You Can't Quote Scripture

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;47281 wrote:

Umm... wow... where to start.

I'm not entirely sure how you can get bone structure from a clay figurine. That takes quite a bit of imagination.

Secondly, dinosaurs were vertebrates. I need not go any further on that.

No they do not. I've never seen a two-legged armless dinosaur. Have you?

Why again are we trying to accurately CARBON DATE an INORGANIC substance?

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds.

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.

There it is in full color. Information, scientific evidence and links to papers, articles, everything.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a list of transitional fossils, each with the same information, evidence and research papers, yadda yadda so on and so forth. There's more than blind faith here. We can SEE our evidence.

Link it up!

I will tell you how you get a bone structure from a clay dinosaur, you look at it. And along its back you will see a bumpy topside. They call those bumps spines. And back in the 40s they did not know they existed, yet the figurines from Mexico already had them. Which means who ever made those figurines had to of seen them, before are scientist did. So if you think those figurines were fakes, then who ever faked them knew more about what a dinosaur look like then our Amenrican scientist.

Two legged armless Dinosaur. Please give me more details.

Carbon 14 is used to determin the age of inorganic substances. So what is the problem?

Senastional reports show that evolutionist have learned nothing from the Coelacanth Phenomenon.
As with the latest fossil Tiktalik roseae, the Coelacanth is a fish that evolutionists once fondly imagined to be a missing link in the transition from water to land. Evolutionist examined 400-million-year-old fossil Coelacanths, which was once believed to be extinct, and drew a number of evolutionary conclusions from the remains. For example, they maintained that the bony structures in its fins were feet that walk across the sea floor, and they also claimed that it possessed primitive lungs. The important point here is this: All these assumptions were made in the absence of any information about the Coelacanth's soft tissue biology.
A living Coelacanth was caught, showing that it was not, as had previously been thought of. And all their assumptions had been completely incorrect.
Their latest speculation of the Tiktaalik is based on imaginative interpretation of soft tissues. Their ongoing propaganda through the media is based on nothing more than the exaggeration of scientifically vague information in the light of evolutionist dreams.
And as far as the Archaeopteryx, sorry to tell you this. But it was a Fake fossil. Manufactured in China.

1 Reply

@Campbell34,

Campbell34;47323 wrote:

I will tell you how you get a bone structure from a clay dinosaur, you look at it.

Incorrect. Bone structure can be assumed, but not known from such a thing. I can LOOK at a car and say "Yup, there's an engine and a drivetrain in there.", but I don't know WHAT KIND until I take a look.

Quote:

And along its back you will see a bumpy topside. They call those bumps spines. And back in the 40s they did not know they existed, yet the figurines from Mexico already had them. Which means who ever made those figurines had to of seen them, before are scientist did. So if you think those figurines were fakes, then who ever faked them knew more about what a dinosaur look like then our Amenrican scientist.

Where is it recorded in this people's history that they saw dinosaurs? Set your figurines aside for a moment and answer me that question. Where in that location have any fossil findings been found? Why didn't these people hunt the things? Why didn't they build things out of their bones and hides?

The short of it is that there'd be MUCH more than just some figurines should dinosaurs were around that early. You can't show me evidence of that. And if evidence did exist, it would be MASSIVE. NOBODY would question it, it would be in the science books already.

Quote:

Two legged armless Dinosaur. Please give me more details.

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999october/dino03.jpg

That's one of your figures. Please... give me more details :rollinglaugh:

Quote:

Carbon 14 is used to determin the age of inorganic substances. So what is the problem?

It's accuracy goes with it. Carbon 14 is hardly accurate to begin with. It has so many variables that are constantly changing, which when combined with a HARSH decay rate, gives you numbers that are going to be all over the place.

Quote:

Senastional reports show that evolutionist have learned nothing from the Coelacanth Phenomenon.

As with the latest fossil Tiktalik roseae, the Coelacanth is a fish that evolutionists once fondly imagined to be a missing link in the transition from water to land. Evolutionist examined 400-million-year-old fossil Coelacanths, which was once believed to be extinct, and drew a number of evolutionary conclusions from the remains. For example, they maintained that the bony structures in its fins were feet that walk across the sea floor, and they also claimed that it possessed primitive lungs. The important point here is this: All these assumptions were made in the absence of any information about the Coelacanth's soft tissue biology.

A living Coelacanth was caught, showing that it was not, as had previously been thought of. And all their assumptions had been completely incorrect.
Their latest speculation of the Tiktaalik is based on imaginative interpretation of soft tissues. Their ongoing propaganda through the media is based on nothing more than the exaggeration of scientifically vague information in the light of evolutionist dreams.

Ah.

Okay, watch closely. Here's where I blow you away. It'll be quick, but it's a great example of Evolution finally firing back.

First, Cocie is a different story and I will get to that later.

Now, I expected you to bring up the "imagination" part of Tikkie, being that you somehow think FOSSILS are outweighed by FIGURINES in terms of sheer imagination. However that's not what we're after here. What makes Tiktallik important is HOW they found it. Scientists concluded that if Darwin was right, we should find a fish-land link in a specific place and during a specific time. They found that location and they went to digging (the area was REMOTE, two months per year were allowed and they had to be flown in and out).

