One God only

[khuldun]

I being a Muslim firmly belive in the existance of only one Allah and no more. I think we have a reaosn to belive that god is one because had there been mopre than one gods, the earth would not have been made properly and the working would have been destroyed. Do you belive in only one God?

[demo_news]

I actually belive in mor than one god because of the reaction of earth reputation.

[sb225]

i have more gods as i am an hndu but i still worship to only one god enough for me

[Alonzo]

Most polytheistic faiths do not have multiple, equally powerful gods. There is usually a hierarchy, and they usually have different roles they fulfill. It isn't like sending 50 chefs into a kitchen and having them all do the same thing.

[mis_chiff]

I believe in only one God, but I have only been taught about
one. I'm sure if I researched another belief then I may believe
there is another. Unfortunately I don't know enough about
any other.

[Churchel]

There is proof there is multiple gods, Yahweh says so in his first commandment to Moses.

[Athena]

I think all religions coming out of Judaism are based on myth, not truth.
These religions begin the Hebrew's tribal god and this is not an universal god. I am trying to figure out how this god became anyone's idea of a real and universal god. Christians and Muslims do not have a convenant with this god. They are as dogs to the God of the choosen people, so I don't understand why Christians and Muslims worship this God? It blows me away that people take this mythology as some kind of godly truth, instead of myth. I like the idea of a god, but it isn't the Hebrews Father/God.

[Labrocca]

Well the covenant with God does exist for Christians. It's called Christ himself. He gave his only begotten son to us and it renewed the original covenant that Moses had with God for the Jews. As a Catholic this is my understanding. You may consider this all myth and that doesn't offend me one bit.

Christ imho became the Universal God you speak of with his teachings. He befriended many people and taught forgiveness, love, and acceptance. I can't speak on what the Islamic faith teaches very well. Maybe a Muslim can speak up here.

[Athena]

Thank you for the rationalization. I can't accept it because I can't accept the whole mythology that necessitates a God sacrificing a Son. I am repulsed by the paganism of the blood of the holy lamb thing, as I basically said on the question of religious animal sacrifices. But thank you helping me understand a bit of your reasoning. May be you can more fully explain how this killing the Son thing works? Like if bird flu comes around, will painting my door with lamb's blood protect my family?
How does a God make this lamb's blood thing work?

[Labrocca]

The blood of the lamb is something more symbolic. Jesus was the lamb. The lamb represents the people (or Christ even) and God the shepherd.

Jesus died for our sins. It was his choice to die for us so that God would forgive us and the new covenant would be written from his blood.

It's all pretty weird stuff and I can understand your confusion from it.

[Athena]

The blood of the lamb is something more symbolic.Â*Â*Jesus was the lamb.Â*Â*The lamb represents the people (or Christ even) and God the shepherd.

Jesus died for our sins. It was his choice to die for us so that God would forgive us and the new covenant would be written from his blood.

It's all pretty weird stuff and I can understand your confusion from it.


Wasn't the time of Moses and the plagues when the people were told to paint their doors with the blood of a lamb to protect them from a plague?

In Greek mythology, if you found the entrance to Hades, and dug a hole and filled it with the blood of a sheep, the dead could drink it and then you could talk with the dead.

I think the concepts of lamb's blood and the living dead predate Jesus. The Christian bible sometimes speaks of Hades or using the word Hell. It was a common concept as was the power of blood, life's force, which is directly tied to beliefs about sacrificing animals and Jesus. Do you care to explain this belief system further and how this kind of magic works, and the God associated with it?

[forest_ranger254]

Wasn't the time of Moses and the plagues when the people were told to paint their doors with the blood of a lamb to protect them from a plague?

Remember the Passover feast? That is a symbol of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, fulfilling prophecies thousands of years in the making in Isaiah, Joshua, and Psalms, and many of the other Old Testament books. Most of which he had no control over. coincidence? with a 1 in 10 to the 49th power.

In Greek mythology, if you found the entrance to Hades, and dug a hole and filled it with the blood of a sheep, the dead could drink it and then you could talk with the dead.

your point was? That just shows a similarity. It is not evidence that Jews borrowed from them. Matter of fact, it is more evidence that the Greeks stole from the Jews.

I think the concepts of lamb's blood and the living dead predate Jesus.Â*Â*The Christian bible sometimes speaks of Hades or using the word Hell.Â*Â*It was a common concept as was the power of blood, life's force, which is directly tied to beliefs about sacrificing animals and Jesus.Â*Â*Do you care to explain this belief system further and how this kind of magic works, and the God associated with it?Â*Â*Â*Â*


Well, think of it, how many of them have faith as the way to heaven? none. every other belief requires works to get to heaven/paradise/nirvana/what-have-you. Judaism required faith, as does Christianity. Think of it, Aaron's sons offered by the rules, but forgot to have faith, and thus offered up "strange fire," and were stricken dead for their lack of faith. Abraham lived before the law was written, as did every one mentioned in Genesis. They made it to heaven on faith. There is no other old belief that requires only faith. some new-age beliefs do, but there is nothing new under the sun. If it's true, it isn't new, and if it's new, it isn't true. The new age beliefs sprout from gnosticism, which started in 200+ AD. Those sprouted from false teachers who had been around stealing from Judaism since the time of the Gibeonites. There is a long line of places where those ideas come from. you want a list?

PS: hope you enjoy your stay. You might want to refer to your own posts on Volconvo.
En Cristo por siempra,
Forest_ranger254, also known as Dthmstr254.

[Athena]

Wasn't the time of Moses and the plagues when the people were told to paint their doors with the blood of a lamb to protect them from a plague?

Remember the Passover feast? That is a symbol of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, fulfilling prophecies thousands of years in the making in Isaiah, Joshua, and Psalms, and many of the other Old Testament books. Most of which he had no control over. coincidence? with a 1 in 10 to the 49th power.

In Greek mythology, if you found the entrance to Hades, and dug a hole and filled it with the blood of a sheep, the dead could drink it and then you could talk with the dead.Â*Â*

your point was? That just shows a similarity. It is not evidence that Jews borrowed from them. Matter of fact, it is more evidence that the Greeks stole from the Jews.

I think the concepts of lamb's blood and the living dead predate Jesus.Â*Â*The Christian bible sometimes speaks of Hades or using the word Hell.Â*Â*It was a common concept as was the power of blood, life's force, which is directly tied to beliefs about sacrificing animals and Jesus.Â*Â*Do you care to explain this belief system further and how this kind of magic works, and the God associated with it?Â*Â*Â*Â*


Well, think of it, how many of them have faith as the way to heaven? none. every other belief requires works to get to heaven/paradise/nirvana/what-have-you. Judaism required faith, as does Christianity. Think of it, Aaron's sons offered by the rules, but forgot to have faith, and thus offered up "strange fire," and were stricken dead for their lack of faith. Abraham lived before the law was written, as did every one mentioned in Genesis. They made it to heaven on faith. There is no other old belief that requires only faith. some new-age beliefs do, but there is nothing new under the sun. If it's true, it isn't new, and if it's new, it isn't true. The new age beliefs sprout from gnosticism, which started in 200+ AD. Those sprouted from false teachers who had been around stealing from Judaism since the time of the Gibeonites. There is a long line of places where those ideas come from. you want a list?

PS: hope you enjoy your stay. You might want to refer to your own posts on Volconvo.
En Cristo por siempra,
Forest_ranger254, also known as Dthmstr254.


Well you seem very well informed. Please, explain what everyone must do to have the good after life, according to all other faiths, including Eygpt and Isis who weighs people's hearts. And again the importance of those animal and human sacrifices is what? Pleasing a God? How does this work?

[forest_ranger254]

Well you seem very well informed.Â*Â*Please, explain what everyone must do to have the good after life, according to all other faiths, including Eygpt and Isis who weighs people's hearts.Â*Â*And again the importance of those animal and human sacrifices is what?Â*Â*Pleasing a God?Â*Â*How does this work?Â*Â*Â*Â*


Actually, salvation is much much easier than working your way there. However, if you don't go the way of salvation, you don't make it into heaven. As a preliminary answer, working your way to heaven is like trying to climb a 40 foot tall wall with barbed wire on the top. To make it on your works, you would have to be completely perfect from birth to death. Any slip-ups, and you fall off that path. however, why try to climb that imposing wall when ten feet away there is a wide open gate. The ritual of human sacrificing is completely barbaric, more-so than animal sacrifices, which have also been done away with. The Old Testament books clearly show the rules of the Law, but also show the promises of salvation. The events recorded in the New Testament fulfill all the prophecies of the Old Testament, although they were written hundreds of years after by people who barely knew eachother and who were seperated by miles of land and sea, and the occasional dungeon. The writers of the old Testament books were seperated by miles of land and sea, and years of time passed between the three. There are some contradictions, but that is to be expected from the situations surrounding the writing of the books, and every contradiction exists within the minutiae and are inconsequential. For example, many people point to the ressurection scene in the gospels and say that there is a contradiction. Dr Michael Martin of Boston University said this in a summary:
In Matthew, when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived toward dawn at the tomb there is a rock in front of it, there is a violent earthquake, and an angel descends and rolls back the stone. In Mark, the women arrive at the tomb at sunrise and the stone had been rolled back. In Luke, when the women arrive at early dawn they find the stone had already been rolled back.
In Matthew, an angel is sitting on the rock outside the tomb and in Mark a youth is inside the tomb. In Luke, two men are inside.
In Matthew, the women present at the tomb are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. In Mark, the women present at the are the two Marys and Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and the other women are present at the tomb.
In Matthew, the two Marys rush from the tomb in great fear and joy, run to tell the disciples, and meet Jesus on the way. In Mark, they run out of the tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone. In Luke, the women report the story to the disciples who do not believe them and there is no suggestion that they meet Jesus.

The next obvious question, and its answer.

In light of all this, how in the world can you possibly consider the empty tomb story to be credible?

With all due respect, Michael Martin is a philosopher, not a historian, and I don't think he understands the historian's craft. For a philosopher, if something is inconsistent, the law of contradiction says, "This cannot be true, throw it out!" However, the historian looks at these narratives and says, "I see some inconsistencies, but I notice something about them: they're all in the secondary details."
The corse of the story is the same: Joseph of Arimathea takes the body of Jesus, puts it in a tomb, the tomb is visited by a small group of women followers of Jesus early on the Sunday morning following his crucifixion, and they find that the tomb is empty. They see a vision of angels saying that Jesus is risen.
The careful historian, unlike the philosopher, doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. He says, "this suggests that there is a historical core to this story that is reliable and can be depended upon, however conflicting the secondary details might be."
So we can have great confidence in the core that's common to the narratives and would be agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars today, even if there are some differences concerning the names of the women, the exact time of the morning, the number of angels, and so forth. those kind of secondary discrepancies wouldn't bother a historian.

