator.

Usually indirectly, if the results are to be displayed to others. In the past, some very direct tests were performed. Care to view some of the results?

We're not interested in watching you twist words in an attempt to justify your private definition. When you accuse people of arguing from incredulity, you need to use the same terms everyone else uses.

Arguing from data is not arguing from incredulity. The proper refutation of the argument I presented is to demonstrate that the balloon is lighter than air. It must rise just as a bubble must rise in water. Thus the balloon is indeed complying with gravity when it rises.Mislabling the argument accomplishes nothing. Or is that the objective?

I thought that the scientific method required someone to test their hypothesis rigorously, that other scientists need to be able to replicate the results, and that the results should be subject to peer review. According to you, scientists just make things up. The science-as-conspiracy-and-lies brigade is strong here, but scant on proof that scientists are just making things up. It's easy to claim this without actually researching the evidence for a hypothesis; for example, claiming that neanderthals are modern human with heavy brow ridges, while neglecting to look up what the actual morphological evidence is that they are different from us.



Maybe you should explain that to Ken Ham, who says:



Presupposition: the Bible is correct. Therefore, all observations must be consistent with this idea. He also claims that evolutionary scientists presuppose evolution to be correct, ignoring the body of evidence that is the reason for this theory gaining acceptance in the first place. Bias and science make bad bedfellows. A scientist should follow where the evidence leads, not presuppose an idea and then try to fit the facts to it. Good and workable hypotheses are based on evidence.

You have mentioned several things of which you appear to know very little, including Einstein's theory of relativity. I've just finished reading a book on quantum physics and I can tell you that he did not pull the idea out of his hat. Learn about what you're criticising before you dismiss it as nonsense.



Why don't you look it up yourself, or buy it, since it espouses what you believe in?



So because it presumably does not use the word "religion," it is therefore not a religious text? No possibility that the word was removed in order for people like you to make this claim? Maybe you would like to comment on this then, which Henry Morris said in 1999:



Really, this talk of ID-as-not-religious is not fooling any evolutionist here so I suggest you focus on other topics.

You've said several times, in various ways:



You could prove this so easily by presenting a legitimate experiment for creationism, yet you have not done so. I am not aware that anyone else has either, but the invitation here is open for you.



Your answer is to quote the Bible? This is your idea of a scientific test?



How is it twisting words to point out that saying "I'm incredulous" and "I'm incredulous for these reasons" are the same thing? If a scientist thought either of these things, the matter would go ininvestigated, and an opportunity to learn would have been lost.

I'm still not sure what you think you're showing with the helium balloon example. You said:



Is it not? Someone is saying they don't think gravity works because of something they observed. It's saying "I am incredulous for these reasons." As you pointed out, it would be easy to show this person how they are wrong. Scientists have also shown IDers how their models of irreducible complexity are wrong. What's more, longstanding theories based on a large body of evidence are not overturned because someone says they are incredulous. They get overturned when new evidence emerges that contradicts them, and the evidence has to be tested as rigorously as the theory itself. Otherwise, following your example, we'd have people saying they've proved gravity doesn't exist because of helium balloons -- people who may simply claim this because they have little or no scientific education.

No IDer has presented rigorously-tested new evidence to show that anything is irreducibly complex, which leads me back to asking where the evidence for a designer is. I can see it as a philosophy someone might hold, but I can't see how it fits anywhere with empirical science. Instead of more mudslinging at evolutionists, why not just focus on this and show how ID/creationism are scientific, by proposing a scientific test for them?

Apply this to your Öort cloud.

Some do. 4D space wasn't observed or implied. It was imagined.

Anyone can test it. Take four sticks (straws, pens, toothpicks will do) and mark the midpoint on each stick. Begin attaching them one-by-one after the following manner: Each stick must attach midpoint-to-midpoint and be attached at a right angle to all preceding sticks.

If you can attach the 4th stick in the manner described, save the assembly & contact the Nobel committee. If you can properly attach a 5th stick, I'll buy you dinner.

'Strong' is a relative term. How strong was the X Club?

It's equally easy to claim folks haven't looked up the evidence. Fortunately, not everyone speaks from ignorance.

You brought it up. You claimed it was evidence that ID = religion. But then the only evidence you derived from the book was that it contained ID, and "ID = religion". Isn't that what you were setting out to prove? Yep, circular again. Trying to make us dizzy?

If the words were removed that made it religious, it would no longer be religious. Words make the book, you know.

What? Are you now asking what kind of research is currently being performed by creation scientists? That would've been simple enough to ask in the first place. Why don't you decide what you want to ask before complaining about my answers.

I linked to a report of scientific tests of the Creator. Isn't that what you asked for?

Because they're not the same thing. If I told you my brother walked to the rings of Saturn & back yesterday, would you believe me? Would you be incredulous? You seem to think there's something inherently wrong, like it's a sin to be incredulous. It isn't. Everybody is incredulous and everybody is credulous. If one has valid reasons, it's stupid to be otherwise.

In fact, it can't be done. If one is credulous about any thesis, one must be incredulous about its antithesis. /sigh/ why do I bother?

Nonsense. You're trying to prop up your evodoctrines again. One can always verify anything. It's common in physics & chemistry classes to repeat the experiments of the pioneers. The science teacher is absolutely incredulous that the experiments will obtain different results. So are the writers of the textbooks.

Mudslinging at evolutionists? Who's going about policing thought & preventing people from working on science? They pull this crap, and everyone's supposed to shut up & cower in fear? Think again!

You keep mentioning this as if it's some sort of death-blow to evolutionary theory. What we see is that some comets appear to be coming from an area outside of the Kuiper belt which we know almost nothing about. We do, however, know a fair amount about how our solar system is likely to have formed, and the Oort cloud is not exactly a great imaginative leap. At any rate, if the outside of the solar system ended up being populated by fire-breathing dragons, what's that got to do with the fossil record?

Once the next generation of telescopes is functioning, including the James Webb space telescope, we'll be able to see more of what is out there. Scientists don't appear to be terrified that they will find something which will expose their worldwide evo-conspiracy.



Einstien was just making stuff up, was he? Gosh, that pretty much invalidates all of relativity and quantum physics. Your derision toward scientists seems to know no bounds. His theories have been put to the test for decades and they have been validated by these tests, the first and one of the more famous ones being his predictions about the orbit of Mercury. But if you'd like to explain to us why Einstein was wrong, go right ahead, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.