Guess what. Tiktallik.

A creature showing a fish-land evolutionary link, just like evolution predicted... found right where they were digging, just like evolution predicted... the right place, the right time.

Just as evolution predicted.

So what you have with Tiktallik, is an empirical test of the theory of evolution. Scientists didn't know what it would look like or if it was really there... they only went with what evolution stated would be the most likely scenario. It was right. Evolution was right.

Quote:

And as far as the Archaeopteryx, sorry to tell you this. But it was a Fake fossil. Manufactured in China.

All of them? Between 1876 and now? Did China make stuff like that back then :rollinglaugh:

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;47324 wrote:

Incorrect. Bone structure can be assumed, but not known from such a thing. I can LOOK at a car and say "Yup, there's an engine and a drivetrain in there.", but I don't know WHAT KIND until I take a look.

Where is it recorded in this people's history that they saw dinosaurs? Set your figurines aside for a moment and answer me that question. Where in that location have any fossil findings been found? Why didn't these people hunt the things? Why didn't they build things out of their bones and hides?

The short of it is that there'd be MUCH more than just some figurines should dinosaurs were around that early. You can't show me evidence of that. And if evidence did exist, it would be MASSIVE. NOBODY would question it, it would be in the science books already.

That's one of your figures. Please... give me more details :rollinglaugh:

It's accuracy goes with it. Carbon 14 is hardly accurate to begin with. It has so many variables that are constantly changing, which when combined with a HARSH decay rate, gives you numbers that are going to be all over the place.

Ah.

Okay, watch closely. Here's where I blow you away. It'll be quick, but it's a great example of Evolution finally firing back.

First, Cocie is a different story and I will get to that later.

Now, I expected you to bring up the "imagination" part of Tikkie, being that you somehow think FOSSILS are outweighed by FIGURINES in terms of sheer imagination. However that's not what we're after here. What makes Tiktallik important is HOW they found it. Scientists concluded that if Darwin was right, we should find a fish-land link in a specific place and during a specific time. They found that location and they went to digging (the area was REMOTE, two months per year were allowed and they had to be flown in and out).

Guess what. Tiktallik.

A creature showing a fish-land evolutionary link, just like evolution predicted... found right where they were digging, just like evolution predicted... the right place, the right time.

Just as evolution predicted.

So what you have with Tiktallik, is an empirical test of the theory of evolution. Scientists didn't know what it would look like or if it was really there... they only went with what evolution stated would be the most likely scenario. It was right. Evolution was right.

All of them? Between 1876 and now? Did China make stuff like that back then :rollinglaugh:

The Stegosaurus backside bone structure does not have to be ASSUMED at all. Its large triangular plates are found in the fossil record, and you can see one in the figurines from Mexico.

Forget the history of the tribes from Mexico, it was never written down. And if it had been you would of been saying it was just a myth anyway. Just as you do with the Bible. The figurines do exist, and there are figurines of Asian people as well as Eskimos. Yet we don't see any evidence of Eskimos in Mexico. So does that mean Eskimos do not exist?

Interesting two legged Dinosaur. If we find one in the fossil record then we will know if one existed, yet they do have a very nice figurine of a Stegosaurus with spines along it's back, and looks just like one we could see in a museum today.

Carbon 14 IS ACCURATE for certain items that are 50,000 years or younger, it is not accurate for items believed to be in the millions of years old.

Tiktallik is not a fish land link. Are you telling me that Tiktallik has both fins and legs with feet. Because believers in Evolution wishing this to be a transitional, does not make it one. Everything they try to sell you on this is assumed not proven. You should not have to go to some remote area of the world to find a transional. Don't you get it, these transionals should be every where. What they found is a shallow water fish. And now there trying to claim it's a transional. And they can never show any progression in the fossil record. All they can show you is a fossil of a fish and claim transional. How many times have they done this?

Archaopteryx- In 1983, a half-dozen leading British scientists including Sir Fred Hoyle carefully studied the two best Archaeopteryx specimen, front and back, and declared them both fakes. They discovered that the front and back slabs of each specimen donot match. They found that an alteration had been made to the left wing as depicted in an 1863 drawing. They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand. They also found that etching process had used cement blobs. When the scientists requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientists. The same British Museum had been responsible for the piltdown Man fraud.
The criticism of the Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has been strengthened by the work of creationary anatomist Dr. David Menton suggestion that Archaeopteryx was a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.

1 Reply

@Campbell34,

Campbell34;47383 wrote:

The Stegosaurus backside bone structure does not have to be ASSUMED at all. Its large triangular plates are found in the fossil record, and you can see one in the figurines from Mexico.

IF these figurines are real, then why is this the ONLY evidence for dinosaurs found in that area? Why is there no record of them? Why weren't they hunted? Why aren't dinosaurs found with spearheads in them? Why did everything about dinosaurs, except those figurines, completely disappear?

