# Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?



## Youwerecreated (Jun 27, 2013)

How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Is creationism scientific?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.



Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ? For the same reasons naturalism is considered scientific and voodoo is not.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.
> ...



You are once again wrong.


Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Another one.

More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

It seems that atheistic naturalists theories are failing.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> It seems that atheistic naturalists theories are failing.



Your silly conspiracies are failing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that atheistic naturalists theories are failing.
> ...



Oh know God is alive and well according to a large majority of the population.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that atheistic naturalists theories are failing.
> ...



It is you that promotes conspiracies.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



63% of Republicans still believe that Iraq had WMD's in 2003.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Did you not see that poll that a very high number of Democrats believe in God and creation.

What this has to do with this discussion is beyond me.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What is beyond you is understanding statistics. There is an old saying that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Just as there is no correlation between what a majority of Republicans still believe about WMD's and reality there is no correlation between your poll results and the existence of your deity either. That you are gullible enough to believe that there is says volumes. Have a nice day.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Gullible many are but I would say the most gullible would be the ones believing life came from non-life lol.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



While the final answer is still to be found and no, you don't have it, the scientific process is moving ever closer to the point where that is going to be discovered. Already the origins of the building blocks of life are known. The rest is just a matter of time and effort. All of the current evidence points towards a natural origin.


----------



## YWN666 (Jun 28, 2013)

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

it appears ywc is off his meds again...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



They do know the building blocks of life but they will never be able to demonstrate origins in a naturalistic setting. Even if they find a way for life to be formed through these building blocks it was accomplished through intelligence not naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.



Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


way to rationalize !
thing is IT WON'T BE THE KIND OF intelligent you're wishing for..


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.
> ...



Your ignorance is boundless.



> Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.[2]
> "Naturalism can intuitively be separated into a [metaphysical] and a methodological component."[3] Metaphysical here refers to* the philosophical study of the nature of reality.* Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. *These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community.* Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[4]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.



Both models.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.
> ...


so if creationism to you  is only a "mere" philosophy then it must be flawed...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Where does knowledge come from daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



The ignorance is not mine.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



I believe that both are philosophies and both can be tested but not totally tested got it ?


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Since you can't tell the difference between 'evolution' and 'abiogensis' - you are obviously ignorant on the topic, likely so ignorant that your opinion is not fact-based in this instance.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


not from you, that's a fact..
knowledge is part experience part instinct and part testing.
those are it's sources.
let not forget schools, libraries,  the net, even some churches...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...




nat·u·ral·ism  

/&#712;naCH&#601;r&#601;&#716;liz&#601;m/



Noun


1.(in art and literature) A style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail. Naturalism rejected the idealiza...
2.A philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual...


nat·u·ral·ism  (nchr--lzm, nchr-)
n.
1.  Factual or realistic representation, especially:
a.  The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.

b.  The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.

2. 
a.  A movement or school advocating such precise representation.

b.  The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.

3.  Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

4.  Theology The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.

5.  Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Once again you are demonstrating the arrogance of religion. Once the process is identified there is every possibility that they could then find it occurring in the "naturalistic setting". Unless you know what you are looking for how can you expect it to find it? Your erroneous assumption that "intelligence" was involved in the "creation" of the first "cell slime" that was capable of reproducing is based upon nothing but your "blind faith".


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


there's an extremely high probability that it is..


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


ahhh ..slapdick, testing is testing  it's an all or nothing proposition..
 it not like you could dissect  either one and only test part of it..
well, maybe be you could.. but that would be bias and any results would be invalid.


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2013)

'Creationism' specific to the Christian Bible is NOT  'scientific' because its roots are in a religious document and not observation as informed by science.

'Intelligent design' would have to include *other* possible agents than the Christianity Deity-  an 'alien race', multiple deities, etc......   So far, all of the 'ID' proponents seem to be limiting their speculation to Deity as described by Christian theologians.

Science is not 'opposed' to religion - but it is a completely different field.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.
> ...



Your source has *ZERO* credibility.


----------



## Agit8r (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> 
> Is creationism scientific?



There is no scientific debate over the validity of creation myths, if that is what you are asking.  This is because scientific debates involve evidence.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why did you omit the link and edit the philosophical definition?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I don't believe life came from slime in water. Life begets life how hard is that to understand ?


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2013)

'Naturalism' is not the same as 'evolution' - evolution is what is taught in schools, not 'naturalism'.  Again, the OP seems to be confusing two terms.

Science limits itself to what can be tested, proven, replicated:  it has no means to observe the nonphysical world.  

It does not deny the metaphysical or spiritual exists, it simply does not cover the topic.  That's what religion is all about:  we don't need science to cover the spiritual.

It appears the OP is unaware of the many theists who find the Theory of Evolution the best explanation for the area it legitimately describes:  the 'origin of species'.  (note that this does not include abiogenesis).


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Like I stated the ignorance is not mine.

Google

naturalism - definition of naturalism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



But atheist sites that get quoted do ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What you don't *BELIEVE* is completely irrelevant.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


how hard is it to understand that belief proves nothing but belief.
you have no objective evidence to substantiate it.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what's your point?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> 'Naturalism' is not the same as 'evolution' - evolution is what is taught in schools, not 'naturalism'.  Again, the OP seems to be confusing two terms.
> 
> Science limits itself to what can be tested, proven, replicated:  it has no means to observe the nonphysical world.
> 
> ...



If there is no God then everything came in to existence through naturalism. This is the philosophy of many evolutionists and where their presuppositions come from. To say scientists do not possess presuppositions is nonsense.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So you *LIED* by *deliberate omission* twice over.

"(Philosophy) Philosophy
a.  a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces *that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations*"


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Daws how absurd of a response. You have evidence all around you of living organisms producing more living organisms and not one example of life coming from non-living matter.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.
> ...



You're not even able to make rational distinctions between science and supernaturalism. Science is not a "philosophy". The study of the the natural world is performed with the process of science. Science has no methods to test for religious claims such as creationism because creationism is nothing more than religious appeals. 

The courts have repeatedly tossed out creationism being taught in the public school system because, as it has been presented to you repeatedly, creationism is Christian religious dogma under a different name. Your creationist ministries have suffered humiliating reprimands by judges who have seen religion being tagged with various names in attempts to introduce religious dogma into public schools.

In the U.S., the constitution forbids promoting religion in the public schools.

Do you have any clue that your attempts to bludgeon poeple with bibles is offensive?


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > 'Naturalism' is not the same as 'evolution' - evolution is what is taught in schools, not 'naturalism'.  Again, the OP seems to be confusing two terms.
> ...


scientific presuppositions are based on available evidence..
not pulled from the metaphorical ass like biblical presuppositions are...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No I just posted it and left off the link thought you would have been smart enough to at least look up the term before making a fool of yourself.


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Science has nothing to do with 'belief' and everything to do with testable repeatable results.    I'm not deying that one's beliefs are important in one's life - just that they have any particular weight in adding to scientific knowledge.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



Bullshit ! your presuppositions close your mind to the possibility of creation don't even attempt to Bullshit me daws.. Everyone is affected by their presuppositions, Whether it's political,philosophy or whatever it is your presuppositions will affect your interpretations.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I'm sure you see it that way...but as with all your observations it's false.
ALL LIFE HAS NON LIVING COMPONENTS: MINERALS AND WATER...without those there is no life...
procreation or life from life is not proof it started that way..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



If this is true how can you make scientific predictions ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Daws that is a fact.

The life that began life was the living being that designed it.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > 'Naturalism' is not the same as 'evolution' - evolution is what is taught in schools, not 'naturalism'.  Again, the OP seems to be confusing two terms.
> ...



It's a common tactic of creationists to associate "evilutionist" with the beginning of life. The theory of evolution does not address how life began.

Unfortunately, people such as ywc with virtually no background in science will argue against an established scientific principle they know nothing about.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Furthermore you lack the basic honesty and integrity to admit when you are caught lying.

Here is* EXACTLY* what you posted;



> Noun
> 
> 
> 1.(in art and literature) A style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail. Naturalism rejected the idealiza...
> ...



This is what you *DELIBERATELY OMITTED*;



> a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces *that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations*



The only fool is the one who forgets what they have already posted.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Have a good weekend all.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Put your big boy pants on admit you are stupid.

Why the fuck would I have to post a link for a definition dumbshit ?

You are a friggen MORON.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


looks like a tantrum to me...
answer the question slapdick does the bible have presuppositions in it or not? and do those presuppositions effect  an objective  interpretation of evidence.?


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What are you calling 'atheist' sites?  As explained already, metaphysics or spirituality is NOT properly part of Science, any science.   Please do not confuse ignoring religious topics with 'being atheist'.   They are two different matters:  the scientists are saying 'we cannot use science to prove theological truths', as opposed to atheists who are saying 'there ARE no theological truths'.

It is a logical error to equate the two:  the scientist does NOT deny that such spiritual truth exists.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Your gawds are living beings?

Is that why they were as as ascribed by their human inventors with human attributes?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



Learn your own theory if you are gonna discuss it.

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

 I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
 II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
 III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
 IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
 V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
 VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
 VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No I am educating you daws.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes, MY STATEMENT IS FACT. 
YOURS on the other hand is based on a fairy tale.....


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No we have attributes of God get it right.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So not only do you have to explain to Jesus why you lied but you also have to explain why you resorted to cursing too. You must be running short on brownie points with him these days.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


is this a lesson in evading the question? 
answer the question slapdick! does the bible have presuppositions in it or not? and do those presuppositions effect  an objective  interpretation of evidence.?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You have no evidence that life arose through naturalism,so your comment is not accurate and based on your imagination.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you have proof for that statement?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's an important requirement that you post links with your cutting and pasting.  We have a consistent pattern of your posting falsified, edited and parsed "quotes".

Basically, your're simply dishonest with a proven history of lies in furtherance of your religious fundamentalist views.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Getting desperate you pompous Ass.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



 daws has posted definitions with no link.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

I won't respond to any post unless it has something to deal with the topic.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Kindly refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 never said  I DID, life arose through evolution. 


Naturalism is "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world; (occas.) the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1] Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.[2]

Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
All life on earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.[2] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3]

SEE THE DIFFERENCE SLAPDICK.. 

YOU LECTURING OTHER POSTERS ON ACCURACY?
NOW THAT IS FUNNY!


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> > youwerecreated said:
> ...


you gonna tell mom on me too?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Here again, you are deliberately omitting a link because you are dishonest and conniving. 

You are cutting and pasting a portion of what you scoured from the ICR.

It really is sleazy how you will attempt to lie and cheat without a moments hesitation or second thought.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I won't respond to any post unless it has something to deal with the topic.


lets see how long this lasts...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The link is here in the thread I guess you didn't read the article before you resorting to your rhetoric. I was just helping you with your theory here is a little more help for you naturalist.

Chemical evolution.

Chemical evolution | Define Chemical evolution at Dictionary.com


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I already answered that.  Scientific method doesn't give weight to 'beliefs' which are of the kind which can never be proven - as a religious belief.  It is simply not part of the field.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



Sure it does there is plenty of conjecture in science,explanations are just that, a view or a belief.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > 'Naturalism' is not the same as 'evolution' - evolution is what is taught in schools, not 'naturalism'.  Again, the OP seems to be confusing two terms.
> ...



"If there is no God" is assuredly NOT a proper topic within science.  Science is not about whether or not there is a Deity or Deities:   it is about observation and testing of the physical(natural) world.  

There is no such thing as  'an evolutionist':  there are people who find the ToE the most comprehensive and accurate explanation for speciation, and the best description o the means by which it came about.  That would be nearly all people with education and training in scientific method and various 'physical' sciences.  

Your unverifiable speculations on the 'philosophy' you attribute to 'many' such scientists remains simply your single opinion.  I am unable to calculate 'many' as a percentage, nor have you described your 'methodology' to arrive at that 'figure'..... (ie,  Have you sent out questionnaires?  How large was your sample, and how did you select the respondents?)

To say that scientists give free rein to 'presuppositions' *in their field of study* is a peculiarly insulting and demeaning assertion - particularly when there is no objective, verifiable, reproducible way to analyze the situation and attempt to arrive at any accurate result.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


way to debunk your own shit!

chemical evolution definition

The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth; the first step in the development of life on this planet. The period of chemical evolution lasted less than a billion years.

Note : Many of the steps in chemical evolution can now be reproduced in the laboratory.

nothing about creation or design..!


----------



## Hollie (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Biological evolution obviously conflicts with biblical tales and fables. There is, of course, no real argument among the relevant science community about the fact of evolution. It is only among (with near exclusivity), fundie christians who insist that it was through magic and supernatural events that all of existence was "poofed" into being.

Unfortunately, the fundies have only tales, fables and conspiracy theories aimed at science to support the stories in their bibles.


----------



## dblack (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific?



Because 'supernatural' is an incoherent concept.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 28, 2013)

A Christian presupposes  he/she wants honest answerers?  When did this happen?  Facts aren't like religion, if you are open minded you see them in life, you aren't looking to reinforce or prove anything. They are  just there  bare and for anyone to see.  Religious folks fear the "truth".  It's called doubt. Allah and Jesus don't like that doubt stuff. Of course not, facts aren't part of that superstitious  hoodoo. Heaven forbid we get the facts.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 28, 2013)

So that David might be allowed to marry the king's daughter, the king asks David to bring him 100 Philistine foreskins. David does the job right and brings the king not 100, but 200, foreskins of murdered Philistines.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



I was surrounded by it for a little over Eleven years. if you feel insulted i'm sorry not trying to insult you but those are the facts for many. Presuppositions do affect interpreting evidence. If you have the view that life arose spontaneously through natural processes are you saying that would not affect you while interpreting evidence and providing an explanation ? the current theories do reflect the views of naturalism I'm not sure how you can deny it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific?
> ...



Apparently so is naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 28, 2013)

daws101 said:


> So that David might be allowed to marry the king's daughter, the king asks David to bring him 100 Philistine foreskins. David does the job right and brings the king not 100, but 200, foreskins of murdered Philistines.



Stay on topic daws.


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I don't have the view that you describe, because it would be unscientific to arrive at such a conclusion with nothing approaching proof.  Nor have any of my relatives in the physical sciences formed such a firm conclusion, nor any of the faculty at several colleges whom I've heard speak on the topics.

The possible explanation of 'chemical evolution' to which you referred me included meteorites from outer space:  that may OR may not include some 'intelligence'.  Any scientist worthy of the name wouldn't rule out such 'extraterrestrial intelligence' (EXTI).......  

The problem with 'EXTI' as an explanation is basically that we are unable to support it with any definite information.  We haven't  found anyone else out there, yet - that doesn't mean there isn't anyone.


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Naturalism in Science

I think if you read this carefully, it will help explain the matter to you.

'Naturalism' is the ONLY way Science can proceed:  it is not a 'denial' of God but an acknowledgement that Science is limited to the physical world, and does not claim to have all the answers.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 29, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



I am sorry in my experience at the University of Arizona where I received my degree,it was very anti design and creation and everything was the product of chance and naturalism. Later in the lab I worked in,it to was the same way. I was once an atheistic evolutionist and I was spoon fed like any other that chooses a field of science to major in.Nature reveals purposeful design but is rejected because of the views naturalism. Later in the lab I worked it was the same as when I was in college. I was once an atheistic evolutionist I started to find out how much I was taught either was demonstrated in any fashion nor could be.


We can look at many things and understand they were not the result of naturalism but yet that is the proposed method of origins why ?why is it diffrent when it comes to let's say biological organisms. There are far to many things that are a necessity for life to exist and for this planet to flourish with living organisms to simple write it off as it had to happen through natural processes. The question is and should why do so many things give the appearance of design but we choose to reject thet view and say it happens through natural processes.

The meteorites are to hard and they were hardened because they were heated and then cooled. I believe that is a really bad hypothsis.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 29, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Thank you but I understand naturalism Quiet well. You by definition rule out the possibility of purposeful design and I believe this why you lack data to support origins of life. You see natural recurring acts of nature and extrapolate from that for your views of naturalism. What is not considered is what are the chances of amino acids bonding in just the right sequence to produce the right proteins. How come there is not a mixture of both right handed and left handed amino acids.

What are the chances of enymes being produced to repair copying errors in Dna ? the funny thing these enzymes are produced by a living organism so how without life could these enzymes arise naturally to produce life to begin with.

Evidences point to life being a product of design not natural processes. This natural process seems intelligent to me if this was the method in which life was produced. Where is the rationale in science since they think everything is the the product of naturalism ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Youre unable to separate science from belief in supernatural entities.  And further, without an understanding of the methods of science, your comments regarding science explanations as conjecture, to be used as a rationale for embracing dogma and mysticism is frankly little more than an intellectual drop ten and punt. It is the equivalent of a petulant child taking his football and going home.

I know the methods of science (and the principles of the Scientific Method) have been explained to you repeatedly and tediously. Your refusal to advance any understanding of that methodology suggests you have simply chosen to press your agenda of fear and superstition over facts and enlightenment.

That really is displayed in the context of the unsupported assertions you make with no support for your claims to supernaturalism. The fact that learned students of the sciences know the difference between the methods of science vs. religious claims renders, as usual, your cutting and pasting from Haun Yahya, the ICR and other Christian ministries explicitly false.

Why not provide some details as to those components of objective reality that are explicitly not encompassed by science and rationality? There can be no doubt that science today is better able to answer the workings of the natural world than it was a century ago. In this way, science has allowed us to advance in that incremental, stepwise manner closer to a true understanding of objective reality. And science makes no other claim or promise. 

So pragmatically, one is led to ask the question, when will the evidence be provided in a comprehensive way for a reliable conclusion of one or more gawds to be drawn? Quite clearly, we are surrounded with tangible examples of where even our imperfect understanding of objective reality has been sufficient for science to revolutionize our world. Science has proven to be, beyond all competition, the single most successful, pervasive and impactful human endeavor in all of history. In contrast, claims to gawds is essentially useless for the any practical purpose of understanding what is true.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 29, 2013)

> Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?



Because the Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is religion, not science: 

Edwards v. Aguillard


----------



## Hollie (Jun 29, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, yes, that and the obvious understanding that creation science isn't a science at all. 

When reviewing the backgrounds of the most vocal proponents of creation science, they inevitably have connections with one or more of the Christian ministries hawking their wares. 

Its actually laughable how the Christian creationist purveyors have revised and re-branded Christian fundamentalism as creationism, intelligent design and even intelligent design creationism.  It seems that each time the Christian fundamentalists are given the Bums Rush out of court in another failed attempt to introduce fundamentalist Christianity into the public school system,  they slap a new name on their fundamentalist beliefs.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?
> ...


The supreme court what do they really know about science ? They are anti God you didn't get the memo. They made it ok for gay marriage and abortion. The heck with the supreme court decisions.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Were you aware that the courts interpret and enforce the law? 

A basic principle of US law is the separation of church and state. That principle is manifested in the disallowance of religious indoctrination in public schools.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



They are biased politicians and I don't really care. I pay unto caesar what is Caesars but Caesar needs to stay out of my business. You can't serve two masters and I have chosen God.


----------



## rdean (Jun 29, 2013)

If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your fundamentalist religious beliefs leave you poorly equipped to survive in a society / culture that evolves (<----purposeful  term) away from how life existed 2,000 years ago. One of the profound difficulties religious fundamentalists have with reality in general (and science in particular) is that they are more complex than whipping out a handy verse or poem. Human existence does not consist strictly of ideals and opposites, but instead, of continua along multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious fundies that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


----------



## MHunterB (Jun 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Thanks for illustrating the "no zealot like a convert" situation.  I'm sorry, but I couldn't really follow that part because it was so poorly written. (my curse:  I was evidently designed to be a proof-reader.)

Yes, there is a problem with how we teach things in this country.  The way we teach math in particular is equivalent to teaching cooking by showing students a 'recipe' which is basically a list of ingredients and showing them the finished dish in its ideal form.  Math is actually quite 'messy' while it's being worked out, yet we don't teach that aspect of it below the graduate level.......  and math is possibly the easiest of it all.

The short answer as to why 'naturalism' is pretty much Occam's Razor.   Any other theory requires making assumptions which we are in no position to prove or disprove or test with scientific method - so it wouldn't be 'Science', now would it?

What "proof" do you presume to offer anyone that 'God' means the Christian understanding of Deity from the Biblical text, and none of the other representations of Deity which people venerate and worship?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rdean said:


> If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?



False premise.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



Lol, sorry I was in a hurry when posting that yesterday and did not read it before posting,for some reason it is not letting me edit the post.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?
> ...



Standard response when you're completely befuddled.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

MHunterB said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



No I can't prove the existence of God, nor disprove the existence of God,so God is still in play as an explanation for origins but is denied because of the naturalistic views. We can prove very little,it seems foolish to rule out anything. As for which God clearly the bible is much more worthy than any ancient writing I have read and the bible represents the old testament God as well as Christ.

I do need to proof read more often because I am often criticized for my posts.

My biggest hang up is, I can't imagine a necessity after necssity  being produced time after time to what we observe today. From single celled organisms to multicelluar organisms showing complexity that is beyond our understanding. When harmful mutations could have just as easily been passed through the population as beneficial mutations.

The chances of almost all life containing left handed amino acids and not right handed amion acids with no mixture seems like a very unrealistic view to have happened by chance. Defense mechanisms; natural processes would think to provide such mechanisms to protect the organism that to me is a huge reach of the imagination. There are so many other things like pointed out that just screams a designer not naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Befuddled no,nonsense and false premise yes.


----------



## hobelim (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




lets say God does exist as defined in scripture, the only existing being whose existence is absolute having no visible shape or physical form.

Is it your belief that God is triune and edible?

Is it your belief that a fully human Jesus was or became God either before during or after his physical existence?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

hobelim said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I believe God and the angels are spiritual beings having a human like form that can materialize at any time.

Do not believe in a trinity I believe God revealed himself in the form of an angel and a human. Edible have no idea why you have such a view.

I believe Christ was fully human and took his origional form of God Almighty once back in heaven. Immediately after his resurrection Jesus was in a lesser form that man could look upon.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

I will check back have to get ready for church.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Befuddled, yes. Epically and eternally.


----------



## editec (Jun 30, 2013)

> Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?



Because scientific method demands empirical evidence to make an assertion and *naturalism* (a term I seldon hear anyone use, I note) *starts with the supposition that all things that are exist in the real world and therefore ARE ...em·pir·i·cal  *



> /em&#712;pirik&#601;l/
> Adjective
> Based on, concerned with, or *verifiable by observation* or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
> Synonyms
> empiric - experiential - experimental






Youwerecreated said:


> How, then, is creationism&#8212;as opposed to &#8220;naturalism,&#8221; defined as &#8220;a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted&#8221;&#8212;scientific?



Why?  

Because while both agree that "you were created" (the evidence for your existence IS empirical) creationism seeks to explain WHY and HOW without  any empirical evidence to support its explanation.




> Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define &#8220;scientific.&#8221; Too often, &#8220;science&#8221; and &#8220;naturalism&#8221; are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition.



Naturalism is NOT scientific method.  Naturalism is a belief system, scientific *method *is an approach to problem solving.

Such sophistry (suggesting that naturalism IS science is sophistry, amigo) is an interesting exercise in playing a rhetorical game but essentially worthless in doing anything to support the theories of CREATIONISM.

Why?

GIGO...you started out with a supposition that was false...*naturalism is NOT science, neither is it scientic method.*

Naturalism  is a philosophy that one might say springs from science without in any way BEING science


----------



## rdean (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?
> ...



Why?  Isn't the evidence "equal"?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Its already been established that supernaturalism as the cause of existence is more a function of your limited imagination than a meaningful description of reality. 

Your arguments are nothing more than a reiteration of the Michael Behe arguments later stolen and modified by Stephen Meyer. The creationist use of the silly left handed / right handed amino acids nonsense, the sillier harmful / beneficial mutations slogans and the still sillier the chances of this happening, have all been debunked long ago.

The last gasping breath of the creationist ministries resolves to failed attempts at discrediting science to bolster the Christian gawds.  This is why creationists, who have nothing worth contributing to the scientific community, invariably appeal to their fellow creationists. They have found it necessary to publish their anti-science agenda in web based blogs or creationist web pages because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work meeting the standards for peer review. Creationist literature serves as a rallying point for the christian faithful, not as a means for critical evaluation of the bibles.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

editec said:


> > Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great post.

Yes, natural recurring processes can be observed does not mean the processes happened naturally. The question should be is how these natural processes that recur over and over got started.

My point is why do they look to explain that everything is a product of naturalism  when their is no natural process that can be observed that could account for origins of life Or origins of any kind . The natural recurring processes that are observed have all the necessities already in place.

I do disagree with one of your points However.Creation is a process of design which can be observed in nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rdean said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Because there is evidence for spiritual entities,There is no evidence for fairies,leperchauns,and gnomes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MHunterB said:
> ...



 Your conjecture filled theories have done nothing of the sort. Wishful thinking on your part.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > > Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?
> ...





If you can *"observe in nature*" the "*process of design*" in "*creation*" then *YOU *must be able to provide plenty of examples since your premise is that *ALL LIFE* was "*created*", right?

So now here is your big opportunity to prove once and for all that everything is the result of "*creation*".

Provide irrefutable examples of this alleged "*process of design*" that *YOU *can "*observe in nature*".


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Please provide irrefutable "*evidence*" for "*spiritual entities*".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



There are to many examples in nature to number.

Organs,blood,skeletal structures,eyes,brains,central nervous system,atmosphere,the sun and moon,our planet,oxygen,water,defense mechanisms that help protect organisms,
vegetation etc.Chance or purposeful design ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I can't but there is evidence suggesting the possibility.

Can you provide irrefutable evidence that everything is the product of natural processes  absent of a designer ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So your response is the "Aw gee whiz, everything is so complicated there must be a designer"?

The bogus "intelligent design" nonsense was effectively debunked in the Dover, PA court case by a Republican appointed judge. The plaintiffs proved that the "Aw gee whiz" examples provided by the Creationists were completely bogus and that there were interim forms that demonstrated the evolution of complex structures like the eye.

Furthermore they even produced the "interim form" of the "evolution" from creationism to "intelligent design". 

Basically your fallacious allegation that you can "*observe in nature*" the "*process of design*" is nothing more than rewarmed "*creationism*" without the benefit of any actual substance.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Produce that "evidence suggesting the possibility" instead.


> Can you provide irrefutable evidence that everything is the product of natural processes  absent of a designer ?



The onus is on *YOU* to prove the existence of this imaginary "designer" since *YOU* are the one making the claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The courts are your proof  they are politicians and are anti God talk about a biased view. For your information not all republicans believe in a creator

Yes you can't point to anything that had a complex beginning that was the result of natural causes concerning origins.

Totally disregaed of the evidence and the question.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The evidence presented is met with ridicule,example Aw Geez those people are just nuts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You say there is no designer even though complexity points to a designer.

The onus is on both of us you to prove naturalism produced all we see. Me to show that all things were deigned and created. Neither one of us can do so,so it comes down to faith.

But the few things I pointed out better supports a designer than chance.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The overwhelming evidence in the Dover, PA case exposed "intelligent design" as nothing but a fraudulent rehash of "creationism". That you refuse to accept the *FACTUAL BASIS* on which the court reached that decision merely exposes your willful blindness to *REALITY*.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Nothing whatsoever points to a "designer".

The Dover, PA court case exposed the fraudulent "creationist" basis for a "designer".

Nothing you have pointed out supports your allegations.


----------



## eots (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.
> ...



intelligent design can hardly be compared to voodoo


----------



## eots (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



absolute nonsense there is every indication of intelligent design ..evolution has huge gaping holes


----------



## eots (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



link ?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Cancer, genetic defects, infection, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc., 

Purposeful design?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


"... because I say so".


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Complexity does not point to a "designer". It's pointless to parrot the nonsense coming out of your Christian creation ministries. 

You may want to discuss your gawds "design" with the victims of his flawed and poorly constructed creation. As a "designer", God is terribly inept. 

As an argument for "designer" gawds, you might want to offer some actual evidence to support your designer gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course it can. The reliance on fear and superstition is pervasive in both environments.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You don't seem to understand that in connection with creationist charlatans, there is no evidence presented in support of their claims to supernaturalism.

The ridicule leveled at creationist charlatans is in connection with their baseless claims, lack of evidence and appeals to supernatural entities.

That's why creationist charlatans are routinely hustled out of court in utter disgrace.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I will admit creationists have been caught with their pants down but remember they are also dealing with secular courts. It will not always be that way.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Is this all you have ? respond to my posts I could care less what a secular court thinks got it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I am a creationist,I agree with some tenets of ID and secular evolution.

Defending ?Design? in Dover (Pennsylvania, USA) - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



God warned what sin would bring.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



We can't help it you lack the ability to reason.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie back your false claims up or leave the tread.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Either leave your rhetoric out of the thread or leave the thread.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not wishful thinking at all. Just an obvious difference between real science and creationist lies.
Science does not operate on the appeals to fear and ignorance that are staples of Christian creationist ministries. Scientists rely on empirical data, evidence, and assiduous peer-review and falsification to reach conclusions about the natural world. This is why it&#8217;s comical to see creationists leap back and forth into and out of faith to suit their arguments. For instance, we see with regularity your silly attempts to promote the bibles as science texts when ultimately, there is no science in any of the bibles. Yet, you won't see the futility in promoting your bibles as promoting carnival fortune telling.

Why not provide some data regarding your creation ministries doing actual research in the fields of biological sciences, paleontology and earth science? Have them publish in peer reviewed science journals so that other scientists can review their work?

We already know why that won&#8217;t happen, right? Your creation ministries have once again been exposed as frauds and liars.


Why Gauger's green-screened 'lab' is an appropriate target of ridicule - The Panda's Thumb

*Why Gauger&#8217;s green-screened &#8216;lab&#8217; is an appropriate target of ridicule*


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Better yet, email your creationist charlatan heroes and have them leave their religious fundamentalism out of the public schools.

How typical that you sidestep and avoid any attempt at addressing the salient points. Sidestepping and avoidance seems to be a common tactic of creationist charlatans.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Support your false claims of leave the "tread".


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The gawds warned of cancer and genetic defects?

Why did the men who wrote the bibles make your gawds out to be serial mass murderers, and the most evil villains?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2013)

Evolution is a fact....

God is a theory


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Evolutionary science is not "secular".

AIG is a repository of Christian fundamentalist hacks.

The Dover trial thoroughly humiliated creationist charlatans.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




Yes, I'm quite sure that atheists will come to God realization if they continue to search for it.

God, by the way, is natural.  Nothing could be more natural.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a fact....
> 
> God is a theory



Not according to Henry Morris of the ICR.

"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model."

- Henry Morris 
_President, Institute for Creation Research_


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a fact....
> 
> God is a theory



The Dover statement. this is read to all students lol.

Text of the intelligent design statement Dover, PA, teachers were instructed to read to their students:

    The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin&#8217;s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

    Because Darwin&#8217;s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

    Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin&#8217;s view. The reference book, &#8220;Of Pandas and People,&#8221; is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

    With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

Source: Dover Area School District News: Biology Curriculum Update

Defending ?Design? in Dover (Pennsylvania, USA) - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If the gawds choose to unionize, there may be a messy process to determine which of the gawds becomes "The" gawd.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not by our understanding of the term.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a fact....
> ...



Odd that you chose to selectively edit portions of the events - just as you so often to post edited, parsed and falsified "quotes" from your creation ministries.



> On December 14, 2004, 11 Dover parents, represented by the Pennsylvania ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Pepper Hamilton LLP, filed suit in federal district court against the intelligent design policy of the Dover Area School Board.
> 
> On January 6, 2005, eight Dover High School science teachers sent a letter to the district superintendent refusing to read the DASB procedural statement on the grounds that intelligent design and Of Pandas and People were not good science, and that teaching intelligent design would violate their professional standards.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yet another of your compelling arguments.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a fact....
> ...



