Creationists and People

Posted by: Mike Kremer

Creationists and People - 12/24/12 12:06 AM

Modern Creationism is a new Religion.
Its so new they have different cults, or ideas, as to how
God takes his place in our world.They dont seem to accept or care about any people that lived upon this Earth more than 6000 years ago.
Because Modern Young Earth Creationism, throw away any Scientific belief that the age of the Earth is older than 6000 years old. They literally believe in Adam and Eve (without navels) and all the Dinosaurs were created on day 1.
Since Genesis in the Bible states that God created all the animals and Man within a day.
That fossilization took only a few hundred years, and all the
major geologic features like the Grand Canyon were created in the days of Noah's Flood.

The Creationist Museum shows proof that man lived with the
Dinosaurs and even shows pictures of a Man riding and using a Dinosaurs to help till and plough the fields.
They do have one amazing fossilized Human and Dinosaur footprint, showing they lived and walked together.
I was told this particular human/dino fossil is always under armed guard, to prevent it being destroyed by unbelievers.

I suggest you carry on reading below first, as I will show you the amazing fossil, at the bottom of this page. Where you might want to linger?

I am not sure how Creationists can believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old....but here goes.

Fact
Since 4000 BC. up to todays date 2012 AD. = 6000 years in total.

Fact
Bishop Ussher stated that the world was created in 4004 BC.

Fact
Creationists, believing in a young Earth, agree that a 6000 year old Earth is about right.

Fact
If they believe that Adam and Eve were place upon this Earth in 4000 BC.
Then by 2500 BC the Earths population would total about 440.
Lets be generous, and assume half the Earth's population was living in Egypt.
Forgetting about the elderly and children. Some one had to build the 'Great Pyramid'.
This means that the Pyramid must have been built by about 40 men, who cut, quarried, dressed and moved 2,300,000 stone blocks, some of them weighed up to 50 tons over a period
of 40 years, to complete 'the Great Pyramid' within the Pharoah Kufu's lifetime. Thats about 4 blocks per man-day.

Go figure that even less men must have been used to build the smaller first Pyramid, some 200 years earlier, that would work out to about prehaps 20 men?
Remember just a few able-bodied men back in 3700 BC. were constructing the fortified cities of Mesopotamia, while the other 20 able-bodied men left in the World were constructing the Indus valley, Crete, and other world civilizations.

Later I will explain why the Creationists believe the Moon is very young since it only has a few inches of surface dust.....instead of the belief that the dust should be a few feet thick, comensurate with the belief that the Moon is wink
4.527 billion years,LOL sick
Not that its supposed to have dust feet thick. There is a perfectly logical explanation as to why its dust is only naturally inches thick. Now here comes your Xmas pudding
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/delk-track.htm Supposedly verified as NOT a fake. Lets all have a Happy Xmas, and accept each others improbable differences. laugh Hehe
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/24/12 01:13 AM

If we give our creationist brethren the benefit of the doubt and assume that the fossil is to the best of their knowledge genuine; a few questions remain to be asked. For example:

Has the rock been dated?

Has it been examined by an independent palaeontologist?

Has there been an identification of the animal responsible for the footprint?

There is plenty of evidence that very large, flightless birds and humans co-existed. Has this been considered?

Plenty of things to consider, but a bottle of single malt makes a better subject for Christmas investigation.

Happy Christmas, everyone. Perhaps I should say: especially Paul, as I guess you have more claim to the joys and blessings of this season than most of us.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/24/12 03:45 PM

Modern Creationism is a new Religion.
Its so new they have different cults, or ideas, as to how
God takes his place in our world.They don't seem to accept or care about any people that lived upon this Earth more than 6000 years ago.
Because Modern Young Earth Creationism, throw away any Scientific belief that the age of the Earth is older than 6000 years old. They literally believe in Adam and Eve (without navels) and all the Dinosaurs were created on day 1.
Since Genesis in the Bible states that God created all the animals and Man within a day.

-------------------------
on day 1, LOL
try that again mike.

-------------------------

That fossilization took only a few hundred years, and all the
major geologic features like the Grand Canyon were created in the days of Noah's Flood.
-------------------------

exactly

-------------------------


The Creationist Museum shows proof that man lived with the
Dinosaurs and even shows pictures of a Man riding and using a Dinosaurs to help till and plough the fields.
They do have one amazing fossilized Human and Dinosaur footprint, showing they lived and walked together.
--------------------------
science says that the footprints of the humans were meerely other creatures
footprints that were made to look larger because of water , but they seem
to forget that this would make all dinosaur footprints appear to have
originated from tiny birds , made to look larger by water.

but science has the fossils of dinosaurs so they don't care.
but then again science doesn't have that magical link between ape and man
they only have assumption , of which the first 3 letters completely describe
the followers of this barrage of bullshit.

--------------------------

I was told this particular human/dino fossil is always under armed guard, to prevent it being destroyed by unbelievers.
--------------------------
I don't blame them at all , I think that is a reasonable thing
to do given that the follower's of the evolution religion might
want to destroy it to lessen the evidence against their beliefs.

doesn't the evolution religion keep their evidence under lock
and key in museum's and in the back rooms away from view?

--------------------------

I suggest you carry on reading below first, as I will show you the amazing fossil, at the bottom of this page. Where you might want to linger?

I am not sure how Creationists can believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old....but here goes.

Fact
Since 4000 BC. up to today's date 2012 AD. = 6000 years in total.

--------------------------
missing 12 years
big deal.
lets just say that 6000 years ago was 6000 years ago
and 2012 years ago was when AD began.
--------------------------


Fact
Bishop Ussher stated that the world was created in 4004 BC.

----------------------------

he was probably trying to fix somebody else's mistake

----------------------------


Fact
Creationists, believing in a young Earth, agree that a 6000 year old Earth is about right.

-----------------------------

NC

-----------------------------

Fact
If they believe that Adam and Eve were place upon this Earth in 4000 BC.
Then by 2500 BC the Earths population would total about 440.
-----------------------------
absolutely not , there's no way that the population could be calculated to
be that low over a time period of 1500 years.
----
which makes the
following in red entirely erroneous
-----------------------------



Lets be generous, and assume half the Earth's population was living in Egypt.
Forgetting about the elderly and children. Some one had to build the 'Great Pyramid'.
This means that the Pyramid must have been built by about 40 men, who cut, quarried, dressed and moved 2,300,000 stone blocks, some of them weighed up to 50 tons over a period
of 40 years, to complete 'the Great Pyramid' within the Pharoah Kufu's lifetime. Thats about 4 blocks per man-day.

Go figure that even less men must have been used to build the smaller first Pyramid, some 200 years earlier, that would work out to about prehaps 20 men?
Remember just a few able-bodied men back in 3700 BC. were constructing the fortified cities of Mesopotamia, while the other 20 able-bodied men left in the World were constructing the Indus valley, Crete, and other world civilizations.

end of erroneous comments

---------------------------

Later I will explain why the Creationists believe the Moon is very young since it only has a few inches of surface dust.....instead of the belief that the dust should be a few feet thick, comensurate with the belief that the Moon is
4.527 billion years,LOL
Not that its supposed to have dust feet thick. There is a perfectly logical explanation as to why its dust is only naturally inches thick.

--------------------------

excellent , this was mentioned several weeks go , I'm surprised you didn't post
the information back then , even so I am eagerly awaiting your explanation.

-------------------------


Now here comes your Xmas pudding
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/delk-track.htm Supposedly verified as NOT a fake. Lets all have a Happy Xmas, and accept each others improbable differences. Hehe

--------------------------

yes Merry Christmas to all , even to those of you who should be ashamed
to celebrate a day associated with the birth of someone that you don't
even believe existed , a religion you curse on a daily basis.

I think atheist should all be forced to work on Christmas , LOL.
but that might attract the riff raff into the mix for that purpose alone.

atheist , I wonder how they celebrate Christmas , and why.

santa told me that he reads this forum , and that he was going to
give each of you a lump of coal , but decided that coal was too valuable
a gift.


so hes going to give all you atheist scientist types a nothing and let you make
what ever you can from it.

even santa's mad at you guys , you better watch out.
you better not pout , santa clause is comming to town.

muhahahahaha

Posted by: Neohippy

Re: Creationists and People - 12/24/12 06:13 PM

Originally Posted By: paul


yes Merry Christmas to all , even to those of you who should be ashamed
to celebrate a day associated with the birth of someone that you don't
even believe existed , a religion you curse on a daily basis.

I think atheist should all be forced to work on Christmas , LOL.
but that might attract the riff raff into the mix for that purpose alone.

atheist , I wonder how they celebrate Christmas , and why.

santa told me that he reads this forum , and that he was going to
give each of you a lump of coal , but decided that coal was too valuable
a gift.


so hes going to give all you atheist scientist types a nothing and let you make
what ever you can from it.

even santa's mad at you guys , you better watch out.
you better not pout , santa clause is comming to town.

muhahahahaha

[/color]


Couldn't be that the evil Christian overlords used this time frame to cover up those pesky old pagan celebrations... never.
Not like the solstice was celebrated for 5000 years or so before Christianity came along... no, that makes no sense.
Why celebrate a yearly death and rebirth of the world, when you can celebrate the birth of a poverty stricken carpenter, born to a woman who never consummated her marriage with her husband, but totally didn't cheat.

One of these ideas seems legit... hmmm...

OR, it may be, that religious, atheist, or both (as is my case), just like to have a time of the year when we all celebrate, and nuts to what goes on in your head, or in the sky.
Love, share, and be merry.

Happy Chrisanzaasticeukkah! Or whatever.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/24/12 06:44 PM

Quote:
the evil Christian overlords used this time frame to cover up those pesky old pagan celebrations...


I don't really know what they are but there not covered up , there just pesky old celebrations that no one seems to celebrate except a handful of people.

I don't even know that their pesky , so I guess I shouldn't have even said they
were pesky.

I wonder when the Christians will start throwing the atheist to the lion's
because their atheist, the way the atheist threw the Christians to the lion's because they were Christian's.

it must have been pretty bad to have such a weak religion that the follower's had to try and kill off the opposition.

like they are trying to kill off the opposition today with evolution.

we'll just wait and see who pull's through this time.

seem's to me that the odd's are pretty much against your team though.

survival of the fittest right?



Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 12/24/12 09:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul
I wonder when the Christians will start throwing the atheist to the lion's
because their atheist, the way the atheist threw the Christians to the lion's because they were Christian's.

Well, actually it wasn't atheists that threw the Christians to the lions. It was the people (the pagans) who worshiped other gods and the rulers who thought that the Christians were trouble makers because they refused to worship the emperors as gods.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: Creationists and People - 12/24/12 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Modern Creationism is a new Religion.
Its so new they have different cults, or ideas, as to how
God takes his place in our world.They don't seem to accept or care about any people that lived upon this Earth more than 6000 years ago.
Because Modern Young Earth Creationism, throw away any Scientific belief that the age of the Earth is older than 6000 years old. They literally believe in Adam and Eve (without navels) and all the Dinosaurs were created on day 1.
Since Genesis in the Bible states that God created all the animals and Man within a day.

-------------------------
on day 1, LOL
try that again mike.

-------------------------



That fossilization took only a few hundred years, and all the
major geologic features like the Grand Canyon were created in the days of Noah's Flood.
-------------------------

exactly

-------------------------


The Creationist Museum shows proof that man lived with the
Dinosaurs and even shows pictures of a Man riding and using a Dinosaurs to help till and plough the fields.
They do have one amazing fossilized Human and Dinosaur footprint, showing they lived and walked together.
--------------------------
science says that the footprints of the humans were meerely other creatures
footprints that were made to look larger because of water , but they seem
to forget that this would make all dinosaur footprints appear to have
originated from tiny birds , made to look larger by water.

but science has the fossils of dinosaurs so they don't care.
but then again science doesn't have that magical link between ape and man
they only have assumption , of which the first 3 letters completely describe
the followers of this barrage of bullshit.

--------------------------

I was told this particular human/dino fossil is always under armed guard, to prevent it being destroyed by unbelievers.
--------------------------
I don't blame them at all , I think that is a reasonable thing
to do given that the follower's of the evolution religion might
want to destroy it to lessen the evidence against their beliefs.

doesn't the evolution religion keep their evidence under lock
and key in museum's and in the back rooms away from view?

--------------------------

I suggest you carry on reading below first, as I will show you the amazing fossil, at the bottom of this page. Where you might want to linger?

I am not sure how Creationists can believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old....but here goes.

Fact
Since 4000 BC. up to today's date 2012 AD. = 6000 years in total.

--------------------------
missing 12 years
big deal.
lets just say that 6000 years ago was 6000 years ago
and 2012 years ago was when AD began.
--------------------------


Fact
Bishop Ussher stated that the world was created in 4004 BC.

----------------------------

he was probably trying to fix somebody else's mistake

----------------------------


Fact
Creationists, believing in a young Earth, agree that a 6000 year old Earth is about right.

-----------------------------

NC

-----------------------------

Fact
If they believe that Adam and Eve were place upon this Earth in 4000 BC.
Then by 2500 BC the Earths population would total about 440.
-----------------------------
absolutely not , there's no way that the population could be calculated to
be that low over a time period of 1500 years.
----
which makes the
following in red entirely erroneous
-----------------------------



Lets be generous, and assume half the Earth's population was living in Egypt.
Forgetting about the elderly and children. Some one had to build the 'Great Pyramid'.
This means that the Pyramid must have been built by about 40 men, who cut, quarried, dressed and moved 2,300,000 stone blocks, some of them weighed up to 50 tons over a period
of 40 years, to complete 'the Great Pyramid' within the Pharoah Kufu's lifetime. Thats about 4 blocks per man-day.

Go figure that even less men must have been used to build the smaller first Pyramid, some 200 years earlier, that would work out to about prehaps 20 men?
Remember just a few able-bodied men back in 3700 BC. were constructing the fortified cities of Mesopotamia, while the other 20 able-bodied men left in the World were constructing the Indus valley, Crete, and other world civilizations.

end of erroneous comments

---------------------------

Later I will explain why the Creationists believe the Moon is very young since it only has a few inches of surface dust.....instead of the belief that the dust should be a few feet thick, comensurate with the belief that the Moon is
4.527 billion years,LOL
Not that its supposed to have dust feet thick. There is a perfectly logical explanation as to why its dust is only naturally inches thick.

--------------------------

excellent , this was mentioned several weeks go , I'm surprised you didn't post
the information back then , even so I am eagerly awaiting your explanation.

-------------------------


Now here comes your Xmas pudding
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/delk-track.htm Supposedly verified as NOT a fake. Lets all have a Happy Xmas, and accept each others improbable differences. Hehe

--------------------------

yes Merry Christmas to all , even to those of you who should be ashamed
to celebrate a day associated with the birth of someone that you don't
even believe existed , a religion you curse on a daily basis.

I think atheist should all be forced to work on Christmas , LOL.
but that might attract the riff raff into the mix for that purpose alone.

atheist , I wonder how they celebrate Christmas , and why.

santa told me that he reads this forum , and that he was going to
give each of you a lump of coal , but decided that coal was too valuable
a gift.


so hes going to give all you atheist scientist types a nothing and let you make
what ever you can from it.

even santa's mad at you guys , you better watch out.
you better not pout , santa clause is comming to town.

muhahahahaha



Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Mike Kremer says ...I repeat what I said in my opening:-
"Modern Creationism is a new Religion.
Its so new they have different cults, or ideas, as to how
God takes his place in our world.
They dont seem to accept or care about any people that lived upon this Earth more than 6000 years ago."

In fact they don't even consider that people lived upon this Earth earlier than 6000 years ago.
What kind of beliefs is this new unscientific religion trying to get the poor gullible to accept?


Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 12/24/12 10:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
Now here comes your Xmas pudding
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/delk-track.htm Supposedly verified as NOT a fake. Lets all have a Happy Xmas, and accept each others improbable differences. laugh Hehe

Well, I did a quick search and it didn't take long to find a non-creationist site that discusses the Delk Print.

The Paluxy Web Site does a pretty good analysis of the print based on the photographs provided by Delk. The author doesn't think much of it. He has a bunch of problems that he has seen just with the photos. Basically he figures it is just one more fake footprint among many.

Bill Gill
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/24/12 11:43 PM

Quote:
He has a bunch of problems that he has seen just with the photos.


well the analysis of the prints sounded pretty good
and that would reveal a lot more that just looking.

Quote:
Scientific Verification of Footprint Authenticity:
The fossil was transported to a professional laboratory where 800 X-rays were performed in a CT Scan procedure. Laboratory technicians verified compression and distribution features clearly seen in both prints, human and dinosaur. This removes any possibility that the prints were carved or altered.


that doesnt sound like its a fake to me.




Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists are really nice People - 12/24/12 11:51 PM

Quote:
What kind of beliefs is this new unscientific religion trying to get the poor gullible to accept?


and we ask this new unscientific evolution the same question!

why do you personally think different?

there must be a reason you can discuss.

and when will you be posting the moon dust proof?


Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/25/12 12:32 AM

Quote:
because they refused to worship the emperors as gods.


that's sort of the way you pagan people made me feel when
I didn't bow down and blindly worship your god or evolution's
new emperor lenski
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/25/12 01:49 AM

Reading through this thread I found myself thinking: "here goes another thread, circling the drain of non-verifiable/non-falsifiable belief sets".

Then I looked back at the OP and realised that that was precisely where it started.

WOW! Still on topic after 11 posts! Must be the influence of Christmas.
Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: Creationists and People - 12/25/12 03:36 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
[quote]because they refused to worship the emperors as gods.

Originally Posted By: paul

Paul said:-
"that's sort of the way you pagan people made me feel when
I didn't bow down and blindly worship your god or evolution's
new emperor lenski"



Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


Hang a min paul...thats a bit naughty saying that.
I would suggest that all the Paganism is on your side.
You as a confirmed Creationist believe that some intelligent design produced order, when previously there was none.

Its obvious since you creationists discount the archeological
records of early life, Creationism is getting a very bad name in the eyes of all the normal conventional Scientists and teachers.
More than that... what does Creationism make of The Earth's Magnetic Pole Reversals every few 100's of K years?
The timing of those Reversal events, and their imprint, angled in moving hot rocks are plain and recorded.
So do you really believe that everything was created about
6000 years ago

The Bible is considered one of the greatest Fairy Stories in the World by Atheists.
At least atheists believe absolutely in Evolution.