Quote:

Forget the history of the tribes from Mexico, it was never written down. And if it had been you would of been saying it was just a myth anyway. Just as you do with the Bible. The figurines do exist, and there are figurines of Asian people as well as Eskimos. Yet we don't see any evidence of Eskimos in Mexico. So does that mean Eskimos do not exist?

They didn't have a written language, yet could circumnavigate the globe? Damn near 1500 years ahead of everyone else? And there's no record of this? Not even from the areas they supposedly visited? No ships? All that technology lost?

Let me put this in very simple words. A civilization that had advanced to the level of circumnavigating the globe (and doing it often, apparently), 1500 years BEFORE everyone else, WOULD HAVE CONQUERED US ALL.

Quote:

Interesting two legged Dinosaur. If we find one in the fossil record then we will know if one existed, yet they do have a very nice figurine of a Stegosaurus with spines along it's back, and looks just like one we could see in a museum today.

So you are saying there's no evidence that dinosaur existed?

Quote:

Carbon 14 IS ACCURATE for certain items that are 50,000 years or younger, it is not accurate for items believed to be in the millions of years old.

Such as dinosaurs. C14 simply would not work. No scientist carbon dates dinosaur ANYTHING.

If the figurines are that old, why are they in such a pristine condition? Why are damn near thirty-two THOUSAND of them in pristine condition? Pottery that old is ALWAYS eroded, damaged, and never are that many absolutely perfect specimens located.

Didja know that C14 dating said a two day old dead seal died 1800 years ago? Just thought you'd like to know the accuracy you're actually working with.

Quote:

Tiktallik is not a fish land link. Are you telling me that Tiktallik has both fins and legs with feet.

No. Never stated that. Tikkie has fins that have bones arranged in a arm/hand structure. Now, sit that beside fossils that are younger, and you see that bone start to take a more recognizable (and usable) structure. We have evidence of that one, too. Lots of it, actually.

At that point, they were still fins. Could this creature pop out onto land. Sure, but very short distances, for very short times. remember, still has gills, needs to breathe that water. The problem is there was very little water which meant very little food, and that wasn't changing for the better. Whatcha gonna do? You're gonna find food outside the water. Survival. You don't eat, you don't survive.

This is life figuring out how to survive in that area.

Quote:

Because believers in Evolution wishing this to be a transitional, does not make it one. Everything they try to sell you on this is assumed not proven. You should not have to go to some remote area of the world to find a transional. Don't you get it, these transionals should be every where.

No, it is you who does not get it. Evolution happens when needed. It happens because of environmental changes. A fish species isn't going to evolve to walk on land just because it happens to think that would be neat... it happens because if that fish doesn't get whatever's on that land, it's gonna die.

Quote:

What they found is a shallow water fish. And now there trying to claim it's a transional. And they can never show any progression in the fossil record.

Wrong again. The fossil record is abundant with evidence.

Quote:

All they can show you is a fossil of a fish and claim transional. How many times have they done this?

Why would a fish need four appendages with tetrapod bones in them? It's a fish, there's no need to walk on the sea floor, they'd be useless for scrounging up bottom feeders. Yes, it's a fish with many of the qualities of such. However it is also a tetrapod. Vertebrate, four appendages, bones inside them. Fish... tetrapod... two words collide. Transition. Easy.

Quote:

Archaopteryx- In 1983, a half-dozen leading British scientists including Sir Fred Hoyle carefully studied the two best Archaeopteryx specimen, front and back, and declared them both fakes. They discovered that the front and back slabs of each specimen donot match. They found that an alteration had been made to the left wing as depicted in an 1863 drawing. They concluded that the feather markings had been imprinted by hand. They also found that etching process had used cement blobs. When the scientists requested the ability to use an electronic microscope and carbon-14 dating, the museum refused and withdrew the specimens from the scientists. The same British Museum had been responsible for the piltdown Man fraud.
The criticism of the Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has been strengthened by the work of creationary anatomist Dr. David Menton suggestion that Archaeopteryx was a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form at all.

The evidence claimed by Watkins et al. to indicate that the feather impressions are a forgery appear to be easily explainable by natural processes. Detailed study of the London specimen both across the surface and in vertical section have failed to provide any evidence to support the contention that a layer of cement is present. The method claimed to have been used to produce the forgery cannot explain the presence of fine lines crisscrossing the fossil, or the matching dendrites on the slab and counterslab, which occur on top of the feather imprints. The feather imprints on the Maxberg specimen, despite claims to the contrary, are clearly identifiable as such. In this case, forgery of the type envisaged by Watkins et al. can be discounted because of the fact that the impressions run underneath the bony elements of the skeleton.

Something that should be obvious to anyone is that

"any conclusions about the authenticity of the fossil should be based on the best possible evidence. Photographs are just one ingredient of such evidence" (Parmenter & Greenaway 1985, p. 458).

Watkins et al., however, cite as evidence of their claims a set of "rudimentary," "poor" photographs having "too much contrast and too soft a focus," without looking at the much more extensive and better quality Museum photographs.