The fact that evolution occurs is beyond debate and is supported by fossil, biological and DNA evidence? The only theory applies to how and why it occurs. 

The theory of God the creator has no scientific fact supporting it


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Sorry but you and the other ignoramuses  got your ass handed to you.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a fact....
> ...




NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs showed that evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problemsthe type that arise in any flourishing scientific field.

U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." As part of his decision, Judge Jones ordered the Dover school board to pay legal fees and damages, which were eventually set at $1 million.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wrong,wrong,wrong some people should just remain silent on this issue.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Sorry, but Dover was yet another resounding defeat for fundamentalist Christians attempting to force their religious beliefs on others.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial



> During the trial, lawyers for the plaintiffs showed that evolution is one of the best-tested and most thoroughly confirmed theories in the history of science, and that its unresolved questions are normal research problemsthe type that arise in any flourishing scientific field.
> 
> U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ultimately decided for the plaintiffs, writing in his decision that intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." As part of his decision, Judge Jones ordered the Dover school board to pay legal fees and damages, which were eventually set at $1 million.



You ID'iots didn't just lose, you were exposed as frauds for presenting ID'iosy as something other than religion.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Like I said,I don't really care what a secular court decides that is ruled by anti God people. It was funny you were full of shit.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That unseemly drool on your keyboard notwithstanding, ID'iots have no business attempting to force their religion into the public schools.


Embrace it. Live it. 

Or... just drink the Kool Aid. 


> The fact that evolution occurs is beyond debate and is supported by fossil, biological and DNA evidence
> 
> The theory of God the creator has no scientific fact supporting it


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



So it took all the anti God activists kinda like you hollie to get this decision. When has God ever won anything in mans court ? Wait til the tables are turned. Now let's get the thread back on topic or leave the thread.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What you believe are lies that you promote on behalf of your Christian creationist ministries. 

I'm thankful that we had an opportunity for both sides of the issue to be addressed. 

In doing so, ID'oisy was again exposed as Christian fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalism has no place in the public schools.

Maybe you just need some new gawds?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Putting your head in the sand resolves nothing. 

Evolution occurs.....FACT
You can argue the how's and whys all you want. Once DNA analysis came around  your arguments became moot

The existence of GOD has never been more than  theory......a theory unsubstantiated by scientific facts


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



"_You'll get yours_!" - a universally sustaining benediction for the religious zealot who uses his religion like a bloody truncheon. How cute.


So when will the tables turn?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As long as there are sane rational people around it will remain that way.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Your side will be in court again but it will be Gods court the one and only creator. Didn't the court say O.J. Simpson was innocent lol ?

Like I said,an anti God secular court with all their activists rendered the decision.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Micro evolution yes, Macro no.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Your days are numbered and let's get back on topic, like the evidence you seem to avoid.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



It is because of a faulty interpretation of the constitution that lead to the amendment.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Just for the record *YOU* were the one who took it off topic and furthermore *YOU* are the one who refuses to provide the evidence that supports your baseless allegation. So if *YOU* want to get back on topic *YOU* need to start producing some evidence.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



DNA has shown the interrelationships between the species. There is much in common. Macro evolution occurs.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Non sequitur! Try putting that in some kind of context next time.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Wrong, you understood what I was saying.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Dna does no such of a thing we are genetically to far apart to be related to anything other than a human. That is merely an inference.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


We are genetically linked to primates, genetically linked to mammals and genetically linked to vertebrates

The interrelationships of all species has been fully mapped

The existence of God has no similar proof. In fact, existing proof refutes the idea of God creating all species at creation


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

God says it best.

Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good. 

Rev 6:15  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains. 
Rev 6:16  And they said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him sitting on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 
Rev 6:17  for the great day of His wrath has come, and who will be able to stand? 

Reality !


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



YWC obviously knows less than nothing about DNA.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Oh great. Maybe we'll one day have religious tribal courts just like in Pakistan.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> God says it best.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> ...



Any scientific proof of that?

Meet the same standards you demand of evolution


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Do you think we are genetically related to mice ? frogs ?

It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.

 Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.

 - Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

 - Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)

 - Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

 - Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

 - 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

 - The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

 - About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)


 The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.

Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your contempt for the rule of law is noted. 

And this is why we need the First Amendment today as much as any time in our Nations history, if not more so  to protect citizens from the arrogance of the Christian right as they seek to codify religions dogma into secular law, in violation of the Establishment Clause and the original intent of the Framers.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What would you like to discuss concerning Dna and genetics I assure you, you're in my area of expertise. I would be more than happy to reveal your ignorance one again.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> God says it best.
> 
> Psa 53:1  To the Chief Musician on Mahalath. A contemplation. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They acted corruptly, and have worked out abominable wickedness; there is not one doing good.
> 
> ...



So now YWC has taken to threatening us with the "wrath" of his "lamb"?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I obey the laws of the land, I still believe the secular courts are nothing more than activists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > God says it best.
> ...



Not me,that is god speaking.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You prefer Sharia Law?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Nope, but there are Christians who are enduring under that rule of law as well as communism.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Which supports evolution

Thanks for posting


----------



## Hollie (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Gee whiz. What a horrible ordeal it must be to endure under the rule of law. It makes one long for a return to the Dark Ages and rule of theocratic totalitarianism.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Been there, done that, don't need yet another t-shirt proving that creationists are clueless when it comes to science.


----------



## rdean (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Really?  And what evidence is that?  Be specific.


----------



## rdean (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I should have known someone else would be asking the same question.


----------



## rdean (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Asking a question isn't an answer.  BEEP.  Try again.


----------



## rdean (Jun 30, 2013)

Clearly, the answer here is "there's just gotta be.  There's just gotta".

And right wingers get so upset when you point out that only a measly 6% of scientists will admit to being Republican.

If they are going to believe in mysticism and the occult over science, then quit insisting most scientists are Republican.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



It would be fun to see if you can show you understand the Genome and Dna base pairs thouroughly enough to defend what you believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Not if you fully understood genetics.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rdean said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I already answered this before and we are gonna stay on topic.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rdean said:


> Clearly, the answer here is "there's just gotta be.  There's just gotta".
> 
> And right wingers get so upset when you point out that only a measly 6% of scientists will admit to being Republican.
> 
> If they are going to believe in mysticism and the occult over science, then quit insisting most scientists are Republican.



This does sound like a naturalist.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Where are the genetics supporting creation?

Sorry, you lose


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 30, 2013)




----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Sorry but can you handle the truth ?

The bible say's 10 times in genesis that kinds only bring forth after their own kind and for thousands of years and billions upon billions of observations the bible is correct, You lose.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jun 30, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


>



I have read several of those hard text books and they are filled with conjecture.


----------



## eots (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



you confuse bible stories with the concept intelligent design...and the statement "The interrelationships of all species has been fully mapped is really meaningless"


----------



## eots (Jun 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



another reactionary equating intelligent design with politics and right wing christains


----------



## eots (Jun 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a fact....
> 
> God is a theory



the theory of evolution is a theory thats why its called the "theory of evolution"


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a fact....
> ...



If you had a science vocabulary and a bit of knowledge regarding science terms, you would understand what "theory" means.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



For someone who gets their science from Harun Yahya, you're a poor candidate to be offering a critique on the biological sciences.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



ID'iots confuse their conspiracy theories with a meaningful understanding of science.

Ken Ham would like you to visit his creation museum. You would obviously be impressed


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Actually, this has been proven to be untrue. Even by Darwins biological observations

Your Bible is wrong and once again is disproven by science


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


We know that in the genesis tale, your gawds lied. Satan told the truth. 

Once again, we see that the bibles are self-refuting.


----------



## dblack (Jul 1, 2013)

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a fact....
> ...



Exactly. A theory is rationally coherent, explains the available evidence and makes verifiable predictions about the world we live in.

Evolution is a theory. God is not.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 1, 2013)

dblack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



God is a fable...but if creationists want to present it as a theory, they are welcome to provide credible scientific evidence


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

It seems some of the more excitable creationist should spend some time and get acquainted with what the term "theory" actually means as it applies in the science world.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Otherwise, I suppose we can dismiss gravity, Einstein's silly notions of "relativity", etc.  because they are merely theories.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

eots said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...





The reason why so many confuse ID with creationism is the trial in Dover PA. That is the result of activist and secular courts not understanding science.

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Dang you you should be having this discussion in a mirror.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The issue you have is being befuddled with science terminology. You tend to argue against that which you don't understand and when you're corrected, you forget what you were arguing against.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You are a liar hollie and you really don't want this discussion because you simply lack the knowledge to discuss it. I have explained many times why the view we are related to animals is absurd and it is only vivid imaginations at work. It's the faulty assumption that all animals evolved from the same source of life.

Genetically speaking we are to far apart to be related to any non Homo Sapien. This is one of the many holes in the theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Explain to me how we are supposedly related to anything other than a Homo Sapien ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If satan exists so does God, thank you for your admission.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 1, 2013)

"youwerecreated" doesn't make much sense and this 





> Evolution is a theory. God is not


 is just silly, but ... 

Why does it matter if others don't agree with your FAITH in the bible? Why are believers always trying to make other agree with them? 

And, why are believers so desperate to find some proof of a magical super being? 

Believe whatever gets you through the night but leave non-believers people alone. Quit trying to force your fantasies on others.

Believe me, the constant haranguing and yammering that your fantasy is real does absolutely nothing for your cause. Unless you count that it makes fact-based believers turn off from your message.

Edited to add ... I just realized that I might have misunderstood the meaning of this statement.. Maybe it was meant to mean that the existence of a god is fantasy.



> Evolution is a theory. God is not


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You're again (still), befuddled. 

What Dover accomplished was a thorough dismantling of creationist appeals to Christian fundamentalism. The inability by the Christian creationist cabal to make a coherent argument was another embarrassing drubbing suffered by crestionist, ie: re-branded Christian fundies. 

Your own fundamentalist leanings prevents you from objectively assessing the humiliating defeat suffered by the religionists. They attempted to force their Christian fundie dogma into the public schools and were given the Bum's Rush.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not necessarily. I would think that there are people who believe in "satan" but not in a "god". 

But if one does not believe, on faith, that a god exists, it follows that they would likely believe that satan does not exist either.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

dblack said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Let's expose your bias.

Since there is no scientific explanation as to the origins of life you can't rule out design. By rejecting the possibility of design it's no longer science it is a philisophical view.

Science can't prove naturalistic processes produced all we see they can't rule out the designer. They can cling to their view but a creationist and a propopnent for ID has the same right.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



There are no scientific explanation for ID or creation theory....as such, it must be discounted as a valid scientific theory


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> It seems some of the more excitable creationist should spend some time and get acquainted with what the term "theory" actually means as it applies in the science world.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Otherwise, I suppose we can dismiss gravity, Einstein's silly notions of "relativity", etc.  because they are merely theories.



Yes please learn what a scientific theory really is.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> "youwerecreated" doesn't make much sense and this
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Quote: Originally Posted by rightwinger View Post
Evolution is a fact....

God is a theory


Thank you for the admission Rightwinger.

But I am not sure where I said what you said.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It seems some of the more excitable creationist should spend some time and get acquainted with what the term "theory" actually means as it applies in the science world.
> ...



Great. Now that you have moved momentarily from your position that the science community is engaged in a sinister, global conspiracy, please provide a "General Theory of Creation".

Make sure your theory and experimentation is consistent with the methodology in your LiveScience article.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You are just exaggerating the facts as usual you embicile. The court decided for the plantiffs because of some of the tenets of ID they concluded had ties to religious views which violated separation of church and state. They admitted that the intelligent agent for design was the Christian and Hebrew God.

Once again you resort to being dishonest.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It seems some of the more excitable creationist should spend some time and get acquainted with what the term "theory" actually means as it applies in the science world.
> ...



The LiveScience article is consistent with what I provided you. 

Did you notice that the article you linked to made mention of natural processes and experimentation? You inadvertently refuted your own claims to supermagical agents. 

I suppose I should say thanks for your assistance in dismantling your own argument.

So, thanks.


----------



## BreezeWood (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...






> > earliest life
> >
> > THE EARLIEST LIFE
> >
> ...





*YWC: "Genetically speaking we are to far apart to be related to any non Homo Sapien. This is one of the many holes in the theory".*



can you explain why there are no Homo Sapien fossilized remains equivalent to the earliest life on Earth - ~3.4 Billion years old ?

when the oldest remains for Homo Sapien actually date back less than 200K years -


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You can only say that because of the interpretations of an anti God and completely secular courts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You're asking the wrong person. I do not trust dating methods.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're angry and lashing out. That won't change the facts of the  Dover case, however.

Here's an extensive detailing of the case.

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court 


From the article, here's something interesting 

[This is the decision of the court in the Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al. case. Judge John E. Jones III, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, made a very strong ruling against intelligent design. He ruled that it is creationism and is not science. He also ruled that members of Dover's school board lied under oath to hide their religious motivations. This archive also hosts transcripts of the trial. See the Dover index page.]


You need to revise your global conspiracy theories to include those atheistic, evilutionist judges.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course you don't. An old earth conflicts with the genesis fable. So does much of science which explains your loathing of science, knowledge and results in your floating of goofy conspiracy theories.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not really..

You claim ID is a valid theory back it up. We have evidence that species of increasing complexity showed up on earth over time. Lacking either a chicken or an egg, provide your theory and supporting evidence of how these new creatures show up on earth

What are they created from?  Thin air?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Can you name these experiments ?

I have said the theory of evolution is built on extrapolations.

1. That all things came into existence through natural processes because there are natural processes that can be observed.
2. Dna similarity.
3. Extinct organisms that are similar to other organisms from the fossil record.
4. Because small changes happen within a family they assume that larger scale changes can happen which would lead to Macro.

How did these natural processes get started ?

We can discuss the rest.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



No man has any idea how long life and this planet has existed.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


If "they" admitted to the christian and hebrew gawds (don't slight the islamic gawd ), as the "intelligent agent", wouldn't that qualify as introducing religion into the creationist agenda.

 Unique and identifiable gawds are associated with christianity and with creationist lore. You're aware of that, right?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That's just silly creationist prattle.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No scientific evidence was offered from either side. It was all philisophical evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yes and that is what the judgment was based on. Who testified for the defendants ? the defendants were members of the school board.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Most creationist believe in 6,000 years.Unlike yourself, I can say what I agree with and what I don't agree with.

Nope, it is true.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Actually, you have said nothing about evolution being built on extrapolations. 

Your "opinions" are not your own. You cut and pasted the opinions of Henry Morris from the ICR, that bastion of "quote-mining", creationist charlatans.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Of, course. And the earth is flat.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



If you continue to avoid my questions I will not respond to you.


----------



## dblack (Jul 1, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> I just realized that I might have misunderstood the meaning of this statement.. Maybe it was meant to mean that the existence of a god is fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a theory. God is not



That was how I took it. It's the only way it really makes any sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Did I say I believe the earth is flat ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, your fundamentalist agenda is clear. 

If you read the trial transcript, you will notice that some of the most notorious creationist hacks testified for the plaintiffs. Are you confused by the terms plaintiff and defendant? 

I guess you have no issue with lies being used by school board members in furtherance of their religious agenda?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You still don't understand the difference between creationism and ID.

No I have no reason to read the 139 page manuscript. Now name the witnesses that testafied for the defense ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Are you denying the earth is flat?


----------



## BreezeWood (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...





*Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ? *


*YWC: I do not trust ... dating methods.*

because creationism is based on trust rather than evidence ...


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You don't understand the meaning of integrity, truth and moral compass. 

The witnesses are identified in the trial transcript. 

Is lying for the sake of forcing your religion on others in concert with your religious beliefs?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

BreezeWood said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...



Not true but believe as you wish.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Ok by your standard of judgment.



The Truth on the Dover Intelligent Design Trial



Myth #1: There are no peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting intelligent design. Judge Jones said that ID "...has not generated peer-reviewed publications." FACT: Judge Jones is simply wrong. Discovery Institute submitted an amicus brief to Judge Jones that documented various peer-reviewed publications, which he accepted into evidence. This is a fact based question which is hard to get wrong. The fact is there are peer-reviewed papers supporting intelligent design.

Uh oh take a closer look at this judge and consider what you just typed.

Streaming Media - The Truth on the Dover Intelligent Design Trial


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Wow the judge plagiarizing the Aclu what did I tell you ? then also making the claim there are no peer reviewed articles from ID after admitting them in to evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The earth is a sphere and that is what the bible declares.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It is readily apparent that *YOU* don't in spite of your spurious claims to be "educated" in this "area of expertise".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Anytime you feel froggy jump. Don't let the fear of embarrassment stop you.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No, it obviously doesn't. 

You have accepted the notion that lies in furtherance of your religion is acceptable.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Uh oh. The Disco'tute? These are the charlatans who posed Ann Gauger in front of a green screen and used stock photos of a lab in the background. 

Liars and charlatans. What a great bunch.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You know how this works, prove them wrong.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Unlike you I don't pretend to have the power to read other people's minds.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I don't read peoples minds how did you come to that conclusion.

Here let's see if you can make sense of the obvious I stated.

God vs. Gov?t: What Does the Constitution Really Say About the Separation of Church and State?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The opinions of the Supreme Court justices have for more credibility than the absolute drivel that you read.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Educate yourself this is partly the reason the judge decided in favor of the plantiffs rather than the defendants.

But I pointed out the ignorance of the judge earlier.

Separation of Church and State - Political Science - Prager University


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So your current false prophet is called John Eastman. Probably going to end up exactly like all of the others.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Now you understand my contempt for the courts and atheists. A day of reckoning is coming. 

God had it right.


Psa 14:1  To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Thanks for tacitly admitting that you are not a Christian.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your silly conspiracy theories aren't going to defend ID'iosy as anything other than fundamentalist Christianity.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Now I understand your major malfunction. It seems you're just a stereotypical, hateful zealot who uses his religion to promote his resentment at many personal failures.

In case you haven't noticed yet, yeah, I think this is funny, your silly conspiracy theories and your promotion of hate. And as if you had any credibility as a reasonable person with an iota of moral standing throughout your goofy histrionics, you predictably forfeit any claim to such pretensions in this last post. I suppose I will have to somehow manage to get by in the knowledge that somewhere, in an unknown geographical location and a twisted mental one, there's a moral relativist who is okay with the promotion of lies, falsehoods and insensate hate in the name of his deity.

A day of reckoning certainly is coming. I'll reckon we'll eventually read in the paper about some whacked-out cult member committing some horrendous crime in furtherance of his deity.

Please do us all a favor and drink the Kool-Aid.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, I know how this works. The Disco'tute lies about doing "research" and you cut and paste whatever lies you hope will go unrecognized.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


 I thought you said you don't read peoples minds ? Did you slip and hit your head ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

From here on out let's discuss the thread topic ,if you can't, then remain silent thank you.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> From here on out let's discuss the thread topic ,if you can't, then remain silent thank you.



The gawds sent you an email about making goofy threats in their name, right?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why are trying to divert attention from your own unchristian comments?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Actually weve always understood the Christian rights contempt for the Constitution and rule of law, in that it prevents you from codifying your dogma of ignorance and hate.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Has this country gotten better since since 1947 , where a few words in a letter from Jefferson were taken out of context ? That changed the history of this country and we have gone downhill ever since.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Christians unfortunately commit sin and have forginess of that sin.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > From here on out let's discuss the thread topic ,if you can't, then remain silent thank you.
> ...



I am doing my Christian duty to warn you of the coming judgement,it is up to you what you do with the warning.

If your house was on fire, and you didn't know it, would you appreciate someone warning you ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Gee whiz. If you were a nice, honorable fellow then I'd be inclined to give you a pass.  But a self-hating, bigoted, misogynistic and nasty piece of work that happens to have the communication skills of mildew and social skills to match you're a bit of an open goal.

Yep. Hate, hate, hate. They hates themselves, they hate each other and they hate their miserable lives. Their religion becomes the engine that powers their hate.

What a shame that you cant use your religious belief to improve your life. Instead, you would hope to use it in rather degenerative and destructive ways to promote your religious fascism. 
Ayatollah ywc doesnt quite understand that fundamentalist christianity has a reputation that precedes itself. In the modern Western world of elected officials, accountable government and personal freedoms, theocratic totalitarianism is a relic of religious fascism defined by gender apartheid, witch hunts and Inquisitions.

Its something you will have to deal with if the above causes you offence. But you know, there's a reason why Im not rocking back and forth in spasmodic, rote memorization of your bibles after having watched the neighbor collapse in a bloody heap under one hundred lashes for committing some infraction of your religious laws.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



The truth shall set you free, it does not seem to work with some,I wonder why ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I dont believe youre doing anything but using your religion to inflict blunt force trauma.

But you know, I prefer the whacked out, openly hostile, End-time ranting Christian cult members that we mistakenly identify as "radical" or "extremist," because, well, I know where they stand. They're basically just faithful Christian cultists who have no issue with using their fundamentalist religious beliefs as a means for threats. I'd just rather deal with unabashed nutjobs like this, than the "moderate" who ends up with the _He was such a nice guy, I can't believe he'd do this!_ impromptu eulogy after committing some horrendous act of savagery for his gawds. The former are easier to spot and imprison before they do something really stupid.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Because those "some" suffer from a defect that religious zealotry is a magnet for.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So, you're suggesting that your use of Christianity to promote hate and derision will be forgiven?

I can only attribute a serious medical condition to your view of religion as a mechanism of promoting hate and derision. Its difficult to think that your cult fantasies of imposing religious fascism have any mainstream support. You are silly and pretentious but dont mistake those attributes as furthering of your rather odd views as a cult clone. Fundie zealots anti-human and delusional claims of entitlement notwithstanding, human focused values such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will always appeal more broadly and are more honorable than hate, oppression, and the perpetuation of misery and suffering. The resonant slap to the face dealt to the notion of religious fascism by liberal democracy enrages the Christian fundie because a broad and sweeping reform movement has made them little more than caricatures of the hair-on-fire, bible thumping clowns.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



... times five to the power of infinity ...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Keyword: "unfortunately". 

It means that if you SAY you're a "christian", you can do damn near anything and still get "forgiven". 

Murder, incest, rape, kidnapping, robbery ... just ask for "forgiveness" and you can go out tomorrow and do the same crimes/sins all over again. 

Damn convenient, that. 

Funny thing is, if catholic, that includes the pedophile priests. for that matter, it might include non-catholic pedophiles as well. 

Nice gig for a serial criminal. You can molest all the little kids you want while preaching about how much you love fetuses.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jul 1, 2013)

Oh and "Youwerecreated" has never even tried to answer my question of WHY do "christians" insist on preaching their scam to non-believers?

Why the constant preaching? Why not just leave people alone? 

Why pretend you have some sort of proof of the existence of some Magic Sky Fairy when, clearly, 

YOU

DO 

NOT

have any such proof. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - You are most welcome to whatever gets you through the night. Believe what you wish and welcome to it. 

But, why must you constantly try to shove your silly fantasies down the throats of others? Books and tracts and videos and pamphlets and SHIT. 

 I had the same idiot morms knock on my door TWICE this past Saturday. I closed the door in their faces and a while later, there they were, pounding on my door again. 

When its not the damn morms, its some other wacko sect/cult. I even had one of you fools accost me in a park. I was tempted to slap her into the middle of next week. 

Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy ... its all the same. You're already running a huge scam on taxes the rest of us have to pay for you. Can't you leave us in peace? 

You are welcome to your nutty beliefs. Go handle snakes and speak in tongues and swoon and mutter and on and on and on Do what you want (Leave little kids alone. Go molest adults instead) , believe what you want but dammit, WHY must you rant and rave your nonsensical beliefs at other people?


----------



## dblack (Jul 1, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Oh and "Youwerecreated" has never even tried to answer my question of WHY do "christians" insist on preaching their scam to non-believers?
> 
> Why the constant preaching? Why not just leave people alone?
> 
> ...



They have something they think is important that they want to share with others. Why is that a problem? They're no more pushy about than any other salespeople. Less so generally.

I'll push back if they go too far with hellfire and damnation stuff, especially if they try use it to scare kids, but I don't hear that line often. And hardly ever from Mormons.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Nonsense. 

Establishment Clause jurisprudence is predicated on a comprehensive and objective examination of the Framers intent, their understanding of the dangers of conjoining church and state, and case law dating back to the Foundation Era. 

It was never the Framers intent to create a theocracy, some had even first-hand experience of the bane of religion in government, and wisely amended the Constitution to prohibit the codification of religious dogma.  

And America is indeed a better place now for it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Oh and "Youwerecreated" has never even tried to answer my question of WHY do "christians" insist on preaching their scam to non-believers?
> 
> Why the constant preaching? Why not just leave people alone?
> 
> ...



This is your only post worth a response.If I really thought that Jesus Christ was a scam I would feel like you. Heck I once felt like you then I matured. We were asked to preach the gospels and the true sheep of God will listen.

God has been separating the sheep from the goats since Adam. I must ask you why if you're truly offended would you even reply to the thread ? do you need attention or something or could it be you feel a little guilty ?

Anyways no one is making you read or reply to the thread so I am at a loss for words why you posted what you did.

I notice no one is willing to step up to the plate and take a swing concerning genetics. None of you seem to know enough to defend your theory and explain to me how we are related to anything that is not a Homo Sapien.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 1, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



You need to learn your history, and go back to 1947 and read the decision of the supreme court.

It was because of a short phrase by jefferson in a letter. This countries morals have declined ever since the removal of God from Government. 

People as old as I, have had enough time in this country to see the decline.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and "Youwerecreated" has never even tried to answer my question of WHY do "christians" insist on preaching their scam to non-believers?
> ...


Let's be honest, here. Your genetics information is nothing more than cliches' and slogans you scour from various creation ministries. 

You should make every effort to aoid discussing science matters. The revulsion you and your creation ministries have for science causes you to promote the most outrageous and nonsensical claims that are not at all science fact.... more like warped creationist fantasy.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


l

Once again, you have some diseased view that this nation is somehow worse off for not enforcing your version of religiously inspired hate and derision. 

In reality, the nation has rejected fundie christian zealotry and the divisions caused by extremist religious nutbars.


----------



## editec (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > > Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?
> ...


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



We are by far, a more "Christian" nation than we were in 1947. More tolerant of our fellow Americans regardless of race, religion, sex, disabilities and sexual orientation.

In fact, 1947 was the year Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and set us on a path of increased tolerance

1947 was not a pleasant time if your were not white, male, christian and heterosexual.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 2, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Unfortunately the color barrier and civil rights should have taken place much sooner in our history,but once civil rights was dealt with we as a nation became to politically correct to our own demise.

Were there ignorant Christians yes but it was not just Christians that were ignorant. Didn't evolution make the claim black people were less evolved but we found out through genetics that was just baloney ? That happened back in darwins day if I'm not mistaken.

This countries morals were at a better state in the 50's vs now.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Take the issue on and please answer the questions


----------



## Hollie (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


There's nothing to take on when you get your "science" from Harun Yahya.

What is curious is how atheistic evilutionist scientists have managed to perfom some interesting dna research on mammals now extinct. 

DNA Extracted From Woolly Mammoth Hair 

This is obviously a conspiracy among an international group of atheistic evilutionist scientists, but how do these conspiracies get published in peer reviewed science journals?   

We know with certainty that a conspiracy is being perpetrsted. Dna from Mammoths and Mastadons which, as the conspiracy is configured, existed between 10 k and 50 k years ago.  We know this is false because the planet is only 6 k years old. 

Why aren't the creation ministries performing their own lab tests and doing field research to expose this latest conspiracy?

Could you email Ann Gauger and ask her to get on this? Maybe she and Doug Axe can phony-up some more green screened lab photos.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Creationism has a model and it is supported by science hollie.

Presenting evidence for the Creation Science Model

Here is the end of the creationism model that is in blue that could not be read.

The creation model correctly predicted that the fossil record would show fully functional, "isolated" populations of organisms that resist change. Fossil evidence confirms the laboratory observations and predictions. The evidence supports the supernatural explanation for species. 

Evolutionists insist that many unlimited, little changes over long periods of time amount to major changes. They cite as facts for evolution: mutation and natural selection. However, these are mere mechanisms for change. They do not indicate evidence of any kind for the amount of change that can occur.

With regard to the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, Roger Lewin sums the conclusion of the Macroevolution Conference in Chicago writing, &#8220;The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.&#8221; (Roger Lewin, Evolution Theory under Fire, Science, vol 210, 21 November 1980, p.883). 

&#8220;One could argue at this point that such minor changes extrapolated over millions of years could result in macroevolutionary change. But the evidence will not support this argument&#8230;. Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy&#8212;especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis, not transformation &#8230;. For those who must describe history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis) natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change&#8221; (Michael Thomas, &#8220;Stasis Considered&#8221;, Origins Research, Vol. 12, 1989, p.11).



 Conclusion

The creation model offers a consistent and relevant explanation for observed phenomena and predicts that if all organisms were created each as a kind, subject to limited change, then the fossil record should show distinguishable populations of organisms. A search through the data of fossils shows attributes of population kinds easily distinguished from all other kinds. Organisms are fully developed, functional, and genetically isolated as kinds. No evidence of evolution from one kind of organism to another exists. Change is limited. Further, the mere probabilities against the natural evolution of different organism kinds favor the supernatural origin of kinds, and laboratory evidence supports limited change within each kind.

A good model is based on objectivity and scientific reasoning, and the creation model for supernatural origins of species upholds these values. Laboratory, fossil, and probability evidence supports the creation model&#8217;s theory that populations of kinds were created supernaturally: fully formed and functional. The evolution model cannot dissociate itself with obvious bias and controversy in its own ranks. Preference should be for models that explain known evidence not for models that substitute evidence with excuses for the absence of evidence. Because the creation model predicts fully formed fully functional organisms to be easily distinguished in the fossil record, the creation model both conforms perfectly to the data and is supported by the data.


http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your *IGNORANCE* is astounding. There is nothing in evolution that makes any such claim. You probably got that canard from one of your idiotic "creationist" sources.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Must be nice to have a "get out of hell free" pass for every time you do or say something unchristian. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Or is that only for honest Atheists?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


As expected, this is just a reiteration of boilerplate creationist nonsense. 

I did expect that you would dump some extended cut and paste In order to avoid addressing the lies and dishonest tactics used by creationist charlatans. So in that sense, you are predictable.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Not up on your history of the theory are ya ? Your ignorance knows no bounds.


The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White



The evolution of race was as simple as the politics of race is complex
 By Gina Kirchweger

Ten years ago, while at the university of Western Australia, anthropologist Nina Jablonski was asked to give a lecture on human skin. As an expert in primate evolution, she decided to discuss the evolution of skin color, but when she went through the literature on the subject she was dismayed. Some theories advanced before the 1970s tended to be racist, and others were less than convincing. 

Evolution: Library: The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White

Darwinism,Evolution,Racism

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Science - News - The Independent

The ape insult: a short history of a racist idea


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Hmm, you can have the same thing no one is perfect.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Is that not what you do ? You don't want to answer questions I will just take the easy way out and show the ignorance of your side.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 2, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.


Evolution as the means all species came into existence and uniformitarianism as the means the surface  of the earth took form are not scientific reality but science fiction based on limited modern interpretation. With that in mind, both creationism and intelligent design are just as well thought out founded on Biblical principle.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


As expected, you simply cut and pasted boilerplate creationist agenda.

It was a simple matter to review the credentials of Patrick Briney. As you should be aware, he is a YECist and apparently just as angry and as self-hating as you are.

As was the case for Patrick Briney and for the rest of the Flat-Earth crowd, creationists just never provide any valid points at all. Briney offered nothing more than what is tediously carried in your arguments. It is time consuming to address the confusions, errors and lies inherent in creationist rhetoric, and not surprisingly, the actual content doesnt include anything at all of genuine scientific interest. If Briney had a specific valid point in mind, he might like to bring it to a peer-reviewed journal which is the appropriate venue for considering such matters. But of course like all Christian creationist, Briney does no research, does no field work and provides nothing that the science community can address. 