That's reassuring. I seem to come across a lot of claims that suggest that the makers of those claims don't understand the science they are talking about. It's refreshing to know that some people educate themselves before they criticise something.



You believe that the Bible is literally true and I don't suppose anyone is going to convince you otherwise. People with a more objective view might accept it as their holy book and accept its deeper truths while accepting that it is not a scientific book and that the inconsistencies and outdated cultural practices and beliefs therein don't threaten the very foundation on which their faith is based.

Not many people are going to agree with the notion that any holy book -- the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas, etc -- is scientific and accurately describes how the world works. That isn't even their purpose. Besides, how can you actually prove, as LinearAQ was asking, that God, your god and no one else's, created the world in 6 days? This is not science, it is belief.

Regarding Einstein again, why does it seem to be necessary for the legitimacy of someone's ideas, that they come from a blinding flash of insight without being based on the existing ideas of others? Anyone who is creative, artistically or scientifically, builds on inspiration from other artists and scientists. Also, you seem to be suggesting that because the tests for ether have failed, therefore we must also fail the theory of relativity. Like I said, though, relativity has been tested for decades and it has not been disproved. Maybe there's a bigger reality out there, waiting to be discovered, which will extend beyond relativity, just as relativity extended beyond classical physics. We haven't found it yet though. If you Google you can see for yourself the ways in which relativity has been tested.



You will whip a dead horse won't you. You don't think that the quote from Henry Morris gives a little hint that ID's agenda is to "wedge" open the way for people to spread creationist beliefs? You don't think the fact that Of Pandas and People is a creationist book with the words "creationist" and "religion" removed, is evidence that ID is religion? You can carry on about this all you like but as I said, it isn't fooling anyone. Have a look at the transcript of the Dover case, in which this book featured. Most of those people weren't fooled either.



If any are actively performing experiments in creationism then yes, I'd like to hear about it. I'd really like to know how you would validate creationism as a science by doing empirical tests.



I've lost you here. Your link led to a passage from the Bible.



OK, I think the main issue here is that someone who says they are incredulous of something, and therefore that's an end to it, is not being scientific. What's more, a good scientist is not going to subscribe to being credulous/incredulous about anything, because science is about what the evidence shows, not what people do or don't believe. Mind you, I'm talking to a creationist about why belief is not compatible with science . . . Gravity? Seems to be true. Aliens visiting earth? Appears not to be. Depends on where the weight of the evidence points. You probably won't believe this, but I accept evolution because that's where the weight of the evidence points, not because I have a burning need to believe in it. In fact, until I was roped into talking about it here by creationists quoting Kent Hovind, it wasn't something I'd ever thought about much. I'm more interested in lots of other things, though researching it has been enlightening.

Back to the point, it is unscientific to say "I don't believe that" without rigorously putting this idea to the test, and explaining why it can be valid in contradiction of an accepted theory. Theories are not overturned by someone saying "I don't believe that," which is essentially what ID seems to be all about.

The Kuiper belt isn't an object. It's a designated region in space. So what if an object strays into or out of the region? Big deal. It's not like there's a barrier.

I wouldn't know how much imagination is required to make the leap of faith & believe in the Öort cloud. I'll take your word that you have plenty to spare.

Made up or not? That was the issue. And what do I care about biased interpretations of indirect tests when anyone can directly test for 4D space in the manner I described? It's very easy, and to the best of my knowledge all tests have come up false. What should one do with such hypotheses?


What's more objective about assuming the Bible is anything other than true? Many creation scientists have rigourously tested the Bible and established that it is indeed true. Should the results of these investigations be discarded on the say-so of people too lazy to do the same?

I'm not convinced you're qualified to define either term. You may parrot definitions, but you don't apply them properly.

Who said it is?

Thanks. Been there, done that.

You brought it up & you're still yammering. You never explained how Dr. Morris' remarks had any bearing on the matter. I know he doesn't speak for ID, and he don't see a single word about their science. Or did you intend to discuss something other than science?


You haven't convinced me that it's anything other than what I said it was. You'll need to do better than circular reasoning.

Last I knew, the Creation Evidence Museum was conducting experiments involving a hypothetical pre-flood environment.

http://creationwiki.org/Creation_Evidence_Museum
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index....;task=view&id=1&Itemid=3
Results:<img src="http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/f/fa/Venom.jpg">
The museum also conducts digs every summer late June / early July. I missed out by a matter of just days:(, but they've been extending the schedule since then.

Lost? Did you read it? It's right there plain as day.

Don't even try to play philosophical games. People believe what they think the evidence shows them. Phd's don't grant immunity. Did you catch Dicky-D or do you need a link?

You think it takes a "leap of faith" to postulate that beyond the Kuiper belt, there might be some more debris left over from the formation of the solar system? Is this another example of the "I am incredulous so I will investigate this no further" philosophy? We won't find anything in the Oort cloud if we don't look, will we. Besides, I still don't see how this has any bearing on the fossil record.



So decades of quantum physics, which must by necessity use relativistic terms instead of Newtonian ones, are nothing but biased, indirect tests? I repeat, learn something about what you are criticising before you criticise it. Give me an example of the sort of false test you cited above.

I can't see atoms either. No physical test I could do myself would prove that atoms exist. Or their constituents, such as quarks. If we all relied on nothing but our 5 senses and what "common" sense tells us, we would be missing out on a lot of discoveries, and we'd also be getting a lot of things wrong.



How do you "rigorously test" for a 6-day creation? How do you "rigorously test" that manna fell from heaven? Please give me an example of one of these rigorous tests. It needs to be scientific, i.e. based on empirical evidence, which the Bible itself is not. It is a religious book.



I asked you a question, which you are evading: How do you test for a 6-day creation?



I don't think I'm going to convince you of anything; I think you will carry on trying to convince people that of Pandas and People really is a scientific book, even though you haven't read it, and despite everything I've said here about it. Your claims of "circular reasoning" appear to be a stock phrase used when evading an issue. Henry Morris' "wedge" comments don't make the point? Then maybe Phillip Johnson, another creationist, does. He defines creationism as "not simply biblical fundamentalism, but any invocation of a creative intelligence or purpose outside the natural order." Here is a well-known creationist defining creationism in terms that include ID. You can contradict these things all you like but I'm not sure who you think is being fooled.

