Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: GET_BIGGER on April 14, 2006, 01:29:46 PM
-
No loopholes in evolution? Really?
Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex. How can matter just become alive and so complex?
The other one is the fossil record, our ONLY documentation of whether evolution ACTUALLY occurred in the past BTW, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, the gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (snails and sponges), and fish (marine vertebrates).
The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
On top of the origin of life issue and the fossil record, evolution breaks the laws of science! How can science prove something that contradicts what it stands for?
Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself.
Then theres the Law of Biogenesis that says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the FALSE impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter.
For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory such as evolution that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.
I mean, it's sooooo stupid. Science has laws to validate theorys, guidelines if you will. When 1 law is broken the theory becomes disproven or scientifically impossible, LET ALONE 2. I have just shown that evolution breaks two laws yet, they won't say it's disproven simply for the fact that that would mean there is an intelligent creator, and THAT CANT BE. It is just ridiculous. You have an enitity that is so adimitly trying to prove a theory that it's own laws says are not possible. Thats a joke. It's a conspiracy, thats what it is.
There are only two possibilities. Either living things fell together by themselves or an intelligence designed them. You decide, it's not rocket science.
-
Looks like you plagiarized this from a few sources without attributing it to them. ::)
biblebc.com/CreationEvolution/ biblical_creation_scienc e.html
-
Watch. I'll refute this plagiarized and "Get Bigger" won't respond because he doesn't even know what the hell he is even arguing.
No loopholes in evolution? Really?
Really
Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex. How can matter just become alive and so complex?
Actually there IS an adequate explanation. It's called Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is simple life forms forming from complex chemicals. Studies have been done that support this. Essential amino acids for life formed from less complex chemicals in labs under environments like those of the early earth.
Miller S. L., and Urey, H. C (1959). "Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth". Science 130: 245
However HOW life got here and Evolution are two totally different things. Evolution is true REGARDLESS of the origins of the first forms of life. Not knowing exactly how the first forms of life appeared isn't a blow to evolution at all.
The other one is the fossil record, our ONLY documentation of whether evolution ACTUALLY occurred in the past BTW, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, the gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (snails and sponges), and fish (marine vertebrates).
There are in fact plenty of transitonal fossils. I detailed the sea-land transition in the earlier thread. The fact you keep claiming there are "no transitions" even after I've proven time and time again without any response or counter point from you means wasting my time doing it again would be pointless.
The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
How?
On top of the origin of life issue and the fossil record, evolution breaks the laws of science! How can science prove something that contradicts what it stands for?
Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself.
THe Second law of thermodynamics has NOTHING to do with disorganization. The 2nd law of thermodynamics simply states...
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25]
This means that in a closed system any process occuring will use energy and the energy used has a higher amount of entropy than it began with.
This doesn't apply to evolution because..
1.The earth isn't a closed system as is required for the 2nd law to apply. The earth gets TONS of energy everyday from the sun. This powers the processes of life and thus evolution.
2.Has nothing to do with "organization" but with usable energy. Try RESEARCHING the bullshit you say before you say it.
This argument has been refuted over and over by real scientists.
Then theres the Law of Biogenesis that says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears.
The "law of Biogenesis" has NOTHING to do with evolution. It was a law that was invented hundreds of years ago and applied to COMPLEX life. People used to believe that things like maggots appeared out of nowhere because they never saw the flies plant them. However Pasteur(A french scientist) decided to get a thing of fruit and put a glass top over it and see if maggots "Spontaneously appeared". They didn't. Thus refuting that idea.
This is DIFFERENT from complex chemicals EVOLVING gradually into simple MICROSCOPIC forms of life.
Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the FALSE impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter.
The building blocks of life are essential chemicals apparant in all forms of life on earth. Without them life could not exist. Scientsits have synthesized viruses in the lab. Many times.
For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory such as evolution that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.
For something to be a "law of science" it needs to fit particular criteria of simplicty. Evolution can NEVER become a law because it's a theory. A scientific theory NEVER becomes a scientific law by definition even though the theory is absolutely true. That's just how it's defined.
As i've pointed out in this post evolution violates ZERO laws of science. Anyone saying it does has no grasp or understanding of modern science.
I mean, it's sooooo stupid. Science has laws to validate theorys, guidelines if you will. When 1 law is broken the theory becomes disproven or scientifically impossible, LET ALONE 2. I have just shown that evolution breaks two laws yet, they won't say it's disproven simply for the fact that that would mean there is an intelligent creator, and THAT CANT BE. It is just ridiculous. You have an enitity that is so adimitly trying to prove a theory that it's own laws says are not possible. Thats a joke. It's a conspiracy, thats what it is.
Ohh no..A "Conspiracy"?? ::)
The fact of the matter is simple. The examples you pointed out aren't laws against evolution and really have little to do with evolution. They are simply misunderstandings on your/the author of the article of modern science.
IF darwins theory of evolution were to be disproven it would BE REPLACED BY ANOTHER THEORY OF EVOLUTION ACCOUNTING FOR THE NEW EVIDENCE! That's it! Intelligent design would NEVER replace evolution. Intelligent design isn't science! It has no experiments supporting it. No observations. It makes no predictions nor does it follow the scientific method. It's pure speculation. Wishful thinking!
