creationists/IDists, admit your defeat

Originally posted by Astyanax
I, for one, am not questioning that evidence. I believe there was a Big Bang. It seems to have happened about thirteen and a half billion years ago.

But the universe is also, in a different way, eternal.

You see, one of the things that began in the Big Bang was time. There was no time before the Big Bang, so there was no 'before'. As far as time is concerned -- and I'm not concerned here with definitions of time, any definition will do -- the universe has always existed.

i agree....

that is a logical possibility. either god has always existed, or the universe always existed. but this is why i also included the statement about life in my original post.

i understand that the universe in itself is not proof of god's existance. but life is in my opinion.

I believe the 'law of biogenesis' is a creationist expression used to mean that life cannot come from non-life. So what you're asking me is whether anyone has seen life arise from non-life.

no. the law of biogenesis is is a law of biology. you can even find it in school books.

Well, there's no chance of that, is there? Do you know what life is? Life is organic chemicals -- proteins and amino acids and stuff. The simplest forms of life are viruses -- some would argue that they aren't strictly life at all. A virus is just a bit of RNA or DNA wrapped in a protein coat. One step down from that -- into non-life -- would be individual proteins and other complex organic molecules.

Biochemists have polysyllabic names for thousands of these molecules, but life, as a rule, knows them by a single name:

Food.

Any life trying to evolve from non-life on planet Earth today would be gobbled up before it ever got going.

Life from non-life only happened once. We know this because all life today is genetically related -- it all dates back to a single ancestor. The original badass, as Neil Stephenson called it.

My apologies, Ma'am your Honour. I can't show the court the evidence for abiogenesis. The defendant ate it.

true, naturally it cant happen because your right, it would be food for a higher species. however the question does arise, why cant scientists replicate it?

that is a significant question because if they cant replicate the process of the "badass" (lol, i love that) in a controlled environment with intelligent creatures aiding the process, then how can it be theorized that this happened by accident?

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." - Edwin Conklin

i believe the exact number is 1 in 10 to the 76 power

i know probability isnt everything but thats where abiogenesis is a weird field.

in most fields, if you are trying to figure out a process with a goal in mind, usually the finished product isnt made yet...

problem is, life exists... apparently it beat the odds. but the odds cannot be ignored. in my opinion, i cant see life simply coming about by accident. not only coming about by accident, but also figuring out that it needs to procreate (asexually) in ONE generation.

to illustrate. i wake up and in my room is a complex object, lets say a watch. i know i locked my door and when i look at my door i realise that its still locked and conclude noone could have placed it there. if i then told you that a watch appeared out of thin air, then you would say im crazy, yet there it is.

its not a strawman arguement because im not trying to prove anything with it. im illustrating a point that a similiar thing is happening with the discussion with life.

life is complex and people seem to have an easier time thinking that life appeared out of nowhere than they do with the notion that it could have been placed there.

again, not proving anything, but it does show that claiming that "god created life" is unscientific IS initself unscientific.

reply to post by miriam0566

i know probability isnt everything but thats where abiogenesis is a weird field.

Probability isn't everything, but it's quite a lot. However, the figure of 1 in 10^76 is based on one way to calculate it -- it isn't the only way or even the most appropriate. The chances are higher. And it's a big universe. My own belief (and it's only a belief, not something I can prove) is that life is probably all over the place -- an inevitable result of the principle of natural selection. I don't believe -- the evidence is in the structure of the universe -- that the principle applies to living forms only.

Gravity clumps matter together. The clumped matter exerts more gravitational force and attracts yet more matter to itself. Thus we get dust-clouds, stars, planets and so on. Energy transforms matter. Some transformations last longer than others and are further transformed. These processes average out over the entire universe in thermodynamic terms, but at the scale on which we apprehend reality, its operations are discrete -- some arrangements of matter are locally preferred over others, certain systems become locally self-sustaining over long periods of time while others don't. The organization we see in the universe arises from -- in fact, is -- this localized selectivity. You would call that God. I just call it inevitable.

in most fields, if you are trying to figure out a process with a goal in mind, usually the finished product isnt made yet...

