Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 22, 2014, 07:06:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial  (Read 17326 times)
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #100 on: December 02, 2007, 06:54:51 AM »

McWay, go argue with a Hindu....he's in your camp anyway... Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #101 on: December 02, 2007, 02:30:25 PM »

Can man create or destroy matter? Either he can or he can't. If you have an example that he can and has, please share it with us.

for one, complexity does not require anything supernatural. many complicated things require no design. snowflakes, fractals, the growth of a human. you mistaking complexity for design is just your way of justifying god. natural processes are highly complex, and work without a god. but i see your argument. your saying that god created them, and we cannot actually prove this, or even provide one piece of evidence, great argument. why dont we just put magical people or GODS as the sustainers of natural processes, oh ya we did, thor anyone?

These natrual processes must have a source or a start. Where is your evidence that such a start was NOT supernatural. If such a start were merely natural, then man should be able to provide a source for it. Of course, he can't. At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, the question is asked. "When and how did this begin?". This is, again, why certain non-believers are frantically searching for a naturalistic explanation. Without one, they must concede (as evolutionists like Wald and Sullivan have stated) a supernatural source of Creation, which they (and others today) don't want to do.

Darwin started with the conclusion that there is no God. And other evolutionists have followed in his footsteps. That is a documented FACT, as stated by other evolutionists and by Darwin himself.

The bottom line is you do, in fact, believe that something has always existed. You don't know how it got there or how it supposedly developed into this, that, or the other. Therefore, that makes you no different than a Christian who believes that God has always existed and who is responsible for the physical laws of nature (including thermodynamics) being put into place. Science is simply the observation of natural phenomena. As such, this observation is limited by man's senses. At best, he can amplify those senses to a certain degree. Regardless, that does not negate the physical laws of nature having a supernatural source. And as we say in the church, "the God of the supernatural is the God of the natural".

It all goes back to philosophical and/or religious belief. Again, either you belief that life has a supernatural source or you don't.

man cannot create matter, no one can. thats why it is eternal. doesnt this make sense to you. or would you like to say that it can only be created by god Lips sealed Roll Eyes. tell me how god creates matter?

"These natrual processes must have a source or a start. Where is your evidence that such a start was NOT supernatural. If such a start were merely natural, then man should be able to provide a source for it. Of course, he can't. At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, the question is asked. "When and how did this begin?". This is, again, why certain non-believers are frantically searching for a naturalistic explanation. Without one, they must concede (as evolutionists like Wald and Sullivan have stated) a supernatural source of Creation, which they (and others today) don't want to do."

first off we dont know how hiv works for instance, nor have we isolated it. because we dont know should we say god selectively infects people? sounds silly doesnt it. all your doing is using god of the gaps. our knowledge is far from complete, and because of this, you feel the need to insert god into gaps of knowledge. when in actually fact, it is merely a matter of time till we discover the answers to those questions, just like every single other process.for one, people are "franticallly" looking because its an interesting question, in which alot of knowledge could be gained. i see you see everything through the tainted glasses of fundies. no one, is searching for the answer to disprove or prove god, agian this is not how science works.


"Darwin started with the conclusion that there is no God. And other evolutionists have followed in his footsteps. That is a documented FACT, as stated by other evolutionists and by Darwin himself."

post some references, not supplied by fundies please, they obviously have an agenda.

"The bottom line is you do, in fact, believe that something has always existed. You don't know how it got there or how it supposedly developed into this, that, or the other. Therefore, that makes you no different than a Christian who believes that God has always existed and who is responsible for the physical laws of nature (including thermodynamics) being put into place. Science is simply the observation of natural phenomena. As such, this observation is limited by man's senses. At best, he can amplify those senses to a certain degree. Regardless, that does not negate the physical laws of nature having a supernatural source. And as we say in the church, "the God of the supernatural is the God of the natural". "

so you think a hyper complex being is an easier answer? honestly cant you see how ridiculous this sounds. i see nothing supernatural, or know of no supernatural events in the history of earth.
Report to moderator   Logged
beatmaster
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2819


Save a tree, eat a beaver


« Reply #102 on: December 02, 2007, 08:04:14 PM »


Please people read, this is the truth...


