|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
 Posted - 06/17/2004 : 19:59:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This site is about critical thinking, as Dave pointed out by posting our mission statement for Verlch to read. Debates are fine but we are not providing a forum for anyone who takes issue with our views to simply state their opinions.
Then why does the forum start out Creation/Evolution. Faith vs. Science. I am Faith and you are science (albeit science with missing links, that are missing, but science none the less.) I got booted and laughed from Lenny Flank and co. Like noah got laughed at for a year. Perhaps that is where I learned my verbal battle attacks. I was ribbed and mocked for a year by many of those men, finally all my posts just got deleted. I would ask for missing links, they would ask for an interview with God. So I'm sure they could question him about why their mother died of cancer at 18, (everything is Gods fault I am also positive. God forced Eve to sin against Him.) the interview I am sure would ease all the hard feelings! If you want a Lenny Flank discussion than go for it. If you are willing to stop with the grade school sand slinging so I can search for some facts to throw at you, than I am a man, and I as a man with say 'i'm ready'/bring it on. Alright Gentlemen, is that fair.
(If attacked Lenny Flank style I will attack your weakest point. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.) |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 20:07:39 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
...(albeit science with missing links, that are missing, but science none the less.)...
This is just another example of part of the problem. You've been asked at least once to provide evidence that any current professional biologists use the term "missing link." Until you can provide such evidence, the phrase "science with missing links" is your assumption, and not ours. Look up "straw man fallacy" to see why this is a problem for us.
And if you're prepared to debate, then please go back to page one of this thread, select any of your assertions, and support it (or them). We've been asking you for weeks to throw some facts at us. Why wait any longer? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 20:38:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You've been asked at least once to provide evidence that any current professional biologists use the term "missing link."
Missing links to me, amount to what was a bat before it became a bat? What was a pig before it was a pig. A fish? Ok now show me the transitional (word I do not use because I am sure I didn't spell it right) fossil in the fossil record. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 20:48:36 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
Missing links to me, amount to what was a bat before it became a bat? What was a pig before it was a pig. A fish?
What's it matter? If you accept the assumption that the oldest bat fossils are, indeed, 50 million years old - like the site you pointed us to claims - then you're arguing for the Biblical view using an anti-Biblical reference.
Looking at things from a different angle, your answer to your question is "God made bats, period." Our answer may be (I haven't looked into it deeply), "we don't know exactly how bats evolved." Thus, it is your answer which denies mystery in the world, and ours which affirms it. Your answer is simple, pat, and unremarkable; ours prompts more research. If you want the world to be cut-and-dried, you can have your God. I'd much rather there be more stuff to explore. But that's just my emotions getting the better of me.quote:
Ok now show me the transitional (word I do not use because I am sure I didn't spell it right) fossil in the fossil record.
First, you define what you mean by "transitional" (which you spelled perfectly). There is nobody here who will attempt to show you anything of the sort while you are able to say "well, that's not what I meant." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 20:49:29 [Permalink]
|
Okay Verlch, I'm gonna start with an unexpected thing, I'm gonna make you a compliment. This is one of the few posts you made were you actually have a very readable story. Most of your posts had a very bad grammar/missing interpunction/were rants, but this is one the ones that stands out. Great job!
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Your 10% figure has been debunked. the actual number of people who believe that evolution happens is 49% per Ricky's source.
No the 37% is the total 'can't make up my mind group.' So the just mix the two and go about their lives, not really caring either way. Sure God made the world, science says it evolved and now I will quietly sit here on the pine fence and enjoy the fact I haven't a backbone in my back, or a mind to make 'up'.
Maybe they do not feel the need to reject science, but find it perfectly compatible with faith? You might disagree, but there is a difference between thinking the two are perfectly compatible and having no backbone. But I'm not a theistic evolutionist, and those are probably the ones you should turn to.
quote:
They still believe in God, how is that helpful for your theory that life arouse out of nohting without a shread of help from God? With every public school in the country preaching and teaching a theory about God that he can make live, but not good enough so it has to evolve, for no apparent reason. So God is weak you say, I think the opposite, if God can call a star into existance with His voice he can also create anything he wants. Human in human form, why would he need to create a monkey that evolves outside the womb, into a red blooded human. Your missing links don't make sense.