Carl Baugh is in charge of the Creation Evidence Museum. His "scientific" credentials are about as valid in the scientific community as Kent Hovind's. Anyone can claim they've found stuff and if they have enough money, put it in a museum. How is the validity of those finds established? Through publication in scientific peer-reviewed journals, a process in which Baugh does not engage. Scientists have scrutinised Baugh's claims and have quite clearly shown them to be false, possibly even fabricated in some cases. Even AiG has discredited him, as you can read here. If you'd like to present the actual details of one of his finds here, we can discuss that.

I still don't understand why you think a passage from the Bible is scientific proof of anything. I could tell you that the Bhagavad Gita is literally true too. Why? Because I said so. Look, thus it is written. I think you know what I mean by empirical science and I think you're having a giggle with this.



Why is it a philosophical game to say that belief should be excluded from science? You look at the evidence and follow where it seems to lead. You test hypotheses. You never set anything in stone because new evidence might emerge in the future to overturn current ideas. This is how the scientific method works. Does anyone try to eliminate bias where the Bible is involved? Does anyone say, "I'm going to leave room for doubt because new evidence might come to light which disproves it?" Of course not, and these are some fundamental reasons why creationism is not scientific.

Might be? Might be! You misstate things entirely. The evolutionist doctrine on the Öort cloud is that it is there. Ain't no might be's. Might implies might not.

Unsurprisingly, you grossly misunderstand my position. I'm eager for better equipment & observations to come. I expect to laugh heartily and repeatedly <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/boogie.gif" alt="" /> when God <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hehehe.gif" alt="" /> those who believe in this fantasy. This fantasy isn't based on anything other than the desire to maintain a delusion. The heavens clearly declare God's glory, but they say "No way! We can imagine our way out of this, just watch!"

I'm watching. They've already had to move the imaginary cloud farther away because they had good enough instruments & still couldn't find it. I even gave up speculating about the new lie they're certain to publish - I want it to be a funny, funny surprise.(Actually I don't expect any change - just keep the same lie & pretend it works.)

Now if you'd care for a little contest, I'll provide 3 links to 1. My links will state that the cloud is there and yours will state that it might be there. You game?

Or maybe you'd like to refer me to Dr. Adequate for indoctrination again? I know where to find him.

I don't understand why you are so insistent that the oort cloud isn't there, and why you seem to think that the whole theory of evolution hinges on this. As far as I can tell it's a non-issue. If you want to elaborate, then please get straight to the point and also cite some evidence to back up your claims.

What about addressing the rest of my post?

I'm talking about the test with the 4 (or 5) sticks. I explained how to perform it. It is a direct test for a 4th dimension, and every time it comes up with the same result. Or don't you believe in the concept of falsification?

You people and your attention spans... Please learn to use a scroll bar.

This implies that you do understand the principle of indirect testing. This is exactly the kind of testing commonly done when one is searching for God. One looks for evidence of the Creator in that which has been created.

But you'll flip-flop and become unable to understand indirect testing. So predictable... You know, the process of honest inquiry doesn't allow much leeway for double standards.

I wonder if you would kindly try writing a post to me which isn't full of derision; it would make a nice change. Who are "you people"? Why is it necessary for you to tell me I'm lying, playing word games, whatever else, when you don't agree with something I say? Do you really think my raison d'etre is evolution and that I'm just the same as the other "evos" . . . insert whatever stereotype takes your fancy? How about a reminder of a good debate strategy: attack the message, not the messenger.

Your example of the sticks shows that it's difficult, if not impossible, to illustrate a 4-dimensional model in 3-dimensional space, though I daresay if you Googled this you'd find some better attempts by mathematicians. You accept the other 3 dimensions, yes? So how do you think something living on a 2-dimensional plane would be able to understand the third dimension? To it, a third dimension would seem impossible. And maybe it would then be saying "You lying scientists, always making stuff up -- well, I don't believe it!"

Using observed evidence to draw conclusions about something which cannot be seen might lead to scientific knowledge; but how does that translate into evidence for a god, or for creation? When an evolutionist says that a tree exists because it evolved from other species of trees and plants, this can be seen in the fossil record and possibly in its genetic makeup. Where is the scientific evidence that God created that tree just how it is? I think you're trying to re-hash the ID idea that we must conclude there is a designing god because things are irreducibly complex. You're back at the negative argument, which is essentially the argument from incredulity again: "I don't believe these things could have evolved." And yet scientists are pretty good at explaining how things could have evolved, using the evidence at their disposal. ID is going to need a better test for creation than this. What's more, if someone weren't approaching a problem with the predetermined notion that "this organism must have been created by God, therefore I must prove it", they might actually come to other conclusions, even if they are simply, "I don't understand this, so I'm going to investigate further and see what I can find out."

Actually... let me illustrate as best i can in this currently 2 dimensional space...

this is one dimension:

.

a point in space.


This is 2 dimensions:

.__________________________________.

a line between 2 points.


This is 3 dimensions:

.__________________________________. your nose

2 points in space and the distance to your nose.


Now, if a sentient creature exists in 2 dimensional space, he would indeed experience 3 dimensional space even though he cannot actually fully take part in that 3 dimensional space. What he would see as he viewed 3 dimensional things from his 2 dimensional space, are simply more lines, lines upon lines upon lines, without having the perception of distance or height, volume. He would perceive only that part of the 3rd dimension that intersects his 2 dimensional plane. and he would perceive it as 2 dimensional just like his own space even though from my 3 dimensional perspective it actually is much fuller, much more than just that.

I could add a 4th dimension to this post and the distance to your nose simply by adding a theme song. you couldn't see the music or measure it with a ruler but certainly you might enjoy it, or not, assuming you have working ears to hear sound.

which btw, is why we experience, and why science admits but cannot fully explain, things we define simply as 'phenonema' of various sorts. We experience other dimensions in this world we live in, but we only experience them partially, as they intersect our planes of appreciable height, width and distance, the volume of our 3 dimensional world.

No. You do not dictate how people are to conduct tests. The Bible contains an awful lot of history. Its accuracy has been verified by archaeology and by other historical documents. The Bible also contains prophecies which have been fulfilled. It contains promises which have been kept.

Now if you want to contend that the history is flawed, there is a thread available. Lest you try to change the subject, the point here is that it is proper for people to take all facts into account when forming an hypothesis (to the best of their ability). Your position, in case you've forgotten, is that the history recorded in the Bible must be erased/disregarded when forming an hypothesis. You fault creation scientists because they're unwilling to do this.

Thus far, what progress have you made?



I present evidence and you attack Carl Baugh. Glen J. Kuban is not a reliable source of information himself, so it's pretty ironic that you link to his writings.

