|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/01/2010 : 15:59:31 [Permalink]
|
Well, at least you belong to a church that highlights the fact that Jesus' sacrifice saved everyone, not just those who have faith. On the other hand, you belong to a church that highlights the fact that God used Jesus to create all the evil in the world, from which Jesus later saved us. So your church is no less puzzling than the Catholics, so I don't know why you feel the distinction is important.| What it suggests is your inner prejudice to science via crass demeaning opposing veiws of scientific interpretation. |
You haven't yet presented an opposing scientific interpretation of anything. You've simply redefined scientific terms to mean things that are ridiculous (like your position on SLOT, which if true would mean that all life is impossible) and then crassly insulted people who disagree with your redefinitions. And you've lied in the process. So, hypocritical sinner, take the beam out of your own eye, yadda, yadda. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 20:53:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Randy
Originally posted by matt36
Dr Mabuse,
The sum of all fossils is that evolution definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. For if it did, transitional fossils would be a dime in a dozen, but they are not, in fact they are none existent. Fossils are the record and the most "PHOTOGRAPHIC" evidence of the past. Fossils paraded as transitional are either, fakes, frauds, or assumptions. No proof exists for a transitional.
|
Matt36, FYI...read CC200 Transitional Fossils at the Talk Origins "Creationist's Claims.
|
This link contains no proof of a transitional fossil. I said before that all transitionals found to date are open to interpretation. One cannot say that one species has evolved to a more modern species because its also equally plausable that they didnt. There is no proof either way. Good example is the horse tree showing how the horse evolved. Its since been shown that the tree is flawed and did not happen. But it used to be accepted as proof and fact of evolution. Its not, and neither are any others. If evolution were true we would see more transistionals then the final products and gaps would be very rare. Fact is many fossils found in the precambrian are found as they are today.
First, the fossils do not occur in order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.
Second, the evolutionary presentation in the textbook column implies that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly (by this I mean without the necessary ancestors lower in the column), every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.
Third, these diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:00:35 [Permalink]
|
| More cut and paste without attribution. Baby Jesus is bawling his eyes out. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:11:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by matt36
Dr Mabuse,
The sum of all fossils is that evolution definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. |
That's your say-so. But I think you're full of shit, and hence I don't take your word for it.
But I do like to see EVIDENCE for your claims. If you can give me a reasonable explanation to your position, I'm willing to consider it. I don't want to be wrong, so I'm prepared to change my mind if the evidence and the reasoning is sound enough.
But you just wave your hands... You don't give us anything of substance.
No proof exists for a transitional.
|
Here you go again with that word... "Proof"
Didn't we tell you that "proof" and science don't belong together? Are you intellectually impaired since you continuously fail to understand what we are telling you?
A theory have evidence backing it up, making it a more reasonable explanation than competing hypothesis.
If you go to wikipedia's evolution article and make a word search for "proof" you'll get zero hits. That's because the concept of "proof" is not applicable to science.
But as long as you demand absolute truth, and absolute proof, you will fail to understand science. And you will continue to wallow in ignorance.
|
Dr Mabuse, no im not intellectually impaired. Science and proof absolutely go together otherwise the end result is a theory and not a science. Take for example, what gos up must come down. Do you think you could prove this theory? If you cant than your intellecually impaired. If you can then science and proof work together. Evolutionists have no proof and this is why you said what u did. More examples are hydrogen is explosive, argon isnt. Can we prove this too? If we heat something up, it will expand, if we cool stuff down it will shrink. We can all prove these science experiments. This is simple stuff but they can be complicated ones too such as internal combustion engines. Knowing the proven laws of air flow, electrical timing and expansion of substance due to heat we can make an engine. The engine is the proof of the science discovered beforehand.