Natural selection and abiogenesis are not processes with a goal in mind. They are no more teleological than the law of gravity.

claiming that "god created life" is unscientific IS initself unscientific.

Claiming 'God created life' is only unscientific if you offer no valid evidence for it. Thus we return to the thread topic -- proponents of intelligent design must admit their defeat, at least till now, since they have been unable to offer any unfalsifiable proof of this claim.

THE PROBLEM WITH DEBATING CREATIONISTS: You CANNOT reason a person OUT of position that they did not REASON themselves into.

uhm, flawed assumption here, I actually did reason myself into this. the lack of evidence for evolution and the pounding evidence for creation is what had me fully converted. I used to believe in both theories and now i believe in just one because evolution is not just bad science, its tied in with a lot of other bad stuff. stuff you wouldnt want to believe becauase you are blinded from the truth.

then forensics isn't science either. you cannot directly observe the events involved in forensics, but you can indirectly, just like in evolution.
with science you do not have to witness the event happening, just the evidence that it happened. you can demonstrate evolution and you can test it. clearly you haven't read a single link i've posted on those issues.

ill give you credit for attempting to throw this out of context, to the ignorant this would be a good analogy but you are forgetting a few things while adding some false.
forensics makes predictions they observe the evidence, they observe the facts, they observe the samples, they conceive theories and then they test them by demonstration.
im not even going to give an example because you will most likely miss the point and continue with your never ending claim to deny ignorance.

evolution is not observable, directly or indirectly. the so-called evidences you find are twisted to the point where it becomes tampered evidence, or selective evidence meaning that its not even original.
here is a perfect example of you proving my point right here>>>

...and if they don't get an answer that's within the dating range, they go onto a different method
seriously, if you try potassium-argon dating on a bone that's either too old or too young for it, you get a result that's obviously wrong.

seriously, you dont know how old the bone is to begin with. you are automatically assuming that dinosaurs lived millions of years before man when there is numerous places on earth where evidences supporting the opposite have been documented.
if its not in the range? what predetermined range? oh yeah thats right darwins geologic collumn/time scale. because we all know thats 100% accurate. if you cant see past your own flawed method then im sorry to say that you are willingly ignorant. omg please... if it doesnt fit in the range. due to the finding (layer, index fossil(s), and animal type) you automatically assume it fits a certain date range. that is not scientific and that just proves that radiometric dating doesnt work. PERIOD.
different methods tested on the same sample should give near the same result and they dont. I know how radiometric dating works its not impossible, it just simply doesnt work they way you all would like for it to work.

...the scientific method is a tiny bit older than that. and it's stood the test of time, as the computer you're working on can attest to.

I wasnt talking about the scientific method, we all know it works. stop trying to change the subject. i made it quite obvious that I was talking about darwins theories and how they are outdated and assumed to be accurate for absolutely no reason.

then practice what you preach and realize that evolution is the logical answer that we can understand.

you assume that we (you) have to understand everything in order for it to be logical... lol evolution is not logical, in fact creation seems to be more logical than evolution.
evolution seems logical to you because its not governed by a supreme being, it doesnt include a god, it gives you the power to do whatever you want, it gives you freedom to live the way you want. if you cut out all the BS evolution and creation are not about science... its about the different freedoms. either you were created for a purpose and you live for your creator vs. you are here to absolutely no reason so live free, if it feels good do it, and if you achieve your goals by whatever means necessary.
survival of the fittest.
your believe in evolution justifies your lifestyle, thats why its logical to you.

it doesn't matter where it came from, it's still 4 billion years old

says who? radiometric dating? ill bet if you carbon dated it, it would come back a lot younger. oh thats right, charles lyell and charles darwin said it was a lot older so therefore it must be.
obviously the dating methods are selected to fit the theory.

and no you havent given any evidence against the earths magnetic decay supporting creation, you just threw the same stuff I already refuted.

no, it isn't. you're entirely misrepresenting the theory of evolution just to make evolution seem absurd...
which is basically the only way you can make such a well-established theory look that way.

oh its well established alright. tax funded and everything. problem is, its based on lies. everything taught in textbooks are lies and have been proven wrong. macro evolution doesnt happen at all. we are not descendants from bacteria, monkeys, starfish, etc... whatever the real organisms were, we are not descendants from them. humans come from humans and humans only. nothing else. same with every other kind of animal, they come from their own kind.