The claims that the feathers of Archaeopteryx are fake has been shown to be unsupported. Thus the claim that "the significance of Archaeopteryx lies in the fact that it represents the only unquestionable case of a fossil showing a transition between two vertebrate classes, aves (birds) and reptilia (reptiles)" has been upheld. In other words, Watkins et al. claim that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional form, but cannot be accepted as such because it is a forgery. Since the claim of forgery has not been substantiated, Archaeopteryx must therefore be an example of a transitional form by Watkins, et al.'s own admission (notwithstanding the fact that they mischaracterise Archaeopteryx as the "only" case).

It has become apparent that you have no grasp on science, the scientific method, or evolution. You really need to study something before you attack it. The Bible won't help you here.

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Why is everyone speaking of evolution as though it were impossible to disprove. Its true that creation and the Bible can never be proven false; but evolution is a theory based completely on physical evidence (and not very much evidence i might add). Any theory that does not involve the supernatural can be disproved. What is stopping creationists from accumulating enough evidence that contradicts this theory and disproving it.
In fact, I would argue that evolution had one flaw that made it impossible right from the start. At this point in time, no one has ever provided a sufficient explaination as to how the very first matter or energy came into existance. Matter simply can NOT come from empty space. According to the theory, at one point there was NOTHING, then suddenly there was something. I am not sure why this is so hard for people to grasp, but that is simply NOT POSSIBLE.
In order for something to come from nothing, someone would have to be capable of defying the laws of physics, or better yet, creating those laws in the first place. I challenge anyone to give me one plausible explaination for this. Remember, you would have to explain how either matter or energy came to exist without ANY ingredients, or any outside help. You have to explain how something came from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

2 Replies

@adam24,

adam24;47391 wrote:

Why is everyone speaking of evolution as though it were impossible to disprove.

Evolution cannot be disproved by creation.

Quote:

Its true that creation and the Bible can never be proven false

Prove it true.

Quote:

but evolution is a theory based completely on physical evidence (and not very much evidence i might add).

Look a bit better.

Quote:

Any theory that does not involve the supernatural can be disproved. What is stopping creationists from accumulating enough evidence that contradicts this theory and disproving it.

Anything involving the supernatural cannot be proven, and also is not science. You cannot trump science with religion. What's stopping them? Well, the lack of any evidence outside the Bible. Can you show evidence of the supernatural?

Quote:

In fact, I would argue that evolution had one flaw that made it impossible right from the start. At this point in time, no one has ever provided a sufficient explaination as to how the very first matter or energy came into existance. Matter simply can NOT come from empty space. According to the theory, at one point there was NOTHING, then suddenly there was something. I am not sure why this is so hard for people to grasp, but that is simply NOT POSSIBLE.

You're mixing theories. Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of matter and the universe. Evolution deals with how life adapted and changed to its environment. The Big Bang theory deals with the origins of the universe and all matter.

You're looking in the wrong place.

Quote:

In order for something to come from nothing, someone would have to be capable of defying the laws of physics, or better yet, creating those laws in the first place. I challenge anyone to give me one plausible explaination for this. Remember, you would have to explain how either matter or energy came to exist without ANY ingredients, or any outside help. You have to explain how something came from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

I can't, and neither can you. "God did it." isn't sufficient for science.

1 Reply

@Sabz5150,

Sabz5150;47392 wrote:

Prove it true.

You did not give a single argument to anything I said. Every response that you gave was the equivilant to "uh uh, your wrong." thats pretty much all you just did. I never said that evolution can be disproven by creation, we don't need creation to disprove evolution. Evolution is impossble whether creation is true or not.

Evolution cannot be proven true, simply because it is a laughable theory that never made any sense in the first place. Creation on the other hand CAN be proven true, all we need is enough accumulated evidence to support it. I personally am not the one to supply that evidence, I am not a scientist.

Sabz5150;47392 wrote:

Look a bit better.

I have looked very hard. I have been studying evolution and creation for years and believe me, I know all your flimsy little arguments and I can easily make a fool of anyone that would like to debate me on the issue. (provided that person is not a scientist with a doctrine, obviously I would be a little out of my league, but then none of you could win an argument with a creation scientist).

Sabz5150;47392 wrote:

Anything involving the supernatural cannot be proven, and also is not science. You cannot trump science with religion. What's stopping them? Well, the lack of any evidence outside the Bible. Can you show evidence of the supernatural?

Are you actually saying that the only evidence against evolution is in the bible? Because that is just stupid. If you are going to debate someone on creation/evolution, you should really study the evidence for both sides. You will find that nearly all of the evidence for creation is scientific, not biblical.

If evolution is true, then there would have to be a valid explaination for the first matter/energy that coincides with the theory of evolution. Without explaining the first matter/energy, how can you even begin to explain the evolution of that matter or energy?

Sabz5150;47392 wrote:

I can't, and neither can you. "God did it." isn't sufficient for science.

Why wouldn't that be sufficient for science, is it that important that science and religion stay seperate, even at the cost of the truth. I can't prove that God created the first matter, but my belief system DOES explain the first matter. So I am not asking you to prove anything. Just explain to me how the first matter came into existance without a god to make it happen.

