Not proof of anything. The Universe may be cyclic, the universe may spawn inside other universe (like with proton/anti-proton production except longer duration), or maybe our universe is really the egg inside a giant Green lady's vagina. You see? ANy of these are possible, none of them can be proved. Yours is only theory.JaMDuDe wrote:
transcendent creation event
These is just a fancy word for "I don'T understand quantum mechanics"cosmic fine-tuning
Again, "gravity is really hard, I don't like the math. God must have done it." We can show how this works and predict when it will happen again.fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
This makes no sense.rapidity of life's origin
Kerogen is defined as organic.lack of inorganic kerogen
Yay? God did it?! Every time I masturbate a whole universe of sperm flies across me to land on my belly. DO the sperms think I'm God?extreme biomolecular complexity
When simple life-forms start to become complex, it is logical to assume that they will continue to do so, and do so quickly. When there ain't no more room, this will slow down.Cambrian explosion
Show me these branches, and don't use a Christian website to do so.missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
Do you know what transitional form means?placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
Proof?fossil record reversal
Yep, because when something dies, obviously God did it. It was the Dinosaur version of Sodom that really pissed God off.frequency and extent of mass extinctions
Animals like to fuck just as much as humans do.recovery from mass extinctions
duration of time windows for different species
frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
speciation and extinction rates
recent origin of humanity
huge biodeposits
I'm starting to think you're on crack.Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
And different electron orbital velocities proves ID how?molecular clock rates
Creationists say alot of things. Much of it is simple rhetoric designed to confuse people who don't fully understand the concepts being discussed.teehee1988 wrote:
yes but creationalists say that their beliefs are backed up by science. However at this moment in time science is wrong.
God created everything, that is the basis of Genesis. If I believe that God did not create everything, it is tantamount to not believing in God, because if God did exist he would have created everthing. According to many of the christians I've met, Believing in God is necessary to get into heaven. It's a simple logic. Furthermore, I've been told by several christians on these very forums that I am doomed to hell because of my beliefs.teehee1988 wrote:
Why would you be a heretic if you doubt creationalism? or go to hell???, what religion are you taking this from?
The difference is you won't find many christians willing to say that they might be wrong, whereas scientists are questioning their beliefs all the time. Evolution has been questioned many, many times in the past, and has changed and adapted as a result. Religion never changes. The christian beliefs you see today are pretty much the same christian beliefs you would have seen 1500 years ago. Again, to compare the two is absurd. You might want to read up on cognitive dissonance, it helps explain why many religious believers are so unwilling to accept they might be wrong.teehee1988 wrote:
Yes but isn't being so intent on science being right ie richard dawkins. just as bad as being so intent on religion
no I meant conscience.........We base allot of our decisions on the moral outcome of them.We feel guilty, animals don't. We feel regret, animals don't. We can try and change the results of our actions. Animals have no such ability. I admit I wasn't very clear on what I was trying to say.Xietsu wrote:
Dude, I am sick and tired of your blatant, assumptious nature. Before you go spouting off, had you ever cared to sit for a brief moment of contemplation and? Organic material can spawn from inorganic material, and thus, life. Go look up the Miller experiment. Is it not typical of the simple minded to just shout out "God did it!" when they haven't the awareness of an actual, observable answer? How hard is it to understand that all that is has had to have just existed at some point in time? YOU DO NOT NEED TO THROW OUT FLAGRANT, INANE GUESSES AS TO HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. By this point, even after my restating this at least twice, I'm amazed at your inability to comprehend that one single, important aspect.JaMDuDe wrote:
No it cant. Life cannot come from non-life. "It can be done if the circumstances allow" means if something made and controlled perfect conditions for life to form and controlled how the amino acids and everything came together, then some life may form.
To say we made God and think that the universe made itself out of nothing is foolish. Scientists say there had to be an initial creation.What we do is always instinct as well. Instinct is making use of your sensual facilities as experience has developed (to the degree allowed). You do in fact mean consciousness and not conscience. The idea of the conscience is relevant to the sensation aroused by a moral doing. The point is that animals can not conceptualize, but that they do in fact have consciousness.lowing wrote:
NO I meant conscience as in an awareness choices. We think about a problem and react to it....we build better tools that make life easier.....monkeys have been using a stick since the beginning of time. Animals will react scared even when it isn't logical for them to do so.It is their instinct taking over.We react differently depending on the variables of a situation. An animal will ALWAYS react with a survival instinct regardless of the variables.Xietsu wrote:
Well apparently that wasn't the case. You said "Animals react to instinct, humans make conscience choices". Apart from not even making the proper reference to your intended concept of conscious (you know, you and your thoroughly suck-ass spelling ), it's incorrect nonetheless.
Conscience....as in the ability to make decisions based on feelings as well as facts
Last edited by lowing (2006-06-04 05:45:46)
Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-06-04 13:07:16)
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-06-04 09:29:26)
Clarify your position now.JaMDuDe wrote:
Theres no evidence for those other things, but there is for ID. Its not 100% faith based like FSM.
Last edited by Fred[OZ75] (2006-06-06 01:22:37)
I think it could be argued, to quite a (large) degree, that such a statement of yours is too ambiguous for accuracy. In many cases, animals learn from precedents of experience, based on reaction and reception from other organisms. Monkies, canines, etc.lowing wrote:
no I meant conscience.........We base allot of our decisions on the moral outcome of them.We feel guilty, animals don't. We feel regret, animals don't. We can try and change the results of our actions. Animals have no such ability. I admit I wasn't very clear on what I was trying to say.Xietsu wrote:
Dude, I am sick and tired of your blatant, assumptious nature. Before you go spouting off, had you ever cared to sit for a brief moment of contemplation and? Organic material can spawn from inorganic material, and thus, life. Go look up the Miller experiment. Is it not typical of the simple minded to just shout out "God did it!" when they haven't the awareness of an actual, observable answer? How hard is it to understand that all that is has had to have just existed at some point in time? YOU DO NOT NEED TO THROW OUT FLAGRANT, INANE GUESSES AS TO HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. By this point, even after my restating this at least twice, I'm amazed at your inability to comprehend that one single, important aspect.JaMDuDe wrote:
No it cant. Life cannot come from non-life. "It can be done if the circumstances allow" means if something made and controlled perfect conditions for life to form and controlled how the amino acids and everything came together, then some life may form.