The event of the death and ressurection are how we can get to heaven. John 3:16 finishes the rest of it off. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

[Athena]

Well you seem very well informed.Â*Â*Please, explain what everyone must do to have the good after life, according to all other faiths, including Eygpt and Isis who weighs people's hearts.Â*Â*And again the importance of those animal and human sacrifices is what?Â*Â*Pleasing a God?Â*Â*How does this work?Â*Â*Â*Â*


Actually, salvation is much much easier than working your way there. However, if you don't go the way of salvation, you don't make it into heaven. As a preliminary answer, working your way to heaven is like trying to climb a 40 foot tall wall with barbed wire on the top. To make it on your works, you would have to be completely perfect from birth to death. Any slip-ups, and you fall off that path. however, why try to climb that imposing wall when ten feet away there is a wide open gate. The ritual of human sacrificing is completely barbaric, more-so than animal sacrifices, which have also been done away with. The Old Testament books clearly show the rules of the Law, but also show the promises of salvation. The events recorded in the New Testament fulfill all the prophecies of the Old Testament, although they were written hundreds of years after by people who barely knew eachother and who were seperated by miles of land and sea, and the occasional dungeon.

The writers of the old Testament books were seperated by miles of land and sea, and years of time passed between the three. There are some contradictions, but that is to be expected from the situations surrounding the writing of the books, and every contradiction exists within the minutiae and are inconsequential. For example, many people point to the ressurection scene in the gospels and say that there is a contradiction. Dr Michael Martin of Boston University said this in a summary:
In Matthew, when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived toward dawn at the tomb there is a rock in front of it, there is a violent earthquake, and an angel descends and rolls back the stone. In Mark, the women arrive at the tomb at sunrise and the stone had been rolled back. In Luke, when the women arrive at early dawn they find the stone had already been rolled back.
In Matthew, an angel is sitting on the rock outside the tomb and in Mark a youth is inside the tomb. In Luke, two men are inside.
In Matthew, the women present at the tomb are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. In Mark, the women present at the are the two Marys and Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and the other women are present at the tomb.
In Matthew, the two Marys rush from the tomb in great fear and joy, run to tell the disciples, and meet Jesus on the way. In Mark, they run out of the tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone. In Luke, the women report the story to the disciples who do not believe them and there is no suggestion that they meet Jesus.

The next obvious question, and its answer.

In light of all this, how in the world can you possibly consider the empty tomb story to be credible?

With all due respect, Michael Martin is a philosopher, not a historian, and I don't think he understands the historian's craft. For a philosopher, if something is inconsistent, the law of contradiction says, "This cannot be true, throw it out!" However, the historian looks at these narratives and says, "I see some inconsistencies, but I notice something about them: they're all in the secondary details."
The corse of the story is the same: Joseph of Arimathea takes the body of Jesus, puts it in a tomb, the tomb is visited by a small group of women followers of Jesus early on the Sunday morning following his crucifixion, and they find that the tomb is empty. They see a vision of angels saying that Jesus is risen.
The careful historian, unlike the philosopher, doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. He says, "this suggests that there is a historical core to this story that is reliable and can be depended upon, however conflicting the secondary details might be."
So we can have great confidence in the core that's common to the narratives and would be agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars today, even if there are some differences concerning the names of the women, the exact time of the morning, the number of angels, and so forth. those kind of secondary discrepancies wouldn't bother a historian.

The event of the death and ressurection are how we can get to heaven. John 3:16 finishes the rest of it off. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."


What is Jesus besides a human sacrifice?Â*Â*He didn't say one original thing.Â*Â*If he had never been born, the world be different how?Â*Â*

I think Mohammed fulfils the prophecy better than Jesus.Â*Â*

Please, be more specific about what others believe they have to do to get to heaven, and use some references, not just opinions.Â*Â*

Why did you even mention Michael Martin? Who is he, the fiction writer who wrote the Devinchi code?

[Labrocca]

Athena you are obviously an atheist and that's fine. However you seem to be trying to get logical answers from people of faith. Faith requires little to no logic. You also aren't going to convince someone of faith to give it up either. And I am pretty sure no one here is going to convince you to have faith.

Your posts are great though but I wonder if you realize how obvious you are being with the baiting.

[forest_ranger254]

Athena you are obviously an atheist and that's fine.Â*Â*However you seem to be trying to get logical answers from people of faith.Â*Â*Faith requires little to no logic.Â*Â*You also aren't going to convince someone of faith to give it up either.Â*Â*And I am pretty sure no one here is going to convince you to have faith.

Your posts are great though but I wonder if you realize how obvious you are being with the baiting.


Correction, she is a transcendentalist. I have debated her since I was on Volconvo. she has same name on Volconvo. you might check her out.

[Athena]

Athena you are obviously an atheist and that's fine.Â*Â*However you seem to be trying to get logical answers from people of faith.Â*Â*Faith requires little to no logic.Â*Â*You also aren't going to convince someone of faith to give it up either.Â*Â*And I am pretty sure no one here is going to convince you to have faith.

Your posts are great though but I wonder if you realize how obvious you are being with the baiting.


Obviously an athiest? Baiting?

I am giving this forum another week, and if the discussions do not improve I am gone.

[Labrocca]

Athena that's kind of spineless to threaten to leave on that basis. It just seems like you want us to either like you or agree with you. If you do leave that's your perogative. No one here is gonna beg you to stay.

I am truely puzzled by some of your posts. I find them really interesting and they force me over to wikipedia to learn more. For that I thank you for expanding my knowledge.

btw..what's a transcendentalist?

[Athena]

Athena that's kind of spineless to threaten to leave on that basis.Â*Â*It just seems like you want us to either like you or agree with you.Â*Â*If you do leave that's your perogative. No one here is gonna beg you to stay.

I am truely puzzled by some of your posts.Â*Â*I find them really interesting and they force me over to wikipedia to learn more.Â*Â*For that I thank you for expanding my knowledge.

btw..what's a transcendentalist?



I don't know what a transcendentalist is and I don't care. I am not looking to be liked or agreed with. I was looking for people who can discuss democracy. Like if we were talking on a telephone instead of the Internet, I would say, sorry, I dailed the wrong number. This is working as well as getting pizza delivery uisness on the phone, when trying to auto parts. The discussion just isn't about democracy.

[Nathan Brazil]

btw..what's a transcendentalist?

Obviously a transcendentalist is someone who believes in the divine and mystical power of the trigonometric functions.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. The World has one Savior, he who saves, either seek him out, and learn of him, or suffer.
2. There's no second chances.
3. There's no other second better prophet who came afterwards.
4. There is only Jesus, and his life fulfilled as a service to humanity, the final sacrifice, for sin, once and for all.
5. For he who knew no sin, died for the sinner, to stake claim to his Kingdom, life everlasting for evermore.
6. All other religions are false.
7. Unless you learn this, expect a failed life when you leave this world.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Alonzo]

I'm not sure why I should assume one religion is superior to all the others that make similar claims, or the ones that do not claim to be special (sikhism in particular).

[CheesyMuslim]

I'm not sure why I should assume one religion is superior to all the others that make similar claims, or the ones that do not claim to be special (sikhism in particular).


Sorry bout that,

1. If you follow a Religion, can I ask which one Zo?
2. All religions claim to be Special in one way or another.
3. Sifting through them is what it sounds like you are contemplating.
4. Its one thing to be called, and its another thing to be chosen.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Alonzo]

1. If you follow a Religion, can I ask which one Zo?

I prefer not to, it's easier to debate that way.

2. All religions claim to be Special in one way or another.

There are religions that claim that they're not special in the sense that you should worship their way, but most do claim that they are the most accurate, though just not the only one that should be followed. One that doesn't do this is Sikkhism though (it's the worlds 5th largest religion). They don't believe they are god's chosen or anything like that, they don't believe being a sikh provides any benefit in the eyes of god (your fate is determined by whether you were a good person) and they believe all religions will achieve the same end result in their followers. In fact, one of their founders is considered a hero to hindu's. The moghul emperor was persecuting hindu's and and he travelled to meet the emperor. Even though sikhs strongly denounce hinduisms views on cast and women (sikhs believe in strict equality), he condemned the emperor for persecuting hindu's and attempting to force conversions. He was arrested and killed for that.

3. Sifting through them is what it sounds like you are contemplating.

I'm not sifting through them and I'm not a sikh. My religious beliefs have developed over the course of my life, and in that sense they continue to develop. But I am very comfortable with where they are and there is no active searching. I simply enjoy learning about religions because it provides a way to better understand other people.

4. Its one thing to be called, and its another thing to be chosen.


Well, just to take the two larget religions, both muhammed and jesus where chosen according to their followers.

[forest_ranger254]

I'm not sure why I should assume one religion is superior to all the others that make similar claims, or the ones that do not claim to be special (sikhism in particular).


Maybe because only one can be true. Truth is NOT relative.

[Alonzo]

Good luck proving which one is the truth though. It's not that I don't agree that, in terms of the question on religion, something is true, it's just that since there's no hard scientific evidence for it it's essentially subjective and, therefore, relative. We can't definitively prove what is true. Even if we believe one thing or another, we can't scientifically prove it.

Even if I were to be accept that A) that there is such a thing as the supernatural and B) that the correct faith is actually practiced (or still being practiced) on earth, that does nothing to indicate which one it is.

Though there are some faiths that do not necessarily exclude belief in other faiths.

[forest_ranger254]

Good luck proving which one is the truth though. It's not that I don't agree that, in terms of the question on religion, something is true, it's just that since there's no hard scientific evidence for it it's essentially subjective and, therefore, relative. We can't definitively prove what is true. Even if we believe one thing or another, we can't scientifically prove it.

Even if I were to be accept that A) that there is such a thing as the supernatural and B) that the correct faith is actually practiced (or still being practiced) on earth, that does nothing to indicate which one it is.

Though there are some faiths that do not necessarily exclude belief in other faiths.


All my belief requires is the hypothesis that God exists. That makes the Bible completely viable scientifically, since it is based on one single hypothesis.

[Alonzo]

For it to be viable scientifically it would need to move out of a hypothesis and into the realm of theory.

Science takes no position on the issue of religion. They are completely separate. The problem becomes when religion tries to claim scientific validity without scientific evidence.

[forest_ranger254]

For it to be viable scientifically it would need to move out of a hypothesis and into the realm of theory.

Science takes no position on the issue of religion. They are completely separate. The problem becomes when religion tries to claim scientific validity without scientific evidence.


So far, the list of scientific theories that haven't moved out of the realm of hypothesis, all being used for evolution, is so vast that removing one of them doesn't mean a thing. Similarities in fossils is as much evidence for a Creator as it is of evolution, because one person can create different things with similar parts. For example, cars have the same types of parts in them, but does that mean that a '67 Mustang evolved into a '68, and then a '69, and so forth? no, it doesn't. It was changed by a team of engineers. So why say it is only evidence of evolution?