(Please no punches fromm behind me, I like to see who is about to punch me in the face!)(If I take offense to your comments back at me, I will not sit here like a wimp, I will attack back.)
Here you've got two big misunderstandings. Evolution does not say there was no help from God. Evolution also does not say life arose out of nothing, I do not know where you get this from.
See it this way, evolution is a process like any other. Just as the weather, we do not need God as an explaining mechanism. But just as the weather, there are quite a few theists (at least 37% of the American population) who say that God created the mechanism and keeps it going.
The only thing evolution effectively does is provide a viable alternative for a six day creation. It provides an explanation for observations which can not be explained by young earth creationism. However, this does not equate atheism.
Now, having said that, can we close this topic and can you than pick one of your assumptions and back them up? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 21:17:08 [Permalink]
|
"Since 7% of US voters in 2000 claim to be atheist, Does the 10% number really suprise you? 89% of the population adheres to Christianity/Catholicism."
Hmm, I thought the most recent numbers showed about 78% of the population being Christian, a decline of 10% in 10 years. But I'm not sure, anyone have sources?
"Thus, it is your answer which denies mystery in the world, and ours which affirms it. Your answer is simple, pat, and unremarkable; ours prompts more research. If you want the world to be cut-and-dried, you can have your God. I'd much rather there be more stuff to explore. But that's just my emotions getting the better of me." - Dave W.
Only if logic is an emotion. I don't think it is.
"No the 37% is the total 'can't make up my mind group.' So the just mix the two and go about their lives, not really caring either way. Sure God made the world, science says it evolved and now I will quietly sit here on the pine fence and enjoy the fact I haven't a backbone in my back, or a mind to make 'up'."
Not at all, the 37% are not on the fence. The 37% say evolution happens, but it happens because god makes it happen. Thats not on the fence at all. I know you don't like to admit it, but you can know evolution is a fact and believe in god at the same time. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 22:20:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
They still believe in God, how is that helpful for your theory that life arouse out of nohting without a shread of help from God?
This statement is wrong on several accounts:
1) Life from no-life is NOT EVOLUTION ! We have tried to tell you several times now, why don't you try to understand what we are telling you?
"Life from no-life" is a science-diciplin called Abiogenesis. It's not The Theory of Biologial Evolution.
2) Evolution does not deny the presense of God, nor does it deny that God could have a hand in it, nudging mutations in the right direction.
The statement that Evolution denies God is a lie. The only real conflict is between Evolution and the Genesis Creation account.
This is something we have also told you, yet you refuse to absorb it. Why?
quote:
With every public school in the country preaching and teaching a theory about God that he can make live, but not good enough so it has to evolve, for no apparent reason.
I don't believe that is true. If it is, please show me evidence of it.
quote:
Human in human form, why would he need to create a monkey that evolves outside the womb, into a red blooded human. Your missing links don't make sense.
Your sentences does not make any sense. Please explain to me what the womb have to do with evolving monkies. And explain why you think it is necessary to point out that humans are red blooded. All mammals are red-blooded, so I don't understand why it is relevant...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 22:51:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
I got booted and laughed from Lenny Flank and co.
Who is Lenny Flank and co.?
quote:
Perhaps that is where I learned my verbal battle attacks.
Your verbal battle attacks doesn't do you any good. They keep missing their mark, or they are not potent enough.
You seriously need to re-think you strategy, and switch to some more potent ammunition. My suggestion for ammunition is: links to sites that actually confirm statements that you make.
For example, when you said that only 10% believe in evolution, you should also have included a link to that Gallup investigation that really says that only 10% believe in Evolution. Then your assertion would have been backed up with evidence.
quote:
I was ribbed and mocked for a year by many of those men, finally all my posts just got deleted.