...and you just choose personal attacks.
i didn't ignore any supposed evidence, i systematically refuted it.

funny how no one else feels the same way. I personally attacked you... obviously you missed the point because there was no attack involved.

...i don't have to trust what a scientist said (unlike the people who are directly trusting what a book said), there is a mountain of evidence i can look at that supports it.

oh please share, use your polaroid and post some evidence.

...all you have is a bunch of claims that you cannot back up
you have no science, evolution is the only science here.

no evolution is granted credit when it shouldnt be.
I have science, you just ignore it. it offends you.

you throw a wrench in an engine you can seize the entire thing, and our small evidences that are undeniable throw your entire theory out the window. yet you still hang on only because there is nothing else to believe in.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Gravity clumps matter together. The clumped matter exerts more gravitational force and attracts yet more matter to itself. Thus we get dust-clouds, stars, planets and so on. Energy transforms matter. Some transformations last longer than others and are further transformed. These processes average out over the entire universe in thermodynamic terms, but at the scale on which we apprehend reality, its operations are discrete -- some arrangements of matter are locally preferred over others, certain systems become locally self-sustaining over long periods of time while others don't. The organization we see in the universe arises from -- in fact, is -- this localized selectivity. You would call that God. I just call it inevitable.

you put that together very eloquently.

there are problems with that theory which does have evidence to back it up. entropy comes to mind, the universe have an entropy from order to chaos. your right about clumping but that falls into entropy.

the problem with life is that it is astronomical in its complexity which is so obviously contrary to entropy

the ONLY way some scientist have tried to explain around this is emergence. but emergence is not that simple either. for emergence to work there has to be rules that change the smaller components in a certain way. non living mater does not have dna to provide those intrusctions.

Natural selection and abiogenesis are not processes with a goal in mind. They are no more teleological than the law of gravity.

im not sure i agree with that.. i always thought of aiogenesis more as reverse engineering

Claiming 'God created life' is only unscientific if you offer no valid evidence for it. Thus we return to the thread topic -- proponents of intelligent design must admit their defeat, at least till now, since they have been unable to offer any unfalsifiable proof of this claim.

but there is a catch, how would you prove that god (or something) was involved? what would the evidence look like?

1 we have a process that violates a law of physics (life)

2 we cant replicate the processes of abiogenesis we theorize (even in controled environments)

3 we have a whole fossil record that admittedly has hole in it.

4 we can explain why man is so far more advanced than the animal kingdom (in all aspects of intelligence)

personally to me that is evidence pointing to a creator.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



"...carbon 14 dating isn't used on things that were burnt unless they're dating a fire and solar flux would have absolutely no effect on radioactive decay

and how would alter potassium-argon dating or any of the other radiometric dating methods? "

Wow for a so called scientist type, you have no idea how C14 is formed do you.....

C14 is assumed to be formed by a constant "growth" C14 into the cell of living tissue based on a constant sunshine factor, and can be screwed up by variation in solar output, er (sunspots, flares). Next C14 is also affected by fire, that means not direct fire just close-to fire.

The Potassium-argon method has similar issues.......

If such dating methods were truely scientific, they would not be expressed in ranges of years. An assumed approximation of age.......These guesses are usually in the range of 100's of years..........

If such science was used to orbit the shuttle, it would go to the moon or mars and be deemed close enough...........

reply to post by Methuselah


Just because you think it's reason doesn't make it so. Clearly you ignored a metric buttload of evidence for evolution, and clung on to flimsy wishes regarding creationism. There is no logical way anyone can weigh up the evidence for both and pick creationism (hint: because there is no evidence at all for creationism, and a heck of a lot for evolution).

So, please don't try to pull that "I'm a rational creationist" stuff, as that's a contradiction in terms, regardless of how sincere you feel about it.

Originally posted by heliosprime
Wow for a so called scientist type, you have no idea how C14 is formed do you.....

C14 is assumed to be formed by a constant "growth" C14 into the cell of living tissue based on a constant sunshine factor, and can be screwed up by variation in solar output, er (sunspots, flares). Next C14 is also affected by fire, that means not direct fire just close-to fire.

