Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

Originally posted by spy66

That's what happens when some one believes in a lie. Or cant tell between random and not random, or between creation and evolution.

natural evolution contains an element of randomness but it is very tightly controlled so the system its self is not random, as you keep insisting, it is strictly controlled and constrained by enviromental factors that guide it in a none intelligent manner

-------

ID among other things (such as IC) it includes is a fully none random evolutionary model, and attempts to explain the need for an intelligent creator to form the variety of species as seen today and in the fossil record

natural evolution, a scientific thoery based on the principles of breeding with variance and enviromental pressures to regulate the system used to explain both genetic and species diversity

thiestic evolution, see above with the inclusion of god as the creator but not direct guider of the evolutionary process

creationism, a belief that all living creatures were made as is in current form as recorded in the book of genesis, all biblical events took place exactly laid out in the bible and the earth is between 6-10,000 years old

progressive creationism, see above but with creatures once created becoming subject to intelligent driven evolution(either borrowed from or loaned to ID) and the world usually considered older then 6-10,000 years old

He is talking about a cause change theory. And that leaves out what is making the cause. That leaves out the main source.

prove theres a a main creator source and ill refine my thoughts

[edit on 26/12/08 by noobfun]

posting error

remove please mods ^_^

[edit on 26/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You show me an artists renderings from a guy who does nothing but ridicule creationists like the typical Atheist yet no matter what shape the damn thing is in IT IS STILL a damn FISH!

the 2 species we have alive today that live indifferent conditions to its older counterparts yes they are both still fish

but no one is saying that L. chalumnae and L. menadoensis were the species that addapted towards tetrapoidal existance

is it any suprise he ridicules creationists when they get it so wrong? he even gives examples of what they say and how they get it wrong

an artists impression of actual fossil finds, shouldnt be to hard to look them up and see the real fossils

And NO It ain't changed that MUCH!

compared to? other species of coelcanth? it varies quite a lot from other Coelacanth as that artists drawing shows they were a wide and very varied order of fish

Fossil record
Although now represented by only two known living species, as a group the coelacanths were once very successful with many genera and species that left an abundant fossil record from the Devonian to the end of the Cretaceous period, at which point they apparently suffered a nearly complete extinction. It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years, but, in fact, the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble the living species. The most likely reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters. Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossil record. This situation is still under investigation by scientists.

the two known living species appear to be fairly recent compared to the older species

Neither has cockroaches crocs, sharks, horseshoe crabs, dragon flys, house flys, poison ivy, and thousands of other creatures. You can say it was a transitional form but speculation is NOT evidence !

well no ones saying L. chalumnae is a transitional species to tetrapoids, in a way it still transitional as all species are transitional, where and what they are headed for is a different matter though

Crocodilia

Alligators and crocodiles are perhaps the most obvious candidates for a family tree with short branches leading back to the long-dead. They are birds' nearest living relatives, who are the most direct descendents of dinosaurs. While their basic body shape has stayed virtually unchanged over millions of years, their skulls and vertebrae have evolved to make them stronger and more agile in their present-day form. Today, there are 23 species of alligators and crocodiles, so they can hardly be held to a strict interpretation of the living fossil ideal. They are instead included because they are the only reptilian survivors of the Archosauria group, home to the dinosaurs

these have changed

home.entouch.net... this covers many plants and horse shoe crabs

if you compare you will see that they have all undergone changes, the level of change is dependant on how suited they are for thier enviroment, natural selection works as a conservation mechanism if a creature or plant is well suited to the enviroment it finds itself, it is still subject to change(as can bee seen when comparrisons are carried out) but those changes will be smaller refinements as larger changes would lessen the creatures fitness and so they would die off

The only thing we see here is the typical micro evolution or variation already coded in its DNA! That article was pathetic! Oh and OF course it is because we "Creationists" just don't understand evolution!

new species thats a macro change from a cumulation of micro level changes within breeding populations

This is as silly as Mels link to the other belligerent dip stick that calls AiG a liar because he didn't talk about the cranium of the titaalik!

you think its odd he doesnt talk about a major feature but spends much of his time talking about a part he havnt even found? i do

WHO CARES!

every one should

He doesn't bring up a part of it that is for all intents and purposes IRRELEVANT, I mean as if that matters. You want to say all these things took place in small gradual changes over time when that is just like saying GOD DID IT! Given enough time, given enough time,

comparative anatomy and dated fossils give an indication, ill agree not 100% conclusive but it certainly isnt trying to fit the square peg in the round hole

Given enough time, ELVIS would be back if you want to use that kind of logic!

id love to see this one explained further

Obstacles to the Transition from Water to Land

The profound physiological differences between land and marine mammals are so vastly different requiring such amazing changes that would almost certainly HAVE to be pre coded.

mammals water to land? umm wrong way mammals evolved on land then went back into the water,

and they as terestrial then fresh water not marine, change in enviroment or gradual change in territory would easily allow for the changes

just like otters, started in fresh water and expanded out to sea

www.edwardtbabinski.us...

plenty of stuf about thier evolution there with lots of other links to go play with

Respiratory system: Fish cannot survive out of water for very long, maybe a few minutes. If that isn't enough they would have to survive on land too! Now they would have to evolve lungs and they would have to do this rather suddenly! . It is impossible these HUGE and dramatic changes could happen in the same creature. Even if they could, we have to account for them happening at the same time, again, WHAT ARE THE ODDS!

ummm spiracle and basic lung? as seen in tiktaalik and modern lungfish to work alongside thier gills

there are plenty of fish with several methods to substitue air into thier respitory system to counter low oxygenated enviroments

so if its a supplemrnatry system then dont have to flop out on land then suddenly grow lungs but they can use that supplymentary system to allow them to travel on land once they have it

Oh I almost forgot, if that wasn't so freakin far fetched enough, we also have to consider that all this happens by what?

BY CHANCE!

there we go with the total chance sillyness again

Certainly NO evidence of ANY of these changes have occurred in Coelacanth NONE of them in Fact, and they happen to be the kind necessary for this thing to be what evolutionists used to think it was well on its way to becoming.

certainly not in the two modern species .. but living in deep water it wouldnt be very beneficial now would it?

For example, some quasi fish reptile creature would have certainly lived in the past that had evolved reptilian characteristics in addition to the fish characteristics they already had. If such creatures in a transitional stage had been around, they would be so handicapped, they'd never have survived.

ummm semi reptile?

fish > tetrapod > reptile

wait so a fish that had some tetrapoid charachteristics would be so handicapped it would die?

so the ability to orientate just its head not its whole body as found in fish would be a handicap?

more fleaxable fins due to increased bone joints to allow greater fin control would be a handicap?

Example that silly explanation you cite for how the human eye just happened to come about by sheer luck,,

ummm just happened to come about? and by luck?

it came about by continued refinement, the continued refinment driven by the eyes better ability to find find spot predators and generally be a lot better then just bieng able to tell which direction the sun is

no sheer luck, no pure chance

natural selection applied to advantageous change

This is the logical fallacy you use as "advantageous coincidences being added on to one another." The fact is that there is no mechanism in nature that might be expected to select advantageous coincidences and hold on to them in order to add them to one another. Natural Selection can not THINK NOOB!

wow really?

isnt that the whole point? the very fact the creature has an improved ability to survive predation and find more food increases its fitness so improving its chances to breed, some of its young will have a poorer version some the same and some better, the better thrive the same survive the poorer get eaten repeat repeat gradual improvment follows

natural selection doesnt have to think, becasue its just a term to equate to selctive pressure from predation enviroment and breeding potential

The eye sockets form first in the embryo's skull in the mother's womb. The eyes are later sited within these sockets

so becasue it does that now it must always have done it? now that a huge assumption

there are many irreducably complex systems in nature, but im using it in the biological sense here, while it is currently irriducably complex it wasnt always that way

no super intelligent atoms to do magic thats closer to creationism then evolution

at every stage of these lucky lucky genetic screw up that just HAPPEN to be beneficial EVERY TIME

no

theres plenty of benign mutations that do nothing and just as many negative as posative, but the benign lead to negative results and get weedled out

its called extinction, either on an individual basis or the entire species if it cant adapt quick enough



[edit on 26/12/08 by noobfun]

part 2
---------------------

its not always beneficial but those are the ones that get to stick around, so those are the ones we see today

and the ones that dont get to stick around in terms of whole species becasue they are unfit to the enviroment we find in the fossil record as extinct species

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Well According to YOU it can!

that would be a strawman, based not on what i am saying but on a misinterpretation

infact the eye socket(of sorts came before the functional lensed eye in terms of evolution, but becasue our dna codes for the eye we now have its builds the socket and eye for the one we have

ill skip all the stuff based on the strawman and give you a nice video to watch to break up all my text

its about irreducably complex systems which is the game your trying to play

Because for some reason, all these eyes needed to be close to the brain and lo and behold!! All of them are!