To say we made God and think that the universe made itself out of nothing is foolish. Scientists say there had to be an initial creation.What we do is always instinct as well. Instinct is making use of your sensual facilities as experience has developed (to the degree allowed). You do in fact mean consciousness and not conscience. The idea of the conscience is relevant to the sensation aroused by a moral doing. The point is that animals can not conceptualize, but that they do in fact have consciousness.lowing wrote:
NO I meant conscience as in an awareness choices. We think about a problem and react to it....we build better tools that make life easier.....monkeys have been using a stick since the beginning of time. Animals will react scared even when it isn't logical for them to do so.It is their instinct taking over.We react differently depending on the variables of a situation. An animal will ALWAYS react with a survival instinct regardless of the variables.
Conscience....as in the ability to make decisions based on feelings as well as facts
When I was little, I always theorized that galaxies were atoms ...proton comment brought back some memmrehz, lol.bakarocket wrote:
Not proof of anything. The Universe may be cyclic, the universe may spawn inside other universe (like with proton/anti-proton production except longer duration), or maybe our universe is really the egg inside a giant Green lady's vagina. You see? ANy of these are possible, none of them can be proved. Yours is only theory.JaMDuDe wrote:
transcendent creation event
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-06 03:41:13)
This argument holds no water with evolutionists as evolution is based on Darwinism. As well as evolution, Charles Darwin also spent a lot of his time researching animals and their 'state of mind'.lowing wrote:
no I meant conscience.........We base allot of our decisions on the moral outcome of them.We feel guilty, animals don't. We feel regret, animals don't. We can try and change the results of our actions. Animals have no such ability. I admit I wasn't very clear on what I was trying to say.
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2006-06-06 03:49:31)
Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-06 03:51:55)
And, more importantly, that no hard evidence has been found to the contrary.Fred[OZ75] wrote:
A scientific theory is the highest level of credibility, this means it has been observed to happen and this theory actually fits all evidence so far found... if not it would be a hypothesis or proven wrong.
And presumably that atoms were galaxies?Xietsu wrote:
When I was little, I always theorized that galaxies were atoms ...proton comment brought back some memmrehz, lol.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-06-06 05:39:02)
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bull**** sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bull****; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
No i dont think the earth is young now. But there is some evidence for it and thats why i thought it was(and i havent really studied all the evidence on both sides until a recently). The word day in the bible in hebrew couldve ment a time period and not 24 hours. I did my own research ^^ and asked my dad who is a big christian about the evidence against young earth and he talks about the FSM miracles that made the universe look old for no reason. Old-earth creationist is what i am.Spark wrote:
Clarify your position now.JaMDuDe wrote:
Theres no evidence for those other things, but there is for ID. Its not 100% faith based like FSM.
Am I correct in saying you believe in a young earth? No? Then why did you devote countless posts to it?
By the way, doing a bit more digging I've found MORE evidence against a young earth in addition to the massive pile I gave earlier.
I take it this is in reply to my comment about "And, more importantly, that no hard evidence has been found to the contrary"?Widjerd wrote:
anything that cant be explained by science will eventually be discovered or theorised about, so and counter arguments would then be nowhere
Why do you cut and paste CRAP! You don’t even understand? Not a single line item is understood by yourself; and it hardly represents a reason as to why you believe anything. “Huge bio deposits” & “molecular clocks”, etc are not even offered up with reason or “believer” interpretation as to why they might even been assumed inferences of “intelligent-design”JaMDuDe wrote:
I didnt say i was giving you scientific evidence, i said there was some to back it up. I did read it. I know, if you dont believe in evolution your a bad scientist and nothing you say can be right. He doesnt start off by saying they dont have a testable process, he says that they dont use one enough. Your right, darwinian theory cannot and doesnt predict scientific discoveries. God cannot be tested, but everything else in the physical world can. And it points to a creator. If you want scientific evidence for creatoin you should study these events that they predicted should be there and were.
a.) transcendent creation event
b.) cosmic fine-tuning - fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
c.) rapidity of life's origin - extreme biomolecular complexity
d.) lack of inorganic kerogen
e.) Cambrian explosion - missing horizontal branches in the fossil record - placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
f.) fossil record reversal
g.) frequency and extent of mass extinctions - recovery from mass extinctions - duration of time windows for different species - frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis - frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism - speciation and extinction rates
h.) recent origin of humanity
i.) huge biodeposits
j.) Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
k.) molecular clock rates
Last edited by topal63 (2006-06-06 15:38:00)
THE IM AN IGNORANT FOOLXietsu wrote:
And for the record, if you believe in any religion, concept associated with religion, etc - you're an ignorant fool. To assume that there is something outside of the observable is to defy all logic. But by the inverse of such, it is also ignorant to assume there is nothing outside of the observable. In other words, if you follow a religion or claim to be an atheist, you're an idiot. Yes of course, it is an assumption that there is no other force guiding the material, and that to believe observation as we see it as fact is ignorant as well. Although, it still remains evident that this is the only method of justification that has yet to fail or otherwise be discounted. So, until then, trust apparency.
(way too much to quote)topal63 wrote:
...JaMDuDe wrote:
...