[Alonzo]

A hypothesis is something lacking any evidence, purely an idea. We can prove animals evolve within their species. Dogs, Cats, Elephants, Squirrells all have undergone changes that were have observed. We know that significant evolution occurs with flies, viruses, bacteria etc. Evolution is a fact in some contexts. In others it is a strongly backed scientific theory, which genetics and paleological evidence supporting it.

Theoretically yes, god could have caused evolution to take place over billions of years. But any such suggestion is purely a hypothesis, and a case of reaching a conclusion without evidence. To say "F, G, H and I evolved from E, and E, D, C evolved from B etc." is a theory based on strong scientific evidence. The cause of such things, such as reproductive pressue, is a theory as well. We caused wolves to evolve into many different types of dogs, we have caused flies to evolve apart so they are no longer members of the same species etc. That supports that.

These all have evidence that can lead to the conclusion. If you don't start with the idea that God may exist, then the evidence will not lead you to that conclusion. Therefore, because it lacks any evidence to really support it, it's a hypothesis. It's not necessarily wrong, and it can't be proven wrong. But it's not science. It may very well be correct and should be in the domain of science, but you can't support it with scientific evidence unless you already have the conclusion that god causes it. Because it is purely a supernatural phenomena without scientific evidence, it does not belong in the realm of science.Â*Â*

[Nathan Brazil]

All my belief requires is the hypothesis that God exists. That makes the Bible completely viable scientifically, since it is based on one single hypothesis.

Well, actually, no.

Hypotheses that are invalidated by evidence are rejected every day.

Take, for example, the hypothesis that the Earth was once covered in a global flood and all land animals except those on boats drowned.

Didn't happen that way. There's no evidence supporting the notion of a Everest drowning flood, not even of an Ararat drowning flood, and there's no evidence whatsoever supporting any notion of a total globally flooded "Water World" scenario.

That being the case, and because the Bible advocates such a flood as true, the Bible is not scientifically "viable".

It may be handy for somethings, but truth isn't one of them.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But your in error , The Flood did happen.
2. Your need to re-think that.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. But your in error , The Flood did happen.
2. Your need to re-think that.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Your evidence in support of this flood is? Don't go quoting works of fiction, go to the physical evidence and show it.

Arguments against:

1) Fish live today. Most would be dead if the Flood myth was a true story.

2) Dang, we can find a global iridium layer millimeters thick as evidence of an asteroid impact 65 million years ago, but we can't find any hint of the chaotic deposits left behind by the Flood.

3) Antartic ice cores go back way way past Noah's birthday, but no sign of penguins getting their feet wet.

4) Did God suck the water back up with a straw?

5) The human population is too genetically diverse to have suffered a catastrophic bottleneck so recently.

That's just a few. Your turn.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But your in error , The Flood did happen.
2. Your need to re-think that.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Your evidence in support of this flood is?Â*Â*Don't go quoting works of fiction, go to the physical evidence and show it.

Arguments against:

1) Fish live today.Â*Â*Most would be dead if the Flood myth was a true story.

2) Dang, we can find a global iridium layer millimeters thick as evidence of an asteroid impact 65 million years ago, but we can't find any hint of the chaotic deposits left behind by the Flood.

3) Antartic ice cores go back way way past Noah's birthday, but no sign of penguins getting their feet wet.

4) Did God suck the water back up with a straw?

5) The human population is too genetically diverse to have suffered a catastrophic bottleneck so recently.

That's just a few.Â*Â*Your turn.



Sorry bout that,

1. Fish live in water?,..err yes,....always have how could The Flood kill them?
2. You have to understand something, the pre flood world was nothing like this world, there was no mountains or N. or S.Poles.
3. Nope, he created the mountain ranges, and pulled down the areas under the sea to make room for all the extra water.
4. See #3.
5. If you re trace the human race count you can calculate that with normal rates of birth we can easily have the population we have now.
6. I will start a topic on The Flood and Noah's Ark. I'm an expert on the subject.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

A hypothesis is something lacking any evidence, purely an idea. We can prove animals evolve within their species. Dogs, Cats, Elephants, Squirrells all have undergone changes that were have observed. We know that significant evolution occurs with flies, viruses, bacteria etc. Evolution is a fact in some contexts. In others it is a strongly backed scientific theory, which genetics and paleological evidence supporting it.

Theoretically yes, god could have caused evolution to take place over billions of years. But any such suggestion is purely a hypothesis, and a case of reaching a conclusion without evidence. To say "F, G, H and I evolved from E, and E, D, C evolved from B etc." is a theory based on strong scientific evidence. The cause of such things, such as reproductive pressue, is a theory as well. We caused wolves to evolve into many different types of dogs, we have caused flies to evolve apart so they are no longer members of the same species etc. That supports that.

These all have evidence that can lead to the conclusion. If you don't start with the idea that God may exist, then the evidence will not lead you to that conclusion. Therefore, because it lacks any evidence to really support it, it's a hypothesis. It's not necessarily wrong, and it can't be proven wrong. But it's not science. It may very well be correct and should be in the domain of science, but you can't support it with scientific evidence unless you already have the conclusion that god causes it. Because it is purely a supernatural phenomena without scientific evidence, it does not belong in the realm of science.Â*Â*


Ok, show me one documented macromutation. The only documented one turned out to be a fraud (the moth experiment). The "scientists" toook a white moth to a white tree and took pictures, and then took a black butterfly to the same tree, but had previously blown the tree with soot, to make the color of the tree. It turns out that the only thing that happened in a seperate study was that the ratio of black moths to white moths changed, not a mutation from white to black. That and birds don't ever swoop at a moth that is on a tree, they catch them in midair. The only flying animal that eats them off the tree is a bat, and the moth's color change wouldn't help against the sonar capacity of the bat. Evolution is not science. Neither is Creationism. That puts them both squarely in the field of philosophy, since neither has any documented strong evidence. You need a macromutation to prove your theory. And don't even point to viruses and bacteria, because Those mutations never end up being a different bacteria, just a different way for the bacteria to defend itself. That is not a macromutation. show me one reliable macromutation that has happened without the help of lab techs, and then you have proof. Right now, the only mutations are caused by man's interference, and that is evidence of intelligent design.

[forest_ranger254]

All my belief requires is the hypothesis that God exists. That makes the Bible completely viable scientifically, since it is based on one single hypothesis.

Well, actually, no.

Hypotheses that are invalidated by evidence are rejected every day.

Take, for example, the hypothesis that the Earth was once covered in a global flood and all land animals except those on boats drowned.

Didn't happen that way.Â*Â*There's no evidence supporting the notion of a Everest drowning flood, not even of an Ararat drowning flood, and there's no evidence whatsoever supporting any notion of a total globally flooded "Water World" scenario.

That being the case, and because the Bible advocates such a flood as true, the Bible is not scientifically "viable".

It may be handy for somethings, but truth isn't one of them.


Sorry, but the evidence for the flood is neatly covered up as evide nce for the ice age. secondly, if God exists, anything is possible, EVEN a worldwide flood. Thus far, that and two other things are scientifically controversial. Oujtside of that, the Bible disagreed with previously accepted science myths, such as the use of bleeding to heal a sickness, and the theory that the world was flat.

[Nathan Brazil]

All my belief requires is the hypothesis that God exists. That makes the Bible completely viable scientifically, since it is based on one single hypothesis.

Well, actually, no.

Hypotheses that are invalidated by evidence are rejected every day.

Take, for example, the hypothesis that the Earth was once covered in a global flood and all land animals except those on boats drowned.

Didn't happen that way.Â*Â*There's no evidence supporting the notion of a Everest drowning flood, not even of an Ararat drowning flood, and there's no evidence whatsoever supporting any notion of a total globally flooded "Water World" scenario.

That being the case, and because the Bible advocates such a flood as true, the Bible is not scientifically "viable".

It may be handy for somethings, but truth isn't one of them.


Sorry, but the evidence for the flood is neatly covered up as evide nce for the ice age. secondly, if God exists, anything is possible, EVEN a worldwide flood. Thus far, that and two other things are scientifically controversial. Oujtside of that, the Bible disagreed with previously accepted science myths, such as the use of bleeding to heal a sickness, and the theory that the world was flat.


So, actually, you can't prove that something as simple to prove as an Everest-drowning deluge happened, but you still want to insist that the Bible isn't a work of fiction.

Okay.

I do recommend, however, that you avoid the use of the word "science" in your discussions, you're dealing in superstition, abeyance of reality, and various forms of deception.

Oh, and you didn't discuss Antarctic ice cores for some strange reason, or God's Giant Straw.

[forest_ranger254]

So, actually, you can't prove that something as simple to prove as an Everest-drowning deluge happened, but you still want to insist that the Bible isn't a work of fiction.

Okay.

I do recommend, however, that you avoid the use of the word "science" in your discussions, you're dealing in superstition, abeyance of reality, and various forms of deception.

Oh, and you didn't discuss Antarctic ice cores for some strange reason, or God's Giant Straw.


No, I said the evidence is used as evidence for the ice age. Get your statements straight. Secondly, God created Adam and Eve with age, so he most likely created the earth with age. However, the evidence he left of the world's age is in the still massive oil reserves. If this world were as old as evolution implies, the oil would have naturally dried up. This is not so. Matter of fact, the amount of oil left in the earth implies an age of between 10000 and 15000 years. That matches up with the Bible.

[Nathan Brazil]

No, I said the evidence is used as evidence for the ice age. Get your statements straight. Secondly, God created Adam and Eve with age, so he most likely created the earth with age. However, the evidence he left of the world's age is in the still massive oil reserves. If this world were as old as evolution implies, the oil would have naturally dried up. This is not so. Matter of fact, the amount of oil left in the earth implies an age of between 10000 and 15000 years. That matches up with the Bible.


She created the Earth with "age", huh? The lying b!

The oil would "naturally dry up"? Got any entertaining web sites to back that one up?

Evolution is only one indicator of the age of the planet. The real indicators are the rocks themselves. Unless, of course, God's lying to us.

Are you saying that God's a liar?

[forest_ranger254]

She created the Earth with "age", huh?Â*Â*The lying b!

The oil would "naturally dry up"?Â*Â*Got any entertaining web sites to back that one up?

Evolution is only one indicator of the age of the planet.Â*Â*The real indicators are the rocks themselves.Â*Â*Unless, of course, God's lying to us.