Unless something's new, AIG has not discredited him. AIG has advised creationists not to use the dinosaur & human prints because the evidence isn't clear enough. They say Dr. Baugh is basically too optimistic. I'm not aware of any time they've accuse him of wrongdoing.

I didn't find discrediting at all when I checked AIG - just the same old recommendation against using the tracks. As the digs continue, the situation is likely to improve IMO. For anyone who cares, here's what I came up with at AIG
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/best-proof-of-creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/archaeologist.asp

You asked for evidence. I presented some. We have your response. Done now?
I think the report contains some good direct tests. Do you have a problem with the tests, or is your prejudice against the Bible getting in the way of the evaluation process?

Because nobody can do it. Why would you bother to practice science in the first place unless you believed it would produce results?

Is the rule against setting things in stone exempt? Or is it set in stone?

Those who say the Bible cannot be true, does this apply to them? You police thoughts mighty selectively. Why must they not be required to leave room for doubt?

I told you not to play philosophy. Would it help if I told you to employ circular reasoning as often as possible, apply double standards, and always keep a closed mind?

This might be true if there were 1D or 2D entities. But there is no 1D or 2D space for them to occupy. Anything other than 3D is imaginary. Call it "conceptual". The smallest subatomic particle is 3D. Even light moves in 3D - always.

1D, 2D, 4D, all are imaginary. The only space available in the physical world is 3D. The capacity to mathematically map a thing doesn't make that thing real. If that were true, space would have to be simultaneously euclidian and reimannian; but the two are mutually exclusive. If anything we imagine becomes reality, what does that make us?

This is a question you should ask yourself. There are thousands of evidences people have observed, but in most cases they were actually searching, or at least open to the discovery.

Maybe someone else will have some suggestions. I don't seem to have much luck.
So we're told. Why then cannot homology be applied without double standards? Because it doesn't fit! Eyes are said to have evolved independently up to 40 times. Oops! Invoking the luck god or the natural selection god doesn't solve this if you bother to examine the actual powers of these gods. You must instead assume they did the job - it's your only choice. Unless you count abandoning the faith as an option.

That would be one reason. Another would be just plain too complex, even if the complexity can be explained by a highly improbable just-so story. God did give us common sense.

You're advocating evolutionism again. And imagination's not evidence. That may be your biggest stumbling block. Just because one can imagine something doesn't make it so. But if I point this out, you dismiss it as an "argument from incredulity". Which is just telling me I need to have more faith in imaginary stuff.

More hype. Neither ID nor creationists have ever said "Give up science". Didn't happen. Nor is there any reason it should happen. And every time you repeat this hype, expect me to point out your support of those who are trying to prevent scientists from doing science.

You don't like me exposing this lie you picked up from your clergy? Stop repeating it.

Now if you watched Bex's recent video link, you may have noted that a man discovered how to make opals. I haven't googled it yet, but the lesson is clear. He put aside the evodoctrine that said it would be impossible. He did a little science, and got results.

Oh why not? Googling... please stand by...
http://www.rainbowroomvt.com/opals.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/opals.asp

Creation science in action.<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

That's actually not true CTD. It would be more appropriate to say, the only experiences we can fully comprehend exist within our 3D perspective of space, and within our abilities to comprehend.

We, as human beings actually have very little capacity to fully experience all of the things that science has truly discovered, truly discovered. Take light as a simple example... colors. There are so many colors available within the spectrum of light, and they can be measured and they can be viewed, with some help (filters) here and there as we know how to proceed in that direction to view things (infrared for example). But as human beings, our eyes can only perceive so many colors within the spectrum of light as we know it/ We cannot see infrared light with our eyes, yet there is no doubt this wavelength exists. Science so far has measured an enormous quantity of available light waves, now don't quote me insofar as exact numbers but it's along the lines of something like 100,000 various different wavelengths (infrared being one, blue another. red another, and yellow for instance) and we view our entire human existence-experience with only three, the blue, red and yellow. A teeeny teeeny fraction of available light wavelengths are available to our eyes.

Sound is another example. sound actually has sort of volume, but we only perceive that part of the volume which intersects our space in a certain way and vibrates our eardrums in ways that we recognize.

these things are not imaginary CTD. The list is quite long.

I'm talking about the physical world.

I'm also talking about spacial dimensions. Other "planes of existence" and realms may have other properties.

Light & sound, regardless of wavelength still operate 3 dimensionally. This is even true of polarized light. It's true of all waveforms and fields as well. Everything has height, width, and length. Now that I think of it, light is the most blatantly 3D of all phenomena. It consists of 2 waves at 90 deg. to each other and at 90 deg. to the vector. All perfect right angles. Coincidence?

Now if there are unobserved things that operate after some other fashion, that's not what I'm talking about.

I see.

But what about things like explosions, the force of an explosion, which affect matter but are not really matter in themselves? Is that sound at work or heat or something else?

And what about God who can harness the wind and whose anger is like a mighty explosion, who decides what lives and what dies, are the things he does imaginary just because we cannot observe them with our eyes from here?

And what about life, the energy that is life, which occupies this space and gives breath to a physical body, yet altogether is immaterial in itself? How is it on one day you feel zapped and lifeless and on another you feel brand new and ready to take on the world, yet your physical body has not changed an iota in the meantime?


as far as we can tell anyway.

I'm sorry, but from the above statement it seems abundantly clear that you haven't bothered to learn anything about quantum physics, nor do you apparently intend to, because it doesn't fit with your belief system. I'm going to suggest that you begin some research on Wikipedia; and if that is not your cup of tea, then maybe you'd like to talk about this elsewhere, because it's strayed a long way from discussing creation and evolution.

You continually claim that creationism is science. I'm explaining to you what a scientific test is. You can test in whatever ways you like but there are certain standards that need to be met if you want to call the test scientific. For example, saying you found human and dinosaur tracks concurrently, not publishing the finding in any scientific journal, and ignoring specialists who have examined the evidence and said that you are wrong about what it shows, is not scientific. So is claiming that PhDs from diploma mills give you scientific credibility.


I've talked with Russ earlier about prophecies. There are all kinds of ways you can claim prophecies to be true after the fact, and prophecies which don't actually come true can be ignored. You can also usually shoehorn the words of a prophecy into whatever after-the-fact event you want. What's more, the fact that the Bible contains some historical accuracies is not in question. There really was a Bethlehem. The Romans really were there. However, you seem to think that this also validates the more mystical claims contained therein. So where's the archaeological evidence for the 6-day creation? How can you actually prove that Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead? If you want to believe this it's your choice, but the belief exists outside of the bounds of testable science.


