"Those whacky evolutionists!" - Page 2

The diplomat · July 31, 2003, 22:35

I am not going to get dragged into another evolution-creation debate. I am secure with my position.

GePap · July 31, 2003, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat

Creation scientists study the fossil record too, you know.

What for? There can be no fossil record of the story in Genesis. The very existance of beings that no longer exist, speically sea creatures, makes no sense if you follow the rest of the text. (you can hardly imagine they "drowned in the flood", now can you?)

Quote:

I am not going to get dragged into another evolution-creation debate. I am secure with my position.

Good for you: less embarassment that way.

Boris Godunov · July 31, 2003, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
There is physical evidence for quantum theory! Quantum entanglement has been observed. And, there is also the double slit experiment. If you emit only one electron at a time at a double slit, you still observe an interference pattern, eventhough there is only 1 electron.

It is not direct observation, but observational inference, which is poo-pooed by creationists, especially when they refer to the fossil record.

Quote:

Creation scientists study the fossil record too, you know.

Um, the point was that one of the major (false) claims of Creationists is that there is no fossil evidence for evolution, hence it isn't true. The repeat this lie all the time. So for one of them to say "who cares" if there is no fossil evidence is just funny, since creationists claim to care about such a thing so much!

Quote:

I am not going to get dragged into another evolution-creation debate. I am secure with my position.

Fair enough, but I find it hard to believe people who are so secure in there position will post any and every desperate attempt to refute evolution, even when a little cursory digging will show such "refutations" have been dispensed with a long time ago (i.e. that old "Top Evidences Against Evolution chestnut). Next time, just post the old Second Law of Thermodynamics argument and let it all hang out.

The diplomat · July 31, 2003, 22:51

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
What for? There can be no fossil record of the story in Genesis.

Why not? if the animal became a fossil, then it will be in the fossil record.

Quote:

The very existance of beings that no longer exist, especially sea creatures, makes no sense if you follow the rest of the text.

What do you mean?

GePap · July 31, 2003, 23:02

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
Why not? if the animal became a fossil, then it will be in the fossil record.

The time frame for the creationist universe is well under a million years fr the planet earth. If you happen to find a 75 million year old fossil, well, problem, no? Besides, what could a creationist use the fossil for besides historical curiosity? It can;t possible help porve the sotry of crwation true: and disproving the current version of evolutionary theory is NOT the same as proving creation.

Quote:

What do you mean?

In genesis, God creates everything: now, since we have the story of creation since then on file (accoridng to this world view), one needs only to study it to find that there is no mention of any cataclysm on earth vast enough to destroy whole eocnsystems but one, the Great Flood. but the problem here is that the text tells us God took precussions to save his animal creations . But of course sea creatures would be in no danger (unless you count the great dilluting of the water by adding so much fresh water,,makes you wonder how the salt-water fish made it? And how would fresh water oens take the increased salts??

Sorry, but the whole notion of "creationist scientists" shows this side has lost the intellectual battle. A true creationist take it on faith period. To attempt to gather evidence (of which there can be none, save Creation itself as a true believer would say) is to try to fight the battle on the ground of the other, and you are sure to fail then.

The diplomat · July 31, 2003, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It is not direct observation, but observational inference,

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Quantum entanglement experiments deal with real measurements of quantum states. In addition, Quantum teleportation of particles has been directly observed. Physicists can measure the particle's momentum for example. That's real direct observation.

Quote:

Fair enough, but I find it hard to believe people who are so secure in there position will post any and every desperate attempt to refute evolution, even when a little cursory digging will show such "refutations" have been dispensed with a long time ago (i.e. that old "Top Evidences Against Evolution chestnut). Next time, just post the old Second Law of Thermodynamics argument and let it all hang out.

So you'd rather that I never debate, and just hide in a room without questioning anything?

I debate not because I am insecure, but because I enjoy discussing these things. I like the exchange of ideas. That is the only way a person is going to learn and grow.

The diplomat · July 31, 2003, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
The time frame for the creationist universe is well under a million years fr the planet earth.

