teehee1988
Member
+5|6867|Birmingham, UK
yes but creationalists say that their beliefs are backed up by science. However at this moment in time science is wrong. Why would you be a heretic if you doubt creationalism? or go to hell???, what religion are you taking this from?
Yes but isn't being so intent on science being right ie richard dawkins. just as bad as being so intent on religion
bakarocket
Member
+12|6778
Jamdude, I'm sorry, but you obviously don't understand something. Evolution doesn't try to answer "why", because that is religion's job. Creationism isn't able to answer "what", because it has already decided that it knows therefore is biased. Here are a <strike>short</strike> very long refutation of part of your post, and questions for you as well.

JaMDuDe wrote:

transcendent creation event
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.
cosmic fine-tuning
These is just a fancy word for "I don'T understand quantum mechanics"
fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
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.
rapidity of life's origin
This makes no sense.
lack of inorganic kerogen
Kerogen is defined as organic.
extreme biomolecular complexity
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?
Cambrian explosion
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.
missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
Show me these branches, and don't use a Christian website to do so.
placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
Do you know what transitional form means?
fossil record reversal
Proof?
frequency and extent of mass extinctions
Yep, because when something dies, obviously God did it. It was the Dinosaur version of Sodom that really pissed God off.
recovery from mass extinctions
Animals like to fuck just as much as humans do.


For the rest, what the hell do these things prove?
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
Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
I'm starting to think you're on crack.

molecular clock rates
And different electron orbital velocities proves ID how?


Look. I'll tell you something, and this applies to the evolutionists as well. Don't accept what other people tell you to be true. Find the answers yourself. You don't have to go out and count how many feathers birds of the same species that live on different islands have. You  just have to look at the info on you're own.

You'll be pleasantly surprised that you can understand it if you try.
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6930

teehee1988 wrote:

yes but creationalists say that their beliefs are backed up by science. However at this moment in time science is wrong.
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:

Why would you be a heretic if you doubt creationalism? or go to hell???, what religion are you taking this from?
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:

Yes but isn't being so intent on science being right ie richard dawkins. just as bad as being so intent on religion
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
Member
+5|6867|Birmingham, UK
ok firstly those christian dont have any right to say what is or what isn't going to happen. They dont know !!
i disagree with ur last point. There are plenty of scientific pewople who would never admit to the possibility they are wrong, same with religous people. However the opposite exists on both sides. This just shows that you have met a limited amount of people. Many to believ believing in God is necessary to get to heaven, yes. But how do you know that God didn't create the big bang etc, (choosing biblical scripture for example) says believ in God and youll live for ever. Not believ in God and also figure out what is right in scripture or wrong,, we're not perfect we could never figure everything out perfectly
my opinion anyway
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6880|USA

Xietsu wrote:

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.
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.

lowing wrote:

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.
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
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.
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 lowing (2006-06-04 05:45:46)

JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7006
Xietsu, the miller experiment did not prove that life could form out of non life. They werent even sure the chemicals they used were on earth, they used them because they would make a amino acids. And making amino acids isnt even close to making any sort of life. Are you saying that entire universe has just existed and had no beginning?


bakarocket  YEah, those are other theories but the most reasonable one is the big bang. Even though you dont want to believe it cause its proof of a creation at one point.

No its not.

Its not reasonable to credit perfection to gravity.

Rapidity of lifes origin means as soon as the earth was ready for it, it came. But this is just another case of extreme chance.

extreme biomolecular complexity means things like
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flag_dithani.htm

Cambrian explosion is the sudden appearence of complex animals with no ancestors.

Telling me not to use a christian site is like telling you not to use a site that believes evolution to get ur evidence for it. Heres a site thats christian but they use science and nothing else. It explains the fossil record.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh … php/id/839

They are evidence for a creator.

The fossil record does go along with Genesis. Big bang, order of creation goes along with how earth formed and what earth should have been like, cambrian explosion, and according to darwin if the rest of the animals evolved there should be thousands of transitional fossils.