One more thing, why wouldn't the supernatural be science? You realize that religions have been built around many many natural things, don't you? For example, the sun, moon, trees, animals, dirt, the oceans, rivers, fire, insects, birds, wine, food, life, and death. So the fact that a religion was built around God or other supernatural things certainly cannot exclude them from science. So why don't you try to explain to me how God and the supernatural are automatically "not science". If God is real, then all the laws of nature as we know them change, that would mean that those are only the laws WE must follow, but that they are not actual laws set in stone.

2 Replies

@adam24,

adam24;47510 wrote:

You did not give a single argument to anything I said. Every response that you gave was the equivilant to "uh uh, your wrong." thats pretty much all you just did. I never said that evolution can be disproven by creation, we don't need creation to disprove evolution. Evolution is impossble whether creation is true or not.

Evolution cannot be proven true, simply because it is a laughable theory that never made any sense in the first place. Creation on the other hand CAN be proven true, all we need is enough accumulated evidence to support it. I personally am not the one to supply that evidence, I am not a scientist.

Please, elaborate how evolution is impossible.

Quote:

I have looked very hard. I have been studying evolution and creation for years and believe me, I know all your flimsy little arguments and I can easily make a fool of anyone that would like to debate me on the issue. (provided that person is not a scientist with a doctrine, obviously I would be a little out of my league, but then none of you could win an argument with a creation scientist).

Challenge accepted. Let's go.

Quote:

Are you actually saying that the only evidence against evolution is in the bible? Because that is just stupid. If you are going to debate someone on creation/evolution, you should really study the evidence for both sides. You will find that nearly all of the evidence for creation is scientific, not biblical.

First answer. No. That would be stupid. I am saying that religion cannot be used to trump science. Ever. Religion is not scientific in any way. If it was, there would be papers all about in scientific journals and scientists would take it seriously.

I have studied both sides. Quite well. I see no scientific explanation that cannot be refuted by multiple sources and for multiple reasons. I'm sorry, but when it comes to science, I trust the real deal scientists. The people who know what they're talking about on the subject.

Quote:

If evolution is true, then there would have to be a valid explaination for the first matter/energy that coincides with the theory of evolution. Without explaining the first matter/energy, how can you even begin to explain the evolution of that matter or energy?

Wrong and wrong. See, you're bullshitting already. Evolution makes ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIM to the origins of matter and the universe. That is not the reason for that theory.

We have another theory for that. You've probably heard of it. If so, then you must know that it makes no claim as to how life changed from the first single cells to what we are today. That theory deals with the origins of the universe.

You're trying to disprove a theory based on something it is NOT. Apples. Oranges. Two plus two does not equal chair. Your question is therefore invalid.

NEXT.

Quote:

Why wouldn't that be sufficient for science, is it that important that science and religion stay seperate, even at the cost of the truth.

Yes. Plain and simple. It is not at the cost of truth, but to preserve it. Do you want the labcoats dictating and having a say in what goes into the Bible? Of course not, and I would never expect such a thing to happen. As such, religion (which is NOT science) should not dictate what we say about the origins of the universe and man.

Do we have all the answers? No. Of course not. However with the evidence we have collected over time, examined, accepted and rejected, we have come up with a THEORY which says "What we've found says...".

That's why theories can change. If we find evidence that winds up being the real McCoy, the theory is adjusted or in some cases, thrown out.

Do you know we once believed the planet Venus was a lush paradise? Yeah, we're talking an untouched earth, with just a bit more cloud cover. Damn, we got that one wrong... wow. Science threw out the old theory (have you been to Venus?) and went with what we saw. Somewhere you wouldn't want to take a vacation.

Quote:

I can't prove that God created the first matter, but my belief system DOES explain the first matter. So I am not asking you to prove anything. Just explain to me how the first matter came into existance without a god to make it happen.

Easy. God is not science.

Science cannot prove what created the first matter. Nobody can. We have some good ideas about how it started with a decent amount of evidence that points towards it.

Science also says there are certain laws that everything in existence must abide by. Those laws cannot be broken. Ever. For any reason. Trying to explain the circumvention of these laws using the supernatural (a being that in itself is a circumvention of these laws) just doesn't work in the world of science. Saying "Oh, well I guess a being that ignores everything we've collected up to now just snapped his fingers and broke every law and theory we have ever established, causing it all to happen." is plain out hilarity. It's not an answer, it's a cop out.

It is not science. Believe what you may, but your beliefs are not science.

0 Replies

@adam24,

adam24;47510 wrote:

Evolution is impossble whether creation is true or not.

Prove it!

Evolution cannot be proven true, simply because it is a laughable theory that never made any sense in the first place.

...to someone who doesn't understand biology!

Creation on the other hand CAN be proven true, all we need is enough accumulated evidence to support it.

I'm still waiting...

I have looked very hard. I have been studying evolution and creation for years and believe me, I know all your flimsy little arguments and I can easily make a fool of anyone that would like to debate me on the issue.

i have yet to see you do so!

