Thread III

I realized that.  When I went to edit my post though, the power randomly went out.  Go figure.  Anyway, they should work now.

I\'m not going to let the 10kb reply I wrote go to waste since the original thread was closed.  

shadwhawk if you want to see all my scientific facts, just read the whole thread, which ive doubt youve done.

You expect me to read a 12 page thread of your \'facts\', when the first three pages consisted of typical creationist bleating from  you?  You\'ve got to be kidding me.

To other posters: See, I told you he\'d dismiss me.

and if you come back saying Ive posted nothing scientific, then you are unworthy to debate with.

Yup, I knew it.  He re-iterates his points (by telling me to read his past posts), and then dismisses me by telling me if I disagree  with his \'facts\', he won\'t debate me.

as for your point on evolution is how life evolves, it has nothing to do with how life got here, how life got here is the  foundation. if you cant prove how it got here then the rest of your theory is invalid.

You are stupid, aren\'t you?  Abiogenesis is how life began.  Evolution is how life changes.  You can\'t have the latter  without the former.  It\'s like saying Moore\'s Law (computers are twice as fast and half as expensive every 18 months) has something  to do with the initial creation of the transistor.

i can prove a creator by the left hand right hand scientific fact.

This is a nonsensical statement.

quality vs quantity? shotgun method? the way you posted you seem to have not read the whole thread.

Do you even understand my arguments, Clowd?

also for the 4 corners of the earth, i remember the scripture, it said something (cant remember what, i think its bible news)  would be spread to the 4 cornes of the earth. this only means the entire world. why take something that is sketchy and use it to mar  something that outrightly says God is seated above the circle of the earth?

You want to get technical, the Earth isn\'t round.  It\'s not a circle.  It\'s nearly spherical.  Nowhere in the Bible is that little  fact mentioned.  Shall I bring up God \'opening windows of heaven\' for a biblical explination of rain?  Howabout rabbits chewing cud?

If my anti evolution facts are so bland and easily refuted, why are you yet to do it?

That\'s odd; I seem to have done it already.  

Shadwhawk you also seem to know not much about evolution except what you read on a couple of EXTREMELY bias web pages. Go to  an unbias web page, where reputable scientists are reasonable

Oh?  Care to name the sources of your \'facts\'?  Care to name the sources of your oh-so-obvious vast knowledge of evolution?
Shall I guess it consists of answersingenesis.com, bible.com, and drdino.com?

you say i make up silly excuses too, and i run from questions, im yet to hear a reply to the right hand left hand scientific  fact. if you want it its in this topic

Because you haven\'t explained what the hell it means, you idiot!

Everyone says Im not will to listen, but get this, I\'ll listen to scientific fact

Like \'changes in allele frequency over time\'?
Like \'isolated breeding populations\'?
Like \'adaptive features\'?
Like \'radiometric dating\'?

something like what bossieman posted. If you dont want to listen to people trying to prove their point, just post a  scientific fact that proves evolution.

And right here, you display your ignorance for all to see.
You cannot prove anything in science, Clowd.  Anyone who knows the slightest thing about science knows this.  Only math and  some forms of logic deal with proof.
You ask for \'a scientific fact\' that \'proves\' evolution.  There are reams of observations (ie, \'facts\') about evolution.   It\'s impossible to boil down the theory\'s entire framework to one \'fact\' that you refuse to define.
I\'ll toss one in anyway: Archeopteryx.

You cant just say we evolved that way all the time.

Evolved all what way?

Evolution is yet to have a foundation,

Wrong.  Its foundation is heritability.

go ahead and deny something darwin and thousands of scientists, including albert einstein have noted.

Oh?  Care to post sources for your claim that thousands of scientists have noted that evolution has no foundation?

Shadwhawk your argument on how light came to be when there was no sun or stars is invalid.

Wrong.  Light is created before the stars both accounts of Genesis.

Moses wrote Gensis fromt he stand point of a human on earth. Keep that in mind when reading Genesis. He didnt write it from  the stand point of God. So therefore in the primitive world there was constant total cloud coverage over the world. So when the  clouds moved, light came to be

Moses didn\'t write Genesis.
The OT is the Word Of God, not What Happened By A Human\'s Account.
God Created Light.  Then God Created Earth.  Care to explain that away by your pathetic fundamentalist weaseling?