I never said this, and what I've said above will hopefully make the point clear.


I explained to you that the "evidence" he's presented has been scrutinised by experts and found not to be what he claims it is. I've also explained why his "evidence" should be suspect in the first place. I was hoping you'd give me an example of a real scientific test for creationism being conducted by someone with real scientific qualifications, but I understand that this is probably a tall order.


The way science should be conducted, as I've explained, is to approach research with open-minded skepticism. You should be willing to learn from your results and accept when your ideas appear to be wrong. This is admittedly difficult to do -- some scientists themselves could do with a lesson here -- but it's necessary in order to arrive at the truth. Believing that something has to be true, and shoehorning all the evidence to fit that belief, is not scientific. If I'm still not getting the point across then I don't know what else I can say. Preconceived beliefs are just not compatible with scientific investigation. Besides, why investigate if you think you are already so certain of what the answer is?


Let's make this clear: when you say the Bible is "true," you mean "literally true," don't you. There's abundant evidence that it isn't literally true, which would appear to be why so few people persist with this belief. But if scientific evidence emerges that the world really was created in 6 days, of course people will have to change their ideas. Can you produce the evidence?

If they were led to believe in a god, then that of course is their choice. There's no reason why that has to compel them to reject the evidence for evolution as well.


In other words, "I don't believe it, therefore creationism must be right." Pure luck really is a possibility -- seeing is a pretty useful trait, after all. Other possibilities I've come across are the Gaia hypothesis (specifically the Daisyworld computer program being used to test it), and Rupert Sheldrake's ideas of morphic fields and group consciousness. None of these require creationism. Always, the danger involved in saying "this is the work of the gods" is to say the case is therefore closed, and not to investigate further.


Yet the evidence is there that evolution is a real process which happened and which continues to happen. The fact that you personally find it improbable, and find it more probable that a supernatural being created the world and everything that ever lived in it over a 6-day period 6,000 years ago, is not going to overturn the theory.


Scientists aren't just making stuff up. There's a fossil record and there's genetic evidence, even if you choose to deny them. There are also living organisms whose living, working systems we can study and learn from.

Do you honestly think that scientists know nothing, that they just wildly use their imaginations in order to have a laugh and fool people? Do you seriously think that their years of study in their respective fields just trains them to make stuff up? I'm not saying I think all of them have everything right, but before I make that decision I look at what they know and what I don't, and I want to see if there are any scientists who also agree with my own position. If there aren't, then I figure my position is probably up the wrong alley. I would not, for example, say "I think relativity is wrong" without learning a great deal about it first, and finding tests to prove it. It's more likely that I simply don't understand why scientists think it's right.


It must depend on what their definition of science is. Everything that can have any bearing on an old earth or evolution is thrown out, because according to them these things can't be true. Some of them have done a really slick job on using what they know about science to weave some scientifically inaccurate but plausible-to-the-layperson claims. None of this is very scientific.

About the opals . . . Synthetic opal has been around since 1963(?). We can make diamonds too but this doesn't prove they were made in the earth in a matter of hours. Cram's opals are experiments and I can't find much info but it looks like Cram isn't happy with the results. The opals aren't 'natural' enough.

There is? Where?




It's easy enough to ask for evidence, the problem is, you have not provided any rock solid evidence for evolution yet. So you actually do not have the right to demand anything from anyone.

Maybe you should quit straying from your own search, it's not proving very productive.

You have been provided with lots of evidence for related things already. Have you forgotten so quickly? Demanding rock solid evidence for something you have yet to define on your own terms simply is not possible because the goals you set seem to keep changing to suit your ever evolving argument, the attitude of which (utter disbelief and disdain) apparently is not changing no matter how much evidence you are provided with.

I think your argument is more about attitude than evidence. Because if were really about evidence you have comprehended a number of things a long time ago.

By the way, it's interesting that you suddenly seem so keen on mentioning quantum physics, not that i believe you know much of anything about it... but when I first mentioned the idea to you several months ago you thought it was hilarious. for some reason I get the impression you like to mention it but actually do not know more than a few word sepak quotes concerning it.

considering you had difficulty understanding the spacial distinctions between 1, 2 and 3 dimensions... I do very sincerely doubt it. so really, mentioning it is not making you appear very intelligent just so you know.

Perhaps you can tell us Linda, in a few sentences, exactly how quantum physics begins to perceive matter, energy and existence? your wiki article about space-time relativity does not privide any clues, perhaps you can help us all out.

So an atheist who says the Bible cannot be true (without doubt) is just as unqualified as a creationist?

I'll get back to the rest later. Right now I'll just pretend to believe my eyes<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" /><img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" /><img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" /><img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" /><img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dance.gif" alt="" />

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

I'm still trying to figure out why she would post a link to an article about time and space as a direct for you to quantum physics.

Maybe she is studying some big ideas and getting largely confused.

probably still the wrong direction though. maybe she is stuck in a big physical time-space warp.

not very quantum of her.

Maybe I should have said lack of evidence, for a start. There is a lack of evidence for a 6-day creation, a global flood, everyone having descended from one man and one woman who lived 6000 years ago, and all the animals that ever existed on earth being there together at that time too.

However, there's also evidence that the Bible is a book written by people whose cultures and beliefs changed from the Old Testament to the new, and who were human beings capable of making mistakes. I don't think you'll like it, but here is a list of Biblical inconsistencies. The author makes it clear that these would only be problems for someone who reads the Bible literally, not for someone who reads some of it as being metaphorical.


I've asked you a number of times how you would explain the sorting of the fossil record across the world. There's also genetics and nested hierarchies. Where's your own evidence for creation, apart from a religious book? And how does it explain the above evidence better than evolution?


If you mean Reverend Baugh, I've explained why his man and dino prints are not valid evidence. If you are unhappy with the way that I do not accept this kind of thing as proof, then please provide some proof which would count as being scientific. I've been attempting to explain to CTD what this entails.


CTD started lumping Einstein in with his "lying scientists make stuff up" claims and I wanted to address that. I do know something about it because I studied the bare basics in school and have just read a book called The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature by Heinz Pagels, because I am interested in energy medicine and wanted to understand more about its relationship to quantum physics. It also put me in a position to say that Einstein was not pulling stuff out of his hat. Do I pretend to suddenly be an expert, or to have understood every single thing in the book? Of course not. But I thought the Wikipedia article made it clear why space-time can be seen to function as a fourth dimension when relativity theory is applied. The actual curvature of spacetime, and time dilation effects, have been observed. Space and time are intricately connected.