There are only two possibilities. Either living things fell together by themselves or an intelligence designed them. You decide, it's not rocket science.
Again you need to do your research. Abiogenesis isn't living things "falling together" it's complex MICROSCOPIC chemicals forming gradually into reproducing organisims(Which are also microscopic). Then gradually evolving into more complex forms of life. Nothing "fell together".
-
As I said....The poster of this thread can't defend his absurd claims since he doesn't even know what he's talking about. He plagiarized the entire article from some website and he can't even respond to each of my refutations and explanations and address them.
-
I have an answer for all. First GOD created the heavens, earth and all else. However he also created the use of his energys to be used in an evolutionary way. He made the base materials for things to happen...and when they do happen this makes evolutionist very happy...but its not accident, its intentional.
This also explains the huge gaps that evolution cant explain. 1st explosions and 1st matter and such. It is simply from GOD.
P.S. There are 18 parts to a meat grinder. If you put them in a bathtub for a billion years they would not, be all put together and working. This complexity does not even come close to the process of growing grass..........So we have Mostly creation, and a little evolution.
-
I have an answer for all. First GOD created the heavens, earth and all else. However he also created the use of his energys to be used in an evolutionary way. He made the base materials for things to happen...and when they do happen this makes evolutionist very happy...but its not accident, its intentional.
This also explains the huge gaps that evolution cant explain. 1st explosions and 1st matter and such. It is simply from GOD.
First of all..There is ZERO evidence any "God" exists or such a GOD made the world.
Second of all. The "gaps" in the fossil record are easily explainable. They are explained by the fact fossilization is extremly rare. Only a small percent of the life that once lived on earth are now fossils. Most things don't fossilize when they die. They are usually consumed by other creatures or decompose.
P.S. There are 18 parts to a meat grinder. If you put them in a bathtub for a billion years they would not, be all put together and working. This complexity does not even come close to the process of growing grass..........So we have Mostly creation, and a little evolution.
Meat grinder parts aren't alive so the compairson doesn't work. Living things reproduce. Mutations occur in living things. Mutations selected by the environment are the driving force behind evolution.
Complex chemicals form together naturally.
Meat grinder parts don't.
-
Meat grinders arent alive?? How do the atoms move around in any substance??? Everything is made of atoms even metal. The hardness of a structure is given to the tightness of the atoms bouncing around. What makes those atoms move in a dead object??? Positive and negative charges?? Chemical or not??
-
Meat grinders arent alive?? How do the atoms move around in any substance??? Everything is made of atoms even metal. The hardness of a structure is given to the tightness of the atoms bouncing around. What makes those atoms move in a dead object??? Positive and negative charges?? Chemical or not??
It depends on what the atoms form. If the atoms form inanimate metalics they can't do much else(Except rust). When they form molecules and such and complex chemicals given the righ circumstances they become more complex. Under heat or electricticty ect. Chemistry 101.
Meat grinder parts are a world apart from complex chemicals such as amino acids ect.
-
As I said....The poster of this thread can't defend his absurd claims since he doesn't even know what he's talking about. He plagiarized the entire article from some website and he can't even respond to each of my refutations and explanations and address them.
John Michael Fischer, 2005
www.newgeology.us
Theres my reference, my bad.
Some people have a life outside of Getbig....LOL, when I have a free moment outside of running a real estate development company and a security company I will respond, and I will include my references. Patience my favorite Getbig friend ;)
-
John Michael Fischer, 2005
www.newgeology.us
Theres my reference, my bad.
Some people have a life outside of Getbig....LOL, when I have a free moment outside of running a real estate development company and a security company I will respond, and I will include my references. Patience my favorite Getbig friend ;)
That's a link to some fringe idea about plate techtonics. Nothing to do with evolution as this thread was titled.
Address all of my points or don't post arguments you can't refute.
-
"Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis."
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
© 1999 Creation Research Society. All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission
First published in CRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, March 2000
[Last Modified: 09 March 2006]
-
"Abiogenesis is only one area of research which illustrates that the naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis."
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
© 1999 Creation Research Society. All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission
First published in CRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 4, March 2000
[Last Modified: 09 March 2006]
And yet he provides absolutely no evidence...
Notice how Bergman comes from the "CReation research society"..Right..Real unbias!
Here is an article about him and how he's a fraud since you think posting articles=an argument here is an article. Which I doubt you'll read.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bergman-and-racism.html
-
Ohh I'll read it, just give me some time.....
[Duane Gish, a retired official of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, said, "This alleged transitional fish will have to be evaluated carefully." But he added that he still found evolution "questionable because paleontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary story." ]
http://science.enotes.com/science-news/fossil-find-could-link-sea-land-animals
-
Here is an article about him and how he's a fraud since you think posting articles=an argument here is an article. Which I doubt you'll read.
There are people in the world smarter than I, why wouldn't I use their articles. I'm no scientist, I'm just trying to waste your time since I have nothing to do at this current time at work :-*
-
Ohh I'll read it, just give me some time.....