Are you saying that God's a liar?Â*Â*


Actually, the only real "evidence" for a billions of years old earth model is the fact that the philosophy of evolution requires it. That's why radiometric dating "discovers" the ages they do: they triangulate based on a few "knowns," none of which really are known at all:
They "know" that the solar system is about 4 billion years old -- based on the philosophy of evolution, which means they don't really know that.
They "know" that potassium, Carbon-14, or whatever element they're testing decays at a certain invariable rate -- except they don't know that at all. Decay rates can change, and they don't know if the rate changed or not. Also, they don't know if the amount of daughter material was originally zero.
Let's say you're doing Uranium/Lead testing. Uranium decays into lead, so you can accurately determine an artifact's age by calculating the amount of uranium and lead, then plugging those figures into an equation with the decay rate, right?

Well...

The ONLY way to ensure accuracy is to know the following:
How much daughter material (lead) was originally in the artifact? (They don't know! If X amount of lead in the artifact is assumed to ALL be decayed from uranium, when in fact some lead was already there, the artifact could test much older than it really is -- and with no way to tell whether your figures are accurate!)
Did the rate of decay remain constant? (They don't know! What if it accelerated? What if it slowed down?)
Based on these "facts," which are really assumptions, they measure the ratio of uranium to lead present in the artifact -- the only fact in this whole equation -- plug in their assumptions, and voila! Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago! Right? Well...

What about human skulls and gold chains found in seams of coal? (Oops!) What about tree trunks running vertically through quot;millions of years" of sedimentation?

Here are a few other uncomfortable facts:

The age of the universe outside the solar system is calculated based on the distance and speed of star and galaxy recession -- but this method presupposes a "Big Bang," which is far from being scientifically established. Not to mention the fact that the distances and speeds are hotly contested.

NASA expected 54 feet of dust on the Moon, assuming a 5-billion-year age. Oops! They found only 13 feet at the Apollo 11 landing site, 2 to 3 feet at Luna 16, and 11.5 feet at Apollo 12.

The Poynting-Robertson effect slows down small particles in orbit and makes them fall into the sun. In only 2 billion years, all particles less than three inches across clear out to Jupiter's orbit should have been eliminated. Oops! There are huge quantities still out there (they show up during the Perseid meteor shower every August).

All short-term comets in the solar system should have been evaporated in 10,000 years or less. Oops! They haven't!

Here's the results of radiometric Moon-rock dating: Uranium/lead and thorium: from 3.36 to 28.1 billion years. Potassium/argon: 2.2 to 7 billion years. These figures are incompatible with each other and any known solar system aging model -- if radiometric dating is reliable, that is...

Living snails have been radiometrically dated by Carbon-14 to be 2,300 years old. A Hawaiian lava flow known to be less than 200 years old was dated at 3 billion years. New wood in growing tress has been dated at 10,000 years. Oops!

Sediment on the ocean floor is an average of 1/2 mile deep, or about 8.2 x 10/17th tons. Rate of deposition is 2.75 x 10/10th tons a year. Works out the oceans can't be more than 33 million years old, even if we stick with a uniform deposition rate. And a non-uniform deposition (caused by something such as a worldwide flood) could greatly reduce the time involved by speeding up deposition.

Oil and gas deposits are still under lots of pressure, even in porous rock. That pressure is known to bleed off, and it shouldn't be there anymore if the oil fields are more than a few thousand years old.

The only way fossilization occurs is if living tissue is suddenly cut off from air and subjected to great pressure. Scientists studying the topography surrounding Mount St. Helens therefore found fossilized layers of flora and fauna created by mudslides that they know are only 15 years old -- yet they almost exactly reproduce the "millions of years" of fossilization found elsewhere on earth.

Here's the "age" of Black Hills Granite, under different radiometric dating methods:
Sr/Rb = 1.16 billion years
U238/Pb206 = 1.68 billion
Pb207/Pb206 = 2.55 billion
(Which one is "right"?)

Reunion Island rocks tested similarly tested all the way from 100,000 years to 4.4 billion!

The earth's magnetic field decays exponentially, with a half-life of 1,400 years. Projecting in reverse, the earth's age comes out as -- surprise! -- 10,000 years or less.

There's a lot more (I'm just skimming my Anthro/Christo/Soter. notes from last semester). The reality is that very little evidence points to an old earth, but a lot of evidence points to a young earth, with a fossil layer caused by some sort of worldwide catastrophe.

Evolution started with the philosophy of "uniformitarianism," which says that all changes happened very, very slowly. No such thing as a worldwide catastrophe; can't be.

Except they have since needed to explain why the dinosaurs went extinct so suddenly. So now we have a worldwide nuclear winter caused by an asteroid hitting the earth. Worldwide changes in geography, topography, climate -- the works.

So why not a flood, which would do all the same things? Well, a flood is "unscientific" -- but a giant asteroid isn't! Huh?

I've carefully avoided mentioning the genealogical "proof" of the age of mankind, because counting "begats," as you put it, is not a very good method to determine passage of time. But it is very interesting that a lot of the scientific evidence points to a much younger earth than the evolutionists were (and still are) looking for, isn't it?

[Nathan Brazil]

Actually, the only real "evidence" for a billions of years old earth model is the fact that the philosophy of evolution requires it.

You sure about that?

That's why radiometric dating "discovers" the ages they do: they triangulate based on a few "knowns," none of which really are known at all:

They "know" that the solar system is about 4 billion years old -- based on the philosophy of evolution, which means they don't really know that.[/quoute]

Have you ever thought about taking a science class? I mean a science class taught by science teachers, not pastors?

[quote=forest_ranger254]They "know" that potassium, Carbon-14, or whatever element they're testing decays at a certain invariable rate -- except they don't know that at all. Decay rates can change, and they don't know if the rate changed or not.

They change? Got any evidence to support this one?


Also, they don't know if the amount of daughter material was originally zero.

Generally a negligible consideration. Given the level of your scientific erudition demonstrated above, is it worth explaining that the chances of a systematic contamination of samples by primordial initial daughter isotopes is unlikely?

Let's say you're doing Uranium/Lead testing. Uranium decays into lead, so you can accurately determine an artifact's age by calculating the amount of uranium and lead, then plugging those figures into an equation with the decay rate, right?

[quote=forest_ranger254]Did the rate of decay remain constant? (They don't know! What if it accelerated? What if it slowed down?)

You got anything at all to support these wild assumptions? Anything at all to show that statistically determined decay rates are variable? Or is this just an empty jab to fuel doubts in minds predisposed to superstitious manipulation?

Based on these "facts," which are really assumptions, they measure the ratio of uranium to lead present in the artifact -- the only fact in this whole equation -- plug in their assumptions, and voila! Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago! Right? Well...

I see you only claim facts that support what you say. Funny. No mention of estimated deposition rates, erosion rates, relative stratigraphy, or any other non-radiological methods geologists use to date layers.

What about human skulls and gold chains found in seams of coal? (Oops!)

How about 'em? Got any photos?

What about tree trunks running vertically through quot;millions of years" of sedimentation?

There's reasons. I'll have to get back to that one later.

Here are a few other uncomfortable facts:

The age of the universe outside the solar system is calculated based on the distance and speed of star and galaxy recession -- but this method presupposes a "Big Bang," which is far from being scientifically established. Not to mention the fact that the distances and speeds are hotly contested.

No cosmologist today denies that at some point in the past the mass of the entire universe was constrained in a much smaller volume, on the order of the size of a proton or less. That is very much "scientifically established".

Search "Type IIa Supernova Project" or "High Z Cosmology". There's no doubt that the universe is older than 12 gyr, and most likely 14-15 gyr.

NASA expected 54 feet of dust on the Moon, assuming a 5-billion-year age. Oops! They found only 13 feet at the Apollo 11 landing site, 2 to 3 feet at Luna 16, and 11.5 feet at Apollo 12.

Certain worry warts in NASA or elsewhere were concerned that the dust wasn't solid enough to support a lander. So what?

The Poynting-Robertson effect slows down small particles in orbit and makes them fall into the sun. In only 2 billion years, all particles less than three inches across clear out to Jupiter's orbit should have been eliminated. Oops! There are huge quantities still out there (they show up during the Perseid meteor shower every August).

The Perseids...aren't they the remanants of Halley's comet, scattered along it's orbit? Or are the Perseids the result of some comet recently deceased? Whatever, I know they're the remains of a comet.

The point is...the minor debris in interplanetary space is being replenished.

All short-term comets in the solar system should have been evaporated in 10,000 years or less. Oops! They haven't!

"Evaporated"? First off, get some source documentation. Then go read about comets and where they come from. You're arguing from sheer ignorance, and there's no excuse for that at all.

Here's the results of radiometric Moon-rock dating: Uranium/lead and thorium: from 3.36 to 28.1 billion years. Potassium/argon: 2.2 to 7 billion years. These figures are incompatible with each other and any known solar system aging model -- if radiometric dating is reliable, that is...

Got any references, or are this rectally arrived numbers?

Living snails have been radiometrically dated by Carbon-14 to be 2,300 years old. A Hawaiian lava flow known to be less than 200 years old was dated at 3 billion years. New wood in growing tress has been dated at 10,000 years. Oops!

Again...references?

Sediment on the ocean floor is an average of 1/2 mile deep, or about 8.2 x 10/17th tons. Rate of deposition is 2.75 x 10/10th tons a year. Works out the oceans can't be more than 33 million years old, even if we stick with a uniform deposition rate. And a non-uniform deposition (caused by something such as a worldwide flood) could greatly reduce the time involved by speeding up deposition.

Actually, how about a "non-uniform deposition" that has a lower rate of accretion, thereby increasing sea bottom age?

Oil and gas deposits are still under lots of pressure, even in porous rock. That pressure is known to bleed off, and it shouldn't be there anymore if the oil fields are more than a few thousand years old.

a) in order for pressure to bleed off, it has to have a vent.

b) pockets without vents don't bleed off.

c) pockets of oil also have the weight of the rock above pushing down. This weight distributed over the area of the pocket = pressure.

The only way fossilization occurs is if living tissue is suddenly cut off from air and subjected to great pressure. Scientists studying the topography surrounding Mount St. Helens therefore found fossilized layers of flora and fauna created by mudslides that they know are only 15 years old -- yet they almost exactly reproduce the "millions of years" of fossilization found elsewhere on earth.

So, your picture of fossilization is flawed. Fossilization requires the death of a specimen and subsequent isolation from oxygen, to halt decay, either through volcanism, drowning in oxygen starved water, or something similar.

As for your claim that corpses buried for 15 years in mudslides almost exactly mimic the features of a fossilized bone is absurd. The only real feature held in common at that point is that the animal or plant is dead. No time for mineral substitution to occur in 15 years.

Here's the "age" of Black Hills Granite, under different radiometric dating methods:
Sr/Rb = 1.16 billion years
U238/Pb206 = 1.68 billion
Pb207/Pb206 = 2.55 billion
(Which one is "right"?)

For all I know, all three are correct. Got any references so we can see what the tests say?

The earth's magnetic field decays exponentially, with a half-life of 1,400 years. Projecting in reverse, the earth's age comes out as -- surprise! -- 10,000 years or less.