While YECists / Flat Earthers  such as you and the rest of the creationist cabal refuse to address the evidence, the processes of evolution leave behind large samples of evidence to be tested. By way of introducing you to the methods of science, researchers compare and contrast the features of living organisms and by doing so, we can see that genetic traits fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. This was known long before Darwin published, by the way. Scientists can examine the fossil evidence from stratified rock structures of different ages and its evident that skeletal structures have changed over time. Due to recent advances in biological sciences, scientists can now compare particular DNA sequences, immunologys and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply that knowledge to existing knowledge of biology, genetics cell development, and so on, to obtain greater knowledge. Thus, it was no surprise that you made no attempt to address the article regarding dna samples from the Mammoth.

But of course, isnt failing to address relevant issues that conflict with your fundie religious views precisely what you do?

If the theory of evolution was subject to any challenge, it would have been disproved over a century ago. There were more than enough tests performed and evidence collected by the early 20th century for there to be no significant doubt in biology that the theory of evolution accurately describes the diversity of life on Earth.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Happy to present your ignorance in a public forum, eh?

The theory of evolution makes no judgments about "race".  

Not surprisingly, it is your Christian creation ministries which have promoted a slander regarding "Darwinism and racism".

CA005: Evolution and racism

Claim CA005:

_"Evolution promotes racism." _

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179. 


Response:
1. When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism. 


2. Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite. 


3. Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism. 


4.Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries. 


5. Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism. 


6. Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples: 

 George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote, 
The poor little fellow who went to the south
   Got lost in the forests dank;
 His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
 And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
   And his mind became a blank. 
In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85). 


 During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things, 
that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998). 
The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998). 


 The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery. 


 Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible: 
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241). 


7. None of this matters to the science of evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


 You can't spin history monkey boy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 2, 2013)

Evidently you did not read the words of racists evolutionists.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The following is what follows your abbreviated "quote". Something I've noticed with certainty is that just as your Christian creationist ministries will edit, falsify and parse "quotes", you employ the same dishonest and sleazy tactics.

The Biology of . . . Skin Color | DiscoverMagazine.com



> No longer. Jablonski and her husband, George Chaplin, a geographic information systems specialist, have formulated the first comprehensive theory of skin color. Their findings, published in a recent issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, show a strong, somewhat predictable correlation between skin color and the strength of sunlight across the globe. But they also show a deeper, more surprising process at work: Skin color, they say, is largely a matter of vitamins.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Evidently you did not read the words of racists evolutionists.



I did. Evidently you were again selectively editing "quotes". Once again, your sleazy tactics were noted.

Obviously, you offered nothing in the TOE that addresses "race".

Yet again, the Christian fundie will have to resort to more dishonest "quotes" to bolster his religious views. Is there a contradiction there? No, not for fundie whack-jobs.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I spent time looking for the data. Nowhere did I find any indication that, as stated by ywc:  

"evolution make the claim black people were less evolved". 


That must be because such judgments never were a part of the TOE. What a shame that ignorance is thought to be a virtue by some religious extremists.


----------



## dblack (Jul 2, 2013)

I've never seen any pressing need to defend evolution, or otherwise produce an alternative naturalist account for the presence of life on Earth, as prerequisite for rejecting a given supernatural explanation. The basic concept of the supernatural makes any such explanation equally defensible, and equal dismiss-able. It's enough to say "I don't know, but your story sounds like bullshit." In other words, if you don't have compelling evidence to support your claim, there's no reason anyone should accept it, regardless of whether they have a 'better explanation' or not.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 3, 2013)

Darwin was a real soft spoken and a nice guy. He was also wrong.

Darwins book.

Was Darwin racist, and did evolution push racism? (souls, grace, America) - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, God, Universe, Science, Spirituality, Faith, Evidence - City-Data Forum


----------



## Hollie (Jul 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Darwin was a real soft spoken and a nice guy. He was also wrong.
> 
> Darwins book.
> 
> Was Darwin racist, and did evolution push racism? (souls, grace, America) - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, God, Universe, Science, Spirituality, Faith, Evidence - City-Data Forum



"Darwin was a racist" is a typical claim coming from fundie creationists. It's a tactic borne of desperation. As the claims to supermagical events performed by the gawds have been refuted as nothing more than appeals to fear and superstition,  Christian extremists are left with nothing more than personal attacks. 

"Evolution is racist", is another canard of creationist. It's unfortunate that creationist, being wholly ignorant of the TOE, tend to make such ignorant claims. It's actually part ignorance and part hate, self-hate that drives their agenda. 

In the time since publication of "Origin of Species", the TOE has only become better supported. With advancements in the biological sciences, paleontology, chemistry, etc., the methods of analysis have become more exacting. This enrages the angry fundamentalists and leaves them with no options but to thump their bibles and increase their strident wailing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin was a real soft spoken and a nice guy. He was also wrong.
> ...



The fact is, his comments and theory lead to racial prejudice and the bible was correct by saying we are all brothers and came from the same parents and children of God.

Science has proven why the different features exist and it had nothing to do with evolution. Don't look like some races are inferior and are being wiped out by the superior race. Hmm the proof is they all still exist and we are all equal. Score one for the bible over Darwin and his theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin was a real soft spoken and a nice guy. He was also wrong.
> ...



Darwin might have been less of a racist but it was his words that you ignore heck it was written in his book. Many people around Darwin were most certainly racists though.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Its actually comical to watch as you backslide from post to post.

The fact is, it doesnt make a great deal of difference what Darwins personal beliefs were. Its the strength of his theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. Ive always it laughable that creationist spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism. Were he able to see the results of his theory today, I have to believe that Darwin would be quite surprised at the many fields of science now brought into service that support his theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


 Hollie he was wrong for thinking that some races were not equal and that natural selection would eliminate the subspecies of humans. His assumption was wrong then and it is still wrong today.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As expected, you are clueless regarding the ToE. There is nothing in the theory that requires natural selection will eliminate a subspecies of humans. 

Taking your science from Harun Yahya makes you look like quite the fool.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do you have this short of a memory or is this on purpose?

Was Darwin racist, and did evolution push racism? (souls, grace, America) - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, God, Universe, Science, Spirituality, Faith, Evidence - City-Data Forum


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Cutting and pasting links to competing message boards does nothing to support your case for gawds and magic. As with so many religious zealots, you hope to vilify Darwin. However, your limited science background and your failure to understand the basic model of the ToE leaves you ill prepared to criticize the specifics.

With your limited understanding of science and the natural world, Im sure it comes as a crushing blow to your fundamentalist views that evolution does disprove IDism. As we know, IDism is a remanufactured  theology for those like you who contend that will insist that mankind has reached the limits of knowledge and so must confine all the rest of our unanswered questions to the mind-numbing "the gawds did it" explanation.

The real engine of hate driving the religious extremist agenda revolves around your gawds being left out of science. Since science cannot investigate the supernatural, religious extremists hope to redefine science. You and the extremists like you perceive science and knowledge as a direct threat to your imposition of fear and superstition. Remarkably, you and those like you are totally in denial about the damage you have inflicted on humanity  with the imposition of such fear and superstition. Your objections to the ToE are not scientific, but theological. You rail against the ToE with not a whit of understanding of the basic model.

Ultimately, shouldn't the question be, "How does ID disprove Evolution"? It doesn't, of course. And despite objections from the Christian extremists, evolution still happens. If the hand of one or more gawds (and there is no reason why your gawds are necessarily included in that roll call) is behind existence, there is no evidence of it. In any case, Science cannot investigate the supernatural. There may be things science can never explain, and it accepts that limitation. But the Kansas school board notwithstanding, Science investigates natural phenomena, natural causes, natural effects. The supernatural is not in view.

The Dover case and other humiliating defeats of the Christian extremist aganda amply proved that ID is nothing but a theological attempt to put Christian fundamentalism into the public schools. The goals of the Discovery Institute and fundamentalist charlatans like them are to impose Christian fundamentalism upon schools and government. They wish to transform this nation into a theocracy, intolerant of non-Christians or Christians who do not agree with them, and imposing their concept of "morality" upon the population. 


I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we wont have any public schools.  The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.  What a happy day that will be.

_- Jerry Falwell_



There will never be world peace until Gods house and Gods people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.

_- Pat Robertson_


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Did you notice her speak of theories being racists. You need to quit resorting to dishonesty ,and that is what you're doing when people are showing you are wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Why because it's making you look bad for trying to defend his comments ?

Those quotes are from darwins books heck what I was saying is right there in the title of the book and confirmed later in the his book. Then he showed other examples of racism by evolutionists in the early 1,900's but I showed  a more recent claim that blacks were less intelligent according to an english geneticist.

Face it the theory promoted racism and they made false predictions and faulty assumptions.

You are a fine one to talk heck you copy and paste from the words of Ruggedtouch from other forums and we are not positive that is you.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Did you notice that you still cannot offer a single reference to anything in the ToE that addresses race?

You again offer nothing more than self-refuting argumentation when you cut and paste what you don't understand.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 4, 2013)

Both comments are from nuts and I have very little respect for both pastors. That day will never come until God comes and has the resurrection and judges mankind.

See God shows you some of these characters were speaking and doing for themselves and not truly representing God in the way they should have.

Mat 7:18  It is not possible for a good tree to give bad fruit, and a bad tree will not give good fruit. 
Mat 7:19  Every tree which does not give good fruit is cut down and put in the fire. 
Mat 7:20  So by their fruits you will get knowledge of them. 
Mat 7:21  Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will go into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the pleasure of my Father in heaven. 
Mat 7:22  A great number will say to me on that day, Lord, Lord, were we not prophets in your name, and did we not by your name send out evil spirits, and by your name do works of power? 
Mat 7:23  And then will I say to them, I never had knowledge of you: go from me, you workers of evil.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do you not understand the father of your theory and his cronies were racists ? Of course today a biologist will not teach those lies because they know better. They know skin color was not passed on through evolution but their assumptions and predictions were wrong then and some of them are wrong today.

Darwin made a great observation but gave a very poor explanation ,and made the explanation worse by his assumptions and predictions.

The fossil record has not done what he said it should do if his theory be correct either. Slow gradual changes and we know that didn't happen and that is why gould and eldredge created a theory to explain the evidence that was not supporting Darwin.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Darwin's finches are classic examples of "slow gradual changes" caused by environmental conditions altering. You have obviously never even seen a copy of his book let alone opened one and actually read anything of what he wrote on the subject.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I think we first need to acknowledge that your quotes are so often falsified, its difficult to take your whining seriously, We also need to acknowledge that one of your cut and pasted quotes is lifted from the ICR. Ive pointed out before your dishonest tactics wherein you quote-mine from the ICR and Ive pointed out their dishonest tactics. They are among the most notorious of the quote-mine charlatans. Theyre almost as crooked and deceitful as _anointed-one_ which you quote-mine from.

But to address your deficiencies regarding science, extremist nut-bar fundies have a far worse problem than with the ToE. By your own twisted and stunted reasoning, which I offer exactly for your fun and excitement, your own fundamentalist views are in jeopardy. For among the many problems with Christianity are the basic questions of existence it is unable to answer. 
And there is an entire _universe_ of other questions that do immediately emerge! The list is be _cosmic_ in scope, including the very veracity of your gawds vs. other, more likely gawds, the unanswerable conflicts between  predestination and free will, etc. There have been wars upon wars built on conflicts of theology concerning questions that none of the Bibles have complete answers for.

For that matter, the problem of unanswered questions presents far greater difficulty to extremist religionists than to science. After all, Christianity is revealed from the gawds Since the source of that revelation is supposedly one of the gawds himself, leaving us with important and essential questions unanswered is a unquestionably valid argument against the veracity of your fundie faith. Quite obviously, and according to your extremist beliefs, christianity should possess all of the answers, right?

Yet it doesnt. And one of the most important questions challenging your extremist ideology is how you can remain so decidedly certain in your ignorance but call it religious belief. Yet you ignore all of this in your daily and stupendously stupid crusade against science, enlightenment and evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'm sure ywc will counter with something cut and pasted from Harun Yahya. The problem with extremists is that they have limited science knowledge which comes from scouring fundamentalist websites.

They take no issue with promoting their lies, falsified "quotes" and extremist literature because it appeals to their ignorance.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Both comments are from nuts and I have very little respect for both pastors. That day will never come until God comes and has the resurrection and judges mankind.
> 
> See God shows you some of these characters were speaking and doing for themselves and not truly representing God in the way they should have.
> 
> ...



Mat 7:24 (a)  And the extremist nut-bars have fallen out of _the tree of very little knowledge_ and bumped their heads on every branch.

May the gawds bless Jerry, Pat, Jimmy Swaggert (if he can just keep his pants on), Tammy Faye, Billy Bob, Harun Yahya, and basically, every creep, charlatan and snake oil salesman you're beholden to.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Both comments are from nuts and I have very little respect for both pastors. That day will never come until God comes and has the resurrection and judges mankind.
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



 It happened in a short period of time due to drought. Supported by recent studies.

" Usually we think of evolution as being a slow grind, he says.

But, Pfennig added, the study suggests that evolution due to competition between closely related species "paradoxically may often occur so rapidly that we may actually miss the process taking place." 

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says

The pace of evolution


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Both comments are from nuts and I have very little respect for both pastors. That day will never come until God comes and has the resurrection and judges mankind.
> ...



Yep there are some Christians to avoid and God gave us a method to recognize them.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


We have yet more confirmation that evolution does occur. Adaptation can happen quite quickly. On the downside, you just demoted your gawds.  

Thanks for that.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yep. And those other christians know to avoid you with their gawd given ability to recognize false christians.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



YWC set himself up for that response.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


He does that, umm. religiously.

He hasn't quite realized he's on a roll setting himself up. 

He commented about Gould and Eldridge who "created a theory to explain the evidence that was not supporting Darwin". That theory was _Punctuated Equilibria_, which was in part, a theory to explain rapid evolutionary change: the Cambrian Expansion. 

It would seem the religious extremist has offered evidence of the theory proposed by Gould and Eldridge. 

Oopsies.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The scriptures are clear on fakes you can tell them by their works.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You want to see an Ideologue that is a sick pathetic person visit the 19 thread. I need to say no more.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yet another unchristian post from you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You are no different then hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 4, 2013)

Ok I don't mind discussing the issues with someone that can be rational. If you come across as an ignorant Ideologue I will just put you on ignore and just let you talk to each other lol.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Ok I don't mind discussing the issues with someone that can be rational. If you come across as an ignorant Ideologue I will just put you on ignore and just let you talk to each other lol.



Oh the* IRONY* of an ignorant religious ideologue projecting his failings onto others because he cannot refute the *FACTS*.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Thank you for that compliment.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Ok I don't mind discussing the issues with someone that can be rational. If you come across as an ignorant Ideologue I will just put you on ignore and just let you talk to each other lol.



You apparently are capable of being rational, even if it's accidental. You managed two posts that supported the science of evilution. 

Your league of snake handlers may not approve but I do.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Which is why your cutting and pasting of falsified, edited, parsed and phony "quotes' describes such a fake.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

It's obvious ywc has made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Ok I don't mind discussing the issues with someone that can be rational. If you come across as an ignorant Ideologue I will just put you on ignore and just let you talk to each other lol.
> ...



What facts be specific ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



This is revealing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Ok I don't mind discussing the issues with someone that can be rational. If you come across as an ignorant Ideologue I will just put you on ignore and just let you talk to each other lol.
> ...



Explain ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



How are they falsified ? do you just make unsupported claims ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> It's obvious ywc has made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues.



That is actually what you do but if you point out something I missed I will respond or is this your desperate attempt at painting an inaccurate picture.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie the 19 thread is off limits for you just don't go there. That thread was meant to be a thread showing people can put their differences aside in a time of tragedy.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie the 19 thread is off limits for you just don't go there. That thread was meant to be a thread showing people can put their differences aside in a time of tragedy.



No, the thread was intended for you to proselytize and you were pissy about your motives being exposed.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you haven't already figured out that Hollie and I both see faux Christians like you as part of the problem then you really haven't been paying attention in class.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's obvious ywc has made every effort to sidestep, dodge and avoid addressing the issues.
> ...



Ironic!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie the 19 thread is off limits for you just don't go there. That thread was meant to be a thread showing people can put their differences aside in a time of tragedy.
> ...



You are wrong my intent was not what you claimed. That tragedy blind sided many of us in this community. My son and daughter lost 4 friends in that tragedy so please stop with the insults.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



By calling you both an Ideologue shows you have been exposed,don't flatter yourself.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I was correct and you're sleazy attempt to promote your extremist religious views was shameful.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Kindly refrain from projecting your own ideologue shortcoming onto others.Thank you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Ok I don't mind discussing the issues with someone that can be rational. If you come across as an ignorant Ideologue I will just put you on ignore and just let you talk to each other lol.
> ...



Present your best evidence that shows the general theory of evolution is a fact? I don't want to see a simple change within a population that we both know is a Micro adaptation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You know what you're lol.

Present your best evidence that shows the general theory of evolution is a fact? I don't want to see a simple change within a population that we both know is a Micro adaptation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Whatever you say


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hmm, the students disappeared.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hmm, you can't show that evidence, chances of you showing what I ask for next is very remote.

How bout fossils showing one major kind of organism changing into another?

 This means an example of one taxon order becoming another.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Boss asked you the same things in different terms and you didn't answer them then . Do you not understand the questions ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I've never read of any such thing entitled a "general theory of evolution". I suspect you get such silliness from Harun Yahya. 

As it has been explained to you many times, the various disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, and other sciences support the theory.

I understand you have convinced yourself that science is a global conspiracy. I suspect it is true that the religious extremist will reach for whatever conspiracy is handy to justify their self imposed ignorance. You do precisely that. I  suspect that you are aware of your need for lies to promote your extremist convictions but you ignore your dishonesty because without it, the theology is indefensible.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

The next question will be from genetics concerning similarity.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hmm, you can't show that evidence, chances of you showing what I ask for next is very remote.
> 
> How bout fossils showing one major kind of organism changing into another?
> 
> This means an example of one taxon order becoming another.



That has been provided . 

Show us how your gawds huffed and puffed and breathed life into clay.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Enough of the rhetoric,I want you to convince me why I should believe macro evolution ever occurred.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> The next question will be from genetics concerning similarity.



Spare us a long cut and paste from Harun Yahya. 

Your next answer needs to concern itself with your gawds breathing life into clay.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Enough of your ignorance. Have you ever read a science text not authored by Harun Yahya?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, you can't show that evidence, chances of you showing what I ask for next is very remote.
> ...



I am asking you to convince me macro evolution occurred. Simple every population was created as they are and that is why I believe in creation while there is no evidence that every group of organisms evolved from other groups.

Convince me I am wrong that is what I'm asking of you. Help out the ignorant and educate me.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > The next question will be from genetics concerning similarity.
> ...



I'm doing this in scientific terms are you having a hard time understanding what I am asking  you to show ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The evidence has been provided to you. You countered the science data with cutting and pasting some stupendously stupid pages from Harun Yahya.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Then show us the science whereby the gawds breath life into clay. 

You do understand that Harun Yahya is not a reliable science source, right?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



So you don't continue dodging the questions, here they are for you.

1. Present your best evidence that shows the general theory of evolution is a fact? I don't want to see a simple change within a population that we both know is a Micro adaptation.

2. How bout fossils showing one major kind of organism changing into another?

This means an example of one taxon order becoming another.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Boss asked you the same things in different terms and you didn't answer them then . Do you not understand the questions ?



Boss was exposed as having a creationist agenda just like yours. Neither of you are capable of understanding the science or the facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Show me how the same thing happened naturally ? lol

Are you saying you can't provide the evidence I asked for ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Boss asked you the same things in different terms and you didn't answer them then . Do you not understand the questions ?
> ...



I am asking for scientific facts. Everyone knows I am a creationist what is your point ?

I am asking you both to educate me and convince me I am wrong. Show me this macro evolution occurred by providing the evidence I asked for. Did you understand the questions ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Already addressed. You have been told the difference between evolution and abiogenesis many times. Now pay attention. We will expect you to know the difference from now on and to use the terminology correctly.

What was not addressed was your gawds breathing life into clay.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I don't know of any natural explanation for your gawds breathing life into clay. How did that happen?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Now this is funny, what does Abiogenesis have to do with these questions ? Hollie spinning is making you out to be very ignorant in basic science.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Neither do I that is what makes God so special.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You often confuse abiogenesis with evolution which is why both are noted. Even after repeated attempts to explain the differences to you, you are still at a loss to understand.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Perhaps you need this spelled out in terms you might understand. It is a complete and utter waste of time trying to "teach" anything about real science to creationists. The reason for this is because your agenda is nothing more than baiting so that you have an excuse to post your creationist nonsense again. 

You are being dishonest when you claim that you are asking us to "educate me and convince me I am wrong" since you have never given up your creationists beliefs the first 5,000 times the scientific facts were provided to you. You are not going to do so on the 5,001 time or the 5 millionth time for that matter.

So the lesson you need to learn is that science, the courts and the public education system have moved on with *REALITY*. It is up to you if you want to remain in ignorance or rejoin the human quest for knowledge and the future.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Yes, the explanation of "magic" comes in handy when fear and ignorance are preferred over enlightenment and knowledge.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I am not asking you about Abiogenesis we can cover that later. So are you gonna provide the evidence I requested from you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It's not magic hollie, It's Gods natural ability.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You're dodging.

No I want to dismantle your fairytale and that is not hard to do because you can't produce any evidence. so why do you believe it if you can't produce the needed evidence ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



*This just in!*

There are news reports of a religious extremist running down the street with his hair on fire while screaming rambling phrases of "endtimes' and "killem' all"


Film at 11:00.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



A natural ability for unnatural acts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



If it is a natural ability he can do it like you spew rhetoric.

Have a good day fundie.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Oh you just contradicted your own theory lol.

Your buddy even thanked you for your comment lol.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The courts have already dismantled your fairy tale to the full satisfaction of the vast majority of the population. There is nothing a dishonest creationist like you can post that is going to alter REALITY. You are just a waste of time and bandwidth. Have a nice day.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


That makes no sense.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > If angels, devils, ghosts, demons and spirits are real, why not sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes?
> ...


false assumption of a false premise.
there is no more or no less evidence for the existence of  sprites, fairies, leprechauns, and gnomes as there is for the many or one god.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what a rich fantasy life you have.. you should get an award for the most consistently got their ass handed to them poster ever ...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


eots know absolutely nothing about everything..consider that when reading his posts.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit ! 

There is not one passage in the Bible indicating that the earth is a sphere. Isaiah 40:22 refers to it as a circle. The Hebrew word translated as "circle" there is chuwg, which means "circle" not "sphere." There are many passages in the Bible that indicate the earth is flat. Dan 4:10-11 is clear about it, and Dan 2:28 is clear that the visions of Nebuchadnezzar are from God. If God says it, it must be so.

 The physical aspect of a circle is a disk, so the biblical earth is disk-shaped. Since the biblical earth is flat, it has an underside and under the earth is the abyss. That is what is being referred to in Job 26:7 when it says that the earth hangeth over nothing.

 The Bible also says that the earth is set upon pillars and is immovable, so it can hardly be orbiting the sun.

amazing how you can intentionally misquote  the thing you base you pov on..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and "Youwerecreated" has never even tried to answer my question of WHY do "christians" insist on preaching their scam to non-believers?
> ...


I was a mormon and you couldn't be more wrong...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No the courts decided against the theories because God is part of the theory. that is why they rule against creationism and ID because of the faulty interpretation of separation of church and state. Nothing concerning science other than the courts ignorance.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Once again your inherent dishonesty is on display but thanks for proving me 100% right about what you really are. Have a nice day.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Alter2ego does a good job explaining this to Huggy.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7483522-post37.html


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Think what you like but how did the courts remove God from the schools ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You're just incapable of applying reason and rationality to coherent thought processes. 

The courts have upheld ,rightly so, that ID'iosy is nothing more than Christian religious dogma. The courts have seen fundanentalist Christians posing their dogma earlier as "creation science". That scam didn't work so we now have ID'iosy as a remanufactured version of christianity. 

Teaching of / promotion of religion / religious indoctrination in the public schools is a violation of the constitution. 

This has been explained to you often enough to warrant real concern about your inability to comprehend some fairly simple concepts and an utter lack of cognitive skills.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Thank you for once again exposing your inherent dishonesty or ignorance take your pick.

Creationism and Intelligent Design in Schools


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



The sad truth is that YWR's ignorance and comprehension shortcoming are a self inflicted lobotomy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you have an argument make it, one liners are not an argument.


----------



## MaryL (Jul 5, 2013)

For the same reason Voodoo isn't equated with auto mechanics , I guess. Ever sacrifice a chicken to fix your transmission?  No? Me either. I don't think it will work anymore than praying to JESUS, knock on wood! YOU NEVER KNOW...but until otherwise, facts and science will do just fine. Facts are a wonderful thing. Superstition, not so well.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

MaryL said:


> For the same reason Voodoo isn't equated with auto mechanics , I guess. Ever sacrifice a chicken to fix your transmission?  No? Me either. I don't think it will work anymore than praying to JESUS, knock on wood! YOU NEVER KNOW...but until otherwise, facts and science will do just fine. Facts are a wonderful thing. Superstition, not so well.



Since nature gives the appearance of design who or what is the designer ? Dawkins made the comment about appearing to have been designed.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > For the same reason Voodoo isn't equated with auto mechanics , I guess. Ever sacrifice a chicken to fix your transmission?  No? Me either. I don't think it will work anymore than praying to JESUS, knock on wood! YOU NEVER KNOW...but until otherwise, facts and science will do just fine. Facts are a wonderful thing. Superstition, not so well.
> ...



Since nature does not give any such appearance of supernatural design, we can presume your subjective opinions derive from your extremist beliefs.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



An Extreme belief would be both animate and inanimate objects were developed from a natural unguided processes. An Extreme belief would be to believe that non living matter could produce life through unguided natural processes. All the order observed in the universe and on this planet it is an Extreme view to believe it just simply happened through natural unguided processes.

You have such Ideological views of reality.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


explaing what?  
all it explains is  Alter2ego suffers the same mental deficiency you do I does nothing to change what the bible says ..



WHAT? YOU REALLY THINK A SPHERE IS A CIRCLE?! YOU REALLY THINK THAT?
December 22, 2008 · by Firefly · in Religion
What might get one to adamantly maintain a sphere is a circle?

This all stems from a conversation I had with someone who believes the Bible is scientifically accurate and precise. As a budding scientist and very new to skepticism, this type of claim intrigues and irritates me, to say the least. The scripture in discussion here is Isaiah 40:22, which refers to &#8221;the circle of the earth&#8221;. Most Christians of whatever denomination point to this scripture as proof Yahveh (the god of the Hebrews in the Bible) teachers that the Earth was spherical and not flat as most believed around those times. Further inquiry however, paints a very different picture. This argument is entirely without merit and here is why.


Firstly, with a little effort and research one can positively show that around the time Isaiah was written (8th Century BC), it was not an uncommon belief among the educated that the Earth had to be a sphere. For those interested start with Pythagoras an ancient Greek mathematician most noted for the Pythagorean theorem. Even if the Bible writer meant sphere, divine inspiration (a clear &#8220;God of the gaps&#8221; argument) is not needed to explain how he knew this.

Secondly, neither that verse nor any other verse in the Bible indicates that the Earth is a sphere. The Hebrew word for circle is chuwg and has a primary meaning of circle (no lexicons I have read give the primary or secondary meaning as sphere). The point was argued to me that there was no ancient Hebrew word for sphere, so chuwg (circle) was used in its place. This is total baloney and here is why. There are in fact numerous passages in the bible where a sphere is described, in Isaiah 22:18 it describes Yahveh &#8221;will turn and toss you like a ball&#8230;&#8221; A ball is ALWAYS without exception a sphere. The Hebrew word translated as ball by the way, is duwr (I am studying ancient Hebrew). Furthermore, in no mathematical or geometrical sense is a circle ever a sphere, and would not an omniscient and omnipotent being know this? Most Bibles translate that bit of scripture correctly as circle and not sphere.

Thirdly, when you trace back the lexicology of the word chuwg, you see that it is derived from a larger Hebrew word which means &#8216;a circle as drawn from a compass&#8217;. As a former Christian (and ashamed to admit, fundamentalist) I am aware that this scripture is not there to attest to the shape of the Earth. If you read on it is there to explain how God spread his people over all the lands like grasshoppers. So any Christian using this scripture to attest to the Bible&#8217;s scientific accuracy is taking that scripture WAY out of context!

Finally, just think for one second logically about what may have gone on when Isaiah was written. What the writer of Isaiah would have seen when he looked at the Moon, was not a sphere but a circle! What did he see if he was game enough to take a glimpse at the Sun, that&#8217;s right a circle. Is it not more probably that the writer of Isaiah was simply making an inference from observations he had made previously about the universe and the Earth specifically? Seems logical to me, is it?

It was after I had made all the previous points that this one particular Christian pointed out that a circle and sphere are the same, wow, I know, but it&#8217;s so sadly true. He then tried to elaborate, &#8221;What is a box?&#8221;, my reply &#8221;It&#8217;s a cube, it is three dimensional&#8221;, he said, &#8221;It&#8217;s a square&#8221; and I nearly fell over. I know this is hard to believe but it is oh so true, I have never blogged before this being my first time. I have commented others blogs occasionally, but I was so irritated at this reasoning that I just had to write down my thoughts and decided I should join the other bloggers and post them. I did try to explain further that a cube can be made of 6 squares but it is not a square. At that point I realized I was getting nowhere and decided to end the conversation. These people were not open to evidence and reason and simply dismissed others with no proof of their own as they often remarked &#8221;You have to have faith&#8221;.

http://youngausskeptics.com/2008/12...k-a-sphere-is-a-circle-you-really-think-that/


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > For the same reason Voodoo isn't equated with auto mechanics , I guess. Ever sacrifice a chicken to fix your transmission?  No? Me either. I don't think it will work anymore than praying to JESUS, knock on wood! YOU NEVER KNOW...but until otherwise, facts and science will do just fine. Facts are a wonderful thing. Superstition, not so well.
> ...


nice dodge!
the operative word is  " appearance" not design....


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



How can you conclude it wasn't designed for something that gives the appearance of design without evidence backing that view ?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


OK ,slapdick, how is your pov any less Ideological than the evidence based  model all rational people use?
don't use the bible as it's all Ideological...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



 You don't ?

cir·cle  
/&#712;s&#601;rk&#601;l/
Noun
A round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed center.
Verb
Move all the way around (someone or something), esp. more than once: "the two dogs circle each other"; "we circled around the island".
Synonyms
noun.  	ring - round - cycle - sphere
verb.  	revolve - surround - encircle - wheel - compass

https://www.google.com/search?q=def...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


non credible source...
false premise..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that view has been explained to, you countless times...why do you need to rehash it.
you were wrong then.....and nothings changed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Just as credible as your many sources. Look at the quotes plus you have dawkins agreeing as well. Sorry you guys do not know how to pick your battles.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You can't say wow that looks as though it was designed but it wasn't with no evidence to support it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



My views are based on rationale, sorry chap.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


lol!

"the two dogs circle each other"; "we circled around the island". true ..but they did not  sphere... 

syn·o·nym [ sínn&#601; nìm ]   
word meaning same as another: a word that means the same, or almost the same, as another word in the same language, either in all of its uses or in a specific context.
alternative name: a word or expression that is used as another name for something in some styles of speaking or writing or to emphasize a specific aspect or association.
rejected duplicate taxonomic name: a duplicate taxonomic name that has been rejected or replaced


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


not even close to being credible...if you actually understood what a false premise is you'd understand that.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Theres nothing at all extremist about understanding the natural world. There was quite a remarkable story not so long ago regarding the apparent discovery of an important protein found hitching a ride on a comet.   

