|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/27/2003 : 12:56:38 [Permalink]
|
Much, much better writing! Thank you! 
Hokay, the flood. I can argue this one clear into next year, but I'll let someone else do it for me, for the nonce.
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.htm
I couldn't say as to whether you have the math to tear this guy down -- I don't, and I'd really like to see someone take him apart. I don't like his attitude.
But attitude alone does not an argument make, so don't let his smart-assed style put you off. Even without the math, his case is very sound.
 |
"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! 
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 13:45:42 [Permalink]
|
Actually, I'd like to see Creation88 cite chapter and verse from the NKJV Bible about this 'canopy' being 'broken' anywhere in the story of the Flood. After all, in Genesis 7:11 we read:quote:
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
In fact, there are only four places in the NKJV Bible in which the word 'canopy' occurs, and not one of them is in Genesis. Indeed, the only place in the NKJV in which 'canopy' is used to mean 'the sky' is in Job 36:29.
If you're a literalist, this matters. If you're not a literalist, then evolution doesn't contradict the Bible.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 15:21:26 [Permalink]
|
I can not tell what translation you can find it in. But in at least one translation I have heard, it talks about, "the canopy being broken, and the flood gates of heaven being opened". Again I have no info to back this up, but I have heard many people say that our water supply, before the flood came from the ground and not from the sky. But again I have nothing to prove that though thats what I have heard
.
Everyone keeps telling me that I am not giving evidence for creation,
and I realize that. I mis-spoke when I titled my first two posts "I have more evidence". But nobody is giving me any evidence FOR evolution. More just trying to shoot down my idea's. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 15:26:28 [Permalink]
|
| Please , not the Canopy theory (which, by the way, isn't even in the bible.). The amount of water that would need to be in the atmosphere in gaseous form would require temputures several hundred degrees higher as well as having atomospheric pressure several times greater than what the earth has. In other words, the world would have been a big pressure cooker. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 15:48:34 [Permalink]
|
Evidence for evolution:
1. We know that organisms inherit genes from their parent(s).
2. We know that genes combined with environmental effects decide all of the characteristics of an organism.
3. We know that genes are part of a long chemical chain that spontaneously reacts quite often making new variations on existing genes.
4. We know that in the wild more animals are produced than can survive.
5. We know that certain animals based on their characteristics are more likely to survive than its peers.
6. We know because of this process of selection for more fit organisms over time a population's genetic make-up changes.
7. If a population's genetic make-up changes over time and genes are instrumental in deciding the characteristics of organisms than it stands to reason that the features of organisms will change over time.
8. We know that sometimes a new variant of a gene forms from the spontaneous changes mentioned in step #3 that is beneficial to the individual that received that changed gene.
9. We know that if an individual receives a changed gene that gives him a benefit over its peers then that new gene will spread throughout the population thus introducing a new characteristic into the population.
10. We know that some traits that are equal (or very close to equal) in benefit will randomly fluctuate in a population over time. Over time (average 4N generations) one of these traits will become fixed in the population and the others will disappear.
11. Factors of selection, changing environments, mutations, etc. can cause #10 to never reach a state of fixation or can cause a new trait to appear.
12. We know that if a population divides into two populations that over time the features in these populations will diverge and differentiate. Over time (sometimes a very short time) these populations will become reproductively isolated and no longer able to breed with each other even if they later resume contact. If this happens they continue to diverge and they become new species.
13. All of 1-12 are observed facts, that have been observed in the lab and in the wild. Additionally domestication shows another example of what a process of selection can do to the characteristics of organisms. For example: corn, dogs, cattle, wheat, chickens, etc. have all been extensively modified by the process of artificial selection and selective breeding over the last 10k years.
14. All of 1-12 describe nearly the complete process of evolution. This includes the origination of new genetic variation (new features via mutation). The selection of features over other features (natural selection) and the origin of new species never seen on this Earth before (speciation). All of these processes again have been observed and are empirical facts.
For secondary references that lists numerous examples of empirical facts that document 1-12 and for a few primary references I offer the following:
On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
and
Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma (a modern college level textbook)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0878931899/qid=1056753820/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/103-6431286-5933443
There are 11 points that are the key points for evolution. Now you may address those points if you wish. I look forward to your specific arguments against any of these points.
Edited for better formatting and slight modification to #14. |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 06/27/2003 15:54:08 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 16:50:18 [Permalink]
|
Creation88 wrote:quote:
I can not tell what translation you can find it in. But in at least one translation I have heard, it talks about, "the canopy being broken, and the flood gates of heaven being opened". Again I have no info to back this up, but I have heard many people say that our water supply, before the flood came from the ground and not from the sky. But again I have nothing to prove that though thats what I have heard.