[Duane Gish, a retired official of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, said, "This alleged transitional fish will have to be evaluated carefully." But he added that he still found evolution "questionable because paleontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary story." ]
http://science.enotes.com/science-news/fossil-find-could-link-sea-land-animals
Duane Gish is another fundamentalist creationist christian. He has done ZERO professional research in the field of evolutionary biology.
-
Isn't it funny how low creationists are prepared to go to win the argument. No proof, skewed results, faulty conclusions.. It actually reminds me of another group of people.. People from amway (or other friendly pyramid schemes) :)
Still, here is some dynamic thinking from my mind. If you eliminate one transitional fossil you create twice the gap. That, in a creationists mind is twice the opportunity for simple discrediting! Right on!
-
Isn't it funny how low creationists are prepared to go to win the argument. No proof, skewed results, faulty conclusions..
Funny, that's how we feel about evolutionists. No proof, skewed results and faulty conclusions as presented by YOUR exalted one.....Johnny!
-
Funny, that's how we feel about evolutionists. No proof, skewed results and faulty conclusions as presented by YOUR exalted one.....Johnny!
I've given tons of proof. You don't even read it. All you do is skip down what I posted and copy-paste articles YOU didn't even read and can't even defend but with more articles you didn't even read most of which have absolutely no relation to the first posted article! Very frustrating!
"Skewed results"? What skewed results?
Faulty conclusions? Namingly?
You don't know a thing about Biology. How can you think you have the answeres and 250 years of scientific study is all wrong? That 150 years of Evolutionary discoveries are all false? And you and a few christian fundamentalists are right?
A funny thing.. The creationist organization you keep posting sites to made a list of scientists who oppose evolution.
Scientists countered this by making a list of scientists who SUPPORT evolution. However there is a catch. They only included scientists named "Steve".
So far 733 scientists named steve have signed the list. This is more than any creationist list of scientists who deny evolution ever made.
The statement is as follows...
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
733 scientists named steve signed that list.
Stephen Hawking signed it as well as 2 nobel prize winners in sciences, Steven Chu and Steven Weinberg.
-
No loopholes in evolution? Really?
Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex. How can matter just become alive and so complex?
The other one is the fossil record, our ONLY documentation of whether evolution ACTUALLY occurred in the past BTW, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, the gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (snails and sponges), and fish (marine vertebrates).
The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
On top of the origin of life issue and the fossil record, evolution breaks the laws of science! How can science prove something that contradicts what it stands for?
Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself.
Then theres the Law of Biogenesis that says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the FALSE impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter.
For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory such as evolution that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.
I mean, it's sooooo stupid. Science has laws to validate theorys, guidelines if you will. When 1 law is broken the theory becomes disproven or scientifically impossible, LET ALONE 2. I have just shown that evolution breaks two laws yet, they won't say it's disproven simply for the fact that that would mean there is an intelligent creator, and THAT CANT BE. It is just ridiculous. You have an enitity that is so adimitly trying to prove a theory that it's own laws says are not possible. Thats a joke. It's a conspiracy, thats what it is.
There are only two possibilities. Either living things fell together by themselves or an intelligence designed them. You decide, it's not rocket science.
OK God created the Universe. Who created God? Since everything complex cannot just be there by itself God itself is complex so must be created by someone.
-
OK God created the Universe. Who created God? Since everything complex cannot just be there by itself God itself is complex so must be created by someone.
It was a big "poof" theory. Poof, there He was.
-
It was a big "poof" theory. Poof, there He was.
Where's your evidence of this "Poof"?
And why can't the universe just go "Poof" and there it was? Without a God being involved. That would be the prefered explanation, Rather than adding a "God" into the picture if things just "poof" into existence.
-
No loopholes in evolution? Really?
Two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex. How can matter just become alive and so complex?
The other one is the fossil record, our ONLY documentation of whether evolution ACTUALLY occurred in the past BTW, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, the gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (snails and sponges), and fish (marine vertebrates).
The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
On top of the origin of life issue and the fossil record, evolution breaks the laws of science! How can science prove something that contradicts what it stands for?
Second Law of Thermodynamics says that things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized, unless there is already a mechanism in place to build things up. But this very same Law prevents such a mechanism from assembling by itself.
Then theres the Law of Biogenesis that says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but raw chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the FALSE impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter.
For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory such as evolution that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.
I mean, it's sooooo stupid. Science has laws to validate theorys, guidelines if you will. When 1 law is broken the theory becomes disproven or scientifically impossible, LET ALONE 2. I have just shown that evolution breaks two laws yet, they won't say it's disproven simply for the fact that that would mean there is an intelligent creator, and THAT CANT BE. It is just ridiculous. You have an enitity that is so adimitly trying to prove a theory that it's own laws says are not possible. Thats a joke. It's a conspiracy, thats what it is.
There are only two possibilities. Either living things fell together by themselves or an intelligence designed them. You decide, it's not rocket science.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a much abused law. Philosophers and religious nuts do not understand it.
Entropy of a closed system never decreases. Entropy is a measure of unavailable energy. For example your ice cube put into a cup placed in 60F room will melt. The reverse process of water spontaneously freezing by rejecting heat from its warmer surroundings will not happen. For this to happen you need a refrigerator. Now that does not mean a refrigerator violates the 2nd law. The refrigerator removes heat from a cold reservoir (ice box at 30ºF) and rejects it to a hot sink (your kitchen at 70ºF) making heat flow across an positive gradient but it does this by means of externally supplied energy.