...carbon-14 is formed in the troposphere and stratosphere, about 9+ km above the earth's surface...

in the human body it's present in the same amount that it is in the atmosphere

www.talkorigins.org...

read up on radiocarbon dating, please

If such dating methods were truely scientific, they would not be expressed in ranges of years. An assumed approximation of age.......These guesses are usually in the range of 100's of years..........

science can only be so precise.
what you're saying is like throwing out a measurement in inches because it's not precise to the nanometer, which is ridiculous.

If such science was used to orbit the shuttle, it would go to the moon or mars and be deemed close enough...........

bleh, not at all the same thing...especially considering that you're comparing a margin of error of less than 1% to a margin of error of several thousand percent...

Originally posted by miriam0566
there are problems with that theory which does have evidence to back it up. entropy comes to mind, the universe have an entropy from order to chaos. your right about clumping but that falls into entropy.

Remember what I said: 'These processes average out over the entire universe in thermodynamic terms'. A decrease in entropy in one location is made up for by an equivalent increase elsewhere.

the problem with life is that it is astronomical in its complexity which is so obviously contrary to entropy

I'm glad you picked that phrase -- 'astronomical in its compexity'. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics operated the way you say, there would be no complex structure in the universe: no galaxies, stars or planets. Mass and energy would be equally distributed throughout space, and the Big Bang would have been immediately succeeded by the Big Fizzle; the universe as we know it would never have come into existence.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been accepted in science since the 1820s. If it contradicted the existence of the universe, it would hardly have lasted so long, would it?

the ONLY way some scientist have tried to explain around this is emergence.

This is incorrect, since there is nothing to 'explain around'.

Emergence is simply the issue of how complex systems, or systems interacting with other systems, can have properties not shared by their component parts. Emergent properties are not proof of a designer. Here is a paper on emergence which may help you understand better, though I'm afraid it's a bit technical.

im not sure i agree (that natural selection and abiogenesis are not processes with a goal in mind, no more teleological than the law of gravity). i always thought of abiogenesis more as reverse engineering

I am afraid there is no room for disagreement, only for misunderstanding, because these are strictly-defined terms in science and philosophy. We can't just use them to mean whatever we like.

how would you prove that god (or something) was involved (in the creation of life)? what would the evidence look like?

That is precisely the question I'm asking creationists on my Proof of ID thread.

In principle, it's easy: just demonstrate scientifically that such-and-such a phenomenon cannot have come about through the normal operations of nature or as a result of human intervention. Once these two operators are conclusively excluded, all you have left is God.

in the human body it's present in the same amount that it is in the atmosphere

uhm, have you ever been tested for C14? didnt think so.
this is an assumption, and ill bet you if you were to die tomorrow, if we carbon dated your body a year from now, the results would come back inaccurate. actually the tests would come back inaccurate no matter how long we waited to date your corpse due to the equilibrium factor.
Link 1
Link 2

funny how a few simple scientific facts can debunk your theory entirely.

Just because you think it's reason doesn't make it so. Clearly you ignored a metric buttload of evidence for evolution, and clung on to flimsy wishes regarding creationism. There is no logical way anyone can weigh up the evidence for both and pick creationism (hint: because there is no evidence at all for creationism, and a heck of a lot for evolution).

So, please don't try to pull that "I'm a rational creationist" stuff, as that's a contradiction in terms, regardless of how sincere you feel about it.

im sure my reply will fall on deaf ears, oh well ill give it another shot.

buttload of evidence for evolution? thats exactly what it is... a buttload. its crap! thanks for clearing that up for both of us. and yes, if you take into account, and not ignore, some simple scientific facts you will find that your evolution theory doesnt look so feasible anymore.
examples: magnetic decay and carbon14 equilibrium issue.
these are two solid facts that are ignored on purpose to sustain a dying theory.

there is more evidence for creation, plain and simple. some evidences may not be complete, and others may not be testable but all are based on scientific facts and theories.

again i will say, I used to believe in both creation and evolution until these evidences were presented to me. after that, evolution was out of the question. it already sounded dumb to begin with, and these few things just made it that much more stupid.
its not science, its fake.