Yeah, I've heard that, too. But that's all: I've only heard it. I've never seen a Bible passage which actually reads that way. And the only thing that I can see the Bible says is any different between pre-Flood and post-Flood atmospheric, geologic or hydrologic conditions is the rainbow.
Theories about the canopy, or the location of the water supply, are therefore based upon no evidence whatsoever, not even Biblical evidence. There are created, out of thin air, to attempt to make the Bible make sense in light of the massive amounts of empircal evidence we can see just by digging in the dirt and looking at the sky. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 17:39:37 [Permalink]
|
To jmcginn,
Point 1. That has nothing to do with the proof of evolution. To tell you the truth, I would think that would give you more proof for creation. The whole idea of sex itself, is incredibly creative. So your trying to tell me that a completly random, lucky sequence of events, that happened to end up with us here, created this incredible special, thing that not only, is considered maybe the most enjoyable thing to do in the world, but also happens to create baby's. Thats a joke.
point 2. I am not exactly sure what that means, so I'mnot even gonna try. lol
point 3. oooook... I don't know if thats true or not, but even if it is, it means absolutly nothing.
point 4. What does that have to do with evidence for evolution? It makes perfect sense, that god would do that. Please explain the point of mentioning that.
point 5. You are making no sense at all. Again that has NOTHING to do
with evolution or creation. If Evolution or creation is true it doesn't matter. That is no evidence for evolution.
point 6-7. That explains why the color of skin, has changed from the beginning, which was probably black.(cosidering "The Garden of Eden" was probably somwhere in Africa) To white and all the other skin colors in-between.
point 8. See point 3.
point 9. See points 1-6-7.
point 10. See point 9.(You are repeating yourself alot)
point 11. See point 2.
point 12. That point is assuming evolution is true. Because it doesnt apply to any human race, or animals. example: A Poodle can breed with a Doberman Pincher.(though it would be a funny looking dog.lol)
point 13. This point shows more proof for creation than evolution. Your point on demestication, just shows that breeds of for example, dogs. Can only be changed un-naturally.
point 14. You stating these as "Empirical Facts" is a joke.
In closing. If you think tree's evolve into houses, without any help from humans. Then you find a board in the ground. You can find "Evidence", for why this is a board that was in the middle of evolving into a house, without ever thinking that it might just be a board that was somehow buried in the ground. That's all these points are. So even though you and others will disagree with me. Your list was a complete failure. |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 17:59:40 [Permalink]
|
filthy wrote:quote:
I couldn't say as to whether you have the math to tear this guy down -- I don't, and I'd really like to see someone take him apart. I don't like his attitude.
Well, besides the typos (that first 10-squared cubic kilometers should be 10-to-the-twelth, as written), his idea of how high the atmosphere goes is ridiculously low. If Everest is 8,848 meters high, and extends through 2/3rds of the atmosphere, then the atmosphere 'ends' at 13,272 meters above sea level. Given that the Boeing 767-200 has an operational ceiling of 13,200 meters, and at such an altitude would be nowhere close to becoming gravitationally uncoupled from the Earth, this 2/3rds figure is ludicrously high. At most, given other guidelines on what constitutes the 'top' of the atmosphere, Everest penetrates about 1/5th of it.
But, this is just one small point. That portion of his argument is, in my opinion, the weakest anyway, and can be done away with without making the case for a Flood any stronger in comparison.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 18:39:42 [Permalink]
|
Creation88 wrote:quote:
Point 1. That has nothing to do with the proof of evolution.
WHAT?!? The fact that there is genetic information through which traits are passed from one generation to the next is the foundation of the evolutionary mechanism! If you want to claim that it has nothing to do with evolution, you must show that traits are inherited through some other fashion.quote:
To tell you the truth, I would think that would give you more proof for creation. The whole idea of sex itself, is incredibly creative.
Who said anything about sex?quote:
So your trying to tell me that a completly random, lucky sequence of events, that happened to end up with us here, created this incredible special, thing that not only, is considered maybe the most enjoyable thing to do in the world, but also happens to create baby's. Thats a joke.
Once again, we see here the "argument from incredulity." The "that's so absurd, it must not be true" gambit. Well, it works both ways: I can say, "Creation88 has so much faith in the Bible, he must be kidding us." Would I be correct?
Beyond that, if you're still talking about "completely random" processes, you haven't been paying attention.quote:
point 2. I am not exactly sure what that means, so I'mnot even gonna try. lol
See, this is most of the problem. Instead of asking what it means, you "lol" it away as if it were meaningless. It's not. It's very, very important.quote:
point 3. oooook... I don't know if thats true or not, but even if it is, it means absolutly nothing.