not really they could function anywhere on the body, but they have an advantage bieng on the head

it would be great to see behind you, but thats no help if you cant see where your going

When you consider that this example is just one of many where LUCK seems to get more done having more an advantage over design which by the way would be on the side of Occam's razor,

apply occams razor to natural cause/supernatural cause

it comes out natural everytime

when you consider that this kind of "dumb luck" happens as you believe, hardly making any mistakes!

it makes plenty ... they die

broadcast on the news theres a tidal wave comming and see how many people go to the beach to watch it ... there will always be a few

natural slection in action

Conventional wisdom would suggest we would find oodles of messed up muffled up mangled mistakes by nature trying out the many failed species that natural selection by its definition would certainly have to create but we don't.

birth defects? genetic disease and syndromes? if they gave an advantage and didnt lead to death they would get to stick around

No what we find are creatures that are fully intact.

they should always be fully intact for what they are, no 1/2 a modern lung, but a primative lung(we find these)

not 1/2 a human eye but a primative eye (and we find plenty of these)

The bacteria you used in another example proves nothing it is STILL Bacteria. To Date: we have never observed REAL TRANS SPECIATION PERIOD!

what like dogs giving birth to cats?

www.museumofhoaxes.com...

what is trans speciation? please what part of evolution says somthing should suddenly become somthing totally different?

procreation with variation everything should look similar to its parents(but not exactly the same) and thats how it works

Even the idiot lawyer who took the mouse trap missing a part where it would no longer work and showed everyone what a wonderful tie clip it makes, does NOT refute complexity because it took the mind of an attorney to steer it into what it could be as if Natural Selection has such an advantage, but it doesn't and the mouse trap illustration STANDS in light of that fact alone!

wasnt that first done by a scientist?

thought it was, but it shows how somthing that is currently irriducably complex doesnt alaways have to be that way in the past as we find ith many many things such as the flagellum

In light of what I have just given in all its drop dead common sense, the ideas of life coming about without an architect, without a designer, without any plan or blue print, is absolutely and categorically ABSURD!

maybe try using what science actually says not your own corrupted versions (e.g. strawmen army)

The ONLY thing more preposterous than the GTE is Theistic Evolution!

yay judge judy of religeon is back

It is littered with frauds hoax after hoax after hoax in fact I hear of a new hoax passed as facts of evolution later to be discovered as just another hoax almost every month.

every month? so what was last months? the month before? the month before?

me thinks you exagerate mre then a little, and didnt we already do this in another thread?

This is a Science that rewards crooks like haekle with posthumous awards when he should be cited as one of the worst con artists in the history of Science.

actually it drags the crooks out into the publiuc spot light and holds them there for all to see as the bad men they are

more of the same so ill skip, there are some hoaxers and science gives them a good thrashing for it if they are scientists, if the hoaxes arnt it holds out the hoax and calls it what it is in the public arena

if it was a big sham of haoxes and lies they would keep it to the selves and not bother telling people, then theres nothing to wave at them and call them names

but it doesnt agree with your book so obviously it must be wrong(even though you spent several posts saying you were an evolutionist in another thread)

To save you from digging more into this ill just say OK. You can believe this and ill believe my theory. That settles everything.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You want to say all these things took place in small gradual changes over time when that is just like saying GOD DID IT! Given enough time, given enough time,

BULL!

Given enough time, ELVIS would be back if you want to use that kind of logic!

lol... That's exactly how our universe works: small gradual changes. It does NOT work by: "God did it, and it was so". THAT is illogical .

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Oh I almost forgot, if that wasn't so freakin far fetched enough, we also have to consider that all this happens by what?

BY CHANCE!

GIVE ME A BREAK!

LOL...
I criticized you for not understanding evolution because you used the word chance before.. then you came back and said you did not believe that evolution was chance... But now you, again, have no idea what evolution is.
Evolution IS: Cause/Reaction.
Your God IS chance.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
In light of what I have just given in all its drop dead common sense, the ideas of life coming about without an architect, without a designer, without any plan or blue print, is absolutely and categorically ABSURD!

lol... If that's absurd, then how absurd would it be for a God to exist? If the chances of us existing without a creator is 1 in a trillion trillion (even ignoring that evolution is not based on simple chance but rather cause/reaction), then the chances of a being who is infinitely more complex than us would be 1 in infinity...
If our existence is absurd, then your God's existence is infinitely absurd lol...

Originally posted by infolurker
No, you don't get it.... you will see illustrations all the time showing a fish to a crocodile for example with one or more intermeidate illustrations.. what your not being told is the so call intermediate illustration is "made up"

see these pics

www.harunyahya.com...

New specimens of fossils are constantly being unearthed all over the world. The number of fossils so far discovered exceeds 100 million. Scientific institutions and academies examine these fossils in detail. Yet as a result of all these endeavors, not a single intermediate life form that might represent evidence for evolution has ever been found.

New life forms also appeared suddenly and with complete, flawless structures in the ages after the Cambrian. Basic groups such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals each appeared on Earth in a single moment and in flawless forms. Not a single intermediate form of the kind hoped for by evolutionists exists among them.

(From arbiture-- Sorry creationist gang wrong and wrong again. No evolution is not "made up". And all life of all kinds did not appear by magic, at the same instant in time. And yes there are intermediate stages between life forms from different time periods. Sometimes during the same time frame there can be variations on the same species living at the same time. This actually is quite common.

Unfortunetly, there is a serious misunderstanding on what evolution really is. First, classic Darwinisim that all life developes, in a plodding, slow manner, that may take many generations to affect any visible change in a life form is not the way life always evolves. Natural selection was a brilliant act of deductive reasoning by Darwin in a period of time when the use of the "scientific method" was in its infancy. First Darwin was a very good observer, who knew that to come to a concluson required independent conformation by others. He had the additional problem of trying to get others to understand what he was talking about, and that took time. There was no knowledge of genetics in the sense of how it operated via molecular biology and that you can have RADICAL mutations that happen in one generation. Its called punctuated equuilibrium.


I also have people say such idiocy as "wait a minute! diden't you say something was true yesterday, and now your changing your mind something else is true!? No, rocket scientist (not) we are USING our mind and guess what?! From time to time our methods and instruments improve, our conclusions are based on greater accuracy and the ability to not be afraid of; "I came to the wrong conclusion" As well as what do you think, but most important, why? As far as evolution being a fact and no longer a theory we have over 150 years of solid evidence that it is indeed true. We have improved methods of independendent evaluation. I can prove evolution exists, you may have heard of antibiotic resistance? Expose bacteria to a sub-lethal dose, further generations become immune and it acquires resistance. New generations, will develope antibiotic immunity. Thats evolution, at least a simple example. I could ask you to prove God exists, and you will say prove he doesent. But then again it is impossible to prove a negative in any scientific or any area really. Can you prove, that Santa Claus doesen't exist? But then religion is not science, its based on faith. No matter how much the creationists try to dress up this nonsense even a magic wand, chanting or insencse won't turn it into science, no matter matter how much one would wish it.

Nature does does not opperate by individual concern for any one or group of species. A good example is the"Gaia" concept, that looks at the operative mechanisim of Earth as one gigantic life form. In my view Gaia is not just the life forms that live within Earths ecosystem. But that which maintains homeostasis, or stability that keeps Earth a living planet. Such as the level of gravity we have that allow the specific life we have to exist. A large natural moon and its effect on surface winds that prevent a constant 200 mph "breeze" blowing accross the planets surface, the ozone layer so everything does not have armor plates, along with "deflector shields". Then the effect of our our magnetic field on other types of radiation and affecting bird migration. Etc, etc

To me evolution operates not by "intelligent design", but something even more fantastic, indeed more beautiful. As one componant of Gaia I think the Earth operates using a mechanisim humans may develope in the distant future. A kind of "super instinct".Today we are impressed because we use logic and reason. No human being as far as I know is born with this. For us this has to be taught. Before this we were cursed only with superstition, and we feard our own shadow, along with everything else. I hope in the future religion is not a curse, but what it was meant to be. A blessing. Something we just give because like instict, with out judgement, it just comes naturally.

I heard about some some who have been near so called aliens, not being being able to describe, let alone understand behaviour that seems totaly unfathonable and invokes a primal fear that also defies description. I wonder if that fear is due to coming in contact with an animal, but that operates at the superior level of super instinct. Such a combination would scare the hell out of me. Just a thought about aliens, evolution, and God.







www.harunyahya.com...

There is no difference between this 54- to 37million-year-old fossilized plane tree leaf and leaves of the same species alive today.