Perpetual motion machines of the 1st kind violate the first law. If you have $4 you cannot spend $5 and if you did it is because your system was not closed and you used an overdraft of borrowed from your friend. Simply put the rate of influx of a quantity minus the rate of efflux plus the rate of conversion equals the net rate of storage of the quantity. Next time you hear about a car going 10,000 miles to the gallon its false as it violates the 1st law.
2nd law is violations are PMM of the 2nd kind. For examples that a refrigerator that does not need to be plugged in. Or does but has an EER higher than a Carnot refrigerator (Carnot efficiency is the highest efficiency any heat engine/heat pump /refrigerator can have for a pair of source and sink temperatures). A heat pump does the same thing as a refrigerator but its purpose is slightly different. It also extracts heat from a cold reservoir(Outside air at 20F) and supplies it to a hot sink (building interior at 70F). The refrigerator main purpose is keeping the cold reservoir cold and the purpose of the heat pump is keeping the hot heat sink hot.
Anway if you had spent more time studying science and math this would all make sense to you and you wouldnt need to have a padre fondle your balls and tell you its all God's plan. External energy was responsible for creating protoplasm, say lightening, heat from volcanoes hot springs. The first microbes were viruses - the link between the living and non-living. From there progressed random mutations based on evolutionary pressures (viruses and the first microbes reproduced asexually) until sexual reproduction between different strains of bacteria achieved greater diversity.
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
something to chew your brains on
-
Where's your evidence of this "Poof"?
And why can't the universe just go "Poof" and there it was? Without a God being involved. That would be the prefered explanation, Rather than adding a "God" into the picture if things just "poof" into existence.
Getbigger you have just been 0wned brutally. It was like a double attack, the setup question (If complex things need a creator who created god) then to the slam dunk from JA. Go home and masturbate to VM.
-
Getbigger you have just been 0wned brutally. It was like a double attack, the setup question (If complex things need a creator who created god) then to the slam dunk from JA. Go home and masturbate to VM.
I have been o w n e d burtally.....LMFAO!!!! You need to get out of your lab, off your computer and out more, get laid (hell, I'll even pay for a prostitute for your uptight anal arse), get the stick out from up your a**, and get a sense of humor. IT WAS A JOKE!! Geez.....
And who the f**k is the one who masturbates here....LOL....
"Prove God poofed, wheres your evidence, show me data"......lmfao....ahhh sheeiiitt.
But serious Johnny boy, lighten up. You might live longer.
-
I have been o w n e d burtally.....LMFAO!!!! You need to get out of your lab, off your computer and out more, get laid (hell, I'll even pay for a prostitute for your uptight anal arse), get the stick out from up your a**, and get a sense of humor. IT WAS A JOKE!! Geez.....
And who the f**k is the one who masturbates here....LOL....
"Prove God poofed, wheres your evidence, show me data"......lmfao....ahhh sheeiiitt.
But serious Johnny boy, lighten up. You might live longer.
You're the one claiming evolution is false and God exists...Not me. You've yet to prove your claims or address my refutations.
-
You're the one claiming evolution is false and God exists...Not me. You've yet to prove your claims or address my refutations.
Just so you know I haven't claimed anything......BECAUSE I don't know. Nobody does, not even you Johnny boy. On either side there is no theory that is 100% factual and non biased. Science explains history, does not prove it and will never prove it because I don't think this world will ever have all the complete facts.
I have always been in favor of the underdog in anything I come across, which is why I play devils advocate to you. I don't have a clue about what I am talking about, just seeing if I can get a rise out of you Johnny. ;)
Ya wanna no what I am concerned about Johnny boy, what I would like answered? It is What is the purpose of life? Why are we here? What are we here for? Where are we going? What happens after this life? What is our significance?
To work, have a family, make money, have material possessions, contribute to our culture? Then die and be satisfied? What? Do we even have a meaning or significance? Are we just something that happened out of chance (a scientifically impossible chance from what I understand)? Why?
I am guessing you know the answer to this Johnny? So educate me. You have had to come across this when you renounced your faith. Going from being a unconditionally loved child of God or to something that is purposeless and that happened by chance. What is your reasoning Johnny? I don't have a clue. I don't know. Help me understand. Give me purpose Johnny. I am 28 and have achieved everyhing in life I have set out to. I could retire tomorrow and masturbate the rest of my life. Give me purpose.
-
Just so you know I haven't claimed anything......BECAUSE I don't know. Nobody does, not even you Johnny boy. On either side there is no theory that is 100% factual and non biased. Science explains history, does not prove it and will never prove it because I don't think this world will ever have all the complete facts.
You're not making sense. You're talking as if "intelligent design" is a scientific theory like evolution is. It isn't. It's not science at all. It's religion.
Evolution is 100% factual. It happens. Period.
Science explians history? What does that even mean?
I have always been in favor of the underdog in anything I come across, which is why I play devils advocate to you. I don't have a clue about what I am talking about, just seeing if I can get a rise out of you Johnny. ;)
Ya wanna no what I am concerned about Johnny boy, what I would like answered? It is What is the purpose of life? Why are we here? What are we here for? Where are we going? What happens after this life? What is our significance?