Unqualified for what, exactly?

Well if they are saying that the Bible cannot literally be true, then I think it's safe to say that something like 99.999999% certainty could be acceptible, same as I could be 99.9999999% certain that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow. You never know, it might not. And you never know, a supernatural being might have created the earth and all the animals that ever lived in it in 6 days, 6000 years ago. There's a lot of evidence contrary to this though, so the proof you present will need to address it. Can we see it please?

Contrary to what some people seem to want to think, I want to get at the truth; and when I do that, I weigh up the evidence for whatever possibilities seem to exist. I don't have a burning desire to see either evolution or creationism proved. What I see on one side is observable, testable evidence like the kind I listed above. On the other side I see a religious book, one of many other religious books in the world, and no scientific proof of the literal truth that some people claim it has. If they stopped claiming that creationism is in any way scientific, then it would take its proper place among philosophical world views; but I don't suppose that's going to happen because some people still want to make children in schools learn about it as a legitimate alternative to evolution. As long as they're doing that, then they're going to be continually called to task and told to prove that creationism is scientific.

Can you?

Evidence for a 6 day creation... most of which occured before man existed... doubtful you will prove, or disprove, the idea fully. But evolution and all of the various related theories of how earth was formed and life came to be on earth fall apart pretty easily too. I guess you just have to choose a side with that one because no one will ever find an answer. you can wager on that too, that neither side will ever be proven scientifically, and surely win every time, forever, well till you meet your maker anyway.

..a global flood... there is lots and lots of evidence for it, we have discussed it endlessly many times so I wont start over, no need... you would have a very difficult time proving that water did not cover most of if not all of the earth at some time in the past though, have you ever considered trying to do that? No, not yet you haven't...

...everyone having descended from one man and one woman who lived 6000 years ago... there's actually quite a bit of evidence for that scenario according to genetics, only the timeframe is arguable but not impossible... probably slighly more than 6000 years, you might be 2 or 3 thousand years or so off there..

...and all the animals that ever existed on earth being there together at that time too... that one you really must finally take the time to explain more clearly. you have mentioned that idea several times in the past, that every single animal that ever lived, lived (none died I assume you mean?) until the flood.. that is what you are saying right? Please explain how that is possible and where you got the idea. I remain stumped as to exactly what it is you are trying to imply to this day. People died before the flood, but animals did not? is that it? did all the trees and grasses all live up until the flood too? Please, really explain, I am truly confused by this one idea of yours by now.





...




You're right, i don't like it. Whoever wrote it has very poor comprehension and twists things to suit his own meaning, even lies to try to make a point. dumb. Just read the verses he points out and you'll see it right off. His claims are erroneous. i didn't read all of them btw, just enough till I yawned. Funny how literally he twists things too, after his claim concerning literal intepretation. stuffed shirt, bag of hot air, no consequences to the bible at all. Perhaps an example of self-delusion though.




well you can keep repeating those ideas if you'd like, i will just continue to repeat, THERE IS NO SORTED FOSSIL RECORD ACROSS THE WORLD. Did you understand that this time?

Gosh if there were a sorted, fully consistent fossil record you should have at least impressed us with a knowledgable web page or a very thick book about it by now, photos included. it's a myth, Linda. urban legend.

umm.... There's also genetics and nested hierarchies... genetics.. as in genes and dna... which point to intelligent design much more strongly than to evolution... nested hierarchies... not sure exactly what you mean with that term, sort of like the phylogenic tree you mean? But as regards a species? Types of a kind you mean? Very biblical.





who? never heard of him. You might want to reread some of the many previous threads if you have so quickly forgotten about all the flood evidence and anomolies to the million year etc dates used to determine the age of fossils and stuff,,, and bunches of other things like trilobytes.. and carbon dating... you really do forget quickly. you know, if archeologists go to Hiroshima and start using any type of radioation dating method at some time in the very far off future, you do know what they willl find right? Very young bones. Anything can be dated as such and such an age, depending not on the age of the item at all, but according to how much radiation it has been exposed to, or not exposed to, overtime. and of course there is more radiation in some places than there is others duh. and of course there was a lot less radiation before in the atmosphere before 1945 (just one example, don't get carried away with it) so everything older than that is well, really old and everything after much younger, more radiation,,, according to radiation dating..no brainer. dating methods stink. But we've been over that before too. double duh. but if it works for your worldview, go ahead hang onto it.


you are playing with me just trying to make me waste my precious time I am kind of aware of that you know. you think it's funny for people to have to tell you the same thing over and over and over and over... i know that, i think you are... well you know, someone who just likes to waste people's time.




right. But the article has absolutely nothing to do with quantum physics so you mentioned it as a link to learn about quantum physics for what reason? oh right now I remember to impress the crowd.

psst linda, no crowd... take a look around. you can drop the act einstein umm curly...

I have an idea. You keep saying things like What I see on one side is observable, testable evidence like the kind I listed above.

So, to really prove your point, in one breath, why don't you actually make a list, skip all the long winded opinions of your own which only clutter the thought space, just make a list of every item you think proves evolution..just make a list of testable evidence which has been tested and for every item on the list give a worthy link to a scientifc study which proves the item through the test.

No links to places like that evolution webboard allowed, they really do need to be scientific studies if you want to claim proof. the internet has really grown the past few years. since i have been able to find real good information for almost every question that I otherwise would have wondered endlesssly perhaps making endless trips to a library for years ago, it shouldn't be a problem,. if someone wrote a paper or made a discovery of any importance,, you can bet for sure it's mentioned on the net somewhere by now.

Thing is, you say, like the kind I listed above, but Linda, there is no such list as yet.

So just do it really, just make a list, and then give a link to the real proof. no opinions please, just scientific data please.

here's a start:

1-
link-
2-
link-
3-
link-

see how easy that is? quit beating around the bush and just fill in the blanks.

The article's about spacetime, in particular it's about mathematically modeling time as the 4th dimension. This is a separate issue thrown in as a distraction (not by LL but by Einstein & his fans in general).

It overlooks the fact that everything travels through time on a given vector, and there's no way to apply force and accelerate/decelerate in that vector. Time isn't a spacial dimension. After wasting time with this crap when learning Special Relativity, they try to slip in a 4th spacial dimension (for a total of 5 dimensions in spacetime). I know General Relativity requires the 4th spacial dimension, and I'm pretty sure SR does too (I forget the details just now).