There is no such proof for evolution and if it were true it would have been obvious millenias ago and religion would never have gotten off the ground.
|
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:21:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Randy
Originally posted by Kil
Matt:
The sum of all fossils is that evolution definably DID NOT TAKE PLACE. For if it did, transitional fossils would be a dime in a dozen, but they are not, in fact they are none existent. Fossils are the record and the most "PHOTOGRAPHIC" evidence of the past. Fossils paraded as transitional are either, fakes, frauds, or assumptions. No proof exists for a transitional. |
This is the mantra of the creationist. Because once he admits that a whale with legs, or a dinosaur with feathers, or one of the hundreds of other transitional's that do exist are transitional, it's game over. Matt can't go there. We could parade obvious transitional's in front of him for ever, and he will never admit to what they are.
Matt Is too closed minded to consider the facts. Plus he is under the false impression that people like Henry Morris or Ken Ham would not lie.
Here are some links for you to look at Matt. I doubt that you will, but I must at least make the attempt to educate you on the subject so that I can further my case that you are simply too far gone to consider what is right in front of your face.
List of transitional fossils
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils.
I could go on but Matt will not care. Creationists prefer to keep themselves unencumbered by the facts.
|
|
Why would i deny a whale had legs? How does this support your theory of evolution. Sure it fits in, but no more than my theory that God made them that way, just like he made chicken wings. Sorry, neither your theory nor mine is proof of anything, for nor against. The legs could have been vestigial, but i doubt it. rememeber evolution dictated that humans were filled with numerous vestigial organs but ALL have since been PROVEN to have a use. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:26:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by matt36
What it suggests is your inner prejudice to science via crass demeaning opposing veiws of scientific interpretation. (re funny cartoon)
|
I think the cartoon represents your line of reasoning fairly well. Remember that you have also written:
| It is equally plausible that these fossils are the result of a global flood. |
|
There is no global flood in the geological record.
But hey...
Yeah. The whole creationist thing is an attempt to force fit the evidence to fit the biblical version of creation. Their science is almost non-existent and consists mainly of attacking those particulars of science that threatens their version of religion.
It’s grossly dishonest. But what has always intrigued me about it is how they diminish their all-powerful God. They interpret their bible in a way that puts God into a box of their own creation by insisting that there can be only their interpretation of Genesis, and all others are wrong. So even from a theological standpoint they are on very shaky ground. The moment they agreed that the earth revolves around the sun, they took that part of the creation and made it allegorical. So some parts are to be taken literally, and some parts, not so much.
For example, God made the light of day and the darkness of night on the first day “1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” But he didn’t get around to creating the light of the Sun and the Moon, to light up day, and to a lesser extent, the night, until the fourth day. That's what it says in the bible. But the moon is not a light. It only reflects the light of the sun and the earth. Plus, the moon is often visible in the daytime and sometimes not at night at all. So if you take chapter four of Genesis literally, God messed up!
He created the heavens, also meaning the stars. And while doing that he created trillions of stars and galaxies that couldn’t be seen without the aid of a telescope. Why would he do that?
In the meantime, on the third day, he created the fruit trees and grasses and such. They depend on the as-of-yet-non-existent sun for nourishment. And so on…
Just throw all of your science books away. Because if you use the Genesis story as a literal history of creation, everything we have ever learned about nature is wrong. The version of the Christian God that Matt believes in (there are other Christians who see Genesis as allegorical) is asking us to not use the brains that God supposedly gave us. To subscribe in a literal take of Genesis is to be willfully ignorant, and with people like Matt, to defend that ignorance in the face of all of our accumulated knowledge.