This 50-million-year-old fossilized bowfin is proof that these fish, still alive today, have remained unchanged for tens of millions of years

The distinguishing feature of these fossil crabs discovered in Denmark is that they are discovered in round concretions that rise to the surface of the ground at specific times of the year. These fossils, consequently known as "crab balls," generally date back to the Oligocene Period (37 to 23 million years ago).

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 18-12-2008 by GAOTU789] [/quot

Originally posted by noobfun


but no one is saying that L. chalumnae and L. menadoensis were the species that addapted towards tetrapoidal existance

is it any suprise he ridicules creationists when they get it so wrong? he even gives examples of what they say and how they get it wrong

an artists impression of actual fossil finds, shouldnt be to hard to look them up and see the real fossils

No it shouldn't be to much trouble yet that is what I get from most evolutionists is MORE BULL CRAP ART WORK.

Funny thing is, the photos look DAYUM FAMILIAR!

well no ones saying L. chalumnae is a transitional species to tetrapoids, in a way it still transitional as all species are transitional, where and what they are headed for is a different matter though

Crocodilia

Today, there are 23 species of alligators and crocodiles, so they can hardly be held to a strict interpretation of the living fossil ideal. They are instead included because they are the only reptilian survivors of the Archosauria group, home to the dinosaurs

There you go again, equivocating micro evolution to mean macro. The FACT is, NOOB! They ARE STILL ALLIGATORS! You said it yourself, 23 species of what?

ALLIGATORS! That's what!

Ya know what else, is all of them show no signs of changing into birds, mice, deer or the mug wump or big foot or anything other than perhaps another species of Alligator. This is the same kind of variation already seen in DNA and no one is arguing this area of evolution but this doesn't prove macro evolution.

new species thats a macro change from a cumulation of micro level changes within breeding populations

Oh really? Tell me hotshot, what did we look like 3 million years ago? Did we have two feet two hands? Were we walking on all fours having four legs? and before that say another three million years ago?

you think its odd he doesnt talk about a major feature but spends much of his time talking about a part he havnt even found? i do

No more than they do talking about the things they say they haven't found but I really didn't see that much to whine about. That punk sounded more like he was just angry another evil creationist proved titaalik as a transitional is a crock

comparative anatomy and dated fossils give an indication, ill agree not 100% conclusive but it certainly isnt trying to fit the square peg in the round hole ,

Well given enough time it will evolve to fit eh NOOBIE

mammals water to land? umm wrong way mammals evolved on land then went back into the water, .

Says who! Darwits? The fact is, you missed the point no matter which direction they are saying they went this year

and they as terestrial then fresh water not marine, change in enviroment or gradual change in territory would easily allow for the changes just like otters, started in fresh water and expanded out to sea

Big Deal Noob, they obviously had the capability to handle it all along but until they start turning into fish, it means nothing. Spare me the whale tale it is just so much more BULL CRAP and again it is NOT evidence it is speculation.

there we go with the total chance sillyness again.

Ya THINK! Because that is EXACTLY what I say when you consider what reason a fish had suddenly started budding a pair of lungs from an alleged beneficial mutation that seems to keep happening. The ones with the bigger buds for some reason or another, were able to meet more female fishies and the chicks dig male fishies with those lung buds and so the more popular lung budded fishies had more offspring spreading that bud gene to the next generation and lo and behold another mutation happens to the fishies in this too lucky to be true family of fish and they grow some more parts that just happen to fit well with what will someday in the next million years or so become LUNGS! But right now they are still gradual niblets added to the lung buds. Later after a million years of swimming around with these useless buds on buds that really don't add to its survival any, yet ANOTHER Freak mutation happens to the budded Big mouth Bass and lo and behold! This Mutation is yet ANOTHER BENEFICIAL KIND! As now this thing has started growing a pair of sponge like bronchial tubes that just happen to allow this fish to last a tad longer out on the beach where it likes to lay out in the hot sun getting a freakin tan on its scales. This risky behavior makes this fish survive better so it can experience yet even more gradual changes allowing it to last longer and longer on the beach. Problem is,, it can't get around to well on land like the other land lovers do with their legs that can run on sane while Mr fish flops around.

No worries, This is this family tree of fishies LUCKY Millenia! Because why!

You guessed it!

It has another freakin mutation in one of its spawned in speedos sons. Yeah this male was hatched with the lungs and lucky lucky mutations where nubs started growing on its rear underside quarters! This may not seem like much now but hey with this fishes luck and Dawkins Dumb Dim Witted Imagination, THIS guy I predict will experience a direct line of descendants with them gradually developing those new nubs on its hind fins back there into FEET!

Yeah sounds pretty STUPID! doesn't it!

That is EXACTLY how all evolutionists sound to me

So when you say :

no sheer luck, no pure chance natural selection applied to advantageous change

wow really?

I SAY READ THE FISH STORY AGAIN NOOOOOB

natural selection doesnt have to think, becasue its just a term to equate to selctive pressure from predation enviroment and breeding potential

Yes yes like the beaks on the Galapagos finch where the thicker bigger beaked birds had survived better with them being able to crack bigger nuts and we all agree with that variation but the fact is the beaks proved to go back to their original size and even if this were a genetic permanent change, ya know what we have at the end of all this??

FINCH!

No one in the whole world, even in the most advanced laboratory, has succeeded in making a living cell from non-living material,

Now I can either say someone did it or God did it, but the LAST thing Ill believe is that,

IT did it,

Where were you when I fell from grace
Frozen heart, an empty space
Something's changing, it's in your eyes
Please don't speak, you'll only lie
I found treasure not where I thought
Peace of mind can't be bought
Still I believe

I just hang on
Suffer well
Sometimes it's hard
It's hard to tell

An angel led me when I was blind
I said take me back, I've changed my mind
Now I believe
From the blackest room, I was torn
You called my name, our love was born
So I believe

I just hang on
Suffer well
Sometimes it's hard
It's hard to tell

I just hang on
Suffer well
Sometimes it's hard
So hard to tell

Originally posted by TruthParadox
LOL...
I criticized you for not understanding evolution because you used the word chance before.. then you came back and said you did not believe that evolution was chance... But now you, again, have no idea what evolution is.
Evolution IS: Cause/Reaction.
Your God IS chance.

Ha ha yeah and last year it was random mutation and natural selection, before that it was random selection and environmental pressures and all the way back to something very similar to lamarkian lamers logic. Look slick, I have forgot more evolutionary BS then you'll ever know, USING the word chance while not believing the evolutionary crap shoot isn't too hard of a nexus to make if you try.

(even ignoring that evolution is not based on simple chance but rather cause/reaction)

sounds like cause and effect to me sherlock.

umm what are the chances something will cause a reaction where life comes from non life? Here let me re-word it.

is there a chance that a reaction will come from a given cause?

No chance huh?? Yeah riiight.

lol... If that's absurd, then how absurd would it be for a God to exist? If the chances of us existing without a creator is 1 in a trillion trillion (even ignoring that evolution is not based on simple chance but rather cause/reaction), then the chances of a being who is infinitely more complex than us would be 1 in infinity...
If our existence is absurd, then your God's existence is infinitely absurd lol...

If there is one chance in a trillion trillion that life will form on a planet then that is pretty slim odds but if a God who is infinite with infinitely more intelligence than we have, then he also has an infinite number of solutions with an infinite amount of time ( that means more than just a big number) he has an infinite number of chances to make his chances one to one shot odds and an infinite amount of times.

You see, probability doesn't have memory.

So you are wrong, your best odds are

never bet against

GOD



[edit on 26-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi

No it shouldn't be to much trouble yet that is what I get from most evolutionists is MORE BULL CRAP ART WORK.

like i say whant me to find the fossils them selves for you?

will take a couple of minutes online ... what will you object to next?

There you go again, equivocating micro evolution to mean macro. The FACT is, NOOB! They ARE STILL ALLIGATORS! You said it yourself, 23 species of what?