Last edited by JaMDuDe (2006-06-04 13:07:16)

=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6780|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
OpsChief
Member
+101|6905|Southern California
Knowledge of any kind without ethics is dangerous.
Power without morality, also dangerous.
Memorizing other people opinions in place of an education is intellectualy crippling.
Believing that humans were able to write God's exact laws and meanings with a finite vocabulary is gullable.
Believing the opinions of someone who learned about a scientific discovery second/third-hand is gullable.
Both science and religion are influenced by politics and powers of the day.
Humans take alot on faith.
Assuming we have the answers of the Ages = makes an  ass [of] U [and] me. lBe inquisitive not hubrisic with your knowledge.

It is good to challenge our minds and hearts on these subjects, I for one have enjoyed this thread tremendously.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-06-04 09:29:26)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6784
If we are to allow the teaching of 'intelligent design' at school as a possible alternative theory to evolution, could we not also teach the idea of 'intelligent falling' as an alternative to the laws of gravity? Or 'intelligent moving' as opposed to Newton's laws of motion?
The possibilities are endless......
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7006
Theres no evidence for those other things, but there is for ID. Its not 100% faith based like FSM.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6904|Canberra, AUS

JaMDuDe wrote:

Theres no evidence for those other things, but there is for ID. Its not 100% faith based like FSM.
Clarify your position now.

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.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Fred[OZ75]
Jihad Jeep Driver
+19|6989|Perth, Western Australia
Simple stuff first...

Evolution does not cover how life started that is abiogenesis.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory which explains why and how life changes over time... the fossil record PROVES that life changes over time only how we explain it is a theory. Like an apple falling proves gravity exists only how we explain gravity is a theory.

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.

The Earth is 4.6 Billion years old, the universe about 14 billion, and life first started about 3.8 billion years ago... young earth creation is complete and utter bullshit!!! If you believe it you are seriously deluded. Sorry that's just the truth. Well unless you read hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy... it's creation explanation is vastly more developed so be nice to the mice.

The Cambrian explosion is not the sudden arrival of complex life it is the sudden explosion of life with hard parts, this means they will have a far higher chance of being fossilized. There was in fact alot of complex things living before this just with soft bodies so had vastly less chance to be fossilized.

Heres a big one... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL!!!. There maybe fossils which mark the mid point of evolution between two other fossils but it is not transitional, evolution has no final goal at all it is a bias-less process.

Live has been evolving for 3.8 billion years, a long time, and biological complexity is a reflection of this length of time, we share genes with the simplest form of life because simple cell processes evolved a long time ago over a vast period of time and when something works well it generally gets pasted along (survival of the fittest).

Creation and ID have no place in science as they are an UNTESTABLE hypothesis... science tests things to be proven correct or incorrect.

Last edited by Fred[OZ75] (2006-06-06 01:22:37)

Xietsu
Banned
+50|6785

lowing wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

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.
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.

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
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.
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.
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.

I think it's key to note that emotion does not require conceptualization -- the differing factor (conceptualization) between "beasts" and man, as numerously stated before.

bakarocket wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

transcendent creation event
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.
When I was little, I always theorized that galaxies were atoms ...proton comment brought back some memmrehz, lol.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-06 03:41:13)

=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6780|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

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.
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'.

Charles Darwin concluded that animals do indeed have emotions. He went on to explore the extent of animal emotions and found there to be emotional and cognitive continuity between humans and animals i.e. there are not enormous gaps between animals, but rather a continuous range from unintelligent, unemotional "primitive" creatures through to highly emotional and intelligent humans. Where there were gaps, these were differences in degree rather than differences in the kinds of emotions.

The argument that animals don't have emotions is mostly promoted by pro-animal testing scientists or people that have a vested interest in saying it.

Any animal owner will clearly contest that thier animal/s have emotions and I'm not talking about people who are anthropomorphic (the practice of applying human characteristics to animals).  Think of it this way, if my dog does something wrong and I shout at it, why doesn't it do it again if it doesn't have guilt?  I haven't physically hit it so it's not simply remembering physical pain and the only thing you can put it down to is the fear it felt when it was being told off.  Thus, fear is quite clearly an emotion so if animals are capable of fear (and they quite obviously are, i.e a "scaredy cat") , is it really that far a leap to feeling guilt or regret?