Comet dust harbors life's building blocks | Atom & Cosmos | Science News



> A building block of proteins found in samples from an icy comets halo suggests that the ingredients of life could have hitched a ride to early Earth, researchers reported August 16 at a meeting of the American Chemical Society.
> 
> The early Earth was bombarded with comets and meteorites, says Jamie Elsila of NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., who led the new analysis. This is one more clue to what ingredients could have been present on the early Earth and how they could have gotten there.



What religious extremists are not able to admit is that the methods of science have a pattern of shedding light into the dark recesses of the fundamentalist agenda that promotes fear and superstition.

Additionally, this slogan you have stolen from Christian extremist websites, _order observed in the universe_, is nonsense. Here again, this slogan, like so many others, has been shown to be a farce. Yet you continually cut and paste these silly slogans because of your inability to offer any coherent explanation for the natural world.

As we see with regularity, explaining to you some fairly simple concepts leaves you befuddled. You just repeat the same silly slogans as if your ability to lean has been severely stunted. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale. This (luckily for us) means most of us live our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment. 

Remember Schumaker-Levy? How about that little dalliance that occurred on this planet 65 million years ago? These things have been pointed out to you repeatedly yet you are unable to address these issues. You do nothing more than repeat the same tired and false slogans you cut and paste from Harun Yahya. 

And one of the most important questions challenging your extremist ideology is how you can remain so decidedly certain in your ignorance but call it religious belief. Yet you ignore all of this in your daily and stupendously stupid crusade against knowledge and rationality.

Other than your personal crusade to promote fear and ignorance, we still have nothing from you regarding how it is that the gods breathed life into clay thus making all of mankind.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



syn·o·nym  
/&#712;sin&#601;&#716;nim/
Noun

    A word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example shut is a...
    A person or thing so closely associated with a particular quality or idea that the mention of their name calls it to mind.


https://www.google.com/search?q=def...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


sure you can ,when you know there is no evidence of a creator..
a creator or god is a false assumption based on  ignorance and fear..not evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Nonsense


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And yet again, the religious extremist posts edited, falsified, parsed and phony "quotes" from extremist Christian websites. 

Just another example of how lies are and integral part of the extremist agenda.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


ra·tion·ale [ ràsh&#601; nál ]   
underlying reasons: the reasoning or principle that underlies or explains something, or a statement setting out this reasoning or principle...
problem is your  rationale is not rational 

ra·tion·al [ rásh'n'l ]   
reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice
able to think clearly and sensibly: able to think clearly and sensibly, unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice
in accordance with reason and logic: presented or understandable in terms that accord with reason and logic or with scientific knowledge

please note the difference.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



But you have no evidence it happened naturally, we have ourselves a conundrum. But I will agree with many scientists that admit to design.

Design in nature has brought many atheists to believing in a designer.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That's actually a typical non-response from the religious extremist. 

You're unable to address even a single, salient point so you're left with nothing to offer. 

How typical. Absent cutting and pasting from extremist websites, you cant compose even a single coherent sentence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Once again you make false accusations.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


or nearly the same as another word....a circle and a sphere are related but not the same.
no matter how hard you wish it .


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Observing nature it is rational to believe in design.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Once again you are exposed as a liar. 

There are other threads where your similarly cut and pasted "quotes" were shown to be frauds. Here you are again committing a fraud of lies and you have no issue with posting such lies.

Do the gods approve of lies and deceit? Your creationist ministries sure do. And you are just a clone of extremist liars.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Only in the warped view of the extremist zealot.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



_Design in nature_ is a slogan that is perpetrated by religious extremists.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 lol!

that's some scientists and atheists  (a miniscule number). but then again their believing is not relevant.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong! hollie's stating fact.
all you need to do is copy a line or two from any of your posts to know she's correct.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Remember the bible writing was from 3,500 years ago in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew word was "chung"  the word is used for both flat and non-flat shapes.

Sorry either way the bible writer at that time defined the earth correctly for the language available.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Prove it.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Sure will. 

Your "quote" from Antony Flew is a fraud. Like many of the lies you post, you mindlessly cut and paste from extremist websites which are as careless and as fraudulent as you are.

Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong! your "observation" of nature is not objective. it's tainted by your indoctrination. 
therefore it's bias and erroneous.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yet another fraud from the religious extremist. As you're clueless, I'll offer an assist. The bibles nowhere describe the earth as a sphere. It's pretty typical for you to resort to lies when your earlier lies are exposed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science"

Talk:Wernher von Braun - Wikiquote


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit!The Hebrew word for circle is chuwg and has a primary meaning of circle (no lexicons I have read give the primary or secondary meaning as sphere). The point was argued to me that there was no ancient Hebrew word for sphere, so chuwg (circle) was used in its place. This is total baloney and here is why. There are in fact numerous passages in the bible where a sphere is described, in Isaiah 22:18 it describes Yahveh will turn and toss you like a ball A ball is ALWAYS without exception a sphere. The Hebrew word translated as ball by the way, is duwr (I am studying ancient Hebrew). Furthermore, in no mathematical or geometrical sense is a circle ever a sphere, and would not an omniscient and omnipotent being know this? Most Bibles translate that bit of scripture correctly as circle and not sphere.


----------



## alpine (Jul 6, 2013)

> Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?



Well, because it is not. 

And to be honest it doesn't have to be. 

If you think being scientific is sooooo important, than you should believe in science, which doesn't give you any certainty in life whatsoever. You don't feel comfortable with that? than get yurself a religion. This is a free country and nobody cares what you believe or not believe in.

But you still are not satisfied and want to have your religion labeled as "scientific", just because it sounds cool I guess? 

Well, you have to realize, anything that you label as "scientific" is doomed to fail, just like others failed before. Whatever you see as scientific right now will be proved not accurate at some point in time, just like how others got proven not to be accurate, by our more accurate technology providing us more and more details in each step. And it will never end, till humanity gives up looking more and more into details. Once you go more deeper in detail, again and again you will see another detail that will change your assumptions from before.

I don't really get why someone would want any of this in his/her religion. You have the perfect answer, god created man, and yet you still are not satisfied...


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The bible writer from 3,500 years ago was writing Hebrew scripture that was later co-opted by Christianity. 

You're not even clear as to what religion you're describing. 

What a dolt!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


so what ..it's an opinion not a fact ..
opinions are like assholes ..everybody's got one.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Posting another "quote" to sidestep your lies and deceit?

It's just remarkable how you cut and paste these silly "quotes" when you've been shown to be a liar and fraud for copying and pasting such lies and frauds.

Yet, here you are still, cutting and pasting from your fraudulent religious extremist websites.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You're coming off  very bad again hollie.

Antony Flew - RationalWiki


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Jews wrote the OT and NT.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're coming off a serial liar. You're been exposed as such.

But go ahead and post more fraudulent "quotes". I'll be happy to refute your lies.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I'm not sure if you're trying to delibrately be dishonest or are just an ignorant Ideologue I have to say both.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are aware that the Torah is a different document vs. all the various bibles, right?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



My typo, but what I stated was accurate. You are trying to make something out of nothing but it's not working.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Getting pissy won't detract from your exposure (again) as a liar and a fraud.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'm not pissy just speaking the truth.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


true. but they were edited and reedited by christians ..blurring the meaning..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie do you understand the difference between the written and oral law ? do you understand the difference between the the Torah and the Tanakh ?

Guess what ? they were all inspired by the one and only God.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Here we have yet another example of the fraud that is YWC.

His "quote" is lacking citation.

"Reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings."[citation needed]

Let's see, between this thread and two other threads, ywc has been exposed for cutting and pasting falsified, edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes". 

It seems we have a consistent pattern of lies and fraud that ywc has no problem with.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



as language evolved there were new editions not changing the meaning just a better way to relay the message. The bible is in every known language out there yes it is rough trying to translate to different languages. But with all the versions out there I get the same message maybe a little differently.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do you understand the difference between lies and truth?

How about the difference between Judaism and Christianity? They are different religions. Did you notice that they are spelled differently?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit ! 

there was no ancient Hebrew word for sphere, so chuwg (circle) was used in its place. This is total baloney and here is why. There are in fact numerous passages in the bible where a sphere is described, in Isaiah 22:18 it describes Yahveh will turn and toss you like a ball A ball is ALWAYS without exception a sphere. The Hebrew word translated as ball by the way, is duwr.

not only was your spelling inaccurate but you are as always attempting to take no responsibility for your dishonesty and hubris.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


false...


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That would explain the dozens of versions of Christianity. 

They're the same - just different.

I'm sure that will make sense to the religious extremist.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit! 
any time you edit an original work you change the meaning...
ever hear the term directors cut?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you're speaking the truth, why are your truths obvious lies?

You suffer from a pathology. You have no conception of truth, facts or honesty because you have blurred any distinction when lies, falsehoods and deceit are used to further your extremist agenda.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




Hollie you're just full of it trying to cover your dishonesty.

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Then why did he not tell everyone the exact same story? The sign of a liar is when his story constantly changes. If this is a single deity telling different stories about "creation" then obviously all but one of them must be fabrications. Same thing applies regarding the other stories about Moses, paradise, death and resurrection, etc, etc.

Great job on destroying your deity's credibility.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Judaism does not represent all Jews lol are you saying there are no Jewish Christians lol


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Anyways I have plans you can sit and think it over whether you are gonna start being honest or continue down the road you're on.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


again so what! conversion in old people are common...it's not proof of anything but a change of mind.
nothing more.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Anyways I have plans you can sit and think it over whether you are gonna start being honest or continue down the road you're on.


oh how cryptic!!!!


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yep, as we see, you're now scouring the web and posting more "quotes" in the hope of covering your tracks on your previous lies. 

What a shame that you feel a need to bolster your extremist beliefs with lies and fraud.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So, that was tacit admission you're confusing Judaism and Christianity lol


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Inspired also indicates human involvement in the writing of religious dogma; if the word of god is indeed the word of god, then there can be no human involvement, otherwise the deity is not omnipotent and unworthy of worship, lacking any authority to dictate to humans how to conduct their lives. 

Clearly the notion of inspired is a failed attempt to conceal the fact that there is indeed no deity, no word of god, and that religion and god are creations of man, just as flawed, corrupt, and capricious as man.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 bump!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Wrong, Judaism is a religion that was created by a couple of sect of Jews same as Christianity. The Jews that believe in Judaism reject Jesus as the messiah and the NT.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Wow. Reading your confused, disjointed attempts at English is always a chore.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Bump-worthy x 2.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I thought you had plans...that must have been a lie too.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it's a good thing that ywc is not a translator or linguist..
imagine how much more fucked up the bible would be if he'd worked on that!?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I did I just quickly responded to what I could. We were V.I.P.'S at the Prescott Rodeo because my company is a sponsor of the worlds oldest Rodeo.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



He did through prophecy and predicted the messiah and the rejection of the messiah.  You need to actually read the bible before you can be a critic.

Look you people are nitpicking over nothing. The Earth was described as a circle or a ball and a can be considered a sphere according to definition. Hell,sphere is a synonym of circle.

You go out to space and look back at the earth tell me what the earth looks like ?

https://www.google.com/search?q=rea...KlkYHoAg&sqi=2&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071

Yes once again the bible is correct and you people are desperate looking for fault where it does not exist.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're full of shit pal and a hypocrite. Do you or do you not trust man ? Do you trust historians ? Need I remind you what you said concerning the constitution ?

Tell me again how it is wrong that the creator would inspire the bible through man


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



If you don't understand the difference from Judaism and Christianity why bring it up ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

How bout that evidence I requested yesterday of you fundies ,I would have thought by now you could have come up with something.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.
> ...


Actually, _Creationism_, in its literal meaning.. that we were created.. fits perfectly with much of modern thought.  The simplest (see Occam's Razor) explanation for all this is that it was created.  God.. even God of the bible, doesn't _have_ to be a long-bearded old man hovering above us in the clouds, hurling down lightning bolts at His detractors.  Many progressive thinkers believe we were created by an extra-terrestrial race.. or that maybe we are the remnants of a declining civilization from another planet, escaping extinction.

Either way--again, the _simplest_ explanation is _Creation_, not random happenstance where a lightning bolt hit a pool of green sludge.  The latter sounds more like voodoo than anything.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I was noting your incompetence at not understanding that Judaism and christianity are different religions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well being that I have a Jewish family in my family that believe in Judaism I assure you I know many of the differences.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 6, 2013)

Much of the Old Testament was inspired by magic mushrooms. The New Testament seems to have been inspired mainly by people who had bought into the Old Testmant, and were trying desperately to dovetail the New Testmant into the old Testament. This went so well, that the Mormons took it another step, by dovetailing the Book of Mormon into the New Testament. Not wanting to miss out on a good thing, I am presently in the act of translating "The Gospel of Marie Osmond" which I found on golden plates in a box of Nutrisystem.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no reason to believe any of the above is true. Firstly, It is legal strategy of the creationist movement to pretend no religious agenda, since that is what has repeatedly killed them in the courtroom. The ID movement was originally framed as the &#8220;wedge strategy&#8221; to insert the Bible into the classroom under the guise of a nonreligious movement with no connection to religion.

Secondly, _creationism_ clearly does not fit perfectly with much of modern thought. Modern thought has actually turned away from magic and supernaturalism in favor of the Scientific Method (and the consensus it brings), which has defined how we differentiate fact from ancient fears and superstition.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It would be easier to take your comments seriously if those arguments were not so tightly in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. But that is not the case.

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose to explain the diversity of life on this planet, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.

For anyone to take you seriously, I would expect you to explicitly lay out something other than &#8220;magic&#8221; as the explanation for existence, rather than rhetorically (and actually) aligning yourself with the organized creationist movement.

I do agree that Christian creationism is simplistic in its scope and ability to define its objectives. 

You need to reject a theory that has many differing elements of scientific evidence because it conflicts with a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables. You instead insist on the Christian creationist claim of supernatural intervention for which there is no evidence. If you rejected evolution due to having a better theory that would definitely be acceptable. But as it has been pointed out, the typical creationist tactic is "I don't understand A so it could not have happened so B which is even more unlikely must have happened".


----------



## Hollie (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You obviously do not know the difference and you are obviously unable to even offer the most rudimentary of explanations for the two beliefs.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


your point?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit! you say the bible declares  that the earth is sphere it does not..as already presented to you. now as always you're attempting to weasle out of what you said.
btw from space the earth looks like ball  not a circle ...hint video and film are not 3 dimensional but the astronauts eyes are .


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


nice fantasy ! 
your simplest answer is crammed full of assumption, myth, wishful thinking but is a epic fail when it comes to fact. 
all you've done  is reiterated, unnecessarily that you believe..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 a Jewish family in my family?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Once again, you will simply lie in order to further your dogma. What a shame that you cannot be honest about what is actually written in the various bibles but instead must make these hopelessly amateurish attempts to rewrite the bibles in order to maintain your delusions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Are you kidding they have different traditions,they rejected the messiah which was prophecy. They have 661 commandments. They no longer sacrifice animals for atonement because they do not have a temple.

As usual ant hills into mountains.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I responded to an accusation that was wrong again.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



A sphere is pretty much the same thing as a circle,this is rediculous. The bible uses a term I am fine with.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What do you think you do and anyone who believes in macro evolution ? still waiting for you and your buddies to provide the evidence I asked for that you to have ignored. You see that is a big issue not a little one like a circle.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yes my sister married in to a Jewish family.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Ant hills in to mountains. bottom line the bible writer was accurate. now have you come up with that evidence I asked for yet,it's been two days lol.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course you're fine with conflicting terms when it suits your extremist agenda. "Four corners" also describes a sphere... in the warped view of the extremist.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The typical pattern of obfuscation and denial from the fundie. "Four corners" describing a sphere. How silly. 

Still nothing about the gawds huffing and puffing to breath life into clay. What a shame. Supernaturalism and magic as the requirement for life, all from various  books of dubious authorship which often conflict which each other  .


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



How is it conflicting terms ? if you read and actually study the bible you would see how wrong you're.

Let me give you a quick bible lesson. The four corners represent the entire earth north ,south,east,and west.

Eze 37:9  And He said to me, Prophesy to the Spirit, prophesy, son of man, and say to the Spirit, So says the Lord Jehovah: Come from the four winds, O Spirit, and breathe on these dead ones so that they may live. 

Dan 7:2  Daniel spoke and said, In my vision by night I was looking: and behold, the four winds of the heavens were stirring up the Great Sea. 

Dan 8:8  Then the he-goat became very great. And when he was strong, the great horn was broken. And in its place came up four outstanding ones towards the four winds of the heavens. 

Zec 2:6  Ho! Ho! Flee then from the land of the north, says Jehovah. For I have scattered you as the four winds of the heavens, says Jehovah

Mar 13:27  And then He shall send His angels and shall gather His elect from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of heaven. 

This is revealing no ?

Rev 7:1  And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth so that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. 

If you're gonna slander the bible at least know what you're talking about first.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yet once again your ignorance gets revealed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Still waiting on that evidence I asked of you.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yet once again you're befuddled. This type of non-answer is typical for you when you've come up short on a handy couple of sentences you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Still waiting on that evidence I asked of you.



Why are you waiting for evidence that has been presented to you on many occasions?

Being forever befuddled about things that have been explained to you in excruciating detail suggests you are suffering from cognitive disabilities.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Uh oh hollie forced back in to her typical defense posture and resorting to her baseless rhetoric.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'll take this to mean you somehow believe that "he-goats" proves... that you're totally befuddled?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting on that evidence I asked of you.
> ...



You're lying you have only produced the small variations within a family which both sides agree on which is micro adaptations.

Go back and read my questions slowly so you understand them.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I actually find it comical when you're forced to stutter and mumble. Nothing you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya is working for ya', eh?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Why did you cut out the verses that confirm what I said ? trying to use your sneaky tactic as usual.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I never do lol,you find it comical that you come off as an ignorant Ideologue ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Don't let your lack of education in the relevant sciences be a distraction. When your limited  knowledge of the biological sciences is taken from Harun Yahya, expect to be always the bumbling fool.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are somehow under the impression that cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is in any way going to be taken seriously.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



 you must be speaking to the person in the mirror. Can you not produce the evidence I requested to give yourself reason to trust the theory you claim is a fact


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why do you believe bible verses from one or more of the many versions of bibles will make a flat earth spherical. Additionally, what does a "he-goat" have to do with a flat earth?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Have you already forgotten the many times evidence was presented to refute your bible stories?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie your credibility continues taking hits and you're not intelligent enough to see it.


Dodge!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie this view of yours has been shown to be inaccurate. Because the bible is accurate and can stand up to your scrutiny.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



If this was true you would provide this evidence I requested from you. Pretty simple no ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I remember you posting conjecture filled articles that refutes nothing I have stated. I also remember you copying and pasting nonsense that did not address my questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie let me know when you are ready to put your big boy pants on.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You're just enraged that your lies have again been exposed. 

Come on. Thrill us with more of your falsified "quotes" you routinely cut and paste from your extremist Christian flat-earth'er websites. 

Refuting them for the lies and fabrications you hope to perpetrate is my gawd given purpose.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie let me know when you are ready to put your big boy pants on.



Let me know when you're ready to cut and paste more nonsense from Harun Yahya.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie seriously you need to see a shrink about being a habitual liar.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie let me know when you are ready to put your big boy pants on.
> ...



I don't need to. what is your point ? are you still mad about them banning ruggedtouch the person you plagiarize ?

That is why you have no new material.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie got exposed as a liar and a fake.

Let me know when you're ready to show the evidence I requested.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie got exposed as a liar and a fake.
> 
> Let me know when you're ready to show the evidence I requested.



This is a typical pattern of behavior for you. I provided many examples of the lies you cut and paste from your creation ministries. You can't acknowledge your dishonest behavior because without lies, your arguments fall flat. 

You're now reduced to frantic attempts to hide your many lies. What a shame that your twisted fundamentalist beliefs allow the promotion of lies and deceit.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


How interesting that you make such a false claim 

Yet, how interesting that you do so in the face of being exposed for multiple instances of knowingly posting fraudulent "quotes" from your extremist Christian ministries. 

Why do you continually post fraudulent "quotes" when I have continually shown you the lies that you promote?

Can you show us anywhere, in any of the bibles where lies are said to be furthered?


----------



## PaulieGirl (Jul 7, 2013)

If you can't prove the existence of God through science, then it's not scientific. I don't mind that. It's not like it disproves God, just that we can't know through scientific methods.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

PaulieGirl said:


> If you can't prove the existence of God through science, then it's not scientific. I don't mind that. It's not like it disproves God, just that we can't know through scientific methods.



Design and creationism is just as viable as naturalism. If you can't prove naturalism through the scientific method which you can't, how is it a more viable explanation ?

Either naturalism is responsible for all we see or a designer is.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



When you're ready to discuss the issues, and present your argument I will respond, until than your posts are not worthy of a response.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

PaulieGirl said:


> If you can't prove the existence of God through science, then it's not scientific. I don't mind that. It's not like it disproves God, just that we can't know through scientific methods.



You may not have had much interaction with ywc but he is something of the stereotypical angry, really angry, self-hating religious extremist. If you can imagine a Christian Taliban, he would the head mullah in charge.

His ilk despises science, knowledge and enlightenment because education conflicts with his extremist worldview that is modeled upon the Falwells and Robertsons of the world. 

That worldview would give humans no room for any further development. When extremists religious nut-bars try to extend the reach of their holy books beyond the spiritual, it tends toward a backward society. Their animosity to knowledge and enlightenment is palpable. It has been furthering of humanity to prune back the overreaching of religion into science. While extremists such as ywc will not admit it, the earth isn't flat. Species evolved. These are not Christian extremist facts, they're material facts.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As expected, you chose to slither away because you're running out of fraudulent "quotes" to cut and paste. 

I'm sure you find it enraging that you're falsified "quotes" are your only way of promoting your extremist agenda. Those "quotes" being shown by me to be frauds causes you real angst. 

Your agenda of lies and deceit won't stand the harsh light of even casual scrutiny. How it is that you can justify lies as a means to promote your extremist views only you can justify. A moral person with a functioning moral compass can see your dishonesty and deceit.

So have at it. Go ahead and post more of your falsified "quotes". I'll be happy to expose those lies as I've exposed your other attempts at lies.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> PaulieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't prove the existence of God through science, then it's not scientific. I don't mind that. It's not like it disproves God, just that we can't know through scientific methods.
> ...



Except that supernatural design and creationism is a front for Christian religious extremism.

The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "_The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model_." The earlier attempts by creationists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.

In the same way, when creationists find themselves unable to deal with the multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further into really angry outbursts (followed by the hurling of the bible verses) as evidenced by the sweaty, chest-heaving antics of ywc. 

But how does that help them?


----------



## PaulieGirl (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Design and creationism is just as viable as naturalism. If you can't prove naturalism through the scientific method which you can't, how is it a more viable explanation ?
> 
> Either naturalism is responsible for all we see or a designer is.



I didn't say it was more viable. Even if it can't be proven, scientists will use certain findings to prove there is no God. They say it's viable. Scientists and atheists will never give up the notion that they will be able to scientifically disprove God.


----------



## PaulieGirl (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> You may not have had much interaction with ywc but he is something of the stereotypical angry, really angry, self-hating religious extremist. If you can imagine a Christian Taliban, he would the head mullah in charge.



Thanks! I'll talk to anyone, no matter what their views are. I am a Christian, but I'm pretty liberal in my views. I am open to anything science has to offer, but I don't think that proving or disproving God's existence will be one of them. I do, however, believe in Theistic evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> PaulieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't prove the existence of God through science, then it's not scientific. I don't mind that. It's not like it disproves God, just that we can't know through scientific methods.
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 7, 2013)

PaulieGirl said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Design and creationism is just as viable as naturalism. If you can't prove naturalism through the scientific method which you can't, how is it a more viable explanation ?
> ...



 

Please provide links where scientists and atheists are trying to "scientifically disprove God".

Thank you


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> PaulieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Science is objective and unbiased supposedly. So, why does an atheistic and naturalistic bias exist in science over agnostic views for the possibility of natural or supernatural origin?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 7, 2013)

PaulieGirl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You may not have had much interaction with ywc but he is something of the stereotypical angry, really angry, self-hating religious extremist. If you can imagine a Christian Taliban, he would the head mullah in charge.
> ...



Religions "evolve"?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > PaulieGirl said:
> ...



No, the voices in your head don't bother me at all.


----------



## PaulieGirl (Jul 7, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Please provide links where scientists and atheists are trying to "scientifically disprove God".
> 
> Thank you




I don't have links but I don't think that anyone is totally unbiased.  I am sure there are many scientists who would like to be "the one" to disprove God.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Now that is the kind of response I expected.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

PaulieGirl said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Please provide links where scientists and atheists are trying to "scientifically disprove God".
> ...



It would put the the atheists minds at ease.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

PaulieGirl said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Please provide links where scientists and atheists are trying to "scientifically disprove God".
> ...



I have no reason to believe that there are scientists actively trying to disprove any of the gods. I also have no reason to believe that there are scientists actively trying to disprove Leprechauns. That's not intended to be a facetious reply. But it is illustrative of a deeper absurdity.

Honestly, your comment is a bit strange. How does anyone disprove an alleged supernatural entity? What exactly would define a supernatural event?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I'm a bit concerned. Those lovely folks who hear voices from the gawds tend to appear on the news attached to stories about others being killed or maimed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> PaulieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


 What do you think they are doing by trying to show everything arose through natural processes.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PaulieGirl said:
> ...



You believe stupidity is a virtue, right?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Hollow you are a drama queen. Natural disasters,accidents,war, evil regimes,disease,old age. It's like the rider of the white horse is riding and we are in the tribulation. Quit being so narrow minded and open your eyes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You don't know your own theory.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Odd, coming from a Harun Yahya groupie.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




I know you hate having your ignorance revealed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

56 to 58  million world wide die a year. 150,000 a day die world wide.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Ah yes. More of your usual, mindless cutting and pasting.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 7, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Thank me for furthering your embarrassment.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I'll thank you for being an example of the dangers of religious extremism .


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You suffer from paranoia.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not that you are capable of being honest, but the fact is, the really outrageous and silly conspiracy theories aimed at the "atheistic evilutionist" derive from the extreme Christian fundies.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No conspiracy at all,it has spread through our government and our schools.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie a person can be wrong without being a liar. The problem for you is that you can't show me as being wrong. Do I have all the answers ,of course not, but I don't remember you ever proving me wrong.

When you turn to rhetoric once you have been shown to be wrong then that is a liar that refuses to admit to being wrong.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


As noted, your conspiracy theories are the result of your twisted extremist views.

It's actually been reassuring that the Courts have consistently thrown out attempts by extremist Christians to force their religion into the public schools. Snake handling 101 will not prepare students to compete in a technical world.

However, no one is preventing you from putting your hands into the snake pit. It's really cowardly that you don't. The gawds will protect you.

Really, they will.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


A person can also be wrong and be a liar. 

You have demonstrated that repeatedly with multiple instances of falsified "quotes" that you knew were lies when I corrected you with the actual data. 

Your sleazy tactics were exposed on multiple occasions yet you continue with your lies. 

I can only describe it as a pathology when you repeatedly cut and paste falsified, edited, parsed and altered "quotes" in your feverish attempts to vilify science and promote your extremist ideology of religiously inspired hate.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Sorry I am one of the intelligent Christians, I do not put God to the test.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Now you're making stuff up hollie ,just as you have done many times in the past. that would qualify you as a liar.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

Hollie it's been 3 days and you still have not provided that evidence I requested from you.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie it's been 3 days and you still have not provided that evidence I requested from you.



Of course I have. 

Where is the evidence that your gawds breathed life into clay. You consistently refuse to address this bit of silly, superstitious nonsense. 

If it's not silly, superstitious nonsense, there must be some evidence for how it happened or some way to test for how it _could_ have happened.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You even lie about your lies. 

There are multiple threads where you were exposed for posting your falsified, edited, parsed and phony "quotes". The most recent are the "creationist" thread and the thread where just a week ago, I demonstrated your lies.

And still, you have no issue with lies to promote your ideology of hate.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


right! you saying it was an accusation is wrong...
it was a statement of fact.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you being fine with inaccuracies, contradictions, and biblical falsehoods is why you are delusional.
thanks for making that clear.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


and?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you do realise that all your "quotes" are out of context ?
who is quoting jesus? and from what?.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting on that evidence I asked of you.
> ...


bump!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


in what thread? you've ask those same "questions" countless times and they have been answered countless times.
the fact is you will not accept any answer that does not fit your delusional pov.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


the old you're not smart enough ploy...
someone's getting their ass handed to them and it not Hollie..
denial in 5.....4....3...2..1


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> PaulieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't prove the existence of God through science, then it's not scientific. I don't mind that. It's not like it disproves God, just that we can't know through scientific methods.
> ...


hey slapdick you're answering a rhetorical statement!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


ohhhhhhhhhh..the armageddon ploy!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> 56 to 58  million world wide die a year. 150,000 a day die world wide.


and?  the birth rate is higher than that per year..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


(cue EXTREME BULLSHIT BUZZER)
SLAPDICK! YOU'VE BEEN PROVEN WRONG EVERY TIME YOU POST....
THEN LIKE NOW YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO WHITEWASH YOU'RE PROPENSITY FOR MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS AND ACCUSATIONS..
IF YOU ARE WRONG AND NOT LYING THERE'S A NAME FOR THAT :IGNORANCE.
ARE YOU ADMITTING THAT YOU'RE IGNORANT?
OF COURSE NOT..
TO ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG LYING OR IGNORANT, TAKES A STRENGTH OF CHARACTER YOU DO NOT POSSESS..
IT'S A DEFECT ALL SELF INVOLVED BRAGGARTS SHARE.  ..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

youwerecreated said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> > youwerecreated said:
> ...


bahahahaha!


----------



## Hollie (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Actually, you're one of the so-called christians who don't have true faith. 

I would expect that you would be willing to affirm your faith in the power of the gawds, but evidently you're weak and not one of the true faithful. Your belief is only conditional thus you are not among the saved or the true believers. 

Hellfire awaits you. You sinners will burn in an eternity of agony. 

Put your hand in the snake pit. The gawds command you!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Wrong it was not I that asked them it was Boss but we asked the same questions through different terms. No I did ask them in the creationist thread. You didn't answer Boss nor has any of answered them here. Why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I'm not fine with lies and falsehoods . That is why I reject naturalism and macro evolution. That is why I reject dating methods. That is why reject most of what you and hollow copy paste .


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


 Show me they are out of context but I can safely say a Mormon that spent most of his time in the book of Mormon is not gonna correct a Christian that spent a lot of his time in the bible about how something being out of context.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit you've asked  the same questions in every thread you've posted...the variations on a theme ploy ..is bullshit.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you must be as your evidence is filled to the rafters with them...your denial is proof!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


they are out of context as  the storylines have no relation to each other.
 the line the four winds does not link them...it's like the oft heard movie line " I gotta bad feeling about this"...it's a descriptor used for dramatic effect.
it's the same for the four winds line..in the bible. 

also that description of the earth did not exist until the 16th century :  Europeans in the 16th century divided the world into four continents: Africa, America, Asia and Europe.[1] Each of the four continents was seen to represent its quadrant of the world&#8212;Europe in the north, Asia in the east, Africa in the south, and America in the west. This division fit the Renaissance sensibilities of the time, which also divided the world into four seasons, four classical elements, four cardinal directions, four classical virtues, etc.
The four corners of the world refers to the America (the "west"), Europe (the "north"), Asia (the "east"), and Africa (the "south"). 
it's also further proof  rewriting the bible.

one more thing slapdick, mormons spend an equal amount time" studying" the bible as they do the BOM. 
WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT'S TWICE AS EASY TO REFUTE YOUR BULLSHIT.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well actually, you are fine with lies and falsehoods because you cut and paste lies and falsehoods relentlessly. I've shown you your lies and falsehoods on many occasions.