Pathetic…
But hey, Matt thinks he knows the mind of God. And even though there are warnings in the bible about doing that sort of thing, he is willing to go out on that limb…
|
Kil, no need to be so simplistic. The sun was made with the moon on the first day. Its all part of our little neck of the universe. On the forth day he made everything else in the universe. If your thinking was correct then there wasnt an earth either and their clearly was. So, u have misunderstood and quickly jumped to conclusions shouting with glee inside your heart that u are accountable to no GOD and can do as you wish. Dont deceive yourself so easily. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:28:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
More cut and paste without attribution. Baby Jesus is bawling his eyes out.
|
Just answer the question. You comment is totally irrelevent. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:31:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Science and proof absolutely go together otherwise the end result is a theory and not a science. |
You have no idea what a theory is.
| More examples are hydrogen is explosive, argon isnt. |
Actually, hydrogen in and of itself is not explosive. It is commonly used to cool large electrical generators because of its heat transfer capability and low resistance to flow when circulated in the generator (i.e. low windage losses). It is only explosive when in concentrations of 4 to 75% in air.
if we cool stuff down it will shrink |
Except if it's ice.
| Knowing the proven laws of air flow, electrical timing and expansion of substance due to heat we can make an engine. |
Actually, you need to know a good deal more than that to make an internal combustion engine. Metallurgy would be a good start, as would the dynamics of rotating masses.
You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about, do you? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:35:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Originally posted by R.Wreck
More cut and paste without attribution. Baby Jesus is bawling his eyes out.
|
Just answer the question. You comment is totally irrelevent.
|
It is very relevant as you are obviously just parroting somebody else's nonsense, without properly giving attribution to the actual author. It is dishonest. This is not surprising from a young earth creationist, but it is still unethical. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:35:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, at least you belong to a church that highlights the fact that Jesus' sacrifice saved everyone, not just those who have faith. On the other hand, you belong to a church that highlights the fact that God used Jesus to create all the evil in the world, from which Jesus later saved us. So your church is no less puzzling than the Catholics, so I don't know why you feel the distinction is important.| What it suggests is your inner prejudice to science via crass demeaning opposing veiws of scientific interpretation. |
You haven't yet presented an opposing scientific interpretation of anything. You've simply redefined scientific terms to mean things that are ridiculous (like your position on SLOT, which if true would mean that all life is impossible) and then crassly insulted people who disagree with your redefinitions. And you've lied in the process. So, hypocritical sinner, take the beam out of your own eye, yadda, yadda.
|
Dave, id like to clear up some misunderstanding. Yes Jesus did die for everyone and yes we teach this. However, salvation is not attained unless one puts his trust in Jesus propitiation for salvation. This is clearly what the bible says. Its got nothing to do with what a church beleives but rather what the bible says.
God created Jesus to bring evil to the world???? Did not evil exist before the Son of God came to earth?? Such as Roman and Egyptian slavery of whole nations etc. The distiction between me and the catholics is very very vast. Its a theological discussion which im sure you would all be bored if i spoke about it. As for me lying, whatever, and i doubt that!! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:41:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Kil, no need to be so simplistic. The sun was made with the moon on the first day. |
What utter nonsense. Genesis 1:14-19 reads:Then God said, "Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them mark off the seasons, days, and years. Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth." And that is what happened. God made two great lights - the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day. (NLT) Are you saying that these lights to govern day and night are not the Sun and Moon? If not, what are they?| Its all part of our little neck of the universe. On the forth day he made everything else in the universe. |
Utter nonsense, according to the Bible.| If your thinking was correct then there wasnt an earth either and their clearly was. |
God separated the waters of the Earth from the waters of Heaven on the second day, and then made dry ground appear on the Earth on the third day.| So, u have misunderstood and quickly jumped to conclusions shouting with glee inside your heart that u are accountable to no GOD and can do as you wish. Dont deceive yourself so easily. |
According to your church, God has forgiven everyone their sins, so why can't we do as we please? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:52:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Originally posted by matt36
Science and proof absolutely go together otherwise the end result is a theory and not a science. |
You have no idea what a theory is.
| More examples are hydrogen is explosive, argon isnt. |
Actually, hydrogen in and of itself is not explosive. It is commonly used to cool large electrical generators because of its heat transfer capability and low resistance to flow when circulated in the generator (i.e. low windage losses). It is only explosive when in concentrations of 4 to 75% in air.
if we cool stuff down it will shrink |
Except if it's ice.
| Knowing the proven laws of air flow, electrical timing and expansion of substance due to heat we can make an engine. |
Actually, you need to know a good deal more than that to make an internal combustion engine. Metallurgy would be a good start, as would the dynamics of rotating masses.
