Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Necrosis on October 01, 2006, 07:33:32 PM
-
ok atheist claim god is an absurd topic but you pick which is more absurd
the big bang comes from nothing( nothingness creates somethingness apparently on its own) to produce initially only light beams no matter no electrons neutrons nothing( this violates many laws already). then it compresses on itself and through the famous e=mc2 produces only( neutrons, protons etc) into hydrogen and helium which collapse on itself until it explodes into massive amounts of hydrgen and helium. this hydrogen and helium cannot make life but start to make heavier elements such as iron etc which are necessary for life. this forms the universe as we no it, the sun the stars the everything. the sun forms and the earth forms at an incredibly percise spot were life is possible and is aloud to rotate unlike venus etc.. to keep free of complications. it is tilted perfectly with the moon at a perfect distance any deviation would result in collapse, i mean small fractional changes.
ok the earth cools and life begins immediately, not billions of years for life would not be here but immediately and with very little, some rocks water few elements. then for 3 billion years remain single cell according to the fossil record and boom all of a sudden 34 phyla formed at the same time in an instant as dated by the fossil record. photosynthesis starts immediately when the earth cools also.this refutes darwin as dated in the fossil record. so everything you see, every person every door, chair etc all came from a beam of light as happened from the big bang. we are light condensed into living matter.
oh wait, inert matter becomes alive and conscious of it's exsistence and reproduces. but wait, why would bacteria reproduce did it want to increase its fitness. did it know it was going to die thus said i should reproduce.
again we came from light beams this is a fact from the materialistic model.
now which sounds more ridicoulous that all this happened by chance which according to the champion of this theory is impossible after his retraction as seen in scientific america. or did it have something behind it which planned created and acted upon the universe do it.
we really are connected since we all came from beams of light first emitted from the big bang!
-
Oh please, your creation theory is just as absurd as proclaiming an invisible pink unicorn created the universe with its magic horn! You also managed to bastardize the big bang theory, star formation theory, and evolution.
-
no i never i just simplified it to its basic parts, you bastardize the idea of a god by using the pink unicorn idea. pink and unicorns exist i already said this, anything you can conceptualize exists, so that is a dumb argument. think of a new sense, what would it involve?
light beams fact
compression of those light beams to particles to matter fact
instant life formation fact
single cell for 3 billion years fact
photo instant fact
34 phyla instant fact
bacteria reproduce for no reason fact
inert matter into living matter fact
this matter can now create music, think, talk, and know of it's exsistence fact.
nothing wrong with anything i said just admit it, creation seems logical given the inprobabilities and design implicated in the delicate structure of the universe. what is wrong with what i said, did i make something up? no. did you about pink unicorns, yes. i purport not to know the physical properties of god but only to say that god seems logical.
-
you can make god seem more unbelievable by likening him to a pink unicorn but when i tell the actual factual as seen in science it seems ridiculous for some reason.
-
you post pictures of skulls which are supposed transitional fossils of man. now let me refute you
neanderthal 1956 rejected in 1960's as a man with arthritis
hesperopithecus 1922, rejected 1927 as an extinct pig
1912 piltdown man, revealed in 1953 as a hoax by evolutionists
zinjanthropus 1958, rejected 1960's by later find
ramapithecus, rejected in 1929 as an extinct pig, was discoverd in 1964.
any other fossils were catergorized as co-habiting ape and man fossils by renouned palentologists.
again your theory goes beyond its application.
-
answer this question using your theories, or laws or whatever. for one single rung of dna to come together the chances are 10 to the -87 or as some people with a brain like to call it impossible. again how did nothingness become somethingness?
merely saying we dont know can be used as an argument for creation too, god hasn't been seen yet but will be. it is moot so answer the question to the best of your ability if you will
also, evolution happens so slow we cant see it as touted by many or in punctuated equilibrium which is too fast to see. ok that sounds logical, so again we have the same data we are looking at it wrong, but i feel evolution is starting at the wrong point.
-
Okay, let's take a look at your original post since you think you merely "simplified" science.
the big bang comes from nothing( nothingness creates somethingness apparently on its own) to produce initially only light beams no matter no electrons neutrons nothing( this violates many laws already).
The Big Bang Theory makes no such claim. It describes the expansion of space-time. There is no mention of light beams in the theory.
then it compresses on itself and through the famous e=mc2 produces only( neutrons, protons etc) into hydrogen and helium which collapse on itself until it explodes into massive amounts of hydrgen and helium. this hydrogen and helium cannot make life but start to make heavier elements such as iron etc which are necessary for life. this forms the universe as we no it, the sun the stars the everything.
In the early universe, only hydrogen was present. Massive clouds of hydrogen collapsed and ignited in a process called fusion. This fusion produces new elements inside stars which are blasted out into space when stars undergo supernova.
the sun forms and the earth forms at an incredibly percise spot were life is possible and is aloud to rotate unlike venus etc.. to keep free of complications. it is tilted perfectly with the moon at a perfect distance any deviation would result in collapse, i mean small fractional changes.
Your logic is flawed. The sun and earth did not form so that life may evolve, rather life evolved b/c of where the sun and the earth formed. Look at it this way. If the sun had been colder, you would be standing on Mars saying how fine tuned the solar system is for life.
ok the earth cools and life begins immediately, not billions of years for life would not be here but immediately and with very little, some rocks water few elements. then for 3 billion years remain single cell according to the fossil record and boom all of a sudden 34 phyla formed at the same time in an instant as dated by the fossil record. photosynthesis starts immediately when the earth cools also.this refutes darwin as dated in the fossil record. so everything you see, every person every door, chair etc all came from a beam of light as happened from the big bang. we are light condensed into living matter.
Life did not begin immediately as you say. It is believed the earliest signs of life appeared 600 million years after the earth formed. These life forms were possibly derived from self-reproducing RNA molecules. The replication of these organisms required resources which soon became limited, resulting in natural selection. DNA molecules then took over as the main replicators. They began to develop inside enclosed membranes which provided a stable environment for replication: proto-cells. 100 million years passed before cells resembling prokaryotes appeared. These organisms were chemoautotrophs. Another 900 million years passed before photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolved which produced oxygen. The oxygen concentration in the atmosphere subsequently rised. Eventually, more complex cells began to appear: the eukaryotes. After 2 billion years, the first multicellular organisms evolved. Natural selection fueled the evolutionary radiation that occured during the last 1 billion years.
oh wait, inert matter becomes alive and conscious of it's exsistence and reproduces. but wait, why would bacteria reproduce did it want to increase its fitness. did it know it was going to die thus said i should reproduce.
Whether we evolved from non-living matter or god(s) made us, the fact remains abiogenesis did occur. We had to come from somewhere. I'm not really sure what initially caused life to reproduce.
again we came from light beams this is a fact from the materialistic model.
Please show me one credible scientific article that states we evolved from light.
now which sounds more ridicoulous that all this happened by chance which according to the champion of this theory is impossible after his retraction as seen in scientific america. or did it have something behind it which planned created and acted upon the universe do it.
Which theory sounds more ridiculous is irrelevant. The fact remains there is ample evidence which support the Big Bang Theory, star formation theory, and evolution. However, there is no shred of evidence which proves the existence of god(s).
we really are connected since we all came from beams of light first emitted from the big bang!
Ignorance must be bliss!
-
you post pictures of skulls which are supposed transitional fossils of man. now let me refute you
neanderthal 1956 rejected in 1960's as a man with arthritis
hesperopithecus 1922, rejected 1927 as an extinct pig
1912 piltdown man, revealed in 1953 as a hoax by evolutionists
zinjanthropus 1958, rejected 1960's by later find
ramapithecus, rejected in 1929 as an extinct pig, was discoverd in 1964.
any other fossils were catergorized as co-habiting ape and man fossils by renouned palentologists.
how does that refute me? None of the fossils you mentioned are in my pic.
again your theory goes beyond its application.
how so? I have yet to see anything from you that actually disproves evolution.
-
answer this question using your theories, or laws or whatever. for one single rung of dna to come together the chances are 10 to the -87 or as some people with a brain like to call it impossible. again how did nothingness become somethingness?
oh really? Well, I read the prbability of DNA forming on its own is 10 to the -10. Anyone can make up their own statistics. Please show me your source. Regarding matter, we currently don't have an explanation. Maybe it has always existed. I don't see how this disproves the Big Bang Theory or evolution.
merely saying we dont know can be used as an argument for creation too, god hasn't been seen yet but will be. it is moot so answer the question to the best of your ability if you will
the difference is that you jump to the conclusion that god(s) created the universe. This is faulty logic.
also, evolution happens so slow we cant see it as touted by many or in punctuated equilibrium which is too fast to see. ok that sounds logical, so again we have the same data we are looking at it wrong, but i feel evolution is starting at the wrong point.
please expand b/c I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
-
read about the big bang and you will dicover the electromagnetic radiation, light energy was the first formation, apply e=mc2 equals matter etc. i wont go over it again.
those fossils are in your pick name the fossils in your pick because i have no idea were you gleaned them from, i assumed they were since they appear however, i could be wrong but no transitional fossils have been found, out of the millions of fossils. i can post a link with a expert in palentology and the geological strata saying this and claiming fossils are mistakes, which they are.
it is a quote from a nuclear physicist and oceanography phd from mIt and with high level chemistry and biology as pertaining to dna sequencing( also, in scientific america, if you like i will elaborate). you avoid the fact and explain the evolution of bacteria all you want, from the fossil record 34 phyla are seen to happen abruptly, this is a fact and evolutionist reckon its good old
punctuated equilibrium( you familiar with the theory ). i again claim and state as fact that speciation has never been seen ever anywere on this planet.
as for the mars comment, that is a fallacy. tidal flows, difference in tilt, orbit, rotation would make life impossible. thinking of imaginary scenarios were life may be possible is fine, but stick to the facts. earth is in a huge delicate balance. also, you have no idea what cooler temps as you put it would create a optimal envoiroment the facts however refute you in that they state earth and the sun in relation to the planets is in a delicte balance which is highly improbable.
ok, your theory violates laws yet you cling to it, that is the big bang. it is a theory of creation in that the materialistic model states it as the first occurence in the universe, thus it is relevant to singularity. ok so the big bang is swirling around until it explodes violently to create this universe. so according to the law of angular momentum everything should be spinning the same way ala the big bang. why then do some planets rotate the opposite way? guess it just violates it but it is acceptable. lets not forget darwin was a atheist.
next point second law of thermodynamics you tend to not answer this point, everything tends towards chaos or decay. this is a fact yes. why then do organisms become more complex via bacteria to human. they contain no chlrophyll to harness the energy required to break this cycle and as you stated the first bacteria contained no pigment.
everything you say is conjecture and speculation about 600 million years, refs please.
ok so the earth was heated and cooled obviously then explain polonium halos in granite which refutes this adequetely. also the term missing link comes up alot in evolution, perhaps because there is none.
also, moral code what is the standard, if it was learned then wouldn't generations exhibit different morals as expressed by the leaders ect. no it is innate, people may choose not to do right or wrong ( ie murderers, but knew the difference, this is a psychology concept) thus it is innate. that also seems rather strange.
also the universe is not superheavy as evidenced by data thus not self sustaining if that was an argument.
you describe the exact same sequence of events i did with more detail and proper names yet the ridiculousness shines through. ok back to singularity. i say god created matter you say what created matter dirt, nothingness. both are religions inherently my friend i just think my explains more. and if you say you dont know what created matter then why do you reject god, seems logical more so then nothingness surely nothingness cannot create somethingness wouldn't you agree
and my point about punctuated equilibrium is that evolutionist come up with different models that we cant observe to justify their beliefs again it is a religion based on faith. amen.