If your posts to that forum (whatever it is, the name you gave make no sense to me) is like the ones you have posted here, then I'm not surprised. Not at all. But we have been really patient with you and told you several times how to change your posting style in order to make your stay here worthwhile.
If you don't understand why we keep asking you to back up your claims with evidence, I really see no hope your staying here will end any differently than at Lenny Flank and co. (whoever that is).
quote:
If you want a Lenny Flank discussion than go for it.
Without you telling me (us?) who this Lenny is, I will not know what a Lenny-style discussion is. So I wouldn't know how to avoid it.
quote:
If you are willing to stop with the grade school sand slinging so I can search for some facts to throw at you, than I am a man, and I as a man with say 'i'm ready'/bring it on. Alright Gentlemen, is that fair.
Yeah RIGHT...
You are the one who started the grade school sand slinging, a few threads back. Your rant about 'women should be subservient' is one of those subjects. We told you that we think your opinion is archaic and chauvinist, but you keep coming back to it. You KNOW that bringing it up yanks our chain and makes us bash you, yet, you keep doing it. It makes me believe you really want us to verbally abuse you, and it makes me concerned about your mental state.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2004 : 23:56:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Who is Lenny Flank and co.?
Anti creationist, regular at TO.
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/
[edited to fix quotes] |
| Edited by - Starman on 06/17/2004 23:57:40 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 03:12:02 [Permalink]
|
Hmm. This Flank fellow seems pretty much on top of his game. He's got an interesting page; one that I'll look closer at later on (I've got to deal with the VA this morning. Yet again  ).
So, in the initial spirit of this thread, how 'bout #28: "The story of Noah and the Flood as found in the Bible is accurate."
Please explain and provide references as to why there is no evidence of this event in the Geological Column. Further, explain and provide references as to how eight people could maintain X thousand animals for a year in the alledged Ark.
I have heard Jonathon Sartfati and John Woodmorappe claim that Noah had built labor saving devices to handle feeding and waste removal. Please demonstrate, with reference, how such devices might have worked.
What species of tree does "gopher wood" come from and where did Noah find a sufficent quanity to build the Ark in a land not known for it's forests? Did the gopher tree become extinct in the flood, and that's why we know of none today? If so, please explain how other species of trees survived a year under brackish water. Where did the dove get the olive branch?
What precisly, was the "pitch" used to coat (seal and caulk) the Ark? The assumption is that it is refined sap of various conifers, but that would take a lot of trees (I know a little about tapping turpentine. I've done it). Could it have been a petrolium base, a sort of tar such as found at La Brea? If so, where did it come from and how did it maintain it's integrety for a year at sea in heavy weather?
A Creationist claim is that Noah did not need to have every species of animal aboard the Ark. He only needed "kinds." Please define "kinds" with reference. How many "kinds" were on the Ark?
Where did Noah get his drinking water? That which he was supposed to be floating on would not have been potable.
There is thus far no archeological evidence of a shipyard sufficent to build a barge the size of the Ark as described. How did Noah build it without such facilities?
And finally, there is an expedition of Ark-optomists set to climb the north face of Ararat, launching this July if I'm not mistaken. Would you care to place a modest wager as to whether or not they'll find it?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 06:39:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
What precisly, was the "pitch" used to coat (seal and caulk) the Ark? The assumption is that it is refined sap of various conifers, but that would take a lot of trees (I know a little about tapping turpentine. I've done it). Could it have been a petrolium base, a sort of tar such as found at La Brea? If so, where did it come from and how did it maintain it's integrety for a year at sea in heavy weather?
To add my two cents here, the "pitch" was probably bitumen. This is a tar-like substance that can be found naturally in Mesopotamia and the Levant.
The term in Sumerian is esir or esir2 (how does one do subscripts here?). In Akkadian, it is kupru. Another term is ittu. (This word can also appear with voiced dentals (i.e. iddu) or emphatic voiceless dentals (usually transliterated with a dot under the t). Also, the u is extra long (with a circumflex)-- I don't know how to add the proper diacriticals on this site). The Hebrew is kopher. Obviously, there is a general Semitic root for this stuff with the letters k-p-r.