It means that if genes didn't spontaneously mutate, as we see them do in real life, evolution wouldn't be possible.quote:
point 4. What does that have to do with evidence for evolution? It makes perfect sense, that god would do that. Please explain the point of mentioning that.
It is simply a fact. It goes along with the other 11 points to build the case for evolution. If you don't understand how these things are done, you shouldn't be trying to debate them at all.quote:
point 5. You are making no sense at all. Again that has NOTHING to do with evolution or creation. If Evolution or creation is true it doesn't matter. That is no evidence for evolution.
Again, this is foundational stuff in the theory of evoultion. It is a fact. We see it happening. If every creature survived equally well, then "natural selection" would not occur.quote:
point 6-7. That explains why the color of skin, has changed from the beginning, which was probably black.(cosidering "The Garden of Eden" was probably somwhere in Africa) To white and all the other skin colors in-between.
Your response to these two points doesn't make much sense. Are you agreeing with points 6 and 7, or disagreeing with them?quote:
point 8. See point 3.
point 9. See points 1-6-7.
point 10. See point 9.(You are repeating yourself alot)
He's not repeating himself at all, he's building the case for evolution. Again, if you don't understand how this sort of thing works, why did you request a debate?quote:
point 11. See point 2.
Again, if you laugh these things off, you won't learn anything.quote:
point 12. That point is assuming evolution is true. Because it doesnt apply to any human race, or animals. example: A Poodle can breed with a Doberman Pincher.(though it would be a funny looking dog.lol)
Neither human races nor breeds of dogs are different species. All living humans are of the same species: Homo sapiens sapiens. All breeds of domestic dogs are also of the same species, along with one species of wolf that dogs can interbreed with.quote:
point 13. This point shows more proof for creation than evolution. Your point on demestication, just shows that breeds of for example, dogs. Can only be changed un-naturally.
No, you are assuming that dogs can only be changed "un-naturally." You have provided no evidence demonstrating that as a fact.quote:
point 14. You stating these as "Empirical Facts" is a joke.
No, the fact that the people here have spent so much time acceeding to your snot-nosed little demands is a joke. Your response that these empirical facts are not, in fact, empirical facts, is a joke. Where's your evidence that any of the points is not a fact? Your incredulity is not evidence of anything but how little you actually know about the world you live in.quote:
In closing. If you think tree's evolve into houses, without any help from humans. Then you find a board in the ground. You can find "Evidence", for why this is a board that was in the middle of evolving into a house, without ever thinking that it might just be a board that was somehow buried in the ground. That's all these points are. So even though you and others will disagree with me. Your list was a complete failure.
This "board evolving into a house" analogy is the joke here. It just shows that despite everyone telling you that you don't understand evolution, you will stick to your lies about evolution, anyway.
It's obvious we've all been had, and my first impressions of you were correct. Instead, I fell for your "pity me, I'm just trying to have a debate here" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 19:26:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Bird-Dinosaur Connection
Much fossil evidence has been uncovered supporting the idea that birds evolved from a group of bipedal carnivorous dinosaurs called theropods. Within the theropod group, birds are most closely related to dromaeosaurids. Velociraptor, a star in the movie Jurassic Park, is probably the most famous of dromaeosaurs.
Earlier finds in Liaoning suggest that the earliest dromaeosaurs were small, feathered animals with forelimbs similar to those of Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird at around 150 million years old, and feet with features comparable to modern tree-living birds.
"This species provides another link in the emerging transition from small, meat-eating dinosaurs to birds," said Hans-Dieter Sues, curator of vertebrate paleontology and associate director for science and collections at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "These fossils fill in a blank in the fossil record."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0121_030122_dromaeosaur.html
Here's a little evidence that might be of interest. Recommend checking out the entire article.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 21:46:44 [Permalink]
|
So.... dave,
Your trying to tell me that your not writing this reply to tell me I am wrong, and that your right. I was never going for pity. If you gave me some, good for you, but I sure wasn't asking for any.
Sex came into the first point, by talking about organizms getting genes from there parents. Sorry to break it to you but the stork doesn't really drop baby's off at the door step. So for a gene to be passed down, sex must be involved. So I decided to spread out the discussion a bit.
I am not laughing off points. I am acknowleging that I don't know somthing. Oh and I am being good natured about it.(somthing you could do a bit more) I assume people are gonna give me there view they havn't failed to yet. O and by the way, you have WAY overused the term "snot-nosed":) |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2003 : 00:14:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
Because "Day" does not in its root mean "a 24 hr period". It is by definition, a block of time.
Hi creation88,
Let's get something straight. You don't know Hebrew. Not one bit. So when you say the word day means "a block of time", you're a blind man throwing darts.