-
read about the big bang and you will dicover the electromagnetic radiation, light energy was the first formation, apply e=mc2 equals matter etc. i wont go over it again.
The Big Bang Theory states no such thing. Furthermore, the "light energy" you speak of is one of the products that was released from the initial expansion. Matter was also present in the form of protons and neutrons. Get your facts straight.
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotrophy Probe
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html
those fossils are in your pick name the fossils in your pick because i have no idea were you gleaned them from, i assumed they were since they appear however, i could be wrong but no transitional fossils have been found, out of the millions of fossils. i can post a link with a expert in palentology and the geological strata saying this and claiming fossils are mistakes, which they are. it is a quote from a nuclear physicist and oceanography phd from mIt and with high level chemistry and biology as pertaining to dna sequencing( also, in scientific america, if you like i will elaborate).
Here is the list of fossils in the pic.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg)
Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Evolution predicts we share a common ancestor. Therefore, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. The aforementioned fossils demonstrate characterisitcs unique to both organisms. By definition, they are transitional fossils. You can go ahead and post the article where an expert claims some fossils were faked. This does not disprove the plethora of genuine fossils discovered. It merely proves that some of the fossils he studied were fake.
you avoid the fact and explain the evolution of bacteria all you want, from the fossil record 34 phyla are seen to happen abruptly, this is a fact and evolutionist reckon its good old punctuated equilibrium( you familiar with the theory ). i again claim and state as fact that speciation has never been seen ever anywere on this planet.
Evolution theory predicts that there have been millions of transitional organisms. It does not predict that all these organisms were preserved as fossils. Just b/c there are gaps in the fossil record does not mean we can jump to the conclusion that no more fossils are left to be discovered.
as for the mars comment, that is a fallacy. tidal flows, difference in tilt, orbit, rotation would make life impossible. thinking of imaginary scenarios were life may be possible is fine, but stick to the facts. earth is in a huge delicate balance. also, you have no idea what cooler temps as you put it would create a optimal envoiroment the facts however refute you in that they state earth and the sun in relation to the planets is in a delicte balance which is highly improbable.
No, facts do not refute me. I was raising a point in my last post - how can you say earth is fine tuned for life when you have nothing to compare to? For all we know, aliens in a distant galaxy with a sun different than our own could be saying the same thing about their planet. The reason you have difficulty comprehending this is b/c your logic is flawed. The sun and earth did not form so that life may evolve, rather life evolved b/c of where the sun and the earth formed.
ok, your theory violates laws yet you cling to it, that is the big bang. it is a theory of creation in that the materialistic model states it as the first occurence in the universe, thus it is relevant to singularity. ok so the big bang is swirling around until it explodes violently to create this universe. so according to the law of angular momentum everything should be spinning the same way ala the big bang. why then do some planets rotate the opposite way? guess it just violates it but it is acceptable. lets not forget darwin was a atheist.
The Big Bang Theory does not violate any laws. If it did, then I assure you it would no longer be a scientific theory. The theory never states the big bang swirled around until it exploded to create the univese. In fact, your arguments are beginning to sound exactly like "Dr." Hovind's. He was refuted years ago by leading scientists. Who cares if Darwin was an atheist? I don't see how that changes anything.
next point second law of thermodynamics you tend to not answer this point, everything tends towards chaos or decay. this is a fact yes. why then do organisms become more complex via bacteria to human. they contain no chlrophyll to harness the energy required to break this cycle and as you stated the first bacteria contained no pigment.
I've already explained this to you. Do you not read my posts? Evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics b/c life is an open system. We recieve our energy from the sun. Plants convert photoenergy into chemical energy which is used by animals. The earliest forms of life probably did not require energy in the sense you think. They most likely incorporated molecules to replicate themselves much like viruses.
everything you say is conjecture and speculation about 600 million years, refs please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
ok so the earth was heated and cooled obviously then explain polonium halos in granite which refutes this adequetely. also the term missing link comes up alot in evolution, perhaps because there is none.
Sorry, but you can do your own research. You ask me a barrage of questions and then expect me to answer every single one of them. I will not waist my time lecturing you whenever you have a question, especially when keep repeating the same ignorant comments over and over. God gave you 2 hands and a brain - now use them! ;)
also, moral code what is the standard, if it was learned then wouldn't generations exhibit different morals as expressed by the leaders ect. no it is innate, people may choose not to do right or wrong ( ie murderers, but knew the difference, this is a psychology concept) thus it is innate. that also seems rather strange.
This has nothing to do with evolution. Look up moral philosophy.
also the universe is not superheavy as evidenced by data thus not self sustaining if that was an argument.
I don't know what you are talking about. Please explain.
you describe the exact same sequence of events i did with more detail and proper names yet the ridiculousness shines through. ok back to singularity. i say god created matter you say what created matter dirt, nothingness. both are religions inherently my friend i just think my explains more. and if you say you dont know what created matter then why do you reject god, seems logical more so then nothingness surely nothingness cannot create somethingness wouldn't you agree
The Big Bang Theory is not a religion. Science uses evidence to support theories. Belief in a god(s) requires a leap of faith b/c there is no evidence.
and my point about punctuated equilibrium is that evolutionist come up with different models that we cant observe to justify their beliefs again it is a religion based on faith. amen.
Evolutionists use the fossil record, stratigraphy, radiometric dating, embryology, comparative homology, and molecular biology to study evolution. There is a wealth of evidence that supports macroevolution. You assume that it never happened b/c nobody has ever witnessed it. Unfortunately, you are wrong. The law uses a similar process called forensics to piece together events that occured without a witness. Using your logic, thousands of criminals should be let free b/c nobody ever saw them commit a crime. Maybe all the detectives were wrong. ::)
-
nice avoidance of the polonium argument ???. your link states what i stated. i will post the video of the nuclear physicists refuting you, he was instrumental in converting antony flew.
ok who refuted hovind? ive seen a few debates and read some of his material. which person refuted him publicly and not behind a computer with no accountability? he demolished every evolutionist i saw, however i haven't seen a video or debate in a while. you tell me who won the debate against him, please because in my estimation he makes the brights look stupid and anyone with a brain can watch the debates and sense the defeat ruminating from them. i am not ignorant my friend, you are. so here watch this video and have a refute.
again im not asking you questions im merely asking rhetorical questions if you will, much like you that point to flaws. its funny you said look up the polonium answer since there is none and you perhaps know it. if strata form slowly over millions of years then why is there upright petrified trees found in the strata. would seem impossible.
who publicly debate hovind and won. i would love to see that debate, would be interesting none the less.
-
here is the video, also stop saying things like holding my hand and such when all you do is post links and pretend it reflects your intelligence again, i dont wish to google fight with you as it is pointless.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3548833227680975011&q=god+and+the+universe
-
you mean this information about hovind. come on bro this is pure tatical attacks and personal conjecture with editing. show me a debate.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2906061784102082283&q=evolution+versus+creation
this is a sad excuse for an argument ::)
-
nice avoidance of the polonium argument ???. your link states what i stated. i will post the video of the nuclear physicists refuting you, he was instrumental in converting antony flew.
Honestly, I was in a hurry to go workout. You ask me a barrage of questions and then expect me to answer every single one of them. The reason I skipped your polonium argument is b/c I've never heard of it. I'm able to respond quickly to most of your posts b/c I know a lot of the answers off the top of my head.
ok who refuted hovind? ive seen a few debates and read some of his material. which person refuted him publicly and not behind a computer with no accountability? he demolished every evolutionist i saw, however i haven't seen a video or debate in a while. you tell me who won the debate against him, please because in my estimation he makes the brights look stupid and anyone with a brain can watch the debates and sense the defeat ruminating from them. i am not ignorant my friend, you are. so here watch this video and have a refute.
It's very difficult to find oral debates between Hovind and scientists. They are not only scarce on the web, but he also charges for them. The problem is further compounded by the fact that many reputable scientists refuse to engage in an oral debate with him. He spits out many lies so rapidly that it's impossible to counter all of them in an oral debate. Here's one example (note: this is just 1 of 6 pages).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html
As you can see, the amount of effort and time spent refuting only 15 of his lies is far far greater than the amount of time it takes for him to spread them. Hovind relies on a rapid assault of misconceptions and his fake credentials to impress gullible audiences. However, he avoids written debates where his arguments can be examined in detail like the plague. These sites do a great job of exposing his lies.
Analysis of Kent Hovind
http://www.kent-hovind.com
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
Till-Hovind Debate
http://www.skeptictank.org/hovind2.htm
A Response to Kent Hovind's Coast-to-Coast AM Interview
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/hovind_fractured_fairy_tales.htm
again im not asking you questions im merely asking rhetorical questions if you will, much like you that point to flaws. its funny you said look up the polonium answer since there is none and you perhaps know it. if strata form slowly over millions of years then why is there upright petrified trees found in the strata. would seem impossible.
I told you to look it up b/c I was in a hurry to workout. Many of the ignorant comments you make can be avoided if you simply did research on your own. For example, you could have looked up the Big Bang Theory or evolution. I am under the impression that you get many of your "facts" from religious websites.
who publicly debate hovind and won. i would love to see that debate, would be interesting none the less.
Hovind is too afraid to engage in a written public debate. So the answer is none that I'm aware of. I would like to see these debates he won against reputable scientists that you speak of. I wouldn't be surprised if he debated with an english or religion professor.
-
also stop saying things like holding my hand and such when all you do is post links and pretend it reflects your intelligence again, i dont wish to google fight with you as it is pointless.
You think all I do is post links, huh? I must be imagining the words in my posts. ::)
-
you mean this information about hovind. come on bro this is pure tatical attacks and personal conjecture with editing. show me a debate.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2906061784102082283&q=evolution+versus+creation
this is a sad excuse for an argument.
Not really, I find that video does a good job of exposing Kent Hovind's lies. This video does a better job.
-
The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!
here is the argument against the sun shrinking. so inference from current situations and extrapolations doesn't equal science, hmmm that is science, that is the best we can do that is exactly what radiometric data is. plus to do radiometric data is based on numerous assumptions. refute the first video if you will, i read your link and will watch your video. in plain words a phd physicist will describe the big bang to you so you have it straight, unless he is a gross liar or mis-informed which i doubt you are wrong. your link also states that electromagnetic light was the first occurence after the big bang. watch it, i dont get my information from the religious sites as you claim most of what i say is from books but i have looked at religious site, i mean isn't that the base of my argument, looking at skeptic magazine sites isn't going to find me proof.
your link is from a skeptic site, jeez i wonder what there going to say about kent hovind
heres kent pwning dr shermer, the cheif editor of skeptic magazine.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1410330225420430733&q=kent+hovind
here he is ass raping another doctor. this one is funny the crowd even laughs at the professor when he says "no" there is no evidence what soever of inorganic to organic matter. then he says he beleives in god and starts making stupid arguments and waiting off to the side.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4440517326780624645&q=kent+hovind
anyway you decide who won but i think it's clear.
-
also, you must get all your info from skeptic sites because he'll debate anyone one on one but that's not good enough he has to write a debate. i already know what he's going to say he doesn't have different arguments watch the slide. so your telling me a doctor cannot figure out rebuttles to his material from previous arguments and debate them live, they have to do a lengthy email debate which is what we are doing which is wholely worse then physical debates. you can cry foul about the debates all you want but the couple i posted with mike shermer prove my point not yours.
-
im not asking you anything these questions are simply questions that are rhetorical in priciple, i will state them next time so you dont think im begging you to find a link i could easily find, which is a way to make me seem less intelligent ad hominen.
funny thing is when i took a couple days to respond you claimed i was frustrated yet i respond immediately to your posts and you took how long to write back on the refute this atheist thread?