Which scientists? It was in Discover magazine 2 months ago. Sorry bud, the asteroid theory is going down the toilet. mORE AND  more people are losing faith in it. So as of yet youve prooved jack squat

Give me an in-context quote.  Give me a specific source.  Give me a URL.

evolution is a theory, get other it. darwin admitted and all scientists do today. case over

EVOLUTION IS A THEORY. ITS IN BLACK AND WHITE.

Do you not read what the hell anyone posts?  In science, a theory is a heavily tested, continually affirmed hypothesis.


Well, everyone, see what I told you?  My predictions on his reactions were spot-on.

Oh, and I thought I should also point out that you are wrong Shadwhawk. The theory of eveloution, as stated by Darwin, is  utter nonsence.. and none but the most ameture of armchair scientists actually believe in it. I realize that you\'re probably trying  to keep from getting too techinical with Clowd as he won\'t understand a word you\'re saying, but there are other theories which  branch off of Darwin\'s original which explain eveloution far better. Lavan and I already had this discussion long ago, and although  he won by simply being able to throw out more facts than I could, I think we did a good job of picking apart Darwins theory.

By today\'s standards, yes, Darwin\'s theory was a bit underdeveloped (he didn\'t even know genes existed then, and effectively hoped  that some biochemical method of heritability was discovered later on--then came Mendel).  But so was Newton\'s.  The core  evolutionary theory, that over time, mutations and natural selection modify species, remains quite solid.

5 mass extinctions? fill me in on these 5 mass extinctions...

Cretaceous (~40%), Triassic (~60% marine), Permian (~95%), Devonian (~60%), Silurian (~50%)

This is the left hand right hand: amino acids come in two shapes, left handed and right handed, should they be formed at  random, half be left handed and half would be right handed, there is no reason why either shape would be prefereed by living beings,  but of the 20 amino acids used to make life, ALL are left handed

The odds of evolution are compare to the odds of a printing shop blowing up and resulting in an unabridged dictionary.

which pretty much equals 1 to 100000000000 or some big number like that

Oh, the random amino acid formation argument?  Bah.  
1) It\'s not a random process.  Chemical interactions are hardly random.  As for why left-handed became prominent, one theory is that  the raw materials that came to Earth were already predominantly left-handed.
2) Your probability math needs work.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Sonyfan what do you mean by evolution? Yes different types of birds are getting made all the time, just like humans. But they  stay a bird. You dont see any half bird, half fish do you?

And you provide yet more evidence you don\'t know what the hell evolution is.  Evolution is not the sudden spawning of a  half-bird/half-fish mutant.  In fact, such a creation was effectively render much of evolutionary theory invalid.

And why would evolution suddenly stop? Wouldnt some animals be in the middle of transforming?

Evolution doens\'t stop.

I wont click on any of the links until you tell me none of them are biast, but are scientists with an open mind.

Im talking I dont want to click on 15 reasons why creation is false. That isnt credibility

Well, everyone, another of my predictions came true: He won\'t visit any URL we post because he\'ll automatically think them biased.

EDIT: btw I dont dig into anti evolutionist websites. I have never been to one

Either you get all of your arguments from anti-evolution books, or you\'re a liar.  Everything you\'ve posted is swiped right out of  books or websites.

(snipped because I hit word limit.  Yipe)

And to continue...

Until someone posts something that makes me say, wow, that is interesting, that could prove evolution, theres no reason to  believe in it.

Which will never happen, because you think nothing can ever possibly prove evolution.

Thickheadedness? You guys are yet to produce scientific FACT that proves evolution. The left hand/right hand fact is enough  to make/break creation or evolution

You see, evolution doesnt have a foundation. Any foundation attempt has been put in the air by it being a theory, plus my facts.  

Still more predictions proving true: He reiterates his earlier statements in a lame attempt to counter criticisms of those very  statements.

How is the left hand right hand fact a theory? Its fact man

It\'s fact that in experiments to create amino acids in a lab with non-aligned raw materials, amino acid distribution was exactly  what chance would allow.
Care to post any evidence that the early raw materials that came to Earth were so non-aligned?

Arent Jews Christians?

If this isn\'t a prime exmaple of Clowd\'s astonishing ignorance, I don\'t know what is.


Ok, if the mods want this discussion to end, I\'ll cease posting about it.  I\'ve got my fix beating a creationists\' head against a brick wall, so I\'m set for a while.