ALLIGATORS! That's what!

sorry didnt equate it to any level of change so just making it up as we go? again?

so just alligators? no crocodiles? garial? etc?

and why would they suddenly become somthing entirely different when they are so well adapted to the enviorment

i think its you not understandin macro evolution as you expect a crocodile to become llama for no perticular reason

Ya know what else, is all of them show no signs of changing into birds, mice, deer or the mug wump or big foot or anything other than perhaps another species of Alligator.

yes you just highlighted perfectly its the above

evolution directs species to become refined for thier enviroment, why would somthing thats taken millions and millions of years of refeinment that lives in areas its extremly well suited too suddenly change? changes in enviorment will lead to more extreme and faster paced changes or extinction if they are unable to adapt quick enough

once somthing becomes fit to its enviromental needs evolution works as a conservational mechanism preventing large scale change that will lessen the creatures fitness

this is why modern ceolcanths are similar but not the same as one older family of ceolcanth, they live in deep water enviroments that are low on predation and changing enviromental factors so they have very little enviromental pressure to drive change

This is the same kind of variation already seen in DNA and no one is arguing this area of evolution but this doesn't prove macro evolution.

deffine just what you think macro evolution is?

you keepsaying somthing isnt macro evolution when by sciences deffinition it is

Oh really? Tell me hotshot, what did we look like 3 million years ago?

well i wasnt born 3 million years ago so didnt look like anything

Did we have two feet two hands? Were we walking on all fours having four legs? and before that say another three million years ago?

based on current homonid finds

3 million years ago our ancestors were astralopithicus afarensis or kenyanthropus plalyops

6 million years ago sahelanthropus tchadensis or orrorin tugenesis

No more than they do talking about the things they say they haven't found but I really didn't see that much to whine about. That punk sounded more like he was just angry another evil creationist proved titaalik as a transitional is a crock

it think its more at the absurdity he ignores major features like it actually had a neck and spends so much time talking about things that only he seems to know(as fact) because everyone else is honest enough to admit we havnt found that rear end, which is why you wont find scientific papers describing its pelvis arangment beyond specualtion(and saying its just that)

so he is making things up and portraying them as fact and you see nothing wrong with that? isnt that the very same claim you try and level at science?

Well given enough time it will evolve to fit eh NOOBIE

pegs dont breed with variances and are not subject to enviromental pressure ... so no the round peg will be a round peg until its damaged

Says who! Darwits? The fact is, you missed the point no matter which direction they are saying they went this year

this year?

sorry its been the same for quite a while now .. well it was the same back in the 70's so ... and i cant be bothered to look back past there

fish > tetrapods > reptiles

but why let honesty get in the way .... *sigh*

Big Deal Noob, they obviously had the capability to handle it all along but until they start turning into fish, it means nothing.

whales are fish?

sorry think the red mist is taking over and your getting even more confused

Ya THINK! Because that is EXACTLY what I say when you consider what reason a fish had suddenly started budding a pair of lungs from an alleged beneficial mutation that seems to keep happening.

same thing is found in low oxygen water enviroments around the world today

quite a few amazonian fish can breath both fresh air and water diffused oxygen becasue the enviroment has a very low oxygen content for large chunks of the year

and still not pure random chance

rest of that is strawman giberish

Yeah sounds pretty STUPID! doesn't it!

yes what your saying sounds really stupid .......

shame thats not what evolution actually says more straw (again do you live in america's corn belt to have such large bails of hay to hand?)

That is EXACTLY how all evolutionists sound to me

awwww what a shame *sob*

maybe remove the Ken Ham patent anti-science ear plugs

wow really?

I SAY READ THE FISH STORY AGAIN NOOOOOB

why its a strawman

silly, wrong and generally what you would expect from someone who says evolution is wrong but doesnt know what it really is

still waiting for your deffintion of macro evolution i asked for ummm another thread and about 5 posts back

Yes yes like the beaks on the Galapagos finch where the thicker bigger beaked birds had survived better with them being able to crack bigger nuts and we all agree with that variation but the fact is the beaks proved to go back to their original size and even if this were a genetic permanent change, ya know what we have at the end of all this??

FINCH!

umm i even know the study your talking about, and yes short term changes were observed when enviromental pressure changed so did the average beak size

what would happen if the enviromental pressure didnt change back after just a few years, or increased so even larger stronger beaks were required

and evolution says it should be just that way

after all birds are avarian reptiles, still reptiles

No one in the whole world, even in the most advanced laboratory, has succeeded in making a living cell from non-living material,

deffine living?

self forming?
self replicating?
self organising?
uses energy?
adapts to its enviroment?
feeds on other cells?

szostak labs my friend, proto cells do all that and more

Now I can either say someone did it or God did it, but the LAST thing Ill believe is that,

IT did it,

well thats your opinion and your entitled to hold it no matter how wierd or wrong those opinions maybe, but could you keep your opinions to your self were talking about scientific matters where evidence and testing is much more important

p.s. nice ad-homonim count im impressed... new perssonal record?

[edit on 27/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Ha ha yeah and last year it was random mutation and natural selection,

natural selection is a casue and effect system, so the same as it has been for years

before that it was random selection and environmental pressures

natural selection is a casue and effect system based on enviormental pressures so again same as it has been for years

I have forgot more evolutionary BS then you'll ever know,

then try learning some real evolutionary theroy instead of ken ham/kent hovind classics

umm what are the chances something will cause a reaction where life comes from non life? Here let me re-word it.

you better your not talking about evolution anymore

is there a chance that a reaction will come from a given cause?

in chemistry(abiogenesis)? yes

infact its less a chance more a known and predictable reaction

If there is one chance in a trillion trillion that life will form on a planet then that is pretty slim odds

not really considering all the possible planets that statistics(you know they ones your making up with trillions and trillions) says probabily exist the odds of it occuring on 1 or more planets is quite good

and we only so far know of it on one, ours so even probability says theres life on a planet somewhere even if it only ours

heres a video or two for you to ignore

it addresses probability and evolution and shows why 1:trillions and trillions is easy for evolution (even if you have just made it up like you did)


again from a guy with a p.hd in Molecular Neuroscience

but if a God who is infinite with infinitely more intelligence than we have, then he also has an infinite number of solutions with an infinite amount of time ( that means more than just a big number) he has an infinite number of chances to make his chances one to one shot odds and an infinite amount of times.

but unfortunatley you would need to prove god exists for any of that probability to be anything other then made up assumption, time in our universe also isnt eternal or infinate we know how long its had to a reasonable margin of error

and your also forgeting the possability of other gods

with an infinate number of possible gods, the chance that you have picked the right one is 1:infinity

which are extremly worse odds then anything youve presented so far

god could then have an infinate level of power, so 1:infinty again of bieng omnipotent

same for eternal, same for omiscient

a string of 1:billions odds is always going to better then a string of 1:infinty odds

You see, probability doesn't have memory.

rna/dna does how handy is that

never bet against

death

thought it was always bet on black?

trying pascal's wagers is lame it only takes into account 2 possables from the infinate amount of possable so is its self a logical fallacy




[edit on 27/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Ha ha yeah and last year it was random mutation and natural selection, before that it was random selection and environmental pressures and all the way back to something very similar to lamarkian lamers logic. Look slick, I have forgot more evolutionary BS then you'll ever know, USING the word chance while not believing the evolutionary crap shoot isn't too hard of a nexus to make if you try.

Well you clearly have no idea what evolution is. Maybe you should read up on it before arguing against others who have.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

(even ignoring that evolution is not based on simple chance but rather cause/reaction)

sounds like cause and effect to me sherlock.

Yep... that's what I said...

Originally posted by Aermacchi
umm what are the chances something will cause a reaction where life comes from non life? Here let me re-word it.

Yeah, see - there again - evidence that you know nothing about evolution.
What you're referring to is abiogenesis. The origins of life were extremely unlikely, if you're looking at our galaxy alone. Once you take into account all of the billions of galaxies out there, it's really not that far fetched at all. Also, many scientists believe there are an infinite number of parallel deminsions which would give life an infinite number of chances to form.
Now then... since we're talking about cause/reaction and the origins of life, what are the chances that an infinitely complex being would simply pop into existence as opposed to a simple organism which evolves?

Originally posted by Aermacchi
is there a chance that a reaction will come from a given cause?

No chance huh?? Yeah riiight.

Evolution is not based on chance, because once there is life, natural selection takes over. That's not chance... It's not chance that many creatures on earth share similar traits: eyes, ears, and mouths for example. If it were chance, then that would be absurd that we should all evolve with similar attributes - but it's not chance because it's based on something - our environment.
Many creationists use the argument that we are so alike that we must have the same creator. In a sense, they're right. We have the same 'creator' - Earth, and we have evolved to fit it.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
If there is one chance in a trillion trillion that life will form on a planet then that is pretty slim odds but if a God who is infinite with infinitely more intelligence than we have, then he also has an infinite number of solutions with an infinite amount of time ( that means more than just a big number) he has an infinite number of chances to make his chances one to one shot odds and an infinite amount of times.

lol... that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about how God came to be. Of course you 'solve' this by saying he always existed, but that doesn't solve the problem. I could say that life has always existed in the cosmos - and has simply spread from planet to planet - but I'm sure you wouldn't take that for an answer.
I'm talking about an infinitely complex being simply poofing into existence with no cause.
If you want to talk about 'absurd', then there it is buddy.