-
here is a link to the conversion of antony flew to deism. look at the books he says were instrumental i think you'll be happy when reading them.
http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html
-
you dont have a very good understanding of the big bang my friend. you say light wasn't the first circumstance in time then post an article saying exactly what i said, the big bang first emitted electromagnetic radiation, you know what that is right. so no matter was initially present.
-
The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!
The "shrinking sun" argument has been thoroughly discredited and is rejected even by many creationist organizations. It is a classic example of misuse of data and a failure to correct mistakes. The problems with this argument is that the data do not show the sun to be shrinking but rather remaining fairly constant in size with slight oscillation, and it assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. This assumption is baseless. Other stars expand and contract cyclically. So there's no reason to think our own sun doesn't do the same on a small scale.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof1
here is the argument against the sun shrinking. so inference from current situations and extrapolations doesn't equal science, hmmm that is science, that is the best we can do that is exactly what radiometric data is. plus to do radiometric data is based on numerous assumptions. refute the first video if you will, i read your link and will watch your video. in plain words a phd physicist will describe the big bang to you so you have it straight, unless he is a gross liar or mis-informed which i doubt you are wrong. your link also states that electromagnetic light was the first occurence after the big bang. watch it, i dont get my information from the religious sites as you claim most of what i say is from books but i have looked at religious site, i mean isn't that the base of my argument, looking at skeptic magazine sites isn't going to find me proof.
your link is from a skeptic site, jeez i wonder what there going to say about kent hovind
Are you kidding me? Looking at skeptic resources is what will lead you to the truth; not biased religious books that are clearly anti-evolution. It was skeptics who disproved the earth is flat or that rodents evolved from decaying meat. No wonder your understanding of science is warped.
heres kent pwning dr shermer, the cheif editor of skeptic magazine.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1410330225420430733&q=kent+hovind
Give me a break! I just watched the whole video. Kent Hovind spreads so many lies and misconceptions in a short amount of time, it's pathetic. Here a just a few of them. I got tired of refuting him after a while.
"Would you please explain to me how we get a tree petrified connecting all these [strata] layers? I don't know how long dead trees stand up around here in California before they fall down, but in Florida you get maybe 5 or 6 years. Anybody telling you those layers are different ages has a problem in his thinking."
Fossilized vertical tree trunks do not disprove evolution or an old earth. The strata associated with polystrate fossils is simply evidence of rapid deposition. For example, the 1993 Mississippi River flooded and dumped up to 6 feet of sand on the forests and farm fields of the Midwest. This had the effect of killing millions of trees whose trunks are now polystrate tree trunks. They are firmly rooted in the pre-1993 sediments and their trunks extend through the next layer.
"Evolution is not part of science. Evolution is a religion."
Wrong. Religion is the set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. By its nature, religion is built on faith. There is no shred of evidence which proves the existence of god(s). The theory of evolution describes the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation. There is ample evidence which support evolutionary theory. Thus, evolution is not a religion.
"The word evolution has really 6 different meanings or levels or stages... cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, macro-evolution, and micro-evolution."
No. Hovind creates his own definition of evolution that links dissimilar processes under a single rubric. He believes there is some all-encompassing "general theory of evolution" that includes cosmology, astrophysics, abiogenesis, and biological evolution. The first 3 have nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
"According to the Big Bang Theory, the Big Bang produced hydrogen."
The Big Bang Theory makes no such claim. It describes the expansion of space-time.
"You got a chicken and an egg problem. Did the elements come before the stars? See, the elements make up the stars and stars make up the elements. Which one came first? They got a real chicken and an egg problem when it comes to chemical evolution."
No, only 1 element is used in the formation of stars - hydrogen. Stars produce heavier elements in a process called fusion. These heavy elements are cast out into space, which are then incorporated to form planets, moons, and asteroids.
"The evolutionist is still left 200 years behind the times in science. They still believe non-living material can spontaneously generate."
This is a blatant lie by Hovind to mislead gullible audiences. There are no evolutionists who still believe in spontaneous generation - the formation of complex life from decaying organic substances. In fact, it was disproven over 300 yrs ago. What evolutionists believe is that life came from non-living matter. Although we are uncertain of the mechanism responsible, the fact remains abiogenesis did occur. We had to come from somewhere.
"Nobody has made life and if a bunch of intelligent people do get together and make life, that would prove it takes intelligence to make life. Duh."
Hovind's logic is flawed here. Scientists can simulate tornados and lightning in laboratory experiments. This does not prove that nature has an intelligence. All it does is demonstrate what conditions are necessary for these to occur.
"Evolution theory teaches 20 billion years ago, or sometime in the past like that, there was a big bang where nothing exploded."
No, it doesn't. Evolutionary theory describes the change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation. This has nothing to do with cosmology. Furthermore, the Big Bang Theory is not about the origin of the universe but rather its development with time. It does not say something came from nothing.
"Evolution is the dumbest and most dangerous idea in the history of the world! Evolution theory leads straight to Hitler, Stalin, Pot Pot, abortion, communism, Marxism, rejection of lgoic and Hell if you don't trust Christ!"
::)
here he is ass raping another doctor. this one is funny the crowd even laughs at the professor when he says "no" there is no evidence what soever of inorganic to organic matter. then he says he beleives in god and starts making stupid arguments and waiting off to the side.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4440517326780624645&q=kent+hovind
anyway you decide who won but i think it's clear.
Okay, I have watched the video. I will refute some of his comments here. There are just too many to list. Even Dr. James Paulson says that it is impossible for him to refute every single one of Kent Hovind's lies in the time he is alloted to speak. I don't know what makes you think Hovind delivered an "ass raping" when it's clear his arguments are full of shit.
"Nobody has ever nailed down a good hard solid definition of species. The examples he (Dr. James Paulson) gave of the gulls not being able to interbreed, well stand 30 feet away and look at it. It's still a bird, okay? It's a gull. That's not evolution."
There is no 1 clear-cut definition of a species b/c evolution is ongoing. Some species are in the process of forming while others are recently formed and difficult to interpret. The main definition of a species is the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. Kent Hovind's argument that all species of gull are the same b/c they look like a bird is laughable at best. This does nothing to discredit evolution.
"To say that a dog and a wolf have a common ancestor is reasonsible. It's wise. That's sensible. To say that a dog and banana have a common ancestor is not wise and not reasonsible and not sensible. Now if you want to believe that, that's fine but that's not science."
Hovind says a dog and banana do not share a common ancestor, yet he offers absolutely no proof to back up his claim. Studies in molecular biology show that all organisms on earth have DNA in common.
"Evolution is a religion."
Wrong. There is ample evidence which support evolutionary theory. Thus, evolution is not a religion.
"It (evolution) violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics."
No, it doesn't. We've already discussed this.
"There are 6 different meanings to the word evolution... cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, macro-evolution, and micro-evolution."
See above.
-
i understand your arguments against hovind. however, we are arguing creation and going back and forth on big bang evolution, basically god versus science. i will respond to your posts however.
-
I was merely responding to your posts. You claimed Kent Hovind "demolished every evolutionists" you saw. I refuted many of his lies from the links you provided to prove he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not here to argue science vs god b/c that would be pointless. God will lose everytime. I am simply defending evolution and The Big Bang against your ignorant comments.
-
my ignorant comments your refutation consisted of discrepancies in defintions of evolution hovind uses and things that support his theory of the flood. by that i mean petrfied trees found worldwide would indicate a flood if that is the only possible explanation in the strata.
you are ignorant my friend to space-time i can spell it out in steps for you if you want. remember you wanted me to reference the claim of photons being the first exsistence and said it doesn't state that, umm ok.
also, in your mind boggling refutation you have numerous statements in which hovind words things inappropriately and claim to refute his claim. no he is arguing for god agaisnt science which claims that evolution of nothingness to somethingness occured, this is the premise mind you, without coercion. then he debates factual evidence which contradicts evolution and i will list them to pin you down so your refutation of definitions wont seem so spellbinding.
inorganic matter into living matter, haven't been proven is a faith issue this were the relgion comes in if your not sure you have no idea how inorganic matter could form into living matter you just assume it did(abiogenesis) but not that god did it but something and this is the start of your theory, thus faith issue.
also, polonium 80 halos contradict a hot molten earth, i wont explain why.
34 phyla appear at once in the fossil record, thus the need for fast mechanism already stated twice in my posts.
all fossils appear in the record with eyes already no intermediate steps seen. could elaborate and clarify but wont.
no transitional fossils found, perhaps some were different species not intermediate steps, you dont know and i dont know, but the vestigal argument is horrible and shermers is better but inadequete.
macro speciation has never been observed, im sure with all this extinction the formation of a new class of organism from a previous organism would be seen. since this has never been observed again faith issue, you beleive it. your argument will be fossils but there are no transitional fossils, view video for explanation of this.
you used quantum fluctuation for the explanation of origin and when i claim the universe isn't superheavy you say you dont know what im refering to.
again i ask what in your estimation if not something supernatural and above the space-time continuim created the big bang or inputed the first energy?
also, did the laws invent themselves that would have to be what occured. take antony flews positon and accept the evidence. again how do you explain the laws creating themselves to maintain order, because without them this universe fails, it isn't logical they created themselves thus something above everything created them.
also why would bacteria reproduce, it is purpose driven?
the big bang had zero volume and infinite density, impossible.
natual selection what is the mechanism mutation. well read lee m spetners book which reveals this mis conception, mutations delete not improve and make organisms weaker quite a good book.
-
Hovind seems like a clown of the highest order :-\
-
hovind does use jokes and such as tactics however does have some good points but some bad points.
you may answer my questions if you wish but here is the main idea i want you to take away from this argument.
space time was created, it came into exsistence, the light, matter was created yes by the big bang but by something obviously preceeding. this cosmological fact points to something creating space time and matter since it is impossible in ordinary terms ( physics states this, and im not going to state why) but this fact that it had to be created equvicates a creator. this is my main argument and the design of the laws etc points to creation,the consciousness of humans, the reproduction of bacteria the utter complexity yet simplistic nature of nature implies a creator. i have no empirical proof for that is not what spirituality is. the only explanation for creation is a miracle, i take the ontological status that a miracle is god's will. this quote will help, " someone discovered water but it wasn't the fish" i belive that is in the video or book dont know but it is metaphysical in ideology.
-
Entering research of any sort without a skeptical viewpoint, properly conceived, is the equivalent of emgaging in analysis abrogating scientific clarity. The two are inextricable. What you believe is irrelevant in terms of proper investigaton; to be critical entails
suspending bias as far as possible. thus skeptic magazine has a pre dispostion of no god, and is not the best place to get information. real quality peer reviewed journals such as pubmed would be a good example and i feel bad if skeptic inquiry is your scientific hotspot.
-
my ignorant comments your refutation consisted of discrepancies in defintions of evolution hovind uses and things that support his theory of the flood. by that i mean petrfied trees found worldwide would indicate a flood if that is the only possible explanation in the strata.
There is no evidence of a worldwide flood. I provided the example of the 1993 Mississippi River flood to demonstrate how polystrate trees formed in 1 geographical location. It's illogical to conclude that all polystrate fossils were formed by a single flood.
you are ignorant my friend to space-time i can spell it out in steps for you if you want. remember you wanted me to reference the claim of photons being the first exsistence and said it doesn't state that, umm ok.