Are you actually saying that the only evidence against evolution is in the bible? Because that is just stupid. If you are going to debate someone on creation/evolution, you should really study the evidence for both sides. You will find that nearly all of the evidence for creation is scientific, not biblical.

but you cannot prove that 'said' evidence is from a god rather than nature...and that is what creation hinges on! This is the reason why creation Isn't a theory.

If evolution is true, then there would have to be a valid explaination for the first matter/energy that coincides with the theory of evolution. Without explaining the first matter/energy, how can you even begin to explain the evolution of that matter or energy?

wrong theory, evolution ONLY explains the adaptation of already existing life, it doesn't not attempt to explain origin of life!

Why wouldn't that be sufficient for science,

because science is the explaination for the working of the world through nature, supernatural is not natural.

:lightbulb:

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

OOOkaaay...maybe I need to speak more slowly or something. I realize that the origins of matter are not the same theory as evolution, but in order for evolution to be true, you would have to have a valid explaination as to how that matter got there in the first place. Stop avoiding the question and answer it. I expect that in your next post, you are going to continue to make excuses as to why you dont have to explain the first matter, but whether you want to admit it or not, the theory of evolution IS hinged on the theory of the origin of matter. If you cannot explain where the matter came from in the first place, then how can you explain what happened to that matter after it came into existance.

Fatal, how could you possibly know whether or not I understand biology?
I actually understand it quite well. You shouldn't run your mouth without checking your facts first.

Sadz, how does "easy, God is not science" explain how matter exists without a God to create it?

You can avoid the question all you want, but if you are too afraid to answer, then I see no reason to continue this debate. I will respond when I see one of you explain the origin of matter. Without that explaination, all these points you are making about evolution (which neither of you have actually said anything that supports the theory you so blindly follow) are moot.

2 Replies

@adam24,

adam24;47617 wrote:

OOOkaaay...maybe I need to speak more slowly or something.

No what you need to do is stop making presumptions!

Quote:

I realize that the origins of matter are not the same theory as evolution, but in order for evolution to be true, you would have to have a valid explaination as to how that matter got there in the first place. Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

we've already told you but you don't listen so allow me to do so again: Big Bang!

Quote:

I expect that in your next post, you are going to continue to make excuses as to why you dont have to explain the first matter,

yet another unfounded presumption.

Quote:

but whether you want to admit it or not, the theory of evolution IS hinged on the theory of the origin of matter. If you cannot explain where the matter came from in the first place, then how can you explain what happened to that matter after it came into existance.

yes, but that is an entirely different argument, if you want to debate the big bang then do it in another thread!

Quote:

Fatal, how could you possibly know whether or not I understand biology?
I actually understand it quite well. You shouldn't run your mouth without checking your facts first.

well when you say something like "evolution is impossible" that shows me that you don't know anything about biology, especially since evolution has been observed and recorded by scientists.

Quote:

Sadz, how does "easy, God is not science" explain how matter exists without a God to create it?

this question isn't for me but i will answer your question anyway

"easy, god is not science" doesn't explain how matter exists it explains why a supernatural answer is not scientific!

Quote:

You can avoid the question all you want, but if you are too afraid to answer, then I see no reason to continue this debate.

both of us have already answered your question but you have ignored it.

Quote:

all these points you are making about evolution (which neither of you have actually said anything that supports the theory you so blindly follow) are moot.

evolution already has evidence, if you want to know about it then simply research it! Also you are being a bit hypocritical since i have yet to see a single shred of evidence for your "hypothesis".

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

Darwinian evolution is not science; It is the "only" tax-supported religion in the USA.

To say that evolution is the easiest thing to prove is a statement beyond reason and a product of "BLIND" faith. As said in previous posts, why try to prove the roof of a structure is built upon sound construction when the "foundation" on which it stands is "quicksand"? There is no empirical proof to offer from the time of Mr. Darwin himself, the best that can be confirmed by all the studies of his theory is in fact that the process of evolution is indeed a viable theory when presented within the confines of "mirco-biology" and "mirco-evolution". But to suggest that either has anything to offer in the way of empirical evidence to support "marco-evolution" or "a-biogenesis"(the origins of biological life from inert organic material) is at best a speculation offered with only conjecture.....or in scientific jargon, a "hypothetical speculation" better known as a hypothesis not a theory.

And many will claim that "ALL" intelligent men of science support this so call Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species. But in reality there are many people of science, both of history and in the present that simply accept the concept of "intelligent" design and believe in the Biblical account of the origins of mankind.

One such man is Dr.John Grebe, director of basic and nuclear research for Dow Chemical Co.
In fact Dr. Grebe offered a cash reward to "ANYONE" who could produce just one clear proof of evolution. Dr. Grebe is holder of more than 100 patents, he developed Styrofoam, synthetic rubber and saran warp. To this day, the "reward" remains unclaimed. And why should it not , when the supporters of this theory are so ready to give our tax dollars away to fund the many and various research foundations that has yet to bring us anything but the product of a "drywell" as far as proof actual is concerned.