I am sure you are aware that not all creationists believe in a 6000 year old Earth. Only "young Earth creationist" believe that. There are many creationists who do not belive it.

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Besides, what could a creationist use the fossil for besides historical curiosity? It can't possible help prove the story of creation true

If the Flood occured, then we can expect the animals to have been deposited, and fossilized in a certain order. The fossil record confirms this order, lending credence to the Flood. So, believe it or not, creationists can study the fossil record.

GePap · July 31, 2003, 23:19

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat

I am sure you are aware that not all creationists believe in a 6000 year old Earth. Only "young Earth creationist" believe that. There are many creationists who do not belive it.

notice I said a million years. If one believe man has been there from almost the beginning (and no, that notion that "days" means somehting else in Genesis than in every other chapter of the book is silly), then earth can not be that old.

Odin · July 31, 2003, 23:20

The aquatic ape theory has connections with extreme feminists with a political ax to grind, those things can be expained more easily as adaptations to hot, dry areas:

Reduced Hair

This is related to humans being the only mammals to have sweat glands over our entire bodies. Hair would prevent the evaporation of sweat by the dry winds of east Africa

Extra body fat and large breasts

Fat metabolism releases more water than carbohydrate metabolism, which is advantagous in a dry climate with limited water.

Bipedalism

Seeing over tallgrass, less skin area exposed to hot, noonday sun.

Creationists should quit BSing us with thier psudoscience. Diplomat, I am a biology enthusiast. If you argue with me over evolution you will loose.

So quit with your creationist BAMs.

Tuberski · July 31, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

notice I said a million years. If one believe man has been there from almost the beginning (and no, that notion that "days" means somehting else in Genesis than in every other chapter of the book is silly), then earth can not be that old.

Why would it be silly? Until the earth and sun are created, there are no days as we know them.

Days on Jupiter are probably longer than on earth correct?

ACK!

Odin · July 31, 2003, 23:25

Diplomat, the Flood is thought to represent a mssive flood in Mesopotamia 4300 years ago (around the time of Gilgamesh). many western religions have legends of a great flood and this seems to be an interpretation of this. A great flood is also told in Mesopotamian and Greek myths.

Odin · July 31, 2003, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
Days on Jupiter are probably longer than on earth correct?

ACK!

Shorter, 10 hours.

The creation story is a myth, just like the creation myths of all other cultures. Myths are, by definition, FICTION.

Agathon · July 31, 2003, 23:27

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
I am not going to get dragged into another evolution-creation debate.

Famous last words.

The diplomat · July 31, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
Creationists should quit BSing us with thier psudoscience. Diplomat, I am a biology enthusiast. If you argue with me over evolution you will loose.

So quit with your creationist BAMs.

I don't intend to argue evolution with you. Just keep your evolution bullshit out of my face.!

Anyway, it's 10:30 pm where I live. Good night!

Tuberski · July 31, 2003, 23:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin

Shorter, 10 hours.

The creation story is a myth, just like the creation myths of all other cultures. Myths are, by definition, FICTION.

Okay, it must rotate faster, since it is bigger.

But, the DAY as we call it isn't the same as Earth's.

ACK!

Odin · July 31, 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
Just keep your evolution bullshit out of my face.!

Your the Bullsh!ter, and a BAM.

GePap · July 31, 2003, 23:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski

Why would it be silly? Until the earth and sun are created, there are no days as we know them.

Days on Jupiter are probably longer than on earth correct?

ACK!

The Earth is created day one, so that is not an issue.

And no, there is no mention of any day other than an earth day (24 hours).

I am sorry, but if one begin to haggle over the meaning of words in the Bible, well, then, lots of fun then! After all, idoloatry really means.... The word is day, the same as in every time day is used. There is no textual evidence to make the claim that the length of that day is any different, and without textual evidence, there is no foundation for the claim.

Tuberski · July 31, 2003, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

The Earth is created day one, so that is not an issue.

And no, there is no mention of any day other than an earth day (24 hours).