I assure you that I'm not ignorant of science. In fact, I have a bachelors degree in it. I have taken several college courses in biology, chemistry, and physics. I have also spent many hours researching the facts about evolution and the Big Bang. I find it laughable that you call me ignorant since I have refuted you plenty of times. So far, you:
- infered that a scientific theory can be proven
- thought evolution includes abiogenesis
- confused the Big Bang with the origin of the universe
- thought quantum fluctuations are involved with evolution
- said the Big Bang Theory violates the 1st law of thermodynamics
- claimed the Big Bang was an explosion
- used a god-of-the-gaps theory
- said the formation of a star is not well understood and has never been observed
- claimed design in nature proves an intelligent creator
- invented statistics
- said evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
- claimed there are no transitional fossils
- said Archaeopteryx has been refuted
- thought the Big Bang initially produced only light beams
- claimed life began immediately after the earth cooled
I have debunked each of these claims. Furthermore, the fact you defend Kent Hovind proves that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Look up his credentials. He's not even a real Dr. like he claims. He recieved a "Ph.D" in Christian education from a diploma mill. Hovind says that he's been teaching science for 15 yrs. However, he neglects to mention that he taught at a christian school he founded b/c no public schools would hire him.
also, in your mind boggling refutation you have numerous statements in which hovind words things inappropriately and claim to refute his claim. no he is arguing for god agaisnt science which claims that evolution of nothingness to somethingness occured, this is the premise mind you, without coercion. then he debates factual evidence which contradicts evolution and i will list them to pin you down so your refutation of definitions wont seem so spellbinding.
No, Hovind does not debate facts. He portrays his own definition of evolution and then attacks it. This is called a strawman fallacy. It would be like me saying people are evil, therefore god(s) must be evil b/c he created us. I'm sure you would be quick to chime in that god gave us free-will.
inorganic matter into living matter, haven't been proven is a faith issue this were the relgion comes in if your not sure you have no idea how inorganic matter could form into living matter you just assume it did(abiogenesis) but not that god did it but something and this is the start of your theory, thus faith issue.
Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Abiogenesis is the process by which life originated from non-living material. Although we are uncertain of the mechanism responsible, there is evidence that abiogenesis did occur. We are here, aren't we? Whether life evolved or god(s) created us is another debate.
also, polonium 80 halos contradict a hot molten earth, i wont explain why.
No, they don't. The argument that polonium halos prove a young earth have been refuted. First, the sample of rocks collected do not represent the "primordial" basement rocks of the originally created Earth. The samples came from crystallized rocks which crosscut several sedimentary rocks. Second, the geology of the sites the samples came from shows that the polonium was most likely deposited by postmagmatic hydrothermal fluids. Third, numerous erroneous generalizations were made about the origin of the rocks. Fourth, the same process of radiometric dating used to date the rocks also suggests an old earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm
34 phyla appear at once in the fossil record, thus the need for fast mechanism already stated twice in my posts.
Can you provide your source? Even if this is true, all it means is that we discovered 34 phyla that appear roughly around the same time. We cannot infer that they evolved all of a sudden. There are plenty of fossils we haven't discovered yet.
all fossils appear in the record with eyes already no intermediate steps seen. could elaborate and clarify but wont.
Eyes are composed of soft tissue, which is extremely unlikely to survive the fossilization process. A lack of fossilized intermediate eyes does not disprove evolution.
no transitional fossils found, perhaps some were different species not intermediate steps, you dont know and i dont know, but the vestigal argument is horrible and shermers is better but inadequete.
Plenty of transitional fossils have been discovered but you are blinded by ignorance. You are confusing transitional fossils with intermediate fossils. By the way, I never mentioned vestigal organs.
macro speciation has never been observed, im sure with all this extinction the formation of a new class of organism from a previous organism would be seen. since this has never been observed again faith issue, you beleive it. your argument will be fossils but there are no transitional fossils, view video for explanation of this.
Macroevolution has been observed. For example, a new species of mosquito, the molestus form, has speciated from Culex pipiens. Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy such as Primula kewensis. There is also evidence of macroevolution from transitional fossils.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
you used quantum fluctuation for the explanation of origin and when i claim the universe isn't superheavy you say you dont know what im refering to.
I never proposed quantum fluctuation as an explanation for the origin of the universe. I said quantum fluctations were involved in the early moments of its formation. You keep misunderstanding me.
again i ask what in your estimation if not something supernatural and above the space-time continuim created the big bang or inputed the first energy?
Nobody knows. I fail to see how you jump to the conclusion that god(s) must have created the universe.
also, did the laws invent themselves that would have to be what occured. take antony flews positon and accept the evidence. again how do you explain the laws creating themselves to maintain order, because without them this universe fails, it isn't logical they created themselves thus something above everything created them.
Why isn't it logical the natural laws formed on their own after the creation of the universe? Please explain.
also why would bacteria reproduce, it is purpose driven?
I'm not sure.
the big bang had zero volume and infinite density, impossible.
Can you provide your sources? The Big Bang Theory does not make such claims; it describes the expansion of space-time.
natual selection what is the mechanism mutation. well read lee m spetners book which reveals this mis conception, mutations delete not improve and make organisms weaker quite a good book.
Further proof that you don't know what you are talking about. Mutations can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral. Nowhere in scientific literature does it says mutations only "delete" and "make organisms weaker."
-
ok read lee m spetners book about mutations for an eliquette run down.
-you proposed quantum fluctuation as a argument for origin in another theard and claim i did for some reason, yet you dont know what a superheavy universe is.
-i never said abiogenesis is a part of evolution, you have no clue how it occurs yet you state it did because we are hear, that is so convaluted i wont bear to argue it.
-big bang was a explosion by definition from a point of infinite density and zero volume this is common sense if you know about the big bang.
-again you show your complete lack of knowledge by again stating that matter and not photons was the first emittence from the big bang. i can do a run-down of the first three minutes of space-time if you like since you seem to make your own model.
-my claim life began after the life cooled is based on dr gary schoeders book, unless he is a gross liar
- invented no such statistics, i have a degree in psychology and have done advanced level statistics, such as computer models manipulations of anova'a, ancova's and models of regression. my statement of dna came from sci america if you would like to do some reading.
-the fact that the big bang occured does violate the law, you keep jumping into the big bang but what happened before it and it's cosmological proof is non-debateable of violation of this law. ok here big bang would have to come into exsistence from nothing, energy, the photons can not be created from nothing thus violation for the big bang to occur what do you keep missing. you twist and contort my statements but you say no faith is involved in abiogenesis because we are hear you say inorganic to living( with no shred of evidence) and i say god, yet my is faith and yours is science. get real lack of proof equals faith, thus my belief there is a god is faith see the logical sequence.
-you may post something about the possible process of abiogenesis and i will not help you in finding the proper catalysis.
- the polonium 80 argument while you've done a good google is not confined only to the samples argued by skeptic sources which are atheist, and biased as my religion lovers.
- change from species is not macroevolution, stick to one def. they are the same kind of animal( yes hovind) but others argument also. show me a carrot turning into a dog. not a bird making micro changes and beign classified as a new animal. this is a definition barrier, again show me how all animals came from a single bacteria, or a totally opposite creature forming into another.
-
Okay, let's take a look at your original post since you think you merely "simplified" science.
The Big Bang Theory makes no such claim. It describes the expansion of space-time. There is no mention of light beams in the theory.
Ignorance must be bliss!
this my friends is the most ignorant comment ever muttered from a science scholar who even posted a link refuting him and he didn't even know it.
the big bang emitted electromagnetic radiation first or photons. your argument of my simplification of the expansion of space time was chosen to be more complex but not more accurate.
-
ok read lee m spetners book about mutations for an eliquette run down.
No thanks. According to you, his book says mutations only "delete" and "make organisms weaker." This is not true. Mutations can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral.
you proposed quantum fluctuation as a argument for origin in another theard and claim i did for some reason, yet you dont know what a superheavy universe is.
I never proposed quantum fluctuation as an explanation for the origin of the universe. I said quantum fluctations were involved in the early moments of its formation. You keep misunderstanding me.
i never said abiogenesis is a part of evolution, you have no clue how it occurs yet you state it did because we are hear, that is so convaluted i wont bear to argue it.
Yes, you did say abiogenesis is part of evolution. ;)
i think parts of evolution like abiogenesis, etc.. do have their place although proving evolution does not infer lack of design, just the method in which he/she/it did so.
big bang was a explosion by definition from a point of infinite density and zero volume this is common sense if you know about the big bang.
Please show me where you read this. I've already told you the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time; it was not an explosion like a bomb.
again you show your complete lack of knowledge by again stating that matter and not photons was the first emittence from the big bang. i can do a run-down of the first three minutes of space-time if you like since you seem to make your own model.
I never said that. Here is my exact quote: "Furthermore, the "light energy" you speak of is one of the products that was released from the initial expansion. Matter was also present in the form of protons and neutrons." If you carefully read my post earlier, I said photons and matter co-existed during the initial expansion. You keep saying that "light energy" was the first to form. That is incorrect.
my claim life began after the life cooled is based on dr gary schoeders book, unless he is a gross liar
His observations are most likely biased. There is absolutely no evidence that life began immediately like you say. Furthermore, radiometric dating shows the earliest signs of life didn't begin to appear until 100 million years after the earth cooled. So there is no discrepancy in the scientific community.
invented no such statistics, i have a degree in psychology and have done advanced level statistics, such as computer models manipulations of anova'a, ancova's and models of regression. my statement of dna came from sci america if you would like to do some reading.
I have asked you numerous times to cite the source of your DNA statistic. You still haven't provided a source, yet you keep using this statistic in your arguments. ::)
the fact that the big bang occured does violate the law, you keep jumping into the big bang but what happened before it and it's cosmological proof is non-debateable of violation of this law. ok here big bang would have to come into exsistence from nothing, energy, the photons can not be created from nothing thus violation for the big bang to occur what do you keep missing. you twist and contort my statements but you say no faith is involved in abiogenesis because we are hear you say inorganic to living( with no shred of evidence) and i say god, yet my is faith and yours is science. get real lack of proof equals faith, thus my belief there is a god is faith see the logical sequence.
The Big Bang Theory does not violate any laws. If it did, the theory would have been disproven. You seem to think there is a conspiracy to keep teaching evolution and the Big Bang. I assure you that if a scientists could refute either theory, they would win the Nobel Prize. The promise of fame and money if they can disprove evolution or the Big Bang would discourage any scientists from keeping their evidence hidden. I have never twisted or contorted your statements. In fact, I quote you verbatim in my posts. Nice try!
you may post something about the possible process of abiogenesis and i will not help you in finding the proper catalysis.
Abiogenesis is the process by which life originated from non-living material. Although we are uncertain of the mechanism responsible, there is evidence that abiogenesis did occur. We are here, aren't we? Whether life evolved or god(s) created us is another debate.
the polonium 80 argument while you've done a good google is not confined only to the samples argued by skeptic sources which are atheist, and biased as my religion lovers.
I already refuted your polonium argument. Please see the links I provided for more proof.
change from species is not macroevolution, stick to one def. they are the same kind of animal( yes hovind) but others argument also. show me a carrot turning into a dog. not a bird making micro changes and beign classified as a new animal. this is a definition barrier, again show me how all animals came from a single bacteria, or a totally opposite creature forming into another.
Just b/c you are not satisfied with the definition of speciation does not mean it didn't occur.