You can reject naturalism and macro evolution as you wish. Harun Yahya is always looking for simple minds to corrupt. Just don't pretend that the lies and falsehoods you cut and paste will go unnoticed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I am asking you for the evidence that Darwin asked for himself. Yes, all evolutionist can point to are small changes within a family that neither side deny. They extrapolate from this evidence for the theory of macro evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



By your reasoning you think all scientists are in complete agreement with all scientific theories.

Daws my questions are simple, please provide the evidence and we can go from there.


----------



## dblack (Jul 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Hmm....

Bullshit


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Nice story who is the source ? but you're wrong.

Problem is God described the earth 3,500 yeas ago to man.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 8, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You're correct my questions are not simple because there is no evidence for what I asked for.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jul 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie it's been 3 days and you still have not provided that evidence I requested from you.
> ...


What's silly is that you would presuppose for the sake of argument that an almighty Creator could exist, but not have the power to create life.  You're premise is completely misplaced.  If a Creator can create this universe, then it is pathetically _absurd_ to even toy with the idea that the same Creator can't create human beings.

And to suggest that since you haven't seen evidence that a human being can create life from dirt, the idea of God is silly and superstitious?  Laughable.  Stuff I would expect from a teenage rookie.

Boiled down, your argument is--or at least _should_ be--there is no evidence for God, therefore you personally believe there is no God.  That point can't even be debated.  Oh yes, but I remember... you extended your personal belief into absolute "fact," right?  You say it's a fact that God has been "disproven," right?

Let's see your evidence.  A lack of contradictory evidence is not evidence for anyone but you personally, so that won't fly.  Let's hear it.  We'll all be waiting at the edge of our seats to hear your Earth-shattering revelations.  Until then, your argument is no more relevant than arguments in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 9, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You misunderstand. I actually agree, in part, with your argunent. If we accept your premise that designer gawds by way of magic and supernaturalism could have designed all of existence then yes, designer gawds by way of magic and supernaturalism could have designed all of existence. 

I'm stunned by such intellectual sloth.

It's a shame that we're left with some valid questions regarding the incompetent "designs" of your designer gawds but hey, gawds is as gawds does, I guess. 

It's quite apparent that the real designer gawds are the Hindu gawds. So... to the back of the line you go with your wannabe designer gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Your goofy conspiracy theories are a poor excuse for maintaining such stupidity.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Problem is, how is it that the gawds got it wrong?

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


from you answer you seems to have the evidence ..why ask me or any of "us" for it.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


an overwhelming majority of them are...
the tiny few who you take as messiahs are by the laws of probability in the percentile that is wrong no matter what..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


now that's a nice fairy tale!
you have no evidence whatsoever that god did any such thing.
you have folktales not evidence.
that's the problem.
it's also not an answer.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


in reality there are no shoulds....


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yet you can't provide what was requested.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I have no problem with the word of God.


----------



## dblack (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Which one?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes "we" have many times ....do you have this much trouble with memory all the time.?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Because if this evidence exists that answers the question of macro evolution then we would just have to answer if it happened naturally or was there a designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Daws they can't even agree on the correct definition for a species you don't see that as a problem ?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


would that be the ones that don't contradict each other or the ones that have been added?
just a reminder god did not write any of the books in the bible neither did the people that books name bear..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I responded to your response. North,south,east,and west cover the entire planet correct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




The only book that can stand up to scrutiny and the God it describes.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


well if that all you need I'll make it easy, :there is no evidence for a designer or design.
nature does however give the appearance of design..and that what fucks with your mind..        

you now never have to bring up the designer fantasy again..
 good thing we cleared that up!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit ! most all of them
agree that when a part of a species evolves away from the parent species and can no longer breed with them they are a new species.
again" the tiny few who you take as messiahs are by the laws of probability in the percentile that is wrong no matter what.."


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yes there are many different versions but with a little reasoning I don't see them contradicting themselves.

Nor do I see the NT  contradicting the OT. You can see through prophecy that there would be a messiah and he would be rejected,and that Israel would be destroyed and the people scattered but gathered back in the end time.

It was also foretold that God would turn to the gentiles as well.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


only a tiny part..you ask me to point what was out of context ..I did.
judging from your non response I must be correct.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that's the lie you tell yourself the bible disintegrates under analytical scrutiny.
that's because it's a statement of faith not fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You see I feel you're wrong.

I have seen nothing with it's origins tied to naturalistic processes.

Atoms,amino acids,proteins,Dna code,matter,and all the necessary chemicals. They are all pieces of the puzzle but it took someone to put all the pieces of the puzzle together.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


rationalizing and reiterating your belief is not an answer!

 A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)

 Jim Meritt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his/her own intelligence and decide for himself/herself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In other words, you need not agree with what Meritt sees as a problem or contradiction. It should be kept in mind, however, that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient god would reasonably be expected to have done a better job of it than the Bible had such a god inspired a book. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study. For more, see also: Biblical Errancy and Biblical Criticism.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my opinions and/or beliefs and do not in any way represent those of any of my employer's unless such is specifically stated in the content of the text. (Jim Merrit)

Table of Contents
Introduction to Contradictions
Contradictions
References

Introduction to Contradictions

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.



War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 
 GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 
 GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many stalls and horsemen?

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1CO 1 "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fowl from waters or ground?

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 
 GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Odd genetics

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

A List Of Biblical Contradictions


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what you feel or believe is irrelevant.... there is no evidence that a somebody is /was involved.
it's not a tough concept.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If you did more research you will see the difficulty in defining a species.

What are biological species? At first glance, this seems like an easy question to answer. Homo sapiens is a species, and so is Canis familaris. Many species can be easily distinguished. When we turn to the technical literature on species, the nature of species becomes much less clear. Biologists offer over twenty definitions of the term species (Hey 2001). These definitions are not fringe accounts of species but prominent definitions in the biological literature. Philosophers also disagree on the nature of species. Here the concern is the ontological status of species. Some philosophers believe that species are natural kinds. Others maintain that species are particulars or individuals.


6. Summary

This encyclopedia entry started with the observation that at an intuitive level the nature of species seems fairly obvious. But a review of the technical literature reveals that our theoretical understanding of species is far from settled. The debate over the nature of species involves a number of issues. One issue is their ontological status: are species natural kinds or individuals? A second issue concerns pluralism: should we adopt species monism or species pluralism? A third issue, and perhaps the most fundamental issue, is whether the term species refers to a real category in nature. Even Darwin, it seems, doubted that species refers to a real category in nature.

Species (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


as i STATED BEFORE :when a part of a species evolves away from the parent species and can no longer breed with them they are a new species.
YOU CAN'T WISH THAT FACT AWAY...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The point of those verses were to point out the four directions which are the four winds. They still represent the entire planet or heavens or winds.

The entire planet is is covered by the four directions.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


nice dodge! As I recall you were epicly failing to prove the four corners described the sphere of the earth..
also the four winds is not accurate you left NW,SW, SE, NE, AND EQUATORIAL.   
gods' not much on the details.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You're completely taking scripture out of context. 

Seriously do you want me to post once again an article on apologetics that explain away your typical and predictable attacks ?


BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED -- Biblical Errors Mistakes Difficulties Discrepancies Countered


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If God answered all questions to your satisfaction you would still have a problem with it.

That is right the four corners represent the entire earth in some verses. Sometimes for four corers carry a different meaning.

Job 1:19  And, behold, a great wind came from the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead. And I only have escaped alone to tell you. 



Isa 11:11  And it shall be in that day, the Lord shall again set His hand, the second time, to recover the remnant of His people that remains, from Assyria and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Ethiopia, and from Persia, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the coasts of the sea. 
Isa 11:12  And He shall lift up a banner for the nations, and shall gather the outcasts of Israel and gather together the scattered ones of Judah from the four corners of the earth. 

What does this mean ? it don't get any clearer here.

Rev 7:1  And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth so that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


as always wrong.... your article is just more rationalizing it does not correct the contradictions..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



But in nature we see all organisms stick to their own kind why ? Even Darwin saw it as a problem you can't spin your way out of this.

So lions and tigers are the same species ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




Sure it deals with your side taking scripture out of context to make baseless attacks.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


as a whole it means nothing once again you've taken the scriptures out of context.
and once again the line "the four winds"or four corners has no meaning out of their original context.
it does not answer the sphere question.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There are no natural processes that can answer the origins question for anything.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong it is as I said it was...it corrects nothing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You lack rational thought and that is why you take two scriptures and say yep they contradict each other,without considering the context.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


there are no supernatural  phenomena that answer the question for anything.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

Anyone who claims to have the absolute truth of the bible run from them. I know some things I believe in the end I will be corrected on. This is why so many different doctrines exist mans interpretations. The same with science.

But God makes it clear what unites all Believersl. To much emphasis has been placed on doctrine.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



In your opinion.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


a·tion·al [ rásh'n'l ]   
reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice
able to think clearly and sensibly: able to think clearly and sensibly, unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice
in accordance with reason and logic: presented or understandable in terms that accord with reason and logic or with scientific knowledge.
using the definition above ...you are not by any standard rational..
I could list hundreds of examples of your obvious irrationality..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



That is the mistake you make assuming a believers beliefs are based on emotion.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Anyone who claims to have the absolute truth of the bible run from them. I know some things I believe in the end I will be corrected on. This is why so many different doctrines exist mans interpretations. The same with science.
> 
> But God makes it clear what unites all Believersl. To much emphasis has been placed on doctrine.


smell like a fresh steaming pile of  unnecessary bible thumping ...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no it's fact


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


belief in the paranormal is by definition based on emotion not reason.
so as always you can't see the difference between a statement of fact and an assumption.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Anyone who claims to have the absolute truth of the bible run from them. I know some things I believe in the end I will be corrected on. This is why so many different doctrines exist mans interpretations. The same with science.
> 
> But God makes it clear what unites all Believersl. To much emphasis has been placed on doctrine.


That's the problem you face. The written doctrine is rife with errors, contradictions and statements that are irreconcilable with modern science. 

Your constant re-interpretation and hoped for re-writing of the various bibles only serves to focus the glaring light of fact on the errors and contradictions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



What is your evidence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Once again only opinion.


----------



## BarryDesborough (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.


It is testable.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 9, 2013)

IMO, The bible is not to be taken literally and should not be taught in schools. 

A creationist once said that the global flood was between 4000-4500 years ago.  If that's so how can a trees be dated by their rings at over 7000 years?  Wouldn't everything in the flood, not on the arc, have been destroyed?

A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology for western Europe


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> IMO, The bible is not to be taken literally and should not be taught in schools.
> 
> A creationist once said that the global flood was between 4000-4500 years ago.  If that's so how can a trees be dated by their rings at over 7000 years?  Wouldn't everything in the flood, not on the arc, have been destroyed?
> 
> A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology for western Europe



If tree rings were an effective way of determining age polystrate trees would be serious problem for dating strata.

Some will say that has been debunked but that is wishful thinking because these trees are buried by several layers of strata.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

BarryDesborough said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> ...



Naturalistic origins is not testable,only natural processes that already exist are testable. The question is how did these natural processes get their start ?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I need none your lack of evidence is all that's needed.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, The bible is not to be taken literally and should not be taught in schools.
> ...



It's not an issue for the professors at University of Hohenheim, Queen's University, Belfast, and the University of Köln.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes your denial is only an opinion based on a specious assumption   
true-believer syndrome

The need to believe in phony wonders sometimes exceeds not only logic but, seemingly, even sanity.  --The Rev. Canon William V. Rauscher

The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder?  --M. Lamar Keene

Religion vs. The Paranormal
Are Paranormal Beliefs Similar to Religious Beliefs?

By Austin Cline, About.com 
Is there a real connection between religion and belief in the paranormal? Some, particularly adherents of various religious faiths, will often argue that the two very different types of beliefs. Those who stand outside of religion, however, will notice some very important similarities which bear closer consideration.

Certainly there is no exact correspondence between religious and paranormal beliefs  there are people who are very religious but who dont believe in things like Bigfoot or UFOs and there are people who believe in many paranormal events but who are not part of any religious tradition. One might be inclined to argue, then, that one does not have anything to do with the other.

Those who are adherents of religious traditions may often be particularly eager to disavow any similarity because paranormal beliefs are often portrayed as less rational and credible than religious beliefs. Even worse, conservative and fundamentalist believers often regard paranormal claims as having quite a lot to do with the actions of evil forces in the universe  not the sort of thing they would want to be associated with, quite understandably.

Nevertheless, religious beliefs and paranormal beliefs do share a number of important things in common. For one thing, both the paranormal and traditional religions are non-materialistic in nature. They do not conceive of the world as a place controlled by sequences of cause and effect between matter and energy. Instead, they presume the added presence of immaterial forces which influence or control the course of our lives.

Furthermore, there is also the appearance of a desire to provide meaning and coherence to otherwise random and chaotic events. If we are suddenly aware of a distant event we shouldn't know about, it might be attributed to clairvoyance, psychic powers, spirits, angels, or God. There seems to be a genuine continuum between what we tend to call paranormal and the ideas in many religious faiths.

The relationship between paranormal beliefs and religion may be even closer than that between superstitions and religious beliefs. Whereas superstitions are often isolated ideas, paranormal beliefs are commonly part of an integrated beliefs system about the very nature and substance of the universe. These belief systems are very similar to religion  they can provide meaning to our lives as well as the events in our lives, they can provide social structure, and they can provide comfort in difficult times.

Paranormal belief systems do, however, lack some of the critical characteristics of religions. They dont typically involve ritual acts, its unusual for them to differentiate between the sacred and the profane, and it is rare for people to base a moral code upon those beliefs. Although this means that paranormal beliefs are not the same as religion, the strong similarities do suggest that they stem from some of the same needs and desires as religious beliefs.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> BarryDesborough said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


creationism is not the answer.
it is not testable...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, The bible is not to be taken literally and should not be taught in schools.
> ...


Dendrochronology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The growth rings of a tree at Bristol Zoo, England. Each ring represents one year; the outside rings, near the bark, are the youngest.
Dendrochronology (from &#948;&#941;&#957;&#948;&#961;&#959;&#957;, dendron, "tree limb"; &#967;&#961;&#972;&#957;&#959;&#962;, khronos, "time"; and -&#955;&#959;&#947;&#943;&#945;, -logia) or tree-ring dating is the scientific method of dating based on the analysis of patterns of tree rings, also known as growth rings. Dendrochronology can date the time at which tree rings were formed, in many types of wood, to the exact calendar year. This has three main areas of application: paleoecology, where it is used to determine certain aspects of past ecologies (most prominently climate); archaeology, where it is used to date old buildings, etc.; and radiocarbon dating, where it is used to calibrate radiocarbon ages (see below).

In some areas of the world, it is possible to date wood back a few thousand years, or even many thousands. Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.[1]
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOOKY HERE  Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating  WHY AM i NOT SUPRISED THEY WOULD SAY  Dendrochronology HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.LOL! 
[ame=http://youtu.be/zIBXk7s3RtY]Debunking CDK007 - 'Why Young Earth Creationists are Wrong' (dendrochronology) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> BarryDesborough said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As usual, youre just clueless. Naturalistic origins clearly are testable because theyre natural. There is no clear requirement for any supernatural intervention for life to have begun. Similarly, there is nothing that requires your particular gawds to have performed any supernatural intervention. 

You make a basic miscalculation with the assumption that your gawds, as opposed to other gawds which could have sparked life. You have always slithered away when required to present evidence of how your gawds  magically *poofed* creation into existence. No doubt, you will continue to do so.

I'm sure that you will whine and moan while continuing to cut and paste the same discredited nonsense from Harun Yahya in defense of your need for supernatural agents. Remember however that the falsified, edited and phony quote you try to pass off as legitimate attacks on science have all been shown to be lies.  Trying to substitute others, as you have done in other threads will likewise be shown as lies. 

I'm happy to see you are no longer defending the silly criteria of cutting and pasting from creationist websites you tried to foist off in other threads.  But, having already demonstrated your failure to think through the creationist argument (since, after all, it is not your own) a new list of phony quotes does not give us great confidence that your substitutions are any better than your earlier frauds.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


 so much for the scientific method.

Lack of evidence is not proof.there is more evidence for purposeful design over naturalism. There is no evidence for naturalism so why do you believe it by your reasoning ?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong! slapdick, you can only apply the scientific method to what is testable .you have no evidence to test. by your own words you would not  test it anyway.
it a certainty that's not the scientific method.

Factual or realistic representation, especially:
The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.
The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.
A movement or school advocating such precise representation.
The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.
Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.
Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.
as explained before naturalism is a method not a cause.
there is no evidence for design so why do keep insisting there is.
the myths and bias observations you've presented are subjective and unprovable.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...



Daws, let's be rational. Carbon dating method has the assumption that carbon 14 levels have remained constant but also hypothesized that at one point the oxygen level was so low that life could form through natural processes.They new if the oxygen level existed and remained constant like it is now that there was no chance life could form through natural processes.

Sounds like they make it up as they go. You can go back to the beginning of these theories and see how old scientists were saying the earth was. The earth kept getting older and older why is that daws ? well it's obvious the only way they can get people to by some of these theories is keep making the planet older and older. Let's dazzle them with things beyond their comprehension and they can't prove or disprove. They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Once again origins through natural processes is not testable. When are you gonna get it  pervert ?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 as you are not rational to begin with nothing you post can be considered rational.
so anything you say regarding the validity of any pov not your own is erroneous.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Did I say something that was irrational or was it based in fact which would be rational.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


neither are supernatural ones..
it's called a push or a tie.
 aw the pervert ploy...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


everything you say is irrational..
case in point: They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.
that statement is completely irrational and extremely inaccurate.  
but you still offer it as evidence even after you've been shown it's false.
that defines irrationality don't ya think?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You can have the last word go.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


tantrum much?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Yeah. So much for the scientific method. I suppose you will need to cut and paste some new conspiracy theory from the ICR.

Speaking of the ICR / snake handling emporium, I got a chuckle regarding your cut and paste from the ICR charlatan regarding carbon dating. I'd have thought that cutting and pasting from the dregs at the ICR would suggest to the cut and paster that their arguments have lost all credibility. But yet, here you are again, cutting and pasting from a syndicate of  liars, " quote-miners" and religious extremists. 

Kinda' makes you look like a dolt.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



A rational creationist is on oxymoron.


----------



## BarryDesborough (Jul 10, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


I thought it was a laundry product.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 10, 2013)

BarryDesborough said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Laundry products are a lot more helpful than creationists!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> 63% of Republicans still believe that Iraq had WMD's in 2003.



98% of democrats believe Obama won't cum in their mouth.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.



"Naturalism" is an archaic term from the 19th century. Those things studied as "Naturalism" have long since developed into formal disciplines; biology, geology, oceanography, paleontology, etc.


----------



## BarryDesborough (Jul 10, 2013)

Because creationism is not scientific.

Dur!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Yeah. So much for the scientific method. I suppose you will need to cut and paste some new conspiracy theory from the ICR.
> 
> Speaking of the ICR / snake handling emporium, I got a chuckle regarding your cut and paste from the ICR charlatan regarding carbon dating. I'd have thought that cutting and pasting from the dregs at the ICR would suggest to the cut and paster that their arguments have lost all credibility. But yet, here you are again, cutting and pasting from a syndicate of  liars, " quote-miners" and religious extremists.
> 
> Kinda' makes you look like a dolt.



I'm sorry, what is ICR? I'm not familiar with this acronym?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 10, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Laundry products are a lot more helpful than creationists!



BUT, don't put Oxyclean in the dishwasher - it foams.

Found this out the hard way....


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 11, 2013)

BarryDesborough said:


> Because creationism is not scientific.
> 
> Dur!



Why do you evolutionists make such stupid claims. Scientists were once creationist. Compare your theory to creation and tell me why your theory is more viable ?

A Theory of Biblical Creation


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There is no rational evolutionist  but they can be morons.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


That is a problem which religious extremists have yet to address. They view knowledge and enlightennent as repulsive and worthy only their hate. Science and knowledge clashes with their insistence of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables. 

This, in part, is what drives their hatred of learning and provides motivation for their conspiracy theories.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Whats the matter hollie,you see that creationism is every bit of a theory as evolution ?

Fable is a very good term for evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Creationism as configured by the christian creation ministries is not a theory. It is a religious belief. 

Your lack of exposure to a science curriculum leaves you ill prepared to make that distinction.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Why do you evolutionists make such stupid claims. Scientists were once creationist. Compare your theory to creation and tell me why your theory is more viable ?
> 
> A Theory of Biblical Creation



Science is a process, not a result.

Certainly there were men of Science who believed in creation, at one time. But as greater knowledge has been gained, that is no longer possible. Creationism, like Anthropogenic Global Warming, is not consistent with know fact, and therefore is the product of faith, not science.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


THANKS i DIDN'T WANT TO STATE THE OBVIOUS..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 11, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/NRKtKE3W1Mc]The logic of creationists - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Creationism is *NOT* a scientific theory whereas evolution is a scientific theory.

That YWC doesn't know what a scientific theory means gives lie to his claims to have worked in the DNA field.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 11, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Ywc will respond with a needless comment about his degree or his 11 year journey through evilutionist hell.
in 5.....4....3...2..1


----------



## Hollie (Jul 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> BarryDesborough said:
> 
> 
> > Because creationism is not scientific.
> ...



This makes absolutely no sense, as usual. There is nothing _supernatural_ about the natural world. The rational (natural) world is explainable, understandable and knowable. We have no need for faith to understand that the force of gravity is relentlessly consistent across all of the universe we have discovered. For your enlightenment, gravity is both a fact and a theory. Over the last century, we even witnessed one theory of gravity (Newton's) as it was replaced by a newer, better theory of gravity (Einsteins). But the fact of gravity remained through the entire time period. Apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air waiting for the outcome. 

Lets compare the concepts of theories using both evolution and gravity as compared to supernatural intervention. Both evolution and gravity assertions are theories. Both have aspects and elements missing (we don't have any idea what gravity even _is_, but we can obviously test for, examine and measure its existence. Both evolution and gravity require certain assumptions about their mechanisms. Both are "disproven" by biblical fiat-- in the holy texts, people rise to heaven in chariots, the sea separates, people walk on water-- all of these things are in _direct opposition_ to the theories of gravity, precisely like evolution is in _direct opposition_ to creationism. And finally neither the theory of gravity nor the theory of evolution makes any mention of gawds. None. That is not an assumption, neither says a thing about any gawd.

There is no difference between these two theories (other than mechanical ones) yet we never hear of "miraculism" being demanded as part of the syllabus in science classes because gravity defeats biblical stories. There is clearly a deeper concern, a broader agenda-- and I submit to you that evolution is so overwhelmingly presented and so difficult to dismantle, that most theists subconsciously fear that if it is true, their entire worldview is shattered. That is precisely why many creationists have such a visceral hatred for evolution and why they reel off into promoting these fantastic claims of the supernatural.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > BarryDesborough said:
> ...


my favorite is the bullshit chart saying there is empirical data for creationism..


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That is because YWC doesn't know the true meaning of the term "empirical". Then again none of the creationists reading and/or writing that nonsense do either.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.
> ...




*You're correct that creationism can't be tested through the scientific method and that is why it isn't science!  It is a fairy tale disguised as science as a tactic to get mandatory religion back into public schools.  To the scientific community, it is a juvenile joke.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.  I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.
> ...



*You are quoting from a source with ZERO credibility.  Did you know that ICR members are required to abide by a "statement  of faith" that forbids them from contradicting the bible?  With that limitation to your research, is it any wonder that all members of ICR support the biblical "theory" of creationism?  It's a freaking joke.  NO legitimate scientist would allow anyone to put such limitations on their research.  If you visit the ICR website, you'll see that they have discovered that mustard plants can do math!  If I didn't know better, I'd have thought this nonsense came from The Onion.  Unfortunately it is real and there are  thousand of gullible saps who accept this crap as fact.

Creationist Statements of Faith*


----------



## BarryDesborough (Jul 12, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...


And from the AiG Statement of Faith,


> By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.


(Written by a fallible person who does not possess all information!)


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 12, 2013)

BarryDesborough said:


> (Written by a fallible person who does not possess all information!)



I thought you didn't care about being banned? Yet here you are, all socked up and ready to go....


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I know and understand both theories, one is rejected by the science community with no evidence to reject.

So you take pot shots at me and the work I did for 11 years. I gave you the chance to discuss what I know but you like the normal coward ran and resorted to little insults. That is the tactic of an ignorant coward.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Which went right over your head.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have asked you to provide two forms of empirical evidence and not one of you have done so. Without that evidence you may have a theory but no empirical evidence that suggests this theory is viable. Do I deny variations within a family no but I do deny all organisms are related. That all organisms came from one organism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You are part of an extreme religion.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



You to believe that creationism is based solely on supernaturalism. Life forming through natural processes can also be considered supernaturalism because the origins of life is beyond our understanding.

Even if someday we figure it out and can produce a living organism it would have be done through intelligence not naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



How do you assign credibility ?


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




*Hello in there?  Hello?????  Creationism CANNOT QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY.  End of story.  You can go home now.  You lose.  You can make up all of the lame crap you want but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is religion masquerading as science and as they say, a pig with a dress and lipstick is still a pig.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*If the fact that creationists conclusions are being dictated by the ICR doesn't raise red flags, it should.  They're basically saying "Figure out how humans got here but your answer has to be 'God did it'".  That's NOT science.*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



There is no theory of creationism. The entirety of creationist dogma is rooted in Christian apologetics. 

The term "creationism" is simply a ruse for Christian extremists.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Boilerplate nonsense that you read on one of your christian extremist websites... or was it from Harun Yahya?


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*Here is an excellent article that explains why creationism is not science.  Maybe you can learn from it:*

Why Creationism Isn?t Science

Why Creationism Isnt Science

There is no doubt that the most central issue in the evolution/creationism debate is whether creationism deserves to be called science. Creationists argue vehemently that it does, for obvious reasons: if that were the case, creationism would be a competing scientific hypothesis deserving of teaching time in public schools alongside evolution. Most scientists, on the other hand, dismiss creationism as religious and inherently non-scientific.

The demarcation problem  where exactly to draw the line between science and non-science  is a thorny issue that has occupied many prominent philosophers without producing a clear answer, and this essay will not attempt to solve it. However, notwithstanding the fact that the exact boundary between science and non-science is somewhat fuzzy, there are some cases that clearly fall on one side or the other of that line. This essay will argue that creationism is one of these  that it fails the most crucial requirements for science, and moreover, fails so obviously that there can be no doubt of its status.

    A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

    Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, intelligent design creationism makes no testable predictions at all  it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designers goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided  and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them  ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

    Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an appearance of age  that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

    Even some of creationisms defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that Creation is inaccessible to the scientific method, and that It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place. His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.
    A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic  i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles  cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
    A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
    Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since theres always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

    This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, I know Im right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise, you are no longer doing science.


_Click the link for the entire article._


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



*Exactly.  When mandatory prayer was banned from public schools, the religious wingnuts looked for a way to get it back in public schools and came up with creationism.  When Creationism was shown to be a scam, they went back to the drawing board, retooled their "theory" and came up with Intelligent Design which eventually died a miserable death in a courtroom in Dover, PA.  That trial embarrassed creationists on a national scale when it proved that those behind the creationism campaign were liars and frauds.  The "wedge document" spells out their agenda and what they hoped to accomplish but oops!  - someone leaked it to the public and their fraud was exposed.*

PS - if anyone wants to read a good account of the Dover trial, read "The Devil in Dover" by Lauri Lebo.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*There is NO evidence to support that nonsense.*


----------



## eots (Jul 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Simply not true ,that is only you reactionary interpretation of the concept


----------



## Hollie (Jul 12, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...


Speaking of creationists doing no research, this is no better exampled than by the charlatans at the Disco'tute.  They were exposed as the frauds they are when they put Ann Gauger in front of a green screen with a stock lab photo as a background 

Amateurish? Sleazy? Dishonest? 

Yes to all three.

The Disco 'Tute's fake laboratory - The Panda's Thumb


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 12, 2013)

Why are rabbits considered fluffy, but snakes are not? 

Why are kittens considered cute, but scorpions are not?

Why ask why?


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*
During the Dover Intelligent Design trial, these charlatans were exposed a number of times and under oath, they had to admit to it.  In his decision, the judge said*:

_"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. "_

*and *

_"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."_


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



They are wrong I gave you examples.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Credible source lol.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

Uh oh naturalists.

nat·u·ral·ism
noun \&#712;na-ch&#601;-r&#601;-&#716;li-z&#601;m, &#712;nach-r&#601;-\
Definition of NATURALISM
1
: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts
2
: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
3
: realism in art or literature; specifically : a theory or practice in literature emphasizing scientific observation of life without idealization and often including elements of determinism


----------



## Hollie (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



In denial lol.

This is just another example of how your will not just excuse, but promote lies to further your extremist views. 

I pointed out previously that the charlatans at the Disco 'tute acknowledged their fraud. Although, as we might have expected, they hand-waved it off.

What a shame that religious extremists are bereft an ethical and moral compass.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


bullshit ..the bible is not empirical or quantifiable it is totally subjective  those features alone make it unsupportable by science..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you can always dream...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 12, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bahahahahaha!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...






Baraminology


Template:Creationism2 In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into groups having no common ancestry, called "baramins". Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in Genesis, especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science: modern biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.[1] The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history. 

Biblical Kinds

The Bible mentions kinds on several occasions. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things: 

&#8220;  24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.  &#8221;  

Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. Leviticus 19:19 states that kinds might interbreed. Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is. 

Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine[2], Thomas Aquinas[3], John Calvin[4], and the Vatican[5], hold that the Bible makes theological and not scientific statements about reality, and that no conflict exists between science and the Bible. A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the Darwinian model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag. 

Baraminology

Baraminology is founded upon a biblically literal young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged as an effort to make this view scientifically appealing.[6] The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. In 1990 the work of Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology as the pursuit of an acceptable definition.[6] ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things. [7] These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly used in phylogenetics 

Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[8] Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[9] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[10] In all cases, methods that have been found to place humans and primates into the same baramin have been discarded. [11][12] 

Criticism

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17] 


http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Baraminology


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Did you just slip and hit your head, I just gave you examples.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



I proved creationism is a falsifiable theory deal with it.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You demonstrated that creationism is a laughable joke.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



One more thing at one time most all scientists were creationist and you are posting nonsense by saying creationist have not contributed anything to science.

Here is a reminder dipshit.

Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You're in denial of the facts.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Actually, no. The fact is, creationism is a laughable joke. Using the various bibles as science texts is a laughable joke.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Some day you will remember these conversations.


----------



## BarryDesborough (Jul 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You think Hollie has forgotten them already? Why?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 13, 2013)

BarryDesborough said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I think many of you're dead wrong concerning the origins of this universe and everything in it. I do believe we all will meet the creator and answer for how we conducted ourselves in this life.I think the biggest problem that many can't admit to is that they can't fathom the idea of why a loving God would allow what goes on in nature. For this this very reason Albert Einstein rejected the idea of a personal God. He believed that Jesus existed and was a special person but could not really come to grips with the thought of a personal God.I think that was a bad assumption on his part as I do for many of you. I don't want to sound like a threatening person I merely want to stand up for what is right and warn others of what is coming. You are probably familiar with the old saying,you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it.

I do believe when many stand before the judge they will remember their rejection of the creator. Everyone is free to choose for themselves but remember they are held to their decisions and that goes for mans system of rule as well as Gods's.


----------



## BarryDesborough (Jul 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> BarryDesborough said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You can't "reject" something you don't believe exists. I have no problem "fathoming the idea of why a loving God would allow what goes on in nature". It doesn't arise as a problem for me. It's like worrying about being trampled by a stampeding herd of unicorns.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I remember these conversations today. I remember the lies upon lies that you furthered. 