Saying an animal doesn't have these feelings is based purely on that fact the emotions you mentioned were non-physically apparent emotions.  By that I mean, they are emotions that can only be expressed by dialogue and thus we will never know if a cat is feeling guilty.  We can tell when he is happy, angry, scared because he shows obvious signs of it but please don't assume that because he can't display guilt physically, he doesn't feel it.  Humans feel guilt but how would know if a person that is mute, deaf and illiterate is feeling it?

Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2006-06-06 03:49:31)

Xietsu
Banned
+50|6785
BEEKAWZ THAE JUST KNOE!!! THAE HAV SPEERUTZ DOOD !! RXT!! (ROFLMAOXTEN)

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-06 03:51:55)

Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6995|Cambridge (UK)

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, more importantly, that no hard evidence has been found to the contrary.

Xietsu wrote:

When I was little, I always theorized that galaxies were atoms ...proton comment brought back some memmrehz, lol.
And presumably that atoms were galaxies?

Me too!

You should read up on quantum physics and the holographic universe hypothosis (if you're not already aware of it).
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6785
I was always interested but I've never been able to push myself to set up the time for some self-teaching of quantum mechanics . As to that hypothesis, that I've never heard of.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6995|Cambridge (UK)
There are some very good Popular Science books available that cover quantum physics...

Not read this particular one myself (iirc, I learnt about the holographic universe hypothesis from various New Scientist (UK science periodical, a bit like Scientific American, only better) articles), but anyway, this might be a good place to start:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006092 … oding=UTF8


Oh, and guess I should give you some idea of what the 'holographic universe hypothesis' actually is - basically it's the idea that the universe is a kind of holographic projection - that the whole is 'contained within' each and every part.

And, also, before anyone says anything - this is just a HYPOTHESIS and quite a controversial one at that...

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-06-06 05:39:02)

Toxin
Member
+8|6785
Found this a couple weeks ago and thought it was hilarious.  Seems appropriate for this topic.  Enjoy:

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.
JaMDuDe
Member
+69|7006

Spark wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

Theres no evidence for those other things, but there is for ID. Its not 100% faith based like FSM.
Clarify your position now.

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.
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.
Widjerd
I like sausage
+18|6770|Bristol UK
anything that cant be explained by science will eventually be discovered or theorised about, so and counter arguments would then be nowhere
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6995|Cambridge (UK)

Widjerd wrote:

anything that cant be explained by science will eventually be discovered or theorised about, so and counter arguments would then be nowhere
I take it this is in reply to my comment about "And, more importantly, that no hard evidence has been found to the contrary"?

If so, yes exactly - maybe I should have had a "so far" in there somewhere - but, that was basically my point - evolution may be wrong - but all evidence found so far points to it being correct, if at some point clear hard evidence comes along to the contrary then we will have to rethink evolution, but, so far that hasn't happened.
topal63
. . .
+533|6947

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
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”

g.) through k.) are beyond silly. The attempt to infer the supernatural or the unknown intelligent agent never ends. Genesis describes nothing about biology or the natural laws found in science.

Genesis is the translation/mutation of 2 other creation myths (Sumerian & Egyptian, plus a minor amount of Greek influence/ revision: the dome of the sky). It represents cultural transmission & diffusion. The story is allegorical not literal. It represents the act of self initiation into life. Adam & Eve are not living until symbolically wisdom & knowledge is acquired. Paradise is a not. It is not living as nothing is at stake & nothing is known or can be known. The serpent is a common symbolic mythical image that represents wisdom (in the Sumerian tradition and is why it is the guardian of the tree of knowledge). God has told Adam & Eve that “ye shall surely die” if thou eatest from that tree. And the wisdom of the serpent urges them on; but not Adam, it is Eve that is urged on. Woman is the initiator of life. There is no life to be had for humanity period until life is initiated through a woman. There is no history to be had until Eden (& all other worldly nonsense) is rejected. There is no free-will unless we are initiators of our own lives. Death marks the end of life but accepting “ye shall surely die” marks the beginning of a real one.