By today\'s standards, yes, Darwin\'s theory was a bit underdeveloped (he didn\'t even know genes existed then, and effectively hoped that some biochemical method of heritability was discovered later on--then came Mendel). But so was Newton\'s. The core evolutionary theory, that over time, mutations and natural selection modify species, remains quite solid. - Shadwhawk

You\'re right, I didn\'t phrase my statment correctly. It\'s not evolution as stated by Darwin which most people (myself included) have a problem with.. it\'s his theory of Natural Selection and how it pertains to Evolution. Both are riddled with holes because at the time there wasn\'t enough knowlage in the field of microbiology to make a proper assement. The theory of Evolution is supported by new theories and discoverys such as Natural Sythesis.. however natural selection (while it still plays a major role in evolution) is not what actually causes the correct mutations to occur at the time they are needed. It\'s a catalyst, not a cause.

Also, on a side note: I\'d like to address Clowd\'s "Proof" of moses parting the Red Sea by evidence of chariot parts being found in the sediment. (I am taking this with a grain of salt, mind you, seeing as how Clowd has failed to post a link to the discovery of this proof)

An event similar to the parting of the Red Sea may have happened several thousand years ago, and the story told has since been blown out of proportion since then. If you are going to believe that scant archeological remains which coincide with a tale from the bible are true, then I suggest you take a look at another very ancient document which started out much the same as the bible. Read: Homer\'s Illiad and the Oddesey. Much like the bible, it started off as oration passed down from generation to generation until it was written down by the poet Homer. So it\'s true origins are still a complete mystery.

For millenia, the book of the Illiad which describes Oddyseus\'s battle with the Trojans at the City of Troy was considered pure fantasy as no proof could be provided that the city of Troy even existed. However, we now know that Troy does indeed exist and there are nourerous archeological digs uncovering it\'s secrets.

http://www.iit.edu/~agunsal/truva/exc.html

Yet, just because there ARE ruins, dosen\'t mean you can assume that the Illiad (and the ensuing oddesey) and all that come with them; Greek gods, Legend of Hector, Scylla and Corryptus, Circies, Scirenes, ect.. are true. Why is there a double standard here Clowd, since you\'re obviously going to continue believing the way you do and discount the Illiad and Oddesey as fiction. It\'s evidence is just as strong as these chariot remains. Tell me, has anyone even done radio carbon dating on these remains to see if they even correspond to the right time period which the Red Sea parting was supposed to have happened?

(Note: 1000 years ago, there was "Proof" that Cyclops really did exist. Giant skeletal frame with a single giant hole in the center of the head were turning up fairly frequently. However, with continued study we now know that those "Cyclops" skeletons were actually the bones of Mammoth and other large elephants breeds from the Ice Age.

Also, just to make things interesting Clowd, I think you should read the works of Immanuel Velikovsky. He has written several books such as: Earth in Upheaval, Worlds in Collision, Ages of Chaos, Oedipus and Akhnaton, Peoples of the Sea, Ramses II and his Times, Mankind in Amnesia, and Stargazers and Gravediggers, which tie archeological and astronomical findings to passages found a variety of different religeons including Anchient Greek/Roman, Judeism, Buddism, and Catholosism

(Just to add more fuel to the fire. )

I take religion like this...

Religion is just something we believe in, no one can prove it right, no one can prove it wrong, we just believe it.  Religion gives us hope for the future, religion makes dying less painful(emotionally) believing there is an afterlife.  Religion helps us overcome terrible atrocities(9-11 an example).  We pray because it gives us hope.  Without religion people simply die like the bugs we step on.

Originally posted by "The One" Billy Gunn
Without religion people simply die like the bugs we step on.

Just for the record thats how we die to.
















imo

Originally posted by "The One" Billy Gunn
I take religion like this...

Religion is just something we believe in, no one can prove it right, no one can prove it wrong, we just believe it.  Religion gives us hope for the future, religion makes dying less painful(emotionally) believing there is an afterlife.  Religion helps us overcome terrible atrocities(9-11 an example).  We pray because it gives us hope.  Without religion people simply die like the bugs we step on.

That is very true, clowd just refuse\'s to just admit he can\'t prove it.

[Titan]

Clowd, let me get one thing straight. I don\'t know if you read this in my post or just decided that the post was crap so didn\'t read this part but I did state I was catholic. I just believe in theories more rather than religion. But believing in evolution is perfectly acceptable in the catholic church. I don\'t know if you know that.

You never answered my question. What religion are you?