Purpose? No "divine purpose".
After we die? Most likely nothing.
Our significance? Little.
To work, have a family, make money, have material possessions, contribute to our culture? Then die and be satisfied? What? Do we even have a meaning or significance? Are we just something that happened out of chance (a scientifically impossible chance from what I understand)? Why?
We evolved from miscroscopic single celled organisims.
You don't understanding anything about science so don't say so and so is "scientifically impossible".
I am guessing you know the answer to this Johnny? So educate me. You have had to come across this when you renounced your faith. Going from being a unconditionally loved child of God or to something that is purposeless and that happened by chance. What is your reasoning Johnny? I don't have a clue. I don't know. Help me understand. Give me purpose Johnny. I am 28 and have achieved everyhing in life I have set out to. I could retire tomorrow and masturbate the rest of my life. Give me purpose.
I don't choose my beliefs based on what beliefs I think I would like best. I choose my beliefs based on the facts and evidence. That's all.
-
I have been o w n e d burtally.....LMFAO!!!! You need to get out of your lab, off your computer and out more, get laid (hell, I'll even pay for a prostitute for your uptight anal arse), get the stick out from up your a**, and get a sense of humor. IT WAS A JOKE!! Geez.....
And who the f**k is the one who masturbates here....LOL....
"Prove God poofed, wheres your evidence, show me data"......lmfao....ahhh sheeiiitt.
But serious Johnny boy, lighten up. You might live longer.
First of I am not Johnny Apollo but to your inferior intelligence cannot fathom the difference between a genuine academic (me) and JA. But I will forgive you.
Secondly all I said was you got 0wned, and rightfully so. Of course deniers of science like you will deny this as well, but is of no concern to me.
Thirdly it seems you need to lighten up. I could *see* your blood pressure rise with every character you. It is so easy to rattle you religious guys while us tight assed scientific types do not feel the need for blasphemy. Science is not perfect. The Navier-Stokes equations for incompressible fluids are based on the continuum assumption, in addition to assuming uniform viscosity and linear deformation rates. Is it perfect? No! Does it work in a lot of situation? Yes. What do we do when there are cases it does not work? Like flows with large knudsen numbers, eg. flow in micro-channels or rarefied gas flows? Use another set of more rigorous equations that relax those simplifying assumptions. At times statistics is used which in itself is not perfect but pretty darned accurate for engineering purposes. Reflection and refraction of light can be only explained by the wave theory; while the photoelectric effect, Compton Effect, and diffraction require the quantum (particle) theory of light. Do you see what science is? Science is a modeling of the Truth. There are good models and there are bad models. Intelligent Design is a very bad model not because scientists are God haters but because while creationism might explain very simply the origin of the universe it does have many predictions which are testable. Those that are testable have failed (age of the earth for instance).
Fourthly (wow did I digress) it seems my earlier conjecture that you were molested by your pastor is correct, why else would you assume that I need it up my ass? Again the religious ones are the first to discard their piety and humility they recommend everyone else follow.
Lastly, if anyone here is "masturbating" it is you with your false cut and paste knowledge which not only is patently incorrect but also not original.
-
First of I am not Johnny Apollo but to your inferior intelligence cannot fathom the difference between a genuine academic (me) and JA. But I will forgive you.
::)
-
::)
Nerd fight!!! :o
-
Snatch_Clean is a "genuine academic" as much as i'm a fundamentalist baptist christian.
-
Snatch_Clean is a "genuine academic" as much as i'm a fundamentalist baptist christian.
hmmmm
this ought to be interesting.
-
" Evolution breaks two laws of science, disproving theory by science itself..... "
That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read. Everything evolves, man, planets, galaxy and even the universe.
-
" Evolution breaks two laws of science, disproving theory by science itself..... "
That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read. Everything evolves, man, planets, galaxy and even the universe.
Don't forget the one who posted this thread "Doesn't study evolution because he doesn't beleive in it." Yet he thinks he can argue against it with actuall scientists. ::)
Everything evolves yes, But when scientists mention "Evolution" most of the time they're refering to Biological Evolution,Common ancestory.
-
Don't forget the one who posted this thread "Doesn't study evolution because he doesn't beleive in it."
When did I say that? I don't study it because I don't have time. Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I don't study it.....
When you SEE a god, you will believe. When I see life come from non-living goo I will believe.
-
When did I say that? I don't study it because I don't have time. Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I don't study it.....
When you SEE a god, you will believe. When I see life come from non-living goo I will believe.
Maybe it was someone else. But i'm pretty sure it was you.
I don't limit my belief to what I can "see". I limit my belief to what the EVIDENCE supports. I can't see radio waves but they can be measured and that's evidence they are there, Thus I believe they exist.
I can't directly see how life evolved from non-life but that doesn't mean we don't have evidence for it. Just like Forensic Science. You don't see the crime occuring directly but you can look at evidence left behind and determine exactly what happened.
This is what scientists do to determine how evolution occured. They look at the evidence left behind in the fossil record,In our own DNA,They look at the life on earth now and how it exists in various areas.
-
Maybe it was someone else. But i'm pretty sure it was you.