I really think it's pathetic that you feel a need to threaten me with your gawds. But then again, self-hating religious zealots who spend their lives consumed by hate / self-hate tend to be less than critical thinkers.

Humans have shown that they are liable to believe in things that give them comfort even if it's an utter lie rather than the truth if it's uncomfortable. We can see that with religious zealots such as yourself who lie incessantly and unapologetically because it calms an emotional requirement whereby they can foist responsibility for their actions on their gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> BarryDesborough said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Here's you kool Aid.

_Bon Appetit'_


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> BarryDesborough said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Einstein was Jewish. 

As far as being "judged" by your imaginary "creator" when is he going to be charged for his "crimes against humanity"? After all why should your "creator" be above the law he is allegedly judging you by? His "law" and "judgment" is utterly meaningless if he isn't held to the exact same standard.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 13, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I don't lie hollie. sometimes I may be mistaken but I never purposely lie or try to mislead. Like I said you can lead a horse to water but it is up to the horse to drink. Not a threat hollie, if I am correct which I believe I am it's merely a warning.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > BarryDesborough said:
> ...



Yes he was and he believes the historians were correct about the person Jesus. Early Christians many were Jews. If the Almighty exists I don't believe he will ever be on trial by man again.

What Laws has God handed down that he broke ?


----------



## dblack (Jul 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Sure it's a threat. It's how most religious salesmen ply their trade.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Crimes against humanity charges against your imaginary God;

1. Murdering the innocent first born of Egypt in a fit of pique demonstrates a depraved indifference to human life.

2. Murdering innocent women and children in Soddom and Gommorrah demonstrates a depraved indifference to human life.

3. Drowning every living land dwelling human and animal on the planet except for a handful demonstrates a depraved indifference to all life.

4. Ordering the murders of pregnant women demonstrates a depraved indifference to human life and the "unborn" according to the "pro-life" movement.

All of the above violate his "thou shalt not kill" commandment. The hypocrisy of your imaginary God being allowed to be a multiple mass murderer and conspiring to murder makes him unfit to judge even the very worst of humans.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 13, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Not a salesmen and it most certainly is not my trade.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 13, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



If my creator exists, he owns all that you can see,touch,feel,smell and that gives him the right to judge. Punishment that involves death by the creator is not murder. I guess man got even because they put him to death but not for a crime.

Once again the command is not thou shall not kill. The command is thou shall not commit murder.


----------



## dblack (Jul 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Is just a hobby then?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 13, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Is it not my right to free speech ?

If your house was burning down, and you were asleep in your home,would you appreciate it if some woke you up and alerted you that your house was on fire  ?


----------



## dblack (Jul 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course it's your right. And you make a good point; I can definitely understand how religious proselytizing can be motivated by compassion. But "hellfire and damnation" is a threat, and has traditionally been used to frighten people into submission. I'd have deep misgivings joining any religion that relied on such threats to win converts.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What a truly silly attempt at analogy. 

Religionists waiting for their gawds to return, (or to appear), has been the cause for the vast majority of religions which have failed over time, and why your currently configured religion will eventually fail as well. There is no reason to believe that the Jesus will ever come back and as the decades roll onward and he doesn't return, your religion will fall further and further out of favor, just like the promises of Mithras are now dust.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I suppose that's one way to find justification for the actions of a serial mass murderer.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

Just a general observation but

Naturalism seems to be the philosophical perspective that what can be known is based oj what can be observed in nature without invoking any other unobservable phenomina.

Creationism invokes an unobserved phenomina, an intelligent force that is responsible for the "design" of things.

Science is grounded on the principle that what can be known is based on what can be observed.

So, science and naturalism are most alike while creationism is most not alike.

String theory, the attempts to describe nature and combine gravity with electragnetism, general relativity with quantum mechanics, is running a ground on this very issue, as I understand it.  It seems that string theory is relying on invoking unobservable dimensions and qualities.  It isn't a complete departure from naturalism, as it remains grounded in observable phenomina, existing theories, and solid mathematics.  Mathematics does hold to certain natural phenomina, like counting 1+1=2.  Still, some are a bit uncomfortable with the certain aspects.


----------



## factotum (Jul 13, 2013)

Ahhh name calling (stupid seeming to be the most common term used).  The rhetorical technique used when a person lacks either facts or logic to support their position.   Though people do hold foolish beliefs.  For example, because a majority of people believe something about the physical world, than that must be how the world works.   For example, I would bet that at least 75% of the population thinks that, for all practical purposes, time on the space station, is the same as time down here.

More to the point.   Since it is clear that not a single poster put forth the mental effort to actual do any research, let me suggest that you read this article.   Assuming that its 2500 words requiring 15 min does not exceed your attention span Naturalism on wikipedia

As to why creationism is NOT science.   Well, if the person raising this question understood what science was, they would know the answer.  The concept of creationism can not possibly be shown to be false.   Hence is it not a scientific theory.   Depending on your concept of naturalism; that is, can the concept be made to stretch to cover anything that we might discover, than it is either science or not.    

Suppose for example that careful experiments showed that in emergency rooms, people can "die", and be brought back, and demonstrate that they saw things for which we have no known explanation, such as a written message on a platform only 5 inches from the ceiling. (or .5in, or .05 in)  Would that be something that would be considered "natural" or not?   If so, why or why not?   Obviously if it were to be considered natural than we have expanded our concept of what is natural to cover whatever we experience so naturalism can not be falsified.   If the observation were considered to be supernatural, --- that is we can experience something when we 'die' and come back --- than naturalism can be falsified, and is thus scientific.

I hope that this answers most peoples questions.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 13, 2013)

"As to why creationism is NOT science. Well, if the person raising this question understood what science was, they would know the answer.* The concept of creationism can not possibly be shown to be false.* Hence is it not a scientific theory. Depending on your concept of naturalism; that is, can the concept be made to stretch to cover anything that we might discover, than it is either science or not. "

Not true.  

Science proposes, and proves false, all sorts of things.  By their very nature, any thing that cannot be proven true is no different than Creationism.  It is very simple, yet has taken quite some time.  We propose that Creationism is a fact.  In order for it to be a fact, we define the operational definition.  One significant part of the definition of Creationism is that the measure cannot be accounted for by any other explaination.  We also define a reasonable level of confidence.  This is typically 99%, though particle physics now uses something like 99.99999999% or better. Having done so, we try to prove Creationism true.  Having exhausted all possibilities that can prove it true, it is summarily accepted as not true.  That is how it works, that is science.

We may not like the answer, but, for all practical purposes, it is simply false. Plato tried.  Copernicus tried. Newton tried.  Einstein tried.  Carl Sagan tried. Mankind has been trying since the dawn of man.  And the null hypothesis has been rejected every time.  At this point, the p-value is 0.99999999999999.  If Creationism is true, it isn't true on this planet, on Mars, or at the far reaches of this solar system.  Indeed, we have peered into the deep vastness of space, far back to the beginning of time, and nothing.  Not in this universe. And, of all that, no other universe has been detected.

The difference is clear. Creationism is assuming it is true until proven false.  By that standard, goblins and fairies, witches and ghosts, leprechauns and mermaids are true.  Science is assuming it is false until it is proven true, to a reasonable level of confidence, that it can be proven again.  Then it is true. Failing to prove it true falsifies it.

The standard for Creationism is a probability of occurance of zero. Science is a probability of occurance of .99999.

Science is internally consistent because, by the standards of science, science repeatedly proves its own validity.  Creationism is internally consistent because, by the standards of Creationism, Creationism allows itself to be true.  Science, by the standards of creationism, is true because it is allowed to be true.  By Creationist standards, no proof is required. By the standards of science, Creationism is false.

Naturalism, science, has proven itself true every time, everywhere and always.  Creationism has been proven false, rejected every time, everywhere and always.  There is the physical world, measurable.  And there is the mind of man, how he percieves that world, remembers it, and feels about it.


----------



## LittleNipper (Jul 13, 2013)

God exists and there are many godly people around to demonstrate His existence. The spiritual is just as important as the material world if not more so.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So according to ywc's latest "justification" if a women "owns" the fetus that she "created" then she has every right to do whatever she wants with it, even after birth, and it isn't "murder". 

Congratulations on turning your serial mass murdering "creator" into a hypocrite on top of everything else. You really don't know when to stop  this hole of yours.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Sorry but you have me wrong. Some things in the bible are not literal. You have to study the scriptures to get the true meaning. My beliefs are that hell is nothing more than the grave where ever your body remains after death that is your grave. Hellfire and brimstone are just tools of death. People resurrected from death to be judged if they are guilty and are not granted everlasting life, then you're put to death, and this death is an everlasting death. Everything thrown in the lake of fire is just symbolism for they will never exist again.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



At least who it was directed at it had a rational response. You however just expose your bias through rhetoric.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

factotum said:


> Ahhh name calling (stupid seeming to be the most common term used).  The rhetorical technique used when a person lacks either facts or logic to support their position.   Though people do hold foolish beliefs.  For example, because a majority of people believe something about the physical world, than that must be how the world works.   For example, I would bet that at least 75% of the population thinks that, for all practical purposes, time on the space station, is the same as time down here.
> 
> More to the point.   Since it is clear that not a single poster put forth the mental effort to actual do any research, let me suggest that you read this article.   Assuming that its 2500 words requiring 15 min does not exceed your attention span Naturalism on wikipedia
> 
> ...



Science can show that all living organisms arose through naturalistic unguided processes if they do so then you can make a better argument for naturalism not rule out creation completely, Because it will have been shown through intelligence not a total natural process.

Both naturalism and creation can be falsifiable, and both can be  proven false. I actually gave examples, and please don't say the person that asked the question is ignorant of science and the scientific method. My degree says otherwise.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No, like it or not God owns everything and he was and is trying to give humanity the great moral life and we are fighting him on it. There will be no evil,and the horrible things we live with on a daily basis now.


----------



## dblack (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Like it or not, your god is nothing more (or less) than a construct in your mind, with no power to influence our fates, other than via the actions of believers. That's not an inconsiderable power, but it's not supernatural.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your mythical serial mass murdering "creator" does not own the title deed to the planet or the lives of anyone on it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Time will tell.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Some day you might get the chance to say to him what you say in this forum.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If that day ever comes I will welcome the opportunity to see your mythical "creator" apologize to the entire human race for all of the needless pain and suffering he has caused them. If he goes down on his bended knees and begs for my forgiveness I will consider it but only if he appears to be genuinely contrite.


----------



## hobelim (Jul 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





 LOL... admirable work for an avowed atheist.

Any thoughts on the God of the Koran and his choice of a psychotic pedophile for the ultimate example of a holy life?

Any outrage on the pain and suffering caused by that mythical creator?

Any suggestions about what to do about all those insane religious fanatics out there other than to extol their virtues and defend their right to be insane?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Well he has already predicted how that will go but believe as you wish.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no prediction made by "he". The authors (largely unknown), who wrote the various bibles are the ones who concocted those stories and fables


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If the final outcome is a foregone conclusion then your mythical "creator" has already prejudged everyone before they were even "created' so the entire "judgment" premise is nothing but a complete farce. Thanks for exposing the utter fallacy of your "judgment" myth.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Nope everyone would have been judged before that day comes. It says that everyone whose name is not found in the book of life will be destroyed. After that final battle when all the ones that their names have not been written in the book of life are destroyed along will all the rebellious angels have been destroyed except for satan because he will be bound for the 1,000 year reign.

The resurrection will be of the ones receiving everlasting life and the ones that never had a chance to know Christ that have passed away. The others that never had a chance to know Christ will get that chance in the 1,000 year reign. Satan will be released for a very short time and the ones that never had a chance to know Christ and then fall error once satan is released for a very short time they and satan along with death will be cast in to the lake of fire total destruction and they will never come back from that.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That swooshing sound you heard was my point going over your head at Mach 3.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No I just corrected your fallacy if you read my words slowly.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your cognitive dissonance must be deafening. You believe in a fallacious "judgment" that has a pre-ordained outcome therefore it is more akin to a lynching by your serial mass murdering "creator". Since you have no problem with his record of crimes against humanity and are all gung ho for the upcoming slaughter of innocents that makes you an accomplice before the fact. Oops, now I sound like hobelim.  I will leave you to your delusions and fantasies.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Sit back and relax, and take in a very deep breath and then exhale. What a gift that is to be able to take in that all important deep breath and then exhale.....


----------



## Hollie (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> factotum said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh name calling (stupid seeming to be the most common term used).  The rhetorical technique used when a person lacks either facts or logic to support their position.   Though people do hold foolish beliefs.  For example, because a majority of people believe something about the physical world, than that must be how the world works.   For example, I would bet that at least 75% of the population thinks that, for all practical purposes, time on the space station, is the same as time down here.
> ...



Your supposed "degree" is no defense for ignorance.

Supernatural creationism is obviously not falsifiable because it relies on miracles and supernatural events. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science. Thus, your religious claims are not science.

The entire creationist program includes nothing more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among the evidence. The fundamentalist christian brand of creationism is nothing more than biblical literalism. The fundies claim their religious dogma is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions.

"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Supernatural systems are dogma, not science.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



"Books of life", "Books of the Dead", "rebellious angels", "lakes of fire"... all while you claim that creationism is "scientific".

Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's (former) leading thumper, Duane Gish, from his (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, oh ye practitioners of voodoo magic, in the light of that last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I couldn't help but notice your complete befuddlement.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jul 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Your supposed "degree" is no defense for ignorance.


What's _your_ excuse?



> ...creationism is obviously not falsifiable...


Great, you are showing at least a capacity to learn and upgrade your position.  Well done.



> ...because it relies on miracles and supernatural events.


Better put, creationism contends that what folks label "supernatural" is not only possible, but not so supernatural when you consider the logical conclusion that what we see around us the simple effect of an outside force or cause.

Why folks like you are so comfortable embracing a logical fallacy, is beyond me.  You claim the high-ground on all things logical and scientific.... yet you insist that the universe came about from nothing, and without an antecedent cause.  Such thinking flies in the face of fundamental logic and science.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 14, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your supposed "degree" is no defense for ignorance.
> ...



Why yes, magical gawds are certainly logical and scientific.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > factotum said:
> ...



Obviously the evidence that was presented went over your head.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Not all of creationism has been falsified but that can be said of many scientific theories.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




Hollie you can dream.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No magic required hollie,that is the creators natural ability, and it will never be matched by all the scientists in the world with all the complicated machinery, tools, and knowledge they possess.


----------



## dblack (Jul 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Agent.Tom said:
> ...



You're a naturalist now! Welcome to the fold, bro.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Agent.Tom said:
> ...


There's nothing natural about alleged magical gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


There is nothing about creationism that is falsifiable because the premise is an appeal to magic and supernaturalism.

It says so in the Book of the Dead.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Obviously, you're befuddled. Using the various bibles to prove the various bibles are true to prove your gawds are true is not evidence of anything except dogma.     

Unfortunately, your propaganda is a poor substitute for rationality.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.



Because you can't possibly live without the thought of a Imaginary Sky Pixie watching your every move?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I never denied natural processes in nature that is what they extrapolate from as their evidence. What I deny is the origins of systematic processes arising through naturalism. They were a product of design or creation whichever term you prefer.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



B.S. I already presented you the evidence of creationism that can be falsified now show me how that evidence can't be falsified.


----------



## dblack (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I believe you claimed the origin of life to be 'supernatural', right? That's what hollie is referring to as 'magic'. If you're now denying that, that would seem to place you on the side of the naturalists. Can you clarify?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.
> ...



What is your Imaginary Sky Pixie that produced everything that exists in this universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yes I believe in supernaturalism but by definition supernaturalism is not magic.


----------



## dblack (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How do they differ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Are you asking how are supernaturalism and magic different ?


----------



## dblack (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



yes


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Supernaturalism is the natural ability of God to design and create, and it's beyond our comprehension.

When hollie speaks of magic she is referring to God waving a magic wand.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Feigned attempts at melodrama won't save your bankrupt argument. Your argument for creationism relies upon "supermagical" intervention by specific, sectarian gawd(s). 

Identify for us how anyone can falsify the existence of your gawd(s).


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


How strange. You insist that what you claim about your gawds, (absent any substantiation), is true and inerrant, yet you also admit your gawds are beyond your comprehension. 

You thoroughly dismantle your own arguments.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



How many times must I say I can't prove the existence of God but only infer a designer. How is that any different from inferring unguided naturalism produced systematic natural processes ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Wrong, as usual. It is you invoking magic as the the power of the gods.


Let me ponder on this for a moment...

"Supernaturalism is the natural ability of God to design and create, and it's beyond our comprehension.."

So... how do you know the above is true when you admit it's beyond your comprehension?

It must be magic?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No his ability is beyond our comprehension for now. If we unlock Gods ability it will be no different from man having the natural ability to design and create.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How many times are you going to thoroughly trash your arguments for the gods?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So what you're saying is origins of life is magic ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'm saying it's laughable to watch you refute your own argument for the gods and magic.


----------



## dblack (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I think the wand is figurative. How does magic differ from "beyond our comprehension"?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



 Maybe there is very little difference.

Quotes About Origin Of Life (8 quotes)


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You would have to ask hollie on that.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's a common tactic of yours to "quote-mine". So many of your "quotes" are frauds,  as they are from selected creation ministries.


----------



## dblack (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'm asking you. In particular, I'm asking what you meant by this statement:



Youwerecreated said:


> Yes I believe in supernaturalism but by definition supernaturalism is not magic.



... because I've always seen them as the same thing (ableit 'magic' is often used mockingly). You denied there is any 'magic' involved in a supernatural account of creation, so I'm asking what your definition of magic is and how it differs from supernatural.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This is the problem of your own manufacture. Without a single assist from anyone else, you refuted your own argument. You claim to know with 100% certainty that which you later admit is beyond your comprehension. 

This is the reason you're now left to "quote-mining".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



None of these quotes are frauds hollie, that is your imagination and denial at work,


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



About the wand comment.

The differences can't be explained any better thn this.

Dallas Willard on Christianity, Magic, and the Supernatural - Thinking Christian


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You take everything you read on your biased sites as it is beyond reproach, and that is not the case. Hell you can't even take the scientists word on the matter which are suppose to be your source for reality and knowledge.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You have difficulty separating dogma from actual science. There are identifiable standards that form the basis of what we call "knowledge". One of those standards is the "Scientific Method". It provides a means whereby a hypothesis is subject to a rigorous means of objective testing.

You still can't resolve that your subjective / emotional claims to your particular gawds are directly in competition with claims by others to different gawds. Your gawds are no more extant than the Greek gawds, the Hindu gawds, or any other gawds.  

To the back of the line for you and your gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You have demonstrated your dishonesty often enough for me to know that if your fingers are typing, it's probably a lie. 

I've had ample experience with your falsified, edited, parsed and out of context "quote-mining"


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*The problem is that creationism says god did it and that is NOT falsifiable.  Be honest with yourself and stop promoting this juvenile nonsense.  No real scientists accept creationism as anything other than a joke.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*Baloney.  You did nothing of the sort.  How do you explain away the "statement of faith" that so many creationist organizations require of their members? That alone rules it out as science.  You can do your song and dance and spew your canned creationist propaganda but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is a fairy tale that cannot qualify as a scientific theory.
*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*That means NOTHING.  Hundreds of years ago, science was in its infancy so it's not surprising that people back then reached some ridiculous conclusions.  The year is now 2013 and there is no excuse for the kind of primitive "thinking" that is behind creationism.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



*Creationism was designed to dupe gullible people into following the religious agenda and YWC has swallowed it hook line and sinker.  It's pathetic and a waste of brain matter.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

BarryDesborough said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



*YWC is resorting to the classic fundy "just you wait" threat that they use to close a comment when they have nothing of substance to offer.  YAWN.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Of course you are.  You peddle bullshit.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*Fundies historically suck at analogies and this one is no different.  If my house is on fire, that can be proven with cold hard scientific facts.  Your assertion, not so much.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




*Anyone who has taken basic psychology courses knows that positive reinforcement is much more effective at behavior modification than negative reinforcement.  Perhaps god flunked psychology.*


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 the yer gonna get yours ploy!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit you lie constantly...


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Agent.Tom said:
> ...



*You use unprovable assertions to support your argument.  You first have to present evidence of the existence of your god and THEN you can start arguing about his abilities.  Good luck.  You'd be the first person in history to be able to do so.*


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


talk about a misleading analogy !


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*

The elements of creationism that require a supernatural cause are what can't be falsified.  You're trying to pick and choose bits that are falsifiable and then saying the entire "theory" is legit.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*There is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know yet"*


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong! the only thing you can infer is the APPEARANCE of design...which in and of it's self is not evidence of a designer.. how many fucking times do you have to be told that!


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> 
> Is creationism scientific?







Because science is based on OBSERVABLE facts.  It is not interested in truth.  Religion is interested in truth.  That's as basic as I can get it for you.  That is the fundamental underlying difference between science and religion.  Creationism has no observable fact.  It has opinion, but there is nothing that we can observe that demonstrates creationism.

It's as simple as that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Juvenile nonsense because you say so ? You can't prove whether God did it or not so why would real science rule it out as a possibility ? You sure as heck can't produce a falsifiable theory showing it happening through naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I believe the same for your side now what ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Ditto,you angry young person.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Apparently you do not know the creationism theory. Do not quote me until you read it and then quote me and we will discuss the specifics instead of having these rhetorical responses to each other.

Respond to the evidence that is falsifiable, ok pumpkin ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Don't confuse me with your principles.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do you really understand a theory ?


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 15, 2013)

Here is proof for macro-evolution:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

From 1988 till 2010, scientists from Michigan State created populations of e. coli and observed them evolve in a controlled experiment.  When oxygen is present, e. coli cannot grow and citrate and that became a defining characteristic of this bacteria.

After 30,000 generations the e. coli gained the ability to grow on citrate.  This trait has been observed on the bacteria afterwards.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> ...



The funny thing is you people want us to produce God or strong evidence for God without building a case for a creator. Why is it you don't demand the same for naturalism ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> Here is proof for macro-evolution:
> Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli
> 
> From 1988 till 2010, scientists from Michigan State created populations of e. coli and observed them evolve in a controlled experiment.  When oxygen is present, e. coli cannot grow and citrate and that became a defining characteristic of this bacteria.
> ...



Wrong, wrong, wrong, this is one of your only examples of what you call Macro evolution but is it really when you really look at the evidence ?

Here let's do that.


Is Macroevolution True? A Response To Tim D.
Posted in: Creation/Evolution|By: Jonathan McLatchie|July 31, 20118 Comments	

When Frank recently informed me that he planned to publish a guest article by atheist Tim Duck on the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, I was immediately intrigued. As someone with some background and academic training in biology (I hold a degree in the field), I looked forward to reading what Tim had to say. When Frank forwarded me Tim&#8217;s final draft of his essay, however, the result was a tremendous anti-climax. The first half of the essay (which you can view here) was essentially wasted in laying out elementary concepts of biology known by every freshman undergraduate. When he finally did get around to presenting his case, the result was disappointing.

We were treated to a lengthy discussion of Michigan State University biologist Rick Lenski&#8217;s now-famous experimental work on E. coli (about which we are not ignorant). The only other identifiable positive argument for the claim in question was the assertion &#8211; without justification &#8211; that an indefinite extrapolation from micro- to macro- evolution is warranted. But since this is what Tim &#8211; allegedly &#8211; set out to prove, this constitutes a remarkable instance of begging the question.

But before getting into the specifics, allow me to highlight a few areas on which Tim and I are agreed. We agree that evolution possesses explicative power (we disagree over the extent). We agree that evolution does not entail atheism (one can accept evolution and remain a Christian theist). We agree that evolution, strictly speaking, has nothing to say on the origin of life. And we agree that argumentum ad consequentiam is a logical fallacy.


As to the specific example of adaptive evolution given to us by Tim D., this same example &#8212; as I recall &#8212; was given by Richard Dawkins in his most recent popular book, The Greatest Show on Earth. The case of the citrate transporter seems, to me, to be a weak one because it has been documented that wild-type E. coli can already use citrate under low-oxygen conditions. Under these conditions, citrate is transported into the cell (Pos et al. 1998). The gene in E. coli specifies a citrate transporter. In the presence of high levels of oxygen, it is thought that the citrate transporter doesn&#8217;t function or is not produced. Thus, wild-type E. coli already possesses the genes necessary for the transportation of citrate into the cell and its subsequent utilisation. Indeed, Lenski et al. (2008) note that &#8220;A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen level] conditions.&#8221; Such a scenario could take place by a loss of gene regulation (meaning that the gene is no longer expressed exclusively under low oxygen conditions) or a loss of transporter specificity.

Is Macroevolution True? A Response To Tim D. - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetics | Frank Turek


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...









Naturalism isn't a religion.  Naturalism is simply observing the world around you and recording what you see.  What *IS* there to demand of naturalism?  Further I don't demand that you produce anything at all.  *You* demand that I believe what you say. * You* demand that I believe as you do.  I say, no.  I will believe as I believe (which is agnostic) and I will demand nothing of any religion or religious person and I will respect them and their views.  I just require you to show the same courtesy to me.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> But since this is what Tim &#8211; allegedly &#8211; set out to prove, this constitutes a remarkable instance of begging the question.



First of all, that was not the point of this experiment.  More than 99% of scientist in like fields accept evolution.  






Youwerecreated said:


> As to the specific example of adaptive evolution given to us by Tim D., this same example &#8212; as I recall &#8212; was given by Richard Dawkins in his most recent popular book, The Greatest Show on Earth. The case of the citrate transporter seems, to me, to be a weak one because it has been documented that wild-type E. coli can already use citrate under low-oxygen conditions. Under these conditions, citrate is transported into the cell (Pos et al. 1998). The gene in E. coli specifies a citrate transporter. In the presence of high levels of oxygen, it is thought that the citrate transporter doesn&#8217;t function or is not produced. Thus, wild-type E. coli already possesses the genes necessary for the transportation of citrate into the cell and its subsequent utilisation. Indeed, Lenski et al. (2008) note that &#8220;A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen level] conditions.&#8221; Such a scenario could take place by a loss of gene regulation (meaning that the gene is no longer expressed exclusively under low oxygen conditions) or a loss of transporter specificity.
> 
> Is Macroevolution True? A Response To Tim D. - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetics | Frank Turek



Are these the same type of E.Coli?  If so, why did it take 20+ years and 30000 generations before it would grow on the citrate?  Why would you take the word of one scientist over many?


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > But since this is what Tim &#8211; allegedly &#8211; set out to prove, this constitutes a remarkable instance of begging the question.
> ...












Appeals to authority are never acceptable.  Argue your point properly.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do you mean "What If". 

Where is your proof?  

Also, the underlying problem with this is that 14 billion years ago, the Sky Pixie began the creation of the universe in order to obsess about what people in one region or even one planet are doing, or what kind of sex they are having. 

By your very definition, your Sky Pixie would have to be indifferent to us.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Appeals to authority are never acceptable.  Argue your point properly.



Was that a reference to me?  My point was that since evolution is accepted, there would have been no point to complete a 20+ year experiment to prove it existence.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes
> 
> Here are some more examples.
> 
> ...




This is juvenile nonsense because it is precisely a circular reference. Using the bibles to prove the bibles are true is juvenile.

Complimenting the theory of evolution is the _fact_ of evolution. Species change as there is variation within one _kind_ of animal. There is also a predictable range of genetic variation within a species, as there is an expected rate of random mutations within a species.

Creationists have no choice but to admit that a "kind" (BTW, this is a non-scientific and ambiguous term culled from the bibles) can develop into different species. A dog "kind" can evolve into foxes, coyotes, wolves and all the types of domestic dogs. Creationists then insist that evolution must stop there. Of course, they never provide any reason for this invented and fabricated limitation. They just deny that it can happen. Creationist can't accept &#8220;macro-evolution&#8221; because it immediately contradicts their dogma. As far as science is concerned, there is no limit to the degree that species can evolve and change. Given geologic time frames, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


real science? you already proven you know jack shit about "real science" 
no falsifiable theory  can be drawn from naturalism because it's a tool not evidence...  


Confusions On Evolution, Creationism, And Falsifiability
By Adam Retchless | February 20th 2010 09:15 AM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track 

Assorted creationists claim variously that creation theories are falsifiable and that evolutionary theories are not falsifiable. Here, I want to quickly point out a few flaws that I see in their arguments. I will discuss these issues in a more general manner in another post that I am currently writing.

Creationism is falsifiable: This essay from the Discovery Institute provides two arguments, neither of which are satisfying. 

First, they look at the idea of irreducible complexity (IC, a component of Intelligent Design theory), and claim that it can be falsified by finding an evolutionary explanation for the structure in question. This does not match my understanding of "falsifiability" because IC does not make any predictions of its own, it just asks to be compared against an evolutionary explanation. As such, they are actually asking "What is more plausible, evolution or design?". This can be a productive question, but is not the gold standard of falsifiability. Even within this framework, the proponents of IC rely on an unjustified bias, assuming that as long as there is not an airtight evolutionary explanation, the IC explanation is valid (i.e. this is a "god of the gaps" argument). However, if we are just working with plausibility, the evolutionary explanation already trumps the IC explanation simply because we've observed countless instances of mutation, but no instances of intelligent design. Mutation is a more plausible explanation in all situations, without any further research. (Update: To clarify, with no known mechanism of ID, the explanation is completely implausible and therefore there is no way that we could examine existing life to see if its structure is more consistent with ID or evolution). Scientists gain nothing by considering the possibility of IC. For what it's worth, an evolutionary explanation has been proposed for their example of the bacterial flagellum.

The second example they give, the Privileged Planet hypothesis, may be theoretically falsifiable, but seems totally impotent as science. Based on what is written in the Discovery Institute essay (I haven't read the book or watched the movie), there is no reason to expect any of these predictions to be tested within my lifetime. Furthermore, the predictions all seem to boil down to "we expect alien life to be like known life", which is not a risky prediction, and therefore is not informative. At best, the privileged planet hypothesis is a dormant scientific hypothesis waiting for that century when we can test it. At worst, it is a scam to draw money from people who really want to legitimize ID.

Evolution cannot be falsified: This article at CreationWiki is just a mess, but what can you expect from a small wiki?

First, they claim that historical theories cannot be tested. This is untrue. Historical theories are regularly tested by a back-and-forth process that involves new observations of the patterns created by historical processes, and predictions based on processes known to occur in the modern world. For instance, a hypothesis about the relatedness of two organisms can be tested by making a prediction about how similar their DNA sequences will be (based on observed mutational processes) and then sequencing their genomes (new information) and seeing whether the prediction is upheld. For what it's worth, evolution is not the only historical science--astronomy and geology both rely on historical models. I also don't know why historical sciences would be treated differently than history in general, as if the testimony of witnesses is trivial to interpret (despite changes in languages, the diverse motives that people have when they write, and even the limits of human memory).

Second, when saying that only "subtheories" can be tested, they totally misrepresent what subtheories are (i.e. hypotheses). In evolutionary theories, the "subtheories" are not limited to things like evolution in a test tube (actually a fact, not a theory), they include things like asking whether birds are more closely related to mammals or dinosaurs (or bacteria). They could even include questions such as "Are birds related to mammals or dinosaurs at all". To use their "rocketship" analogy, this is like asking whether the ship landed in Asia or North America, and whether there were multiple ships.

The rest of the article seems to be nit-picking over details of evolutionary theory. The authors treat the evolving nature of evolutionary theory as evidence that it cannot be falsified. This viewpoint ignores the fact that the theory is not just refined to explain some fact and then left alone; any new hypothesis makes a variety of predictions which are then tested. These predictions involve both the historical artifacts (e.g. fossils and genome sequences), and the ongoing processes that allow populations to change (e.g. population growth, how quickly forms can change).