* FSM.jpg (171.28 KB, 674x508 - viewed 160 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

are you delusional?
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #103 on: December 02, 2007, 08:43:02 PM »

mcway, how old do you beleive the universe to be since you literally believe the bible?
Report to moderator   Logged
suckmymuscle
Guest
« Reply #104 on: December 02, 2007, 09:38:30 PM »

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

NOVA will be airing a new dramatization of the Dover, PA case on November 13 at 8:00 pm.

When the religious non-science of Intelligent Design was forced on the children of Dover, PA, reason and science, as well as the Constitution, teachers, and parents, fought back. ID and its proponents were utterly rebuffed and defeated.

Make sure to watch the documentary. Also check the page above for a preview as well as lots of good info.

  The World will end 4.5 billion years from now when the Sun becomes a giant red and swallows the Earth. Everything else is bullshit. It could also end if a meteor with a diameter of at least 0.7 mile hits the Earth, releasing energy in the teraton range, but the odds of this happening are so remote that it will probably end in the former way.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9073

Getbig!


« Reply #105 on: December 03, 2007, 06:47:48 AM »

  The World will end 4.5 billion years from now when the Sun becomes a giant red and swallows the Earth. Everything else is bullshit. It could also end if a meteor with a diameter of at least 0.7 mile hits the Earth, releasing energy in the teraton range, but the odds of this happening are so remote that it will probably end in the former way.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Technology allows for weapons to become much smaller, cheaper and easier to make, and much more destructive than ever before.  Humans could easily end the world at any time.
Report to moderator   Logged
suckmymuscle
Guest
« Reply #106 on: December 03, 2007, 08:15:14 AM »

Technology allows for weapons to become much smaller, cheaper and easier to make, and much more destructive than ever before.  Humans could easily end the world at any time.

  Unlikely. The most dangerous period was was in the early 1960s, when the U.S and the Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war. The risk of atomic weapons being used has declined incredibly since then. There might be local nuclear wars in the future, like between India and Pakistan, but nothing that will result in global annihilation. I just don't see nuclear bombs ever being used on a global scale.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Report to moderator   Logged
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5786


« Reply #107 on: December 03, 2007, 03:17:36 PM »

I’m sorry! Last time I checked, Pasteur was a biologist. So, why is it that this biologist (among others), for some wacky reason, was able to make tremendous advances in scientific research, make vaccines to cure deadly diseases, and make dairy products safe to consume, while still believing in Creation?

His experiments dismantled the tenet of spontaneous generation, as a number of scientists (over the next century) have admitted. Again, as they have stated, their reason for adhering to evolution, despite their agreeing with Pasteur that spontaneous generation is not possible is because, if they do not, then they must admit to supernatural creation as being the source of life. That is something they DO NOT wish to do, as it grates their materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic philosophy.
As I said before, if spontaneous generation were proven, then evolution would be hurt pretty badly.  It is ironic that you use that as a defense of ID creationism.

Quote
Who says the origin of life is unknown? Those would be folks who don't want to acknowledge God as Creator of heaven and earth.
And how exactly did God play a role in the creation of the universe or of earth or of man and please provide a scientifically verifiable (read falsifiable) explanation?  Do take your time.
Quote
Flies producing flies? Imagine that!! That would be creatures reproducing after their own kind, or as is termed in scientific jargon, speciation. My claim wasn’t that speciation has never been observed. The claim is (and remains) that the observation of a creature evolving into another creature completely unlike itself has not occurred. Fruit flies producing other forms of fruit flies is a far cry from fruit flies evolving into lizards, or birds.

35 generations or 350 generations, they are STILL flies.
You asked for laboratory proof so I gave you laboratory proof. 