[Titan]

Let\'s play stump Clowd. After all, he knows everything. Here\'s a question for you. God created all life. So, what created God? He just didn\'t spring out of nothing. He had to have been created by something. Life just doesn\'t magically appear on earth.

Originally posted by Titan
Clowd, let me get one thing straight. I don\'t know if you read this in my post or just decided that the post was crap so didn\'t read this part but I did state I was catholic. I just believe in theories more rather than religion. But believing in evolution is perfectly acceptable in the catholic church. I don\'t know if you know that.

You never answered my question. What religion are you?

Woo, Go Catholicism, we rule

Anyway, Clowd seems to be spewing opinions, so there is no real point in arguing with this idiot. Ignorance seems to be his main objective in his rants, so it\'s not worth paying attention to anymore.

See Yuz.

[Titan]

He needs to calm down. His opinions not the right one. His opinions are not facts. They are only his beliefs. Beliefs, not facts.

Clowd, by any chance, do you even know what a theory is?

Calm it down.  This is exactly what wasn\'t supposed to be in this topic, and why the other ones got closed.  Make posts only with sources and proof in them, not these types of comments attacking him.

I too am Catholic, which I\'m sure Clowd refuses to believe, but I\'m from the sort of the same mythos as Titan. You cannot believe the bible verbatium because of it\'s tendancy to be very open to interpretation. There is no solid evidence to back it up aside from a number of history figures who appear in it as well as a few proven events. The great flood for example, I recall, was proven.. but it wasn\'t a mass extiction causing event and only covered a reletively small area of the earth\'s total landmass. Now weither Noah and his ark have been proven, I\'m not sure as I haven\'t looked it up.

You also have to consider what I\'ve been debating over and over again.. that the bible has been changed by man. Even in it\'s first print original text it, in all likelyhood, is not true to actual events. For example, look at the movie "Thirteen Days" which recounts the events of the Cuban Missle crisis. All of the major points of actual history have been recreated into the film, however just because it\'s a true story dosen\'t mean that what happened in the film is exactly how it happened in real life. There simply isn\'t enough documentation to recall every conversation that was recreated in the film. If there was, you wouldn\'t need script writers. What the producers did, was take true documentation they could and built from that to a story which is close to the original events. Even some of the actual dialoge which was recorded has been changed in the film to make it more "dramatic" and entertaining. Now, this was a record of the events that happened some 40 years ago, and while it\'s not a documentary, it does illustrate my point as to how actual events get changed over time.

I\'m not debating against god, I\'m debating against Clowd\'s logic and lack of proof. Yes, Einstein did believe in god. Yes, Stephen Hawking does admit that the universe is organized in a way which elludes to a higher intellect as it\'s archetect. You will be EXTREEMLY hard pressed to find any text from these two scientist which support Clowd\'s claim of creationsim. They are simply admiting that there may be a god, not that "_____ Insert Religeon\'s name here" is correct. They seem to believe something that I also believe in.. that both Science AND God exist.. and neither of those two institutions are completely correct in their assertations. To me, Science is merely Man tinkering with God\'s tools. We can use those tools to uncover many truths about our world.. and to prove established religeon wrong.. but they cannot disprove existance of god.

Established Religeon IS wrong. Period, and anyone with an ounce of common sence should be able to see that. It\'s main flaw, is that it was created or given to a very scientifically primitive man. Now for example, place yourself in gods shoes. How would you explain to a nomadic people who only know their goats, famililes, and the geography of the local desert, about the scientific principals that you set up in order to create the world they live in? How would you explain quantum mechanics, cellular biology, evolution, advanced astrophysics? Simple.. you don\'t, since there is no possible way they could understand. Any messanger you send would likely be severely riddiculed (at best) or stoned to death (or worse) for hearsay. We are oftend likened to as God\'s children.. and I believe he speaks to us as such. You are right on one point Clowd.. we as humans cannot possibly begin to fathom god\'s true plan. Science, Religeon, Litterature, Philosophy - was all created by man.. and is perpetuated by man.. and thus cannot hope to expand beyond human comprehension. Perhaps when we evolve futher to something beyond mere men, we will have a better understanding.

Never have I seen so much emotion to a given subject such as religion, and yet people try to prove its not there.  This 18 page argument is proof enough.

Originally posted by "The One" Billy Gunn
Never have I seen so much emotion to a given subject such as religion, and yet people try to prove its not there.  This 18 page argument is proof enough.

Proof of what? Religion? There is no argument religion isn\'t amoung us