You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about, do you?
|
How about understanding what i am saying here. This is just example. Ice! Yeah it expands. Another provable science experiment. Are you tring to say that things dont shrink when cooled.
Yeah, no s--t sherlock, do we really need air to make hydrogen explode?
Metallurgy refers to the composition of materials used in the motor and is irrelivent to how it works. I could make an engine from plastic and it would still work the same. Metallurgy is important for longivity. Rings, crank journals, rod journals, valve etc all need to be case hardened for long life. Bearings are soft, this is also for longivity of the non replaceble parts, or the parts that are supposed to wear out second. Reciprocating mass has no bearing on weather the science used to make an engin work or not. reciprocating mass however can effect the way in which you would like your engine to run. For example. A heavy crankshaft will give you excellent take off when you drop a clutch but will affect top rev timing. A light crank will do the opposite.
All your comments are nit picky and not in relation to my statements. get with the program please and answer or make comment to the crux of what im saying or say nothing or ill just ignor you. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:54:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Originally posted by matt36
Originally posted by R.Wreck
More cut and paste without attribution. Baby Jesus is bawling his eyes out.
|
Just answer the question. You comment is totally irrelevent.
|
It is very relevant as you are obviously just parroting somebody else's nonsense, without properly giving attribution to the actual author. It is dishonest. This is not surprising from a young earth creationist, but it is still unethical.
|
I wrote my words and copy and pasted some to save time. I would have written it no different. Now are you going to make some intellegent discussion or are you going to continue to be a heckler because thats all you seem to be able to do. Last chance, then ill ignor you. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 21:59:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
How does this support your theory of evolution. Sure it fits in, but no more than my theory that God made them that way, just like he made chicken wings. Sorry, neither your theory nor mine is proof of anything, for nor against.
|
Well, a few of use have been asking matt36 what he considers evidence and I think that this is as close as we are going to get.
To me, this reads like matt36 thinks that a theory has to be the only possible explanation for some set of observations. This is impossible, of course. For starters, there is always more that one possible explanation in science. Second, "God could have made it that way" is always a possibility.
Now, I could be misinterpreting matt36, but somehow I suspect that I haven't.
Postmodernism, anyone? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 22:02:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by matt36
Kil, no need to be so simplistic. The sun was made with the moon on the first day. |
What utter nonsense. Genesis 1:14-19 reads:Then God said, "Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them mark off the seasons, days, and years. Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth." And that is what happened. God made two great lights - the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day. (NLT) Are you saying that these lights to govern day and night are not the Sun and Moon? If not, what are they?| Its all part of our little neck of the universe. On the forth day he made everything else in the universe. |
Utter nonsense, according to the Bible.| If your thinking was correct then there wasnt an earth either and their clearly was. |
God separated the waters of the Earth from the waters of Heaven on the second day, and then made dry ground appear on the Earth on the third day.| So, u have misunderstood and quickly jumped to conclusions shouting with glee inside your heart that u are accountable to no GOD and can do as you wish. Dont deceive yourself so easily. |
According to your church, God has forgiven everyone their sins, so why can't we do as we please?
|
Dave, read again what i wrote. Im saying the lights are the sun and moon. No the moon is not a light as you once said but it still give light from the sun and this is what is meant. When you have a bright moon do you say, "Gee the suns bright tonight" No, you say the moons bright tonight. Same difference.
Dave, God says you CAN do as you wish. God forces nobody. God suppied salvation to all mankind but not all of mankind, such as yourself, choose to take up his offer. Dave, with respect, please dont tell me what my church or the bible says. I have a degree in theology. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