So the transitional fossil Archaeopteryx showing the transition btn lizard and bird means nothing to you. 

Quote
That's the standard out, when evolutionists can't back their claims. One minute you state that evolution has been observed. Yet, when asked to produce an example of such observation (i.e. reptiles evolving into birds), all of a sudden, it can't be done, because the process allegedly take "millions of years". One wouldn't even have to show observation of a so-called full transition. Per evolution, some chemical, environmental, or genetic scenario caused this reptiles to start sprouting feathers or other bird-like qualities. By rule, such should be able to be replicated in a lab for observation. That's what I meant, when it comes to showing observation of evolution, not fruit flies producing.......MORE FRUIT FLIES!!!
Oh contraire my friend, there are transitional fossils and the fruit fly study (just b/c you don’t like it does not mean it’s not valid).  The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation.  That’s how it’s done…just like aspects of nuclear phsyics.

Please provide me with one single solitary bit of creationist science that is observable.  Do take your time.

Quote
As I've stated before, I'm not into ID, simply because it is simply passive and, at best, a compromising stance. I'm a believer in Biblical Creation, that God created this world and life on it in 6 days.
That's fine that you believe that.  You cannot prove that belief scientifically.  God is an unquantifiable non-existent datum and man's ability to rationalize a self-referential infinite phenomenon is a logical impossiblity.  You have no scientific metric for showing your belief.

Criticize evolution all you like.  It is factual and compelling.  I don't see any challengers from where I'm sitting.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #108 on: December 08, 2007, 08:40:59 AM »

As I said before, if spontaneous generation were proven, then evolution would be hurt pretty badly.  It is ironic that you use that as a defense of ID creationism.

Hmmm....the evolutionists got the impression that spontaneous generation was necessary to explain the origin of life, without supernatural Creation. So, now you're claiming that proof of spontaneous generation would hurt evolution? Furthermore, I didn't use spontaneous generation as a defense of Creation. My point for mentioning it was to show that, despite evolutionists admitting that Pasteur showed such to be false, they still adhere to it and evolution, because the only other option is one that they don't like, that doesn't float their philosophical boat: Creation.


And how exactly did God play a role in the creation of the universe or of earth or of man and please provide a scientifically verifiable (read falsifiable) explanation?  Do take your time.

As it is a supernatural event, I can't produce a verifiable explanation of the initial act, itself. At best, I can point indirectly to created being and the intricacies therein, to show evidence for a supernatural source of life.


You asked for laboratory proof so I gave you laboratory proof. 

So the transitional fossil Archaeopteryx showing the transition btn lizard and bird means nothing to you. 

One, fruit flies producing more fruit flies is hardly proof of one creature evolving into another completely unlike itself. To the contrary, it sounds eerily similar to that phrase in Genesis about creatures reproducing after their own kind.

Two, Archaeopteryx is a full-fledged bird, not a bird-lizard hybrid. It was this alleged transition (or any one in which one creature "evolves" into another completely different creature) for which I asked an example of observation in the lab (i.e. a replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles to start sprouting feathers and start clucking, chirping, or quacking). That you have NOT shown.

Flies begat more flies? Tell me something I don't already know.

Oh contraire my friend, there are transitional fossils and the fruit fly study (just b/c you don’t like it does not mean it’s not valid).  The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation.  That’s how it’s done…just like aspects of nuclear phsyics.

Au contraire, the request was for LAB replication, not fossils. If there were natural circumstances that caused reptiles to start changing into birds, such should be able to be replicated in a lab or similar setting. That would be OBSERVATION, someone watching such take place. Define what it takes to make a reptile start displaying bird characteristics (temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, etc.), produce that environment, put a lizard in there, and let's see if some feather start to grow.


Please provide me with one single solitary bit of creationist science that is observable.  Do take your time.

You beat me to it, with the fruit flies, a prime example of creatures reproducing after their own kind: different colors, sizes, and reproductive capability, even, But, they're still flies, nonetheless.