-
oh brother, you twist what im saying so much it is laughable. the fact that the big bang occured( energy was created) is a violation, do you follow, im not saying the big bang is a violation but it's exsistence per se is. this is not hard to grasp and the only explanation is a miracle, and that leads to god my friend.
you are incorrect again about the big bang matter came from the energy provided by the photons. here you go the first three minutes of your life.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html
read some cosmology before you speak here is a good start my friend
http://www.arxiv.org/, or you can stick to skeptic journal, ahhahahha it has an agenda just like religious sites.
again i state there is no transitional fossils, fossil do not indicate wether anything is transitional or another species all together. could be extinct species but you jump to conclusions such as ahh a monkey skull this was the intermediate stage, nope sorry that is one way of looking at it. look at a platupus for gods sake, this is an old argument but what species did it evolve from? macro evolution is a religion my friend and you are a priest.
again what is morality and why do bacteria reproduce. why did the bible predict the roundness of the earth, the hydrologic cycle and numerous other occurences, perhaps by chance because you like beleiving in utter improbabilities. you didn't know what puntuated equilibrium was, and how it is a sad excuse to hang on to the theory or how fossils are always fully formed never intermediate as expected. new phlya show up in the fossil record abruptly thus they needed punctuated equlibria, and not one shred of evidence is around for it's exsistence.
yes we are here but what makes you think inorganic matter formed into living matter, nothing you just like the idea because it suits your agenda( you said i dont know, but we have ideas, ok so it is faith, the fact we are here provides the same evidence for god). atheism is stupid because you absolutely dont know if god exsists and agnostic stance is at least intelligent. i have more if you like about your theory. did you ever read darwins original book and his doubts and inferences and do you know it's routes, i think not.
i enjoy this debate because i am slicing the neck of your sacred cow.
-
agian just so you can reply directly to this, no matter was initial after the big bang or the big "expansion". also, we were arguing evolution and did indeed use a somewhat hovind style definition, as it was going back and forth between biological and cosmic etc.. still proves nothing ad hominen.
-
watch this video with quotes from my side and your side as it pertains to evolution.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2783773121996810582&q=god+and+evolution
i think they even have a rundown of the big bang, which gasp says light was first.
-
also, do you beleive that supernatural occurences are not possible. how do you explain telepathy, remote viewing and the fact that consciousness can exsist outside the body?
-
http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a05.htm
here ya go, you did not refute polonium halos you merely choose which ones have possible explanations something skeptic digest like to do to prove that god doesn't exists.
-
oh brother, you twist what im saying so much it is laughable. the fact that the big bang occured( energy was created) is a violation, do you follow, im not saying the big bang is a violation but it's exsistence per se is. this is not hard to grasp and the only explanation is a miracle, and that leads to god my friend.
How am I twisting your words if I'm quoting you verbatim? Laugh all you want, but your comment makes no sense. I've already explained to you the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time. It cannot violate the 1st law of thermodynamics b/c it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
you are incorrect again about the big bang matter came from the energy provided by the photons. here you go the first three minutes of your life.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html
do you even bother to read your links? Nowhere does it say matter came from photons. Here is what it does say.
"The Grand Unification Epoch
At t=10-43 sec, T=1032 K:
Gravity separates from the Superforce
Strong & Electroweak Forces unified into the GUTs force.
2 forces rule physics: Gravity & the GUTs force
The Universe at this phase is a hot, dense particle soup of quarks, antiquarks, & photons in equilibrium with each other."
This confirms what I said earlier. I said photons and matter co-existed during the initial expansion. You keep saying that "light energy" was the first to form. That is incorrect.
read some cosmology before you speak here is a good start my friend
http://www.arxiv.org/, or you can stick to skeptic journal, ahhahahha it has an agenda just like religious sites.
You are the one in need of reading scientific literature my friend, not me. So far I have refuted each of your bogus claims using science websites similar to the link you provided.
again i state there is no transitional fossils, fossil do not indicate wether anything is transitional or another species all together. could be extinct species but you jump to conclusions such as ahh a monkey skull this was the intermediate stage, nope sorry that is one way of looking at it. look at a platupus for gods sake, this is an old argument but what species did it evolve from? macro evolution is a religion my friend and you are a priest.
We've already discussed this before. Plenty of transitional fossils have been discovered.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg)
(http://starklab.slu.edu/Bio104/HorseEvol.jpg)
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/164pic1.jpg)
The definition of a transitional fossil is one that displays a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. It does not mean a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. It had many dinosaurian characteristics which are not found in modern birds while having certain characteristics found in birds but not in dinosaurs.
again what is morality and why do bacteria reproduce. why did the bible predict the roundness of the earth, the hydrologic cycle and numerous other occurences, perhaps by chance because you like beleiving in utter improbabilities.
If believing in a magic fairy in the sky helps you sleep at night, that's your personal choice. This does nothing to disprove the Big Bang Theory or evolution.
you didn't know what puntuated equilibrium was, and how it is a sad excuse to hang on to the theory or how fossils are always fully formed never intermediate as expected. new phlya show up in the fossil record abruptly thus they needed punctuated equlibria, and not one shred of evidence is around for it's exsistence.
How is punctuated equilibrium a "sad excuse?" What's your proof? Just b/c you say so doesn't mean it is. You probably assume that punctuated equilibria is mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. However, it's not.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
yes we are here but what makes you think inorganic matter formed into living matter, nothing you just like the idea because it suits your agenda( you said i dont know, but we have ideas, ok so it is faith, the fact we are here provides the same evidence for god).
Round and round we go. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Abiogenesis is the process by which life originated from non-living material. Although we are uncertain of the mechanism responsible, there is evidence that abiogenesis did occur. We had to come from somewhere.
atheism is stupid because you absolutely dont know if god exsists and agnostic stance is at least intelligent. i have more if you like about your theory. did you ever read darwins original book and his doubts and inferences and do you know it's routes, i think not.
::)
i enjoy this debate because i am slicing the neck of your sacred cow.
Oh really? It seems to me like your arguments are full of shit.
-
http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a05.htm
here ya go, you did not refute polonium halos you merely choose which ones have possible explanations something skeptic digest like to do to prove that god doesn't exists.
The link you provided is a religious website with a clearly anti-science agenda. It doesn't disprove the Big Bang Theory or evolution. Here are a few quotes from the site.
"Can anyone, viewing a hummingbird in action and knowing that all its hundreds of organs are packed inside something the size of a marble, believe the myth that, way back, it originated when a lightning bolt hit some dirty seawater? Come now, not even a four-year-old would believe that one."
This is an argument from personal incredulity. It does absolutely nothing to disprove evolution or prove creationism.
"Not evolution, but a creative act of God brought everything into existence."
This is a pretty bold claim when you consider there is no shred of evidence that proves the existence of god(s) let alone the Christian god.
"In addition, according to the Bible, sin and death began after the fall of Adam and Eve. But that important truth would be negated by the theory that savagery, violence, and sudden killing reigned for millions of years on our planet before Adam and Eve came into existence."
I feel sorry for you if that's the best source you can come up with. ::)
-
if i prove to you that photons were first not matter will you apologize and say your ignorant.
great argument about the polonium by the way, pick the quotes you want. i posted the first three minutes for you to understand the laws refer to matter formation but i will spell it out for you, i will get you a link.
you keep saying were here so abiogensis occured, ok were here so god created us, why is mine faith but yours science, convulution at it's finest.
ok a platapus exhibits reptile, mammal, bird like features is it a intermediate form of all these species, could it be possible that your bird, reptile is a different species and not a transitional or intermediate fossil-yes, do you know it is a intermediate fossil no. do bannas turn into dogs nope. most of your transitional fossils are pieced together like lucy by over zealous people with agendas from bones found in huge areas. again there is no such thing as a transitional fossil and you cant prove it, it could be a different species altogether like an ape but you just assume it is turning to a human.
-
if i prove to you that photons were first not matter will you apologize and say your ignorant.
If you can provide a credible source that says matter came from photons, then I will apologize.
great argument about the polonium by the way, pick the quotes you want. i posted the first three minutes for you to understand the laws refer to matter formation but i will spell it out for you, i will get you a link.
I'm not sure what quotes you think I picked. I cannot reply if I have no clue what you are talking about. Also, what did you "post the first three minutes" of? I don't know what you are referring to.
you keep saying were here so abiogensis occured, ok were here so god created us, why is mine faith but yours science, convulution at it's finest.
You misunderstand what abiogenesis means. Abiogenesis is the process by which life originated from non-living material. There are several theories that attempt to explain this process. Whether these theories are correct or not is irrelevant. The fact remains abiogenesis did occur. We had to come from somewhere. Abiogenesis and god are not mutually exclusive of each other.
ok a platapus exhibits reptile, mammal, bird like features is it a intermediate form of all these species, could it be possible that your bird, reptile is a different species and not a transitional or intermediate fossil-yes, do you know it is a intermediate fossil no. do bannas turn into dogs nope. most of your transitional fossils are pieced together like lucy by over zealous people with agendas from bones found in huge areas.
From what I gathered, the platapus is considered an intermediate. This is not to be confused with transitional. There is a difference between transitional and intermediate. Transitional refers to those forms which do not have a significant amount of unique derived traits the derived relative doesn't possess as well (i.e. a transitional fossil is morphologically close to its common ancestor and the derived relative). Intermediate refers to those forms that do have a large number of uniquely derived traits not connected to its derived relative. According to this definition, the platapus is an intermediate b/c it still retains certain reptilian traits no longer found in modern mammals while simultaneously possessing a lot of derived traits of its own.
again there is no such thing as a transitional fossil and you cant prove it, it could be a different species altogether like an ape but you just assume it is turning to a human.
I already defined a transitional fossil and provided several examples. You can stomp your feet and cry all your want, but this doesn't make them go away.
-
i just want you to answer one question if you will, simply the fact that the big bang happened and that it came from nothing is in fact logically repugnant. to honest and tell me any natural explanation and if you think us being here had to be created or is there some law which we dont know about which says energy can be created as it would have to have been. not asking if you think god did it but it is logically repugnant to assume nothing made something without supernatural input.
-
There is evidence that something does indeed come from nothing. Look up "vacuum fluctuations." It is also possible for the Big Bang to circumvent the 1st law of thermodynamics if the energy beforehand is the same as the energy afterwards. In layman's terms, the law is only violated if the energy of the universe is non-zero. However, there is reason to believe the energy of the universe is still zero.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw
-
i wont get into vaccum fluctuations right yet, i would ask you read this thread for me from people with a iq over 160 and there opinions on evolution and creationism. some support creation some dont, not my point. read any material within and you will find why evolution is not a thoery but based on plausibilities and sloppy logic like they've proved everything. anyway i ask you read the thread and understand my point of view and those who think that plausibility is not proof and demand better science. yes mine is a faith component but is based on philosphophical and logical inferences, while still faith.
http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15753
-
The link you provided doesn't talk about why evolution is not a theory. Are you sure you sent me the right link? It discusses the ethics of zealous proponents who choose a side and leave it at that without further investigation.
-
if you did not see how the discussion is about the how evolutionists take what the want from plausible sources and extract "facts" then i dont know what to say. here is a better papar outlining some of his thoughts more clearly.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/EvolutionMonster.shtml
-
Your previous link addresses laymen evolutionists, not PhDs. It talks about the ethics of choosing a side without investigation simply b/c a bunch of men in white coats say so. I have a feeling you don't understand what it says. I read your second link. The guy tries to disprove the theory of evolution by attacking abiogenesis. Unfortunately for him, evolution and abiogenesis are 2 different theories. He demonstrates his ignorance of the subject by some of his comments. Moreover, he doesn't include any references. So his whole essay is speculative at best.
-
i understand it full well, i just took an aggregate meaning from the thread from both the creationist and evolutionist side. the paper expressed strats point perfectly, creationist have no proof and evolutionist dont either, yet i know mine is faith. you keep saying we are here, thus abiogenesis occured, this is a perfect example of your sloppy logic and less then full investigation of the topic. abiogenesis hasn't been proven-god hasn't been proven-yet abiogensis occured because it fits the evolution model. this is an example of plausibility taken to far with horrible logic. the abruptness in the fossil record disputes you also so you invented punctuated equilibrium with no proof, again it supports your side with no proof so is accepted. the whole argument isnt against evolution per se but the argument is summed up in the paper i gave you which is what he quoted from. i understand the theard is not directly attacking evolution, but it supports my point that you guys use no science in some instances and expect me to accept it because you say so. i dont care were you choose to place abiogenesis but anyone with logic can see it is the start of evolution of inorganic to living and evolution entails the evolution of this living matter. thus i along with others, namely fred, consider it within logic to include the start of your mechnism within evolution or at least to provide a logical explanation on how evolution is possible. the point of me posting the thread was to show that your half logic and plausibilities doesn't equate science just like my theory of god doesn't equate science, this was exemplified in freds paper, and along with some of the others comments. i understand what they are arguing about but it personifies my points exactly.