And Evolution is yet another non-belief that Creationists teach. What a come down for Creationism....Atheists and all other religions believe in Evolution---Creationists don't
Its amazing the dis-service they surround their new non-scientific religion.
Its a wonder they have got any adherents at all.

With a 100,000 Schools in America alone... I bet there is not more than 4 or 5 that teach Creationism....plus I bet 3 of those schools are in Tennesee.

Go figure out how many teachers are willing or even want to teach such rubbish. Who are these teachers? They must be
unemployed Tennessee racists desperate for money
You cant find Christian or Atheist teachers to teach such crap
so who are these New racist teachers? They must be
unemployed Tennessee ***** desperate for money

Oh by the way...Creationists make themselves appear even more stupid ...and antagonistic to the parents of children.
Since they do NOT teach Evolution alongside so called Intelligent Design, or Creationism, in schools...I wonder why?

Intelligent Design is what is produced over millions of years
of Atoms, Gasses, Liquids and every imaginable particle in the universe, gravitationally lying next to each other.
Nothing stays the same...Heat ,Cold and Movement over Millions of years, continuously changes things.

****
The Louisiana Science Education Act [enacted in 2008, the law has been described as "anti-science" by a veritable truck load of scientific organizations, and is responsible for [censored] like this being taught in science classes] is a direct attack on our children's future
*****
The above words are somewhere below in a URL.

http://io9.com/5970587/new-orleans-schoo...onist-textbooks

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_creationism_taught_in_public_schools

***********
Thoughts***
It should be very easy for me to start a new world wide club.
Called?
"Moslems United against Creationism"
That will make paul disappear with his tail between his legs

Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/25/12 02:18 PM

Now I understand why emotional, ad hominem tirades are tolerated on SAGG.

Shame! It could be a good science discuss forum.

I thought one of the essentials was respecting other people, and their views.

If Paul believes in 7 days of creation, he has every right to that belief, and to defend it.

If he does so in a way that is personally offensive to other members he should be taken to task for that. So should anyone else who demeans the forum by using similar tactics.

Anyone who has read Paul's posts must know that he is not going to "disappear with his tail between his legs". If causing any member of the forum to do that is anyone's objective, then I suggest that person is on the wrong forum.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 12/25/12 03:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Now I understand why emotional, ad hominem tirades are tolerated on SAGG.

Shame! It could be a good science discuss forum.

I thought one of the essentials was respecting other people, and their views.

If Paul believes in 7 days of creation, he has every right to that belief, and to defend it.

If he does so in a way that is personally offensive to other members he should be taken to task for that. So should anyone else who demeans the forum by using similar tactics.

Anyone who has read Paul's posts must know that he is not going to "disappear with his tail between his legs". If causing any member of the forum to do that is anyone's objective, then I suggest that person is on the wrong forum.


Amen Bill S.

In a way I kind of enjoy Paul's posts. They give me a chance to show what a hugely intelligent person I am. And he keeps giving me chances to do that without having to actually do much thinking. Most of his ideas are so far out that you can shoot holes in them with a BB gun, no big guns required.

Orac isn't quite as much fun. Unfortunately he knows a lot and so I can't show off as well when I am in a discussion with him.

Bill Gill
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Creationists and People - 12/25/12 04:14 PM

Certainly, Bill S, respecting a person's right to have differing views is both wise and ethically correct - for ALL parties. Respecting those views is quite a different matter.

Just as people of various religious cults attack science in defence of their beliefs, so others attack those beliefs in defence of science. I see nothing amiss in that. All parties should have equal rights of attack and defense of ideas and beliefs. In that regard, religion should not have the privileged status it generally seems to claim, as evidenced in the extreme by the slaughters that have been perpetrated in its name. The essential point is that attacks upon persons, either verbally or physically are patently opposed to whatever high precepts may be held by theists and atheists alike.

The moderators have not only to deal with verbal offensiveness, but also to tackle the sometimes ticklish task of deciding where the line be drawn between science and NQS. I would venture to suggest that unless they are bold and resolute, this forum may fail to recover from its current low ebb. As Bill S. says, "This could be a good science discuss forum".

P.S. Wishing you all a joyful Christmas season and good fortune in the coming year (whatever your beliefs or lack thereof)
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/25/12 06:03 PM

Quote:
Respecting those views is quite a different matter.


In no way am I suggesting that respecting someone's views entails agreeing with them, or not attacking them. However, simply pouring scorn on them, and making insulting comments (which is what I would consider being disrespectful) is rarely, if ever, the most effective form of attack, and is certainly distasteful.

I agree absolutely that religions should not enjoy a privileged status. Unfortunately, in this country, political correctness seems to be moving us towards a situation in which Christianity is the only religion it is safe to attack; but that's a different matter.

Yes; I know I said "discuss" instead of "discussion", but I think it was a bit mean to call attention to it. smile
Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: Creationists and People - 12/25/12 07:55 PM

May I state on behalf of all of us that write in SAGG
That we do not want anybody to disappear with 'their tail between their legs'....(especially Paul).
We have lost a few, very interesting and worthwhile writers
in the past.
SAGG provides us with a lot of comedy and interesting scientific writings, on an almost daily basis.
We need to gain sensible writers that sensibly contribute and add, to just about anything that is written.

I think it is a lot easier to put down or even hate a particular or group of writers, just for the sake of getting
ones name up on the 'board'. Step to 'far over the mark'
...yes - you may get a final nasty reply for your trouble,

I remember being taught this many years ago (dont know where it comes from)
Whenever one group of people is taught to hate another,
a lie is created (or written) to inflame that hatred
and justify a plot.


Hopefuly none of us will write in such a manner that it inflames hatred....we love our SAGG and want it to grow from strength to strength, else we may lose a Registered user forever.
We got 2896 Registered users, a number of holiday guests but
no more than a dozen regular serious writers.
Any-body come up with improvement suggestions?
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 04:52 AM

now that you have all had your laugh , lets look at
some evidence of creation.

Quote:
Darwin knew that if his theory was true the older rock strata directly
beneath the cambrian layer should reveal a progression of fosils connecting
simple earlier forms to complex animals like trilobites through a trail
of incremental steps and failed biological experiments.

such evidence would document the trial and error process of natural
selection.


but Darwin says in the origin , where are these transitional forms?
their not there in the fosil record.
what we see instead are fully formed discrete groups.


now thats a world class puzzle for someone like darwin and evolution
and quickly points a validating finger at Creation.




we might hear from Bill s that the document
origins of the species is too old or religious
or some excuse , and Bill Gill will plead to his
Gentile Readers claiming himself to be a genius again

I say its up to the readers , not those who recently
bloated in their pants.




Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 03:12 PM

Quote:
At least atheists believe absolutely in Evolution.

And Evolution is yet another non-belief that Creationists teach. What a come down for Creationism....Atheists and all other religions believe in Evolution---Creationists don't


Yes , that's exactly right , Mike.

and we can prove that evolution didn't occur.

something that evolution cannot say about Creation!

try and try as you may , just like you have been trying
for hundreds of years to do , you cant provide the transitional
life forms that should be there in the pre cambrian period
nor can you provide the supposed link between ape and man.

evolution has no foundation.

in fact if science really did use data and the scientific method
of determination , then science would state that evolution is what occurred naturally after Creation.

but science and its pig headed leaders and followers don't recognize fact's and data and finding's and such as that , they just want to dictate to everyone who is gullible enough to believe their lies , lies that are in place to protect their belief system.

nothing to do with what science should be.

BTW , if you think I'm wrong then lets see the transitional
life forms that no one so far has been able to find.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 03:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul
Bill Gill will plead to his
Gentile Readers claiming himself to be a genius again

Paul, you have a typo there I wrote gentle, not gentile, I'm not writing just for non-Jews. I'm writing for any body who is interested in the subject that is under discussion. That includes Jews and Mormons (who frequently refer to non-Mormons as gentiles).

Bill Gill
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 04:42 PM

Quote:
now that you have all had your laugh


Quote:
we might hear from Bill s that the document
origins of the species is too old or religious
or some excuse


Since, quite obviously, you either do not read, or fail to understand my posts, I'll stop wasting my time.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 04:44 PM

But the point was that you are writing to show how smart you
are , LOL.

which didn't work.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 04:45 PM

the usual tuck the tail between the legs and run scientific
method once again there , Bill s.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 05:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Since, quite obviously, you either do not read, or fail to understand my posts, I'll stop wasting my time.


Originally Posted By: Paul
the usual tuck the tail between the legs and run scientific method once again there , Bill s.


Thanks Paul, why would I need to continue with this discussion when you make my point about its futility for me so eloquently?
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 06:18 PM

Quote:
Thanks Paul, why would I need to continue with this discussion when you make my point about its futility for me so eloquently


your welcome.

BTW

why is it that people who place so much faith in evolution
are the first to tuck - n - run?

you and Bill Gill and Mike enjoyed a good laugh at the
expense of other's who believe and know that Creation
actually happened , and when your faced with the same
problems that darwin encountered , which supports Creation
you simply ignore the established facts and data that has
been recorded for the past 170 years or so through the work of
well known experts in their fields.

and you guys think of evolution as being correct by claiming that Creation didnt happen and yourselves as the correct one's.

LOL , what a pot of excrement you brew.

Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 06:38 PM

Quote:
Its obvious since you creationists discount the archeological
records of early life,


no, we don't discount the record.

you non-creationist are the ones who discount the archaeological record of early life.

I'm talking about that terribly difficult stage in evolution
where magic first came into play.

what should have been recorded in the record was the
long gradual stages of evolution that evolution claims
would have happened , yet in stead of any transition at
all NONE there's suddenly a world full of fully formed life forms.

complete with eyes , skeletal framework , limbs , etc...

fully complete beings. (only they didn't evolve)
they just suddenly appeared.

or should I just simply say the missing transitions not found below the cambrian where evolution says they should be.

the place where Creation took place.

on the 5th Day

Quote:
[1:20] And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."
[1:21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.
[1:22] God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
[1:23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.


Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 06:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul
you and Bill Gill and Mike enjoyed a good laugh at the
expense of other's who believe and know that Creation
actually happened


Paul, please show me where you think I had a laugh at anyone's expense.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 07:19 PM

whats the matter guys.
almost a page of replies and not one of you have
given a rebuttal to what I said about the pre cambrian period.

only spelling error comments from Bill Gill.
and
Bill s trying to make it look as if he has never said
anything negative about Creationist or Creation.

I think that's really sad that you guys don't have
anything that supports your belief system.

at least we do have the Bible and the archaeological record
that supports us.

you see we don't have to wonder or guess like evolution does
because Creation is recorded in both the Bible and in the
archaeological record.

so Creation is more of what science calls science than evolution is.

but its not a theory like evolution is because its
written down in layers of strata inside the earth where
no man can change it.

it cant be swept under the rug of science , or locked away
in a back room of a museum.


but I bet you guys wish you could do that to save your belief system from ruin.

Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 08:10 PM

Well, gentle readers here we go again. Paul is making unfounded claims to try to bolster his false claims of proof of creationism. So here are a handful of sites with info about PreCambrian fossils.

Virtual Fossil Museum

The Precambrian Fossil Record

Solution to Darwin's dilemma

And if you want to do a quick search on the web you can find many more sites that also show lots of fossils.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 08:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul
Bill s trying to make it look as if he has never said
anything negative about Creationist or Creation


So are you going to have the courtesy to answer my question, or just hide behind more unsubstantiated "smart" assertions?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 08:25 PM

Some interesting links there, Bill, but, of course they have validity as a pro-evolution argument only if you accept radiometric dating as reliable.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 09:04 PM

Matters of Faith

"When I was a child, I thought as a child." I accepted the beliefs and teachings of those who were important to me. It was inconceivable that they could be wrong. If my mother was wrong, what safety was there in my infant world?

Later I was able to look with a little more safety at the wider picture, and to ask questions such as: what would I believe now if I had been brought up as a Jew, Hindu or Buddhist?

I began to question what claim any ancient scripture had to being more authoritative than any other. Jews maintain that the Torah is the word of God. Christians make the same claim for the Bible. Is either of these claims any better than a claim that the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita or the teachings of the Buddha might be the word of God?

Until questions such as these can be answered with some degree of certainty, supporting arguments by quoting from any of these sources is pointless; unless the discussion is about the relative merits of the morals and ethics of the various teachings.

My belief? There can never have been a time when there was nothing, otherwise there would be nothing now.

If that belief is correct, then creation, evolution, belief and scientific enquiry all operate within the framework of an eternal/infinite reality. What the precise nature of that reality is, I don't know, and I strongly suspect no one else does.

One thing I am fairly sure of is that we all have a right to our beliefs, and, if we need to, to defend our beliefs.

I think we have a right to question the beliefs of others, if they bring their beliefs into an arena of discussion, but I think we should do so with courtesy and sensitivity. If another person is obviously afraid to question his/her beliefs and resorts to anger or abuse as a defence, I think we should acknowledge that fear as being very real, and, perhaps, back off, as a matter of sensitivity.

I also believe that I have no right to tell anyone else that his/her beliefs are wrong, and mine are right. I believe I have the right to similar courtesy in return, and that others also have that right.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 11:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I also believe that I have no right to tell anyone else that his/her beliefs are wrong, and mine are right. I believe I have the right to similar courtesy in return, and that others also have that right.

I feel that in one way you are right about that, but in another there is the problem that many people try to force their beliefs on others. In the case of creationism the believers don't just try to persuade people, they try to force their beliefs into the schools. That is where they go wrong.

In my case I keep replying to Paul so that I can point out the errors in the creationist claims. There is so much evidence that evolution is a fact that I want to make sure that other people who read Paul's posts are not mislead by his belief's into accepting them as true.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/26/12 11:58 PM

Unfortunately, if you are certain in your own mind that holding a particular belief is essential to something as important as eternal life, missionary zeal can easily get in the way of other people's rights.

Some 20 years ago I was talking to a Catholic Priest, a member of a Missionary Order, he said he thought we had no right to go to other people's countries and tell them that their beliefs were wrong, and ours were right. Sadly, such enlightenment is rare.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 12:25 AM

LOL

this

what is that , bacteria?
could you even see it?
with a magnifying glass?
would it take a microscope?

nothing in between !

then this


some as large as 50 cm in length!

excuse me but that does not solve the darwinian dilemma!

and it still proves Creation.






Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 02:49 AM

Quote:
There is so much evidence that evolution is a fact


I'm still waiting to see some of the so much evidence , the
linski thingy didn't show evolution.

it showed that bacteria can begin to use a nutrient that it stopped using earlier, but it didn't show any thing new.

I have read that the linski thing was the best evidence that
evolution had , but still can you post something else?

Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 05:04 AM

I must admit Paul, the Video is very interesting if rather long.

My personal rather hurried thoughts came to mind rather quickly

When it comes to the Why, Where, and How life started here on Earth

....None of us want to believe in fairy tales, do we?
Every correct honest and science minded person would like to know the truth.
However the truth was not available 6000+ years ago.....Genesis was written by the cleverest men of their time, Over time, historical items were added by different groups of peoples.

Every different group of peoples in the world have their own even similar Bibles. They became similar due to cultural communication, where it happened..

A large proportion of peoples in the world treat the Bible as a Fairy tale with with later added local histories.
Nothing wrong in that....it was, and still is accepted as the truth, by many peoples.
The problem is, it does not answer my underlined question above.
Still yet is another large proportion of peoples that talk about an all seeing, and all encompassing invisible God-like Father, who created our world and who obviously should look out for us.
Thats another set of truths accepted by an larger group of (religious) peoples.

Both ideas still don't answer the underlined question above, and so a more modern and recent idea was formulated, called Creationism.

Creationism trys to use semi-scientific arguements in their hunt for the truth and to validate its points.
Creationists, deny Evolution.....because no-one has ever found Transitional life forms that would prove evolution as a fact to them.
That said- they cleverly accept the historical Biblical accounts (not wanting to upset the Bible thumpers) and state that Life must have started, been created, formed,
and controlled by an Intelligent Source.
Its a clever but unproven idea.

Nobody wants Fairy stories....we would all like the truth
If no transitional Life has been found....it may mean that we hav'nt looked around hard enough.
That does not mean that Creationism has to be correct, or even accepted.

Creationism makes a good point...that after the Cambrian explosion, there was no fossil records of the evolutionary theory that Darwin was so desperate find, to enable him to back up and prove his theory of Evolution.

Yet there are thousands of later records proving Evolution, ..... fish came out of the sea, developed lungs, and walked the Earth...continuing to develop, as did plant life.

The problem is that Creationists do not accept Evolution, because no fossil records later
than Cambrian show any signs of Oxygen breathing small animals.
They believe that all the animals that came later...were a product of Intelligent design.
That gave them eyes to see with, feet to run with, arms to fight with, and brains to survive, all courtesy of Intelligent design. There was an explosion of different animals, the reasons I will discuss later.

Since there are gaps in Creationism, and gaps in Evolution.....it follows that there is not
enough information to produce the truth, one way or another.
Truth is truth...it may take very many years into the future to find it, but eventually another more correct idea will come along, and tend to push out all our old ideas.
The more correct the answer, the quicker its acceptance.

I would like to throw in some (to me) obvious ideas regarding the lack of post Cambrian life.
Tribolites in all their beautiful forms are found all over the world in the mountain ranges of Wales, Canada, and China. All found about the same height above sea level
Remember they were all fossilised on the sea floor, covered by silt, sand or fine dust.

And then the records show, they were no more. Life died.
I would like to posit that they died because of a sudden large amount of dust covered them so thickly that it killed their food source, even making it difficult for
them to move around, plus with no food they died ---all over the world.

Pauls film shows that the Tribolytes fed upon all the soft bodied microscopic egg shaped embryo life that had existed for 60 million years before the Cambrian Tribolytes evolved.

All of the Cambrian fossils show that they had compact articulated bodies, complete with legs, mouth and anus.
Then they died everywhere...I'm suggesting the shallow seabeds all over the world were covered in a fine silt.
Life had to start again. Soft bodied life along sea-shores, developed and ate their own developing soft life.
They could not nibble Tribolyte's for food, they were hard shelled and fossilising under silt.
These new soft bodied creatures were not even found together with Tribolytes, or above them in the strata.

These were the development of new soft life , that eventually developed into Jelly fish, articulated worms and fish........Oh yes many millions of years later.
Sorry I am writing quickly, and not bothering about looking up Epoch dates.

I would also like to suggest that this new soft bodied life
after death, did not survive in the strong sea tides around the worlds shallow coasts. Dead they left no trace.

Later when all the different Phyla, left the sea shore and eventually ventured inland to die...THEN they became the sudden explosion of the very many different fossils found, in the world that the Creationists attribute to an Intelligence Source.

At that time, there must have been many different animals developing aplenty.
But the newly developed dead ones must have been battered to pieces in the strong surf tides
Which is why nobody. including Creationists has found any of this new animal life that evolution was evolving,...until they walked lived and died inland.

The continents separated slowly, leaving shallow seas, when these tiny animals left the sea, and populated various places inland, and died inland. Only then could the modern archeologists dig down, find and place that multitude of animals into the evolutionry catalogue.

My idea is- that there will never be any earlier evolutionary transitional animals to be found, they were all destroyed and battered by the surf.
So eat your heart out Creationists.

We mine for coal, drill for oil, change the valleys to build dams, but no Transitional animal life has been found, as yet.
Life began in the sea, the various types of animals developed on the sea shores. They died leaving no trace util they walked inland.
Is the above a possible answer?

We dont know the answers, regarding Earths life. But you can be sure what we believe in today has a percentage of fairy story, and incorrect data attached to it.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 03:52 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
the usual tuck the tail between the legs and run scientific
method once again there , Bill s.



SO IS THAT AN OPEN INVITATION TO ME PAUL

I mean I wouldn't want to be ACUSED OF STARTING a conversation on religion


CAN I DISSCUSS YOUR CRAZY BELIEFS AND HOW UNSCIENTIFIC AND IMPOSSIBLE THEY ARE?

I am checking here because I am coming in boots and all with a whole pile of questions I have for you.

SCIENCE DOESN'T PROVE THINGS IT WORKS BY FALSIFIABILITY

In that Evolution has never been falsified then your total argument is crap from a scientific point.

The reverse is not true of your religious beliefs have manifestly been proven false and most religions even run a mile from any claim of literal accuracy of genesis.


This is the point you keep missing we don't have to prove evolution is right you don't like it prove it is wrong ... good luck with that :-)

If you want science to have to prove evolution then you should have to prove the alternative ... again good luck.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 05:10 PM

Quote:
When it comes to the Why, Where, and How life started here on Earth, None of us want to believe in fairy tales, do we?
Every correct honest and science minded person would like to know the truth.


exactly , and further down you say

Quote:
If no transitional Life has been found....it may mean that we hav'nt looked around hard enough.
That does not mean that Creationism has to be correct, or even accepted.


you cant find proof of evolution so you say that because evolution has no proof then Creation must not be correct.
that seem's way out of line to me as a logical thinking person.

that also does not mean that evolution has to be correct, or even accepted , but it is accepted and taught in schools
as if it were correct , and creation is not taught in schools , although Creation is seen clearly in the fossil record to have
taken place.


Quote:
Pauls film shows that the Tribolytes fed upon all the soft bodied microscopic egg shaped embryo life that had existed for 60 million years before the Cambrian Tribolytes evolved.
All of the Cambrian fossils show that they had compact articulated bodies, complete with legs, mouth and anus.


that's the problem that evolution endures to this day, according to the fossil record the life forms that suddenly appeared in the cambrian did not evolve from any of the life forms found in the
fossil record of the pre cambrian period , they just materialized, as if by magic.


Quote:

Later when all the different Phyla, left the sea shore and eventually ventured inland to die...THEN they became the sudden explosion of the very many different fossils found, in the world that the Creationists attribute to an Intelligence Source.


I'm not following that one , the very many fossils found in the cambrian were sea creatures , not land creatures.



Quote:
But the newly developed dead ones must have been battered to pieces in the strong surf tides
Which is why nobody. including Creationists has found any of this new animal life that evolution was evolving,...until they walked lived and died inland.



Quote:
My idea is- that there will never be any earlier evolutionary transitional animals to be found, they were all destroyed and battered by the surf.
So eat your heart out Creationists.



Quote:
Is the above a possible answer?


that's hardly plausible , because for the most part the fossils that have been found were covered at or around the moment of death and preserved because they were covered , this is why they are
mostly intact , if they were not covered then scavengers would have consumed them and there would be no fossils.

in the video it shows fossils being found in what was a reef.
and it was underneath the cambrian strata on the reef that no
evidence of evolution was found.




Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 05:17 PM

The problem you have is the story of genesis fails even for the average 12 year old.

When was the last 950 year old person you saw walking around?
Do you really think you could get all the animals in the world on a small boat?

So literal creation via genesis is falsified as an idea even to a 12 year old or are you going to expand your definition on creation out wider to some god making some beginning?
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 05:27 PM

here's the video link again in case anyone missed it.

Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 06:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer
When it comes to the Why, Where, and How life started here on Earth, None of us want to believe in fairy tales, do we?
Every correct honest and science minded person would like to know the truth.


exactly , and further down you say

Quote:
If no transitional Life has been found....it may mean that we hav'nt looked around hard enough.
That does not mean that Creationism has to be correct, or even accepted.


you cant find proof of evolution so you say that because evolution has no proof then Creation must not be correct.
that seem's way out of line to me as a logical thinking person.
Originally Posted By: Mike kremer

Of course I can find proof of evolution, I suggest you re-read my above again

that also does not mean that evolution has to be correct, or even accepted , but it is accepted and taught in schools
as if it were correct , and creation is not taught in schools , although Creation is seen clearly in the fossil record to have
taken place.
Originally Posted By: Mike kremer

Of course Creation is not taught per se in schools, Why teach children unacceptable information? As I stated Creationism is taught in fewer than six schools in the USA, and those are in Tenneesee, I wonder why? Its strange that those six schools that teach Creationism ...BAN the TEACHING of Evolution

Quote:
Pauls film shows that the Tribolytes fed upon all the soft bodied microscopic egg shaped embryo life that had existed for 60 million years before the Cambrian Tribolytes evolved.
All of the Cambrian fossils show that they had compact articulated bodies, complete with legs, mouth and anus.


that's the problem that evolution endures to this day, according to the fossil record the life forms that suddenly appeared in the cambrian did not evolve from any of the life forms found in the
fossil record of the pre cambrian period , they just materialized, as if by magic.
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Now you are changing the rules by going way way back to Trilobyes, when previously you were wondering about the lack of transitional later animal forms.

The whole basis of Creationism stands or falls upon this lack of Transitional forms. Tribolytes did not appear by magic as you say Paul. They are recorded in every part of the world, they evolved and fed upon the pre-Cambrian egg like embryos that themselves took 60 million years to evolve ..Before the Cambrian era. You wont get tribolytes or anything else to develop, unless they have food.
Plus the Tribolytes almost certainly evolved from the billions of semi-life forms called Diatoms, a microscopic hard shell creature.

Quote:

Later when all the different Phyla, left the sea shore and eventually ventured inland to die...THEN they became the sudden explosion of the very many different fossils found, in the world that the Creationists attribute to an Intelligence Source.


I'm not following that one , the very many fossils found in the cambrian were sea creatures , not land creatures.
Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Exactly . The Camrian period suddenly came to a finish.
then life restarted again...All evolving from the sea as per the pre-Cambrian perion. Only this time the life was rather more developed than before. It had plant algae and soft food to eat. Simple animals develope and basked on the sea shores.
They were hardly Oxygen breathers yet..Since our oxygen comes from the plants producing more of it.



Quote:
But the newly developed dead ones must have been battered to pieces in the strong surf tides
Which is why nobody. including Creationists has found any of this new animal life that evolution was evolving,...until they walked lived and died inland.



Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

My idea is- that there will never be any earlier evolutionary transitional animals to be found, they were all destroyed and battered by the surf.
So eat your heart out Creationists.



Quote:
Is the above a possible answer?


that's hardly plausible , because for the most part the fossils that have been found were covered at or around the moment of death and preserved because they were covered , this is why they are
mostly intact , if they were not covered then scavengers would have consumed them and there would be no fossils. [/quote]
Originally Posted By: Mike kremer

You have gone off subject again or not reading properly.
Let me explain again..Yes we all know that many different fossils are found buried under land.
But the BASIS of where all our animals came from WILL NEVER BE FOUND.
Because the thousands of different forms of life CAME OUT OF THE SEA...That means ALL precursors and the evolutionary forms that we have in the world today.
Why will we NEVER see these amazing pre-Evolutionary forms?
BECAUSE their bodies were destroyed in the sea surf.
WHY? because they -were all new types of animals and never made it onto the LAND, to die.They all died on the beaches where they lived, there the surf broke up their dead bodies.

Thats why the Creationists cannot find the pre-evolutionary animals that we have in our world today.
Once they developed and able to walk away from the sea shore and onto the land ...We get their fossils ...
Like the walking Mud Skipper fish, whos fins developed into simple feet.
Kapisch?




Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 08:28 PM

Quote:
Because the thousands of different forms of life CAME OUT OF THE SEA...That means ALL precursors and the evolutionary forms that we have in the world today.
Why will we NEVER see these amazing pre-Evolutionary forms?
BECAUSE their bodies were destroyed in the sea surf.
WHY? because they -were all new types of animals and never made it onto the LAND, to die.They all died on the beaches where they lived, there the surf broke up their dead bodies.


I could understand why you would think that way if there
were no fossils found in the pre cambrian strata.

but there are fossils found in the pre cambrian strata.

so logic demands that they all did not die in the surf and
become ripped to shreads.

the problem with evolution is that there are no fossils
that can be linked to the many diverse forms of cambrian life.

its as if these cambrian forms of life were just there all
of a sudden , everywhere on the earth , fully developed , as if they had been transported from another planet where they had spent billions of years evolving.


Quote:
WHY? because they -were all new types of animals and never made it onto the LAND


during the cambrian and pre cambrian periods the ocean was above the places where the cambrian and pre cambrian fossils are found on land today.

so none of them made it onto land either , yet their fossils
are readily found in the strata.

there just aren't any transitional fossils found that would prove that evolution actually took place.

the fact that there are no transitional fossils shows more proof of Creation than evolution.

Quote:
Thats why the Creationists cannot find the pre-evolutionary animals that we have in our world today.
Once they developed and able to walk away from the sea shore and onto the land ...We get their fossils ...
Like the walking Mud Skipper fish, whos fins developed into simple feet.
Kapisch?


they didnt have to walk away from the sea shore in order for us to find their fossils , the sea shore walked away from them in a way because the land that contains their fossils rose above the water.



Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 10:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Paul
I'm still waiting to see some of the so much evidence.....


Originally Posted By: Bill S.
So are you going to have the courtesy to answer my question...


Could be we are all wasting our time here.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/27/12 11:33 PM

I suppose that you have not openly or directly made
negative comments on this forum about Christians or Creation.

perhaps it's the names used Bill and Bill S. that confused me.
perhaps its the volume of people that I have to reply to in
almost every discussion that I enter into in this forum.

its as if I begin a discussion with one person then someone else takes over then someone else takes over a little while later.

no continuity is the continuity.

just like when I was discussing some things with Mike and then Orac jumps in with his ranting then you jump in requiring an
answer to something I said earlier.

but I'm used to that because that's the way the wolf pack
attack's their victim's , nipping at the heel's of their next
meal until the meal has been tired down.

then the alpha male jump's in , the problem in SAGG is that
the pack does not have a alpha male that can win a battle.

so they all lose , and lose alot.

Quote:
Could be we are all wasting our time here.


could this be the leader of the forum suggesting that
the pack find an easier victim?








Posted by: redewenur

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 12:34 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Could be we are all wasting our time here.
Ha-ha-ha-ha...splitting my sides... grin
You can always be relied upon to add humour to the mix, Bill, but that's a peach grin
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 02:05 AM

Originally Posted By: paul


so they all lose , and lose alot.



Haha you are funny.

If you call making up absolute crap that noone believes a win you have issues. Everyone is against you because what you say is crap and obviously crap.

The pack of everyone "nips" at you because you dribble rubbish that is unbelievable pure and simple.

Then you try and reverse science and we have to prove evolution where it is up to you to disprove evolution like we can disproved your version of creation.

That brings on the dummy spit from you about don't mention religion, stop mentioning religion or I will cry ... blah blah blah.

Then you call that a win :-)

For most of us here this is not a competetion we are here to discuss science.

The problem for you is you aren't here to discuss science you are here to peddle your religion and it is obvious as hell to everyone.

Incase you haven't noticed everyone has picked it up and is laughing at you ... YOU WON :-)
Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 02:18 AM

Originally Posted By: mike kremer


Mike Kremer said
Because the thousands of different forms of life CAME OUT OF THE SEA...That means ALL precursors and the evolutionary forms that we have in the world today.
Why will we NEVER see these amazing pre-Evolutionary forms?
BECAUSE their bodies were destroyed in the sea surf.
WHY? because they -were all new types of animals and never made it onto the LAND, to die.They all died on the beaches where they lived, there the surf broke up their dead bodies.

Originally Posted By: paul

paul replied to the above and said:-
I could understand why you would think that way if there
were no fossils found in the pre cambrian strata.

but there are fossils found in the pre cambrian strata.

so logic demands that they all did not die in the surf and
become ripped to shreds.

Originally Posted By: Mike kremer


I'm afraid you are getting a few million years ahead of your self Paul.
The fossils found in the pre-Camrian strata..as well as the Cambrian Strata. Are devoid of ANIMAL FOSSILS.
Its these transitional animal fossils that if found, would prove to the Creationists, once and for all, that
Evolution was alive and well.
Creationism would NOT EXIST if early animal fossils were found.

I maintain that these early and varied 'animal' life forms will never be found.
That unfortunately...should make the Creationists very happy.

Originally Posted By: Paul

and Paul said:-
the problem with evolution is that there are no fossils
that can be linked to the many diverse forms of cambrian life.

Originally Posted By: Mike kremer

Mike said:-
Again you should be talking about the EARLY ANIMAL fossils
that nobody can find as yet.
Why do you still insist that there were animal fossils that were supposed to have developed in the Cambrian shale beds?
We can see whats in the Cambrian shale...A lot of it has been uplifted in many parts of the World.
There are NO small animal transitional forms there. Which is exactly why the creationists are able to Fairy tale the story that some super Intelligent Source created all the animal differences, and put them down JUST WHERE?
They wer'nt put down during the Cambrian era.
So they must have been laid down,or evolved during a later Era.


Originally Posted By: Paul

Paul said:-
its as if these cambrian forms of life were just there all
of a sudden , everywhere on the earth , fully developed , as if they had been transported from another planet where they had spent billions of years evolving.

Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer

Hehehe...you just said some naughty words:-
----"spent billions of years evolving."

So you really do believe in evolution...as long as its not on our Earth, huh?
And why are we still talking about 'all these Cambrian life forms'?Cambrian Era did not contain fossils of Walking Mud Skipper fish that could breath oxygen, or any other small shore living animals, that had not evolved enough to go on
and live inland.

Do the Creationists believe that this Intelligent source of theirs ...incubated, or Evolved, all our varied Earthly animals and (prehaps man?) on another planet?
As you mention above.



Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 03:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Mike
The fossils found in the pre-Camrian strata..as well as the Cambrian Strata. Are devoid of ANIMAL FOSSILS.

Originally Posted By: Mike
Why do you still insist that there were animal fossils that were supposed to have developed in the Cambrian shale beds?

its more like I was right on the money , and you are just wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Originally Posted By: wikipedia
The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 530 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record


Originally Posted By: Mike

We can see whats in the Cambrian shale...A lot of it has been uplifted in many parts of the World.
There are NO small animal transitional forms there.


the pre cambrian was where the development should have occurred
just like I have been saying , but there was no development.
there was no evolution.
they just appeared.

I'm not sure exactly what your attempting to do Mike
but it sure looks as if you don't know what your takling about at all.

Quote:
Hehehe...you just said some naughty words:-
----"spent billions of years evolving."

So you really do believe in evolution...as long as its not on our Earth, huh?


I dont believe in evolution , I have said that plenty of times.
I believe that the development changes that are seen are simply
due to the environment.

and I did say ( its as if ) heres what I said.

Quote:
its as if these cambrian forms of life were just there all
of a sudden , everywhere on the earth , fully developed , as if they had been transported from another planet where they had spent billions of years evolving.


Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 03:44 AM

Quote:
Incase you haven't noticed everyone has picked it up and is laughing at you ... YOU WON :-)


but you guys are not the only one's who are reading the post , so
given the evidence I have presented and the lack of evidence you guys have presented , I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is me that they are laughing at, LOL.

there are 92 people viewing the forum right now.
I would venture to say that at least all of them except those who
normally post here are laughing at you guys.

not me.

there's no reason for them to laugh at what I have written.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 04:13 AM

Oh they are rioting in the street demanding that the jewish torah as interpretted by some radical fundementalists is taught as creation.

Meanwhile all science is in complete disarray demanding that evolution has been falsified and needs to be replaced by goat god philosophy.

YEP you are indeed the biggest WINNER I have ever met!!!!!!

NEWSFLASH READING DOES NOT EQUAL SUPPORTING YOUR VIEW, THEY MAY NOT BE SUPPORTING SCIENCE VIEW EITHER THUS WE CAN ONLY ASSUME THE STATUS QUO UNLESS THEY DECIDE TO ACT OR TALK.

Quote:

there are 92 people viewing the forum right now.
I would venture to say that at least all of them except those whonormally post here are laughing at you guys.

not me.


And you evidence for the above statement is Mr Winner?
I personally assume nothing if they aren't commenting I can't say anything about what they believe because I am not delusional like WINNERS.

As people above have explained you have bigger issues than evolution, evolution being wrong would not prove creation because there may be other theories out there which may supercede both those theories. You have turned something into a two horse race which isn't a two horse race.

So again your win is only in your own mind.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 05:42 AM

So who did the creating?--- because surely if there is 'creationism' there must be a creator, or otherwise it will just be an 'ism' (which is in the dictionary as a suffix- and with a whole host of interesting meanings resulting from its usage.)

Choose from the following from The Penguin English Dictionary.

2. a) a state or property
b) a pathological state or property.
3. a) a doctrine or cult.
b) prejudice

Some very apt meanings there I think.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 09:49 AM

Oops, Ellis. I expect there will follow the usual vitriolic slamming of atheism and agnosticism. We could discuss rheumatism instead, but that might be a sign of pragmatism. Wouldn't want too much of that now would we.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 01:20 PM

Quote:
I suppose that you have not openly or directly made
negative comments on this forum about Christians or Creation.


Absolutely right; so any negative connotations are in the mind of the "beholder".

Quote:
perhaps it's the names used Bill and Bill S. that confused me.


Undoubtedly it is regrettable that the presence of just two Bills should occasion such profound disorientation. You may recall that I expressed the intention to leave this thread; perhaps that would have helped. I interpreted you attempt at a provocative response as being designed as a deterrent from such action. Perhaps you saw me as part of your illusory wolf pack, which could ill afford depletion if you were to sustain any momentum towards intellectual martyrdom for your beliefs.

Your confusion may have caused you to overlook the fact that on more than one occasion I have said I accept that people's beliefs, perhaps especially their religious beliefs, are deeply important to them and should not me mocked.

Obviously if a person brings his/her beliefs into a discussion forum, it is reasonable to assume that they are there for discussion.

Quote:
its as if I begin a discussion with one person then someone else takes over then someone else takes over a little while later.


Does that not have something to do with the fact that this is a discussion forum? Do you not join in discussions?

There is always the PM option if open discussion is too threatening.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 04:09 PM

Paul doesn't want to discuss anything he wants to tell you the one thing that is important to him that his strange version of creation is correct. He will pervert and change any and all facts and science to that end.

Unfortunately it is behaviour that is too common to alot of religions being simple indoctrination by lies and deception.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 04:58 PM

I have been trying , basically pleading for the believers
of evolution to present an argument in favor of evolution.

all I get is words , thing's that evolutionist have heard from
other evolutionist , as they pat each other on the back and invent
more and more fake evidence in the form of drawings and models
of what they perceive evolution would look like if evolution would have occured.

they never can produce a single piece of evidence.

just words that they have heard or read in evolutionist book's.

they might as well be reciting from comic book's as comic book's
closely resemble the proof that is established through drawing's
and clay modeling of the characters in the evolution saga fable.

why would evolution need to produce any hard evidence when
evolution can simply make its own evidence using drawings and modeling clay?













Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 05:29 PM

For the last time we don't have to PROVE evolution it simply needs to be falsified if its wrong.

NO ONE HAS EVER FALSIFIED IT.

Why would we waste our time trying to prove it to you as you would never accept our proof because you have a problem if it is true your religion, GOD and beliefs die and thus you couldn't accept any proof.

ON THE REVERSE THE BOOK OF GENESIS IS EASY TO FALSIFY and Darwin easily did that when he created the theory of evolution.

You think it's a comic story who gives a rats you can't and haven't falsified evolution so it's not worth wasting time on.

Evolution still is installed as science theory because it has never been formally falsified ... GET IT ... NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND.

Thats how science works and although simple you seem to struggle with basics like this.

You similarly struggled with why creationism couldn't be taught as science in schools because the law upheld the simple rules of science. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster created as threat/paradody by scientist showed what would happen if we don't adhere to the science rules any stupidity could call itself science and demand to be taught as science.

The law doesn't give a rats whether you believe in evolution, Science doesn't give a rats if you believe in evolution and I am certainly not going to waste my time in a pointless argument with you because I don't give a rats if you believe in evolution.

Evolution remains the current theory of development of life on the planet by science and nothing you can do short of a formal falsification will change that ... get over it.

Stop wasting peoples time if you want to have a crack at falsifying it go for it otherwise move on.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/28/12 06:21 PM

see what I mean , no evidence , no proof , not even a hint
of a feasible theory , nothing , nothing at all.

only ranting and raving and comic book fairy tale stories
that describe what is supposed to be a part of science.

evolution can not prove itself using Creation , because
evolution denies Creation.

yet , the blind followers of evolution do try.

they laugh at those who believe in Creation , because they have
all their drawing's and their models that they invented to protect themselves.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 12:04 AM

No we chose not to engage in pointless exchanges ... science is not a popularity contest and doesn't need us to rally numbers to defend it.

Science is very comfortable with evolution and it's standing.

For me personally I laugh at your genesis version of creation because it is so obviously wrong at a child level. I also laugh at your lack of understanding of how science works :-)


Basically wow a religious fruitloop such as yourself doesn't believe in evolution I am sure that is going to rock everyones world. I am comfortable anyone reading this forum gets the picture ... LOL.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 12:58 AM

I cannot understand why there is so much animosity towards Evolution. Surely it is possible for believers, and I know some who do, to believe that the world was developed by God along the plan described in Genesis, which actually gets the whole birth of the universe remarkably accurately for the time in which it was written.

I think that the universe (and etc) arose from undirected chaos or even nothing! But it surely would not be difficult to believe that Evolution, which now slowly being verified, gives the most accurate outline of the origin of everything! And believe it is directed by God, if you must.

It is wrong not to allow children access to provable science, and instead to teach them, knowingly, incorrect information.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 01:36 AM

Quote:
It is wrong not to allow children access to provable science, and instead to teach them, knowingly, incorrect information.


exactly , that's why we should stop teaching them evolution.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 01:42 AM

Frequently this sort of animosity is born of fear, often unrecognised and/or unacknowledged, but very real none-the-less.

Questioning one's fundamental beliefs, especially if those beliefs are linked to the concept of eternal life/salvation, requires a degree of courage that tends to be proportional to the fervour with which the belief is held.

I suspect that one would need personal experience of this sort of situation in order even to begin to know how it must feel.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 02:01 AM

Quote:
Frequently this sort of animosity is born of fear


in my case fear has nothing to do with it.

its logic alone that causes me to think this way.

I'm not looking at it from a creationist viewpoint , I'm looking
at it from a logical viewpoint.

evolution does not seem logical to me.
and from what I have read and seen it is not logical
to many other's either.

there's no fear involved , believe me.
whenever I would read up on evolution , I would find thing's
that just didn't fit into any logical picture.

BTW , I did believe that evolution occurred at some point
in the past , this was before I began to question science
due to the corruptness in science today.

I began to question all aspects of science not just evolution
I'm developing my own personal theory that evolution may have
been deployed to reduce the number of people joining the
ranks of the religious because the religious pay 10% of their
income to their churches , this would release mountains of
dollars to be spent on what the rich people sell , including books on evolution.

LOL





Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 03:08 AM

Science is not a popularity contest.

As per the high court rulings you can have the majority of a state disagree with evolution and you still can't get a majority of people to vote to overturn it and teach something else.

Science has simple rules and noone gets to vote on whats right and wrong a fact you keep ignoring.

In the same way noone cares evolution doesn't seem logical to you this isn't about you it's about what can be shown using logic. You somehow believe in a literal version of genesis which makes no logical sense and you don't want to discuss so I hardly think anyone would be surprised it makes no sense to you, I mean literal genesis creation makes perfect sense right.

I have no real view evolution it's not something that really interests me. I believe it I guess because it makes logical sense. I dislike your literal genesis creation because to me it's crazy beyond any sort of common sense but again what I like or dislike does not make evolution right and genesis creation wrong and nor does science care what I think.

Nobody has falsified evolution so it stands in science it doesn't matter if you or I like it or not opinions don't come into things.

Thats how science works so continuing to bleat and whine on about it is pointless.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 04:46 AM

Quote:
As per the high court rulings you can have the majority of a state disagree with evolution and you still can't get a majority of people to vote to overturn it and teach something else.


tell that to the states that are teaching Creation vs evolution.

our constitution does not allow our government to dictate
to the states in matters concerning religion.

its called separation of church and state.

the mountain of evidence that is easily available that
shows evidence that evolution is based on flawed logic
can be used to remove the teaching of evolution in public schools.

basically it can be shown that the purpose of evolution
was meant to destroy belief in Creation.

if the federal courts rule to stand in the way of a state who's citizens want Creation to be taught to their children
vs evolution then the federal courts are ruling unconstitutionally.

any ruling or law that has been passed to prevent the teaching
of Creation yet allows the teaching of evolution is unconstitutional.

there are colleges in the U.S. that are denying students admission because their high school used a text book that
teaches Creation.

I say let them have those students that they want , and build
colleges for those students that they don't want.

at least they will not be living a lie by attending a school
of higher learning where they learn to believe lies.

Quote:
Nobody has falsified evolution so it stands in science


you have that wrong , I would venture that those who first started evolution were innocent , they truly believed that
they were correct , but after all the evidence against evolution that is available today has slipped into mainstream knowledge it will be seen that evolution was a ploy to remove religion.

and those who have invested in a education in evolution will
be looking for a new career especially the teachers.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 07:51 AM

Originally Posted By: paul


our constitution does not allow our government to dictate
to the states in matters concerning religion.

its called separation of church and state.

if the federal courts rule to stand in the way of a state who's citizens want Creation to be taught to their children
vs evolution then the federal courts are ruling unconstitutionally.



Do you practice being able to not read what people write ... you can teach religion as religion noone is stopping that.

What you can't do is teach creation as science because it has been falsified or in some forms not testable.

Hence the issue is dead and no appeals or constitution was broken it is simply not science. If the whole of USA voted to teach creation as science the USA of would simply cease to teach science and it's institutions would fail to be reecognized as science institutes .... Get it.

Now go cry in the corner and whine and whinge no one cares creation can't be taught as science period and it has nothing to do with the constituation or any other rights ... science decides the rules of science not countries.


Originally Posted By: paul


the mountain of evidence that is easily available that
shows evidence that evolution is based on flawed logic
can be used to remove the teaching of evolution in public schools.



Funny how noone has managed to do produce sucg evidence except in your crazy fundemntalist circles.


Originally Posted By: paul

basically it can be shown that the purpose of evolution
was meant to destroy belief in Creation.


And now we have the fundementalist conspiracy theory ... lol



Originally Posted By: paul

any ruling or law that has been passed to prevent the teaching
of Creation yet allows the teaching of evolution is unconstitutional.


If the teaching is science then no it isn't unconstitutional it is correct and upheld by the law. Noone is stopping the teaching of creation it just can't be taught as science it probably can't be taught as mathematics or as art or a pile of other schoool disciplines either.


Then you drift back into conspiracy theory ... sob sob sob sob

Now you have had you big cry do you need some tissues and a shoulder to cry on to get over it?
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 02:55 PM

Quote:
Do you practice being able to not read what people write ... you can teach religion as religion noone is stopping that.


a school is not a place where religion should be taught.

Quote:
What you can't do is teach creation as science because it has been falsified or in some forms not testable.


evolution is testable , and evolution has been falsified every time evolution think's its found something that shows evolution.

these have been found to be false yet they are still being portrayed as evidence of evolution.

but they are evidence of evolution because evolution itself
is false.

ramapithecus = false
piltdown man = false
java man = false
nebraska man = false
lucy = false
neanderthal man = false
etc...etc...etc...


not one instance of what evolution claims as being evolution has
ever been found.

nothing.

which brings evolution into the category of religion.

and religion should not be taught in schools.

Creation is not religion , Creation actually happened and
has been verified by the fossil record.

the fact that all life forms just appeared with no evoloutionary
history shows Creation.

there's really no way that Creation can be taught as a science
because we don't know how to Create , we just know it happened.

so we can't teach creation , but we can see the results of Creation every time we try to find evolution.

if I'm looking for a red barn , but all I can find is gold barns
every time I think I've found where a red barn might be located
then eventually I'm going to begin to think that there must
not be any red paint.

so I look for the ingredient's of what I think red paint consist of , and I mix those ingredients together but I always end up
with gold paint , then I decide to try and manipulate the ingredients around to try and make some red paint , but it
always turns out to be gold paint.

eventually , after several hundred years , I'm going to
decide that the logical thing to do is to accept that there
is no red paint and that I cant make red paint to use
to paint a barn with.

and that is the reason why I have never been able to find any
red barns.

and that is the reason why I can only find gold barns.


Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 04:42 PM

You missed out quite a few ,Paul.

If you add to to the groups you have stated as false.

ramapithecus = false
piltdown man = false
(java man = false)
nebraska man = false
lucy = false
neanderthal man = false
You forgot the Chinese Peking Man, and others, Paul.

Here are a few more ancient Man Species:-

Homo floresiensis, Man

http://www.livescience.com/25415-hobbit-homo-floresiensis.html

Where the wrist bones, hand and skull,
point to a new human species

Pleistocene Man

http://pleistocenecoalition.com/#vanlandingham

A lot of the above was kept secret and not released
until after 1926.

Paranthropus boisei Man

http://www.macroevolution.net/paranthropus-boisei.html

One of the largest and oldest species of early man.

Now if you place these 8 different species in some sort
of cronological order, you might see that their tools, their art, their weapons and food, get better and better,
as the years progress. Thats Evolution


>Oh I nearly forgot 'OMO Man' the oldest hominid found yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269299.stm



Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 04:59 PM

Paul I could argue how wrong all that is but that would actually require effort and caring about your views of evolution :-)

The evolution argument has to be strong in science because there is no money in that area of science. If it was weak I could imagine a pile of scientists would knocking on various religion doors asking for research funding to falsify evolution. I mean for such a scientist the Nobel science prize, accolades and money from numerous churches and groups of thankful vestal virgins waits. Strangely no scientist has taken up the lucrative offer so I can only conclude that evolution must be very solid.

There has been a topical article about scientist Peter Higgs taking scientist Richard Dawkins to task about his anti-religion zealotry by Lubos Motl which is worth a read. My personal position is very close to Lubos's view that both extreme fundementalism are bad

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/richard-dawkins-vs-peter-higgs.html#more

I particually agree with this statement

Originally Posted By: Lubos Motl

Instead, my point is that I agree with Peter Higgs that people like Richard Dawkins are fundamentalists in a similar sense as the believers themselves – despite the fact that they are arguably right much more often than the believers (a comparison that may change as time goes by, however). The general character of answers to the "big questions" is always predetermined – and this comment applies to both of these opposing groups. Every statement that is positively correlated with the vague concept of God has to be supported by the obedient believers; and it has to be spitted upon by the politically correct anti-believers.

Whether or not the second attitude seems to be more successful in the incorporation of the scientific insights of the last 20 or 100 or 500 years, both of these approaches are equally fundamentalist – and both of them are intrinsically unscientific. Science isn't defined by its goal to show that every idea positively correlated with the vague concept of God is wrong much like science should never have been defined by its consistency with God. Science is simply independent of these prejudices – both of them and many others. Science impartially evaluates the empirical data and the right conclusions aren't and can't be determined a priori.



Thus science cares not whether there is a GOD or not as the presence of a GOD would change very little of any significance for science.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 05:46 PM

Quote:
Here are a few more ancient Man Species


I see a few extinct apes.





and a small human , possibly much like a pigmy.
something that would be expected due to inbreeding.



I'm not even sure that the above is a human skull as some
of the tooth sockets look as if they housed large ape like
teeth.




what is needed is a gradient from one of the so called
common ancestors to modern human to prove evolution.

not the finding of extinct species of apes.

or the finding of small modern humans such as pygmies.

its obvious that if so many dinosaur fossils are found given there age according to evolution there should also be a massive number of fossils found that would show the evolutionary process of
transition from a common ancestor in incremental stages that occur over millions of years , so if evolution is true , then why have these transitional fossils not been found in abundance?

but science can't seem to find a gradient from any species that
shows any evolution.


that's really strange to me, why evolution is such a important science , yet not one transition has ever been found.

and transition from one creature to another higher evolved creature is what evolution is supposed to be about.


tiny incremental changes over a very long time period.

not sudden appearances of species without any transition.


Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 06:31 PM

Quote:
Science impartially evaluates the empirical data and the right conclusions aren't and can't be determined a priori.


then why has science evaluated the data in a manner that clearly
shows partiality.

no data can be found in favor of evolution , yet science
has concluded that evolution is science.

given sciences response or approval of evolution its like saying that science itself as a whole is a religion.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 08:26 PM


Quote:
in my case fear has nothing to do with it.

its logic alone that causes me to think this way.


I did not, nor would I, presume to comment on your possible personal motivation in an open discussion.

Since you introduce the personal angle, I feel I might comment that the style and content of many of your posts gives scant support to the idea that logic alone is their driving force.

Two possibilities seem to present themselves:

1. You are a devoutly religious person who thinks about secular issues and finds it necessary to work to align things with your personal beliefs.

2. You are a curmudgeonly old fart with an extremely low tolerance for the views of others.

You may agree that the former is the more charitable inference to draw, and is the one I hope you will keep in mind if you have a need to apply my generalised comments to yourself.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 08:50 PM

Quote:
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n4/moon-dust-argument
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 09:00 PM

Quote:
The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.


I'm not basing my argument on anyone else's argument.

in the above it must be assumed that the amount of dust annualy
is the current amount of dust.

4.5 billion years ago , no one knows the annual amount of dust
that would have fallen.

so , any calculation's based on current dust fall amounts would not be seen as correct or close.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 09:07 PM

Quote:
. You are a devoutly religious person who thinks about secular issues and finds it necessary to work to align things with your personal beliefs.


Don't come out of retirement in order to pursue a clairvoyant position with one of evolution's fable creation agencies.

I base my belief's on my finding's.
I don't just blindly accept things other people say or believe.
I have a look myself and then form my own opinion.

this is why I know that evolution is false.
I have looked into it myself and formed my own opinion.

Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 10:52 PM

Quote:
I'm not basing my argument on anyone else's argument.


Are your figures those of your own collection?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 11:04 PM

Quote:
Don't come out of retirement in order to pursue a clairvoyant position with one of evolution's fable creation agencies.


As one who apparently values logic, you must see a logical connection between reading people's posts as they are presented, and clairvoyance.

I will not attempt to speculate as to what connection you might imagine, as I have no wish to engender confusion in the minds of those who might be unable to distinguish between clairvoyance and reasonable assumptions based on observations.

One logical line of thought might be that you are saying that others need to be clairvoyant in order to understand your posts, but you will undoubtedly appreciate that any such speculation would be based solely on the paucity of information you provide, and have no connection whatsoever with any claim to preternatural abilities.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 11:27 PM

Quote:
As one who apparently values logic, you must see a logical connection between reading people's posts as they are presented, and clairvoyance.


this was what you were replying to correct?

Quote:
in my case fear has nothing to do with it.

its logic alone that causes me to think this way.


I based the caution about your seeking a position in
clairvoyance on what you wrote below.

Quote:
1. You are a devoutly religious person who thinks about secular issues and finds it necessary to work to align things with your personal beliefs.

2. You are a curmudgeonly old fart with an extremely low tolerance for the views of others.


I have repeatedly said that I use logic to resolve
problems.

your response looks like it could be found written on a tiny
piece of paper that would come inside fortune cookie's.


Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/29/12 11:33 PM

Quote:
Are your figures those of your own collection?


it's been awhile , but they are here on sagg somewhere.

here I found it.

Quote:
5521 pounds / 1550 sq inch = 3.56 inches high of solid nickel.


like I said I dont know how much moon dust weighs but the above
would be how thick the dust would be if it were solid nickel.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthr...=true#Post46343

you may have the weight of moon dust handy , Bill s

if you could link to it I would greatly appreciate it
this way I could recalculate the thickness to see if
6000 years would be a more reasonable time span for
the .75 inches of moon dust buildup.

I have asked before , but there was no reply.

I just looked and I still can't find how much moon dust weighs
which is amazing to me , for the simple fact that the thickness of the moon dust cannot be determined unless its
density per volume is known.

go figure!


Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 01:01 AM

Unfortunately I've not succeeded in getting access to Nigel Henbest's 1991 article in full; nor do I have any up to date info on moon dust. Plenty of other dust, though. smile

I'll see what I can find.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 02:14 AM

The moon dust argument has come and gone and it has been quite telling Paul having it as his signature :-)

The short form of the argument

http://godandscience.org/youngearth/dust.html

Errors: faulty assumptions, faulty data, avoidance of data that refutes the position.

What is interesting is that young creationist groups actually distance themselves from this exact argument because they concede it is wrong

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use

Quote:

Arguments that should never be used
1.Moon dust thickness proves a young moon.
2.The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. (If so, how could Adam and Eve have eaten and digested their food that they were told to eat before the Fall?)
3.NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” (Joshua 10) and Hezekiah’s sundial movement (2 Kings 20).
4.There are no beneficial mutations.
5.Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
6.Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.
7.If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)
8.No new species have been produced.
9.Ron Wyatt has found much archeological proof of the Bible.


So what does that say Paul, you are at odds with even others who believe and accept young earth creation :-)

I guess their disagreement with you is pretty much for the same reason as science

Quote:

Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research. Because there are so many good arguments for a recent creation (which the Bible clearly teaches), we have no need to grasp at straws—arguments using questionable logic and tenuous or no evidence. Answers in Genesis is not willing to distort evidence or resort to bad logic to defend the Bible.


It's called honesty and integrity qualities you could use more of.

Science and young creationist disagreeing with you Paul must be a conspiracy right?
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 03:32 AM

Quote:
What is interesting is that young creationist groups actually distance themselves from this exact argument because they concede it is wrong


the truth is what's important as far as I can see it.

that may not be what you concern yourself with , but in
order for me to fully believe and trust my logic , the truth
must be the foundation of my logic.

otherwise I reduce myself to the level of the thing's that I disagree with.

Quote:
So what does that say Paul, you are at odds with even others who believe and accept young earth creation


so should I fall in formation with them?
and let them dictate what I can or cannot discuss , that's
just not the way it should be.

Quote:
It's called honesty and integrity qualities you could use more of.


coming from you , orac

that's like the moon telling the sun that it needs to shine
a little bit brighter.




Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 04:47 AM

So let me guess another win for you ... not even your own side believe you :-)

BTW I am interested what have I been dishonest about according to you? I am not even trying at the moment and yet I seem to upset you.

Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 05:04 PM

eureka!

I found something on a anti-Creationist web site , that's good
because using the op's info should carry more weight with the op's.

Quote:
The density of the dust is given as 3 grams/cubic centimeter.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_dust.html

I haven't fully read the article yet , it may be explaining
how a equation is meant to be used.

but I thought it was an amazing find , this is the first time
I have been lucky enough to find it.

I tried a different approach this time after searching the logical
search terms , I just typed into google

1 cm of moon dust weighs

and there was a article.

it looks like there will be a lot more moon dust covering the moon
than .75 inches.

but lets wait till I recalculate it using the now assumed weight
of moon dust and my previous calculation.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 05:46 PM

LOL , while re reading my calculation I found an error.


Quote:
each sq meter of the moons surface should have 5521.21 pounds of dust on its surface.

but thats just math and data and things that science ignores these days.

that is some heavy dust , just how heavy is the dust on the moon?

nickel weighs 0.322 lbs per cu inch.

1 sq meter has 1550 sq inches

5521 pounds / 1550 sq inch = 3.56 inches high of solid nickel.


I'm not sure exactly how that happened , I was supposed to be
showing how high solid nickel would stack because I could't find the weight of moon dust.

but I forgot to include the nickle and the result should have been

5521 pounds / 1550 sq inch = 3.56 pounds/sq inch

nickel weighs 0.322 lbs per cu inch.

anyway 3.56 pounds / 0.322 lbs = 11.05 inches of solid nickle.



Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 06:08 PM

now for my honest estimate of how high the moon dust should be

excluding : compaction due to gravity.
compaction due to electro / mechanical properties of the moon dust.


Quote:
5521 pounds / 1550 sq inch = 3.56 pounds/sq inch


1 (sq inch) = 6.4516 sq centimeters

3.56 pounds sq inch / 6.14516 cm = 0.551 pounds / sq cm

1 pound = 453.592 grams

moon dust weighs 3 grams / cu cm

.55 pounds * 453.592 grams = 250.292 grams per sq cm

250.292 grams sq cm / 3 grams per cu cm = 83.430 cm in height

which is not quite a meter in height

that is the 4.5 billion year accumulation of moon dust.

but there's only apx .75 inches of dust on the moon.

so now I will calculate the height of moon dust that would have
accumulated over only 6000 years.

Quote:
23290 tpy * 6000 years = 139740000 tons of dust total


a tonn = 2000 lbs

279,480,000,000 lbs of dust

the surface area of the moon is 37,964,220,000,000 sq meters

each sq meter of the moons surface should have
0.0073616684341203375177996545168056 pounds of dust on its surface.

1 sq meter has 1550 sq inches

0.0073616684341203375177996545168056 pounds / 1550 sq inch = 4.7494635058840887211610674301971e-6

.0000047494635058840887211610674301971 pounds / sq in

1 (sq inch) = 6.4516 sq centimeters

.0000047494635058840887211610674301971 pounds sq inch / 6.14516 cm = 7.7287873804491481444926860003599e-7 pounds / sq cm

.00000077287873804491481444926860003599 pounds / sq cm

1 pound = 453.592 grams

.00000077287873804491481444926860003599 pounds * 453.592 grams = 3.5057161254726900051567264282752e-4 grams per sq cm

.00035057161254726900051567264282752 grams per sq cm

moon dust weighs 3 grams / cu cm

.00035057161254726900051567264282752 grams per sq cm / 3 grams per cu cm = 1.1685720418242300017189088066667e-4

.00011685720418242300017189088066667 cm in height.

.0001 cm of moon dust accumulation in only 6000 years.

that is my honest estimate of the amount of moon dust accumulation
over a 6000 year period.

and I'm a creationist.

my conclusion:
neither one of my calculations approach the op's or Creations
estimates.
my conclusion
1) the moon is not as old as it is said to be by science.(4.5 billion years old)
2) and it is older than Creation says it is (apx 6000 years old).
3) all this is riding on the assumption that moon dust weighs 3 grams per cu cm
4) and that my calculation method was at least close.

83 cm is a lot more than .75 inches

and

.0001 cm is a lot less than .75 inches



Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 07:10 PM

Quote:
Are your figures those of your own collection?


I was really asking about the figures for the in-fall rate. Did you do your own dust collecting?
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 07:18 PM

of course I did.

that's how I knew how much moon dust weighs. cool

however , I did use someone else's estimate to do the calculation's

as was in the original post that you pointed to when you replied

Quote:
Unfortunately I've not succeeded in getting access to Nigel Henbest's 1991 article in full


Quote:
Henbest writing in New Scientist in 1991 declares:
“Even though the grains are individually small, they are so numerous in interplanetary space that the Earth sweeps up some 100,000 tons of cosmic dust every year.
Perhaps this is a “safe” compromise!



Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 07:34 PM

now , I'm kind of curious as to the method or means that the
3 gram's per cu cm was obtained.

I wonder if I could reverse engineer the 3 grams to match the
.75 inches seen on the moon.

laugh

I will say this common sand found on the earth weighs 3 gram's
per cu cm.

each grain of sand is much larger than the tiny grains
of moon dust , so even if this obviously highly classified data
( the weight of moon dust ) is not made available , I'm almost
certain that a weight approximation can be made by the percentages
of the elements contained in the moon dust , and the air gaps between the grains.

it may turn out to be heavier or lighter , who knows.


Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 10:07 PM

Well, gentle Readers here I go away for a few days and when I come back I find that Paul is still making ridiculous arguments. Over and over we show him examples of simple observations that can best be explained by the Theory of Evolution, and he keeps claiming that evolution has been disproven. I trust you are keeping tabs on all of the reasons that he gives that evolution has been disproved. So far I am having a problem with my list, since I haven't seen an disproofs. What i have seen over and over in my life has been example after example that, as I said above, can be best explained by the Theory of Evolution.

Some quick examples:

The Linnaean classification system that classifies all life forms into a ranked series of classifications starting with species and proceeding through the following system borrowed from Yahoo Answers.

Originally Posted By: Yahoo Answers
The Linnaean taxonomy hierarchy from top to bottom:
1. domain
2. kingdom
3. phylum
4. class
5. order
6. family
7. genus
8. species
9. subspecies (occasionally used)


All life forms fit into this classification scheme. The simplest explanation for this is that they are ultimately descended from one life form and gained their current diversity through evolution.

Another observation.

When you examine several geological strata you find that there are many fossils in one strata that are not included in other strata. The fossils in older strata, as dated relationally by which strata are buried more deeply or exactly by radiometric methods, tend to be more simple in structure. Of course many of the older fossils show resemblances to the newer ones, as if the newer ones were evolved descendents of the older ones.

An example of not having older and newer fossils intermixed is that there are no fossils of human beings mixed with the fossils of dinosaurs.

And then there is the fact that the older strata have been radiometrically dated to extreme ages, inconsistent with the young earth creation of the book of Genesis. I have a lot of faith in radiometric dating, since the theory that is used to determine the age is the same theory that is used to make hydrogen bombs. It works quite well there, so I don't see how it could be just horribly wrong in determining the age of fossils and the Earth.

There are of course a great many other examples of things that can be most easily explained by the Theory of Evolution. This is very small sample of those observations. So don't be mislead by Paul's refusal to accept any of them and his claims that evolution has been disproven.

Bill Gill
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 10:17 PM

Bill

I didnt say that there were no fossils found in the different layers of strata.

I said that there are no ( TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS ) found in the
different layers of strata.

huffing and puffing and gentile readering about thing's that are
not in question might sound good , but really serves no purpose.

show us a website that shows pictures of transitional fossils

oh and please use the same species as it transitions from one species to another.

ie...

a elephant to a mouse.

but dont just show us a fossil of an elephant
and a fossil of a mouse , we need the ( TRANSITIONAL) fossils
in between.




Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 10:49 PM

Quote:
a elephant to a mouse.


All becomes clear, I understand now why you don't believe in evolution.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 11:12 PM

This is not a bad place to start looking for/at transitional fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Cephalopods

Of course, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and humans have been keeping written records for most of that time, there could be contemporaneous accounts capable of rubbishing all this Wiki stuff.

It occurs to me, on reading my last sentence, that there could be readers (gentle/gentile or otherwise) who might suspect that I am being flippant. Such is not the case.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 11:25 PM

that's really sad there Bill.

its nothing like what I would have hoped you could post up
given your intense belief in evolution.

at least the page is honest and doesn't start off
with discriminating rants against Creation.

here's the page's disclaimer.

Quote:
This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries.


it doesn't say disclaimer but that's what it is.

I would think that the wiki page would be crammed with data
and pictures that link each transition to the transition above it , but its like there's nothing to put in there!

it's like there's no transition's available to put there.

is that the case?

evolution only used fully formed species to show the evolution from species to species , you say that you now understand why
I don't believe in evolution , well your right , I require
some evidence of evolution.




Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 11:33 PM

Quote:
Of course, if the Earth is only 6,000 years old


lets look at one modern species and see if what you said really hold's water.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=47156#Post47156

we all know that these changes seen in dogs took over 650 million years just like evolution says that
it would have taken from goo to dog , right.

but these dog's pictured were bred in only a few thousand years.

how is it that natural selection was not involved in the process.

lets call this event in history the
dog breed explosion.

how did it occur?

was it natural selection , no.

it was intelligent design.




Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 11:48 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
Bill

I didnt say that there were no fossils found in the different layers of strata.

I said that there are no ( TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS ) found in the
different layers of strata.

huffing and puffing and gentile readering about thing's that are
not in question might sound good , but really serves no purpose.

show us a website that shows pictures of transitional fossils

oh and please use the same species as it transitions from one species to another.

ie...

a elephant to a mouse.

but dont just show us a fossil of an elephant
and a fossil of a mouse , we need the ( TRANSITIONAL) fossils
in between.






Well, gentle Readers, there Paul goes again. Trying to distract attention from what I said by getting me to join in a discussion of what he said or didn't say. He doesn't pay any attention to what I said, which was that the facts are most easily explained by evolution. He doesn't address that, he just says that he wants intermediate species. It really doesn't matter to me that some lines don't show the intermediate species, the fact that they come and go and there is an ancestral resemblance between them still makes a good case for evolution.

There are of course many cases where intermediate species have been found, but of course that is of no interest to Paul and other creationists, so they will continue to ignore them.

Bill Gill
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 11:55 PM

Quote:
There are of course many cases where intermediate species have been found, but of course that is of no interest to Paul


the evolutionist must be evolving , gentile readers...LOL

they are displaying the ability of knowing what other's interest are.

in fact Bill is wrong as I have repeatedly shown that I am
interested , he is only saying that ( I suppose ) because
he cannot find anything to bring to show and tell.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 11:55 PM

Quote:
these dog breed's are modern.
however they clearly represent what evolution should easily
be capable of producing , as dog breeding has produced , pictured above.


Paul, manifestly that is not the strongest argument you have produced to date.

If the theory of evolution is correct, survival of the fittest is the major driving force.

There is no way that one could logically suggest that modern trends in dog breading might mirror this. In fact many of the features currently favoured in popular breeds run contrary to anything that would be selected for in the wild.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/30/12 11:59 PM

Quote:
it was intelligent design.


and it looks a lot like the cambrian explosion look's.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 12:02 AM

Looking back through some of my remaining notes from the late 70s (I've been up in the loft smile ) I find that our "A level Geology" study group looked at the development of the horse.

Between about 54 my and about 4.5 my, there is a developmental sequence from Hyracotherium (originally found and named in Britain; later discovered in US and called Eohippus) through Miohippus (absent in Britain), Parahippus and Pliohippus to Equus. The last of these gradually becomes indistinguishable from the modern horse.

Like dogs, but in a much less extreme form, horses have since been subjected to selective breeding by humans, but such would not be included in any record of fossil forms.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 12:16 AM

Quote:
these dog breed's are modern.
however they clearly represent what evolution should easily
be capable of producing , as dog breeding has produced , pictured above.


of course you do realize that the word represent in context above does not require a comment like you posted.

ie...a representation of what evolution should be capable of producing.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 03:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If we give our creationist brethren the benefit of the doubt and assume that the fossil is to the best of their knowledge genuine; a few questions remain to be asked. For example:

Has the rock been dated?

Has it been examined by an independent palaeontologist?

Has there been an identification of the animal responsible for the footprint?

There is plenty of evidence that very large, flightless birds and humans co-existed. Has this been considered?

Plenty of things to consider...

... especially Paul, as I guess you have more claim to the joys and blessings of this season than most of us.
Bill S, et al: I have viewed this thread, your post, and the flurry of threads by Paul, defending creationism and attacking Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution.

I am confused as to what is going on. Let me know what you think, OK?

Paul, how certain are you that what you say about Darwin and evolution is THE Truth?

Based on what I have seen, so far, I am tempted to post a thread: King is NOT amused. Indeed, I am confused
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 05:40 AM

You are not alone Rev K I am completely confused.

Paul can you try following one or two ideas logically and simply or start seperate threads for different things you wish to discuss.

Makes what you are arguing alot easier to follow at the moment it's like one big jumble of different ideas.

I would also like to ask a simple question how do you view Drosophila synthetica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_synthetica)

Using science genetic knowledge in June 2012 we created that species from the wild population of fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. It can not breed with Drosophila melanogaster anymore but can breed with its own populations.

Forget the arguments about how it was done for now how is it viewed by your religion, this interests me.

Rev K perhaps you would also like to comment?

If you want some background
http://www.examiner.com/article/first-man-made-species-revealed

Perhaps I will extract one comment I want you to think about

Quote:

The intent of the research was not to develop a synthetic (man made) species but to develop a safety mechanism to avoid the hybridization of genetically modified animals and plants with wild type populations and thereby preserving biodiversity.

The aim was to prevent provide proof of concept that new species can be created that prevent genetically engineered species from reproducing with and potentially overcoming naturally occurring species.


In some ways it's quite funny watching beliefs such as Pauls still arguing issues when science has bolted and out the door. My concern is as scientists our morality is not based on altruistic beliefs and this area needs religion talking to science, but religion is still in denial of the very processes. This makes the area even more dangerous than it would be even with good governance.

Lets take the process to a radical place, take a human add in lots of beefy muscles and genetically engineer a brain that likes to follow orders and of coarse they can't breed with proper humans. There you go one made to order slave for a brand new world and they aren't human ... or are they?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 03:41 PM

Quote:
of course you do realize that the word represent in context above does not require a comment like you posted.

ie...a representation of what evolution should be capable of producing.


To avoid any suspicion of clairvoyance it is safest to take posts at face value rather than attempt to divine any occult implication.

Were you saying that evolution should be able to produce forms that are progressively less fitted for survival?
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 04:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Were you saying that evolution should be able to produce forms that are progressively less fitted for survival?


I thought that was only forum threads.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 06:09 PM

lg

Quote:
I am confused as to what is going on. Let me know what you think, OK?

Paul, how certain are you that what you say about Darwin and evolution is THE Truth?


confusion about a certain subject matter is normally due to knowledge accompanied by a lack of wisdom.

ie... you could read every book on the planet and be filled
with knowledge , yet if you lack wisdom that knowledge that you have acquired is mostly worthless.

evolution is like a big puzzle , if you want to put the puzzle together you must first have all the correct pieces.

and the most important part of putting the puzzle together is
having a flat surface to assemble the pieces on.

evolution does not have that flat surface which can be described as a foundation that can be used to assemble the pieces together on.

that's where wisdom come's into play.

evolution claims that the different species all came from
one creature many millions of years ago.

but they have no proof , they just say that that's the way it happened.

wisdom would tell someone that evolution is not true.

wisdom cannot be taught in a school or obtained from the pages of a book.

wisdom is something that one acquires over time.

wisdom tells me that what I say about evolution is the truth

Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 06:23 PM

Quote:
Forget the arguments about how it was done for now how is it viewed by your religion, this interests me.


it's is a breed ! not a new species.

Quote:
This population was created under laboratory conditions such that it is morphologically and genetically different enough from its wild type to be a separate species.


I find this very amusing that scientist are always claiming to
have Created , yet they dont believe in Creation.LOL

Quote:
This population was created in 2012 by the Spanish geneticist Eduardo Moreno, working at the University of Bern.


I once created a new species year's ago.

I call it dropusexcrementuspileofshittus indariverbydaseaus
I named it's genus analenormous

Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 06:32 PM

As Preearth has demonstrated in the past, a multiplicity of threads on a single subject can be used effectively for the purpose of obfuscation.

re-visiting another thread dealing with this topic, I realise the subject of the development of the horse has already been considered.

Interestingly, the development of the foot and its transitional forms between Eohippus and Equus is not mentioned. Perhaps that is because science lacks the impact of piles of pseudo crap.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 06:34 PM

Quote:
Were you saying that evolution should be able to produce forms that are progressively less fitted for survival?


that's not what I was saying , my intention was to
show that if evolution had anything to show , it should show what it has.

it should show a steady progression from one species to another.

but evolution only shows changes occurring in the same species.

they just claim that the changes are new species.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 06:45 PM

This is worth a look.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 06:47 PM

Quote:
Interestingly, the development of the foot and its transitional forms between Eohippus and Equus is not mentioned.





I'm sure that there are many more changes that are found between the
different breeds than the foot in the horses pictured above.

just like the differences found in the many breeds of dog's.



here's an example of a breed of dog that often are born
without tail's.

no evolution required.



or is this breed of dog a new species?

what do you think , let me know Bill

I'm curious!





Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 08:46 PM

Paul, this is a serious question, so I hope it will not be consigned to the crescent archive of the unanswered.

How do you know there is only 3/4 inches of dust on the surface of the moon?
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 09:16 PM

Quote:
raised a concern that the thick dust layer at the top of the regolith would not support the weight of the lunar module and that the module might sink beneath the surface. However, Joseph Veverka (also of Cornell) pointed out that Gold had miscalculated the depth of the overlying dust, which was only a couple of centimeters thick.


a couple = 2

2 cm = 0.787402 inches

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith



I did find this , and if this is correct, then a close approximation
of the weight of the surface dust can be found.

note: these figures are associated with moon atmosphere.
I'm going to assume that they are considering the moon dust as being the atmosphere , I might be wrong.

Quote:
Abundance at surface: 2 x 10^5 particles/cm3

Estimated Composition (particles per cubic cm):
Helium 4 (4He) - 40,000 ; Neon 20 (20Ne) - 40,000 ; Hydrogen (H2) - 35,000
Argon 40 (40Ar) - 30,000 ; Neon 22 (22Ne) - 5,000 ; Argon 36 (36Ar) - 2,000
Methane - 1000 ; Ammonia - 1000 ; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 1000
Trace Oxygen (O+), Aluminum (Al+), Silicon (Si+)
Possible Phosphorus (P+), Sodium (Na+), Magnesium (Mg+)


thats 155,000 particles per cu cm excluding the trace particles , which must include the other 50,000 particles given
that the Abundance at surface is 2 x 10^5 particles/cm3.

200,000 particles

the dust feels like snow , and it smells like a fresh battlefield.







Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 09:56 PM

Thanks, Paul.

Would I not be right in thinking you do not believe humans landed on the moon; so the footprint is a fake.

Any information from a manned landing must be suspect; which still leaves the question: where did the information about the depth of the dust come from?
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 10:16 PM

Bill s

I suppose that since you are a clairvoyant you might
consider yourself to be correct in thinking that about me.

but judging from your replies its easy to tell that you
may have acquired the ability that some turtles have that
you posted about earlier along with the ability to communicate
from that end also.

and according to evolution it's entirely possible!

Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 10:28 PM

Paul having to resort to offensive postings again because you are winning yet another argument.

Bill S is following a logical argument your evidence you build your belief on is a moon landing. The question is obvious do you believe in the moon landing there was even a thread on SAGG about it did you comment perhaps?

There are other obvious questions I would have asked if that is your basis like how do you know that one spot is typical of the entire moon ... these are the sorts of questions science asks.



You always act as if your very belief relies on each answer where as people of science we merely ask how accurate is each answer.
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 11:21 PM

Suggested New Year resolution: Acknowledge when you are wasting your time, and stop it.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 11:42 PM

Originally Posted By: paul


I did find this , and if this is correct, then a close approximation
of the weight of the surface dust can be found.

note: these figures are associated with moon atmosphere.
I'm going to assume that they are considering the moon dust as being the atmosphere , I might be wrong.

Quote:
Abundance at surface: 2 x 10^5 particles/cm3

Estimated Composition (particles per cubic cm):
Helium 4 (4He) - 40,000 ; Neon 20 (20Ne) - 40,000 ; Hydrogen (H2) - 35,000
Argon 40 (40Ar) - 30,000 ; Neon 22 (22Ne) - 5,000 ; Argon 36 (36Ar) - 2,000
Methane - 1000 ; Ammonia - 1000 ; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 1000
Trace Oxygen (O+), Aluminum (Al+), Silicon (Si+)
Possible Phosphorus (P+), Sodium (Na+), Magnesium (Mg+)


thats 155,000 particles per cu cm excluding the trace particles , which must include the other 50,000 particles given
that the Abundance at surface is 2 x 10^5 particles/cm3.

200,000 particles

the dust feels like snow , and it smells like a fresh battlefield.

In that case you are wrong. They are not considering the atmosphere as being the dust. The atmosphere consists of the gases surrounding the Moon, just as our atmosphere consists of the gasses surrounding the Earth. Notice that the list is a list of gas molecules, not dust particles. Also that concentration of gases is a pretty good vacuum in comparison to what we generally consider a vacuum here on Earth.

Bill Gill
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Creationists and People - 12/31/12 11:48 PM

Thanks for the timely reminder, Bill. I was just about being drawn back into it all. But, as ever, the creationist hatches are battened down, and all guns are firing blindly in defense of sacrosanct delusions. No way to reason with that. The odd thing about it all is, I myself am not entirely opposed to the concept that we live in an intelligently designed universe. Maybe it is a Matrix smile
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 12:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Suggested New Year resolution: Acknowledge when you are wasting your time, and stop it.


The only way to argue with Paul is to get him to make all the definitions and follow his argument.

The problem he is going to have is the bible as a literal work is interesting from the evolution perspective.

I must say I read the old testament very close to jewish beliefs which should probably come as no surprise. The jewish have sort of resolved evolution although there is limited resistance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution

How they did that is interesting


Biblical "kinds" is the hebrew word "miyn" is pronounced "meen".

No human authority is higher than the Biblical text. And so you look up all the verses in context in the Torah.

Kinds is very important to the jewish because of the need to identify Kosher and non Kosher animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_animals

Thus animal "Kinds" had to be dealt with throughout history rigorously.

Knowing the jewish history and background it is going to be very interesting to see Paul dance his way thru the minefield of literal translation of the bible to say evolution doesn't exist.

My observation of Paul and many fundementalist christians is the same as the jewish have that they are clearly reading a different bible to us because thats not what it says.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 04:10 AM

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/miyn.html

Miyn

Quote:
kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals) ++ Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".


that definition say's pretty much or exactly what I have
been saying.

you based your entire post on the word
"KIND" in Genesis , and really never said anything
except how the word is pronounced in Hebrew
that pertains to this discussion. LOL

Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 04:32 AM

Quote:
My observation of Paul and many fundementalist christians


actually , your observation doesn't really mean very much.

you don't really want me to post up my observation of orac.

I have been nice in the past.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 04:35 AM

thanks Bill

I didn't think that the data was about the actual surface.

it must be a highly guarded secret because its nowhere to be
found.

I didn't think that science hid thing's ROFL shocked
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 04:41 AM

Paul you would also be wrong in thinking I care what you make of me or say of me, I don't care if you are nice or not. As I said I am sure many students have said far worse than what you could.

I am not here to be popular but I am ever so logical and questioning and I try to be honest in my evaluations of those two traits sometimes brutally so.

So back to the task at hand the jewish definition is interesting I have no problem with the bits you have highlighted but what about the bits you haven't highlighted agree of diasagree?

You may not think it is important but I will show you why it is .. the jewish have it in there for a reason.

The other question still unanswered is what is the roll of being able to breed in your answer. The answer above does not really answer that do species have to be able to breed with each other or doesn't that matter?

If you look carefully at the jewish answer they arrive at

=>God does allow some interbreeding within the kinds, they are not always able to propagate

Hence the mules in Genesis 36:24 were not a problem to the jewish but they were a problem to some christian fundementalist.

So I guess the question to you is mule, donkey and horse all the same "kind" or not?

Miyn says they are not the same "kind" what say you.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 05:04 AM

Quote:
If you look carefully at the jewish answer they arrive at


but you haven't posted something that could be called the Jewish answer.

or the question asked of the Jewish.

in your next post just ask question's , I am here to help.

I will reply in 2013.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 05:09 AM

See this is where you start to lose people you start avoiding answering questions. If you are going to convert us to your belief and convince us we must be able to ask questions.

I am making no claim of truth or otherwise of what I believe here I am simply asking you to walk thru your beliefs. I have also put in considerable effort in reading the bible so you can't say I am not trying to understand you.

I can't take what it says in the bible literally because as we saw with pork eating you take some things literally not others hence I must ask you.

So if you want direct questions:

1.) mule, donkey and horse all the same "KIND" or not?
2.) If two animals can't even cross breed they are wider than "KINDS".
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 03:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
See this is where you start to lose people you start avoiding answering questions.
He hasn't lost you!
And Paul has a point.
If the questions are delusional, and you expect a reasonable answer to a delusional question, you're going to continue to rally your army of 1 against the delusional issues.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 03:50 PM

Rally against 1 ... ????

TT you are the only one delussional I have no idea what crap you are dribbling ... please stay off the drugs.

For a pratt who is so brother lee love and won't judge people you do love to jump to conclusions. Yet strangely by miracles upon miracles you find offense with me ... wonder why that is?

I am sure I have a pretty good idea why. Seriously I have had very clever and smart arse students for many years do you think I haven't seen all this before?

I like FF he was far more amusing than you TT.

Oh please stop the bad man on the internet is picking on me ... LOL .

Seriously get a life if Paul doesn't want to discuss things he simply has to say he doesn't we have respected that when he has said that on other threads.

Queue incoming wall of bullshit which means everything and nothing but will no doubt make me the badie but like I give a toss what you think ... yes thats called deliberately provoking you to see if you have a spine. I do that sort of thing because I am a scary bad man of SAGG some even say I am the devil or mad or gay or maybe all at once.

3
2
1
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 04:19 PM

Quote:
If you are going to convert us to your belief and convince us we must be able to ask questions.


first off , I'm not trying to convert anyone's belief's !

and I did ask you to ask question's.

and you did ask question's.

Quote:
pork eating


yes I eat pork , what this discussion is about has nothing do
do with what we eat.
I suppose your intentions are to obfuscate the discussion with
all the laws contained in the bible to try and gain momentum in
the discussion , but the laws are for people to follow and the
laws are like a set of rules for guidance for people , the laws do not control what animals will do in the wild.

and what we are discussing is what animals can do in the wild
as far as breeding is concerned.

by trying to vector the discussion in the direction you seem to be vectoring it into you extrapolate the discussion.

Quote:
So if you want direct questions:

1.) mule, donkey and horse all the same "KIND" or not?


mule, donkey and horse all the same "KIND" or not?

from the definiion of miyn (KIND)

Quote:
By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".


mule , donkey , horse are all the same KIND.

the mule is a partition from the donkey and the horse.

a mule is not a new KIND or new species.

a mule is a breed.

Quote:
2.) If two animals can't even cross breed they are wider than "KINDS".


I cant answer that question because I don't know what your asking!

and it's not a question it's a statement.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 04:36 PM

I think your an idiot , that's just my honest opinion , and it
is a nice one because I am holding back what I would really like to
say.

but that's beside the point , I'm also going to call you a whimp
and a chicken who hide's behind a fence and pecks at the toes of
people's feet.

the pecking really does no harm , its just annoying.

you respond with your supposedly harmful reply to TT
as if your somebody someone should be afraid of.
someone like you remind's me of a little punk hiding behind
a wall throwing rocks over the wall at people.

don't forget people can pick up those rock's you throw over the
wall and throw them at the wall.

eventually you will not have a wall to hide behind.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 04:49 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

yes I eat pork , what this discussion is about has nothing do
do with what we eat.
I suppose your intentions are to obfuscate the discussion with
all the laws contained in the bible to try and gain momentum in
the discussion , but the laws are for people to follow and the
laws are like a set of rules for guidance for people , the laws do not control what animals will do in the wild.


This time Paul it is you who jumping to conclusions which are actually totally wrong.

I am actually trying and doing my best to interact with you in an open an honest discussion because you are not trolling. I can't discuss it in science terms because your definitions are all over the shop for science.

At the end of the discussion I would hope to understand your beliefs or at least the logic they are built on.


I understand and respect the logic the jewish religion is built on, I understand and respect the logic Rev K religion is built on.

I am not saying that I will be converted but hopefully I get where you are coming from since you are actually interacting.

See nice Orac comes out when we are discussing not trolling.

My problems with you is there is obvious inconsistancies with you and your beliefs and I am trying to get to the bottom of why that is. I am often on a knife edge with you as whether you are just trolling or you actually believe what you say because the inconsistancies are very large.

The pork issue was obvious to me because you went so hard at me about genesis being literal it stunned me that you ate pork because it literally says not to. So in my defence I am still not sure how to reconcile this other than say you view genesis as literal by leviticus as not ?????


Originally Posted By: paul

and what we are discussing is what animals can do in the wild
as far as breeding is concerned.


Ok I need you to explain that one ... are you saying there is a difference between wild and ?????? (domestic or perhaps man captive) animals


Originally Posted By: paul

by trying to vector the discussion in the direction you seem to be vectoring it into you extrapolate the discussion.


You are answering the questions I can only go to whatever answers you are willing to provide. I am not sure what you think I could be vectoring. I am not trying to trap you or anything if that is what you think ... I am not sure you can trap people in there beliefs .. they believe what they believe?

Having done reading on the bible and resolving how the jews resolve the minefield of evolution vs the bible I do know there are some classic logic problems. The jewish Rabbis have been struggling with the issue as well if you read the link above and it is interesting the issues it brings up.


Originally Posted By: paul

mule , donkey , horse are all the same KIND.
the mule is a partition from the donkey and the horse.
a mule is not a new KIND or new species.
a mule is a breed.



Yep okay that makes sense to me I see how you are defining it I think. Now the check which yes I put in the form of a statement.


So Tigers and Lions can produce a liger so Tiger and Lion are same "kind"?

I guess I should also check the negative of that so if two animals can't produce an offspring are they necessarilly different "kinds" or are there exceptions to this. So can we have two of a "kind" that can't produce offspring?
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 04:59 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
I think your an idiot , that's just my honest opinion , and itis a nice one because I am holding back what I would really like to say.


I may well be an idiot or worse who can tell?

You do have the option of ceasing discussion if you so chose for my part if you don't troll and want to discuss I am happy to discuss and I will even be polite to you. I believe this was the sort of truce agreement we have.

Originally Posted By: paul

but that's beside the point , I'm also going to call you a whimp and a chicken who hide's behind a fence and pecks at the toes of people's feet.

the pecking really does no harm , its just annoying.


Again possibly true who can say.


Originally Posted By: paul

you respond with your supposedly harmful reply to TT
as if your somebody someone should be afraid of.
someone like you remind's me of a little punk hiding behind
a wall throwing rocks over the wall at people.

don't forget people can pick up those rock's you throw over the
wall and throw them at the wall.

eventually you will not have a wall to hide behind.


I have reasons for everything I do and ask ... I thought you would have worked that out by now.

I am not sure it's harmful I am just a weird gay guy according to TT with mental issues ... I could be just playing a part or confirming it smile

As I think I stated in the post it was a deliberate provocation I am therefore guilty as charged of a deliberate provoking post ... see I told you I am honest.

Sometimes playing the mad dog is useful to test if things react the way you would expect, call it a form of science experiment. Scientists do these sorts of things to see reactions.

You will note Paul although I am quite sure you would like to throttle me and abuse the hell out of me you realise the consequences as you sort of stated above. Thus although we are never going to be friends we can continue discussing things without it descending into chaos and the forum does not suffer. I think you were very controlled in your response above and it was noted and I respect you for that.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 05:29 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

mule , donkey , horse are all the same KIND.
the mule is a partition from the donkey and the horse.
a mule is not a new KIND or new species.
a mule is a breed.


As an aside Paul science says Horse and Donkey are different species because at a genetic level Horse has 64 chromosones and Donkey has 62 chromosones and so they have to be different species according to science.

Just so we are clear I am not saying you are wrong or there is anything wrong with you definition of "kind" it just isn't the same as a science species. Classification is a very subjective thing and science and you differ which is fine. I am trying to keep everything honest and open so you don't misunderstand.

It does however illustrate the issue that we aren't going to be able to discuss things in science terms we will need to use your terms.

Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 06:39 PM

I have enjoyed reading your last 3 post , Orac.

you surprised me , would describe my reaction to your reaction to my post.

I was expecting ranting and raving , and recieved nothing but
calm , cool , and seemingly well adjusted behavior.

I am in the middle of pig cooking at the moment , and I think
I will find a tree to sit under to eat the pigs flesh.

BRB...
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 08:44 PM

Originally Posted By: redewenur
... The odd thing about it all is, I myself am not entirely opposed to the concept that we live in an intelligently designed universe. Maybe it is a Matrix smile
Matrix. Rede? You mean womb-like? This is what I have in mind when, in my signature, I use the acronym GŐD~.

As I understand it, and I make no claim to having expert knowledge, Rede, it was at the moment of conception in my mother's womb, that a seed and an egg came together.

Then the pattern, or design, of the one I became as a modern child was set.

The same was true for my mother, and her mother, and so on ... back to the beginning of time. Let us imagine that, since the beginning of time, all umbilical chords have been 1 metre long.
===================

It boggles the mind to think of how many metres long an unbroken chord, back to our first mother, would be.
===============
Questions I ask myself in 2013--my 83rd year, as of Jan.14: What role did physical, mental and spiritual factors--soma, psyche and pneuma factors--play in designing the persons we became? And will become in the future? Or are we but creatures of accident?

HAPPY MIND-STRETCHING YEAR 2013
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 09:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Rally against 1 ... ????
That was Rally an army of one. I see you have trouble with your comprehension of the English language.
Originally Posted By: Orac

TT you are the only one delussional I have no idea what crap you are dribbling.

Would agree that you don't seem to have any idea. By the way I think there's just one "s" in delusional. Must be that second language thing.
Originally Posted By: Orac

For a pratt who is so brother lee love and won't judge people you do love to jump to conclusions.

Brotherly love is inclusive of observation and communication.
Obviously you have an idea about brother like love, and how I should fit into your belief of it.
Originally Posted By: Orac
Yet strangely by miracles upon miracles you find offense with me ... wonder why that is?

Far from anything offensive, intriguing maybe.

I mostly have an interest in your definitions and beliefs, and why you would assume others would hold to your beliefs.

Your ideas about religion, brotherly love, spirituality etc. They're... interesting.. for lack of a better word.
Originally Posted By: Orac

I am sure I have a pretty good idea why.

I'm sure you do, however your comprehensive history of the conversations, suggests that what ever idea you have, might be a stretch from the reality of the conversation.
Originally Posted By: Orac
Seriously I have had very clever and smart arse students for many years do you think I haven't seen all this before?

I'm pretty sure making assumptions on your part is inclusive of all sorts of historic memories of personal trials and tribulations. Anyone can self determine, and self justify. Why should you be any different?
Originally Posted By: Orac

I like FF he was far more amusing than you TT.

You must be heartbroken.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Oh please stop the bad man on the internet is picking on me ... LOL .
Not nearly as ferociously as you seem to acknowledge your veracity with others. I would never claim to keep up with you.

Originally Posted By: Orac

Seriously get a life if Paul doesn't want to discuss things he simply has to say he doesn't we have respected that when he has said that on other threads.
The inference I made had nothing to do with Paul. It was towards the beliefs and definitions you use in general.
It just happens to be a convenience that your latest and greatest reference to your beliefs, was within your post to Paul.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Queue incoming wall of bullshit which means everything and nothing but will no doubt make me the badie but like I give a toss what you think ... yes thats called deliberately provoking you to see if you have a spine.

You seem to revel in the idea of provoking others.

Originally Posted By: Orac
I do that sort of thing because I am a scary bad man of SAGG some even say I am the devil or mad or gay or maybe all at once.

Poor you.
Perhaps you can gain some more sympathy for feeling victimized so, by bringing up the whole holocaust thing again.

We can all get serious about who is moral and righteous.

Look at all the sympathy you got last time someone brought it up and threatened to leave. I think at least a couple of people believed you were truly offended.
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 10:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: redewenur
... The odd thing about it all is, I myself am not entirely opposed to the concept that we live in an intelligently designed universe. Maybe it is a Matrix smile
Matrix. Rede? You mean womb-like? This is what I have in mind when, in my signature, I use the acronym GŐD~...

...Questions I ask myself in 2013--my 83rd year, as of Jan.14: What role did physical, mental and spiritual factors--soma, psyche and pneuma factors--play in designing the persons we became? And will become in the future? Or are we but creatures of accident?

The Matrix, with the capital M, is the name of a cyberpunk sci-fi movie, in which reality is actually a simulated reality or cyberspace (called the Matrix).

Here's information about some very recent mathematical physics research which has revealed (according to Prof S James Gates Jr) error-correcting computer code built into the fabric of the cosmos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BMYtnv_OnI&feature=player_detailpage
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 11:05 PM

That is thoroughly disconcerting stuff rede!

Is it, as it seems to me, important that the 'code' is self-correcting? Would not this mean that the 'code' could therefore be everlasting? Would the correcting process change it's destination, or result? (Plus lots of other questions that I would love to ask if I knew how to frame them! I have virtually no mathematical language being very challenged in that area!)

I probably have therefore got the wrong end of the stick here, but the concept is intriguing, and Dr Gates is a very interesting speaker. I shall have to learn more about this challenging idea.


P S I really didn't like 'The Matrix' - though I liked the bits of Sydney that were in it! I was astonished to find that some people regard it as a documentary. Should I apologise to them!
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 11:06 PM

Originally Posted By: paul

I was expecting ranting and raving , and recieved nothing but
calm , cool , and seemingly well adjusted behavior.


See we are definitely getting places. I now aspire to show the same tolerance as you did on your reaction and we have all made progress and the forum benefits.

I am actually interested in what you have to say when you are not just trolling.

TT has got one thing right about me which if I am honest I have to acknowledge

Originally Posted By: TT

You seem to revel in the idea of provoking others.


I do but probably not in the way he thinks and it is why I enjoy science and teaching.

I am not here to be popular or even liked I have friends for that. I am not here to teach or push mainstream science I have a job for that. I am here to discuss science or other topics that interest me with people from around the world.

I have no view or agenda to push but this is the internet and trolls abound and I am quite good if somewhat brutal on attacking them.

I do so because trolls only agenda is to disrupt discussion between people which is the only reason I come here so to me they are public enemy number 1.

I have a few personal morals such as a dislikes of pornography, human rights abuses and animal cruelty. This stuff does offend me for a rather obvious reason given my refugee background that it involves the degredation of a victim.

I once got asked by a troll how I reconcile my rather brutal attack on it with my personal morals of human rights. My answer is simple trolls are not a victim they are in control of there actions and noone is forcing them to troll.

Whether you believe what I have said here I leave for you to decide it really doesn't need discussion.

I do however leave a blunt warning to trolls as Rev K might say "reap as you sow".
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Creationists and People - 01/01/13 11:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
That is thoroughly disconcerting stuff rede!

Is it, as it seems to me, important that the 'code' is self-correcting? Would not this mean that the 'code' could therefore be everlasting? Would the correcting process change it's destination, or result? (Plus lots of other questions that I would love to ask if I knew how to frame them! I have virtually no mathematical language being very challenged in that area!)

I probably have therefore got the wrong end of the stick here, but the concept is intriguing, and Dr Gates is a very interesting speaker. I shall have to learn more about this challenging idea.

Such a discovery does open the door to all kinds of speculation. My own first thought was that it might explain why the physical constants are constant. As it happens, it's even more esoteric than M-Theory, and the findings could probably be confirmed by no more than a handful of people in the world.

Originally Posted By: Ellis
P S I really didn't like 'The Matrix' - though I liked the bits of Sydney that were in it! I was astonished to find that some people regard it as a documentary. Should I apologise to them!

I'm with you on that score, Ellis. The Matrix was not my cup of tea, to put it mildly. Cyberpunk is obviously over my head.

Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 12:06 AM

Quote:
I do so because trolls only agenda is to disrupt discussion between people which is the only reason I come here so to me they are public enemy number 1.


that does explain a lot , and you must get gratification
by becoming a troll in a discussion?

according to your agreement with Rev K's saying you prefer instant gratification as
evidenced below.

Quote:
"reap as you sow"


the meaning of the above is that
as you are planting a seed you immediately harvest the fruits of your labor.

this could also be described as self gratification , or would you call it something else.

people who love to eat cake , love to work in cake factories.

owners of cake factories who hire people who love to eat cake
don't make as much money by selling cake.

but they have workers that are never hungry , as long as
they are at work.

Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 12:43 AM

Paul you keep trying to make it all about me and I am happy to be whatever you say I am.

I can be a troll orac, I can be aggressive orac, I can be taunting orac, I can be gay orac, I can be instant gratifion orac if you like. I can be all of them at once if it takes your fancy.

I have explained why I act the way I do as honestly as I can. Make of it what you will ... the truth, a lie, a trap an excuse I really do not care what you make of it, it is MY ANSWER AND BELIEF and thats all that matters.

Now do you wish to explain and discuss your belief of why evolution is wrong or are you done and this is just going to become trolling excercise?
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 02:35 AM

Quote:
Yep okay that makes sense to me I see how you are defining it I think. Now the check which yes I put in the form of a statement.


So Tigers and Lions can produce a liger so Tiger and Lion are same "kind"?

I guess I should also check the negative of that so if two animals can't produce an offspring are they necessarilly different "kinds" or are there exceptions to this. So can we have two of a "kind" that can't produce offspring?


horse + donkey = mule or hinny offspring ( all same KIND offspring is a breed or partition )
horse + mule or hinny = no offspring ( same KIND )
donkey + mule or hinny = no offspring ( same KIND )

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask225

Quote:
Why can't mules breed? I understand that a horse and a donkey make a mule but why can't 2 mules have a baby mule?

-A middle school student from Michigan

June 20, 2007

You're right, a horse and a donkey can have kids. A male horse and a female donkey have a hinny. A female horse and a male donkey have a mule.

But hinnies and mules can't have babies of their own. They are sterile because they can't make sperm or eggs.


KIND of amazing that mules and hinnies are both sterile
isn't it?

we know that seed companies do this to plants so that
farmers must now buy the seeds that seed companies produce.

farmers used their own seeds for thousands of years , then
science steps in and the farmers seeds are now worthless , if they can even get a plant to go to seed , thanks
to science.

I believe that what we are seeing today is a result of
our scientist playing the role of wannabe gods , and the Bible told us not to.











Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 02:49 AM

I understand what you are saying but it therefore takes me to the conclusion that "kind" has nothing to do with reproduction.

So how do you determine "kinds"?

Wikipedia for example extracts all the animals listed in the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_in_the_Bible


So I guess what I am asking you is how do you group them into "kinds" is there a set of rules or something you or perhaps your religion have decided?

It is a little hard to discuss "evolution" if we can't agree on what a "kind" is and means so it is sort of essential I understand how "kinds" are classified.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 02:54 AM

Orac, there is a reason why Paul can eat pork although Mosaic law forbids it. In the new testament it is clearly stated, in the Paul's letter to the Hebrews, that God has made a new covenant with the people. This new covenant means that you can be saved without necessarily following Mosaic law. The difference is that Jesus died for our sins and our acceptance of Jesus lets us bypass those requirements. So failure to follow all of the Mosaic laws, including not eating unclean things, is not a problem.

So many Christians still believe that the Old Testament is a true historical account, but the laws no longer apply. After all Mosaic law is very complicated.

I have heard that one reason that Paul was emphasizing the break with Mosaic law was that he thought the second coming of Christ would be soon, and he felt that he needed to convert as many people as he could, so that they could be saved. Many of the gentiles would not accept the requirements of Mosaic law and so he just bypassed it in his teachings.

Bill Gill
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 03:17 AM

Genesis Chapter 9

Quote:

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teemeth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.

3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all.



http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0109.htm
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 03:21 AM

Thank you for that Bill I haven't got to new testament stuff yet and being much more familiar with jewish faith from my homeland it was confusing the hell out of me.

Sigh more reading, I wish religious people could just say simple concise things such as you have explained it would make things alot easier to understand and not offend them.

Okay and that explains why jews and christians have issues the idea of overturning gods direct command beliefs I can see would cause issues.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 03:26 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

Genesis Chapter 9


Okay I am confused again .. are you saying you accept genesis is correct but not leviticus Paul?

Those versus are very generic but leviticus is the opposite it is very intricate in detail. I am interested in your view of leviticus because it defines "kind" as the bible uses it in detail because of the unclean issue.

My complaint at the moment Paul is I am taking the time to listen and try and understand your beliefs but 20 posts in and I still don't understand how you are determining "kind" classification. There are no right and wrong here classification is in the eye of the person who is doing the classification.

I was beginning to think you might be saying there really where no "kinds" there was only animals as per those listed in the bible but then you group horse, mule, donkey into a "kind" so there are some groupings going on.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 04:23 AM

Quote:
Some scholars, especially secular ones, have conjectured that the Jewish concept of "unclean animals" arose out of public health concerns by community leaders, since, in the conditions of the times, some of those animals are indeed more likely to cause food poisoning or transmit diseases to people who consume them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_animals

I'm going with the first one , in Genesis.

I don't think God would have made a mistake.

and Moses was using passed down history to compose
the written Word of God.

I'm going to guess that the laws about what the Jewish People
should eat were because of health concerns.



Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 04:44 AM

Quote:
Paul is I am taking the time to listen and try and understand your beliefs but 20 posts in and I still don't understand how you are determining "kind" classification.


I have already told you , several times , I'm not sure why you keep asking.

I think a KIND is like a species.

you do understand what a species means in science dont you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

I believe that what you are in the process of doing in this
discussion is that you are trying to establish that the Bible
contradicts itself , and you think that if you can establish
that the Bible contradicts itself that will prove to you
that evolution is right.

so instead of science leaning on what science has as any
so called evidence of evolution , science will now begin
to establish evolution's validity through the leaning on of
the words in the Bible.

Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 05:49 AM

Originally Posted By: paul

you do understand what a species means in science dont you?


yes I do because the classification has a clear basis

From your link.

=> The similarity of species is judged based on comparison of physical attributes, especially their DNA sequences, where available

That is the basis for science determination for species and hence horse, donkey and mule are different species because there DNA is different.

All I am asking is what basis do you define species if not above so we can get some common ground to discuss things.


Originally Posted By: paul

I believe that what you are in the process of doing in this
discussion is that you are trying to establish that the Bible
contradicts itself , and you think that if you can establish
that the Bible contradicts itself that will prove to you
that evolution is right.


Incorrect on both counts and especially at a science level.

First if the bible contradicts itself what does it matter? Bill from above explained how there is a deliberate contradiction between old testament and new testament and you are sort of saying you don't accept leviticus and it is not up to me to say what is and isn't correct and I don't.

As I have stated in another post for a start there is more than just genesis versus evolution in this argument. There are other religions such as buddism which has re-incarnation, church of latter day saints where we have pre-existant beings as what humans are now and the nutty factor such as aliens mating with apes creating us.

So even if I could somehow show that genesis was wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt that would not prove evolution. The only proof of evolution possible under science is putting it continually to the test about what it predicts and see if it does it. It will take only one failure of a properly organised test for evolution to fall.

As you have ceased trolling and actually started discussing in a fair and reasonable manner I am being up front and fair and reasonable and I do not intend to make fun of or create any attacks on your religion or beliefs.


Originally Posted By: paul

so instead of science leaning on what science has as any
so called evidence of evolution , science will now begin
to establish evolution's validity through the leaning on of
the words in the Bible.


That is not possible is science and is the basis of good science you can not gain validity in science unless an idea is being rigorously tested.

The reason Intelligent Design can not be taught as science is because it does not allow us to put the central principle under test ... that there is no god. As such the outcome is hence preordained and thus not science.

If science treated evolution as preordained and trying to establish some sort of validity through leaning on the bible it would be no better than Intelligent Design. Your speaker in your video identified some statements from scientists that I would indeed classify as unscientific and they made me cringe as a scientist. I was at least happy that most of the quotes were old 1966, 1960 the newest I remember seeing was 1999.

Thus I can guarantee you that is not an argument I or any true scientist could make that evolution is somehow valid because of any biblical leaning or any other sort of reliance. Science validity can only be determined by testing and putting theories to the test with each new bit of information and data.

I actually liked for example one of the jewish Rabbi's answers which I think is quite a reasonable given his belief

Originally Posted By: Torah MiTzion

Evolution that we can observe and measure with our senses is certainly part of the science curriculum that ought to be encouraged. But to extrapolate backwards in time on the basis of circumstantial evidence to so absurd an extent as to supplant the account of the creation of life given by the Torah with that of unverifiable human speculation is not a question of science but rather a revision of history.[14]



Paul the bottom line is if I ever used the bible in the way you fear please feel free to tell me I am being an unscientific hypocrite as it would be accurate.

However it "appears" your issues with evolution and science have something to do with something literal you believe is in the bible because that is what you said not something I created. If you were a later day saint and told me your leader Joseph Smith decoded some gold plates and it said science was bad, or if you were a Catholic and told me the pope made a decree that science was bad then I would at least understand the basis for the opposition and how your religious authority works.

So all I am trying to work out is who in your religion declared war on science and/or evolution and why. If you simply follow church doctrine then it is pointless me trying to discuss it with you because you have no authority to speak for the religion. Up todate you have sort of answered that it is you and what it says in the bible but I am getting a feeling that may not be true and you may not be a classic fundementalist bible lay preacher/believer.

Out of curiousity I just looked up Rev K's religion to see what it says. It appears to have a synod which makes the decisions but it appears they are not binding on individual ministries saying

Quote:

While General Synod provides the most visible voice of the "stance of the denomination" on any particular issue, the covenantal polity of the denomination means that General Synod speaks to local churches, associations, and conferences, but not for them


Rev K's churches synod view on evolution appears to be

Quote:

We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."


Although if I read all that correct Rev K would have some latitude to decide for himself.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 04:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac


The reason Intelligent Design can not be taught as science is because it does not allow us to put the central principle under test ... that there is no god. As such the outcome is hence preordained and thus not science.

Whether there is or isn't is subject to direct experience. Religion goes on faith. And Religion has their own tests to validate their faith as does science have tests to validate their theory.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli described that from within one’s inner center our psyche seems to move outward, experiencing, influencing, and even creating the physical world through the act of participation. Taking into account the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: one cannot observe a phenomenon without changing or affecting it.
Ergo you draw to you those experiences you desire to create to self validate the personal reality.
This is the essence of God/Consciousness as the central principal. Belief colors it, ego defines it, yet IT is what it is, inclusive of what it becomes thru the determination of personal idealism.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Out of curiousity I just looked up Rev K's religion to see what it says. It appears to have a synod which makes the decisions but it appears they are not binding on individual ministries saying

Quote:

While General Synod provides the most visible voice of the "stance of the denomination" on any particular issue, the covenantal polity of the denomination means that General Synod speaks to local churches, associations, and conferences, but not for them


Rev K's churches synod view on evolution appears to be

Quote:

We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."


Although if I read all that correct Rev K would have some latitude to decide for himself.

Correct. And that determination is constantly changing thru his need to find a universal and acceptable definition to please all, so as to draw absolute resolve to his self validated reputation and the need for attention.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/02/13 04:58 PM

OK , so you would base any finding's you might find
on evolution strictly on any evidence that evolution can find.

you would not therefore consider or concern yourself
with anything that the Bible has written in it , correct?

so why is it that you are so curious about what the Bible say's?

for that matter why do you continue to insist that any
religion play a role in a discussion about the
validity of evolution.

I was thinking that at some point in time you were
going to somehow prove evolution using the different
versions and translation's found in religious text.

Quote:
So all I am trying to work out is who in your religion declared war on science and/or evolution and why.


the declaration of war was presented when science claimed with
no evidence that Creation was false.

it continues this war without evidence.

so your question is backwards.

the answer to your backwards question is science declared war on religion.

that should answer the who and the why.

who will win this war?

I wouldn't bet on science winning this war.

People just don't like being lied to.

Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/03/13 12:40 AM

I guess we are done because I suspect it is as I had started to work out you are a follower of a faith and have no religious authority to discuss these things.

Initially I took you at face value and your views were so radical that you could well be a lay preacher/believer and so my interest in how you were reading the bible was based on what logic you were using to mount a war on science.

Most religious authorities publish a short statement basically identifying why they take a particular stance on evolution.

For its part science didn't declare a war on religion it doesn't even care about religion or god or even if they exist or not.

The fact is mans development and advancement through the ages has been done by science, religion has controlled its morality. With our ever growing population and considerable challenges we will face in the years ahead only science will be able to feed,cloth and water the ever increasing population unless your god has a plan he has shared with you.

I guess the alternative is you don't have to worry about all that because we all die in the second coming which is what due soon?

The biggest irony is you using the computer as a medium to mount a war on science ... it really should be a placard in the street you know smile

Anyhow good luck with your war and convincing billions of people to trust you to solve the problems they are facing in the near future, I wish you well.

Yours would actually be the first religion I have heard of that is going to do the feed the masses fish and bread miracle every day in the future after first crushing science smile
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/03/13 02:19 AM

we wouldn't want you to tell thing's as you see them that's for
sure , LOL.

I don't think too many people would give a rats ass if we
didn't teach evolution in school's.

Quote:
I guess we are done


sounds about right.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/03/13 02:41 AM

My only final serious comment would be.

You and your beliefs go to war over merely teaching that genesis may be wrong you would obviously really go to actual war on other religions and beliefs like has been done throughout mans history.

Therefore to me you represent everything that is wrong and struggle with in accepting religion in one place and one set of beliefs.

Your beliefs are what start real wars and kill real people and to me it is the worst of humanity and could not be anything to do with a god if there was one.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/03/13 06:23 AM

you really never did understand what I said.

science started the war , now your going to blame religions
for what science starts , I believe that science along with their crony courts systems buddies need to butt out of religion.

and quit acting like they know everything because
they don't.

now don't go crying about it if evolution is removed from
the biology book's , after all that would be much better than
starting a real war.


Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/03/13 08:33 AM

What in the world got you so bitter and twisted?

You hate science and education, did a child leave the faith is this what this is all about?

Really your war is very one sided ... science, courts , politics and most other religions have already ruled and decided and left the battleground you are about 40 years to late Paul.

All I can do is try to be kind and hope time will heal your problems. I shall interact with you as minimally as I can going forward.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/03/13 02:37 PM

Quote:
You hate science and education


on the contrary orac.

if I hated science and education , I would simply say nothing
about the flaws that I find in science and education.

in fact I would be tickled pink that they are becoming
what they are becoming and doing what they do to society.

and I would defend science as it spouts lies and sets the stage
for the intentional murder of billions of people.

but that would be like becoming like you guys on sagg that
don't really care about science or education or people.

even your thinking is backwards.





Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 01/03/13 11:23 PM

Seems quite a balanced view - for an athiest. smile

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collid...n/#.UOYCQHf9Gtw

" What we don’t seem to know (or be capable of) is how to debate these issues without biting each other’s heads off."
Posted by: Bill

Re: Creationists and People - 01/04/13 03:11 AM

I looked through your link and now I have to say something if I can just figure out how. I think that a lot of people see a war between science and religion because they feel that their beliefs are threatened. Almost all of us like to believe that we know and understand how the world works. When we are told that it isn't really that way we can get very upset.

Partly I think this is an evolutionary response to the way we lived a very long time ago. When you are living from day to day and pretty much hand to mouth you need to be sure that you know what to do in any situation, and how to handle unusual situations. If we are put in a situation where what we know to do and our usual methods of handling unusual situations don't work we can be in a world of hurt. We needed to be able to react almost instinctively to any situation. So there was a large component of conservatism built into us. Any thing that tried to change how we did things could be dangerous, since we couldn't be sure that the new way would work as well as the old way. So we evolved to be conservative.

But of course there are times when we absolutely have to change our ways, so we have also always had some people who were ready to try new things just because they were there to be tried. The 2 viewpoints of course can produce some major clashes between the stick-in-the-mud and the try-anything members of society.

Then of course there are a lot of people who are in the middle. They will go along with whichever method seems to be working at that time. They don't really get too involved in the arguments between the 2 extremes.

And of course there are those at one extreme or the other who keep thinking that they should be able to convert the ones at the opposite extreme if they can just talk to them. I really wondered last week when I was scanning across the channels on my TV and found Fox's Bill O'Reilly in a discussion with Richard Dawkins. As far as I can see Dawkins cannot expect anything like a warm reception from O'Reilly. I don't think that when he is on O'Reilly's show he can expect to make any kind of a decent showing.

Bill Gill
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Creationists and People - 01/04/13 04:57 AM

Discussion with a person with a closed mind is impossible and leads to argument. It is possible to agree to differ, and still enjoy a stimulating, and courteous exchange of ideas---- but good luck trying that sometimes!
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Creationists and People - 01/04/13 02:04 PM

I think you summed the situation up very well, Bill. Obviously there are those who would say that you are describing adaptation to circumstances rather than evolution, but that's probably just semantics.

I have admired Dawkins as a scientist since I met "The Selfish Gene" 30 years ago. Unfortunately, I think he got himself too bogged down in the atheistic stuff and has lost his focus a bit.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/05/13 12:00 AM

Quote:
When we are told that it isn't really that way we can get very upset.


because we know better.
to rephrase your comment.

this is how I interpret your comment using critical thinking.

When we are told a bunch of bullshit lies we can get very upset.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/06/13 04:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Stephen J Gould

As in 1925, creationists are not battling for religion. They have been disowned by leading church men of all persuasions, for they debase religion even more than they misconstrue science. They are a motley collection to be sure, but their core of practical support lies with the evangelical right, and creationism is a mere stalking horse or subsidiary issue in a political program...The enemy is not fundamentalism; it is intolerance.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Creationists and People - 01/06/13 04:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Originally Posted By: Stephen J Gould

As in 1925, creationists are not battling for religion. They have been disowned by leading church men of all persuasions, for they debase religion even more than they misconstrue science. They are a motley collection to be sure, but their core of practical support lies with the evangelical right, and creationism is a mere stalking horse or subsidiary issue in a political program...The enemy is not fundamentalism; it is intolerance.
Beware of Stephen J. Gould
17 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 November 2007 05:22AM

Followup to: Natural Selection's Speed Limit and Complexity Bound

If you've read anything Stephen J. Gould has ever said about evolutionary biology, I have some bad news for you. In the field of evolutionary biology at large, Gould's reputation is mud. Not because he was wrong. Many honest scientists have made honest mistakes. What Gould did was much worse, involving deliberate misrepresentation of science....
http://lesswrong.com/lw/kv/beware_of_stephen_j_gould/

Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/intelligent-design-has-scientific-merit-in-paleontology

Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/06/13 04:38 AM

I have issues with Hawkings and Dawkins along similar lines in that there anti-god stances says alot more about them than what science says.

Read what Hawkings says does that make good science and a solid proof there is no god to you?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-11/world...neuron-disease?

It is hard because we are not dealing with issue that can easily be tested so many scientists so many wrong things on the subject as do many religious people.

So I would actually sort of agree with you the question is whether it is important to the message?
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Creationists and People - 01/06/13 05:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac
...the question is whether it is important to the message?
What message is important?
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/06/13 07:22 AM

To answer in your language whatever message you want or not want from it, it could mean everything or nothing smile
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Creationists and People - 01/06/13 03:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
To answer in your language whatever message you want or not want from it, it could mean everything or nothing smile
My Language? You presumed to put me in a box regarding spirituality and Brotherly love by your definitions (not mine)... Now you speak my language? smirk

However in response to the language you used..

What is IT that conveys importance to the individual?
Are we speaking of creation and how it is interpreted by People, or the relationship of perceived reality to the ego and its need for definition?

What is so important about where we came from when we don't know where we are, or where we are going?

Seems everyone wants to define how perfect the present unknown moment is by defining the past, so it fits with some kind of relative definition of the current personal measure of what is satisfactory and what isn't.
Posted by: Mike Kremer

Re: Creationists and People - 01/06/13 06:02 PM

I like that signature of yours Tutor Turtle.

That-"Talkers are usually more articulate than doers, since talk is their specialty"
Nice one,
however I have recently found a doer, named 'Neil Shubin' who is tending to turn the Creationist World upside down with his discoverys
He is one of the Paleontologists who discovered 'The fish
that walked on its hands', named Tiktaalik.

Tiktaalik lived approximately 375 million years ago, and is representative of the transition between non-tetrapod vertebrates (fish) and and early tetrapods.
Its mixture of primitive fish and derived tetrapod characteristics led one of its discoverers, Neil Shubin, to characterize Tiktaalik as a "fishapod".

The "fins" of Tiktaalik have basic wrist bones and simple rays reminiscent of fingers.
The fin was clearly weight bearing, being attached to a massive shoulder with expanded scapular and coracoid elements and attached to the body armor, large muscular scars on the ventral surface of the humerus, and highly mobile distal joints.
The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would
have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.
Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills.

This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures.
The more robust ribcage of Tiktaalik would have helped support the animal’s body any time it ventured outside a fully aquatic habitat.
Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have—Bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement.
This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck, with the pectoral girdle separate from the skull. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Thoughts*****
This is just the sort of transitional finding, supporting
evolution...that should be required reading for Creationists.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/06/13 09:16 PM

thats a croc.

why would you think its a fish?



and how could this be made from the above?



evolution at work.

working hard to present false claims to the gullible sheeple.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/07/13 01:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
My Language? You presumed to put me in a box regarding spirituality and Brotherly love by your definitions (not mine)... Now you speak my language?


Sorry TT you are almost a text book contrarian so there is definitely a box for you

Here => http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201206/field-guide-the-contrarian

Quote:

Notable Characteristics: Defines the phrase "goes against the grain." Never hesitates to inject a contrary viewpoint, whether at a department meeting or Grandma's Thanksgiving dinner table. Habitual sender of email forwards promoting offbeat philosophies. If you say right, this head-butter goes left.


Noone ever has just a single trait but your contrarian streak is so large it's pretty easy to sum you up and put you in a box including the offbeat philosophies.

Contrarian like all psychology traits is both good and bad so it has no context it is useful and some historic leaders have had the trait.

That must really erk you that you strive so hard to not be defined that we can define you smile

You may also realise why I don't waste my time arguing with you laugh
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Creationists and People - 01/07/13 02:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac

Sorry TT you are almost a text book contrarian so there is definitely a box for you.

You do like boxes.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Contrarian like all psychology traits is both good and bad so it has no context it is useful and some historic leaders have had the trait.
Psychology is not a science, so I'm suprised you want to use it to make a point.
Originally Posted By: Orac

That must really erk you that you strive so hard to not be defined that we can define you smile

Just because someone thinks the way they do doesn't mean I have to think the same way. You like to presume you have an overwhelming authority in your opinion of yourself and others.
That's kinda funny.. wink
Originally Posted By: Orac

You may also realise why I don't waste my time arguing with you laugh
I notice you avoid answering questions that don't have cut and dried answers.
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/07/13 03:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Just because someone thinks the way they do doesn't mean I have to think the same way. You like to presume you have an overwhelming authority in your opinion of yourself and others.
That's kinda funny.. wink


Actually quite the reverse and you know nothing of me if you think that. I only give answers where sound reason, facts and logic dictates one and that may appear to be authoritive I guess to some people.

However I am also easily swayed by sound reasonable argument I have been wrong countless times on this forum and infact my favoured view of the universe was string theory which got all but buried by the discovery of the Higgs.

I make no claims to being infallible perhaps ask Paul how many times he has been wrong for a comparison he has stated it on several occassions smile

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

I notice you avoid answering questions that don't have cut and dried answers.


Correct and that is exactly what I said above and why I may appear authoritive to you I guess.

I don't like enforcing my personal views on anybody it comes from my refugee personal history.

Even above I was having a little humour with you I even took pains to add in it was not a good or bad context just that I could classify and box you which was sort of funny because I know how much you hate that. The other parts of the joke you got yes I like my boxes, yes psychology is not a science but you missed that I deliberately pointed out it was not good or bad because that was not the intent.

On this forum Bill S has to me a great sense of humour and we often take humorous jibes at each other which many miss. I even burnt him at the stake one time and he buried me in infinity :-)

I often thought to ask AR2 to randomly delete or at least hide one or two of preearth threads on conspiracy but he probably wouldn't get the humour in it either.
Posted by: paul

Re: Creationists and People - 01/07/13 04:22 AM



400 million year old fossil found.

still alive!

Quote:
Chimaeras are cartilaginous fish in the order Chimaeriformes, known informally as ghost sharks, ratfish (not to be confused with the rattails), spookfish(not to be confused with the true spookfish of the family Opisthoproctidae), or rabbitfishes (not to be confused with the true rabbitfishes of the familySiganidae). They may be the “oldest and most enigmatic groups of fishes alive today.”At one time a “diverse and abundant” group

(based on the fossil record)

their closest living relatives are sharks, though in evolutionary terms they branched off from sharks nearly 400 million years ago and have remained isolated ever since, typically confined to deep water.



Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Creationists and People - 01/07/13 05:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Orac
I only give answers where sound reason, facts and logic dictates one and that may appear to be authoritive I guess to some people.

Yes already mentioned that, and you would be the some people I was referencing.
Originally Posted By: Orac

However I am also easily swayed by sound reasonable argument
Sound(s) like....
Originally Posted By: Orac
I have been wrong countless times on this forum.
Yet it doesn't seem to deter you from making statements to whatever thought you give yourself to believe in the moment about me, without getting to know me.

Understand I take no offense. I just like to make a point about following thoughts initiated by feeling rather than direct and substantiated experience.
Originally Posted By: Orac

I make no claims to being infallible..

The flaming of others then, must just be a stress releasing tactic you use deal with the feelings.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

I notice you avoid answering questions that don't have cut and dried answers.

Originally Posted By: Orac

Correct and that is exactly what I said above and why I may appear authoritive to you I guess.

I didn't say you appear that way to me. Just said you like to take the authoritative approach to rendering judgment on others as you do with yourself. There is a difference.
Originally Posted By: Orac

I don't like enforcing my personal views on anybody it comes from my refugee personal history.

It's difficult to enforce ones ideas upon another unless you are seen as the authority. I imagine your students give you that position regardless of whether you ask for it or not.
Conditioning of humanity by the system don'tcha know.

However I see that even tho you can account for your stressful past it doesn't seem to hinder you from throwing out your personal views/judgments of others.

Nothing wrong with expressing your opinion. What would the world be if everyone decided that freely expressing was verboten? (codependant wink most likely)
Originally Posted By: Orac

Even above I was having a little humour with you I even took pains to add in it was not a good or bad context just that I could classify and box you which was sort of funny because I know how much you hate that. The other parts of the joke you got yes I like my boxes, yes psychology is not a science but you missed that I deliberately pointed out it was not good or bad because that was not the intent.
Didn't miss it. Purposely sidestepped it to create another segue to engage in the precepts of reality.
Originally Posted By: Orac

On this forum Bill S has to me a great sense of humour and we often take humorous jibes at each other which many miss. I even burnt him at the stake one time and he buried me in infinity :-)

I often thought to ask AR2 to randomly delete or at least hide one or two of preearth threads on conspiracy but he probably wouldn't get the humour in it either.

Good humor between friends is always refreshing.

Are we friends now?
Posted by: Orac

Re: Creationists and People - 01/07/13 06:09 AM

Oh I doubt we will ever be good friends could you ever see it we are like fire and ice or perhaps more like would be rebel versus authority mainstream smile

We may however indeed share some jokes and polite jibes assuming one expects thats what they are.
Posted by: Tutor Turtle

Re: Creationists and People - 01/07/13 03:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Orac
Oh I doubt we will ever be good friends could you ever see it we are like fire and ice or perhaps more like would be rebel versus authority mainstream smile
You representing the icy mainstream authority?
Originally Posted By: Orac

We may however indeed share some jokes and polite jibes assuming one expects thats what they are.
Assuming....