That's fine that you believe that.  You cannot prove that belief scientifically.  God is an unquantifiable non-existent datum and man's ability to rationalize a self-referential infinite phenomenon is a logical impossiblity.  You have no scientific metric for showing your belief.

Sure I do, or at least, so do creation scientists (i.e. fossils, rocks, chemicals, etc.).



Criticize evolution all you like.  It is factual and compelling.  I don't see any challengers from where I'm sitting.

I can and will. Compelling? Maybe? Factual? A whole different story, altogether!!

BTW, might I suggest standing?  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #109 on: December 08, 2007, 08:48:43 AM »

Holy shit, McWay stop owning yourself.

You think you're scoring points, but all you're doing is showing how utterly ignorant and misinformed you are.

If you spent half the time learning real biology that you waste reading creationist pamphlets, you wouldn't be rambling like this.
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #110 on: December 08, 2007, 08:59:28 AM »

Hmmm....the evolutionists got the impression that spontaneous generation was necessary to explain the origin of life, without supernatural Creation. So, now you're claiming that proof of spontaneous generation would hurt evolution? Furthermore, I didn't use spontaneous generation as a defense of Creation. My point for mentioning it was to show that, despite evolutionists admitting that Pasteur showed such to be false, they still adhere to it and evolution, because the only other option is one that they don't like, that doesn't float their philosophical boat: Creation.

As it is a supernatural event, I can't produce a verifiable explanation of the initial act, itself. At best, I can point indirectly to created being and the intricacies therein, to show evidence for a supernatural source of life.

One, fruit flies producing more fruit flies is hardly proof of one creature evolving into another completely unlike itself. To the contrary, it sounds eerily similar to that phrase in Genesis about creatures reproducing after their own kind.

Two, Archaeopteryx is a full-fledged bird, not a bird-lizard hybrid. It was this alleged transition (or any one in which one creature "evolves" into another completely different creature) for which I asked an example of observation in the lab (i.e. a replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles to start sprouting feathers and start clucking, chirping, or quacking). That you have NOT shown.

Flies begat more flies? Tell me something I don't already know.

Au contraire, the request was for LAB replication, not fossils. If there were natural circumstances that caused reptiles to start changing into birds, such should be able to be replicated in a lab or similar setting. That would be OBSERVATION, someone watching such take place. Define what it takes to make a reptile start displaying bird characteristics (temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, etc.), produce that environment, put a lizard in there, and let's see if some feather start to grow.

You beat me to it, with the fruit flies, a prime example of creatures reproducing after their own kind: different colors, sizes, and reproductive capability, even, But, they're still flies, nonetheless.

Sure I do, or at least, so do creation scientists (i.e. fossils, rocks, chemicals, etc.).


I can and will. Compelling? Maybe? Factual? A whole different story, altogether!!

BTW, might I suggest standing?  Grin


evolution takes billions of years, spontaneous creation is not needed at all(but we dont have the answers yet, just like we cant cure aids).


transitions would be "full-fledged", are you hoping to see some sort of hybrid half living creature with a birds head and lizards body? that is not how evolution happens and your ignorance is blinding.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #111 on: December 09, 2007, 09:32:18 AM »


evolution takes billions of years, spontaneous creation is not needed at all(but we dont have the answers yet, just like we cant cure aids).

The same old excuse, I see. It takes billions of years, so we can't observe it or replicate it (part of the scientific method, of course). But, it had to happen; otherwise, we're stuck with that pesky, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" routine. We don't have all the answers. But, but, but, we know it weren't God who did it. Roll Eyes


transitions would be "full-fledged", are you hoping to see some sort of hybrid half living creature with a birds head and lizards body? that is not how evolution happens and your ignorance is blinding.

Make up your minds here. One minute, the fruit-fly thing that Decker was touting was a prime example of observed evolution. But, when it comes to observation of what makes a lizard start chirping or sprouting feathers, all of a sudden, you need "billions of years".