Reference?

There's a lot more (I'm just skimming my Anthro/Christo/Soter. notes from last semester). The reality is that very little evidence points to an old earth, but a lot of evidence points to a young earth, with a fossil layer caused by some sort of worldwide catastrophe.

I certainly hope you're paying for this education of yours on your own money, with not a dime of taxpayer funds going to that "school".

Some is doing you a serious disservice and you should be very angry at them.

Evolution started with the philosophy of "uniformitarianism," which says that all changes happened very, very slowly. No such thing as a worldwide catastrophe; can't be.

Thank you, Charles Lyell. Of course, in his time, no one believed that rocks fell out of the sky, either. It took a century and a half for the truth to be accepted.

However, not one of those identified global catastrophes involved tripling the volume of water on the planet. Not a one. They all involved fire and ash and smoke and explosions.

Except they have since needed to explain why the dinosaurs went extinct so suddenly. So now we have a worldwide nuclear winter caused by an asteroid hitting the earth. Worldwide changes in geography, topography, climate -- the works.

That's what the real evidence points at.

So why not a flood, which would do all the same things? Well, a flood is "unscientific" -- but a giant asteroid isn't! Huh?

Giant asteroids exist. And some of us even saw, with our very own eyeballs, Comet Levy-Schumaker 9 smack Jupiter most violently.

Not only has no one ever seen a global flood, no one can postulate a mechanism for making it happen consistent with observed facts.

I've carefully avoided mentioning the genealogical "proof" of the age of mankind, because counting "begats," as you put it, is not a very good method to determine passage of time. But it is very interesting that a lot of the scientific evidence points to a much younger earth than the evolutionists were (and still are) looking for, isn't it?

No, it's not interesting at all, once you get the agenda driven pseudoscientists and money grubbing bible thumpers out of the way.

[Alonzo]

Ok, show me one documented macromutation. The only documented one turned out to be a fraud (the moth experiment). The "scientists" toook a white moth to a white tree and took pictures, and then took a black butterfly to the same tree, but had previously blown the tree with soot, to make the color of the tree. It turns out that the only thing that happened in a seperate study was that the ratio of black moths to white moths changed, not a mutation from white to black. That and birds don't ever swoop at a moth that is on a tree, they catch them in midair. The only flying animal that eats them off the tree is a bat, and the moth's color change wouldn't help against the sonar capacity of the bat. Evolution is not science. Neither is Creationism. That puts them both squarely in the field of philosophy, since neither has any documented strong evidence. You need a macromutation to prove your theory. And don't even point to viruses and bacteria, because Those mutations never end up being a different bacteria, just a different way for the bacteria to defend itself. That is not a macromutation. show me one reliable macromutation that has happened without the help of lab techs, and then you have proof. Right now, the only mutations are caused by man's interference, and that is evidence of intelligent design.


Actually they do end up as different viruses and bacteria sometimes. But micromutations, not macromutations, are the driving force behind evolution. Macromutations are extremely rare.

Though I see someone else decided to argue with you this time. I'll leave it to them.

[Nathan Brazil]

Before one starts to present exhibits of speciation, will the other side define "species" adequately?

Oh, and there's no "macro/micro" evolution. That's a dodge the pseudoscientists "created" to support their arguments for creationism. Since "macro/micro" evolution is not part of the science, I shall not discuss that.

Define "species", please.

[forest_ranger254]

Ok Nathan, since you want to show evidence for this stuff, show. I want to see where all the evidence is. Some suppose the universe oscilates, however, there is no evidence of this. Matter of fact, there isn't even math to support this. Since the only other possibility is a constantly growing system, let me extrapolate back to the second before the BB. What do you get according to the mathematic equations? a negative number. once you get to 0, the answer is 0. This is the reason you find no sites on the big bang that measure the seconds before the big bang. Well, laws of thermodynamics state that energy must remain constant. This means that when matter equals 0, energy equals 0, and both must stay the same. Where did all the energy come from? Some state that an infron field held all this energy, but that required a few extra dimensions of space. Also, they never explain how the energy from the infron field was transferred into usable kinetic energy. Since no natural process can create energy, it means the process can only be supernatural. Your argument?

[forest_ranger254]

Actually they do end up as different viruses and bacteria sometimes. But micromutations, not macromutations, are the driving force behind evolution. Macromutations are extremely rare.

Though I see someone else decided to argue with you this time. I'll leave it to them.


Ok, then explain how the first cell became a multicellular animal. if not through a huge leap of macromutation that has never been seen in a lab, then what. I want a lab experiment that showed the proof of the obvious first macromutation. Except the hitch is, you must use the same exact atmosphere that was in existence. You know, the one that lightning runs through it and creates cyanide and formaldehyde.

[forest_ranger254]

Before one starts to present exhibits of speciation, will the other side define "species" adequately?

Oh, and there's no "macro/micro" evolution.Â*Â*That's a dodge the pseudoscientists "created" to support their arguments for creationism.Â*Â*Since "macro/micro" evolution is not part of the science, I shall not discuss that.

Define "species", please.


Macromutation is when a mutation causes a complete change in species. Micromutation is when the change does not result in speciation. And it was a theory proposed by an evolutionist, not a Creationist.

[Alonzo]

Ok, then explain how the first cell became a multicellular animal. if not through a huge leap of macromutation that has never been seen in a lab, then what. I want a lab experiment that showed the proof of the obvious first macromutation. Except the hitch is, you must use the same exact atmosphere that was in existence. You know, the one that lightning runs through it and creates cyanide and formaldehyde.


This is pointless. You want me to show evidence for an argument that's disregarded by mainstream biological science.

Macromutation is when a mutation causes a complete change in species. Micromutation is when the change does not result in speciation.

Wrong, macromutation is when significant sudden mutation produces a new characteristic. Micromutation is when multiple mutations accumulate over time to form a characteristic. Both have been suggested as the primary motivation behind evolution, though macromutation is no longer accepted as the primary mechanism behind evolution.

[forest_ranger254]

This is pointless. You want me to show evidence for an argument that's disregarded by mainstream biological science.

Disregarded because the answer is that there is no possible way, so it is all accepted on faith. There. I just proved that evolution is based on faith at its very core.
You have dodged and dodged. However, it is unavoidably impossible for micromutations to result in the change listed above. You have to change five homeobox genes to make that change. Since micromutations do not change homeobox genes, it is only possible for it to be a macromutations.

[Alonzo]

Disregarded because the answer is that there is no possible way, so it is all accepted on faith. There. I just proved that evolution is based on faith at its very core.
You have dodged and dodged. However, it is unavoidably impossible for micromutations to result in the change listed above. You have to change five homeobox genes to make that change. Since micromutations do not change homeobox genes, it is only possible for it to be a macromutations.


Here's an idea, ask for evidence on a theory that is actually held by a significant amount of biologists if you want me to provide evidence. I wouldn't ask you to provide evidence on how Chaos and Eros created the earth. The main theory for the transition between unicellular and multicellular organisms resulted from symbiosis of cells of the same species. This is seen in nature today, where single cell organisms of the same type exist together doing different functions. Quite often these groups appear to be multicellular even though they are not. Over time, considering that the dna is essentially the same, they produce together. It is believed this step took longer to accomplish than it took to go from the first multicellular organism to humans. It was by no means quick.

With evolution you have laboratory evidence, naturalistic observation, paleological evidence, geological evidence etc. Very little science is 100% proveable fact, the strongest you usually get is highly probable. Science does not claim to know everything, that's the whole point of research. If you took away all religious scripture and all scientific evidence, science would eventually return to the point it is at today, but creationism would not.

[Nathan Brazil]

Ok Nathan, since you want to show evidence for this stuff, show. I want to see where all the evidence is. Some suppose the universe oscilates, however, there is no evidence of this. Matter of fact, there isn't even math to support this. Since the only other possibility is a constantly growing system, let me extrapolate back to the second before the BB. What do you get according to the mathematic equations? a negative number. once you get to 0, the answer is 0. This is the reason you find no sites on the big bang that measure the seconds before the big bang. Well, laws of thermodynamics state that energy must remain constant. This means that when matter equals 0, energy equals 0, and both must stay the same. Where did all the energy come from? Some state that an infron field held all this energy, but that required a few extra dimensions of space. Also, they never explain how the energy from the infron field was transferred into usable kinetic energy. Since no natural process can create energy, it means the process can only be supernatural. Your argument?


Ah, the old resort to arguments from First Causes business.Â*Â*Where'd God come from?Â*Â*

And no, the process of inflation isn't "supernatural", it appears to be a by-product of the natural state of space, and the occasional inflation of a point to the truly immense universe observed today is one possibility off 10^500 or possibilities for what Leonard Susskind calls the "cosmic landscape".Â*Â*This falls out of string theory naturally.

Then again, there's not a shred of evidence for God.Â*Â*Not one bit.

[Nathan Brazil]

Before one starts to present exhibits of speciation, will the other side define "species" adequately?

Oh, and there's no "macro/micro" evolution.Â*Â*That's a dodge the pseudoscientists "created" to support their arguments for creationism.Â*Â*Since "macro/micro" evolution is not part of the science, I shall not discuss that.

Define "species", please.


Macromutation is when a mutation causes a complete change in species. Micromutation is when the change does not result in speciation. And it was a theory proposed by an evolutionist, not a Creationist.


I see that my request for a definition of the word "species" was ignored, and yet you chose to use the word "species" in the definitions of two terms that don't have any meaning in evolution.

If you're expecting a single genetic event to yield new species its no wonder you reject evolution as science. Since you refuse to define species, there's not much point in trying to explain things to you, though.

[forest_ranger254]

I see that my request for a definition of the word "species" was ignored, and yet you chose to use the word "species" in the definitions of two terms that don't have any meaning in evolution.

If you're expecting a single genetic event to yield new species its no wonder you reject evolution as science.Â*Â*Since you refuse to define species, there's not much point in trying to explain things to you, though.


This is a debate, not a high school level general science class. For your info, I passed Gen Bio on a college level with a 89. Ok, then how was the one mutation from a single celled animal to multicellular animal not a macromutation from one species (A paramecium to a dual-celled paramecium???).

[forest_ranger254]

Here's an idea, ask for evidence on a theory that is actually held by a significant amount of biologists if you want me to provide evidence. I wouldn't ask you to provide evidence on how Chaos and Eros created the earth. The main theory for the transition between unicellular and multicellular organisms resulted from symbiosis of cells of the same species. This is seen in nature today, where single cell organisms of the same type exist together doing different functions. Quite often these groups appear to be multicellular even though they are not. Over time, considering that the dna is essentially the same, they produce together. It is believed this step took longer to accomplish than it took to go from the first multicellular organism to humans. It was by no means quick.Â*Â*

With evolution you have laboratory evidence, naturalistic observation, paleological evidence, geological evidence etc. Very little science is 100% proveable fact, the strongest you usually get is highly probable. Science does not claim to know everything, that's the whole point of research. If you took away all religious scripture and all scientific evidence, science would eventually return to the point it is at today, but creationism would not.