-
How can you say evolutionists have no proof? There is a wealth of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I have cited several examples like transitional fossils and documentation of speciation. Evolutionists use the fossil record, stratigraphy, radiometric dating, embryology, comparative homology, and molecular biology to study evolution. Each of these fields of science arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other. You keep saying there is no proof even when it's staring you right in the face.
Furthermore, you have repeatedly tried to debunk evolution by attacking abiogenesis. They are 2 separate theories. Even if you disprove abiogenesis, it would do nothing to weaken evolution. You also keep suggesting that it is not scientific. This is untrue. I acknowledge that our current knowledge of how abiogenesis works is limited. However, there are several different hypothesss relating to abiogenesis which can be tested and disproven. The ability to test a hypothesis is the cornerstone of science.
Your comments about punctuated equilibrium reflect a misunderstanding of what the theory says and the scientific process in general. The theory was proposed to explain the relatively sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record. In science, there is nothing wrong with proposing theories to fit the data. Punctuated equilibrium is based on positive evidence from independent geological sites. It was not invented to explain a lack of transitional fossils like you say. The theory is supported by the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils, and the apparent morphological differences between ancestral and daughter species.
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
-
By the way, I'm waiting for your proof that matter came from photons. ;D
-
watch the video i already posted it, gary schoeder a nuclear physicist from mit says it right into the camera and uses it as an argument. other then that the first three minutes indicate it but it is impossible to serperate bar. from photons so i dont have enough of an uderstanding of physics to understand how to accomplish that or to tell you how they relate. watch the video if that doesn't satisfy you then i will do some searching for you but i mean unless he's a gross liar and his book is based on a lie then i dont know what to say.
anyway if you got any new points for evolution or against creation ill hear them but it seems like it's turning into a personal battle and we are just re-hashing the same ideas etc..
i'll leave with this though something in this universe is infinite because nothing from something is impossible but it appears that our universe is not eternal. anyway im going to read the books that converted antony flew the worlds leading atheist and i'll post there thoughts for you to argue if you want, i rather enjoy the argument. so if you got some new points we can continue but i could just read talkorigins to get your arguments, unless you have something else. so i'll post some of the new thoughts once i finish the books, later.
-
I believe Dr. Gary Schroeder is wrong. I searched online to find another source in order to verify his claim. My search yielded no results. From what I gathered, matter and energy were interchangable during the earliest moments after the Big Bang. Colliding photons formed particle-pairs, and matter/anti-matter annihilation created photons. 10-12 sec. after the Big Bang, quarks and electrons were able to exist separate from photons. It is possible that Dr. Schroeder is telling a half-truth; that is to say, he is correct in that photons did create matter after the Big Bang. However, he neglects to mention that matter and energy were interchangable.
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html
Ever since you joined this discussion, I have defended evolution from your ignorant comments. I have refuted claim after claim. You said evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodyanics. I demonstrated why it doesn't. You claimed there are no transitional fossils. I provided several examples. You asked me to watch videos of Kent Hovind. I exposed his lies and misconceptions. You thought the Big Bang initially produced only light beams. I proved you wrong. It appears that my efforts were successful. In fact, you stopped using the same arguments after a while. I never intended to 'preach' evolution or try to disprove god(s). My purpose is merely to defend evolution, hence why I avoid making threads. I assure you that I'm not taking anything personal. On the contrary, it feels good to educate others.
-
oh brother, defend it all you want. there are numerous evolutionists that now renounce it and your skeptic magazine is one of them. read some books on the subject from the other side of the pond bro. fossils are not proof of transition or a extinct species, no one can say for sure. the platupus shows reptile, mammalian, bird, anphibian etc features i guess they evolved from everything. listen i made the claim that photons were the first thing based on gary schoeders book. your link said nothing about matter and energy and if you could pry apart the physics of it im sure you'd arrive at the conclusion gary schoeder made. your arguments are copy and pasted from talkorigins and i dont wish to argue with them.
abiogenesis has no proof but you say it happened. you claim one or two fossils prove bannanas and puppies came from the same thing. you claim mutations add material, when all they do is scramble material which usually, more then not, as seen in many studies with fruit flys etc that they become weaker as a whole, not better( lee m spetner here also).
do you beleive that this world is solely material, because if you do i feel sorry for you.
yes you've stopped me from beleiving in something other then our brains perceptions ;)
-
http://www.trueorigin.org/
refutes your posts, sme before talk origins some after
-
An evaluation of DNA/RNA mutations indicates that they cannot provide significant new levels of information. Instead, mutations will produce degradation of the information in the genome. This is the opposite of the predictions of the neoDarwinian origins model. Such genome degradation is counteracted by natural selection that helps maintain the status quo. Degradation results for many reasons, two of which are reviewed here. 1) there is a tendency for mutations to produce a highly disproportionate number of certain nucleotide bases such as thymine and 2) many mutations occur in only a relatively few places within the gene called “hot spots,” and rarely occur in others, known as “cold spots.” An intensive review of the literature fails to reveal a single clear example of a beneficial information-gaining mutation. Conversely, thousands of deleterious mutations exist, supporting the hypothesis that very few mutations are beneficial. These findings support the creation origins model.
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp
so spetner stuff. ignorant, i think you are scientifically ignorant in your complete materialist model of the world when things like telepathy, remote viewing, and xenoglossy have been seen.
-
The first surprising thing Denton points out is that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved. This is inconvenient for evolutionists who would like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that questioning evolution is tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science. He also points out biologists like Richard Owen, who were prepared to allow that evolution had taken place but thought that other causes were involved in bringing about the origin of species.
The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don’t fill in the gaps. In Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms. As Denton puts it,
"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."
The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates. Various ad hoc explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, like a temporary dearth in the environment of the chemicals needed for organisms to produce the hard body parts that fossilize well, do not stand scrutiny.
The usual response of evolutionists at this stage in the argument is a theory they call punctuated equilibrium, Gould’s great contribution, which basically says that evolution occurs not gradually but in spurts. This would explain why there are gaps and not continuity in the fossil record. The problem with this theory, which is too complex to go into in detail here, is that while it explains away the non-existence of small gradations, it still requires there to be large ones (the individual spurts) and even these aren't in the record. Furthermore, for punctuated equilibrium to have occurred, a very precise set of conditions have to have obtained throughout the entire past period represented in the fossils, and this is unlikely.
Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind’s tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it’s just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles.
Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will.
Furthermore, Denton argues, the classic cases printed in biology textbooks to show the evolution of present-day organisms from their supposed ancestors are in fact highly conjectural if not downright false. We read the same examples coming up again and again in textbook after textbook because there are only a few species for which an even remotely plausible fossil genealogy can be propounded out of the 100,000 fossil species known to paleontology. He takes the horse as an example and points out that several of the standard claims about the pattern of equine evolution, such as the gradual reduction of the side toes, are extremely questionable and that the morphological distance covered from the earliest horse to the present horses is so small, compared with the vast changes that evolution must encompass, that it is questionable whether the series, even if true, proves much at all. And even the emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science.
Another similar example: one of the things that has happened since evolution was first proposed is that biology has achieved a precise cataloging of the thousands of different proteins that make up organisms. It was hoped that a thorough cross-species comparison of these would reveal the kinds of relationships of graded similarity that evolution implies. But it hasn’t. Instead, it has given the same picture of distinct species that examination of gross anatomy does. It’s the same old story of a tree with all twigs and no branches! Worse, analysis of the closeness and distance between different species reveals bizarre results. For example, according to the sequence difference matrix of vertebrate hemoglobins in the standard Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function, man is as close to a lamprey as are fish! This problem repeats itself with other characteristics of organisms that have been brought within the scope of evolutionary comparison since Darwin’s day.
Another problem with evolution that has only gotten worse with increasing biological knowledge is the question of how life initially emerged from dead matter. As recently as the early 50's, it was still possible to hypothesize that discoveries would reveal the existence of entities intermediate between single-celled organisms and complex lifeless molecules. The existence of these intermediates (certain kinds of viruses were candidates for the role) would imply the possibility of an evolutionary transition from dead chemicals to intermediates to life. Unfortunately, the discovery of DNA in 1953 killed this hypothesis in its simplest form, and subsequent discoveries have only made the matter worse. Vast numbers of microorganisms are now known, as are vast numbers of complex molecules, but nothing in between. Furthermore, even the simplest possible cell imaginable within the limits of biology, let alone the simplest actually existing cell, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. So even if evolution has an explanation of how species evolve from one to another, it has no way to "get the ball rolling" by producing the first species from something that is not a species.
There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn’t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn’t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.
Anyone who doubts that the bulk of the scientific community could be wrong about a fundamental question like this should consider the case of Newtonian physics, which was thought to be unshakable until Einstein disproved it. (Lest anybody quibble about the approximate validity of Newtonian physics at non-relativistic speeds, may I point out that Newtonian physics was formerly thought to be valid at all speeds, throughout the universe, and this Einstein refuted.) Evolution is not a fraud being perpetrated upon the public, but it is a theory that has far too many problems to be treated as something that everyone is obliged to believe in on pain of being classified as a fool, as if it were the claim that the earth goes around the sun. Its credibility will continue to wane (or wax) with additional developments in biology over the coming years, but the absolute prerequisite for solving this intellectual puzzle is for free debate on the issue to be permitted again. I am quite happy to change my position if new facts come out, and I urge my readers that this is the only rational view.
you picked what kent hovind arguments you wanted when he accurately described the fallacy of vestigal organism, why fossils would be found and many other points your critique was, abiogensis is not evolution, it is mystery but happened, cause were here, great logic. i dont care about kent hovind or anything else i just hate your biased talk origins and shit they spew like it is fact. we see whole species fully formed no intermidiate species, hence the need for punctuated equilibrium, you have no proof of this and is specualtion at best. i dont care what you think you've done in this thread, but you haven't done anything but expose you weak minded materialisma and lack of counter intuitive thinking. when you post the talk origins rebuttal to this i will post the rebuttal to that.
-
oh brother, defend it all you want. there are numerous evolutionists that now renounce it and your skeptic magazine is one of them. read some books on the subject from the other side of the pond bro. fossils are not proof of transition or a extinct species, no one can say for sure. the platupus shows reptile, mammalian, bird, anphibian etc features i guess they evolved from everything.
"Numerous evolutionists" now renounce evolution? You are just using semantics to make your argument sound stronger. Even if a thousand evolutionists suddenly renounced the theory, they would still represent a very small percentage of the scientific community. I already explained to you the definition of a transitional fossil. It does not mean a 'missing link.' A transitional fossil displays a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. They tend not to have a significant amount of unique derived traits the derived relative doesn't possess as well. The platapus is considered an intermediate form b/c it has a large number of uniquely derived traits not connected to its derived relative. For example, the only attribute it has in common with reptiles is how it reproduces. The only attribute it has in common with birds is its bill which isn't even made of the same substance nor performs the same function.
listen i made the claim that photons were the first thing based on gary schoeders book. your link said nothing about matter and energy and if you could pry apart the physics of it im sure you'd arrive at the conclusion gary schoeder made. your arguments are copy and pasted from talkorigins and i dont wish to argue with them.