In the end, creationists complain that when one evolutionary hypothesis is rejected, it is replaced with another. They see this as evidence that "evolution" as a whole cannot be falsified. They are misguided on two points. First, a theory is not tested as a whole--it is tested in parts and the theory fails when so many of its parts have been demolished (or co-opted into other theories) that it can no longer be recognized as a theory. This is what happened with Spontaneous Generation, which required a few centuries between the recognition that it doesn't apply to flies, and its final death when it was conclusively demonstrated not to apply to microbes either. Their second error is their failure to recognize that evolution simply requires that life can change and that it has had sufficient time to change (i.e. the Earth is old).

As long as those conditions are met, and there is no plausible alternative mechanism for generating the diversity of life, some form of evolutionary theory will have a central place in biology.
Confusions On Evolution, Creationism, And Falsifiability


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Appeals to authority are never acceptable.  Argue your point properly.
> ...







Yes, it was directed at you.  I don't care what is accepted.  Science isn't done by consensus.
You made a statement so argue the point properly, you'll learn more about what you speak when you do that, and others will learn more other than "well they believe it".  

The religious have their appeals to authority too and they are just as irrelevant.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


your belief in not relevant...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you have no principles..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


dodge! if god existed there would be no need to build a case...it would be obvious to everyone..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is proof for macro-evolution:
> ...


biased not credible site...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I don't force my views on anyone. I tell you what I think you can decide for yourself what to believe.

The only ones I get testy with sometimes are the ones that claim to know more than they actually know, and use their vulgar language as if it adds credibility to their argument.

The hard core atheist that I have dealt with in this forum clearly believe treat their view of atheism as a religion.

Religion

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

World English Dictionary
religion  (r&#618;&#712;l&#618;d&#658;&#601;n

5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: 

Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > But since this is what Tim  allegedly  set out to prove, this constitutes a remarkable instance of begging the question.
> ...



I do to, just not the larger scale of evolution.

What do you think Dawkins was commenting about ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



My proof you won't accept.

I also have faith in the scriptures.

The rest of your post is not worthy of a response ,like most of hollies and daws posts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes
> ...



Sorry but many things contained in the bible have been confirmed through modern science and at the time of the writing of the scriptures man did not possess the ability to know such things.


----------



## westwall (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...








Yes, I find hard core atheists just as annoying as hard core deists.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So you are claiming science is a religion?  Cuz I'm pretty sure that most athiests will tell you they know there is no god because the agree with the philosophy of naturalism. It isn't a question of faith.  It's a question of knowiny what you can prove.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jul 15, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.
> ...


This is the very typical way in which so many destroy would could be fruitful, informative debates.  Read the OP.  There is no reference to any "sky pixies" being part of the definition.

People insult others and make stuff up when they simply just don't have the facts, or intellect, whichever the case may be, to engage in real discussion.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jul 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Why yes, magical gawds are certainly logical and scientific.


Another one who--predictably--just browsed through the OP and conveniently distorted the definition of creationism.

100 years ago, a computer would have been considered in the realm of "magic."  Simply suggesting that the universe was _created_, makes absolutely zero assertions that therefore "magical gawds" and "sky pixies" were responsible for it.  A couple of millennia from now, we'll be able to create our _own_ universes.  When we succeed in doing so, are you going to stick by your argument that therefore, we must be "magical gawds," or sky pixies?

Your arguments boil down to nothing but hostile rhetoric and emotion; completely devoid of facts.  You are the least logical and scientific participant in this entire thread.  It's funny that so many in your trendy little "click" laugh at the idea of "it's true because the bible says so," when, your retort is even _less_ credible... "it's not true because we say so."


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 15, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but look... no one is stupid enough to think that the foundation of Creationism and Intelligent Design is anything else but conservative Christian religious GOD THE CREATOR.  

First it was GOD created man and all the beasts.  Then it was GOD created the process and guided it. No matter how you package it, it is and always will be based of some great creator GOD.

That's why you get called to the carpet every time about mythical sky pixies.  Because noone is stupid enough to buy the bs just because you left out the word "GOD".  Christ, your the one that has the book that says not to worship icons, or however that goes.  Words are just icons. It's the meaning that counts, not the word.  You can avoid saying GOD, but we can smell the bullshit a mile away.

You can't get an intellectual conversation because you're being disingenous from the start.  It is either on purpose or you simply have no clue of where Creationism and Intelligent Design came from.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Obviously, you can't identify a single thing  your soothsaying bibles have made predictions for. As you should be aware, your earlier cut and paste of "miraculous predictions of the bibles" was shown to be a fraud. 

What a shame that you feel this need to equate your bibles with tarot card reading, crystal ball gazing and card tricks.

One of the true dangers of religious zealotry is the belief among zealots that their holy texts are the only texts that anyone needs to read. They believe their holy texts hold all knowledge that anyone needs to know and worse, that their holy texts predict the future.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I do to, just not the larger scale of evolution.
> 
> What do you think Dawkins was commenting about ?



Huh?  I'm confused by that last question.

Here is a link to Dawkins book when he was discussing the Lenski experiment: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution - Richard Dawkins - Google Books

On page 124, Dawkins said the following:
"The astonishing result they found was that 59 genes had changed in the same direction.  Were it not for natural selection, such as independent parallelism, in 59 genes independently, would completely beggar belief.  The odds against its happening by chance are stupefying large.  This is exactly the kind of thing creationists say cannot happen, because they think it is too improbable to have happened by chance."

On page 130, " The magic moment turned out to be approximately generation 20,000.  Thawed-out clones of Ara-3 that dated from after generation 20,000 in the 'fossil record' showed increased probability of _subsequently_ evolving citrate capability.  No clones that dated from before generation 20,000 did.  According to the hypothesis, after generation 20,000 the clones were now 'primed' to take advantage of mutation B whenever it came along."


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



*The facts are on my side, not yours.  Deal with it and stop making a fool of yourself.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I'm not angry, just frustrated that people like you have a wealth of information available at your fingertips on the internet and yet you choose voluntarily to believe childish fantasies that have ZERO evidence to support them.  Yes, you are entitled to remain ignorant but the problem is that you and your ilk either want to take everyone with you or criticize those of us who graduated to adulthood by getting a good education.  There is no excuse for ignorance like yours.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*You're once again avoiding the point which is that creationism has a supernatural element to it and that alone makes the entire "theory" unscientific.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Yes, I understand what a scientific theory is.  You're the one who apparently does not.*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



I would not rely on the internet for your education. People do actually believe to much of this information on the internet.

As to the specific example of adaptive evolution given to us by Tim D., this same example  as I recall  was given by Richard Dawkins in his most recent popular book, The Greatest Show on Earth. The case of the citrate transporter seems, to me, to be a weak one because it has been documented that wild-type E. coli can already use citrate under low-oxygen conditions. Under these conditions, citrate is transported into the cell (Pos et al. 1998). The gene in E. coli specifies a citrate transporter. In the presence of high levels of oxygen, it is thought that the citrate transporter doesnt function or is not produced. Thus, wild-type E. coli already possesses the genes necessary for the transportation of citrate into the cell and its subsequent utilisation. Indeed, Lenski et al. (2008) note that A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen level] conditions. Such a scenario could take place by a loss of gene regulation (meaning that the gene is no longer expressed exclusively under low oxygen conditions) or a loss of transporter specificity.

Did you not grasp this ?

Is Macroevolution True? A Response To Tim D. - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetics | Frank Turek




If you do not like my education, take it up with the University of Arizona.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I do to, just not the larger scale of evolution.
> ...



This is an assumption.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Do you understand how really low the number of factual evidence that exist in science compared to nonfactual evidence ? This is why theories are constantly revised.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



and Naturalism does not ? by acknowledging the possibility of design what is inferred but not proven ? by acknowledging natural processes what is inferred but not proven ?


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*You're avoiding the point yet again.  Unbelievable.  You seem to believe that "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".  Your avoidance tactics are so transparent and trying to have an intelligent conversation with you is a waste of time.*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This will come as a shock to you but every discovery about the natural world made by science has had a completely natural and explainable cause. Every one.

Your need for "magic" to be a requirement for existence is strictly a function of your self-imposed intellectual limitations and a desperate attempt to promote your fears and ignorance.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...








I thought liberals were about inclusiveness and tolerance.  Clearly you are tolerant of only those who agree with you.  In other words you are no better than the worst of the most intolerant of religious nutters.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...







Why do you care?  How on Earth do their beliefs possibly affect you?  You are no better than they are.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...









This is untrue.  Some theories have little evidence to support them.  Anthropogenic global warming is an excellent example of that, however plate tectonics is well understood, most of the physical laws are likewise well understood, we still don't know what gravity truly is, we can accurately measure it, and we can accurately predict its effect, but we still don't really know what it is.

But overall I would say that 90% of the scientific theories out there are so well understood to the point that we can accurately predict any interaction out to four nines at any distance or time.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...








Here you go off of the rails.  There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God.  When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

The annoying thing about Creationists is the lack of symetry. *If science can't prove it to a 100% degree of certainty then their 0% faith based perspective is certainly correct. *And they love the "well, I didn't overtly state that and you can't prove I am implying it, therefore, you can't argue against it",bs.*

And yet, they will assume the other person's statement implies whatever bs implication they want to stick in there, inspite of a presenter's best effort.

The speaker has the control over what they are implying and it is up to the speaker to manage that. *And fundamentalists know this, deny they are, and ignore other's reasonable effort to do so.

The reality of language and communication is that it always carries a number of implied meanings. This is why science experiment and proof is grounded in careful presentation of the experimental setup and the specific measurement in terms of exactly defined mearurable quantity and value. *The history of scientific experiments and theory create the context for whatever folllows, for the very narrow implications of the experimental results. (Law is like that.) *Beyond that very specificly defined setup, measure, and results, any presentation becomes a bit fuzzier.

Psychology and advertising recognises that language also carries with it subjective feeling. *The nature of biblical speak is one of manipulating the language to get the right feeling, not to describe the objective world. *

What they miss is that while religion and creationism cannot encompass the nature of science, science can, and does, have the capability of capturing, defining, measuring, and explaining religion and creationism.

Religion and Creationism is like a teenage girl saying, "You don't understand me." *Of course science understands religion. *It just doesn't express it in the fuzzy, feeling based language that religion prefers. *That is with one exception, the environmemt of psychology and individual psychotherapy.

It's a set theory thing. *The universe is the largest set. Naturalism recognizes that this is all of it. *In that set, there is science and religion. *Science is a large part of that set, as it continues to observe the universe and explain more and more. Inside that set are numerous subsets. *Two are phsychology amd history. *Religion is inside of those two, part historical, part social psychology, part individual psychology.

Because*science explains religion, it knows where religion goes. *Religion wants to claim dominion over the uknown universe. *It can't even recognize it's own place in the larger universe. *And the only way that it can maintain it's illusion is by manipulating language along emotional impied contexts and avoiding real physical measures. *Indeed, it's contant attempt to claim dominion over the ever decreasing unknown is by never doing so. *By definition, what is not capable of being objectively experienced cannot be directly measured. *And what is unknown has never been measured. *

All religion has got is to say, "You can't directly measure what I'm thinking, ergo you can't know it or prove it."

But guess what, I can know it because I also know what is not being said. I once accused someone of something. *He replied, "You don't know that. You didn't SEE me do it." *And I knew with certainty, not from abduction but because of what he didn't say. *He didn't say, "I didn't do it." *He's a pathological liar. To lie, he must conjure up an image of how it might reasonably be otherwise. *He needs a "reasonable" lie. *That takes time, that takes forethought. *Faced with the sudden accusation, he couldn't just flat out lie. He first had to consider if I might have seem him. *Anyone having not done it would not had given a thought to if i had seen it. That would be obvious as they didn't do it.

Crearionism and Intelligent Design arguements that avoid, hide, otherwise don't state the obvious foundation tell me something. What is being avoided tells me that they they are trying to bs around it. It tells me, like that pathological liar, that they know they are being disengenous. *It isn't in what they say, it is in what they avoid saying. *They know that a naturalist attaches a negative feeling to "god" and they are avoiding that feeling as they atempt to manipulate feelings with language.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


*
I care because people like him are the type who are trying to get their fantasies taught as fact in public schools.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I'd bet that if they were geniuses in the field of science, any belief in a god wouldn't be literal.*


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Actually, there are people that are better than other people. My doctor is better than me.  I am better than some people.  I know some that I am clearly better than, in all honesty.

I just don't get to kill them.  But I surely do get to tell them what they need to do.  And I surely have exposed them for being chronic liars.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



My views must threaten you.

The only difference yours are being taught.

I have a question for you.

What definite evidence supports the claim for a natural origin to life?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have before,like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Non-sequiter because they didn't pass it off as science or objective truth.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



You mean to tell me you have no answer ? how is it bullshit Mr. critical thinker ?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Nature, all of it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Here ya go genius !

What definite evidence supports the claim for a natural origin to life?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You can lead a Creationist to MIT but you can't make him think.

Sayings aren't what, where, when, how much.

Like I said, just emotional language manipulation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



A person who uses 10% of his brain has all the answers correct ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Really ! so you're gonna give an answer that violates the law of biogenesis ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Tell that to my University.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Waffle. I've noticed with regularity that requiring the religious extremist to support his statements will send him running for the exits.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do you really want the 101 evidences of foreknowledge from the bible again ?


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

Here you go off of the rails.  There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God.  When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.

*I'd bet that if they were geniuses in the field of science, any belief in a god wouldn't be literal.*

A person who uses 10% of his brain has all the answers correct ?
*
Is that another attempt to shift the focus of the conversation?  Who do you think you're fooling?*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Certainly not, because that nonsense has been refuted the last eight times you dumped it into various threads. 

Your silly wall of text from "anointed-one', is a laughable joke of "quote-mining".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Here you go off of the rails.  There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God.  When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.
> 
> *I'd bet that if they were geniuses in the field of science, any belief in a god wouldn't be literal.*
> 
> ...



Sorry but it's reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You're are so full of crap hollie your eyes are brown.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*What I am telling you is that you're avoiding addressing the point that kills your argument.*


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No, just a couple that define countable quantities and specific dates within a reasonabke variance that can be used to predict other future events by adjusting the numbera to account for variations in the controlled variables.

You know, like how physics mechanics can predict the precise location on the planets and their moons to a degree of precision afforded by relativity.

Just something like that.  Or how about the probability of rain next week.

Anyone can say, sometime in the future, a really bad thing is going to happen and people will feel bad about it except for the people that it didn't happen to.

The CDC does a better job of predicting the flu.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Here you go off of the rails.  There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God.  When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.
> ...



*If only you could prove that!  That's your fundamental problem - there is no evidence to support the claims that creationists make and once again I will ask you how a real scientist could allow anyone to limit his scientific conclusions to those that support the bible?*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not at all. I already exposed that nonsense cut and paste wall of text as a load of fundamentalist lies and "quote-mining"


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



*Exactly.  They lie because they MUST.*


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The annoying thing about Creationists is the lack of symetry. *If science can't prove it to a 100% degree of certainty then their 0% faith based perspective is certainly correct. *And they love the "well, I didn't overtly state that and you can't prove I am implying it, therefore, you can't argue against it",bs.*
> 
> And yet, they will assume the other person's statement implies whatever bs implication they want to stick in there, inspite of a presenter's best effort.
> 
> ...



Religion is about manipulation and control of believers. Yes, it is hidden behind window dressing and special effects but ultimately it is just exploitation of fear of the unknown. Believers are held hostage by their own gullibility and fear. Easy pickings for the unscrupulous.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



I am not avoiding it. I have stated in this thread and many other threads I can't prove the existence of God I can look at the evidence and infer a superior intelligence thats all. When it comes to origins you can't prove nature naturally produced life. Hell when you suggest nature did it, you're breaking a known scientific law.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*
Your views threaten young children if they are taught as fact in schools.  My views are not being taught because they are my views.  Facts are being taught and my views just happen to coincide because I accept the facts.*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Ok so now we are at a crossroads. once I point out an obvious flaw in the reasoning of the naturalists they resort to insults,typical and not surprising.

None of you can show how your views are superior and that is a typical tactic insult the person that does not believe as you do.

Check mate fundies.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*That wasn't even the point so again you are avoiding it.  You're as slippery as a greased pig.*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Do you have that evidence I asked of you and the others ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Evidently you have a comprehension problem.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What did I lie about ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.





YWC needs his meds checked, stat!


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...








Once again, why do you care?  So long as evolution is taught as well, what do you have to fear?   Anyone who is unwilling to let multiple viewpoints be taught isn't interested in education.  They are only interested in propaganda.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.







No, not really.  There is no logic to creationism.  There is a great deal of faith, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is little logic involved.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Here you go off of the rails.  There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God.  When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.
> 
> *I'd bet that if they were geniuses in the field of science, any belief in a god wouldn't be literal.*
> 
> ...







I suggest you educate yourself then.  Read some history.  A lot of history in fact.  You will find many, many certifiable geniuses who had a profound faith in the almighty.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.
> ...



According to the evidence,logically I just showed naturalism is no more scientific then a creation. You can't rule out a designer only an ideologue would do so. This view that life spontaneously generated itself from nature is a view based in faith,and violates the law of Biogenesis.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no "law" of Biogenesis. It is a *BELIEF* not unlike your belief in "creationism".


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.
> ...



Told you, manipulates own feelings to feel good.  Not a bad thing, everyone does.  It just can be psychotic.

The human brain consists of multiple smaller brains that work together in a hyrarchical structure. 

 The evolution is clear as the sympathetic/parasympathetic system is commom down the species chain.  It is often refered to as the lizard brain.  

The mammillary brain is common down to dogs, bears, etc.  No forehead is a clue.  It is, in combination with the amygdala, is primarily responsible for emotion and memory organization.  I see a racoon, I remember the bad experience from the last time, or having beem told it is bad, my hypothalimus is triggered to increase hormones, particularly by triggering adrenal function. My amygdala is triggered among with my sympathetic nervous system.  

The cerebelum, cerebrial cortex, ocipital lobe, etc, is primarily responsible higher order thinking, logic, forethought, etc.  I am convinced it is responsible for what we consider consciousness because the signals can be traced arounx the looop wherenit feeds back to the hypothalimus and the optic nerve pathways.  We see our own pictures in our head.

The cerebelum also manipulates the mammillary brain, and by proxy, feeling.

Depending on training and genetics, the cerebrial cortex can be the driver of making feelings match reality or supporting fantacy.  With good training, through childhood, a single word and concept can be trained in to create a good feeling that becomes necessary.  

The brain doesn't really give a crap about reality.  What it gives a crap about is maintaining homeostasis.  Take away that primal object, and homesostasis is lost.

He can no more relinquish himself of his internal image of god than he can change the color of his eyes.  In fact, trained well, some would gouge their own eyea out than let go of that internal image. (no, really, not an exageration, just an outlier)


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit

The final eleven facts from the 101 given here. The aim of the exercise that Eternal Productions (who compiled the list) set themselves was to take a modern scientific claim or explanation, and to show us the Biblical verse which foretells or prefigures said claim/explanation. Thus far, after 90 such claims have been examined, none have withstood scrutiny; in fact, 51  over half  have been revealed not to be any sort of scientific claim.

91.Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in Gods image.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

92.Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science). True science agrees with the Creators Word.

On the basis of the evidence of these facts, Id beg to differ. No scientific claim is being tested here.

93. Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews  which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

94. Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.

The etymology lesson is next to useless, because the earliest Biblical manuscripts were not written in neither English nor Latin (where the roots of the word conscience lie). No scientific claim is being tested here.

95. Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, Gods Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

96. The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donors character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).

No scientific claim is being tested here.

97. The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted  introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

98. Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die  The soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of Gods Law. To see if you will die, please review Gods Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then youre an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creators name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy  and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.

No scientific claim is being tested here. Its more of a sermon

99. Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death  which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.

More theological claims. No scientific claim is being tested here.

100. Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person  free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.

Science is not trying to cure aging and death as such  theyre certainly not searching in vain. A lot of theology, but no scientific claim is being tested here.

101. The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Revelation 21:4).

We end on preaching, rather than demonstrable scientific truth: No scientific claim is being tested here.

Astonishingly, not one of the eleven so-called scientific facts are scientific facts at all, and can therefore be dismissed. This means that only 39 of the 101 facts are genuine attempts to put an understanding of a scientific claim to the Bible. 62 are simply not any sort of scientific claim at all.

However, none  not a single one  of the 39 stand up: they either misread the Bible, or show an inadequate understanding of science.

Im genuinely surprised at that over well over half of the 101 facts are not even attempts at scientific claims, but rather just comment or anti-evoltution rhetoric.

The final part in this series will attempt to derive some sort of conclusion from this exercies, and wrap up my own particular efforts at tackling the absurd claims of Creationism.

Exposed: 101 Scientific Facts in the Bible | Science and the Bible Archive


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are confusing faith, belief based on a probability of less than 1%. With confidence, belief based on a probability of greater than 95%.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I was actually staring in shocked disbelief at the newly created "law of bioiogenesis". It must be a law he read about on Harun Yahya.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


intelligent Design Creationists Attempt to (re)Define Junk DNA

Paul McBride is causing quite a stir among the creationists. His review of Science & Human Origins was so devastating that they couldn't ignore it.

Jonathan McLatchie (Jonathan M) is the latest creationist to attempt a defense of the home team. He concentrates on defending the Intelligent Design Creationist position on junk DNA [A Response to Paul McBride on Junk DNA]. 

On this topic (junk DNA), the IDiots make a lot of errors. One of them is to deliberately conflate "junk DNA" and "noncoding DNA" so that when they come up with evidence for function in noncoding DNA they can tout this as evidence against junk DNA. This error is so pervasive in the IDiot literature that Paul McBride even predicted that Casey Luskin would make this mistake in the book.

Here's how Jonathan McLatchie responds ..
In his review, McBride notes that he had predicted that Luskin would "conflate non-coding DNA and junk DNA, and that Luskin would exploit this erroneous conflation by pointing to known functions of non-coding DNA as evidence against junk DNA."

Of course, no one today (including the likes of Larry Moran, PZ Myers and T. Ryan Gregory) denies that at least some non-protein-coding DNA serves important functions. The term "junk DNA" was first coined in 1972 in a paper by Susumu Ohno. Although Ohno believed that the vast majority of the DNA that didn't code for proteins was "the remains of nature's experiments which failed," Ohno suggested that "these silent DNA base sequences may now be serving the useful but negative function of spacing [genes]."

McBride writes,
I'd like just once to see all these references where all these researchers are saying that if DNA does not code for a protein then it is junk.
As stated above, no credible scientist claims that all non-coding DNA is "junk."
Good for you, Jonathan McLatchie. You seem to be one of the few Intelligent Design Creationists who pay attention to the science. But now you need to go one step farther. You need to acknowledge that your colleagues are dead wrong. Casey Luskin, a lawyer, gets it wrong quite often but what about Jonathan Wells who wrote a whole book on the subject?


Here's an excerpt from an interview with Denyse O'Leary [Jonathan Wells on his book, The Myth of Junk DNA &#8211; yes, it is a Darwinist myth and he nails it as such].
Denyse O'Leary: So, for those who dropped science after Grade Ten, what is junk/non-coding DNA?

Jonathan Wells: &#8220;Non-coding&#8221; in this context means &#8220;non-protein-coding.&#8221; An important function of our DNA is to specific the sequences of subunits (amino acids) in the proteins that (along with other types of molecules) make up our bodies. When molecular biologists discovered in the 1970s that about 98% of our DNA does not code for proteins, some biologists called non-protein-coding DNA &#8220;junk.&#8221;
Oops! Jonathan Wells says that some biologists referred to all noncoding DNA as junk but McLatchie admits that this is not true. 

Those two need to have a talk. It's what honest people do.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/08/intelligent-design-creationists-attempt.html


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Nothing is an assumption.  Everything has been observed in the Michigan St. Lab.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


show us the your proof that it's an assumption.

prime example of an assumption : god said....


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


how would you know? you use all of your brain and it is barely .00005 of a %


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you mean the theory of biogenesis...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you mean the one I've debunked at least 101 times ..?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Here you go off of the rails.  There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God.  When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.
> ...


yes it is, what's also reality is you aren't in that group


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...








No, you really didn't.  I know you think you did but that is because you don't understand how to lay out a logical argument without instilling faith into it.  It's not a condemnation it is merely an observation.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








And Pasteur pretty solidly proved it false.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really want the 101 evidences of foreknowledge from the bible again ?
> ...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...




hypothesis!!!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > youwerecreated said:
> ...


specious erroneous conjecture based on a non verifiable assumption..
I think that about covers it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 16, 2013)

Evolution has given us advances in understanding of cancer, antibiotic resistance, anatomy, and autoimmune disease.  It has given us the flu shots.

What practical applications could come from learning creationism?


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> Evolution has given us advances in understanding of cancer, antibiotic resistance, anatomy, and autoimmune disease.  It has given us the flu shots.
> 
> What practical applications could come from learning creationism?








What practical applications derive from art?  Better take care where you tread....you might not like the unintended consequences.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> Evolution has given us advances in understanding of cancer, antibiotic resistance, anatomy, and autoimmune disease.  It has given us the flu shots.
> 
> What practical applications could come from learning creationism?


cross burning and goats who stand in front of striped posts will have striped offspring.
climate change is a hoax etc... great party trivia


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution has given us advances in understanding of cancer, antibiotic resistance, anatomy, and autoimmune disease.  It has given us the flu shots.
> ...


snicker....art is the basis for all practical applications.
design drawings and schematics are an art unto themselves..  
creationism has no practical value ...it does however, have some esthetic value.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...







Creationism makes some people feel good.  It gives them a purpose and it moderates their behavior.  Just like art.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I don't know where you got the impression that art is taught to make people feel good.  There are careers in art and it has a practical use.  

Instead of diverting the argument into one on the discussion of art in the classroom, please advise what practical applications could come from learning creationism?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


you're right...imo we make meaning and purpose ..life is just life.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


creationism could be taught as a example of the dangers of superstition or the power of belief.
that kind of knowledge has great practical benefits.
creationism will not teach you to connect your dvd correctly.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...







I view art and creationism the same in many respects.   There is much art that does nothing of value except to its creator.  That is the nature of some art.  The same go's for creationism.  Some people derive a great deal of comfort from that belief, just like some people derive a great deal of comfort from art.  Why is it acceptable to denigrate one and not the other?

Put another way, why do you fear creationism?  The nature of education is to teach all angles.  Anyone who limits you to a single viewpoint isn't teaching at all, they are merely speaking at you.  No one should fear creationism so long as evolution is taught as well.  If there were only creationism being taught I would have the same viewpoint.

My daughter is 7 years old now and she is getting a hell of an education from me in the hard sciences, the soft sciences from her mom and regular school work at her private school.  We fear nothing for her because she will have the tools to make a good decision no matter what comes her way.

That is how education should be.

Do you see the difference?


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...






!  it can also be used to teach how thought processes have changed through the millennia and can also be used to show how belief in a higher form can lead people to do extraordinary things that they would not have done otherwise.  Creationism is not a negative, it just is.  Anyone who denigrate creationists and thinks of themselves as somehow morally superior is deluding themselves.  The only thing that matters is how people interact with each other, a gay vegan who murders someone is no better than the creationist nutter who does the same now are they?


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth.  The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided.  It is provide a use in the real world.  Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution.  Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

I love it when the ignorant lead the stupid I can get you all at once lol.





Edit page | Page history | Printable version
Dictionary » L » Law of biogenesis	
Law of biogenesis

Definition

noun

(1) The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material. 

Law of biogenesis - definition from Biology-Online.org

law of biogenesis  
Web definitions
Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders. It may also refer...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_biogenesis

Law Of Biogenesis
Search for Law Of Biogenesis With 100's of Results at WebCrawler
law.webcrawler.com/

biogenesis /bio·gen·e·sis/ (-jen´&#277;-sis)
1. origin of life, or of living organisms.
2. the theory that living organisms originate only from other living organisms.

Law of biogenesis - definition of Law of biogenesis in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Now would you like to produce that evidence for nonliving material producing life.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...



Well from the appearance they are not doing a good job of teaching naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It doesn't really matter any way, it remains a suppositional hypothesis.  We do know, though, that the Earth was not originally condusive to life as we now.  We also know that life, as we know it now and in the fossil record, evolved. What we don't know is that some mythical and all powerfull being started it.  So it is a more reasonable hypothesis that life did begin spontaneously.  

Therw are two hypothesis;

a) life simply began spontaneously is a manner similar to all known observations or

b) it was created by some mythical being that has never been obseved.

You are quite welcome to the absurd second hylothesis.  But it remains unfounded by any evidence.  Just don't think anyone is stupid enough to buy into it as somehow scientific. And don't bother searching for some "logic" or "definitions" that you think will give the idea "authority".  Your mythical sky creature isn't an authority and you haven't inhereted any of it just because you "believe".


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's obvious that you're just clueless.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



What are you even talking about. One doesn't teach naturalism. One teaches science.  Naturalism is a perspective that arises naturally out of observation and science.  

It is akin to saying, "teach universilism".  The universe is something that all exists within. One teaches about the things in the universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Law of Biogenesis. Fact ie ,the number of examples of biogenesis is so high it is beyond reproach.

But go ahead and cling to someones vivid imagination.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Sure hollie


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...



Really, maybe you should quit playing word games rejoin reality.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I'm not aware of any school syllabus that includes "naturalism". You should spend some time to understand terms and definitions. 

You are likely confusing "naturalism" with courses in chemistry, biology, paleontology, geology, etc.  It seems you personally find study in those aforementioned topics as an infringement upon bible study time.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Were you scouring Harun Yahya when you came across this "law" you're rattling on about?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...



So are you now saying life did not arise through natural processes ?


nat·u·ral·ism
[nach-er-uh-liz-uhm, nach-ruh-] Show IPA
noun

4.
Philosophy .
a.
the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b.
the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Hollie did you notice one source was biology online. It is a law and has so much evidence backing it,it can't be denied. You are really looking silly trying to spin your way out of the stupor you're in.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're not paying attention.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So, you were scouring Harun Yahya. 

In your stupor, did you happen to notice that Harun Yahya is a laughable joke?


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...









There are no practical applications for most art, nor a whole host of other liberal arts, and yet, artists are honored and feted.  You fear creationism, I don't, it's as simple as that.  Until you figure out why you're afraid of it you will be an absolutist.  Absolutists are just as dangerous as creationists.


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I love it when the ignorant lead the stupid I can get you all at once lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Interesting that you left off the Supplement.....  You do yourself no credit when you selectively edit my friend.  It shows weakness and a unwillingness to debate fairly or properly.  The same go's for the name calling.

*The theory has been discredited in time when modern science and genetics have raised doubt its validity. *


----------



## westwall (Jul 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...








You too need to read a history book.  Science arose from naturalism.  Naturalism was first practiced by the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and is the basis for the scientific method we use today.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As far as science is concerned there is EVERY shred of evidence that refutes it because therd is NO shred of evidence that supports is.

This is the philosophical, axiomatic difference between faith and naturalism. Faith is a probability of future occurance based on past experience of zero may be taken an not proven false.  Science says it is proven false.  You say "It could be true"  I say, I don't care if "it could be", I don't perscribe medicine, pay my mechanic, or start up a manufacturing facility unless it IS TRUE.

You say true until proven false.  I say false until proven true.  You say hypothetically true without any proof contrary.  I say hypothesis only if evidence provides some reason to pursue it.

I don't need to prove it false. It is false because it isn't true.  It isn't true until it is true.

(On a side note, I was considering the planets, and their moons, particularly Jupiter, the other day. And I thought, now what good are those things anyways? What purpose could those ridiculous balls of gas and rock, orbitting some small star in the vast emptyness of space.  And it struck me. They have no purpose.   No intelligent being would have created them.  That alone is "proof".  The shear absurdity of it is proof enough.)


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yeah, I knew you would go there in your driving things toward a bullshit philosophical level.

I'm saying that one doesn't teach naturalism as a subject. *One teaches science. *Your trying to play word game manipulation like word definitions are some sort of authority of GOD. *

Words aren't mathematical equations. *They are defined by usage. *People use them, then Mirrian-Webster reads how they are used and writes it down.