Citing NOVA, You remove a single cell from that biofilm, and it returns to its normal state. Taking that same logic, will we one day evolve into a "Multi-organism organism"? We live in symbiosis with eachother. We have people working together when they are the same. Deaf people get aolong better with deaf people, Spanish with Spanish, techies with techies, etc. Our DNA is essentially the same.

You also removed the hostile environment. Since the atmosphere at the time was a type that constantly produced cyanide and formaldehyde, two things that destroy cells.

[forest_ranger254]

Ok Nathan, since you want to show evidence for this stuff, show. I want to see where all the evidence is. Some suppose the universe oscilates, however, there is no evidence of this. Matter of fact, there isn't even math to support this. Since the only other possibility is a constantly growing system, let me extrapolate back to the second before the BB. What do you get according to the mathematic equations? a negative number. once you get to 0, the answer is 0. This is the reason you find no sites on the big bang that measure the seconds before the big bang. Well, laws of thermodynamics state that energy must remain constant. This means that when matter equals 0, energy equals 0, and both must stay the same. Where did all the energy come from? Some state that an infron field held all this energy, but that required a few extra dimensions of space. Also, they never explain how the energy from the infron field was transferred into usable kinetic energy. Since no natural process can create energy, it means the process can only be supernatural. Your argument?


Ah, the old resort to arguments from First Causes business.Â*Â*Where'd God come from?Â*Â*

And no, the process of inflation isn't "supernatural", it appears to be a by-product of the natural state of space, and the occasional inflation of a point to the truly immense universe observed today is one possibility off 10^500 or possibilities for what Leonard Susskind calls the "cosmic landscape".Â*Â*This falls out of string theory naturally.

Then again, there's not a shred of evidence for God.Â*Â*Not one bit.



And you expect there to be? If God put all this into motion, this universe is the evidence.

[Nathan Brazil]

This is a debate, not a high school level general science class. For your info, I passed Gen Bio on a college level with a 89. Ok, then how was the one mutation from a single celled animal to multicellular animal not a macromutation from one species (A paramecium to a dual-celled paramecium???).


Yes, this is a debate. Successful debates require that both sides agree on the terms used in the debate, or the debates in turn revolves around the definitions.

Since you refuse to provide a definition of what you mean when you use the word "species", this debate cannot concern evolution, since the concept of evolution itself is dependent upon what is meant by the word "species".

Since I don't plan on doing your work for you, I shall not be providing any definitions for the word "species" until you yourself supply the audience with what you think it means.

Personally, I don't care if you got yourself a 110 in general biology, or if you got yourself a PhD. You've refused to define a term that is intrinsic to the whole discussion and thus aren't actually participating in the discussion so much as obfuscating it.

Now. What do you mean when you employ the word "species"?

[Nathan Brazil]

And you expect there to be? If God put all this into motion, this universe is the evidence.

As you said, this is a debate. Circular reasoning is not acceptable. You lose.

[forest_ranger254]

And you expect there to be? If God put all this into motion, this universe is the evidence.

As you said, this is a debate.Â*Â*Circular reasoning is not acceptable.Â*Â*You lose.


I bhaven't gone into a circle yet. All I said is that if God created the world, the results of his actions are evidence of him, just like my fingerprints are evidence that I existed at the time of their being put there, and that I was there at the time they got there.

[forest_ranger254]

This is a debate, not a high school level general science class. For your info, I passed Gen Bio on a college level with a 89. Ok, then how was the one mutation from a single celled animal to multicellular animal not a macromutation from one species (A paramecium to a dual-celled paramecium???).


Yes, this is a debate.Â*Â*Successful debates require that bothÂ*Â*sides agree on the terms used in the debate, or the debates in turn revolves around the definitions.

Since you refuse to provide a definition of what you mean when you use the word "species", this debate cannot concern evolution, since the concept of evolution itself is dependent upon what is meant by the word "species".

Since I don't plan on doing your work for you, I shall not be providing any definitions for the word "species" until you yourself supply the audience with what you think it means.

Personally, I don't care if you got yourself a 110 in general biology, or if you got yourself a PhD.Â*Â*You've refused to define a term that isÂ*Â*intrinsic to the whole discussion and thus aren't actually participating in the discussion so much as obfuscating it.

Now.Â*Â*What do you mean when you employ the word "species"?


The most specific classification of an animal. The final latin word in the scientific name of an animal. One species cannot reproduce with another species. Since you want to go all the way down to fifth grade, hows about you go get your reader?

[Nathan Brazil]

I bhaven't gone into a circle yet. All I said is that if God created the world, the results of his actions are evidence of him, just like my fingerprints are evidence that I existed at the time of their being put there, and that I was there at the time they got there.


Like I said, it's totally circular. You're saying that God invented the universe, therefore the universe is evidence of God. That's a short a circle I've seen in a long long time. Most people dress them up a little better.

How's your work on the word "species" coming, or are you going to take a forfeit on that one?

[Nathan Brazil]

The most specific classification of an animal. The final latin word in the scientific name of an animal. One species cannot reproduce with another species. Since you want to go all the way down to fifth grade, hows about you go get your reader?


That is a sort of weak definition. No mention of genetic compatitibility, for example. Also, you restrict it to animals for some reason. Why is that? Are giant sequoias the same species of plant as a tulip?

Great Danes cannot reproduce with chihuahuas in the natural world. At best, the male chihuahua needs a lift to mate with the female dane. The female chihuahua, of course, simply cannot carry a male great dane's litter.


And that's just mechanics, yet those dogs, by your definition are not only seperate species, they're seperate species created by man.

[forest_ranger254]

The most specific classification of an animal. The final latin word in the scientific name of an animal. One species cannot reproduce with another species. Since you want to go all the way down to fifth grade, hows about you go get your reader?


That is a sort of weak definition.Â*Â*No mention of genetic compatitibility, for example.Â*Â*Also, you restrict it to animals for some reason.Â*Â*Why is that?Â*Â*Are giant sequoias the same species of plant as a tulip?

Great Danes cannot reproduce with chihuahuas in the natural world.Â*Â*At best, the male chihuahua needs a lift to mate with the female dane.Â*Â*The female chihuahua, of course, simply cannot carry a male great dane's litter.Â*Â*


And that's just mechanics, yet those dogs, byÂ*Â*your definition are not only seperate species, they're seperate species created by man.


I am not a scientist, I am an interpreter. I have a tendency to simplify everything I say. If you have a problem with that, get a life, cause I don't really care. I would guarantee that there were multiple types of dogs back at the beginning. However, any type that was created by breeding of any type is a result of intelligent design in two ways. People bred them. When most people think of species they think of animals. technically, the types of plants that are a result of people's work would be things like corn and navel oranges, both of which can't grow in the wild. I don't know how they get corn, but I know that navel oranges have to be grafted into the tree, a process partially described in the Bible.

[forest_ranger254]

I bhaven't gone into a circle yet. All I said is that if God created the world, the results of his actions are evidence of him, just like my fingerprints are evidence that I existed at the time of their being put there, and that I was there at the time they got there.


Like I said, it's totally circular.Â*Â*You're saying that God invented the universe, therefore the universe is evidence of God.Â*Â*That's a short a circle I've seen in a long long time.Â*Â*Most people dress them up a little better.


So forensic evidence is circular reasoning?

[Alonzo]

Citing NOVA, You remove a single cell from that biofilm, and it returns to its normal state. Taking that same logic, will we one day evolve into a "Multi-organism organism"? We live in symbiosis with eachother. We have people working together when they are the same. Deaf people get aolong better with deaf people, Spanish with Spanish, techies with techies, etc. Our DNA is essentially the same.

This is a perfect example of why I didn't want to debate with you on this. I'm not familiar with any human society where only 1 or 2 people breed or only 1 or 2 people eat for the group. Where they all movie in unison, all do different things that mimick a multicellular organism etc. You don't even understand the concept of the argument, regardless of your opinion on it.

Creationism is much simpler than science. Creationism claims to be more exact, science is a work in progress. You're using the same handbook that is always brought up by creationists, of which there are scientific answers. I don't care about arguing them. Argue nathan, you can easily win against someone who doesn't even know what a species is.

You have about 15 points to challenge. The effort to do so, the time spent, and the likelihood of you ignoring the bulk of it as in the past, are why I don't want to argue and wouldn't enjoy this debate.

[forest_ranger254]

Disregarded because the answer is that there is no possible way, so it is all accepted on faith. There. I just proved that evolution is based on faith at its very core.
You have dodged and dodged. However, it is unavoidably impossible for micromutations to result in the change listed above. You have to change five homeobox genes to make that change. Since micromutations do not change homeobox genes, it is only possible for it to be a macromutations.


Here's an idea, ask for evidence on a theory that is actually held by a significant amount of biologists if you want me to provide evidence. I wouldn't ask you to provide evidence on how Chaos and Eros created the earth. The main theory for the transition between unicellular and multicellular organisms resulted from symbiosis of cells of the same species. This is seen in nature today, where single cell organisms of the same type exist together doing different functions. Quite often these groups appear to be multicellular even though they are not. Over time, considering that the dna is essentially the same, they produce together. It is believed this step took longer to accomplish than it took to go from the first multicellular organism to humans. It was by no means quick.Â*Â*

With evolution you have laboratory evidence, naturalistic observation, paleological evidence, geological evidence etc. Very little science is 100% proveable fact, the strongest you usually get is highly probable. Science does not claim to know everything, that's the whole point of research. If you took away all religious scripture and all scientific evidence, science would eventually return to the point it is at today, but creationism would not.


Dude, did you not here my argument. NEITHER EVOLUTION NOR CREATIONISM ARE SCIENCE. Among the award winning books (receiving awards for the evidence backing them) that debunk evolution is Case for Christ, the writer of which was an atheist at the time he began to write it. He was trying to write a book debunking Creationism, and ended up supporting it. From the scientific impossibility of the Big Bang (getting something from nothing naturally), to the multiple lies in the fossil record (archaeopteryx turned out to be a couple hundred years younger than the youngest fossil of the next one in the line. They lied about some of the homo fossils.). With all the deceit they have used, why trust them.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But what the hell happened to the guy who started this thread?
2. Did he die or what?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Alonzo]

Dude, did you not here my argument. NEITHER EVOLUTION NOR CREATIONISM ARE SCIENCE.

This is really an odd statement. Do you think that I hold you in higher esteem than archeological, genetic etc. evidence? Than people who spend their lives researching archeology and such? Or that I think you making a statement overrides all the stuff I've studied? Either that or you have such an inflated ego that you think you making a statement makes it so, and everyone should just bow down to your words.

