|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2003 : 15:37:28 [Permalink]
|
NC said:
You make a claim that goes against what every physical anthropologists in the world is saying and you expect me to try and disprove it? Without giving one piece of evidence to support your claim? I am beginning to doubt that you have any interest in serious dialog and are simply trolling.
here is an interesting link discussing some of the better know "link" fossils: http://www.rae.org/ch08tud.html
I am aware that evolutionist hate probability. Math is not one of their strong suits. Unlike science humor stories about "Johnny Five" where sparks help jump starts a lifeless robot, Sparks and lightning tend to kill life in reality, along with too much heat or sunlight. And not too much of that going on at the bottom of the sea anyway.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mutation.htm
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/08/2003 16:27:10 |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 15:54:31 [Permalink]
|
| I really don't think much is being accomplished here and the topic of ID has been strayed from. I'm for moving on. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/08/2003 16:28:56 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 16:13:33 [Permalink]
|
what will happen to your faith when the ever-increasing facts of evolution can no longer be ignored?
Fact: Evolution is a theory yet to be proven by the most modern scientific means.
Fact: Many scientists are creationists also.
Fact: In actual mutation experimentation, mutants have been found to be mostly harmfull and many times naturally repaired by the organism. Those that aren't usually wind up dead.
Fact: The odds of a single living cell forming from nucleotides and amino acids in the very simplist of bacterium are nearly beyond comprehension. The odds of positive mutations numbering in the amounts past the ability to express (one by one), causing the creation of new species numbering in the multimillions, each with different and unusual functions and a myriad of complex processes within each of them....anyway, the odds are not in our ability to even comprehend. Possibility = zero
Probability that many humans will still hold to evolutionary theory = very high
The question then has to be...why? That is for another forum. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/08/2003 16:30:52 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 17:10:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Fact: Evolution is a theory yet to be proven by the most modern scientific means.
Name just one scientific theory that has been "proven." Go ahead, try.
quote:
Fact: Many scientists are creationists also.
Which ones? Any in the life sciences you can name right off hand?
quote:
Fact: In actual mutation experimentation, mutants have been found to be mostly harmfull and many times naturally repaired by the organism.
*sigh*
Do your homework.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ukatheist/articles/harmfulmutations.rtf
http://www.liquid2k.com/traduza/evolmec2.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Science, see?
quote:
Those that aren't usually wind up dead.
You don't say. Think that's why they call them "harmful mutations"?
quote:
Fact: The odds of a single living cell forming from nucleotides and amino acids in the very simplist of bacterium are nearly beyond comprehension. The odds of positive mutations numbering in the amounts past the ability to express (one by one), causing the creation of new species numbering in the multimillions, each with different and unusual functions and a myriad of complex processes within each of them....anyway, the odds are not in our ability to even comprehend. Possibility = zero
Probability that many humans will still hold to evolutionary theory = very high
The question then has to be...why? That is for another forum.
This looks like a conclusion, and considering your premises are demonstrably false (not to mention your virtually nonexistent comprehension of the fundamentals of the subjects you malign), your conclusion fails as well. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 23:51:32 [Permalink]
|
Regards fish and the ark: you don't think 40 days of uninterrupted downpour would cause massive chaos in the deepsea ecosystems?!
Yep, not as severe as drowning all humans, animals, and birds but chaotic, I'm sure. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 00:03:38 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by jmcginn
I would also like to add that for every example produced by IDer's such as the eye an evolutionary scenario can be constructed, and that scenario can then be supported by evidence from current bio-diversity, genetics, biochemistry, etc. Or at least every example I have ever seen, from eyes, to echolocation, flagellum, blood clotting, etc.
Yeah, and I have a story about "Bwana Jim in the Congo bongo jungle".
Anybody can make up a story or scenario, but try putting some actual science behind one of those scenarios, not just a "story". It cannot be done. "Intelligent" scientists can't replicate such amazing machinery in the micro or macro world, yet they think by chance it just happened. Wow, have you swallowed a big one. Spit out that primordial slime you've been drinking and take a drink of fresh water. LOL
Did I tell ya how a guy threw a few buckets of paint on the wall and upon examination by many amazed onlookers, there was a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa?
NOT. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 00:08:23 [Permalink]
|
Let's take a closer look. Scientists agree the the simplest form of life is a bacterium, whose DNA strand is 500,000 links long. The simplest possible organism agreed upon might have been one with a 100,000 link strand. Consider that for life to begin, as the scientists describe it, the 100,000 nucleotides must of lined up all facing the right way, while the 10,000 amino acids all lined up the left way and interlocked at the same moment. It was described like this to me: 100,000 flips of a coin all heads, then 10,000 flips of a coin all tails...the odds were staggering beyond the point of possibility (without intelligent design). Not being a biologist I may not be using all the correct terminology, but I think you get the drift.
[/quote]
What if there were 10,000 coins? 100,000? 1 million? You have a horrendous grasp of statistics.[/quote]
phd, better take another refresher statistic course. Math is one of my stronger points. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 00:12:55 [Permalink]
|
| As far as a science theory proven...you picked a bad day to bring that up...today it was anounced that Einsteins theory of relativity had been confirmed. Ahh, that's gotta hurt. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 00:43:05 [Permalink]
|
CRETIGO!
 |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 02:34:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
As far as a science theory proven...you picked a bad day to bring that up...today it was anounced that Einsteins theory of relativity had been confirmed. Ahh, that's gotta hurt.