I just find it ironic that you should talk about the unlikelyhood of us evolving, and yet when someone talks about the probabilities of an infinitely complex being existing, you have nothing of substance to say.

My advice to you: be honest with yourself.
Look at all the contradictions in your Bible instead of ignoring them. Think about the whole thing logically instead of using 'faith'. Look at evolution in an attempt to understand it rather than disprove it.
I thought evolution was silly for the longest time as well. But that was only because I was a creationist trying to disprove it. Once I started being honest with myself, I found that it makes a lot of sense and has a mountain of evidence to back it.

Originally posted by TruthParadox


Well you clearly have no idea what evolution is. Maybe you should read up on it before arguing against others who have.

No friend, CLEARLY,, it is you and noob with your googled "edumacation" your constant equivocations using alligators as examples of creatures perfectly suited for their environments not needing any changes.

HOW convenient and isn't so for the Atheist faith.

He even takes my little storyline from my fishies tale and calls it a straw man HA HA HA HA Really now,, YA THINK!

Gawd how desperate do you need to get

Yep... that's what I said...

Yep I was there and yep saying it is cause and effect is just like saying

Originally posted by Aermacchi
umm what are the chances something will cause a reaction where life comes from non life? Here let me re-word it.

Yeah, see - there again - evidence that you know nothing about evolution.
What you're referring to is abiogenesis. The origins of life were extremely unlikely, if you're looking at our galaxy alone. Once you take into account all of the billions of galaxies out there, it's really not that far fetched at all. Also, many scientists believe there are an infinite number of parallel deminsions which would give life an infinite number of chances to form.

This again changes nothing about probability within each universe where the laws of Physics and entropy take place the probability is the same.

WHY?

Probability has no memory

Now then... since we're talking about cause/reaction and the origins of life, what are the chances that an infinitely complex being would simply pop into existence as opposed to a simple organism which evolves?

You mean a simple organism that just "pops into existence don't you?"

Originally posted by Aermacchi
is there a chance that a reaction will come from a given cause?

No chance huh?? Yeah riiight. If there is one chance in a trillion trillion that life will form on a planet then that is pretty slim odds but if a God who is infinite with infinitely more intelligence than we have, then he also has an infinite number of solutions with an infinite amount of time ( that means more than just a big number) he has an infinite number of chances to make his chances one to one shot odds and an infinite amount of times.

I just find it ironic that you should talk about the unlikelyhood of us evolving, and yet when someone talks about the probabilities of an infinitely complex being existing, you have nothing of substance to say.

Oh? Well allow me to elaborate.

When you said:

lol... that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about how God came to be. Of course you 'solve' this by saying he always existed, but that doesn't solve the problem. I could say that life has always existed in the cosmos - and has simply spread from planet to planet - but I'm sure you wouldn't take that for an answer.
I'm talking about an infinitely complex being simply poofing into existence with no cause.
If you want to talk about 'absurd', then there it is buddy.

No what is absurd is YOU pinning said absurdities on ME.

You see it isn't MY problem to solve as I have no problem with it, YOU DO, so lets get something straight genius. It was YOU, who used the words "infinitely more complex", now, if I am to follow YOUR description of GOD using YOUR word "Infinite", then I have no choice to describe nothing less than A God who is what?

INFINITE! That's what!

Now what is infinite? Now you know why I reminded you sherlock, that infinity is MORE than JUST a big number.

This suggests God had no begining and has no end in his "infinte complexity"

Now if you want to talk about a created God, then have at it, we have plenty of them, and OBVIOUSLY it is why you have the problem with this and why it is YOU who can NOT accept the terms of your description where I can. You just can't admit you screwed up in your attempts to be clever.

Just because you can't understand the difference between infinite and finite doesn't mean I can't make that distinction. Here Ill explain it as if you were a six year old. When you say something just poofs into existence! Then that suggests it had a what?

A BEGINING! THAT'S WHAT!

Now do you see the straw man you are making here?

You assume God was created and I do Not. You are the one giving the word "Infinite" a begining suggesting it must have "poofed" into existence, I'm not.

So don't blame me for the predicament you have just because I have framed my answer in the only way I could without it being an oxymoron. You are the one that suggested multiverses so I expect you to understand such quantum leaps as possibilities and nothing more and as Science and nothing less.

If you don't like my answer about God always existing, then don't purport to suggest one as infinite saying it is silly to suggest he just "poofed" into existence when I agree that couldn't have happened that way. If he is infinite I have NO choice but to assume he ALWAYS WAS!

If you can't accept that,, TOO BAD!

I don't find it all that difficult to grasp.

Yet it is ironic when we look to evolution to answer many of the questions regarding how we came to be, using the scientific method, Darwinian evolution fails on the third step. Gradualism just takes too damn long for anyone to know what happened 4 million years ago and is why they use words like "we can imagine amphibians turning into this or that"

Imagination is fun stuff but it isn't proof. Saying it takes too long is a great excuse, but it isn't our fault it takes too long for anyone to prove.

Evolution is not based on chance, because once there is life, natural selection takes over.

Really? and what are the chances of life just "Poofing" into existence? Yeah uh huh,, then when you figure that out, what are the chances of natural selection taking over?

You see pal, I have a friend who plays with statistics over at ASU, he is a proffessor there. He has used chance to debate this argument much the same way Prof. Lennox did WHEN HE SHUT DAWKINS OUT IN THERE DEBATE!

Now I am assuming YOU are not as well versed in this as Dawkins is and if HE can't win saying chance has nothing to do with it, I am certain your "chances" are even slimmer.

CHANCE IS!

Now is it random chance or not?

That is the next area of this argument. I understand why the evolutionist hates to go there but alas we must because chance plays a role in all your arguments and there isn't one argument you can give that I can't say "and what are the chances of that".


Remember, it was YOU, asking " If there is one chance in a trillion trillion that life will form on a planet" thus it is YOU who was bringing up the question of probability smart guy, NOT ME.

My advice to you: be honest with yourself.
Look at all the contradictions in your Bible instead of ignoring them. Think about the whole thing logically instead of using 'faith'. Look at evolution in an attempt to understand it rather than disprove it.
I thought evolution was silly for the longest time as well. But that was only because I was a creationist trying to disprove it. Once I started being honest with myself, I found that it makes a lot of sense and has a mountain of evidence to back it.

Darwits don't have an IOTA of evidence to back it up much less a "mountain" of evidence. That is nothing but a SLOGAN used by every Atheist/Darwinist I have ever met who couldn't prove an ounce of it. Evolutionists give the axiom of making a mountain out of a mole hill a whole new meaning

You ought to take your own advice guy.

First, MY Bible doesn't have any contradictions in it and secondly, if I were to find any, my first honest choice would be that I, not it, has made the mistake. So far every idiotic so called contradiction of the Bible has come from people like YOU who in the same voice you are claiming to "disprove" evolution, you now use to disprove God's existence LOL WOW! .

I say Wow what a tragic sad and woefully pathetic mistake. I will pray that you get restored and that the lord shakes free the demons that have polluted your soul with the Religion of Atheism and their Doctrine of Evolution to explain away God.

Please tell me you haven't already taken the Blasphme challenge on Youtube selling your soul for a silly video "The God That wasn't there!" LOL

I suppose you would actually have to read the Bible for yourself before you can make false claims of it's accuracy. In many modern translations, some of the 'words' may differ, but the Message remains the same. The canard that it is a bronze age book written by man is as silly as saying I can't believe anything any book has to say for the same reason. The Bible is what it says it is and I, like many millions who have shared in its divine driven authorship, have seen the changes God makes in ones own life. I can not discount them for they are more compelling than any so called science saying they didn't occur no more than I can deny the many witnesses that have also shared in its message and have received the Holy Spirit enabling them the wisdom and insight, Faith, in God has which is not the same as the Blind Faith you have in your silly science and little Scientists with their silly idiotic ideas looking everywhere under every rock to prove something, that to us, is so easy to explain it sounds too simple to be true.

Darwinist / Atheists, often cite it in sarcastic excuses to besmirch believers but hehe saying "God did it" Makes Perfect sense to those who know him and we are never insulted by the innuendo of us as being ignorant implied by the Atheist mocking us for saying it. In Fact, my first thought whenever they do use the "God did it" in poking fun at us, is to coin a Phraze by Actor turned Christian, Mr. T, saying, "I Pity the fool"

I must agree, I pity the fools who have said in there heart. "their is no god". I would trade your astonishment that I am so ignorant to believe in darwinian evolution for MY astonishment you can't see the work of the creator everywhere you look, anyday for it is I that has a bigger problem, teaching the willfully ignorant over you thinking who thinks it is a bigger problem teaching the stupid.