The formula for teaching this stuff hasn't changed much. First they focus on making you doubt things you know to be true. For example they always claim parallel lines aren't really parallel if you follow them far enough. Let 2 people start side by side and walk north. At first they're paths are parallel, but they meet at the north pole. This is deception. The trick doesn't work if they walk east or west because those paths truly are parallel. After a few days of preconditioning with similar drivel, they dive into Einsteinian Relativity & dupe many into accepting things they otherwise wouldn't.

The math works on paper, but so what? There's no 4th spacial dimension and everybody knows it. I can program a computer to simulate a dozen dimensions. More actually - the limit depends on the programming language. But modeling a thing doesn't make it real. Before anyone says it does, keep in mind we have flood models!

Practically speaking, the primary purpose of the 4th spacial dimension is to provide a waste basket. There are probably a hundred paradoxes that have been cataloged over the years for SR and GR. Any time someone demonstrates something can't happen, or is required to do mutually exclusive things, they can claim that when such a situation occurs the object will vanish into the 4th dimension.

I ain't making this up. Google Ehrenfest's paradox for a fine example. Einstein himself "resolved" it by "curving" the disk into the 4th dimension. When you understand the game, it's as sad/funny as evolutionism.

And the parallel lines thing? Einstein never proved lines can't be parallel. Anyone good at math'd put a serious smackdown on such a proof.** Does SR or GR require that lines cannot be parallel? If so, they're unsound. If not, why must they always precede any class on SR with this false, irrelevant teaching? Actions speak louder than words.

**Note that they use a real-world story to teach falsehood about math & use math to teach falsehood about the real world. They can't prove their math from math, and they can't show a 4th dimension in the real world.

This forum is not here for the purpose of debating other branches of science such as quantum physics, and I don't have the time to carry on with this when there are other lengthy posts to reply to. I just wonder where such disdain for science came from, CTD. You appear not to want to learn what these things are about; instead you latch on to whatever part of them looks incredulous to you and say, "I don't believe that." For example, it's quite true that if you start at the equator and go in parallel lines toward one of the poles, those lines meet up. Space-time is also curved in this way. The final thing I'm going to say about this is that it behooves you to actually learn about what you're criticising before you criticise it. I don't think you're making a very convincing case for yourself by declaring people like Einstein to be wrong when you don't understand much about the science in the first place. Like I said, you can go tell all the physicists who have been using his ideas for decades that he's wrong, and collect your Nobel Prize.

I'm sure that my sister-in-law, who is a professor of geology, will also appreciate being told by you that she is a liar and she makes stuff up. All that time she's spent in Iceland studying glaciers must just be a front for spending a holiday in a remote place, cooking up conspiracy theories.

I guess what must be happening here is a version of cognitive dissonance. You don't like what these ideas are saying, so you brush them off and make fun of the scientists whose ideas they are. I wouldn't personally choose this as my own path toward finding the truth.

Curvature's been observed? Not according to what I'm reading.
einstein-online saysNY times is reporting (present tense) Your book may be a little out-of-date, or the author may have been a tad optimistic about curvature - I don't know. It's something a lot of folks hope will turn up eventually, although there's a few who seem more comfortable with flatness. Can't say if it's a bang bustin' issue. Even if it was, who'd admit it?

If this really happened, then we would expect to find evidence in the geological and biological records. What we see is that God would appear to have given the earth every appearance of old age, and that most of the species that have lived on the earth became extince before humans even existed. Do you think he's just trying to fool everybody again? And if that's the case, how can we trust anything we learn at all, if it could be false evidence planted by God?


We started discussing it in another thread, and Bex jumped in by providing what she believed to be actual evidence for her point of view. She does that sometimes. Eventually the thread petered out when people didn't like my questions about mats of vegetation, how the animals would have survived on the ark, where the floodwaters came from, why there are seashells on top of mountains, etc. I asked you several times afterward if you'd like to return to the discussion but you appeared not to be interested. Would you like to strike it up again?


This is not what study of mitochondrial DNA suggests, so I'm quite keen to see the evidence you're speaking of.


Some creationists think that God created all the animals that ever existed on the earth, at the same time as Adam and Eve. Others say that in order to fit the Noah's ark scenario, there had to be a limited number of "kinds" at that time, which hyper-evolved in a few thousand years after the flood. Some even claim that all the extinct species got wiped out during the flood. There are logical and scientific problems with each of these things. Do any of these describe what you personally believe, or do you believe something different?


Of course. it's all lies, right? There's not a single contradiction anywhere in the Bible? I thought what he said was quite clear; and again, no one would have a problem with what he said, either, if they were not a Biblical literalist, which describes the vast majority of Christians.


So what makes you so convinced? Where's your evidence that this is not the case, when the fossil record has actually been documented for over 100 years? Every fossil that's been found in situ has shown this sorting. If you've got a bona fide example of one that isn't, then I'd like to hear about it because it's a remarkable scientific discovery.

The rest of your post is asking me for evidence for evolution. Well that's what we've discussed quite a lot for months now, and RAZD presented some too. You could walk into an entire library devoted to this subject. It's a little disingenuous to ask me to list it all in a post, much less do your own research for you. Nothing is stopping you from Googling nested hierarchies or genetic evidence for evolution. However, I'm happy to narrow the focus so that we can have a good, detailed discussion about one of these things. Would you like to start with the fossil record, and your scientific reasons for denying that it is sorted? We can maybe move on later to dating methods.

If you honestly think this is all a waste of your time, then I'm not sure I understand why you are posting here in the first place.

The shape of the universe, and the curvature of space-time, are two different things. I can understand why it must be confusing when the term "flat" is used to describe one idea for the shape of the universe, but this is different from the curvature of space-time. Good on you for starting to educate yourself, and I hope you carry on. I can link you to the weekly astronomy podcast I listen to if you want. But I also would prefer not to respond to more posts on this subject here, as I am busy with discussing evolution and creationism, and that is in fact what this forum's purpose is.

LindaLou wrote:


Just to back this statement up further, citing Einstein to be a fraud and incorrect would require volumes and volumes of essays. It would require first and foremost a complete understanding of his accomplishments and an ability to confidently converse about any one of them at the snap of a finger (without the need to pause and go look it up first). In other words, you'd need to be an expert in the field. Anyone citing that Einstein is just a hoaxer or wrong would need to be outrageously intelligent, someone whose intelligence has likely afforded them some measure of fame (though not necessarily so please don't extract this quote and quibble about it, I said likely, not absolutely). It's certainly not going to be just some random poster who simply says Einstein's wrong and finalizes their conclusion with that statement alone -- no offense about calling you just some random poster on an internet forum but I'm included in the that group; I certainly don't have the means to profess an entire field of study is wrong or that one of the most intelligent minds in history is.