Among the award winning books (receiving awards for the evidence backing them) that debunk evolution is the Case for Christ, the writer of which was an atheist at the time he began to write it. He was trying to write a book debunking Creationism, and ended up supporting it.

The case for Christ is a book that argues whether there is a case to be made that Jesus is the son of God. Have you even read the book? Or looked at the cover?

From the scientific impossibility of the Big Bang (getting something from nothing naturally), to the multiple lies in the fossil record (archaeopteryx turned out to be a couple hundred years younger than the youngest fossil of the next one in the line. They lied about some of the homo fossils.). With all the deceit they have used, why trust them.


Something came from nothing. Be it the big bang, god, or whatever else you want to come up with. Either something always was, or something came from nothing. If God created itself then it did so out of nothing, and out of nothing came something (God). That question is the same regardless. And there are believers in God who don't believe in the big bang and there are those who do.

Evolution is messy. Species evolve from one population and the ancestor is still around. It's not all A evolves into B, only some of A does. Some will die off over time, some will evolve into C and D etc. Species may evolve from an animal and coexist with that animal for millions of years even.

Archaeopteryx lived about 150 million years ago. If your university is telling you that scientists argue that when an animal evolves it's ancestors disappears immediately, or that fossils millions of years old can be precisely dated to the century they're from, then you really need to find a better source of anti-evolution arguments. If they're really telling you that, then they're arguing against something that they don't even understand.

And of course there have been hoaxes, every thing attracts it's share of hoaxes. But you can't honestly believe that all of archeology is a hoax, that's really getting into the tin hat conspiracy realm. Piltdown man is the most famous, but science has grown by leaps and bounds. You're saying that a fraud, one that was exposed in the 1950's, somehow invalidates evidence that actually holds up to scientific testing. Testing that was not available in the early 20th century when it was found.

[forest_ranger254]

Dude, did you not here my argument. NEITHER EVOLUTION NOR CREATIONISM ARE SCIENCE.

This is really an odd statement. Do you think that I hold you in higher esteem than archeological, genetic etc. evidence? Than people who spend their lives researching archeology and such? Or that I think you making a statement overrides all the stuff I've studied? Either that or you have such an inflated ego that you think you making a statement makes it so, and everyone should just bow down to your words.

Among the award winning books (receiving awards for the evidence backing them) that debunk evolution is the Case for Christ, the writer of which was an atheist at the time he began to write it. He was trying to write a book debunking Creationism, and ended up supporting it.

The case for Christ is a book that argues whether there is a case to be made that Jesus is the son of God. Have you even read the book? Or looked at the cover?

From the scientific impossibility of the Big Bang (getting something from nothing naturally), to the multiple lies in the fossil record (archaeopteryx turned out to be a couple hundred years younger than the youngest fossil of the next one in the line. They lied about some of the homo fossils.). With all the deceit they have used, why trust them.


Something came from nothing. Be it the big bang, god, or whatever else you want to come up with. Either something always was, or something came from nothing. If God created itself then it did so out of nothing, and out of nothing came something (God). That question is the same regardless. And there are believers in God who don't believe in the big bang and there are those who do.

Evolution is messy. Species evolve from one population and the ancestor is still around. It's not all A evolves into B, only some of A does. Some will die off over time, some will evolve into C and D etc. Species may evolve from an animal and coexist with that animal for millions of years even.

Archaeopteryx lived about 150 million years ago. If your university is telling you that scientists argue that when an animal evolves it's ancestors disappears immediately, or that fossils millions of years old can be precisely dated to the century they're from, then you really need to find a better source of anti-evolution arguments. If they're really telling you that, then they're arguing against something that they don't even understand.

And of course there have been hoaxes, every thing attracts it's share of hoaxes. But you can't honestly believe that all of archeology is a hoax, that's really getting into the tin hat conspiracy realm. Piltdown man is the most famous, but science has grown by leaps and bounds. You're saying that a fraud, one that was exposed in the 1950's, somehow invalidates evidence that actually holds up to scientific testing. Testing that was not available in the early 20th century when it was found.


only problem is, there is no A dated before B. All you have is a fossil that is younger than EVERY fossil of the next in line, with similarities. This is only evidence that there are similarities. The date I showed is only RC dating. Using the second most popular dating mechanism, the archaeopteryx is a few thousand years younger than its next in line, and the third makes it to 10000 years younger. Which one is right? a couple hundred, a couple thousand, or 10000 years younger. Considering that in every way, the dating mechanisms are unreliable at best (citing the college level biology text book, Life 5th ed., by Ricki Lewis et al McGraw Hill, 2004. An evolutionists textbook.) They have contradicted eachother on every dating made. Shoot, an RC test of new rock from the recent Mt St Helens eruption dates it to be a few billion years old, although it is only a few years old. I am saying that these frauds still exist in college level text-books. I am using a new edition of the listed book, and it still holds the biggest and the oldest fraud in the book, the Miller-Urey Experiment, as fact. Another fraud it uses is the similarities between new embryos. What they leave out is the fact that EVERY embryo starts out as a ball of cells (a gastrula), so they are bound to look similar in the beginning stages, since they started in the same way. and the scientist heading that experiment forged some of his drawings. Even so, it is still used in college and high school text books as a support for evolution. Frauds in the 1950s all the way back to the 1800s are still used in modern textbooks. Even if the text book mentions that the atmosphere in the Miller-Urey experiment was wrong, they gloss it over by saying that biological chemicals were created by the updated experiment. You know what was created? Cyanide and Formaldehyde. I ain't a chemist, but I know that you aren't allowed to have a bottle of those in the room even closed and sealed, because of the fact that they destroy protein in every way possible, and cause the creation of prion proteins, the cause of spongiform encephalitis, also known as mad cow disease.

[Nathan Brazil]

Disregarded because the answer is that there is no possible way, so it is all accepted on faith. There. I just proved that evolution is based on faith at its very core.
You have dodged and dodged. However, it is unavoidably impossible for micromutations to result in the change listed above. You have to change five homeobox genes to make that change. Since micromutations do not change homeobox genes, it is only possible for it to be a macromutations.


Here's an idea, ask for evidence on a theory that is actually held by a significant amount of biologists if you want me to provide evidence. I wouldn't ask you to provide evidence on how Chaos and Eros created the earth. The main theory for the transition between unicellular and multicellular organisms resulted from symbiosis of cells of the same species. This is seen in nature today, where single cell organisms of the same type exist together doing different functions. Quite often these groups appear to be multicellular even though they are not. Over time, considering that the dna is essentially the same, they produce together. It is believed this step took longer to accomplish than it took to go from the first multicellular organism to humans. It was by no means quick.Â*Â*

With evolution you have laboratory evidence, naturalistic observation, paleological evidence, geological evidence etc. Very little science is 100% proveable fact, the strongest you usually get is highly probable. Science does not claim to know everything, that's the whole point of research. If you took away all religious scripture and all scientific evidence, science would eventually return to the point it is at today, but creationism would not.


Dude, did you not here my argument. NEITHER EVOLUTION NOR CREATIONISM ARE SCIENCE. Among the award winning books (receiving awards for the evidence backing them) that debunk evolution is Case for Christ, the writer of which was an atheist at the time he began to write it. He was trying to write a book debunking Creationism, and ended up supporting it. From the scientific impossibility of the Big Bang (getting something from nothing naturally), to the multiple lies in the fossil record (archaeopteryx turned out to be a couple hundred years younger than the youngest fossil of the next one in the line. They lied about some of the homo fossils.). With all the deceit they have used, why trust them.


There are two choices:

Either life started independently as part of natural processes, or it did not.

There's no evidence in support of the notion that it did not.

There is much evidence in support of the notion that people choosing religion as a career are either liars or psychos. This in itself is ample reason to reject notions of any supernatural origin of life. You can't trust the message when the messenger is nuts, after all.

Once life has started, then we can start discussing the evolution of life.

Either life evolved through natural processes, or one has to believe the same people already shown to be untrustworthy.

Aside from which, the people pushing creationism, and it's bastard child trying to sneak in the back door, intelligent deceit...er design, don't have a single shred of evidence in support of their notion. All they can do is generate lies to convince the easily led and the ignorant that the real science of evolution is false.

Facts of Evolution:

1) The emergence of God cannot be presumed, since it demands not only the emergence of something from nothing, an argument the IDer's use against the real science of cosmology, but it also demands the emergence of intelligence from nothing, something the IDers can't demonstrate in themselves, let alone this mystery being they've invented. Their own argument comes back at them squared thereby.

2) The emergence of the universe is apparently a natural solution in string theory.

3) The universe really is about 15 billion years old.

4) The Earth really is about 4.5 billion years old.

5) The geologic methods of dating of fossils via relative stratigraphy, radiology, and other traditional means is time tested and not subject to debate. Yes, I know the IDer's have to question the dating methods, but it gets really boring teaching them basic geology over and over.

6) The basic processes of physics, quanum interactions and rates of radioactive decay, are not only presumed constant but are observed constant over large stretches of the universe, and hence over large stretches of time.

Anyone got any evidence of a mysterious magical life force to support their use of it as rejection of the facts of evolution?

[Nathan Brazil]

So forensic evidence is circular reasoning?


You haven't applied forensic methods, you've applied circular logic. Since you continue to use the object of the argument as evidence for that object, you're still arguing in circles.

When you establish independent evidence that can be demonstrated to support the object of your argument, then you'll no longer be arguing circularly.

[Nathan Brazil]

I am not a scientist, I am an interpreter.

You've ventured opinions in a scientific matter. Confessions of ignorance are no defense.

I have a tendency to simplify everything I say. If you have a problem with that, get a life, cause I don't really care.

You're an interpreter, but you aren't able to say what you yourself mean?

That's rich!

I would guarantee that there were multiple types of dogs back at the beginning.

Is that a money-back guarantee? Because dogs were almost certainly bred from wolves, and no, there weren't multiple breeds of dogs in the beginning.

However, any type that was created by breeding of any type is a result of intelligent design in two ways. People bred them.

That's one way. Also, it's pretty obvious who the intelligent designers were in the evolution of dogs, isn't it? There seems to be some evidence that those designers descendants still exist, yes?

What's the other one of you're "two ways"?

When most people think of species they think of animals.

I didn't request a definition of what "most people" think when the word "species" comes up. I asked you to define the term so it could be used in this discussion. YOU left out plants.

Oh, and most people that I talk to are cognizant of the fact that the word "species" includes not only animals and plants, but fungi, bacteria, viruses, and the other expressions of life on this planet.

At a minimum, I would expect that any use of the word "species" in this discussion to include not only sexually reproducing eukaryotic life, but all eukaryotic life and prokaryotic life forms as well.