I'm glad you picked that phrase -- 'astronomical in its compexity'. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics operated the way you say, there would be no complex structure in the universe: no galaxies, stars or planets. Mass and energy would be equally distributed throughout space, and the Big Bang would have been immediately succeeded by the Big Fizzle; the universe as we know it would never have come into existence.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been accepted in science since the 1820s. If it contradicted the existence of the universe, it would hardly have lasted so long, would it?

your making an assumption/claim you cant back up. the second law of thermo dynamics is pure science, its fact.
the law actually came to be accepted long before the big bang theory came into play url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory]wiki link[/url].
it didnt contradict the existance of the universe and it still doesnt, the big bang theory doesnt follow the laws that have been in place before its time. the big bang theory would have done exactly what you said, it would have never come into existence.

In principle, it's easy: just demonstrate scientifically that such-and-such a phenomenon cannot have come about through the normal operations of nature or as a result of human intervention. Once these two operators are conclusively excluded, all you have left is God.

wow im suprised that all the failed attempts to play God (make life in a controlled environment, etc) dont have you convinced.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Methuselah]

reply to post by Methuselah

funny how a few simple scientific facts can debunk your theory entirely.

I've been following your posts in this thread and your statements, whatever else they might be, certainly aren't scientific! But then, who could possibly be surprised by this?

If creationists had scientific evidence for their position, we would have seen it by now. But few creationists ever try to prove that God made the world; they just try to discredit the evidence for evolution. Why do you think that is? Whisper it: it's because Goddiditers have no proof of what they claim, only their need to believe that it is true.

You want science? Go to the thread I've been shamelessly promoting with links in this one. Discover what scientific proof really is, and how proponents of intelligent design should go about obtaining it. Then, if you still feel confident about your 'scientific facts', go ahead and take up the OP challenge.

Before you do, remember that one of your number has already tried to provide scientific proof of ID. His name is Michael Behe, his argument is 'irreducible complexity' and his best examples are 'molecular machines' such as rotating bacterial flagellae. His success rate so far? A big fat zero.

All the arguments you and your fellow IDers have been presenting in this thread -- all, without exception -- have been exploded and discredited many times. It's long since become tedious, having to repeat the same old refutations to the same dead canards. For pity's sake, come up with something fresh!

Originally posted by Astyanax
Remember what I said: 'These processes average out over the entire universe in thermodynamic terms'. A decrease in entropy in one location is made up for by an equivalent increase elsewhere.

thats not how entropy works. its universal. it gives us the perseption that time goes one way. and egg if dropped will always break, a broken egg will never assemble into a whole. order to chaos always unless interfered with

I'm glad you picked that phrase -- 'astronomical in its compexity'. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics operated the way you say, there would be no complex structure in the universe: no galaxies, stars or planets. Mass and energy would be equally distributedthroughout space, and the Big Bang would have been immediately succeeded by the Big Fizzle; the universe as we know it would never have come into existence.

not true, mass and energy being evenly distibuted is order, its also how the universe was moments after the big bang. galaxies and suns and planets are a rresult of the chaos

the ONLY way some scientist have tried to explain around this is emergence.

This is incorrect, since there is nothing to 'explain around'.

yes there is, life is reverse entropy. incredible order despite a push for chaos

Emergence is simply the issue of how complex systems, or systems interacting with other systems, can have properties not shared by their component parts. Emergent properties are not proof of a designer.

your right, i agree with you. never claimed it was. emergence is a facinating way in which something simple connects with other simples and forms into something complex with no designer.

im not sure i agree (that natural selection and abiogenesis are not processes with a goal in mind, no more teleological than the law of gravity). i always thought of abiogenesis more as reverse engineering

I am afraid there is no room for disagreement, only for misunderstanding, because these are strictly-defined terms in science and philosophy. We can't just use them to mean whatever we like.

surely you can see my reasoning though, abiogenesis is trying to explain how life can form by accident, independant of a creator correct? life exists, so we know that accident or god, we are here. isnt that reverse engineering?

how would you prove that god (or something) was involved (in the creation of life)? what would the evidence look like?