I don't limit my belief to what I can "see". I limit my belief to what the EVIDENCE supports. I can't see radio waves but they can be measured and that's evidence they are there, Thus I believe they exist.
I can't directly see how life evolved from non-life but that doesn't mean we don't have evidence for it. Just like Forensic Science. You don't see the crime occuring directly but you can look at evidence left behind and determine exactly what happened.
This is what scientists do to determine how evolution occured. They look at the evidence left behind in the fossil record,In our own DNA,They look at the life on earth now and how it exists in various areas.
evidence is another way of "seeing", is it not?
-
Maybe it was someone else. But i'm pretty sure it was you.
Nope, not me. Actually I am pretty open minded and enjoy learning about everything I can. I actually believe evolution is part of God's creation but not to the degree that we have been debating about.
Just like you believe in your scientific evidence, I see evidence all around me of God working in peoples lives......some miraculous, others in everyday life.
-
evidence is another way of "seeing", is it not?
Not directly. I can't directly see radio waves but I can see evidence of them.
The statement "I won't beleive evolution until it see it happening" thus makes no sense. Evidence exists proving it happened and is still happening despite not being able to directly observe it(like radio waves).
Even though speciation has directly been observed.
-
I've got a feeling you deleted where you stated you don't study evolution becuase you don't believe in it...
Nope, not me. Actually I am pretty open minded and enjoy learning about everything I can. I actually believe evolution is part of God's creation but not to the degree that we have been debating about.
Common decent occured. Common ancestory. All life on earth today evolved from common ancestors about 3 billion years ago. These common ancestors were microbial organisims. Microscopic.
Gradually they evolved and evolved and what we see today are the outmost branches of the life on earth.
Go back in time and the modern recient branches didn't exist. Go back 1,000,000 years and the modern species today didn't exist. Weren't alive. Other species now existinct were alive.
Just like you believe in your scientific evidence, I see evidence all around me of God working in peoples lives......some miraculous, others in everyday life.
What you see is nature which formed naturally. You INTERPRET it as evidence of a "God" but you can't prove it's evidence of a God.
You INTERPRET random things occuring as "miracles" but you can't prove they are miracles.
Going with occams razor(Look it up) the best explanation of the same event is the one that doesn't appeal to supernatural events. You see someone is diagnosed with cancer one day and then prays and then a week later doesn't have cancer. You can interpret this is a "Miracle" or as a "faulty diagnosis".
Going with occams razor the best explanation is the one that requires the least questions. If you say a "miracle" caused it then you now have to explain WHY and HOW and the mechanics of miracles and prove miracles exist..ect..ect. Going with the natural "faulty diagnosis" explanation all you have to do is prove faulty diagnoses occur(which they do) and that's it.
-
I've got a feeling you deleted where you stated you don't study evolution becuase you don't believe in it...
LOL, you give yourself too much credit Johnny boy. If I said it I would admit it.
Common decent occured. Common ancestory. All life on earth today evolved from common ancestors about 3 billion years ago. These common ancestors were microbial organisims. Microscopic.
Gradually they evolved and evolved and what we see today are the outmost branches of the life on earth.
Go back in time and the modern recient branches didn't exist. Go back 1,000,000 years and the modern species today didn't exist. Weren't alive. Other species now existinct were alive.
Microbial organisms to homosapians. See, to me this is more far fetched than believing in a God as a creator. There isn't even a link between us and apes, let alone us and microwhatever. Not to mention how did these microbial organisms become living? To me that is not logical as much as me believing in a God is logical to you.
What you see is nature which formed naturally. You INTERPRET it as evidence of a "God" but you can't prove it's evidence of a God.
You INTERPRET random things occuring as "miracles" but you can't prove they are miracles.
And that is called faith my friend. Thats why I have no grounds for debate.
Going with occams razor(Look it up) the best explanation of the same event is the one that doesn't appeal to supernatural events. You see someone is diagnosed with cancer one day and then prays and then a week later doesn't have cancer. You can interpret this is a "Miracle" or as a "faulty diagnosis".
Going with occams razor the best explanation is the one that requires the least questions. If you say a "miracle" caused it then you now have to explain WHY and HOW and the mechanics of miracles and prove miracles exist..ect..ect. Going with the natural "faulty diagnosis" explanation all you have to do is prove faulty diagnoses occur(which they do) and that's it.
I would agree that God would be an "unnecessary hypothesis" if indeed he didn't exist and we would have no supernatural being to pray too.
-
Nope, not me. Actually I am pretty open minded and enjoy learning about everything I can. I actually believe evolution is part of God's creation but not to the degree that we have been debating about.
Just like you believe in your scientific evidence, I see evidence all around me of God working in peoples lives......some miraculous, others in everyday life.
Well stated, GB! ;)
-
Ohh I'll read it, just give me some time.....
[Duane Gish, a retired official of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, said, "This alleged transitional fish will have to be evaluated carefully." But he added that he still found evolution "questionable because paleontologists have yet to discover any transitional fossils between complex invertebrates and fish, and this destroys the whole evolutionary story." ]
http://science.enotes.com/science-news/fossil-find-could-link-sea-land-animals
And they never will find transitional fossils because the flood happened in a short amount of time. And get over the theory of million year old this or that from carbon dating. The earths matter could have existed for a billion years before God formed it into earth. If I suddenly buried you in dirt that was a million years old, theyd think you were the same age. Yes its true.......very simple and true.