No it was not. What happened was that Einsteins theory predicted that Gravity works at the speed of of light and recently Scientist have measured the speed of Gravity and it turns out to be the speed of light. Read for example at:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993232
This means that relativity has passed another test. It does not mean that it has been proven right. Science does not work that way.
You can't prove anything by example. You can't prove or disprove scientific theories at all. The best you can do is find out where the limits of a model are.
|
To any insufficiently advanced person technolgy becomes indistinguishable from magic. |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 03:57:03 [Permalink]
|
Doomer,
you are a pathetic, misguided fool.
You have been asked to respond to SPECIFIC questions throughout this thread in order to validate or substantiate your claims. Not only have you avoided them, you've actually repeated them, albeit in different wording, ad nauseum. When you do actually refer to a specific body of work (http://www.rae.org/ch08tud.html) you present us with this creationist nonsense that APPEARS to be scientific, includes lots of lovely scientific (looking) references* that will and does convince cretinists, sorry creationists, but, this shit will not wash here.
I'll end this post with a suggestion, leave your head up your arse and post on rapture ready, they'll love you. Alternatively, remove your head from the dark place and pick up a book not written by duane gish or henry morris (no caps intended). You may find that you'll learn something.
Goodluck and goodbye.
*incidentally, the average age of the references were 53 years old!!!!!! Mmmm science stands still in your church then? Where's your integrity man, this is a prime example of "bearing false witness" |
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 04:04:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by welshdean
Where's your integrity man, ...
The guy is a worthless and disingenuous troll. He and Christianity deserve each other.  |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 05:11:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A fish walking on ground is not proof of evolution, as this (lung fish)still exists and works fine today
That fact that a species still exists doesn't mean that it did not has played a role in the past.
And I am talking not about fishes with lungs only, but also about eels and nearly all species in the order Siluriformes and the family Cobitidae which make up some hundred species of tropical fish.
Within this group of animals nearly all transitiuonal stages from the fish's swimming organ to the amphibian lung can be observed, ranging from the normal swimming organ to complete lungs and everything in between.
quote:
Scientists agree that the simplest form of life is a bacterium
Yeah, right. Do your homework, mate. |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2003 : 09:14:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
here is an interesting link discussing some of the better know "link" fossils:
I read your article and found it quite lacking. First it is littered with falsehoods starting with Piltdown man.quote:
While a few scientists were skeptical, it was accepted by scholarly opinion throughout the world.
In actuality it was skeptical scientist who performed the test on Piltdown man because they were skeptical of its authenticity. Scientists were skeptical from the point of its discovery and became even more skeptical in the late 1930's and 1940's as new specimens in Africa that contradicted the Piltdown man specimen were discovered.quote:
Although various authorities have pointed out that the variability found among human fossils is really no different from the amazing variability found among people today, little or nothing is made of this fact in the textbooks.
That's because this is a false statement. H. erectus and H. habilis are far outside of any modern variation of modern humans as are all Australopithecines. Additionally Neandertals contain features that are not found in any human population. In fact Neandertals are more robust than any living or fossil human population except for Neandertals.quote:
It is not well known that when 'primitive' Java man was discovered in 1891, two other skulls were found in the same formation and of the same age which were no different from skulls of modern Australian aborigines.
Another lie. The modern skulls were not found in the same formation nor of the same age. Modern skulls were either 1) found in higher strata or 2) showed direct evidence of burial into the strata.quote:
Homo habilis was much like modern man.
What a joke. The creature was under 4 feet tall, and had a brain size only maybe 100 ml on average bigger than an ape. Much like modern man my arse.
quote:
The problem was that Homo habilis seemed to be much more advanced than fossil remains which had been found higher up in the strata.
Yes because H. habilis co-existed with robust Australopithecines (which didn't go extinct to around 1 mya). H. habilis and P. boisei were diverged cousin specimens that happened to co-exist. H. habilis did not evolve from robust Australopithecines and this argument exposes the typical misunderstanding that creationists have about evolution of new species. When a new species evolves from a parent species the parent species can and often does continue to survive. This again has been observed in modern times. Think populations and geographical separation.
This article is so full of misinformation and lies its quite pitiful. Virchow's claims of rickets in Neandertals has been shown to be false since the 1800's but here this article states it as facts. We have several thousand Neandertal specimens all showing these distinguishing traits and we know what rickets looks like and Neandertals do not look like rickets. In fact your article leaves out another one of Virchow's excuses for Neandertals because it so ridiculous as to not be worth mentioning. His excuse for the extreme robustness of the skeleton was because it was repeatedly beaten causing a thickening of the bone. Of course we are then expected to believe this to happen to even infant skeletons which also show this robustness.
Of course at least the article backs out of the rickets claim:quote:
Note: since this was published, more up-to-date information about Neanderthal remains examined by a creationist shows that there is no evidence to justify the diagnosis of rickets.
Sadly this article does not discuss any of the better known "link" fossils. It goes over the dead horse of Piltdown man which I already stated was a hoax (who the most likely culprit was Conan Doyle - the author of Sherlock Holmes). It totally misinterprets the H. habilis findings, it states falsehoods about Java man, and then backs out of its main argument against Neandertals.
In fact it only hints upon one of the specimens in my list and with the exception of Piltdown man all specimens are still accepted by the experts who study them. So not one specimen has been falsified except in the fantasy world of the creationists by any modern tests as you claimed.
So Doomar I think its time you either provide us with these tests that you spoke of so we can start shaking up the scientific community or admit you were lying. Which one is it? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