That is precisely the question I'm asking creationists on my Proof of ID thread.

In principle, it's easy: just demonstrate scientifically that such-and-such a phenomenon cannot have come about through the normal operations of nature or as a result of human intervention. Once these two operators are conclusively excluded, all you have left is God.

i agree with your reasoning... its logical. but i simply dont see evidence that life could exist through natural processes. its just too complex (even single cellular lifeforms)

reply to post by miriam0566

Hello, Miriam. I am sorry to have to tell you that your understanding of entropy, order, chaos and thermodynamics are completely erroneous. Until you rectify this, we cannot proceed with this discussion. But if you do rectify it, there will be no need for further discussion, because you will see quite clearly that life does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You must pardon me for being so blunt, but those really are the facts. If you would read up a little on thermodynamics and entropy instead of trusting to creationist websites and books for your 'scientific' information, you would immediately realize that it is so.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
You must pardon me for being so blunt, but those really are the facts. If you would read up a little on thermodynamics and entropy instead of trusting to creationist websites and books for your 'scientific' information, you would immediately realize that it is so.

you assume much. i dont read creationist literature.....

im not big on physics, the major book i read for physics is by briane green

is he a disreputable source?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

christiananswers.net...

NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by heliosprime


next?

excuse me sir or madame (not going to make any assumptions there), but your source seems to have things well...completely wrong.

www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

please, read up on your science before making such embarrassing remarks

reply to post by Astyanax


yeah i can tell your just pissed because of simple scientific facts that debunk your theory. you can say all you want that im ignorant, uneducated... whatever. its doesnt matter. the fact is, you continue to ignore obvious evidence and coninute to imply that your knowledge, along with all other evolutionists, is higher than ours because we present to you facts you are unwilling to accept.
just because you say that creationists still havent shown evidence of a young earth, doesnt mean that its true. we have provided a few simple facts, very easy to understand, that prove that the earth is not billions of years old/can be older than 30k years old.
there has been solid evidence that shows that the earth was never a hot molten mass. Halos.com has that answer.

there is plenty more to go around.

the only reason your other thread seems to have creationists up against the wall is simple.... you ignore the facts and pretend like they never exist. you theory is based on flawed assumption and wishful thinking.
you dont even stop to think about the posts I make, you go straight to assuming evolution is correct no matter what.

your not puzzled or looking for answers, you are afraid to let go of what you wish to be true.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


so your sources are never wrong? what if they are?
dont automatically assume that its impossible for them to be wrong. answer the question. what if they are wrong? and how are correct? what makes them correct?


[edit on 30-4-2008 by Methuselah]

Methuselah seems to be drowning in hypocrisy at the moment. It's amazing how you don't ask those very questions of your own beliefs.

You've not demonstrated anything other than your (admittedly fantastic) talent for cherry-picking your evidence. You cling to scientific evidence when it asks questions of theories you disagree with, yet ignore mounds of even-more-rigorous evidence that supports the very same theories. That's staggering.

And, the fact that you have theories you want to be true, as opposed to just wanting to know the truth, shows that you're not approaching this from a rational angle, essentially dallying with science to give your baseless nonsense the air of scientific credibility. Which you failed at, as what you post is hilarious.

Good luck with that thar ignorance! It seems to suit you very well.

reply to post by dave420


so are you going to point out where that occured or are you just going to continue to make that claim? you cant just start saying stuff and not give examples or point them out, as far as I can see, your throwing a verbal fit.

reply to post by Methuselah


In your last two posts, to Astyanax and madnessinmysoul. I pointed that out when I said "recently", and it was pretty obvious from what you posted that I was referring to those posts. You outlined what those folks should do, yet if you applied your own logic to your own beliefs, you'd have scuttled your own ship. Heck, it seems to be your one song: Scream from the roofs for others to bend over backwards to prove their points to you, while you wander through this discussion offering nothing to support your views, apart from circular logic, "misinformation" (I'm being polite), and hypocrisy.

But then you're the sort of person who bases their understanding on baseless assertions first written in the Bronze Age. So I guess a logical debate is out of the window. You appear to us how someone who bases their scientific knowledge on, say, Harry Potter, will look in 2,000 years.