-
LOL, you give yourself too much credit Johnny boy. If I said it I would admit it.
Microbial organisms to homosapians. See, to me this is more far fetched than believing in a God as a creator. There isn't even a link between us and apes, let alone us and microwhatever. Not to mention how did these microbial organisms become living? To me that is not logical as much as me believing in a God is logical to you.
Why are you still making these obviously false claims? I've explained this over and over to you but you just don't even read my posts.
1.We didn't evolve from "Apes" We ARE apes.
2.There are thousands of intermediate fossils.
3.How microbial organisms became living? They're ORGANISIMS they ARE living.
I've explained this already to you, I won't do it over and over just so you can ignore it and then argue the same nonsense.
And that is called faith my friend. Thats why I have no grounds for debate.
So you ignore the actuall evidence and make up your own? Seems unreasonable.
I would agree that God would be an "unnecessary hypothesis" if indeed he didn't exist and we would have no supernatural being to pray too.
No one knows if a "God" exists or not. An unnecessary hypothesis means that "God" is an explanation to something and then another explanation is "nature". Nature is much more likely than a "God" and requires less explanations. Thus "God" is an inferior explanation of ANYTHING.
-
And they never will find transitional fossils because the flood happened in a short amount of time. And get over the theory of million year old this or that from carbon dating. The earths matter could have existed for a billion years before God formed it into earth. If I suddenly buried you in dirt that was a million years old, theyd think you were the same age. Yes its true.......very simple and true.
1.Absolutely ZERO evidence of a global flood.
2.The earth is over 4 BILLION years old. "Carbon dating"? You moron..Carbon dating isn't used to determine the age of the earth. It's only used on carbon based life forms and only works up to 50,000 years. Other forms of radiometric dating are used to determine the age of the earth.
3.The earths matter could of existed before "God formed it"? Really? Explain why we find that the deeper we go the general age of the layers is older?
Explain why fossils are ordered in LAYERS from oldest(deepest) to newest(nearest). Explain why,If there was some massive flood did the fossils form into layers relative to the age they lifed on earth? ::)
4.Suddenly burrying me in dirt a million years old would not make anyone believe I was 1 million years old. Many things happen to dislodge fossils from their resting place and put them deeper in the strata. This however is irrelevant and scientists can determine when this happens.
5.Will never find transitional fossils?
Here is a short list of transitionals from reptiles to mammals.
Paleothyris
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Varanops
Haptodus
Dimetrodon
Sphenacodon
Procynosuchus
Dvinia also Permocynodon
Cynognathus
Probelesodon
Probainognathus
Exaeretodon
No Transitionals? Scientists just reciently found a missing link that was all over the news. It's a link between fish and mammals called "Tiktaaluk".
Just reciently also scientits found Australopithecus fossils in Ethopia. These are human ancestors which aren't human.
-
I think War-Horse just got a major ass kicking. Its amazing how people who don't know the S in Science try to find loopholes in science and technology, exposing their ignorance.
-
Address all of my points or don't post arguments you can't refute.
Why would anyone bother? Have you ever admitted being wrong on this board? Sometimes you make sense, sometimes you don't. The genuinely smart people I know admit when they're wrong.
I'm glad I "discovered" this section of getbig. It provides great comic relief. :)
-
Why would anyone bother? Have you ever admitted being wrong on this board? Sometimes you make sense, sometimes you don't. The genuinely smart people I know admit when they're wrong.
I'm glad I "discovered" this section of getbig. It provides great comic relief. :)
When i'm wrong I admit it. Though that's rarely the case.
Prove me wrong and i'll admit I'm wrong. Critiquing me for not admiting i'm wrong when I'm not wrong makes no sense.
-
When i'm wrong I admit it. Though that's rarely the case.
Prove me wrong and i'll admit I'm wrong. Critiquing me for not admiting i'm wrong when I'm not wrong makes no sense.
Impossible. No one can prove you wrong if you refuse to admit when you're wrong. Now THAT makes no sense.
But maybe I'm wrong. When have you admitted on this board that you were wrong and someone else was right?
-
Impossible. No one can prove you wrong if you refuse to admit when you're wrong. Now THAT makes no sense.
But maybe I'm wrong. When have you admitted on this board that you were wrong and someone else was right?
I thought Johnny was done posting on the Religion board? :-\
-
1.Absolutely ZERO evidence of a global flood.
2.The earth is over 4 BILLION years old. "Carbon dating"? You moron..Carbon dating isn't used to determine the age of the earth. It's only used on carbon based life forms and only works up to 50,000 years. Other forms of radiometric dating are used to determine the age of the earth.
3.The earths matter could of existed before "God formed it"? Really? Explain why we find that the deeper we go the general age of the layers is older?
Explain why fossils are ordered in LAYERS from oldest(deepest) to newest(nearest). Explain why,If there was some massive flood did the fossils form into layers relative to the age they lifed on earth? ::)
4.Suddenly burrying me in dirt a million years old would not make anyone believe I was 1 million years old. Many things happen to dislodge fossils from their resting place and put them deeper in the strata. This however is irrelevant and scientists can determine when this happens.