As for the so-called "gopher wood", that in Hebrew is how it is literally said. That is, the passage in Genesis asks for "'etsey-gopher", or "wood of [the type] gopher" (not to be confused with the rodent, the Hebrew for which I do not know). It is only found in this passage (Gen 6:14). That it is so close to the word for pitch, one it tempted to think that either some sort of word play is going on, or perhaps there was an error in the transmission. Either way, it is otherwise unattested.
(edited for clarification on the Akkadian and other small errors) |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/18/2004 11:25:53 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 09:32:08 [Permalink]
|
Ack! The Masked Linguist strikes again! I stand corrected.
Wasn't bitumen used in preserving mummies in Egypt? Seems I read that somewhere. I'm not really sure exactly what it is.
Thanks!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 11:32:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Ack! The Masked Linguist strikes again! I stand corrected.
Wasn't bitumen used in preserving mummies in Egypt? Seems I read that somewhere. I'm not really sure exactly what it is.
I wouldn't say that you were wrong! I mean the reality is that no one knows what gopher wood is (it's attested once in the Bible and I cannot find any similar-sounding word in Akkarian either. So to ask what it is is certainly a good question-- especially is the man is making a gigantic structure out of it.
Same goes for the pitch or bitumen. To properly seal the boat would require a significant amount. We are not told how he could have aquired it, and this should make us skeptical about the veracity of the tale (there are a thousand things in this story that sould give us pause-- this has to be pretty far down the list).
As for Egyptian mummification, I must say that I only know some of the basics. I'll ask some of my more Egyptologically-minded friends and see what they say. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 10:54:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
Your 10% figure has been debunked. the actual number of people who believe that evolution happens is 49% per Ricky's source.
No the 37% is the total 'can't make up my mind group.' So the just mix the two and go about their lives, not really caring either way. Sure God made the world, science says it evolved and now I will quietly sit here on the pine fence and enjoy the fact I haven't a backbone in my back, or a mind to make 'up'.
What a completely fallacious statement. You assume (incorrectly) that belief in God and belief in evolution are mutually exclusive. This has been shown to be completely erroneous and a tactic typical of young Earth Creationists. Belief in a higher power which makes no overt statements concerning species or mechanisms of change cannot be mutually exclusive of a system which attempts to explain the mechanism of change of species as evidenced by the fossil record. Evolution has no comment on religion.
quote:
They still believe in God, how is that helpful for your theory that life arouse out of nohting without a shread of help from God? With every public school in the country preaching and teaching a theory about God that he can make live, but not good enough so it has to evolve, for no apparent reason. So God is weak you say, I think the opposite, if God can call a star into existance with His voice he can also create anything he wants. Human in human form, why would he need to create a monkey that evolves outside the womb, into a red blooded human. Your missing links don't make sense.
As has been pointed out in the first page. Evolution does NOT say that life evolved from nothing. That is abiogenesis. Nor does evolution make any comment on the existance or non-existance of any supreme being. I have made no such claim that God is weak. Why would God call into existance a creature which was unable to adapt to it's changing habitat? Your dogma is noted, but not agreed to.
quote:
(Please no punches fromm behind me, I like to see who is about to punch me in the face!)(If I take offense to your comments back at me, I will not sit here like a wimp, I will attack back.)
Your willingness to engage in ad hominems instead of defending your position is duely noted and evidenced in your past postings. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2004 : 10:58:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
"Since 7% of US voters in 2000 claim to be atheist, Does the 10% number really suprise you? 89% of the population adheres to Christianity/Catholicism."
Hmm, I thought the most recent numbers showed about 78% of the population being Christian, a decline of 10% in 10 years. But I'm not sure, anyone have sources?
I provided two links to the data. One as page 62 of the 2000 census abstract and one as percentages of voters. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