First of all, I don't copy and paste my posts. I have told you before that I paraphrase what I read. My links only serve for reference so you don't think I'm making shit up. Second, I didn't even go to talkorigins for my last post. I visited multiple physics sites. Third, you are blind if you didn't see the part where it says "all matter and energy was essentially interchangeable and in equilibrium." I highlighted the words for you to see. Read the 4th paragraph down.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:bHLft0oSzOoJ:archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html+Big+Bang+matter+energy+interchangeable&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
abiogenesis has no proof but you say it happened. you claim one or two fossils prove bannanas and puppies came from the same thing. you claim mutations add material, when all they do is scramble material which usually, more then not, as seen in many studies with fruit flys etc that they become weaker as a whole, not better( lee m spetner here also).
You are confusing fact with theory. We had to come from somewhere. Abiogenesis is the process by which life originated from non-living material. There are several theories that attempt to explain this process. Whether these theories are correct or not is irrelevant. The fact remains abiogenesis did occur. Creationism also fits the description of abiogenesis; the bible claims god created man from the earth. The only way abiogenesis can be disproven is if life spontaneously popped into existence out of nothing.
yes you've stopped me from beleiving in something other then our brains perceptions
Sure. ;D
-
you keep refusing to that mutations isnt a plusible mechanism for natural selection. ok so transitional fossils are fossils that show traits of different species or phyla? ok so how do you equvicate this to macroevolution, it is just as likely it is a totally seperate species that has become extinct, gradual fossil records aren't reality thus punctuated equilibrium to explain the non-darwinian like fossil record. you take a fossil with features of other "species" and say this species is changing into another one, yet it is equally that it is a seperate specie ala trueorigins phd's claims. so no you haven't proven anything and my knowledge of humans and this world in all facets goes far beyond this silly debate. you make quantum leaps in logic
no abiogensis did not have to occur, non-organic matter did not have to produce life, i could say my dick created life, it is a feasibly as abiogenesis without proof. speculation adds no value what so ever until proven. i say god made living matter and oragnic matter seperate, i have a theory thus it exsists. you keep denying you faulty logic what is eternal i ask you, something has to be explain it without a god that doesn't befy the laws we live by?
-
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
about abiogenesis
-
http://www.trueorigin.org/
refutes your posts, sme before talk origins some after
Another one of your religious anti-evolution websites. I take what it says with a grain of salt. What awards has that site won? Please do tell. Here's a list of all the awards Talk Origins has won. It also has a list of all the universities that use its archive to teach their courses.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/awards
-
The first surprising thing Denton points out is that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved. This is inconvenient for evolutionists who would like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that questioning evolution is tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science. He also points out biologists like Richard Owen, who were prepared to allow that evolution had taken place but thought that other causes were involved in bringing about the origin of species.
The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don’t fill in the gaps. In Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms. As Denton puts it,
"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."
The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates. Various ad hoc explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, like a temporary dearth in the environment of the chemicals needed for organisms to produce the hard body parts that fossilize well, do not stand scrutiny.
The usual response of evolutionists at this stage in the argument is a theory they call punctuated equilibrium, Gould’s great contribution, which basically says that evolution occurs not gradually but in spurts. This would explain why there are gaps and not continuity in the fossil record. The problem with this theory, which is too complex to go into in detail here, is that while it explains away the non-existence of small gradations, it still requires there to be large ones (the individual spurts) and even these aren't in the record. Furthermore, for punctuated equilibrium to have occurred, a very precise set of conditions have to have obtained throughout the entire past period represented in the fossils, and this is unlikely.
Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind’s tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it’s just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles.
Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will.
Furthermore, Denton argues, the classic cases printed in biology textbooks to show the evolution of present-day organisms from their supposed ancestors are in fact highly conjectural if not downright false. We read the same examples coming up again and again in textbook after textbook because there are only a few species for which an even remotely plausible fossil genealogy can be propounded out of the 100,000 fossil species known to paleontology. He takes the horse as an example and points out that several of the standard claims about the pattern of equine evolution, such as the gradual reduction of the side toes, are extremely questionable and that the morphological distance covered from the earliest horse to the present horses is so small, compared with the vast changes that evolution must encompass, that it is questionable whether the series, even if true, proves much at all. And even the emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science.
Another similar example: one of the things that has happened since evolution was first proposed is that biology has achieved a precise cataloging of the thousands of different proteins that make up organisms. It was hoped that a thorough cross-species comparison of these would reveal the kinds of relationships of graded similarity that evolution implies. But it hasn’t. Instead, it has given the same picture of distinct species that examination of gross anatomy does. It’s the same old story of a tree with all twigs and no branches! Worse, analysis of the closeness and distance between different species reveals bizarre results. For example, according to the sequence difference matrix of vertebrate hemoglobins in the standard Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function, man is as close to a lamprey as are fish! This problem repeats itself with other characteristics of organisms that have been brought within the scope of evolutionary comparison since Darwin’s day.
Another problem with evolution that has only gotten worse with increasing biological knowledge is the question of how life initially emerged from dead matter. As recently as the early 50's, it was still possible to hypothesize that discoveries would reveal the existence of entities intermediate between single-celled organisms and complex lifeless molecules. The existence of these intermediates (certain kinds of viruses were candidates for the role) would imply the possibility of an evolutionary transition from dead chemicals to intermediates to life. Unfortunately, the discovery of DNA in 1953 killed this hypothesis in its simplest form, and subsequent discoveries have only made the matter worse. Vast numbers of microorganisms are now known, as are vast numbers of complex molecules, but nothing in between. Furthermore, even the simplest possible cell imaginable within the limits of biology, let alone the simplest actually existing cell, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. So even if evolution has an explanation of how species evolve from one to another, it has no way to "get the ball rolling" by producing the first species from something that is not a species.
There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn’t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn’t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.
Anyone who doubts that the bulk of the scientific community could be wrong about a fundamental question like this should consider the case of Newtonian physics, which was thought to be unshakable until Einstein disproved it. (Lest anybody quibble about the approximate validity of Newtonian physics at non-relativistic speeds, may I point out that Newtonian physics was formerly thought to be valid at all speeds, throughout the universe, and this Einstein refuted.) Evolution is not a fraud being perpetrated upon the public, but it is a theory that has far too many problems to be treated as something that everyone is obliged to believe in on pain of being classified as a fool, as if it were the claim that the earth goes around the sun. Its credibility will continue to wane (or wax) with additional developments in biology over the coming years, but the absolute prerequisite for solving this intellectual puzzle is for free debate on the issue to be permitted again. I am quite happy to change my position if new facts come out, and I urge my readers that this is the only rational view.
you picked what kent hovind arguments you wanted when he accurately described the fallacy of vestigal organism, why fossils would be found and many other points your critique was, abiogensis is not evolution, it is mystery but happened, cause were here, great logic. i dont care about kent hovind or anything else i just hate your biased talk origins and shit they spew like it is fact. we see whole species fully formed no intermidiate species, hence the need for punctuated equilibrium, you have no proof of this and is specualtion at best. i dont care what you think you've done in this thread, but you haven't done anything but expose you weak minded materialisma and lack of counter intuitive thinking. when you post the talk origins rebuttal to this i will post the rebuttal to that.
The only paragraph that you wrote is the last one. I know this b/c your grammar and vocabulary is not consistent with the rest of the post. Nice try! ;)
-
i didnt write it nor did i claim too. i copied and pasted it, because ive wrote pages already and posting links is easier. what do you mean talkorigins while claming neutrality is super biased. anyway there are numerous phd's on the site if you want to take a look.
i dont want to continue really unless you bring up something interesting as the theard is the same points over and over and neither of us is going to convince the other. i will finish the books and give you the arguments. until then if you want to continue the balls in your court. 60 replys when 20 was were the arguments stopped is just getting stupid. you post links i post links blah blah i belive in god you claim you know he doesn't exsist while things beides science point to it. that being metaphysics, parapsychology.
http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_origins.html
"we are a combination of two things or entities: our brains on the one hand and our conscious selves on the other" ... Professor Sir John Eccles, Nobel Prize Winner
Brain specialists, Prof. J.C.Eccles, Sir Cyril Burt, Dr.Wilder Penfield and Prof.W.H.Thorpe stated that in their opinion the brain appears to be more a complicated organism to register and channel consciousness rather than produce it. "The brain is messenger to consciousness", Eccles said. In his famous debate with philosopher Popper "The self and its brain" this matter was examined further.
-
i didnt write it nor did i claim too. i copied and pasted it, because ive wrote pages already and posting links is easier. what do you mean talkorigins while claming neutrality is super biased. anyway there are numerous phd's on the site if you want to take a look.
Your post did not contain quotation marks or a reference. Therefore, it is assumed those are your own words. I already told you that I paraphrase what I read. If you are incapable of grasping material and explaining it to me in your own words, then it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you. I question the credibility of trueorigin.org. It is a religious site that clearly has an anti-evolution agenda. No respectable science website would contain so much bias. That is why I asked you what awards has it won.
i dont want to continue really unless you bring up something interesting as the theard is the same points over and over and neither of us is going to convince the other. i will finish the books and give you the arguments. until then if you want to continue the balls in your court. 60 replys when 20 was were the arguments stopped is just getting stupid. you post links i post links blah blah i belive in god you claim you know he doesn't exsist while things beides science point to it. that being metaphysics, parapsychology.
http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_origins.html
I have refuted claim after claim from you. Now you don't want to continue after I have you backed up against the wall. You cannot honestly tell me that we reached a stalemate. Here is a list of your arguments that I refuted.
- infered that a scientific theory can be proven
- tried to disprove evolution by attacking abiogenesis
- said the Big Bang Theory violates the 1st law of thermodynamics
- claimed the Big Bang was an explosion
- said the formation of a star is not well understood and has never been observed
- claimed design in nature proves an intelligent creator
- said evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
- claimed there are no transitional fossils
- said Archaeopteryx has been refuted
- thought the Big Bang initially produced only light beams
- claimed life began immediately after the earth cooled
Which of my comments have you debunked? None. Your claim "neither of us is going to convince the other" suggests that your beliefs are just as valid as mine. This idea is simply ludicrous. There is a wealth of evidence that supports evolution and the Big Bang. I have provided several examples in this discussion. How much evidence proves the existence of god(s)? None.
"we are a combination of two things or entities: our brains on the one hand and our conscious selves on the other" ... Professor Sir John Eccles, Nobel Prize Winner
Brain specialists, Prof. J.C.Eccles, Sir Cyril Burt, Dr.Wilder Penfield and Prof.W.H.Thorpe stated that in their opinion the brain appears to be more a complicated organism to register and channel consciousness rather than produce it. "The brain is messenger to consciousness", Eccles said. In his famous debate with philosopher Popper "The self and its brain" this matter was examined further.
How does this disprove evolution?
-
I have refuted claim after claim from you. Now you don't want to continue after I have you backed up against the wall. You cannot honestly tell me that we reached a stalemate. Here is a list of your arguments that I refuted.
- infered that a scientific theory can be proven
- tried to disprove evolution by attacking abiogenesis
- said the Big Bang Theory violates the 1st law of thermodynamics
- claimed the Big Bang was an explosion
- said the formation of a star is not well understood and has never been observed
- claimed design in nature proves an intelligent creator
- said evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
- claimed there are no transitional fossils
- said Archaeopteryx has been refuted
- thought the Big Bang initially produced only light beams
- claimed life began immediately after the earth cooled
Which of my comments have you debunked? None. Your claim "neither of us is going to convince the other" suggests that your beliefs are just as valid as mine. This idea is simply ludicrous. There is a wealth of evidence that supports evolution and the Big Bang. I have provided several examples in this discussion. How much evidence proves the existence of god(s)? None.