An article ran in Newsweek magazine in 1998, and in fact was the cover story...."Science Finds God." It noted; "According to a study released last year, 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God - not merely an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a deity to whom they can pray."

Here is a list of but a "few" men of science that in fact supports/supported the Biblical account of creation; JOSEPH LISTER, antiseptic surgery; LOUIS PASTEUR, bacteriology; SIR ISAAC NEWTON,dynamics, (discovered the laws of gravity, mathematics, co-discovered calculus); JOHANN KEPIER,celestial mechanics, physical astronomy; ROBERT BOYLE, chemistry; GEORGES CUVIER, comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology; CHARLES BABBAGE,computer science; JAMES CLARK MAXWELL, electrodynamics, statistical thermodynamics; MICHAEL FARADAY, electromagnetics, field theory; AMBROSE FLEMING, electronics; LORD WILLIAM KELVIN, energetics, thermodynamics; HENRI FABRE, entomology; GEORGE STOKES,fluid mechanics; WILLIAM HERSCHEL, galactic astronomy; ROBERT BOYLE, gas dynamics; GREGOR MENDEL, genetics; LOUIS AGASSIZ, glacial geology, ichthyology; JAMES PASCAL, hydrostatics; WILLIAM RAMSAY, isotopic chemistry; MATTHEW MAURY, oceanography; DAVID BREWSTER, optical mineralogy; JOHN WOODWARD, paleontology; RUDOLPH VICHOW, pathology; JAMES JOULE, reversible thermodynamics; SIR FRANCIS BACON, scientific method; NICHOLAS STENO, stratigraphy; CAROLUS LINNAEUS, systematic biology; and HUMPHREY DAVID, thermokinetics.

So for anyone to say that "all" men/women of science totally support the Darwinian theory would be at best uninformed and at worst presenting a falsehood. RD

1 Reply

@adam24,

adam24;47617 wrote:

OOOkaaay...maybe I need to speak more slowly or something. I realize that the origins of matter are not the same theory as evolution, but in order for evolution to be true, you would have to have a valid explaination as to how that matter got there in the first place. Stop avoiding the question and answer it. I expect that in your next post, you are going to continue to make excuses as to why you dont have to explain the first matter, but whether you want to admit it or not, the theory of evolution IS hinged on the theory of the origin of matter.

The Big Bang theory. Thereya go.

Quote:

If you cannot explain where the matter came from in the first place, then how can you explain what happened to that matter after it came into existance.

I don't need to know where something came from to know how it works. I can observe it, I can test it, I can make calculations based upon it.

See, you're bullshitting AGAIN. Evolution does not need the Big Bang to support its findings. However, GOD is required to explain everything your religion says. Without that one piece, the whole thing falls apart.

Quote:

Sadz, how does "easy, God is not science" explain how matter exists without a God to create it?

Because according to science, God cannot exist. Something that cannot exist cannot do... well... anything.

You miss a key point here with your "God". In order for this being to be scientific, we would have to throw out EVERY SINGLE THING we know.

Why?

Your God works only if every basic law of nature and physics can be broken at a whim. In science, NOTHING can do that.

Quote:

You can avoid the question all you want, but if you are too afraid to answer, then I see no reason to continue this debate. I will respond when I see one of you explain the origin of matter. Without that explaination, all these points you are making about evolution (which neither of you have actually said anything that supports the theory you so blindly follow) are moot.

Afraid? You're the one contradicting yourself to the hilarity of myself and many people here. You ask "Well how can such-and-such exist WITHOUT GOD? If you can't explain it, then GOD MUST EXIST." Umm... sorry, but no. Just because we cannot explain something does NOT make it default to God. Just as *I* have to explain my side and give my evidence, so must you. Therefore in order for your God to be in a scientific debate, you must first show that God is science.

Guess what? You can't. Otherwise your questions wouldn't be based in a "Well, since you can't explain it, I am automatically right!" form. You've brought nothing to challenge evolution, only ran your yap about how it's wrong and you're right. You need more than that to avoid getting eaten around here.

*IF* your God is scientific, you need scientific evidence pointing to his existence along with the scientific reasons why the ONLY thing that can break these laws is that one being. Saying "He's God, that's why." IS NOT EVIDENCE.

Try again.

0 Replies

@RED DEVIL cv,

RED DEVIL;47654 wrote:

Darwinian evolution is not science; It is the "only" tax-supported religion in the USA.

look up the word religion!

To say that evolution is the easiest thing to prove is a statement beyond reason and a product of "BLIND" faith.

Who said it was the EASIEST thing to prove?

There is no empirical proof to offer from the time of Mr. Darwin himself,

the best that can be confirmed by all the studies of his theory is in fact that the process of evolution is indeed a viable theory when presented within the confines of "mirco-biology" and "mirco-evolution". But to suggest that either has anything to offer in the way of empirical evidence to support "marco-evolution" or "a-biogenesis"(the origins of biological life from inert organic material)

evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, only the variation of already existing life. I am amazed by the number of times i've had to repeat this fact! :no:

is at best a speculation offered with only conjecture.....or in scientific jargon, a "hypothetical speculation" better known as a hypothesis not a theory.

exactly why evolution ISN'T a hypothesis!