I don't need to lecture a translator that mutually accepted and accurate definitions of words and phrases are absolutely esseential for clear communication of ideas, do I?

technically, the types of plants that are a result of people's work would be things like corn and navel oranges, both of which can't grow in the wild. I don't know how they get corn, but I know that navel oranges have to be grafted into the tree, a process partially described in the Bible.

Irrelevant both to the definition of the word "species" and your error in omitting plants from your definition.

Oh, and one would expect that the proto-agriculturists that wrote the best selling work of fiction of all time would have some rudimentary knowledge of plant breeding, since the target market of that book were their neighbor farmers.

[forest_ranger254]

So forensic evidence is circular reasoning?


You haven't applied forensic methods, you've applied circular logic.Â*Â*Since you continue to use the object of the argument as evidence for that object, you're still arguing in circles.

When you establish independent evidence that can be demonstrated to support the object of your argument, then you'll no longer be arguing circularly.



Forensic methods includes the study of what was left behind by the perpetrator (IE. Fingerprints, footprints, gloves, etc.). Well, God left behind a universe in the case that he created it. Or would you like to give a scientific way that something came out of nothing. How do you get energy from a scenario where there is none. That breaks every law of thermodynamics. Given the fact that there is none, it is a reasonable inference that God created it.

[forest_ranger254]

You've ventured opinions in a scientific matter.Â*Â*Confessions of ignorance are no defense.

Incorrect, I have ventured opinions in a PHILOSOPHICAL matter. Since I have claimed that neither are science and I do not claim a scientific proof, I do not have to even venture into science. If I were to show scientific evidence I would be in the wrong forum, this being a religion forum. My claim is that with the lack of evidence for evolution, the infererence that God created hte universe is reasonable at worst, true at best. And even then, if I am right and you are wrong, who wins the bet? I do. If I am right, I g to heaven, you go to hell. If you are right, we both go to oblivion.


You're an interpreter, but you aren't able to say what you yourself mean?

That's rich!

Interpreter, not translator. I interpret American Sign Language. That doesn't prevent me from simplifying.


Is that a money-back guarantee? Because dogs were almost certainly bred from wolves, and no, there weren't multiple breeds of dogs in the beginning.

EVIDENCE. You are making a historical claim. Now I want historical evidence. You are also making a scientific claim, so I want scientific evidence. BTW, fossils are not scientific evidence, so you can ignore them.

That's one way. Also, it's pretty obvious who the intelligent designers were in the evolution of dogs, isn't it? There seems to be some evidence that those designers descendants still exist, yes?

No, The second way, philosophically speaking, is that God created them.If he created the earth, just like a person building cars, he will use similar parts. Cars can be categorized into different "species". So does that mean they evolved as well?

I didn't request a definition of what "most people" think when the word "species" comes up. I asked you to define the term so it could be used in this discussion. YOU left out plants.

Oh, and most people that I talk to are cognizant of the fact that the word "species" includes not only animals and plants, but fungi, bacteria, viruses, and the other expressions of life on this planet.

At a minimum, I would expect that any use of the word "species" in this discussion to include not only sexually reproducing eukaryotic life, but all eukaryotic life and prokaryotic life forms as well.

I don't need to lecture a translator that mutually accepted and accurate definitions of words and phrases are absolutely esseential for clear communication of ideas, do I?

Ever spoken to a college person before? out of fifteen students in my bio2 class, 13 included only animals. It was me and my friend (who is going to finish her degree in biological engineering at MSU) who included plants.

Irrelevant both to the definition of the word "species" and your error in omitting plants from your definition.

Oh, and one would expect that the proto-agriculturists that wrote the best selling work of fiction of all time would have some rudimentary knowledge of plant breeding, since the target market of that book were their neighbor farmers.


No, the parts that included that were written to the entire group of Hebrew people (Matthew and John), and all gentiles (Mark and Luke). One writer out of the four had anything to do with science, and that was Luke. Matthew was a tax collector, Mark was a speaker, and John was a fisherman.

[Alonzo]

only problem is, there is no A dated before B. All you have is a fossil that is younger than EVERY fossil of the next in line, with similarities. This is only evidence that there are similarities.

Different species in an evolutionary line can exist at the same time, and not all animals that hold similarities are in the same evolutionary line. Archeopteryx is not believed to be a direct ancestor to modern birds. Some argue that it was close, but in all likelihood was a different evolutionary line. Modern birds mostly likely do not descend from Archeopteryx. It is also by no means younger than other ancient birds, and there is no agreed upon "next in line". Other than that specimens believed to possibly have lead to modern birds, of which the recent findings of high quality Gansus yumenensis are a perfect example, are not part of it.

There's also the issue of many other fossils showing transitory stages, such as whale ancestors that had legs.

The date I showed is only RC dating. Using the second most popular dating mechanism, the archaeopteryx is a few thousand years younger than its next in line, and the third makes it to 10000 years younger. Which one is right? a couple hundred, a couple thousand, or 10000 years younger. Considering that in every way, the dating mechanisms are unreliable at best (citing the college level biology text book, Life 5th ed., by Ricki Lewis et al McGraw Hill, 2004. An evolutionists textbook.) They have contradicted eachother on every dating made.

Radio carbon dating is not used to date material older than 60,000 years. You can't date something 150 million years old with it. Dating methods for that age are not accurate to within short periods such as hundreds or thousands of years.

Shoot, an RC test of new rock from the recent Mt St Helens eruption dates it to be a few billion years old, although it is only a few years old.

Again, radio cardon dating is not even used on this a million years old, let alone billions.

The example I believe you are referring to used potassium argon dating. There were many problems. First, the lab informed him that the quality of the sample did not lend itself to accurate dating. He insisted it be dated. Another issue is that solid material exists within the lava, and there's a possibility that was dated, and that would correctly show to be much older. It is uncertain whether that material was removed, as it was supposed to be. Another possible issue is due to the way it was submitted. This material would never be dated normally, as the method used is known to be innaccurate for material younger than 6,000 years old. The researcher who sent them in also is not known for his expertise, as his use of dating techniques often fails to corroborate with peers using the same technique.

I am saying that these frauds still exist in college level text-books. I am using a new edition of the listed book, and it still holds the biggest and the oldest fraud in the book, the Miller-Urey Experiment, as fact.

That is by no means a fraud and many similar experiments to create amino acids have been conducted since.

Another fraud it uses is the similarities between new embryos. What they leave out is the fact that EVERY embryo starts out as a ball of cells (a gastrula), so they are bound to look similar in the beginning stages, since they started in the same way.

It's not just a clump of cells. Similarities exist well beyond the clum of cells stage. There's also the issue of genetic evidence, such as the genetic similarity between humans and worms, which is about 50%.

Frauds in the 1950s all the way back to the 1800s are still used in modern textbooks. Even if the text book mentions that the atmosphere in the Miller-Urey experiment was wrong, they gloss it over by saying that biological chemicals were created by the updated experiment. You know what was created? Cyanide and Formaldehyde. I ain't a chemist, but I know that you aren't allowed to have a bottle of those in the room even closed and sealed, because of the fact that they destroy protein in every way possible, and cause the creation of prion proteins, the cause of spongiform encephalitis, also known as mad cow disease.


Similar tests have been conducted, and amino acids, as described in such experiments, have been found in meteorites. I don't know much about chemistry, but you have tests that have been performed multiple times. I think it's safe to say the test can be performed. Also, cyanide and formaldehyde weren't the only things used in the experiment, and those chemicals were added in at different points in the experiment.

In the end you have mountains of evidence for evolution. Many of these arguments are like opening the gates of someones property, walking by their 5 ferraris, and walking into their multimillion dollar mansion and, upon seeing a box of generic cheerios, concluding that they must be poor.

Many of these arguments attack bits of evidence on how things occur, not really the validity of evolution. And, in the midst of these attack, you rarely find scientific arguments FOR anything else, they're simply against evolution. The argument doesn't necessarily indicate that any other argument presented is correct either. It's more "they're wrong, so we must be right".

[forest_ranger254]

Different species in an evolutionary line can exist at the same time, and not all animals that hold similarities are in the same evolutionary line. Archeopteryx is not believed to be a direct ancestor to modern birds. Some argue that it was close, but in all likelihood was a different evolutionary line. Modern birds mostly likely do not descend from Archeopteryx. It is also by no means younger than other ancient birds, and there is no agreed upon "next in line". Other than that specimens believed to possibly have lead to modern birds, of which the recent findings of high quality Gansus yumenensis are a perfect example, are not part of it.

There's also the issue of many other fossils showing transitory stages, such as whale ancestors that had legs.

Every car runs on an engine, transmission, etc. Does that mean that they evolved from one another? All you have is a similarity, no way to tell if the fossil you had was younger or older.

Radio carbon dating is not used to date material older than 60,000 years. You can't date something 150 million years old with it. Dating methods for that age are not accurate to within short periods such as hundreds or thousands of years.

But you can get results from something that is only 10000 years old and had been under water for a year. Methanization screws up the RC dating mechanism. Assuming that the flood happened, every fossil would have been methanized and then buried under the sedimentary flow of the flood. This would yield the results of things being buried in different timelines. Anyways, the other dating mechanisms are based on the ground in the layer the fossil was found in. not a very effective mechanism considering the possibility of the flood.

Again, radio cardon dating is not even used on this a million years old, let alone billions.

The example I believe you are referring to used potassium argon dating. There were many problems. First, the lab informed him that the quality of the sample did not lend itself to accurate dating. He insisted it be dated. Another issue is that solid material exists within the lava, and there's a possibility that was dated, and that would correctly show to be much older. It is uncertain whether that material was removed, as it was supposed to be. Another possible issue is due to the way it was submitted. This material would never be dated normally, as the method used is known to be innaccurate for material younger than 6,000 years old. The researcher who sent them in also is not known for his expertise, as his use of dating techniques often fails to corroborate with peers using the same technique.

Again, the rock was only 10-20 years old. That is the reason they used RC. It wasn't supposed to date like it did. I am referring to that one. And it was still WAAAAY off.

That is by no means a fraud and many similar experiments to create amino acids have been conducted since.

Amino acids in that atmosphere? That is a severe impossibility. Even assuming you got amino acids, you would be in the area of a 1 in 10 to the 99th power for chances to get a protein, much less a cell. To illustrate the impossibility of this, I will use an example:
Take a single living cell and put it into a test tube full of salt, then poke a hole in the cell so the insides fall out. Even then, with every ingredient there, no sane biologist or biochemist or bio- anything would say that you could make a cell out of that.
For another thing, the atmosphere model used in the MU experiment was incorrect. If you run the test on the atmosphere model they have now, you get cyanide and formaldehyde. Try to make a cell out of that.


It's not just a clump of cells. Similarities exist well beyond the clum of cells stage. There's also the issue of genetic evidence, such as the genetic similarity between humans and worms, which is about 50%.

Just evidence that similar parts w