a.) Transcendent creation event = Not necessary. Not explanatory. Not even a first cause - the causal events could be infinite prior to this supposed (assumed, fictitious belief) prime movement event. Big Bang does not suggest creation. It suggests horizon-event. It is a singularity - nothing more. A singularity represents an event that science merely is having trouble with based upon current theory, formula and understanding. All current theory breaks down, yields undefined infinite results, and nothing is known beyond the event-horizon (it is equal to a boundary-of-knowing; or current know-ability). Transcendent creation event is a meaningless belief statement. It is not based upon anything, not the evidence, not the actual definition of the boundary-event, not derivative-theory (another actual empirically tested theory) and not logic. There is not a single reason (other than manufactured belief, mere conjecture based upon a worldview taught to you) to think that this singularity-event is the only event that ever happened, nor that it was the first natural occurring event.

b.) Cosmic fine tuning: Do you even know how this non-sense has been derived at; or what from? This is the (a) zealot (or evangelical zealots) manufacturing sophistry to support a belief-system. It is a misrepresentation of two concepts: the anthropic principle and the values of the physical constants. The anthropic principle is rather mundane it offers no magic hocus pocus definition. It does not imply an “intelligent designer” nor a super-natural affecting force. It simply can be reduced to this simple conception: the universe exists in state that is compatible for life to exist, as you would expect it, since we do exist.

The physical constants are known to exist numerically in a narrow range. Alteration of their values by small amounts would make star formation, life, etc. impossible. This does not imply “tuning of the values” to make life possible. The concept of “tuning” is an assumption and a misrepresentation of this fact: the physical constants exist as numerical values to make calculations possible. BUT that means this instead: they exist in numerical form (as constant expressions) because there is no scientific theory (formula) to explain their existence. They have even been referred to as “fudge factors” even. They exist because the numerical values had to be inserted (introduced and tweaked) to make the calculations work. They are arbitrary in a sense - not explanatory.

c.) Rapidity of life’s origin: this is a super duper unbelievably meaningless thing to suggest (a stupor duper even!). Of course you’re not suggesting it - but merely parroting it in your usual cut & paste manner without the slightest thought given as to what it might mean. The genesis (origin) of life is but a part of evolutionary theory; not a whole; it is a small part. And there are multiple scenarios. Abiogenesis and panspermia are the main two. The first being that life originates on this planet the other being that necessary components make there way here by comet, asteroid or meteor collisions with the earth. The proto-forms evolved someplace else (panspermia) and some crude spore-type form of life made its way here - the most basic form of life did not evolve here but rather someplace else. Also rapidity is not suggested by evolution, nor is random behavior or mere accident.

What is suggested is the obvious (in abiogenesis): the earth formed as gravity toke over and locally formed the earth (in our solar system) from the gas cloud/dust clouds of former star deaths. The dead earth had no atmosphere as the gravitational forces took time to move from a cloud-mass with mutual attraction to a more solid-like mass. Then the earth was pummeled for a significant amount of geologic time by massive numbers of comets, meteors and asteroids. Its molten surface and poisonous atmosphere was utterly incapable of supporting life as we know it. The origins of life formed in a completely different environment than the one we exist in. The abiogenesis model (which is currently being tested by massive experiments, has predicated that in about 10 years, it will be demonstrated that chemical-life can arise from non-living chemicals); it suggests the following basic model: a transition from RNA to DNA. The basic chemical building blocks form naturally (the earth is not a closed system) then those by exposure to a source (the outside source being the sun, or an internal heat source being volcanic-vent type structures) cause further change to form complex polymers that are capable of chemical replication, that over time becomes RNA and is retained as an internal copying mechanism but DNA by mutation (and its inherent greater stability) replaces RNA as the main codifier of life. The formation of individual proto-cell structures work in relation to each other for mutual benefit but are not cell-formations these in time form the Prokaryotic type cell (bacteria & archaea). More time and evolution produces another type symbiotic relationship of (bacteria-cell to internal bacteria-type cell) the result is the Eukaryotic-type cell (with the internal mitochondria having its own unique & separate DNA representing the symbiosis event). From this Eukaryotic-type cell; with other evolved differences; leading to all the complex forms of life you know: fungi, plants and animals. The geologic time frame evidenced or suggested was not a rapid event. The combination of massive microbial activity and comet collision is the reason we have the oxygen water rich environment we have today.

d.) Lack of inorganic kerogen: What a bunch of crap. . . this is the weakest piece on non-science and non-scientific reasoning I’ve come across in a long time. Do you know what this is? Me thinks not!