I am sorry, but if one begin to haggle over the meaning of words in the Bible, well, then, lots of fun then! After all, idoloatry really means.... The word is day, the same as in every time day is used. There is no textual evidence to make the claim that the length of that day is any different, and without textual evidence, there is no foundation for the claim.

True, according to my religion(non-practicing), the Bible has lost a lot of the words that were supposed to be in there. Dark Ages and such, when it was re-written things were removed.

That is the Mormon explanation for why the Bible is, at times, contradictory, and doesn't neccesarily tell it how it REALLY happened.

I find that to have a ring of truth.

ACK!

GePap · July 31, 2003, 23:45

But we have now copies of ancient Aramaic texts pre-dating the Middle Ages, and the translations, at least for the first century AD are still close. And certainly do not add much in the way of forgotten words, though people may quibble about translation,: but I have not yet heard any significant changes to Genesis. Most of the new material is in the form of Gospels not included into the Canon of four, like that of Thomas.

Tuberski · July 31, 2003, 23:48

The Mormons, my semi-religion, believe that all the little things you need to help you understand the Bible better are in the Book of Mormon.

I've read the BoM, not sure I believe it, but it is a pretty damn go story.

You should try it for that, if nothing else.

Lots of war, death and betrayal.

Of course, I also think it is somewhat racist towards native Americans.

ACK!

Urban Ranger · August 2, 2003, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
Creation scientists study the fossil record too, you know.

What exactly are "creation scientists?"

Odin · August 2, 2003, 01:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

What exactly are "creation scientists?"

Creation Scientist is an oxymoron, more like Psudscientists.

They are the morons that slant evidence to deny evolution (like Diplomat.

Diplomat;

[Fez Mode]
You provide no evidence, YOU PROVIDE NOTHING, yet yet you want to distroy Biology... You criminal.

[/Fez Mode]

Boris Godunov · August 2, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
If the Flood occured, then we can expect the animals to have been deposited, and fossilized in a certain order. The fossil record confirms this order, lending credence to the Flood. So, believe it or not, creationists can study the fossil record.

Twice in the other thread I refuted this. You have never backed up this assertion, and you say it here a third time. I've shown you how the geologic record contradicts the Flood story. It does NOT appear as we would expect should the Flood have happened:

"How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:

the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?

the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)

why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.

why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.

why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?

how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.

why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.

why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]

why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?

why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].

why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer? "

These are just a few problems with the flood.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...l#implications
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Theb...dnonsense.html

Even Da Vinci, hundreds of years ago, used simple common sense to show that the Flood was nonsense:

"What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood."

Once again, baseless claims! This was what I was talking about--uncritical and unthinking reiteration of common Creationist claims, regardless of any factual support for them or whether or not they've already been soundly refuted. You employ a scattershot method: Attack, get refuted, ignore refutation and post a different attack, get refuted, ignore refuation, etc. Then you come back to reposting attacks that have been refuted. Worse, you're just getting the attacks piecemeal from various Creationist sources without any sense of being coherent. Negative argumentation of this sort is devoid of merit.

Now, how is it scientists have directly observed quantum phenomena, when we can't directly see an atom, much less subatomic particles? We use observational inference. Learn the terms!

Urban Ranger · August 2, 2003, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin
Creation Scientist is an oxymoron, more like Psudscientists.

That's my point.

Creationism cannot be framed into a scientific theory even remotely, because its basis violates underlying foundations.

Koyaanisqatsi · August 2, 2003, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What exactly are "creation scientists?"

Creationists who show how creation would have worked scientifically, natch.

For instance, the scientific reasoning for T. Rex having such large, sharp teeth was because they were very useful for eating watermelons.*

But minor distortions of reality are apparently not uncommon in these sorts of environments. Apparently, St. Patrick was a Protestant.**

*True claim from a Protestant pastor! Apparently, all animals on Earth were vegetarians until the fall.

**True claim from a Protestant history book!

Urban Ranger · August 3, 2003, 11:44

I suppose the reason why the T Rex had such powerful legs is they could run away from any would be watermelon snatchers.