Stupid I can deal with, just as I will with Noob who continues this same crap: See below:

Originally posted by noobfunbut unfortunatley you would need to prove god exists for any of that probability to be anything other then made up assumption, time in our universe also isnt eternal or infinate we know how long its had to a reasonable margin of error

and your also forgeting the possability of other gods

No I'm not. I believe the "possibility" there are other Gods. So far, the one I know personally is the only one I have met. Proving that to you by asking you to prove I haven't met him is asking you to prove a negative but telling me I have the burden of proof is hogwash. Just as in court when someone commits a crime the burden is on those making the claim (the accuser) he broke the law, if the defendant admits he broke the law there is no burden to prove it anymore

I have already ADMITTED I believe it so I have no burden of proof exists. if the crime is believing in God then I am guilty.

with an infinate number of possible gods, the chance that you have picked the right one is 1:infinity

You need to take some math courses son. Infinity?? mmm

lets see now,, how would one quantify that number??

yeah perhaps you get it now but I kinda doubt it

Then we have noob doing this a lot and why he thinks this tactic wins his debates ill never know but that is why he is called NOOB I guess.

Example:

Originally posted by noobfun

never bet against

death

thought it was always bet on black?

trying pascal's wagers is lame it only takes into account 2 possables from the infinate amount of possable so is its self a logical fallacy

he takes my qoute and cuts off the last part of it replacing it with the word "death" contorting the argument to something other than what YOU and I are talking about and uses some line from a movie with wesley snipes saying never bet on black.

Cute, but stupid.

Then he cites my example as an attempt at pascals wager suggesting it is a logical fallacy having only two possible alternatives. Well the problem is, where I come from you only HAVE two and they are life and death. How that goes after death is pascals wager which has nothing to do with what you and are talking about. As I recall, you and i were talking about the God in the Bible in the context of the Biblical God. This is why arguing with children like noob is a waste of my time. , I just don't read his BS anymore and why I won't respond to his posts. he obviosly has his mind made up so I won't confuse the boy any further with the facts. The fact is he needs "stylewriter" before I will attempt to decipher anymore of his ecstatic utterances if i were to put his posts into words. I wouldn't count it against him for using it either, God knows he needs it.

The Bible is jammed packed full of verses that pertain to any questions you could possibly have about life: Love, hate, joy, sadness, peace, death, patience, kindness, gentleness, faith, sin, hope, repentance, forgiveness, self-control, anger, wisdom, knowledge, rebuke, understanding, hopelessness, judgment, pain and suffering......the list goes on and on and on.

I guess the main point to understand is: All God requires is that you believe in Him and repent of your sins, then He will reveal the Truth in His Word to you. Until then, you will continue to be blinded by lies and remain willfully ignorant of the Truth.

So the real question is - How Do You Know the Bible is NOT 100% True?

The test for Proving Gods existence is one you must do HIS way by coming as a child with a genuine heart to know him, and after all beloved, he IS God. So it is HIS way or the highway and that highway leads to hell.

Good Luck with that.





[edit on 27-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


lol well first I must say: Lay off the coffee.
I understand the arguments you presented but you aren't listening to mine.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
No friend, CLEARLY,, it is you and noob with your googled "edumacation" your constant equivocations using alligators as examples of creatures perfectly suited for their environments not needing any changes.

You didn't finish your sentence lol - clearly it is me and noob 'what'?... Clearly it is me and noob who misunderstand evolution?

Mkay.

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Yeah, see - there again - evidence that you know nothing about evolution.
What you're referring to is abiogenesis. The origins of life were extremely unlikely, if you're looking at our galaxy alone. Once you take into account all of the billions of galaxies out there, it's really not that far fetched at all. Also, many scientists believe there are an infinite number of parallel deminsions which would give life an infinite number of chances to form.

This again changes nothing about probability within each universe where the laws of Physics and entropy take place the probability is the same.

WHY?

Probability has no memory

LOL...
Yes within each universe (assuming the laws of physics etc were the same) the probability would be the same, but you're missing the point: there's more chances for it to happen.
You say probability has no memory... Exactly what does that have to do with anything?
If I flip an object that has 3,000 sides, then the probability that it will land on side '2,404' is 1/3000. If I flip that object for an infinite amount of time (continually) then it WILL eventually land on that side.
That's not memory, it's probability. It's what you should have learned in 2nd grade.
With an infinite number of parallel universes, there will be life in at least one of those universes.
Even ignoring that, with billions of galaxies (there may be far more than that) the probability that one planet will support life is good.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
No what is absurd is YOU pinning said absurdities on ME.

Hey, you're the one saying how absurd it is that a single celled organism could come to exist with no 'direction', so an infinitely complex being would be far more absurd.
It's your 'logic', I merely reversed it. Of course creationists never like this reversal.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You see it isn't MY problem to solve as I have no problem with it, YOU DO, so lets get something straight genius.

I am a genius, actually. 180 IQ.
But thanks for noticing.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
It was YOU, who used the words "infinitely more complex", now, if I am to follow YOUR description of GOD using YOUR word "Infinite", then I have no choice to describe nothing less than A God who is what?

INFINITE! That's what!

Infinite is without end.
God would be all that is and was without end.
Therefore he would be infinitely complex.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Now what is infinite? Now you know why I reminded you sherlock, that infinity is MORE than JUST a big number.

O really? lol...
Some people...

Originally posted by Aermacchi
This suggests God had no begining and has no end in his "infinte complexity"

Yep, that's why I said your solution would be that God has always existed. But that's not the point. My point is that you expect complete answers from us and yet refuse to admit that your version of reallity is absurd.
Something existing without a cause is absurd to human logic - more so than playing the odds of abiogenesis in a vast universe.
Yet you dare not look at that absurdity.
None of us know all the answers, but what's important is that there are solutions to the riddles. You talked about the unlikelyhood of life on Earth, and I pointed out the vast universe in which odds and probability mean little.

That's a solution. Perhaps it's not 'THE' solution, but it's A solution, which is more than you could give for your God's existence.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Now if you want to talk about a created God, then have at it, we have plenty of them, and OBVIOUSLY it is why you have the problem with this and why it is YOU who can NOT accept the terms of your description where I can. You just can't admit you screwed up in your attempts to be clever.

Nope. You merely misunderstood my point.
I'm not trying to be clever, I'm trying to show you that you're not.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You assume God was created and I do Not. You are the one giving the word "Infinite" a begining suggesting it must have "poofed" into existence, I'm not.

I never said God was created. I never said he had a beginning. He is the beginning, right? The alpha and the omega. Time is irrelevant because if he created our universe he would be outside of the bounds of time.
I know that you don't believe God had a beginning, but I still made a point that his existence would be infinitely more complex than any earthly being, and would therefore need a damn good answer to explain - one which you can't give. Which of course brings me back to the initial point I was trying to make - that you expect atheists to have ALL the answers about our universe when you won't even consider that your religion leaves more questions than answers.
An atheist knows that he/she doesn't have the answers, but that doesn't stop him/her from searching.
You belive you have the answers and so you only search to disprove those that seek the truth.
Understand?

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Really? and what are the chances of life just "Poofing" into existence? Yeah uh huh,, then when you figure that out, what are the chances of natural selection taking over?

What are the chances that you're sitting on the specific atom that you're sitting on, with all of the billions of cells in your body in their current state, with all the attributes of the universe the way they are right now?

1/12098390218390900820938190238092138092183092183091830918309 ^ 9999999999999999.
But that doesn't stop it from being so.
You, like all creationists, refuse to see that the vastness of our universe and circumstances therein allow for probabilities that would otherwise seem impossible to human intellect.

Hey, I like this chance game. Mind if I ask you some questions?
What are the chances that the God you worship is the right one?
What are the chances that God is actually Satan and he's playing humanity for fools?
What are the chances that an infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient being would give a crap about humanity?
Give me these answers and describe your process and I may consider your belief (well not really, because there are many more questions such as the contradictions in the Bible, how do you know which words are from God and which from men, etc...)

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Now is it random chance or not?

Natural selection, no.
Abiogenesis, yes.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
That is the next area of this argument. I understand why the evolutionist hates to go there but alas we must because chance plays a role in all your arguments and there isn't one argument you can give that I can't say "and what are the chances of that".

You constantly muddy the waters between evolution and abiogenesis.
It makes you appear very ignorant of the origins of life...
Evolution is a process which has been proven. It's based on the environment and is not a 'chance' process.
Abiogenesis only needed to happen once. This would require the circumstances to be just right. This is a chance process.

To be continued...

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Remember, it was YOU, asking " If there is one chance in a trillion trillion that life will form on a planet"

That's referring to abiogenises, not evolution.
Evolution: not chance
Abiogenesis: chance
Please get this into your head so I don't have to say it again.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
thus it is YOU who was bringing up the question of probability smart guy, NOT ME.