In the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew & English Lexicon, which isn't the best, most up-to-date authority, but is certainly the best, not-too-expensive-for-the-grad-student choice, the definition of the Hebrew yom is, simply, "day." Indeed, definitions 1-5 of BDB provide variations on the general theme of "day", and cite such references at Gen 1 and 2. Only with definition 6 do we get the definition of "yom=time", and then the definition has nothing to do with creation. The end result is that by and large, the Hebrew term yom means "day", referring to a 24-hour (more or less) period. The notion of the term being a generic one for an unspecified length of time is unfounded.
I admit that I cannot read Greek, so perhaps I may be in error. However, I suspect that someone may be able to support my claims with NT evidence.
Nevertheless, I also suspect that creation88, who still hasn't figured out the whole your vs. you're thing, couldn't give a rat's ass about the reality of his shoddy religion, and would rather act as a troll for skeptics to post and reply to. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2003 : 04:07:05 [Permalink]
|
Creation88 wrote:quote:
Your trying to tell me that your not writing this reply to tell me I am wrong, and that your right.
Not at all. I wrote the reply to demonstrate that you're not interested in a debate, since you completely and utterly failed to substantiate any of your objections. You simply said "that's a joke," and dismissed the major points in favor of evolution. That's not a debate, that's a 14-year-old kid trying, and failing, to sound superior.quote:
I was never going for pity. If you gave me some, good for you, but I sure wasn't asking for any.
That's a joke. The number of times you wrote "I know people are going to laugh at me..." is quite indicative of a plea to not be laughed at.quote:
Sex came into the first point, by talking about organizms getting genes from there parents. Sorry to break it to you but the stork doesn't really drop baby's off at the door step. So for a gene to be passed down, sex must be involved.
Sorry to break it to you, but jmcginn specifically wrote "parent(s)," with parentheses around the S, indicating the wide array of available forms of reproduction. Yeasts bud, they don't have sex. Many bacteria simply divide. Many female fish drop unfertilized eggs on the seafloor, which the males of the species then swim over, dropping sperm. Flowering plants certainly don't have intercourse, how could they? Seems to me that if you counted all the species which actually do have intercourse in order to reproduce, they'd be in the moniority.quote:
I am not laughing off points. I am acknowleging that I don't know somthing.
And since every one of those points has an effect on the others, trying to reply to some points while not knowing what the others mean shows that you simply don't care to debate the subject.quote:
Oh and I am being good natured about it.(somthing you could do a bit more)
No, being "good natured" in a debate about a scientific subject means following a certain protocol, which includes supporting your contentions with more than "I don't believe it," "that's a joke," or "this has nothing to do with it" without understanding what you're talking about. And I am, generally, good-natured, except when my trust has been abused, as you did with your lie that you wanted to debate these things.quote:
O and by the way, you have WAY overused the term "snot-nosed":)
Now that is a joke: a critique of someone's writing style coming from you. Let he who is without an improperly-used possessive cast the first stone, eh?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 06/28/2003 : 05:27:31 [Permalink]
|
So we discover that a 14 year-old brought up on a diet of fundamentalist christianity knows nothing whatsoever about evolution, and even seems to have less knowledge of basic biology than an average school student of their age.
Should we be suprised by that? I think not. As ever, however, I find the responses of people better informed than both Creation88 and myself enlightening. |
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2003 : 21:37:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And none of this disproves, or even attempts to disprove, the existence of God. While there are several parts of the Bible which are contradicted by evolution if the Bible is supposedly literally true, evolution contradicts no part of the Bible at all if the Bible is simply metaphorically 'true' (if its teachings are all parables).
Hi, Dave W.
Just writing to voice perhaps not a wholesale disagreement, but rather an attempt at clarification regarding the notion of the Bible's "truth" in relation to the notion that it is, as you suggestion "all parable."
To wit, I'm not sure if you mean that the events in (at least early) Genesis are to be taken as "parable," or if you mean to include the whole Bible, start to finish.
If the first is that case, then fine-- I have no problems. Genesis, including Adam, Eve, Noah, the bulding of the first cities, the origin of language diversity, and so on, are certainly not real presentations of facts or events. However, later events relayed in the Bible-- those of the post-Davidic monarchy-- should be considered, if not true, at least based in some realistic political and/or social situation. Thus, Assyrian records of the time acknowledge the the Biblical king Omri existed, and that he did (at least some) of the things told to us in the Bible. In addition, the plitical situation told to us in the Bible of the surrounding regions-- e.g. Damascus, Sidon, etc.-- are also reflected in the conteporary Assyrian material.
Does this proove that there is a real Juedo-Christian god? Hardly. But it does show that we should consider at least some parts of the Bible to reflect real attitudes of intellectual elites in the Levant towards events and politics during the middle part of the first millennium. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