How does this disprove evolution?
-i didn't infer a scientific theory could be proven i said prove evolution occured. then i used the example of gravity to show how it could be proven(mathematics, functional tests done in the present). the fact is evolution cant be dissected in the lab thus is more of a model then theory, you cant test to see if animals change into one another, you can make inferences, which at the core is more of a model.
-fossils appear fully formed in the fossil record, not in steps as would be seen via darwianian evolution. thus punctuated equilibrium which has no proof but specualation. explain the sudden explosion of fossils in the record in an abrupt fashion. with all the extinction you would think in the last couple hundred, maybe thousand years or so someone would have seen evidence of macroevolution, but nope just extinction of numerous species and nothin more. your claim of transitional fossils has been jawbones constructed into full bodies, and since they are fully formed they just as likely could be whole species that became extinct just like thousands of others. like if you found a platupus fossil you would say look this is changing into a reptile, bird, fish etc. when in fact it is just a different species althogether, but you can speculate and view it however you like.
-if you cant understand how the exsistence of the big bang violates the laws of thermodynamics then you have bigger problems then this arguments. the big bang would indicate singularity( i agree with the big bang) so therefore if it is the absolute beginning as science would have you beleive at this present juncture, energy had to be made, or inputed. this is not a difficult to comprehend yet it seems to slip through your fingers
- oh jesus, the big bang did initially only produce light beams, i read this in a nuclear physicists book and perhaps the smartest person over at avant and a global mod verified my claim.
-again refer to schoeders book for details on the rest of your assumptions.
-natural selection needs beneficial mutations in which the organism gains something over its peers to survive. i provided lee m spetners rebuttal to that, he is considered one of the leaders in the field.
stop posting what you debunked, abiogenesis didnt occur because it hasn't been proven. i dont care what you think happened it doesn't mean it had to come from inorganic material. punctuated equilibrium hasn't a shred of evidence and flaws posted in the link i provided. so gradual evolution doesn't work or at least the fossil record would refute it, so PE is proposed with no evidence yet is scientific give me a break.
-
http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp
bird evolution for you, with numerous references to phd's who discredit it. read it if you want, but dont claim like anything you state is fact that is my problem with the model of evolution.
-
-i didn't infer a scientific theory could be proven i said prove evolution occured. then i used the example of gravity to show how it could be proven(mathematics, functional tests done in the present). the fact is evolution cant be dissected in the lab thus is more of a model then theory, you cant test to see if animals change into one another, you can make inferences, which at the core is more of a model.
You did infer a scientific theory could be proven. ;)
also, i want to point out to you that evolution is just a theory and not fact like you champion it to be.
Your comment "evolution is just a theory" suggests the only reason evolution is a theory is b/c it hasn't been proven. In science, a theory can never be proven. You also demonstrate a lack of understanding scientific terminology. Evolution is both fact and theory. Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. The theory of evolution explains the mechanism of this phenomena. Gravity is also a scientific theory; it describes how bodies of mass interact with each other.
-fossils appear fully formed in the fossil record, not in steps as would be seen via darwianian evolution. thus punctuated equilibrium which has no proof but specualation. explain the sudden explosion of fossils in the record in an abrupt fashion. with all the extinction you would think in the last couple hundred, maybe thousand years or so someone would have seen evidence of macroevolution, but nope just extinction of numerous species and nothin more. your claim of transitional fossils has been jawbones constructed into full bodies, and since they are fully formed they just as likely could be whole species that became extinct just like thousands of others. like if you found a platupus fossil you would say look this is changing into a reptile, bird, fish etc. when in fact it is just a different species althogether, but you can speculate and view it however you like.
Could you please be more specific when you say "darwinian evolution?" Darwin's theory of evolution consists of multiple theories. Punctuated equilibrium and gradualism are not incompatible. Darwin never claimed evolution occurs at a constant rate. Research shows small, isolated populations evolve quicker than large, open populations. These observatons were the basis of punctuated equilibrim. It wasn't invented to explain a lack of transitional fossils like you keep saying. Furthermore, you do not specify a length of time for the sudden appearance of fossils. It may very well have been several million years. This is hardly sudden. I already told you why the platapus is not transitional.
-if you cant understand how the exsistence of the big bang violates the laws of thermodynamics then you have bigger problems then this arguments. the big bang would indicate singularity( i agree with the big bang) so therefore if it is the absolute beginning as science would have you beleive at this present juncture, energy had to be made, or inputed. this is not a difficult to comprehend yet it seems to slip through your fingers
I have already explained to you why the Big Bang does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. You keep saying something cannot come frome nothing. This is not true. I told you to look up quantum fluctuations, which I bet you haven't yet. I even explained how it's possible for the Big Bang to circumvent the 1st law of thermodynamics. I cannot force you to look at the evidence, but these links provide answers if you have an open mind.
http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw
- oh jesus, the big bang did initially only produce light beams, i read this in a nuclear physicists book and perhaps the smartest person over at avant and a global mod verified my claim.
I have visited numerous physics websites that say matter and energy were interchangable during the earliest moments after the Big Bang. The closest thing I could find to your statement is that the Big Bang released a huge amount of energy in the form of photons. This energy was not "light beams" (visible spectrum) but a different type of electromagnetic radiation which can still be measured today. The very instant these photons were created, they immediately converted into matter and vice versa. It wasn't until 10-12 sec. after the Big Bang that quarks and electrons were able to exist separate from photons.
-again refer to schoeders book for details on the rest of your assumptions.
No thanks, you can paraphrase what he says. My intentions are not to 'preach' evolution or the Big Bang, rather I am simply defending both theories from your ignorant comments. I have no desire to go out of my way to disprove a creationist book.
-natural selection needs beneficial mutations in which the organism gains something over its peers to survive. i provided lee m spetners rebuttal to that, he is considered one of the leaders in the field.
I don't see it. Could you post it again?
stop posting what you debunked, abiogenesis didnt occur because it hasn't been proven. i dont care what you think happened it doesn't mean it had to come from inorganic material. punctuated equilibrium hasn't a shred of evidence and flaws posted in the link i provided. so gradual evolution doesn't work or at least the fossil record would refute it, so PE is proposed with no evidence yet is scientific give me a break.
If abiogenesis didn't occur, then the Bible is wrong b/c it says god created man from non-living material. ;D
Genesis 2:7 (KJV) "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
-
with regard to the quantum fluctuations i have already stated that evidence shows that the universe is not superheavy.
-
Lightrays are made of consumable fairy dust!!!!!! >:(
-
with regard to the quantum fluctuations i have already stated that evidence shows that the universe is not superheavy.
First of all, what does a superheavy universe mean? Second, how does this disprove quantum fluctuations? It sounds to me like you are just repeating what you read somewhere without comprehending it.
-
ok, ive posted it twice and once in a video format with a nuclear physicist from mit explaining it briefly.this is why this debate is gone to shit, you keep asking me to post ref etc or tell me what you refuted then i post material from phd's debunking evolution and you call it shit. if your mind is that closed there's no point in arguing, if you understood the premise of quantum fluctuations you could easily see what im referring to.
the lee m spetner link is above with me stating some of lee m spetners stuff about mutations. but your reply is post it again. i post a thread about the fossil record and your famed bird from phd's and you get into awards that your site has won. open up your mind to my side and to things like spirituality as some of the best thinkers, no the best thinkers ever connected with a spiritual side. i dont claim to be a religious zealot or claim to have let jesus in my life i just see god in life and through philosophic and logical arguments like aquinas and other great thinkers succumb to the fact of a creator of spiritual reality beyond what our perceptions ( just the world in our heads) tell us.
the quotes were from top neuroscience phd's stating that it seems that consciouness and the mind aren't substrates of neural processes indicating consciousness resides as a seperate identity. this would indicate what many religions, cultures etc.. have been saying all along about the soul etc which in turn would indicate a god in my mind and others. also, western civilization is never the leader in any field and take science for a run around in medicine, neuroscience etc with eastern cultures leading the way. that has nothing to do with god but i posted numerous materials and points about many things and you ignore them because of the site and say skeptic sites are the best material. no, if a phd for instance comes up with sound research and it gets posted on either site it is good material like the spetner material you dismissed because the site hasn't won the best westy website in the skeptic world.
-
ok, ive posted it twice and once in a video format with a nuclear physicist from mit explaining it briefly.this is why this debate is gone to shit, you keep asking me to post ref etc or tell me what you refuted then i post material from phd's debunking evolution and you call it shit. if your mind is that closed there's no point in arguing, if you understood the premise of quantum fluctuations you could easily see what im referring to.
Bullshit! You have never once explained what is a superheavy universe nor have you showed me how this disproves quantum fluctuations. I keep asking you to explain them to me, but you still haven't. I went back and looked through all our threads. This is all I could find.
also the universe is not superheavy as evidenced by data thus not self sustaining if that was an argument.
you used quantum fluctuation for the explanation of origin and when i claim the universe isn't superheavy you say you dont know what im refering to.
-you proposed quantum fluctuation as a argument for origin in another theard and claim i did for some reason, yet you dont know what a superheavy universe is.
with regard to the quantum fluctuations i have already stated that evidence shows that the universe is not superheavy.
Where have you answered my questions? You claim to have "posted it twice" but I don't see it. All I see is that you made a statement without providing any explanation. It would be like me replying to your comment "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" by saying "no, it doesn't." The only reason this discussion has become stale is b/c you have already made up your mind that evolution and the Big Bang are wrong. No amount of evidence will ever make you change your mind. Even if I refute your comments, you will just find another excuse why not to accept either theories.
the lee m spetner link is above with me stating some of lee m spetners stuff about mutations. but your reply is post it again. i post a thread about the fossil record and your famed bird from phd's and you get into awards that your site has won. open up your mind to my side and to things like spirituality as some of the best thinkers, no the best thinkers ever connected with a spiritual side. i dont claim to be a religious zealot or claim to have let jesus in my life i just see god in life and through philosophic and logical arguments like aquinas and other great thinkers succumb to the fact of a creator of spiritual reality beyond what our perceptions ( just the world in our heads) tell us.
I asked you to post it again. Big deal. I'm not really sure why this bothers you. I ask you to repost some of your comments b/c I will forget what you said earlier, and I sometimes have difficulty trying to find it again. It's much easier for me to just ask you to repeat what you said. All you have to do is copy and paste. The reason I questioned the credibility of trueorigin.org is b/c it's a religious website that clearly has an anti-evolution agenda. Furthermore, it openly advocates creationsim even though not a shred of evidence proves the existence of god(s). No respectable science website would contain so much bias. For all I know, half the shit in there is wrong just like Kent Hovind uses 'fake' science to disprove evolution. I know you would question the credibility of an evolution website if it claimed god does not exist. So why do you expect me not to say anything while you use an anti-evolution website that says god created the universe? By the way, this link contains a rebutal to Dr. Lee Spetner. Your guy claims the last reply he recieved from Dr. Edward Max was September 25, 2000. This is a lie. Why am I not surprised? Dr. Max responded to Dr. Spetner in 2001. You can even check the dates for yourself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
the quotes were from top neuroscience phd's stating that it seems that consciouness and the mind aren't substrates of neural processes indicating consciousness resides as a seperate identity. this would indicate what many religions, cultures etc.. have been saying all along about the soul etc which in turn would indicate a god in my mind and others. also, western civilization is never the leader in any field and take science for a run around in medicine, neuroscience etc with eastern cultures leading the way. that has nothing to do with god but i posted numerous materials and points about many things and you ignore them because of the site and say skeptic sites are the best material. no, if a phd for instance comes up with sound research and it gets posted on either site it is good material like the spetner material you dismissed because the site hasn't won the best westy website in the skeptic world.
::)