Again, thankyou for recognizing my intellegence. I see you are not entirely ignorant.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Darwits don't have an IOTA of evidence to back it up much less a "mountain" of evidence. That is nothing but a SLOGAN used by every Atheist/Darwinist I have ever met who couldn't prove an ounce of it. Evolutionists give the axiom of making a mountain out of a mole hill a whole new meaning

If you refuse to believe something no matter what the circumstances, then no amount of evidence will change your mind.
That's what's known as: Delusion

Originally posted by Aermacchi
You ought to take your own advice guy.

Umm... I do lol... That's why I'm me.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
First, MY Bible doesn't have any contradictions in it and secondly, if I were to find any, my first honest choice would be that I, not it, has made the mistake.

It is not an assumption that there are contradictions.. IT IS PROVEN!
www.bibletrash.com

Even the NUMBERS don't agree. You can't argue against numbers... Well, you can but you'll just look like a fool.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
So far every idiotic so called contradiction of the Bible has come from people like YOU who in the same voice you are claiming to "disprove" evolution, you now use to disprove God's existence LOL WOW! .

LOL your Bible can't even agree on the story of Jesus BIRTH! The prime bases for your faith!

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I suppose you would actually have to read the Bible for yourself before you can make false claims of it's accuracy.

I suppose you would have to know me before understanding my background. It's much easier to make an assumption I guess.
I read the Bible for the first 18 years of my life. There are proven contradictions.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I would trade your astonishment that I am so ignorant to believe in darwinian evolution for MY astonishment you can't see the work of the creator everywhere you look, anyday for it is I that has a bigger problem, teaching the willfully ignorant over you thinking who thinks it is a bigger problem teaching the stupid.

I did see God's work everywhere I looked when I was a Christian. That's how the mind works...
When I was a kid, I saw the boogeyman around every corner. You will see what you want to see.

reply to post by Aermacchi


This is what happen when someone is under the Darwin spell. And it will not stop until there is no more to Google.

Now let me say.
I am a white man. And if i moved to Africa which would be a radical change of environment form where i am from "Norway". Would i become a Negro in a couple of yeas. No!!! Would i become a Negro after a 100 years. No!!!!
Would i become a Negro after a million years. No!!!!! I couldn't even become a Lion if i tried. No cause or change could ever make that happen. The only thing that would change is my tan.

What if i brought my Dog to Africa. Would it become a Lion after a year. NO!!! Would it become a Lion after a 100 years. No!!! Would it become a Lion after millions of years. No!!! My dog couldn't even become a Tree if it tried. No mater the cause.

Can plants mate with animals or humans.NO!!! Just that thought should ring a bell.

Man that has to be one hell of a intelligent design. And what a cause and effect that would be.

You will never find my DNA in a Lion unless it eats me. But that dont mean a lion will become a Human. Even if it eats a lot of humans it will never become a Human.

I will not become a tree or flower just because i am going be buried in the ground when i die. You Will not find any of my DNA strings there ever.

I laugh at this.

What noobfun is saying might be a fact, hell if i know. But that sure ain't the case now. The only thing a radical cause will do now is to make us instinct or reduced. If we loose our technology we would become savages again. Or maybe monkey's Hell if i know.

If we loose everything, do to a radical change maybe we would become something else then a human in a million years. Sound quite reasonable. Right noobfun!!! Maybe we will grow some tools LoL.

If the planet had a new flood maybe the best swimmers would adapt gills and become fish,before they drawn. And when the flood disappeared the fish would grow a monkey brain and monkey body and start human history all over again >LoL

I wonder why we dont see the fish adapt to live on land more often. I wonder why we dont see more monkeys become human. Maybe we have to wait a billion years first. Because not all the monkeys where as lucky as we where a million years ago. Or maybe if we stopped hunting them they would evolve and become something else.

This is just a bunch of bull. Humans are humans monkeys are monkeys,And fish is fish. And it has always been that way. +- some other species that have died out.

Sorry but i am getting tired of this stuff. Keep up the good work guys!! you will figure it out. I have faith in you




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

This is what happen when someone is under the Darwin spell. And it will not stop until there is no more to Google.

Now let me say.
I am a white man. And if i moved to Africa which would be a radical change of environment form where i am from "Norway". Would i become a Negro in a couple of yeas. No!!! Would i become a Negro after a 100 years. No!!!!
Would i become a Negro after a million years. No!!!!! I couldn't even become a Lion if i tried. No cause or change could ever make that happen. The only thing that would change is my tan.

What if i brought my Dog to Africa. Would it become a Lion after a year. NO!!! Would it become a Lion after a 100 years. No!!! Would it become a Lion after millions of years. No!!! My dog couldn't even become a Tree if it tried. No mater the cause.

Can plants mate with animals or humans.NO!!! Just that thought should ring a bell.

Man that has to be one hell of a intelligent design. And what a cause and effect that would be.

You will never find my DNA in a Lion unless it eats me. But that dont mean a lion will become a Human. Even if it eats a lot of humans it will never become a Human.

I will not become a tree or flower just because i am going be buried in the ground when i die. You Will not find any of my DNA strings there ever.

I laugh at this.

What noobfun is saying might be a fact, hell if i know. But that sure ain't the case now. The only thing a radical cause will do now is to make us instinct or reduced. If we loose our technology we would become savages again. Or maybe monkey's Hell if i know.

If we loose everything, do to a radical change maybe we would become something else then a human in a million years. Sound quite reasonable. Right noobfun!!! Maybe we will grow some tools LoL.

If the planet had a new flood maybe the best swimmers would adapt gills and become fish,before they drawn. And when the flood disappeared the fish would grow a monkey brain and monkey body and start human history all over again >LoL

I wonder why we dont see the fish adapt to live on land more often. I wonder why we dont see more monkeys become human. Maybe we have to wait a billion years first. Because not all the monkeys where as lucky as we where a million years ago. Or maybe if we stopped hunting them they would evolve and become something else.

This is just a bunch of bull. Humans are humans monkeys are monkeys,And fish is fish. And it has always been that way. +- some other species that have died out.

Sorry but i am getting tired of this stuff. Keep up the good work guys!! you will figure it out. I have faith in you

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Yeah and one types his "essay posts" as if a 5th grader and the other one has a 180 IQ! Isn't that special. That is what's so nice about the internet, you can say you are a rocket scientist or say you believe in multiverses and quantum universes yet not believe in things that need no cause to exist calling it illogical when logic goes out the window in the quantum world

Originally posted by Aermacchi
No friend, CLEARLY,, it is you and noob with your googled "edumacation" your constant equivocations using alligators as examples of creatures perfectly suited for their environments not needing any changes.

maybe look back you will see we are saying they HAVE changed, i believe it was you bringin up the living fosils and they havnt changed at all

and it was you that brought up crocodiles as well

prior to the K/T boundary crocodiles were very diverse some adapted for fully marine living some of them fully terrestrial(even a bipedal species or two) and some of them very active water predators and some of them similar to the ambush predators we have today

like coelcanths the ones we have today are similar but not the same as the ones in the fossil record

Gawd how desperate do you need to get

desperate enough to pretend your arguments someone elses so you can attack them??

He even takes my little storyline from my fishies tale and calls it a straw man HA HA HA HA Really now,, YA THINK!

well you imply theres no benefit to being able to substitue none water bound oxygen in low oxygen enviroments has no advantage

talk about modern complex mammal lungs pretending thats what the fish had or modern equivalents have and they are clearly not for anyone that looks

talk about fish flopping around on land sun tanning

its yes a strawman

basic lungs spiracles and lbarynthian organs supplement oxygen in shallow water enviroments with low oxygen as found today in the amazon several african river systems mangrove swamps etc etc

where do we find our fishapods living? similar conditions

how about the abilty to move on land where did that come from? not by flopping around on land but from the same water based conditions, the ability to pass through extremly low water to find deeper pools can be a very useful one as quite a few fish today can do with out the need to flop around, drag your self through the shallowing channels to find deeper water with more food when your pools drying out means you dont bake hard and die when the pool or channel your in gets to shallow to swim out of

fish didnt evolve to breath and walk on land, they evolved to breath and survive in water

once it had those abilities to survive in water it could start making use of them on land but still spent most of its time in water

thats how nature works it uses the same thing for several different things in different ways

Yep I was there and yep saying it is cause and effect is just like saying

Originally posted by Aermacchi
umm what are the chances something will cause a reaction where life comes from non life? Here let me re-word it.

no becasue evolution is cause and effect that strictly controls a random element of it, but your talking about abiogenesis which is chemstry and a far different beast it is purely casue and effect no chance involved things happen becasue they react and those reactions are predictable

chance doesnt come into chemistry things happen becasue thats how they react when exposed to each other

and no deffinition of just what life is?

its not life from none life

its organic structures from organic compounds

a cell is an organic structure carrying out chemical processes within it to keep it functoning

and animals and plants are essentially a bag of cells all carrying out chemical process within it to keep it functioning and co-operating to keep them all functioning

dust isnt alive or even organic, but you think thats what man came from
isnt that life from none life?

where as we see it as naturally occuring organic compounds forming organic structures and carrying out organic chemistry

This again changes nothing about probability within each universe where the laws of Physics and entropy take place the probability is the same.