Furthermore, all I asked was for an example of replication of the supposed environment that started the change of reptiles into birds (or one type of creature into another completely different creature).

Temperature, amount of radiation, chemicals, something along those lines. If it happened once, then it can happen again. So, let's see it: A lizard with just one feather, a quacking iguana, a chirping chameleon, etc. They existed at one point and time, allegedly. But, of course, we can't see them now, because "that's not how evolution works".  Roll Eyes

Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #112 on: December 09, 2007, 09:52:20 AM »

Holy shit, McWay stop owning yourself.

You think you're scoring points, but all you're doing is showing how utterly ignorant and misinformed you are.

If you spent half the time learning real biology that you waste reading creationist pamphlets, you wouldn't be rambling like this.

Oh dear. Guess I'm gonna have to quote myself...
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #113 on: December 09, 2007, 10:04:05 AM »

The same old excuse, I see. It takes billions of years, so we can't observe it or replicate it (part of the scientific method, of course). But, it had to happen; otherwise, we're stuck with that pesky, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" routine. We don't have all the answers. But, but, but, we know it weren't God who did it. Roll Eyes


Make up your minds here. One minute, the fruit-fly thing that Decker was touting was a prime example of observed evolution. But, when it comes to observation of what makes a lizard start chirping or sprouting feathers, all of a sudden, you need "billions of years".

Furthermore, all I asked was for an example of replication of the supposed environment that started the change of reptiles into birds (or one type of creature into another completely different creature).

Temperature, amount of radiation, chemicals, something along those lines. If it happened once, then it can happen again. So, let's see it: A lizard with just one feather, a quacking iguana, a chirping chameleon, etc. They existed at one point and time, allegedly. But, of course, we can't see them now, because "that's not how evolution works".  Roll Eyes



if evolution is wrong that doesnt mean creeation is right, you guys seem to think that. if the big bang is wrong and string theory is right, that doesnt mean god did it. lack of evidence is not proof of god. what is your proof god did it and not some natural process? you sound like kent hovind, you want a lizard to pop out of a birds egg, again you dont have clue what your even arguing about. sorry the scietific method is a way to test hypothesis, but there are other ways. how do you suppose theorectical physics works? much of it is based on theory and mathematics with little in the way of observation, because of its nature. yet you use cell phones dont you? thank god for science.

the envoironment was one that required adaptive traits of a lizard to be more like a bird. you have no evidence for your claims, i would GLADLY beleive you, but you have no evidence and are using gaps in knowledge as positive arguments. their are much better arguments for gods existence or some sort of creation, but you continue to use the ignorant creation science which has no arguments. its not science.

we dont have to make up our minds, both are examples. you seem to lack any knowledge in the area, so ill let you figure it out. its hard to argue with someone who only employs confirmation bias . many micro=macro.
Report to moderator   Logged
MCWAY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16047


Getbig!


« Reply #114 on: December 09, 2007, 03:23:18 PM »

if evolution is wrong that doesnt mean creeation is right, you guys seem to think that. if the big bang is wrong and string theory is right, that doesnt mean god did it. lack of evidence is not proof of god. what is your proof god did it and not some natural process? you sound like kent hovind, you want a lizard to pop out of a birds egg, again you dont have clue what your even arguing about. sorry the scietific method is a way to test hypothesis, but there are other ways. how do you suppose theorectical physics works? much of it is based on theory and mathematics with little in the way of observation, because of its nature. yet you use cell phones dont you? thank god for science.

I do use cell phones. Wait a minute!!! Cell phones were deliberately made, weren’t they? Nobody just left a pile of parts there and waited “billions of years” for a phone to evolve. It took living sentient beings to deliberately DESIGN and assemble a cell phone.