You can't just run around discrediting entire fields of study with links to websites and casual comments like "You can't DISPROVE that the Ancient Egyptians were visited by aliens." You'd need a lot more ammunition than that, and have to be one very special and rare person indeed. This means you, CTD, are either some rare, as of yet unfound genius, or a narcissist. Like Linda said in another post, technically anything could be true. Tomorrow the Theory of Gravity (as you would have your children taught in school to call it) could simply stop, and I have no way of proving that that won't some day happen. I mean, hey! Maybe that will happen -- you never know. You're right in saying the inability to prove it DIDN'T happen is not evidence in and of itself. But for that matter just as you cannot disprove YOUR god created the universe, you also cannot disprove someone else's god or pantheon was the responsible party. As I know other posters have asked before countless times without an answer, what evidence do you have that your god, and none other, created the universe?

The problem with those people who feel so innexorably fixated on claiming the bible is literal truth is that they will have a constant, uphill battle in trying to support any evidence whatsoever. The rest of the Christian world, however, who see much of it as metaphorical, have no battle at all. Their belief is a belief, just like any other religion, no more or less worthy than any others.

Lastly, if I were the sort of poster who made claims such as Einstein is a fraud or science is simply not true, or any other such audacious claim that being able to say it would mean being able to seriously back it up, I would be confident in my knowledge and feel in no way threatened by other posters because I'd know that I am right and they are wrong, I'd have the evidence to so easily back it up. As a result, I don't think I'd ever need to resort to name calling, making snide remarks, or belittling other posters by saying they have mercury poisoning, etc. I mean, if I were right, and I knew it through and through and could prove it, why would I need to post in an insulting manner? I think I'd just casually state that everyone is wrong and then I'd coolly, patiently lay down the evidence, piece by piece, for them to be wowed at. But that's just me.

Well, even if you yourself cannot defend the underpinnings of cosmic evolutionism, is it not a bit much to presume none of the other evolutionists cannot either?

Then again, I don't really think anyone can adequately defend it. Maybe you're right.

Funny funny. I have consistently upheld the proper methods of all forms of science. If you could defend the practice of substituting speculation for science, you wouldn't need to resort to this.

Not from quacks, no I don't.
Those lines are not parallel. They have a measurable curvature, although it's too small to be handily perceived if you start close together. However, if one person starts is Africa and one in South America it's very easy to see that they're not parallel.

Besides, the claim is that no parallel lines exist. Even if the example was true, the premise is demonstrated to be false when applied to eastbound or westbound travelers. How much more wrong can it get?

BTW, thank you for confirming that every last time they teach SR & GR, they first teach this lie. Doesn't mean the teacher's a liar - he just got conned by someone else. Even the originator of the story might not have realized it was false (although someone did set up the practice of leading into SR with the lie in order to disorient/confuse students). Had people properly, scientifically examined the story... poof!
More funny funny. You assume I know nothing because you define "knowledgeable" as "agreeing with LindaLou". Observation does not support this hypothesis.

I'll stick to truth, and collect my reward(s) at my Creator's pleasure. I understand the committee isn't to keen on creationists. The inventor of the MRI machine was "overlooked" & they awarded two of his colleagues, you know.

I don't believe I've had the pleasure.

Quick question on Einstein's infallibility, okay? Is there or is there not an aether?

So why did you bring up the subject of quantum physics? Because this forum is not here for the purpose of debating other branches of science such as quantum physics? That make real good sense Linda, in a hippocritical sort of way.



Well I doubt she actually consciously was working on conspiracy theories, but I don't doubt the part about the holiday in a remote and beautiful place. Send me a ticket to Iceland and I'll spend a few years studying glaciers too, experiencing the almost arctic climate, taking photos, collecting samples and exploring the Island. What fun. I can actually get paid for that? They supposedly have some great restaurants in Iceland, very rich country. One of the highest per capita incomes in the world, real nice cities. Great place to holiday. It's on my to-do list btw.



Linda, prove that the cognitive dissonance is not your own and just make your list like you keep saying you have already done. Otherwise this is just another one of your hippocritical accusations.



I never said this is a waste of time. I said you like to waste everyone's time. Please prove that the cognitive dissonance is not your own and just make your list already.

I am not going to answer a single comment of your OP reply above, because it's all opinion, hearsay, based on your own little perspective from your own little window on the world. You have not provided any proof of your opinions. Make your list Linda or else continue on being a hippocryte and accusing everyone else of doing the things that you yourself are famous for by now.

thus far you aren't looking so cool, more like a hothead who loves drama. So, do exactly that then, quit accusing people of things and just coolly patiently lay down the evidence and wow us. aside from all your comments and personal attacks on everyone else I have yet to see you provide any real evidence of anything. Even Linda tries a little bit in her own confusing way.

We're waiting.

Because CTD put Einstein onto his "lying scientists make stuff up" list. I might have used it once or twice before to illustrate an example, I can't remember.



Still haven't bought the dictionary then.



Cognitive dissonance occurs when new information threatens someone's belief system and they are not willing or ready to synthesise it. I don't deny the existence of evidence when it's quite clear that the evidence exists. I don't, for example, say "fossil sorting? What fossil sorting?" when it quite clearly is there. If you think I'm wrong about that then I am honestly interested in seeing your evidence to the contrary.

Secondly, you seem to be demanding that I list all of the evidence for evolution, along with information and links, or you will refuse to engage. I explained why this is pretty well impossible to do here, because it would require a whole library. What's more, it isn't going to work to talk about so many different topics all at once, in the detail that they would need. Therefore, I suggested we begin with one specific topic, which can easily be dealt with in a conversation here, and move on from there. For me, the sorting of the fossil record is one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle for evolution. I invited you to discuss it with me. I also invited you to take up the discussion of the flood again. Will you do any of these things, or continue to insist that I write up a library here and if I don't then I've somehow lost my case? It's an easy way out for you at any rate.



I'm sure you think so. In my experience, creationists don't like to have their beliefs questioned and they react with hostility when they are. They resort to name-calling sometimes, for example.



In others words, you're not going to engage with the issues. Maybe someone else here will then.