5.Will never find transitional fossils?
Here is a short list of transitionals from reptiles to mammals.
Paleothyris
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Varanops
Haptodus
Dimetrodon
Sphenacodon
Procynosuchus
Dvinia also Permocynodon
Cynognathus
Probelesodon
Probainognathus
Exaeretodon
No Transitionals? Scientists just reciently found a missing link that was all over the news. It's a link between fish and mammals called "Tiktaaluk".
Just reciently also scientits found Australopithecus fossils in Ethopia. These are human ancestors which aren't human.
Here in bold is why i dont respond to johnny. It is the first sentance and hes insulting. I didnt bother to read the rest of his shit. Fricken blowhole.
-
When did I say that? I don't study it because I don't have time. Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I don't study it.....
When you SEE a god, you will believe. When I see life come from non-living goo I will believe.
O man non living goo that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life hahahah o yea heres a thought lets believe in a god OK and this god will be hung on a cross and rise from the dead and cure whores from there sins and cure the blind and heal lepers year that seems logical and far fetched narrrr seems believable OK so thats what were going to do but wait if any one ever says life comes from "goo" as you some smartly put it the must be NUTS loll o man I just never get enough of this tripe
-
OK God created the Universe. Who created God? Since everything complex cannot just be there by itself God itself is complex so must be created by someone.
No one "created" God. He is the Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end.
BTW, why does snatch_clean/beyond genetics keep nuking his accounts? I mean, I know why he nuked the first one and I must say I can respect why he did it. But I'm not sure why he nuked the 2nd one.....unless it was a repeat of the first reason. ???
-
Apollo has all the arguments.
Yet, the Christians refuses to even consider them.
I'd say the approach he uses is slightly skewed.
Going back to the basic: Whether God is exists or not is for the Christians to prove.
The burden of proof is on them. Until there can be evidence presented on the existence of a God, there is no God.
To have a theory based on a Supreme Being, we first need to know that there is such a thing.
Apollo needs to put the burden of proof on the creationists IMO.
Having a non-secular society, like in Iran or in Saudi Arabia, is not very tempting to me.
But that's in essence what lobbyists who wants Creation Theory teached in schools are proposing.
Just the Christian version of it.
YIP
Zack
-
I am glad to see that evolution has been solved. the missing links have obviously been hiding in the basement of a poster on here. finally! personally, i absolutely believe in evolution....the process that is. the theory is absolutely bogus. there was a bashing of a poster who mention carbon dating as dating the earth. however, in some way or another that poster was correct. while carbon dating is not the dating used to determine how old the earth is, the same concerns about the legitimacy still apply. you can look at the isotopes all you want...the fact of the matter is....those isotopes DO NOT predict age. other concerns about this dating include but not limited to: how can you be certain the amounts in the isotopes have not been tampered with by an outside source? if the "system" was not in a closed source than there is no way you can predict with any amount of accuracy at all the age of the earth with radiometric dating. Also, can you prove that the amount of radioactive decay has been constant? You must also assume that the original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known. There is just too much that is not "ideal" for this dating to be useful. Unless you have some kind of video tape that you stored to film all this happening there is no way you can convince me that these types of dating are remotely accurate. There have been tests done on two different parts of the same specimen and the two parts were found to be billions of years apart? how does that happen? are you going to possibly try and tell me that it took billions of years for something to grow its own leg or something? how ridicuolous. the fact that people even believe this stuff cracks me up. the latest theory is that the missing link that links billions of years of cavemen to modern day people is that aliens came down and knocked our women up. LOL! i look at america and say...you have got to be kidding me. this dating crap is absurd. i will be waiting for someone to drive to my house and show me with proof that any type of dating like this comes remotely close. i mean hey if this is all true and im a liar and lunatic...well i guess i could use another 68 arms..they should start growing now anytime im sure of it. just some other tidbits of information regarding evolution and in particular darwin. his book "origin of the species" has alot of interesting things many people dont know exist in his book. one hige one being that he says it wont be long before someone disproves all this. other things in his book is his own "proof" through evolution that women and "black" people are not fully developed humans. im not sure how women and black people are going to take to your evolutionist beliefs...but i have a strange feeling that that does not make them too happy. just a hunch. but remeber, it is great that johnny has been hiding the missing links in his basement. i mean its no wander scientists cant seem to find them. who would have thought that a "guest" user on getbig.com would have had the answers they have been searching for. it must be a downright shame that the last number i heard that up to 100 scientists everyday are saying that the theory of evolution is a great story, but its not factual. if only those people knew what johnny knew. how depressing. but hey...what does a computer science and engineering student like myself know? surely my knowledge on all this must be far inferior to that of guest user johnny who makes a living off quoting one person who quotes another and that person quotes another. in fact, this guy can even tell you what every individual who disagrees with the stupid theory faults are that will discredit him. i guess myself and the millions of others who agree with the same reasoning i do dont match up. im still waiting for the proof though that radiometric dating has a rate of decay that has remained constant, and the original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known and that the sample has remained in a closed system. I have a strange feeling that theory followers are still trying to find proof themselves. but remember...what do i know.
-
::)