And apparently, you didn't read what I stated properly. I never said that a lizard would lay an egg and a bird would pop out. I asked for observation and replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles sprouting bird features. What was this environment and where is its replication to show that, in fact, reptiles evolved into birds? Something had to have happened to result in clucking lizards or feathered iguanas. Again, was it temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, mutation?



the envoironment was one that required adaptive traits of a lizard to be more like a bird. you have no evidence for your claims, i would GLADLY beleive you, but you have no evidence and are using gaps in knowledge as positive arguments. their are much better arguments for gods existence or some sort of creation, but you continue to use the ignorant creation science which has no arguments. its not science.

Again, WHAT is this mystery environment that turns lizards into birds? Let's see it replicated, put some lizards in it and OBSERVE some bird characteristics form on these reptiles.


we dont have to make up our minds, both are examples. you seem to lack any knowledge in the area, so ill let you figure it out. its hard to argue with someone who only employs confirmation bias . many micro=macro.

But, all the "micro" keep producing the same kind of creature. Micro changes in the fruit flies keep producing..........FRUIT FLIES!!!! Micro changes in reptiles keep producing reptiles (which once again sounds oh-so-familiar to the concept of creatures reproducing after their own kind).
Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #115 on: December 09, 2007, 03:39:21 PM »

I do use cell phones. Wait a minute!!! Cell phones were deliberately made, weren’t they? Nobody just left a pile of parts there and waited “billions of years” for a phone to evolve. It took living sentient beings to deliberately DESIGN and assemble a cell phone.


And apparently, you didn't read what I stated properly. I never said that a lizard would lay an egg and a bird would pop out. I asked for observation and replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles sprouting bird features. What was this environment and where is its replication to show that, in fact, reptiles evolved into birds? Something had to have happened to result in clucking lizards or feathered iguanas. Again, was it temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, mutation?


Again, WHAT is this mystery environment that turns lizards into birds? Let's see it replicated, put some lizards in it and OBSERVE some bird characteristics form on these reptiles.

But, all the "micro" keep producing the same kind of creature. Micro changes in the fruit flies keep producing..........FRUIT FLIES!!!! Micro changes in reptiles keep producing reptiles (which once again sounds oh-so-familiar to the concept of creatures reproducing after their own kind).


seriously i cannot continue this debate, evolution take millions upon millions of years, and you keep asking for observable phenomenon, we would have to have thousands, wait millions of generations of people wait around to make this observation, your ridiculous.

micro evolutions over millions of years create different species. what is so hard to understand about that. try millions of generations of fruit flies. and life began about 4 billion years ago, so will you stop asking for observable phenomenon, we have no time machine.

stop with the arguments from ignorance, if evolution is wrong, geuss what it doesnt make god right. your turn to answer so questions.


how does god who is immaterial create matter? what is the process

how can something timeless act?

these are starter questions, id like to see if your theory holds more water. thanks
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #116 on: December 09, 2007, 04:10:55 PM »

Quote
seriously i cannot continue this debate

That's the way to go. MCWAY is not interested in a debate, or in the truth, or in biology, or evolution.

He is afflicted with a mind virus that says "attack science. say anything you think of that goes against science, and don't bother trying to learn about science."

People like that are only looking for a platform to spread their mind virus, they aren't looking to discuss or learn anything about science.
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #117 on: December 09, 2007, 08:10:02 PM »

That's the way to go. MCWAY is not interested in a debate, or in the truth, or in biology, or evolution.

He is afflicted with a mind virus that says "attack science. say anything you think of that goes against science, and don't bother trying to learn about science."

People like that are only looking for a platform to spread their mind virus, they aren't looking to discuss or learn anything about science.