The supposition is that organic formed kerogen which leads to petroleum and if microbial activity is present  breaks down (or continues to break down) petroleum into methane (natural gas).

This is a brief description of how petroleum is formed: http://www.leeric.lsu.edu/bgbb/3/transformation.html

This breakdown is a supposed unwanted event. Man’s emergence onto the natural scene must have been timed by the “designer” so that he could use petrol-gas. Else the microbes would have broke it down; in time; and therefore no petroleum based products for man. Which has been deemed a necessity (by fanatical assumptive reasoning) for mans social dominance over the natural world. We enjoy petrol-gas (plastics, etc) because of the intelligent timing of our arrival onto the earth scene. If the timing was not perfect; there would have to be inorganic forms of kerogen available to be converted into petroleum and that is not the case. It is obvious you haven’t clue what you’re posting. Other forms of fuel are available for humans to use if petroleum was not available and was broken-down. Ethanol will work fine. It would be merely a hiccup in the social economic technological development of the human race - if petrol was not available in the quantities that it is. Perfect timing or design is not implied in any form by this ridiculous “inorganic kerogen deficiency” assumption.

e.) Cambrian explosion: this has been covered numerous times before. But what is ID-type theory suggesting? That life got tweaked by the “god of the gaps” again. Wherever there might be a possible gap - is a place we can squeeze an assumption of god-type intelligent designer influence. It is nothing more than suggestion without EVIDENCE. And of course the un-testable “supernatural” affecting force - which is not ever in equality with a scientific theory.

I don’t have the time or inclination to type my response to this non-sense,
so here you go - don’t read it: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

And please don’t read this or the conclusions therein,
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html
http://www.palaeos.com/Ecology/Radiatio … osion.html

“     The abrupt entry of a diverse and highly derived fauna into the fossil record, during the brief Tommotian and Atdabanian ages of the Early Cambrian, has long been recognized and is now widely known to paleontologists and laymen alike, as the ‘Cambrian Explosion.’ However, despite the rapid proliferation of evolutionary novelties which undoubtedly occurred at this time, at least some of the phenomenon is attributable to the acquisition of preservational characteristics – ‘hard parts’ – and multiple lines of evidence reveal that life was already highly diversified prior to the Tommotian. ”

And certainly this is also non-readable as well,
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm
“     Secondly, I will show that it is absolutely false that the majority of animal phyla appeared in the Cambrian.  While this is widely stated by apologists and paleontologists, it is actually an assumption not borne out by the data.  “

Transitional forms for you to ignore:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Morton.html

And since you’ve ignored this before, ignore it again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/vuletic … fec/5.html
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tran.htm

The no-transitional forms argument has already been demonstrated to be a FALSE claim. But finding every form (as fossil) is not even necessary. The consistency of every other discovered natural law should be obvious. If some transitional forms are found (and many have been) then natural law being utterly consistent over time (as physics and chemistry are not changing in fundamental elemental properties) then it can be logically associated from one form to the next, that evolution is consistent as a natural law (as it is based upon the chemical properties inherent within physics and quantum mechanics).

The scientific viewpoint: a gap equals no evidence found yet.
The non-scientific viewpoint: a gap means science is wrong and god can be inferred. 

There is fossilized evidence of evolution and transitional forms (though not every one). BUT there is not a single piece of fossilized “god-evidence” found here in this so-called intelligent-designer “god of the gaps” intervention in the creation event (in the Cambrian era; or any other era). As if supernatural evidence is anything more than assumed (desired to be inferred) - and for no apparent reason even (other than a presupposition of a conclusion). It defies all reason. It defies all known evidence.

Last edited by topal63 (2006-06-06 15:38:00)

teehee1988
Member
+5|6867|Birmingham, UK

Xietsu 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.
THE IM AN IGNORANT FOOL
AND DAMNED PROUD OF IT TOO
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6995|Cambridge (UK)

topal63 wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

...
...
(way too much to quote)

topal63 [pwned] JaMDuDe



(sorry, couldn't help it...)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard