proof against evolution

Originally posted by Lasheic
Who was it lash that DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO A "PISSING MATCH???"

ME THAT'S WHO!

So why did you even bother responding? Why should you care? Why the apparent overt hostility and CAPS LOCKS, which you know eggs people on? Why do you not back up your positive claims? I have no problems with civil discourse and free exchange of ideas, but I have seen absolutely zero indication that you have any inclination towards that. I only give back what I receive, which is why I can apparently still have a civil discourse with Miriam for example - but not you.

And besides, it takes two to tango.

Meriam doesn't know you like I do, and you shifting gears into this sedated calm cool collected valence is as transparent as the ploy is clear, Your idea of "civil discourse" is what I call un-civil discord.

Oh I bothered responding because I got tired of you mis-representing me behind the guise of satire and to set the record straight exploiting you for the kind of liar you are and the kind of Bible Bigotry you spread.

Hey,, you asked

- Con

Originally posted by Lasheic

I never assumed you wanted to "win" anything.

I take no pleasure is badgering Christians. Although I do like debate. I simply ask whether these inconsistencies can be reconciled with reason and understanding, and am disappointed when the issue is frivolously skirted. Surely if these inconsistencies confound the average Christian someone would want to refute them to clear up any misconceptions.

Surely you can google the answers the same way you googled the contradictions then LASH

Pythagoras reasoned that the Earth (and other planets) were spherical around 500 BCE. This is before the earliest known written Jewish biblical texts, so we don't know exactly which came first. However, Pythagoras didn't need prophecy or revelation. Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth with about a 5 to 10% margin of error around 240 BCE. He didn't need revelation either.

How nice for them

You can speculate on whether or not the ancient Hebrews thought the Earth was a round disk or a sphere - but the Greeks proved it.

The Greeks didn't prove squat that wasn't already found in the Bible

. This was an addendum to my previous argument was to question how it's reconciled that Adam, who was male, would have had a female chromosome before the creation of the first female.

Eve wasn't the first female she was the first JEWISH female created from the first Jewish male Adam

It is impossible for a human to have either a Y or YY chromosome and live, as the Y is incomplete.

So this doesn't apply to them.

YOU, and anyone who can read, will see that is is YOU who postulated that Adam didn't have nipples. This is not substantiated in the bible, so I simply called you on a claim you apparently have no way of validating.

Lash USE your head for god sake, if he wasn't born of a woman, from a baby to an adult but created as an adult than using your own Scientific rationale conventional wisdom would suggest he didn't have them, so you tell me smart guy would he ? I mean you answered the question yourself so your argument is with YOU now.

I've never heard Thomas Paine's works referred to as "trailer Trash" before. I would have thought that Common Sense, The American Crisis, The Rights of Man, etc and their influence on the framing of the Constitution and the mindsets of our founding fathers would have garnered his opinion more merit than that - even if you fundamentally reject and don't agree with Age of Reason.

Oh C'mon Lash,, your book won't be popular five years from now much less 2000 years from now. That book isn't a literary pimple on the Bibles Butt

I suppose Thomas Jefferson, to you, is just a buck toothed stump jumping redneck as well due to his thoughts on the Bible.

Oh so now we're just arbitrarily pulling random questions out of the blue?
I know what his thoughts were on the bible and have been to DC read the documnets and letters where he tells the danbury Baptists make no mistake I am a Christian. Other than that, I don't see why you bring him up. You are jumping all over the place now

Which, again, begs the question. How did YOU know he didn't have nipples, as you were the one who made the positive claim.

*sigh* asked and answered lash, asked and answered.

Actually, God vs. The Bible is free to read cover to cover online. I'm sure you knew that though, since you apparently read it. Age of Reason is a classic literary work and is similarly free to read online. Not a penny spent.

Jeeziz,, does anyone care? I mean really lash get serious ,, who cares! You get the point whether you buy it or NOT. YOU read that junk.

So... what you're describing is a contradiction? As in, the bible contains contradictions.

No that isn't what that means lash THINK lash THINK try hard this time

If I am writing a book that describes people in the book that are doing something I (the author) do not approve of, just because the book talks about a people that engage in this act I don't approve of doesn't mean my book does either.

Irrelevant. The Lakota language has three extra (nasal) vowels. Further, their grammar is structured rather obtusely, generally following a subject, object, verb structure. So to say "Around the House" it would read House the around. Other languages provide other difficult problems, like Japanese who have many more characters than english - some describing entire complex concepts and is divided into three distinct scripts, Kanji, Katakana, and Hiragana.

This is where skilled translators come in, and to throw Armstrongs work out because he didn't read the original Hebrew and translate it himself would be to throw the entire King James and New Revised Standard

irrelevent? what! huh! can you not keep message centerd or what lash?

Do you know what quote you are even responding to anymore are you this lost where I am starting to feel like I am picking on you, this answer is that out of synch with the coordinating post and quote. It has nothing to do with what I said.

Look this has been fun watching you try to hang with the Conmeister but now you are just babbling incoherent, pulling things out of the blue saying I suppose you think this about that and I bet you think so and so says this about that ,, WHO CARES! Your posts are looking like this by now

"blah blah blah"

trying to overwhelm me with a book to critique while switching gears to a myriad of off topic minutia.

I never postulated whether or not Adam had nipples. I only said that fetus's had nipples

OMG READ YOUR POST LASH!

why else would I say this lash???
"it is when you nit pick at absolutely asinine details like why Adam was shown having nipples in artists renderings "

Do you have any idea? any at all????

If you can't keep track of what you yourself is saying, it is no wonder why you can't possibly keep up with a cogent coherent dialogue with anyone and you continue to mis quote, mis represent making excuses for it all the way. You can act like you know what you are talking about but if you force me to put a whole shoe store in your mouth than

If the shoe fits,

If it's common sense, then why is Adam continually portrayed with Nipples and often with a navel? - Lasheic

WEAR IT



- Con









[edit on 6-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

The Evidence of Biological Information (R.I.P. Atheism)

From the fantastic DVD "The Case for a Creator". Darwinist materialist logic would explain a message on piece of paper in terms the chemistry of the ink and the paper. But that doesn't explain the alphabet and language used to write the message. Language comes from intelligence.

Don't be an aintelligentist.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


This topic always devolves quickly into complete nonsense because;
A. Debate requires adherence to the rules of logic.
B. Logic is toxic to religion, since it requires strict adherence to logical absurdities.
C. Science cannot exist without logic, or tolerate "magic" as an acceptable explanation for natural phenomena.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The original text is infallible....
... My understanding of the first books of the Bible is based on the understanding of Hebrew scholar Dr. John Sallihammer. He can "think" in ancient Hebrew which is a lot different than just using a lexicon to look up words.

... He was describing revelation from God which superseded his personal knowledge.

Why does that make it factual and not theoretical? That would require Dr. S. to also be "infallible." Since that language has been extinct for 2500 years, there is no one who could possibly contradict him. How convenient!

You already made a monkey out of yourself in astrophysics, now you want to do it in linguistics?

Every culture has had holy people who claim to have had supernatural revelations.
It was only recently uncovered that the underlying cause for the Salem Witch Trials
was a common grain fungus, ergot

"It is possible that ergot infected grasses produced in the first agricultural settlements of Mesopotamia around 9000 BC, but ergot is thought to have first been mentioned around 600 BC by the Assyrians [2]. The Roman historian Lucretius (98-55 BC) referred to ergotism as ‘Ignis sacer’, meaning Holy Fire, which was the name given to ergotism during the Middle Ages, and it was during these times that ergotism occurred frequently."

]
Ergot was the source from which pure '___' was synthesized and produces similar effects. This is now a much more believable explanation for such bizarre "revelations."

The alleged "God" of the Bible, obviously did not know that the earth and other planets were spheres and orbit around the sun at the center of the solar system. It could have explained it as the real reason for eclipses and the perplexing retrograde motion of the planets. The Greeks proposed celestial bodies as spheres as early as 600 BC.
The Bible only condemned people to many more centuries of needless enforced ignorance for claiming the creation of the intelligent human mind. It only took one precocious Polock to topple the Church and all of humanity from its pompous, self-made pedestal at the center of all creation.

Whoever wrote the Bible, also had no idea of dinosaurs, so concocted a fable about a race of "Nephilim" giants to explain the enormous bones they kept finding that were far bigger than any living animals they knew about. Every site from antiquity that mentioned a "race of giants," has been also identified as a major fossil deposit. Coincidence?
The Bible might have evidence of intelligence, if it said that mixing sewage with potable water was unclean and would spread disease and kill people, but that eating pork would help keep people from starving.

The only thing all human cultures have in common, is the sky. The Christian "Holy Days," have nothing whatever to do with anything in the Bible, but are merely observe repetitions of events in the sky common to cultures all over the world long before the Bible ever appeared.

If you knew anything about the sky, or history, then you would understand that there is
nothing

original

about
Christianity.

reply to post by Eyemagistus

Originally posted by Eyemagistus
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

This topic always devolves quickly into complete nonsense because;
A. Debate requires adherence to the rules of logic.
B. Logic is toxic to religion, since it requires strict adherence to logical absurdities.
C. Science cannot exist without logic, or tolerate "magic" as an acceptable explanation for natural phenomena.

Correct... that's why this will be a very brief encounter.

Darwinists repeatedly appeal to "magic". Evolution can't happen with out something to evolve from...

Oh yeah primordial soup + lightning = life ---> MAGIC

Why does that make it factual and not theoretical? That would require Dr. S. to also be "infallible." Since that language has been extinct for 2500 years, there is no one who could possibly contradict him. How convenient!

You already made a monkey out of yourself in astrophysics, now you want to do it in linguistics?

No astrophysics pwns atheism is more correct. And you are the one who believes he comes from a monkey. And no one has disproved the Big Bang theory. The only one making an ape out himself here is you. And the rest of your your drug obsessed waste of bandwidth post offers a compelling explanation of why.

Yeah sure the Bible was all '___'. WEAK That says more about you than anything else. The rest isn't worth my time time. Sounds like the '___' is all in your mind. Which explains a lot.

FYI: Jesus cures addictions too.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by JPhish

You said that gravity was a theory, and that Evolution wasn’t. Repeating what I said as if you knew it all along does not present the illusion that you’re inexorable.

I was being facetious when I wrote that , I only wrote it only once and the context of the way I wrote it was so you could understand this one very important thing that you continue to ignore:

Scientific theory = Accepted fact

Please show me evidence that states that the phrase "scientific theory" does not mean generally accepted scientific fact.

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by melatonin

Your point is more than valid; I was a bit "black and white" i admit, but what i was trying to convey was that laws, unlike theories, are currently accepted as general truths . . .

I would also like to point out these two things that most creationist either don't know or ignore when using the argument that evolution is "just a theory"

1) Scientific laws are not infallible, are also open to correction and can be proven wrong at any time.
2) A scientific theory does not get upgraded to become a law unless it was particularly narrow to begin with. Theories are not laws in the making. Theory is a more complex description of phenomena that is considered to be fact. Theories and laws are considered to be on the same par.

One of the beautiful things about science is that it's open minded. Science will always correct itself in the face of overwhelming evidence.

If there was overwhelming evidence that showed the theory of evolution to be fundamentally flawed then science would correct itself.

Present your evidence.

Phenomenon - A phenomenon (from Greek φαινόμενoν, pl. φαινόμενα - phenomena) is any occurrence that is observable.

Originally posted by JPhish
I’ve said this already as well . . .

Originally posted by JPhish
A phenomenon = Fact
Macro-evolution is not a phenomenon because it is not observable.

The word phenomenon does not necessarily imply an extraordinary, unexplainable or supernatural event.
Originally posted by JPhish
Yes, I already said this too.

Phenomenon is a subjective word when deducing whether or not it is extraordinary.

Actually, you said this:

Originally posted by JPhish

Phenomenon is a subjective word when deducing whether or not it is extraordinary. If you’re amazed and consider environmental adaptation extraordinary, then yes, you can say that micro-evolution is a phenomenon. But I don’t see anything extraordinary about it. So yes, you can call micro-evolution a phenomenon if you’d like. It’s not a phenomenon to me.

You contradict yourself. You say phenomena is an everyday fact and then you say that a phenomena has to be an extraordinary fact. Which one do you want it to be for your next post?

Originally posted by Horza
Wiki has this to say about it which seems to contradict you argument:

A phylotype is a term for species that is becoming common among microbiologists that describes genomic uniqueness of the organism described.

Originally posted by JPhish
That is supporting what I’m saying. It’s saying that you don’t refer to single celled organisms as different species. You refer to the as different phylotypes . . . This is something I learned a long time ago . . . My professor was pretty adamant about the fact that you cannot differentiate species of a-sexual organisms and that phyolotype is the correct term to use.

No, this is saying that phylotype is a term that can be used instead of species. It isn't changing the context or the meaning of the word.

phylotype = species, species = phylotype ... of course this is not yet generally accepted and may never be.

phylotypes most common usage is with meaning such as these:

1) A proposed stage in embryonic development that characterizes some basic features in the body plan of a phylum
2) The evolutionary history of a microbiological species (mostly determined by 16S rRNA gene sequence comparison). Can be compared with a phenotype, which is a physical manifestation of a genetic trait in an organism.
3)The phylogenetic type of an uncultured organism as inferred from analysis of its ribosomal RNA sequence

You ignored these last time ... will you ignore these again.

It is generally accepted that bacteria are classified into different species.

Originally posted by JPhish
It’s Generally Accepted world wide that it makes sense to have a religion. It doesn’t make it right.

That is a ridiculous argument.

General scientific consensus, by it's nature, implies validity. Yes, it makes it right enough for it to be used in day to day scientific dealings.

So, yes, there are different species of single celled organisms that replicate a-sexually.

Originally posted by JPhish
Scientists who don’t want to apologize for being wrong later on should call them phylotypes.

Who says ... you?? Show me other scientist that say this ... I have already offered Lynn Margullis ... and she ain't proved jack yet ... who can you offer?.

And this also goes back to my point that science can correct itself. If it is shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that there are no separate species of bacteria then microbiologists will accept that.

It hasn't been shown and generally accepted to be the case yet ... has it JPhish?

Are you saying that there are no different species of bacteria?

Originally posted by JPhish
I’m saying that it’s the incorrect term to use.

As I pointed out before, terminology doesn't change the context or the meaning.

Ok how about I put it like this for you, in terms that you may agree with.

Microbiologists have shown that the "phylotype" E.coli has evolved a characteristic that contradicts a defining "phylotypical" characteristic of E.coli, yet again giving more substantial evidence to the already overwhelming evidence within the theory of evolution.





quotations



[edit on 6/7/08 by Horza]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

The Evidence of Biological Information (R.I.P. Atheism)

From the fantastic DVD "The Case for a Creator". Darwinist materialist logic would explain a message on piece of paper in terms the chemistry of the ink and the paper. But that doesn't explain the alphabet and language used to write the message. Language comes from intelligence.

Don't be an aintelligentist.

AAAAAAAAAaaaaahhhhhhh ... finally some evidence offered by a creationist.

Thanks whammy!

To refute this video:

This does not disprove evolution.

This only shows that the cause of evolution is god. This is a philosophical argument not a scientific argument, one that I, in a way, agree with.

It dies not refute evolution ... it supports evolution.

The study of evolution is the study of how we evolved from a common ancestor not the study of the origin of life. That is more the realm of cosmology, biology and even biogenesis.

The origin of life is not in discussion.

Only the fact that evolution happens, that is we all have a common ancestor, is in debate here.

BTW Thanks for your video support.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Yeah Right here's the answer : thedevineevidence.com...

From what I've seen thus far, most of the refutations of contradiction in your site refer to verses not found in Armstrong's book. However, it does seem to contradict you in saying that bible is inerrant and perfect. This is evident to their need to "fix" translation errors. If the bible contains translation errors, then it is not perfect nor inerrant. Regardless of what the original Hebrew states in it's scripture, the vast majority of Christians read those translations and accept them at face value.

Further, these errors and parables and poetic descriptions leave the bible up to varying interpretation based on the reader and his church. This is evident as you yourself are are content to argue the point at times that the Hebrews knew the Earth was spherical as if it were fact and proof of their knowledge through truth revealed to the prophets, yet the site you linked says:

An incorrect translation of Isaiah 40:22 is sometimes rendered sphere. A few apologists, apparently not aware of the original Hebrew, believe this reveals the Bible's foreknowledge of a spherical earth (though it is fair to point out the original Hebrew does not distinguish between a one-dimensional circle and a three-dimensional sphere-their word chuwg could refer to both).

Regardless, neither of the above verses in Isaiah refer to a literal description of the earth. The context of Isaiah40 is obviously poetic as it refers to people as grasshoppers!

So this goes back to the original point, that the bible is neither inerrant nor infallible because it lies on man to interpret what it's meaning is. There is no way to tell commentary from parable from truth even in the Hebrew text at times, and certainly not after translation.

This is part of the reason why you see a fracturing of the religions into increasingly divergent subsets based on new ideas and different interpretations. It's actually rather similar to Evolution if you think about it. The same occurs with language.

On your lame point about Adam and Eve. How does that refute anything? It actually supports it!!!

How is that so? The X is the female chromosome, and is necessary for a male to live. Therefore, even if you suppose God did create Adam first - it would have had to have created Adam female initially and then added his design modifications in in the form of the Y Chromosome. So since the X Chromosome is female, god must have created females first, even if you suppose he didn't create their physical form. This is in contradiction to both Genesis accounts in which God created Eve secondary.

By logic if you were going to create a man from a woman you would have to add material. It's much easier to take away than add.

This is completely irrelevant as it doesn't matter which Sexual chromosome is transfered from male to female, there is still the addition of either an X or a Y chromosome from the male. So addition happens anyhow, regardless what arbitrary measure you use to determine how difficult addition and subtraction to be. You seem to think that god simply got lazy when creating woman took away the Y chromosome because it was easier. An odd thing to say for someone who believes that God exerted all this effort to create and practically infinite universe in all it's form and spledor, yet decided to just say *-it, made take a shortcut because "Adding" is harder than taking it away.

Wow... just... wow.

So by your own reasoning Adam had all the necessary genetics (nipples and all) for a man and a woman.

Which, again, leads to the point that only the X Chromosome is complete, while the Y is not. The Y Chromosome is not necessary for a living human, but the X is. Y is the modification. Even if you believe that God created "Man" first - he still created the X Chromosome first, hence Woman came before Man.

It's what I call people that use piss poor lazy scholarship (like the dead sea scrolls were all written after Christ) to refute something they don't have any understanding of

I made a mistake on the dating, which I admitted, and I corrected. I have yet to see you admit to or correct any of your mistakes. Who's being honest here?

You lambaste me for an "ignorance" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, yet you display not even a basic knowledge of Cosmology, Genetics, Physics, etc, more times than I care to count. Shameful.



Anyhow, on to Con...

Meriam doesn't know you like I do

You make it seem as if we have a long history of debate, when in fact, I've only been here a fairly short time and our "debates" have been limited. If you can "know" people so well over the Internet from a few sparse conversations, then I suggest you sign up as a profiler for the police. You have damned near super powers.

And by the way, do you mean "know me"? Are you referring to the literal or the biblical sense? Cause man, you know I'm gonna have to deny that.

Oh I bothered responding because I got tired of you mis-representing me

I made 1 satirical comment. That's all. Most of the post you seem to have taken to be directed at you wasn't even directed TO you, it was just a divulgance of my thoughts with no specific audience intended.

Surely you can google the answers

I'm not discussing this with Google. I'm discussing it with you. I want your answers.

How nice for them

Yes, they were an amazing culture.

The Greeks didn't prove squat that wasn't already found in the Bible

As already stated, the bible is simply too vague to convey whether or not they actually knew anything about the real shape of the Earth. There are certainly no other documents from that time period to prove it, nor did they use that supposed knowledge.

The Greeks proved it, measured it, and we can confirm it. Eve wasn't the first female she was the first JEWISH female created from the first Jewish male Adam

So, you think there were humans before Adam and Eve, they just weren't Jewish?

So this doesn't apply to them.

It absolutely applies to them.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Conspiriology


Lash USE your head for god sake, if he wasn't born of a woman, from a baby to an adult but created as an adult than using your own Scientific rationale conventional wisdom would suggest he didn't have them

Yet he had an X Chromosome which carries the genetic information for making nipples. If God created him from a DNA structure, he would have had nipples. If God created Adam from clay, then he wouldn't have DNA. If God created Man in his own image, does that mean God has nipples? If Adam didn't have nipples, and neither does God, then why do current males have nipples? Does that mean we're not made in God's image? If God had nipples and men have nipples, does that mean Adam wasn't created in God's image but we are.

(Note that Nipples are different from height, skin color, hair color, eye color, etc. Those are variable traits. Nipples are not, and are found on every man across all of humanity)

Oh C'mon Lash,, your book won't be popular five years from now much less 2000 years from now. That book isn't a literary pimple on the Bibles Butt

You can't really say the Bible will be around for 2,000 more years. It wasn't really popular 2,000 years ago aside from a small geographical location. It's only within the last 2,000 years that it's grown in popularity. Judism and the Torah as a stand alone religion never really gained widespread popularity. With the rapid rise of Islam, it's quite possible that the Bible and Christianity might not even be around 1,000 years from now.

As for Paine's book, it's been around since about 1794 and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. To say it won't popular in 5 years is gross misconception on several fronts. It's really not that popular now, firstly, and to think that it won't be read 200 years from now is like saying that Shakespeare, Descartes, Marx, Melville, or Aristotle won't be read in 200 years. It's simply ludicrous to even claim such a thing.

I know what his thoughts were on the bible and have been to DC read the documnets and letters where he tells the danbury Baptists make no mistake I am a Christian. Other than that, I don't see why you bring him up. You are jumping all over the place now

I bring it up because Jefferson was opposed to orthodox Christianity, and he was a good friend of Paine's. To claim that Jefferson was a devout Christian would make you an outright liar, gullible, or suffering a severe misunderstanding of Jefferson.

The truth is that Jefferson was a free thinker and, while anchored in a belief in Christ, rejected many of the Bible's teachings, prophecies, miracles, barbarisms, and often had harsh critiques of the bible and the Church of the time by deriding their tyranny and hypocracy. He had an array of views on the subject and is said to have referred to himself as being a member of a Christian sect which only had one member. Himself. He also strongly opposed a national religion, and helped establish the separation of Church and State. If anything, by modern terms, Jefferson would be considered a Unitarian.

TJ: Deist or Christian?

Memoirs, Corrosponance, and Misillanaries of TJ

TJ & William Short Correspondance

TJ's Religious Views

So yes, in the strictest sense - he was a Christian as he did accept Jesus Christ. He just, apparently, was not your kind of Christian.

Jeeziz,, does anyone care?

I care, because you got it wrong.

If I am writing a book that describes people in the book that are doing something I (the author) do not approve of, just because the book talks about a people that engage in this act I don't approve of doesn't mean my book does either.

So you're saying that when the bible condones slavery, genocide, infanticide, stoning to death, etc - that the Authors don't necessarily approve of those actions, despite them worshiping the very deity who often preforming those actions.

Makes perfect sense. Really.

rrelevent? what! huh! can you not keep message centerd or what lash?

I'm keeping up perfectly well. Now, if you would, please offer a refutation rather than a two paragraph (can I really call them that?) flame. I simply don't see how Hebrew is any harder to translate than any other language we translate all the time. So how is it that the translations in the King James Version, and other versions of the bible that Armstrong used, be so wildly off the mark? Yet you think you can do a better job in translation.

To be fair, most of those translations from other languages like Chinese, Russian, French, etc, aren't perfect either and neither do I expect the Hebrew translation to be - unless someone claims that those translations are the perfect and inerrant word of god and wishes to argue their positions from that basis.

why else would I say this lash???
"it is when you nit pick at absolutely asinine details like why Adam was shown having nipples in artists renderings "

What you quoted came well after your initial post about Adam having nipples, which was a post in reference of mine in which I made no comment one way or another about the Adam's manbewbs. Only those of a fetus. The only reason why I mentioned it in the case of the fetus, was to demonstrate how it is the female X Chromosome which is the base, not the modification.




Also, I know this wasn't in response to me, however this little quip is too delicious to let pass. I think I'll sig it to save it for posterity.

If Science says something and it doesn't fit with the Bible, then Science has it wrong NOT the Bible. ~ Conspiriology

Carl Sagan made an excellent documentary on this subject. He has supplied some pretty convincing proofs for the case against evolution as a whole. You've got to see this to believe it.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

No astrophysics pwns atheism is more correct. And you are the one who believes he comes from a monkey. And no one has disproved the Big Bang theory. The only one making an ape out himself here is you. And the rest of your your drug obsessed waste of bandwidth post offers a compelling explanation of why.

Yeah sure the Bible was all '___'.

WEAK That says more about you than anything else. The rest isn't worth my time time. Sounds like the '___' is all in your mind. Which explains a lot.

FYI: Jesus cures addictions too.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Ha ha ha I see you ran into my troll I didn't know he was still blathering away like a broken record behind but I guess he still is ( I got him on iggy) when he gets really frustrated he starts showing all that so called logic and starts calling people a retard.

Real impressive stuff like that. Three of us put him on ignore in the same thread. I figure he'll get lonely and go bye bye sooner than later if we all did the same thing. Gets silly making posts no one responds to especially when he says he is a scientist.

- Con

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
Carl Sagan made an excellent documentary on this subject. He has supplied some pretty convincing proofs for the case against evolution as a whole. You've got to see this to believe it.

CarlSagan made a video against evolution?? I'm on 56k living out in the desert and I hate like downloading a video that is not what someone tells me it is.

I get the funny feeling I am being lied to here but Ill take a look at it.

- Con



[edit on 7-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Lasheic


Lash I am giving up on you to the iggy list you have no concept NONE in fact how to follow posts. You are STILL pulling garbage out of the blue yonder about jefferson and crap about nipples adding BS to clay because of your equivocations using the bible in a transliteralists interpretation then back to translationalists when it suits you like you are doing with the clay and chromasome BS as if the Bible was speaking as a science book not metaphorically. You keep complaining about refutations when you are obviously just what I said you are.

I already told you I agree, the Bible isn't for you, I get that.

You simply don't get it don't understand it and have nio intention of ever really knowing a thing about it other than what you can do to mock believers. Thomas Paine is your hero, I get that. I think he was an idiot and always will. GOT IT? Einstein was a deist ? www.spaceandmotion.com...

I get that too

Thomas Jefferson was a Christian and many of the founding fathers were in fact Christians so, NO you are a liar.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, I know this wasn't in response to me, however this little quip is too delicious to let pass. I think I'll sig it to save it for posterity.

If Science says something and it doesn't fit with the Bible, then Science has it wrong NOT the Bible. ~ Conspiriology

You are right that wasn't to you it was a discussion before in another thread with someone that came to this thread but that was more about the science in the geo column not matching up and about J. Goulds puncT equilibrium. that it fits more with the creationists model.

NO lets not think that is an opening to another area of discussion.

If you want to use it in a way to disparage me I can live with that, live it up, you need all the help you can get.

why else would I say this lash???
"it is when you nit pick at absolutely asinine details like why Adam was shown having nipples in artists renderings " - Con

What you quoted came well after your initial post about Adam having nipples, which was a post in reference of mine in which I made no comment one way or another about the Adam's manbewbs. Only those of a fetus. The only reason why I mentioned it in the case of the fetus, was to demonstrate how it is the female X Chromosome which is the base, not the modification. - Lash

Lash, you're doing it again, READ THE POST'S I said that when?

That's right AFTER YOU that means YOU brought it up! If you can prove otherwise PLEASE DO otherwise shut up. My God I can't believe you either are totally lost in space, can't count or just like to piss people off but I am wondering now if you have'nt totally come loose somwhere?

Go to the start Again Read them one after another and see what they say

then get back to me where you 'll find I have you on ignore and now you will know why. I don't enjoy bein g on a board where I am explaining things to people as if they are six years old but any worse than that they go iggy from now on. It's just like the damn book whether you paid for it or NOT and HEEeeeeEEERE WE go AGAIN.

you missed the entire point about whether you bought the book or not because you like to split hairs about BS that is neither here nor there.

You have lied, mis represented me and qouted things I have never said. You are jealous and even the idea of using my quote in your sig you copied from me and I am truly flattered.

Same with the translation!

Again you completely amaze me when you missed the point about translation AGAIN I would say READ MY LIPS!

You are MISSING THE POINT!

I am done explaining to you what you willfully are deteremined to remain ignorant about. You can't stay on course with the central message in the argument but rather bring up several more outside it in every post having nothing to do with this one. Like you did and keep doing with the book!

It is superfluous crap to go off the subject into another entirely different argument about whether the books you read are free, bought or paid for.

The point I was making is that you like to read GARBAGE! Whether you bought the garbage or get your garbage free,, I DON'T CARE moreover I don't care that YOU DO! Jeeez you are impossible totally oblivious that you are so unskilled and so unaware of it.

The point is, it is irrelevent to this discussion, because of it, YOU ARE TOO.

I always thought garbage in garbage out and,,

you have proven my point

AGAIN

Con












[edit on 7-7-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Bigwhammy




What you Bible thumpers lack is the basic curiosity necessary for intelligence. Blind obedience is slavery, no matter how you dress it up. Saying that some mysterious "creator" is responsible for intelligence is simply admitting defeat and an end to the search. None of this information would ever have been known if science had not broken free of religious dogma.

After dragging its feet for nearly 400 years, the church still cannot make a decent apology for its error about Galileo and Bruno and still bitterly resents it's demise as the singular authority on ultimate truth. It was not a "mutual misunderstanding." They are still right and the church is still wrong. It continues to represent a severe menace to human intelligence

"Hawking quoted the pope as saying, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not inquire into the beginning itself because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."
The scientist then joked that he was glad John Paul did not realize that he had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began.

"I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo," Hawking said during a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology."

even to this day.

"In the letter, academics -- pointing to a speech the pope gave at the same university as a cardinal in 1990 -- claimed he condones the 1633 trial and conviction of the scientist Galileo for heresy."

Interesting that creationists never even mention their former darling, Michael Behe any more, or his his evolution killing "Irreducible Complexity," since they both went extinct in Dover, PA,.

Creationists do not need science to make monkeys out of them. They do that far more effectively all on their own.

Originally posted by Horza

I was being facetious when I wrote that , I only wrote it only once and the context of the way I wrote it was so you could understand this one very important thing that you continue to ignore:

You were being facetious when you said that gravity is a theory? Hardly.

Using the word theory in reference to the phenomena of evolution implies that evolution lacks validity. This would then imply that you think that there are question marks surrounding the validity of gravity.

You believed that gravity was equitable to macro-evolution or else you would not have drawn the parallel. Since you believe that macro-evolution is a theory, you believed that gravity was a theory.

By the way, saying “just kidding!” after being incorrect or after saying something distasteful is the saddest cop out ever.

Scientific theory = Accepted fact

There is a vast difference between an accepted fact and a truth. This should be self evident.

Please show me evidence that states that the phrase "scientific theory" does not mean generally accepted scientific fact.

It’s also a generally accepted scientific fact that the speed of light is the fastest speed obtainable. Doesn’t mean it is the truth. In fact, my propositional dissertation of Æther shows that (sub)quantum matter can traverse at 2x10^10 c.

1) Scientific laws are not infallible, are also open to correction and can be proven wrong at any time.
2) A scientific theory does not get upgraded to become a law unless it was particularly narrow to begin with. Theories are not laws in the making. Theory is a more complex description of phenomena that is considered to be fact. Theories and laws are considered to be on the same par.

The scientific community grays things to the point that you don’t even know what your own definitions are. As a result most of what you say is contradictory.

One of the beautiful things about science is that it's open minded. Science will always correct itself in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It’s a good thing that you’re not science. Because part of correcting yourself is admitting that you're wrong.

If there was overwhelming evidence that showed the theory of evolution to be fundamentally flawed then science would correct itself.

Because they certainly wouldn’t say they were wrong. They’d say “we were just kidding!” like you’ve already done.

I need no evidence to say that Evolution is not a truth.

Wow, this is testament to how open minded science and its advocates are! Really? That sounds like blinde belief to me. You know? That thing you accuse creationists of?

Originally posted by JPhish
Phenomenon is a subjective word when deducing whether or not it is extraordinary. If you’re amazed and consider environmental adaptation extraordinary, then yes, you can say that micro-evolution is a phenomenon. But I don’t see anything extraordinary about it. So yes, you can call micro-evolution a phenomenon if you’d like. It’s not a phenomenon to me.

Originally posted by Horza
You contradict yourself. You say phenomena is an everyday fact and then you say that a phenomena has to be an extraordinary fact. Which one do you want it to be for your next post?

You’re taking what I said out of context of what I was addressing. You said that a phenomenon was a fact. I was using what you said to show your faulty logic. I’ve done this several times actually, but you either ignore it or say “just kidding!”. Facts are potentially observable, but everything observable is not a fact.

I did not say that a phenomenon had to be an extraordinary event. I said that when using the word in that fashion it is subjective . . .

L2R

No, this is saying that phylotype is a term that can be used instead of species. It isn't changing the context or the meaning of the word.

Yes, phyolotype is a word that is used instead of species. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you this whole time. Thanks for catching up. It does change the context and meaning of the word however. Stop graying things, because you’re making yourself confused and again; as a result you’re contradicting yourself.

phylotype = species, species = phylotype

Phenomenon = Scientific Theory = Scientific Law = macro-evolution = micro-evolution = Fact = Truth

Your logic is undeniable.~

When I’m being facetious I use little tildes.

phylotypes most common usage is with meaning such as these:

1) A proposed stage in embryonic development that characterizes some basic features in the body plan of a phylum
2) The evolutionary history of a microbiological species (mostly determined by 16S rRNA gene sequence comparison). Can be compared with a phenotype, which is a physical manifestation of a genetic trait in an organism.
3)The phylogenetic type of an uncultured organism as inferred from analysis of its ribosomal RNA sequence

You ignored these last time ... will you ignore these again.

I’m not ignoring these other meanings that can be attributed to the word. But you should, because I’m not using them, so they are not relevant. So stop looking up definitions in disregard to milieu.

It is generally accepted that bacteria are classified into different species.

Again, it’s generally accepted that being religious makes sense. This is not absurd, because it is the case.

General scientific consensus, by it's nature, implies validity. Yes, it makes it right enough for it to be used in day to day scientific dealings.

I’m not talking about scientific dealings. I’ve been philosophically manhandling you all over the place; while at the same time addressing your misuse of your own scientific definitions.

So, yes, there are different species of single celled organisms that replicate a-sexually.

Incorrect, this contradicts itself

Originally posted by JPhish
Scientists who don’t want to apologize for being wrong later on should call them phylotypes.

[edit on 7/8/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by Horza
Who says ... you?? Show me other scientist that say this ... I have already offered Lynn Margullis ... and she ain't proved jack yet ... who can you offer?

So because Lynn Margullis’s ideas are not congruent with your own, she is not a scientist? Or is she simply wrong?

And this also goes back to my point that science can correct itself. If it is shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that there are no separate species of bacteria then microbiologists will accept that. It hasn't been shown and generally accepted to be the case yet ... has it JPhish?

Scientists will never prove that there are not different species of bacteria; because there would have to be different species of bacteria for them to do so. By definition, the word species is only applicable to organisms that reproduce sexually.

I’ve shown beyond reasonable doubt that your logic is flawed. But since your biased blinde spot is immense, you can’t see this.

You fail to understand basic definitions within your own tenets. . .

As I pointed out before, terminology doesn't change the context or the meaning.

You're failing to understand context and meanings of words that you're suppose to be an authority on; so how would you know? Most of the things you’ve said that are valid, are reiterations of what i've already said . . . .

Ok how about I put it like this for you, in terms that you may agree with.

Microbiologists have shown that the "phylotype" E.coli has evolved a characteristic that contradicts a defining "phylotypical" characteristic of E.coli, yet again giving more substantial evidence to the already overwhelming evidence within the theory of evolution

Good job almost following my instructions that an 8 year old could follow . . .

Originally posted by Horza\
Technically, there are so many different species of bacteria that we cannot determine how many there are with today's technology. One rough estimate is that there are 10 million to 1 billion different species of bacteria. So, what I am talking about is E.coli's inability to use citrate is what is used to distiguish it from other species of bacteria. The fact that E.coli mutated, changing one of it's defining features as a species is why this is such a big deal.

Originally posted by JPhish
They’re called phylotypes not species. . . . . .

I put the misused word in bold letters. Then I illustrated what the proper word was by making it bold in contrast to the incorrect word. With the word not underlined to emphasize this.

But I did not suggest that you could change the paragraph when substituting the words Billy! So you only get a C+.

GJ, you’ve graduated the 3rd grade.

[edit on 7/8/2008 by JPhish]

reply to post by Amaterasu

Well... It turns out that there are ancient drawings that include dinosaurs and humans hunting them. So we might suspect that the carbon dating is accurate, and that we have been lied to...

Could you provide a link to that information?
Thank you

Originally posted by Horza


Scientific theory = Accepted fact

Please show me evidence that states that the phrase "scientific theory" does not mean generally accepted scientific fact.

The problem with this is I keep seeing the wordsmiths of Atheism who make up 95-98% of the NAS, continue to change the meanings of words so that they fit the kind of definition the rest of the world understands as bona fide facts. When the stickers of the book saying that evolution was a theory and not a fact and evolutionists got all upset about that, it was because Atheists kept calling it a fact.

They went to court over this issue because it was so important Science didn't want these stickers on the books. While they were fighting that, is when I noticed all the Atheists on ATS singing this new song about scientific theory meaning the same thing as fact indoctrinating the public so to speak. This I take it was to prepare us for the new change of meaning for the word theory (again). If Atheists sold really ugly cars telling everyone how beautiful they are "omg you obviously have never really looked at our car! There is a whole universe of people that say it is beautiful". If you still couldn't get people to buy it for that reason, they would just start saying "it is commonly accepted among "experts" (95-98% being them) that the word ugly really means beautiful so we are changing the vernacular and merging the two words ugly and beautiful mean the same thing. So if you say ugly you really mean you believe it's beautiful.

This is what I have seen going JUST in evolutionary science and they are doing the exact same thing attempting to merge macro evolution with micro and it stinks to high heaven REAL BAD.

The only reason for such a change to even occur is they keep bumping up against it when others bring it up and your slick tricks for semantics and wordsmith games don't get past us. That too stinks to high heaven and I have seen you do it here again horza where you claim to not seeing the obvious cynicism in JPHISH statement below:

Phenomenon is a subjective word when deducing whether or not it is extraordinary. If you’re amazed and consider environmental adaptation extraordinary, then yes, you can say that micro-evolution is a phenomenon. But I don’t see anything extraordinary about it. So yes, you can call micro-evolution a phenomenon if you’d like. It’s not a phenomenon to me.

" If you’re amazed and consider environmental adaptation extraordinary, then yes, you can say that micro-evolution is a phenomenon."

Looks to me like he is saying "if you think getting a sun tan is an extraordinary phenomenon" then yeah call it that but Jphish isn't that impressed with it enough to give it that kind of status. YOU on the other hand with your insisting we understand macro to be as accepted as micro is the same as my analogy above with ugly and beautiful.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what is beautiful to you might not be a proven fact to me as I see the ugliness written all over the motivation behind merging the two meanings of micro and macro.

This again is why I think Scientists can not be trusted today among the many other reasons I have been given.

One of the beautiful things about science is that it's open minded. Science will always correct itself in the face of overwhelming evidence.

If there was overwhelming evidence that showed the theory of evolution to be fundamentally flawed then science would correct itself.

Present your evidence.

Oh come off it horza, where are you getting this idea from. My GOD Evolution has become a state religion for god sake and has no tolerance what so ever for anyone even challenging it much less getting past all the dogmatic atheism. Jeez anyone even finds out you're a republican they start spying on them. I don't think even Scientists believe macro evolution I mean how could they,, I think they protect it so much because they know how easy it would fall apart if it wasn't for their one for all all for one monopoly using separation of church and state to keep out the competition.

Whether YOU think it has any or not, many in evolution have admitted people might not believe it anymore if ID or Creationism were to get a foot in the door. The mere fact it threatenes them so much is awefull telling to me of the fear and desperation they have to keep alive the most egregiously criminal hoax of fraud in history

- Con

Originally posted by JPhish
The scientific community grays things to the point that you don’t even know what your own definitions are. As a result everything you say is contradictory.

Yes, this is what I am saying I have seen them doing to with my own eyes. I have lived long enough to see this pathetically proven theory change so much so often I don't know why they even call it Darwin anymore. It is like an over elastic rubber spine that can't support the weight of its own BS anymore. All that BS piled so high is the mountain of evidence they would have us believe exists out there but I have yet to see any that could unequivocally substantiate macro evolution that wasn't loaded full of semantics, subterfuge and more BS.

The most ridiculous excuses passed off with the arrogance of self serving knowitalls claiming another living fossil thought to be extinct has not changed an iota for millions of years. They would have us believe that it didn't change because it was perfectly adapted to its environment but miss the most compelling reason that argument is pure BUNK

If that were true thier were no environmental pressures,,,

then why the hell was it within smelling distance

of being extinct

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology


You are, but its dam funny, its from family guy...
Its Carl Sagan edited for rednecks
I like the I dream of Genie theory as well.(which is basically creationism)