WHY?

Probability has no memory

it doesnt need one, a coin doesnt need to be intelligent or have memeory to land on heads over tails

given the chances of orginic compounds forming organic structures is say 1:trillion

any more then a trilion planets makes it more then probable of life occuring some where on at least 1 planet, the more planets the more chances of life, and on each planet there isnt just 1 chances of life occuring its a repeatable process it only needs to get it right once

so its quite possable for the 1:trillion odds to be played out on 1 planet alone in not such a long period of time as different areas of the planet can result in different attempts

and those odds hold true, we are here

and theres probabily life else where, it may be the far side of the universe or the next clsoet solarsystem could be absolutley anywhere but the odds only need to hold for it happen once for it to account for us

You mean a simple organism that just "pops into existence don't you?"

nope nothing just pops into existance once you leave creationism behind, simple organisms (protocells) self form but not by magic, by chemistry and thermodynamics and physics and enviromental pressures

szostak labs my friend ive said it several times and you havnt checked have you

how about a simplified video showing the research and testing they have carried out


this is observed repeatable testable stuff

Just because you can't understand the difference between infinite and finite doesn't mean I can't make that distinction. Here Ill explain it as if you were a six year old. When you say something just poofs into existence! Then that suggests it had a what?

taking logic lessons from spy66?

A BEGINING! THAT'S WHAT!

Now do you see the straw man you are making here?

You assume God was created and I do Not. You are the one giving the word "Infinite" a begining suggesting it must have "poofed" into existence, I'm not.

you assume he always was

2 assumptions do not the truth make so his view is as equally valid and as equally wrong as yours

neither is based on observance or evidence, so either can be right and both are probabily wrong

Really? and what are the chances of life just "Poofing" into existence? Yeah uh huh,, then when you figure that out, what are the chances of natural selection taking over?

we abiogenesis is chemistry so not life poofing anywhere by chance, its predictable reaction and catalyst

natural selection takes over almost immediatley, its present in the protocells formed at szostaks

but what do you deffine as life? it doesnt have any real quality

there are the 7 tennets of scientific deffintion of life, which the protocells pass all 7

its not a matter of life from unlife (dust into man)

its a mater of organic compounds forming organic sturctures that perfom organic chemistry that becomes self contained

we and every other animal on the planet when you really think about it are just a bag made of cells containing cells all made of organic compounds doing organic chemistry

its not life from unlife its just organic chemistry with increased complexity

Now is it random chance or not?

not, its chemical reaction and catalyisation its not chance but its not intelligently controlled either

That is the next area of this argument. I understand why the evolutionist hates to go there but alas we must because chance plays a role in all your arguments and there isn't one argument you can give that I can't say "and what are the chances of that".

go for it

First, MY Bible doesn't have any contradictions in it and secondly, if I were to find any, my first honest choice would be that I, not it, has made the mistake. So far every idiotic so called contradiction of the Bible has come from people like YOU who in the same voice you are claiming to "disprove" evolution, you now use to disprove God's existence LOL WOW!

so were not doing chance like you said?

evolution proves its self with science

this has nothing to do with the bible, honesty issues are showing again

the bibles many condraictions are proof the bible is flawed, this has nothing to do with evolution

so while we show the bible is flawed by its own wording this has nothig to do with evolution

I suppose you would actually have to read the Bible for yourself before you can make false claims of it's accuracy. In many modern translations, some of the 'words' may differ, but the Message remains the same. The canard that it is a bronze age book written by man is as silly as saying I can't believe anything any book has to say for the same reason.

flase

you can believe anything you read in any book you look, but when the things in the book have been shown to not be correct or accurate the use of the book in honest discussion as accurate is dishonest

there are mistakes in the blindwatchmaker, the selfish gene and many other books becasue they were written with the best knowledge to be had at the time, the errors do not make the whole book worthless but the errors should not be ignored or clung too and denied to be wrong with venemous glee, merley accepted as what they are the best understanding we had then

origins of species is read as an appreciation for historical science not as modern science, few will stand around screaming its 100% accurate in everything it said and the ones saying there are faults are only doing it becasue the hate darwin or fear him

and i own several versions of the bible, they are fun reading

try reading it front to back and not ignoring the bits you dont like



[edit on 28/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
No I'm not. I believe the "possibility" there are other Gods. So far, the one I know personally is the only one I have met. Proving that to you by asking you to prove I haven't met him is asking you to prove a negative but telling me I have the burden of proof is hogwash. Just as in court when someone commits a crime the burden is on those making the claim (the accuser) he broke the law, if the defendant admits he broke the law there is no burden to prove it anymore

advanced word twisting and misrepresntational classes paying off for you then?

So far, the one I know personally is the only one I have met. Proving that to you by asking you to prove I haven't met him is asking you to prove a negative but telling me I have the burden of proof is hogwash.

were not asking for that, for you to disprove you have met god that would indeed be hogwash and carry negative proof and be beyond even the absurdity of your word twisting

what we are asking for is you to prove your god exists as you claim, which does carry a burden of proof

you calim he is real and you have met him, we ask for proof of this, not that you disprove it

I have already ADMITTED I believe it so I have no burden of proof exists

believing it and claiming it as real creates the burden of proof

in the same way if i claim you slandered me i would have to prove you had
you claim god exists so the burden of proof lays with you to prove that claim

You need to take some math courses son. Infinity?? mmm

lets see now,, how would one quantify that number??

yeah perhaps you get it now but I kinda doubt it

Then we have noob doing this a lot and why he thinks this tactic wins his debates ill never know but that is why he is called NOOB I guess

no math class required

there are an infinate variable of possible creators(if one exists at all)

so there fore the chance of picking the correct one without any proof over the others is a random guess

1:∞

well if were going on debate winning methedology logical fallacies are even worse

ad-hominim, Appeal to accident, Appeal to authority, Appeal to force, Argument by false analogy, Argument by false dichotomy, Fallacy of ambiguity, Straw man, Appeal from emotion, Appeal to ignorance, Argument from averages

all make common appearances, you dont deal in datasets and observation and evidence. in academic circles your argumenst would be severly frowned upon

he takes my qoute and cuts off the last part of it replacing it with the word "death" contorting the argument to something other than what YOU and I are talking about

Cute, but stupid.

not really

you can bet on anything but you will 100% guaranteed lose any bet placed against death

until god is proven no bet can be won or lost against it

so it is infact one of the only true constant for biological organisms such as our selves

This is why arguing with children like noob is a waste of my time. , I just don't read his BS anymore and why I won't respond to his posts. he obviosly has his mind made up so I won't confuse the boy any further with the facts. The fact is he needs "stylewriter" before I will attempt to decipher anymore of his ecstatic utterances if i were to put his posts into words. I wouldn't count it against him for using it either, God knows he needs it.

facts? what facts have you presented? you have presented beliefs as facts which they arnt, emotional responses as facts which they arnt, insults as facts which they arnt, riddicule as facts which they arnt

when you do slip out from that veil of smoke mirrors and vagueness you get trounced and your inacuracy shown for what they are, your misrepresentations shown for what they are

The Bible is jammed packed full of verses that pertain to any questions you could possibly have about life: Love, hate, joy, sadness, peace, death, patience, kindness, gentleness, faith, sin, hope, repentance, forgiveness, self-control, anger, wisdom, knowledge, rebuke, understanding, hopelessness, judgment, pain and suffering......the list goes on and on and on.

as it does in ANY major religeous text and a bunch of philosophical ones too

but that doesnt mean they are accurate

I guess the main point to understand is: All God requires is that you believe in Him and repent of your sins, then He will reveal the Truth in His Word to you. Until then, you will continue to be blinded by lies and remain willfully ignorant of the Truth.

so a god that talks of unconditinal love acceptance and forgivness, requires conditions to be meet before he forgives or accepts?

So the real question is - How Do You Know the Bible is NOT 100% True

i read it

becasue many of this things it says simply arnt true

because i can level creationist argument againts the bible and get similar results

life from unlife? dust to man how absurd
things poofing into existance? how absurds that, but thats what the bible says