And many will claim that "ALL" intelligent men of science support this so call Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the Origin of Species. But in reality there are many people of science, both of history and in the present that simply accept the concept of "intelligent" design and believe in the Biblical account of the origins of mankind.

In Modern times a "Vast Majority" supports evolution only a few fringe sceintists reject the theory and they usually reject it not based on evidence but becuase it is a challenge to their "faith".

One such man is Dr.John Grebe, director of basic and nuclear research for Dow Chemical Co.
In fact Dr. Grebe offered a cash reward to "ANYONE" who could produce just one clear proof of evolution. Dr. Grebe is holder of more than 100 patents, he developed Styrofoam, synthetic rubber and saran warp. To this day, the "reward" remains unclaimed. And why should it not , when the supporters of this theory are so ready to give our tax dollars away to fund the many and various research foundations that has yet to bring us anything but the product of a "drywell" as far as proof actual is concerned.

I will offer a cash reward to anyone who can prove Intelligent Design! The difference is that evolution has evidence and Intelligent Design does not!

An article ran in Newsweek magazine in 1998, and in fact was the cover story...."Science Finds God." It noted; "According to a study released last year, 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God - not merely an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a deity to whom they can pray."

...and how many support evolution?

Here is a list of but a "few" men of science that in fact supports/supported the Biblical account of creation; JOSEPH LISTER, antiseptic surgery; LOUIS PASTEUR, bacteriology; SIR ISAAC NEWTON,dynamics, (discovered the laws of gravity, mathematics, co-discovered calculus); JOHANN KEPIER,celestial mechanics, physical astronomy; ROBERT BOYLE, chemistry; GEORGES CUVIER, comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology; CHARLES BABBAGE,computer science; JAMES CLARK MAXWELL, electrodynamics, statistical thermodynamics; MICHAEL FARADAY, electromagnetics, field theory; AMBROSE FLEMING, electronics; LORD WILLIAM KELVIN, energetics, thermodynamics; HENRI FABRE, entomology; GEORGE STOKES,fluid mechanics; WILLIAM HERSCHEL, galactic astronomy; ROBERT BOYLE, gas dynamics; GREGOR MENDEL, genetics; LOUIS AGASSIZ, glacial geology, ichthyology; JAMES PASCAL, hydrostatics; WILLIAM RAMSAY, isotopic chemistry; MATTHEW MAURY, oceanography; DAVID BREWSTER, optical mineralogy; JOHN WOODWARD, paleontology; RUDOLPH VICHOW, pathology; JAMES JOULE, reversible thermodynamics; SIR FRANCIS BACON, scientific method; NICHOLAS STENO, stratigraphy; CAROLUS LINNAEUS, systematic biology; and HUMPHREY DAVID, thermokinetics.

umm...how about you get a more recent list of scientists, many of the people on that list are dead!

So for anyone to say that "all" men/women of science totally support the Darwinian theory would be at best uninformed and at worst presenting a falsehood.

I said a "Vast Majority" did, never did i say all!

:cool:

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

2 Replies

@adam24,

adam24;47666 wrote:

That nobody knows. That nobody will know. I'll freely admit that. However if you want some ideas of what we think might be the origins, look up things like quantum mechanics, M theory, string theory, etc. They touch on that quite a bit.

There. I have answered your question simply and straightforward. Now, it is your turn to answer the same question for your belief.

Where'd God come from?

0 Replies

@adam24,

adam24;47666 wrote:

OK, maybe this will help you understand the question. WHERE DID THE ATOM COME FROM? You see that there is mention of a primeval atom here? WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
Is this really that difficult to understand?

that nobody knows, but there are two beliefs among scientists:

> matter was created from nothing.

> matter has always existed.

I myself believe that matter has always existed.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Fatal_Freedoms;47671 wrote:

that nobody knows, but there are two beliefs among scientists:

> matter was created from nothing.

> matter has always existed.

I myself believe that matter has always existed.

That's the only logical answer. Something cannot be created from nothing. It could have been energy that was converted into matter. That's still satisfies the something from something requirement.

0 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

K, so now that you have both more or less admitted that matter could NOT have existed without a creater, I will explain where God came from. He came from...drum roll please...nowhere! He always existed. He can do anything, which is why he can defy the laws of physics and exist without anything needing to create him. Pretty simple...not very scientific, but it does explain ALL science.

Matter, on the other hand could not have ALWAYS existed. It had to have come fro somewhere. If matter was capable of doing anything, I might believe that, but matters abilities are very limited, and while matter can form a mind, it has no mind of its own. So that whole matter already existed thing, that is impossible according to every scientific law.

Matter came from nothing? Are you even serious about that...that is just stupid.

2 Replies

@Fatal Freedoms,

How can you believe that nothing can create an entire universe, but you can not believe that there is something bigger and more powerful than man out there?

0 Replies

You Can't Quote Scripture

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know