MCWAY is an angrey biblethumper who ignores scientific fact, historical evidence and just about anything else to believe in his fable at all costs. He has admitted he was indoctrinated at an early age; sadly not many recover from such an ordeal.
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Decker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5786


« Reply #118 on: December 10, 2007, 09:31:47 AM »

Hmmm....the evolutionists got the impression that spontaneous generation was necessary to explain the origin of life, without supernatural Creation. So, now you're claiming that proof of spontaneous generation would hurt evolution? Furthermore, I didn't use spontaneous generation as a defense of Creation. My point for mentioning it was to show that, despite evolutionists admitting that Pasteur showed such to be false, they still adhere to it and evolution, because the only other option is one that they don't like, that doesn't float their philosophical boat: Creation.
If spontaneous generation were shown—a human or a duck appearing out of nowhere, then I would say that the evolutionary development of that man or duck would be shown not to happen.  But you pull the same sophistry that all creationists pull, you address the origins of life itself—a mystery at the moment—as either a spontaneous creation or spontaneous generation from inanimate matter—you have no scientific argument based on mathematics, fossils, DNA or the like…you just spin your tales.  Saying that, “God created life b/c it could come about no other way” is not science, it’s your demagogic opinion.  “Biochemists have produced models to show how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life/DNA could have formed themselves and organized into self-replicating, self-sustaining units laying the foundation for biochemistry.”  http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist&print=true

That analysis is called the scientific method.  Your analysis is called speculative demagoguery.
I still have no idea what you are trying to say about Pasteur and ‘evolutionists’ or as I like to call them, ‘scientists’.

Quote
As it is a supernatural event, I can't produce a verifiable explanation of the initial act, itself. At best, I can point indirectly to created being and the intricacies therein, to show evidence for a supernatural source of life.
You might be right.  But by your own admission, you are not practicing science.  Evolution is science.  Your arguments are not.  This is the creationist argument in a nutshell.


Quote
One, fruit flies producing more fruit flies is hardly proof of one creature evolving into another completely unlike itself. To the contrary, it sounds eerily similar to that phrase in Genesis about creatures reproducing after their own kind.

Two, Archaeopteryx is a full-fledged bird, not a bird-lizard hybrid. It was this alleged transition (or any one in which one creature "evolves" into another completely different creature) for which I asked an example of observation in the lab (i.e. a replication of the alleged circumstances that got reptiles to start sprouting feathers and start clucking, chirping, or quacking). That you have NOT shown.

Flies begat more flies? Tell me something I don't already know.
I’m sorry if you don’t like my proof.  But that stuff is the scientific standard out there now.  Do birds and lizards share a common ancestor?  Yes, Archaeopteryx is proof of that.  Did all life have a common ancestral gene pool?  It certainly looks that way considering the genetic similarities between all life forms.  Does the speciation of flies in a laboratory change that?  No.  It shows the steps in the chain.  Look below for my bit on macro-evolutionary changes.

Quote
Au contraire, the request was for LAB replication, not fossils. If there were natural circumstances that caused reptiles to start changing into birds, such should be able to be replicated in a lab or similar setting. That would be OBSERVATION, someone watching such take place. Define what it takes to make a reptile start displaying bird characteristics (temperature, chemical reactions, radiation, etc.), produce that environment, put a lizard in there, and let's see if some feather start to grow.
Here are the natural circumstances for a lizard to turn into a bird:  common genetic pool, inherited traits, reproduction, mutation, gene transfer, genetic drift, natural selection, adaptation…throw in a few hundred million years and there you are.  If you can reproduce those things in a lab, I’ll give you Al Gore’s Nobel Prize.


Quote
You beat me to it, with the fruit flies, a prime example of creatures reproducing after their own kind: different colors, sizes, and reproductive capability, even, But, they're still flies, nonetheless.
Macro-evolutionary changes are determined from fossil records and DNA evidence and not direct observation for the reason I stated above.

Quote
Sure I do, or at least, so do creation scientists (i.e. fossils, rocks, chemicals, etc.).
Then by all means let’s see your scientific evidence for God’s creation of life.  So far all I’ve seen is your criticism of evolution and unsupported statements of obvious creation.

Report to moderator   Logged
Necrosis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8480


« Reply #119 on: December 10, 2007, 11:18:50 AM »

autocatalytic theory.
Report to moderator   Logged
columbusdude82
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6896


I'm too sexy for my shirt!!!


WWW
« Reply #120 on: April 27, 2008, 09:21:08 AM »

BUMP
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!