What does the word "may" and "should" mean? *"Might"? "Ought to"? "Will"? "Shall"?

Either you get our meaning, that there is no standardized course called "naturalism" *and it isn't a choice of "teaching naturalism" or "creationism".

Oddly, I noticed that Hollie and I said, basically and independently, the exact same thing.  That is because we are paying attention.

If anyone isn't paying attention, it would be you. *I am clearly understanding your meaning. You're failure to undertand mine is your ignorance. *Nice word, eh... IGNORE-ANCE. *

(What's the difference between a philosopher and a mathematician?  The mathametician need a pencil, paper, and a wastebasket.  The philosooher only needs the paper and pencil.)


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Mission*

The mission of the West Virginia Master Naturalist Programtm is to train interested people in the fundamentals of natural history, nature interpretation and teaching, and to instill in them an appreciation of the importance of responsible environmental stewardship. The program will also provide a corps of highly qualified volunteers to assist government agencies, schools, and non-government organizations with research, outdoor recreation development, and environmental education and protection. **

That's not exactly what we mean by teaching "naturalism" vs "creationism"

West Virginia DNR - Wildlife Resources


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It is obvious what you want to imply is the meaning.  It isn't.  No proof.

See, tbe trouble you are having is that I don't care what words you use.  What I care about is what you mean.  Meaning includes what is said, what is implied, what is not said, andnthe context within which it is presented.  The words you choose to use are only a small part of the gestalt of your meaning.

This isn't a chess game. Your screen name already tells me what you mean.  Everything you say is in that context.  It is bs because it isn't true.  You can't make it true because you cannot prove something that was not true and has failed misserably to be proven true.  If you had on piece of direct operational evidence, you would simply present it.  It is really simple.  There is no philosophical path.

Your beating around the bush, trying to flush something out.  There is nothing to be flushed out.  All there is, is the bush.  That's all you get.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 16, 2013)

westwall said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You avoid the question again and again.  Just provide rationale how learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution.  The only thing I am afraid of about creationism is that time would be spent on something that is apparently useless or you would have provided an adequate response by now.

There is indeed a practical use for art.  I'm not sure where you're getting that from.


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...






I've not avoided it at all.  I stated quite clearly there is none.  Why is that so hard for you to understand?  It also doesn't matter one iota.  There are LOTS of classes that are taught that have no practical use.  They are still taught in our colleges.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 17, 2013)

Why is naturalism scientific and creationism isn't? 

Fg=(Gm1m2)/r^2 Where does God fit in my equation? I can't quantify the Almighty. Which God should I use in any event? Is F=ma+Thor? Is Velocity really dx/dt or do I need to work Hermes in there somewhere? Or is there a different set of scientific principles for each and every religion and philosophy? Do Hindus get one set of physics and Muslims get another? Is chemistry and atomic theory good for believers in science, but alchemy is just as true for non-believers? Is evolution false for Christians but true for peoples' whose mythology includes being turned from animals into man by their gods?


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If you feel there is no use to it then it should not be taught.  If there are other classes that are useless then that's irrelevant to this subject.  As far as I know, there are no science classes that are useless.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It sounds like you're still bitter about being kicked off the site for being a troll. Hollie, you not smart.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I love it when the ignorant lead the stupid I can get you all at once lol.
> ...



Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis. 

Bottom line we all use the definition for terms that support our view. If there is no creator life arose through natural unguided processes. But once the naturalists are hit with reality they do everything in their power to change the subject or try and twist the terms and how they should be used.

I am not doing anything out of line it just seems that way because most of you have no viable response. I will say at least you're reasonable the others not so much.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Naturalism is a philosophy as well,you're taking this to personal.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Oh boy,you believe in a philosophy and don't even know it.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Actually, I've never been "on" Harun Yahya. However, I have refuted the silly cut and paste nonsense you have used from there.

It sounds like you're still bitter about being taken to task for cutting and pasting from another of the charlatans you worship at.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It was thoroughly predictable that you would again use your typical tactics of lies in that you cut and paste edited and parsed portions of "quotes".  

In spite of the numerous times you have exposed for your fraudulent actions, you still have no issue with this type of dishonesty.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What have I posted from their site other than the page on living fossils   ? we know living fossils blow a hole wide open in the fossil record.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Wrong again hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

Is this really all you have been reduced to ? you just avoid the evidence and questions presented to you. I am growing bored with what is happening in this thread.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I can see you're in denial about the "quotes" you selectively and dishonestly edit and parse when doing so is an attempt to further your dogma.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your silly conspiracy theories only serve to further reduce your credibility. 

Are you not aware that Harun Yahya caters to, and exploits the conspiracy theory / religious extremist crowd?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.



Here's a fun way to spend your afternoon and prove all the science lovers wrong. Call the ten closest universities to you and ask to speak to the Biology Department chair. Ask him about the Miller-Uray experiment. After his explanation, ask him about the viability of abiogenesis as an explanation of how life started. Finally, ask him if the Biological community accepts abiogenesis as the probable answer to how life started in the first place. 

Post results for all to see. Remember to get names of both people and universities so we can follow up with them.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.
> ...



Don't have to,I attended the U of A and I know they accept what they are taught but behind closed doors do they really. They have no reason to accept it as a viable theory because there is no evidence supporting it but they do believe it is a viable theory. The important question is why ?

There are many problems with the miller and urey experiment to prove their point.

1. they assume what the environment was like without proof it existed in that condition, at the time of origins of life.

2. they knew what the conditions had to be for it to happen.

3. Life was not produced in the experiment under all the right conditions.

4. the test was conducted by intelligent beings not by nature.

5. the test produced right handed amino acids and that is not a problem ?


You're not the first to point to the miller and urey experiment.


----------



## dblack (Jul 17, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.
> ...



It's interesting stuff for sure. But you seem to be suggesting that such inquiry invalidates the scientific approach when, if anything, it does the opposite.

You seem to be under the illusion that 'science lovers' think science has all the answers, or that it's the only way to answer important questions.

The ability of science to answer the origins question really has no bearing on the validity of the creationist account.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's quite the opposite. I'm a firm believer in the scientific method and that science is a self-correcting machine. If abiogenesis had no merit, there wouldn't be a biology department anywhere that would discuss it.

In the interests of full disclosure,  I am a physics student.

My problem is that sarcasm doesn't always get through the internet. Maybe I should have put quotation marks around the words science lover.


----------



## dblack (Jul 17, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Ah.. I see now. I clearly wasn't reading between the lines.


----------



## Gardener (Jul 17, 2013)

Creationism is based on faith, not science.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Don't have to,I attended the U of A and I know they accept what they are taught but behind closed doors do they really. They have no reason to accept it as a viable theory because there is no evidence supporting it but they do believe it is a viable theory. The important question is why ?
> 
> There are many problems with the miller and urey experiment to prove their point.
> 
> ...



And yet, with the follow on experiments that use conditions that are now thought to more closely mirror early Earth conditions, the experiment not only yielded the same amino acids, in some cases they yielded more amino acids.



> 5. the test produced right handed amino acids and that is not a problem ?



Why would it be? It isn't like every naturally occurring amino acid has to be left handed. The point of the experiment was to see if amino acids could be produced given what was thought to be early Earth conditions.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 17, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Here's a fun way to spend your afternoon and prove all the science lovers wrong. Call the ten closest universities to you and ask to speak to the Biology Department chair. Ask him about the Miller-Uray experiment. After his explanation, ask him about the viability of abiogenesis as an explanation of how life started. Finally, ask him if the Biological community accepts abiogenesis as the probable answer to how life started in the first place.
> 
> Post results for all to see. Remember to get names of both people and universities so we can follow up with them.



Science is a process, not a result; and certainly not a faith. The creation of life has little to do with the scientific method. It has little to do with evolution. The concept that life adapts to it's environment and that better adapted species survive has nothing to do with the initial spark of life. 

Your position is a red herring.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 17, 2013)

Gardener said:


> Creationism is based on faith, not science.



Just like Anthropogenic Global Warming!


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a fun way to spend your afternoon and prove all the science lovers wrong. Call the ten closest universities to you and ask to speak to the Biology Department chair. Ask him about the Miller-Uray experiment. After his explanation, ask him about the viability of abiogenesis as an explanation of how life started. Finally, ask him if the Biological community accepts abiogenesis as the probable answer to how life started in the first place.
> ...



No, my position is that someone who claims that no one in their right mind would accept abiogenesis should maybe talk to a few Biology departments and see what they think. Again, sarcasm doesn't always flow through the electrons.


----------



## konradv (Jul 17, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gardener said:
> 
> 
> > Creationism is based on faith, not science.
> ...



How is the fact that CO2 and other gases can absorb IR radiation, not science?  In this aspect of the discussion you have more in common with the creationists by ignoring scientific fact that doesn't fit your bias.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 17, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> No, my position is that someone who claims that no one in their right mind would accept abiogenesis should maybe talk to a few Biology departments and see what they think. Again, sarcasm doesn't always flow through the electrons.



Ah, I understand.

I should have known you wouldn't take such a position.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 17, 2013)

> Don't have to,I attended the U of A and I know they accept what they are taught but *behind closed doors do they really. *They have no reason to accept it as a viable theory because there is no evidence supporting it but they do believe it is a viable theory. *The important question is why ?*



Why is it, with these guys, that beneath it all, *the fallback position is always that people are lying?

AWG, the economy and economic measures like CPI and uneployment, now evolution... there is this typical belief that proponents are lying to keep their jobs.

I have had this experience with enough chronic liars to recognize that they are the people that say others are lying. *

I rejected the behavior of lying early on. I did so because I realized I was simply setting myself up for confusion as the consistent reality is enough to tweeze out of experience without compounding the issue by trying to keep track of bullshit. *It led, naturally to an ungrounded assumption that others had the same character, an assumption that has since been abandoned.

There is this mangling of the use of theory amd hypothesis, though that seems to be fairly common. Though, a theory and law are within the context to which the theory and law apply, not any more. *It is of absolute significance to use a concept like biogenisis within the context to which is has been demonstratex and can therefor be applied.

They hold their belief in absolute certainty and expect that all knowledge must be with absolute certainty. *A hypothesis' failure to be absolutely certain to the point of eliminating even the blacl swan stands as proof, to them, that the hypothesis is false. This then leads to their belief, based on no evidence, is therefor true.

I don't think that the mangling of "theory" is exclusive to this character. It seems to be more of a more common misuse of terminology. *This happens, words aren't written in stone.

There seems to be this inability to differentiate philosophical musings from measurable scientific demonstration. *They seem to believe that stringing together words and phrases can lead to some inescapable truth. *And yet, it strongly appears, that it is more of a set theory game where overlapping sets are taken to be equivalent.

For example, "Bottom line we all use the definition for terms that support our view". *

Words and definitions are used to express ones view, not support it. *The definition chosen doesn't support anything. *What support something is the physical evidence of either objects or changes to objects.

There are these curiously common characteristics among the adherents to certain perspectives.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Naturalism is a philosophy as well,you're taking this to personal.



Now, of all possible things you could have chosen to say, why would you choose to turn the object of conversation to me and whether I am "taking this to personal"?

It is an unmeasurable emotional assesment of my personal motivation and says, specifically, that my motivation is wrong.

So, I am sure you have read my signature regarding the use of the second person pronoun.  Let me then reply.

You are an asshole that has no regard for the well being of others beyond what you can get out of it.  You have always beem this way, since childhood.  You are, for all purposes, a learned sociopath.  Your entire focus of mind is not on seaking the objective truth but, rather, to manipulate words to the end of manipulating your own feelings, reality not withstanding.  And, your presence on this forum is simply for the purposes of pursuing that behavior.

You're not here to learn and discover by communicating with others.  You are here to find opportunities to trigger an internal sense of reward by stringing together words that trigger a little kick of neurotransmitters.

It is, as I call it, mental masturbation. You're just jerking yourself off in public.


----------



## westwall (Jul 17, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...








Some people wish to learn about it because they wish too.  Who are you to tell them they can't?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


in reality you're talking out your ass ...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit 
Louis Pasteur stated the law of biogenesis, that life originates from life. This was meant not as a comment on the origin of all life, but instead as an overturning of the belief in spontaneous generation, that is, that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria could appear fully formed. The statement of his law also advanced his germ theory.
Origin of Life
Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations.



Read more: The Law of Biogenesis | eHow


Read more: The Law of Biogenesis | eHow
once again ywc gets his ass handed to him.

oh and btw isn't creationism that yammers on about lifeforms being poofed into existence?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I love it when the ignorant lead the stupid I can get you all at once lol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


and you say you're not delusional and irrational....you've just proven otherwise,slapdick..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Teleology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature. The adjective "teleological" has a broader usage, for example in discussions where particular ethical theories or types of computer programs are sometimes described as teleological because they involve aiming at goals.[citation needed]
Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint Anselm during the 11th century AD, and later by Carl Jung and Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel.
A thing, process, or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general, it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.[1]
A thing or action has an extrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something external to itself. In a way, people exhibit extrinsic finality when they seek the happiness of a child. If the external thing had not existed that action would not display finality.
A thing or action has an intrinsic finality when it is for none other than its own sake. For example, one might try to be happy simply for the sake of being happy, and not for the sake of anything outside of that.
Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided because whether they are true or false is argued to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge.[2] Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, are still prone to use language that appears teleological when they describe natural tendencies towards certain end conditions, but these arguments can almost always be rephrased in non-teleological forms.......


by this definition creationism is teleological and has no scientific value.
thanks for debunking your own shit!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...






I hope you realize that every time you use that false accusation it's just more proof you have no real argument.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 another one of your classic subjective, judgmental false declarations...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that's TOO...
overmedicated are we?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 ywc last line is false 
and who the fuck is "WE" ?
I'm  highly certain that no other believers gave you the authority to speak for them..
to do so with out consent is extreme hubris...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You're a dumbshit.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



slapdick? you need new material and you can try and spin the facts all you want but you and many like you are full of shit.

 THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
Francesco Redi (1626-1697)
Francesco Redi

Understanding life at the microscopic level due to the state of technology in this day and age might make the work of Italian scientist, Francesco Redi, seem trivial to many. However, before achieving the microscopic viewing capabilities we have today, some things we take for granted were not so intuitive. Long ago, the Greeks believed that abiogenesis was common (Balme, 1962). This belief continued to be the dominant position for millennia. Even as late as 300 years ago, it was standard belief in the scientific community that life commonly and spontaneously arose from non-life. For instance, it was believed that when a piece of meat rotted, it &#8220;spontaneously&#8221; gave rise to maggots, which then turned into flies (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 339). However, some scientists began to challenge this idea.

Redi hypothesized that the maggots actually arose from eggs that were laid by flies on the meat. The eggs, he claimed, were too small to be seen by the human eye. In 1688, he conducted experiments to test his hypothesis. Redi placed meat in jars, some of which were left open to the air, and some of which were covered with netting or were tightly sealed. Maggots were found to grow only on the meat that flies could reach. Thus, it was determined that life did not spontaneously generate on the rotted meat (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 340).
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)
Lazzaro Spallanzani

An 18th-century English scientist, John Needham, attacked the findings of Redi. He claimed that his own scientific experiments verified that microorganisms did in fact spontaneously generate in some gravy, after it was allegedly thoroughly boiled in a bottle. Thus, in 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted his own simple scientific experimentation to test Needham&#8217;s findings. He prepared gravy in the same manner that Needham had, divided it into two bottles, and boiled it thoroughly, killing all microorganisms. One of the bottles was corked, and the other was left open to the air. Spallanzani argued that if microorganisms were spontaneously generating from the gravy, the gravy from both bottles should be teeming with microorganisms after a few days. However, only the gravy in the open bottle was found to have microorganisms after the allotted time. Once again, it was determined that life does not spontaneously generate. Life comes only from other life (Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 339-340).
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Louis Pasteur

For many, the work of Spallanzani and Redi was still not enough to drive the proverbial nail into the coffin of spontaneous generation. Some argued that air was needed for the spontaneous generation of life to occur, and Spallanzani&#8217;s corked bottle did not allow air to reach the gravy. A standard, evolution-based high school biology textbook states: &#8220;It was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved&#8221; (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added). Pasteur placed a &#8220;nutrient broth,&#8221; similar to Needham&#8217;s gravy, in a flask with a long, s-curved neck. The flask was unsealed&#8212;left open to the air. However, the curvature of the flask&#8217;s neck served as an entrapment mechanism for dust particles and airborne microorganisms, keeping them from reaching the broth. The flask was observed over the time span of an entire year, and microorganisms could never be found. Next, he broke off the s-curved neck of the flask, allowing dust and microorganisms to reach the broth. After only one day, the broth was cloudy from dust and teeming with microorganisms. According to the aforementioned biology textbook, &#8220;Pasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life&#8221; (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added).
Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)
Rudolf Virchow

German scientist, Rudolf Virchow, further expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Biogenesis. Virchow is the scientist who &#8220;recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion&#8221; (&#8220;Definition: Rudolf Virchow,&#8221; 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known&#8212;&#8220;omnis cellula e cellula&#8221;&#8212;&#8220;every cell originates from another existing cell like it&#8221; (&#8220;Definition: Rudolf Virchow&#8221. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, &#8220;His aphorism &#8216;omnis cellula e cellula&#8217;&#8230;ranks with Pasteur&#8217;s &#8216;omne vivum e vivo&#8217; (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology&#8221; (Ackerknect, 1973, 23:35, emp. added). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.
The Result: The Law of Biogenesis

Sadly, many simply refuse to accept the evidence. This refusal to accept the impossibility of abiogenesis has resulted in many scientists scrambling to conduct research that could be used as scientific support for abiogenesis. And subsequently, media personnel, along with many in the scientific community, are quick to jump to rash conclusions about the finds of research. When a researcher&#8217;s work can conceivably be twisted to support the idea of spontaneous generation, it seems that the evolutionist will strive to do so&#8212;against all reason to the contrary. A stream of research has surfaced over the years to try to prove that abiogenesis could have happened (cf. Haeckel, 1876; Miller, 1953; Wong, et al., 2000; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; Sommer, et al., 2008; Gibson, et al., 2010), all to no avail. [NOTE: See the Apologetics Press Web site for a discussion and refutation of these references.] In their desperation, some evolutionists have begun to acknowledge the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and have even begun to theorize the baseless idea that aliens seeded life on Earth billions of years ago (cf. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981; Gribbin, 1981; Stein and Miller, 2008).

Regardless of such speculation and conjecture, the evidence that science has found is clear. In nature, life comes only from life of its own kind. Period. All scientific evidence confirms this well-established principle of science. There are no known exceptions. Thus, biogenesis is a law. Abiogenesis is impossible. Prominent marine biologist and evolutionist, Martin Moe, admitted: &#8220;A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life&#8221; (1981, p. 36, emp. added). Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, &#8220;[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell&#8221; (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144, emp. added). In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: &#8220;Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis&#8221; (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig., ital. added).

What does the scientific evidence indicate about the origin of life? Life creates life. The evolutionists themselves begrudgingly admit this, and yet refuse to accept its implications. If atheistic evolution is true, abiogenesis must be true. Belief in abiogenesis is a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific evidence, choosing in turn to give credence to evolutionary superstition, myths, and fables.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Living fossils refute that everything is still evolving and it refutes gradual evolution,another term gradualism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It's simple,provide the evidence that refutes the claim.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



They can learn about in church, online, at their library, and maybe in a theology class. Biology classes are reserved for what the biologists feel in necessary.  There has never been any evidence for them to support intelligence design.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abiogenesis - Iron Chariots Wiki

Plenty of evidence out there all pointing to potentially viable theories. Of course nature had billions of years to do these "experiments" and an entire planet as a laboratory. Mankind has barely even started to look and has come up with plenty of leads that are showing promise. So just learn to be patient.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another classic underwhelming retort...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wait a sec...your "info" is from a creationist site..yes?
then this statement:  Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations."
 is then proven true by what you just posted.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit! Living fossil 
Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.

A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive. 

 The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an inaccurate assessment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cenozoic is because the coelacanth current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens. 
 The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago. 
 One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian. 

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted: 

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3] 

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution. 

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it: 

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4] 

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains: 

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6] 

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis. 

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists. 

Living fossil - RationalWiki

no matter how many times you say it or wish it, it's still false .


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it refutes itself "Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory."
like I said  : subjective, judgmental false declaration...
can't get an easier than that.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 17, 2013)

Creationists, why do you feel human defects such as blind spots or the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve exist?  If God created us in our current forms, why did he create such defects?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> Creationists, why do you feel human defects such as blind spots or the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve exist?  If God created us in our current forms, why did he create such defects?


the standard creationist answer will be because of sin.
they believe that in some fantasy past our bodies were perfect..
I find that odd as the basic design of humans is highly flawed..
if god wanted to fuck with us, why didn't he /she /it make most of us stupid.......?.......wait.... most of us are? ??


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> .........



I do believe you have a couple of minor typos in your signature.

"there are more things in heaven and earth *the *are dreamt of in *you *philosophy-WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE"

"the" -> "then"
"you" -> "your"

I do it all the time. Big fingers... hurry hurry... can't proof read my own typing.  

Worst yet, some words, I can't seem to spell right for the life of me.. 

Its rediculous.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 17, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > Creationists, why do you feel human defects such as blind spots or the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve exist?  If God created us in our current forms, why did he create such defects?
> ...



You don't understand, man. Pediatric leukemia and mental retardation and congenital heart defects and cancer and maternal/neonatal HIV transfer and hermaphroditism and all those other forms of birth defects are proof of [INSERT PITHY SAYING HERE]. You just don't understand how [INSERT APPROPRIATE DIETY HERE]'s love really works.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yeah, unfortunately, it proves equally that life isn't creates by god.  So now, after all your wasted effort to attempt to imply that if abiogenisis is false, that therefore god is true, you have demonstrated nothing.

The fundamental flaw in all your reasoning, which you avoid stating because you prefer denial, is as I previously was nice enough to state for you.

You would like to claim god must be true unless proven false.  But that is simply not how it works.  The hypothesis of god does not "fill in" simply because there is no proof of abiogenisis as the initial origination of life.

The correct assertion is that, given the correctness of evolutionary theory in both the history of discovered facts and the predictions of future biological changes, within the degree of certainty that can be achieved, the appropriate hypothesis is

at some point in the distant past, there was a remarkable and rare event, no matter how unlikely, of abiogenesis that began life on this planet.

What we know, as much as anything, from statistics, is that, however unlikely it may be, shit happens.

The lesson that "shit happens" is an important one.  A common misperception is to conclude from observation of a single event, that the event must represent the norm because if it was unlikely then it would be unlikely to have been observed.  If anything, the statistical methidology of science takes asucj care to avoid this fallacy, the fallacy of "shit don't happen".

The marvel of evolution is that it takes advantage of the reality that unlikely events occur if you just wait long enough.  

But, like all shit that happens, the statistical unlikelyhood of shit happens makes it extremely difficult to prove a particular instance of shit happening.

As much as you would like to, the theory of god doesn't substitute for the theory of shit happens. Nor does the fallacy of shit don't happen stand as proof of god.

The only grounds that tbe hypothesis of god has is to claim that god is responsible for shit happening.  Yet, I can define and refine a measure of shit happens as a sequence of probability, 10%...1%...0.1%...and onward, to the finest level that I have time to waste.  And, simply by flipping coins, I can prove to any degree of certainy, to an absolute degree of certainty, that shit just happens all by itself.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You can always dream.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



If you keep copying and pasting the same nonsense do you think it's anymore credible? Biogenesis goes against any thought of spontaneous generation. Do I need to spell this out for you ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


As a viable theory, biogenesis is as pointless and as dismissable as creationism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



How many times must I explain this to you ?

They say everything is always evolving. Neo darwinism the theory is gradual change over time from mutations and natural selection.

In the labs we studied mutations in flies because their lifespan is so short and mutation rate is high not only were they just normal mutations but induced mutations. We could go through a generation of flies in less than two weeks.

But there were no macro evolutionary change in the flies no matter what was done why ? because there are limits to variations. Sure we saw plenty of defects but we saw no new trait that was a benefit to the organism become solidified in the gene pool  by natural selection.

Now fossils that are dated way back in history like mosquitoes and flies,they were dated over 100's of millions of years ago and we find the same species of these flies and mosquitoes today. Now I don't want to add credibility to the dating methods because you know I don't trust dating methods because they were developed through faulty assumptions.

So why they call them living fossils is because they are the same living organisms that were dated back several hundred million years ago. These same species show no evolutionary change at all. Surely these organisms would have shown this evolutionary change and I will give you the reasons why according to theory.

1. they have a high mutation rate.
2. it takes much less time to go through a generation.
3. we could study the effects of mutations on over 26 generations of flies in just one year.

Now just think of how many generations of flies and mosquitoes have come and passed in let's say 250 million years. 

Can you explain why there is no evolutionary change in a far less complex organism than a human, where the human supposedly evolved in a much smaller time frame ? It doesn't make any sense.

 Mutations in flies that happen naturally and that are induced have been studied for almost 100 years and they do nothing. No evolutionary change over that many generations of flies and that was with to many independent labs from all over the world.

So I will ask it again. why no evolutionary change in flies over 100's of millions of years but humans a far more complex organism evolved in a short period of time considering the evolution of flies ?

The ancestors of the Coelacanth supposedly grew legs and walked up out of the ocean where is this transitional fossil ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You're looking like even a bigger fool then hollie for defending this lie.

There is no evidence for spontaneous generation through natural processes Zero zip nada !


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > Creationists, why do you feel human defects such as blind spots or the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve exist?  If God created us in our current forms, why did he create such defects?
> ...



Why are they highly flawed then you have organs like the eyes,heart,and the brain ? How bout the spine and the central nervous system ?

So tell me where could these flaws come from since I educated you on it ? I will wait and see if you have the ability to reason from the evidence. If you draw a blank don't worry I will answer it for you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...



I asked the question of daws,why don't you provide the answer if you can't I will. It's a really rather simple answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You have two possible answers on the origins of life.

A designer or spontaneous generation through natural processes. We know that Biogenesis refutes spontaneous generation through natural processes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You're are a fool.

Produce the evidence that refutes it genius.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The fool is the religious zealot who feverishly defends an indefensible claim such as "creationism".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



What ? no response to my explanations.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Already have. 

You have failed to produce any credible evidence for supermagical creation. It's gotten so bad for you that you are forced to scour the web for such nonsense as biogenesis, a thoroughly discredited claim. Religious zealots readily refute their own silly claims.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You may wish to first offer viable "explanations".

Your goofy cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is not an explanation for anything.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That puts your feverish religious claims at a disadvantage. We know that biogenesis is a discredited ploy. We also have no reason to believe that any designer gawds have any connection with life on the planet.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Why reply if you can't be honest ?

We both know the history of Biogenesis and Abiogenesis and who coined the terms.

bi·o·gen·e·sis  
/&#716;b&#299;&#333;&#712;jen&#601;sis/
Noun

    The synthesis of substances by living organisms.
    The hypothesis that living matter arises only from other living matter.

abiogenesis  
Web definitions
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Those are my words dumbass have a good day. you lack the intelligence  and integrity for this conversation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Still waiting for that evidence that discredited the law.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do you mean the evidence you already have?

Still waiting for evidence of your goofy creationist claims to miracles and supernaturalism . This may come as a sho k to you but Harun Yahya is not a credible source.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



When your arguments are cut and pasted "quotes" from Harun Yahya, you basically become the poster child for lack of intelligence and integrity. 

Did you know that Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar), is a failed college student with no formal training in science? Did you know that he believes himself to be the Mahdi? Did you know he served jail time for some rather sordid crimes involving extortion and activities with underage girls?

But yeah, you worship this charlatan as a reliable science source.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Just to help you people out that are being mislead by daws and hollies poor attempts at lying.

scientific law  
Web definitions
A scientific law states a repeated observation about nature..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.



I can understand you're befuddled and angry that anyone would criticize Harun Yahya. When your arguments are refuted, you do have a habit of lashing out like a petulant child. Your failed arguments are not a valid reason for behaving as though you've been scolded and sent to your room.


CB000: Law of Biogenesis 

Claim CB000:

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.


Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

Response:

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Just to help you people out that are being mislead by daws and hollies poor attempts at lying.
> 
> scientific law
> Web definitions
> ...



What natural laws apply to supernatural gawds?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.
> ...



Because you are dumb enough to keep posting the same crap.

So you understand what a scientific law is. What is observed over and over ? living organisms producing living organisms. Not non living matter producing living matter. Your view is a theory my view is a scientific law.

Law Definition - Definition of Law

Until you have evidence refuting the law you are simply wasting your time posting this nonsense.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I understand you're befuddled. That's why you're flailing about. 

The silly and discredited biogenesis nonsense actually refutes magical creationism. I'm sure that is the reason for your befuddlement. 

Cutting and pasting dictionary definitions is of little value when those definitions don't apply to your argument. But then again, your silly cutting and pasting doesn't apply to any valid argument.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative

Summary

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.

Introduction

A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.



So, you lied to me.

The gods are not going to be happy about this.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



This is not true the sources you keep quoting are liars. Did you not understand me saying that spontaneous generation is a theory and a weak one. I gave it more credbility then it deserves by refering to it as a theory. By your sources own words "life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature"

Then to say creationists do not believe in evolution is a lie. We believe in micro-evolution not macro-evolution.

But until you can show otherwise with evidence biogenesis is a known law. Abiogenesis is wishful thinking.

Seriously the only one beffuddled is yourself and your sources.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.
> ...



I have to dissect your nonsense and show people the truth. You're hoping I ignore your ignorance.

Only when I feel I need to respond to you then I will. Really though most people should know by now you're full of crap.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Biogenesis is not a law. It's not possible to disprove something that does not exist. 

Otherwise, I wasn't aware that you were tasked with being the spokes-fundie for creationist. Such a weighty burden you bear. 

So, Mr. spokes-fundie, give us the creationist account of evolution that took place over just a few thousand years following Noah's cruise to nowhere.

What's you best conspiracy theory that refutes paleontology, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. which support a 4.5 billion year old earth.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What have you dissected so far?  And why make your melodramatic, hysterical threats to ignore my posts when you continually come running back like a crack whore needing a fix?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

I might as well clear this up so you and daws do not keep posting this nonsense.

If you come across a creationist that rejects micro-evolution or in another term micro-adaptations they are simply wrong and not educated in the sciences.

Where we differ from your side is your side believes this micro-evolution comes from mutations and natural selection.

We believe new traits and characteristics arise from genetic information that already exists in the gene pool and passed on through heredity. We also believe natural selection will play a role for making a new trait or function in the gene pool the norm.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

I will not waste time with you hollie,you're such an Ideologue that you can't have a reasonable discussion.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I might as well clear this up so you and daws do not keep posting this nonsense.
> 
> If you come across a creationist that rejects micro-evolution or in another term micro-adaptations they are simply wrong and not educated in the sciences.
> 
> ...



Do you have a certificate of authenticity that denotes you as the spokes-fundie for all creationist?

I just find it difficult to believe that a Harun Yahya groupie would be elected to the position you seem to have assigned yourself.

So.... how do we account for the fosill record (other than with conspiracy theories) dating back to the BN (before Noah), time period?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I will not waste time with you hollie,you're such an Ideologue that you can't have a reasonable discussion.



Running for the exits again. 

In typical fashion, you find your lies, false claims and cut and paste "quotes" fail to offer a coherent argument.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




*Many members of creationist groups have agreed that their research will never contradict the bible.  I keep asking YWC to address that issue but he keeps changing the subject or running away as creationists usually do.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > Creationists, why do you feel human defects such as blind spots or the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve exist?  If God created us in our current forms, why did he create such defects?
> ...





*If god wanted to, he could have created us all as mindnumbingly stupid creationists so there would be no one to point out the glaring inconsistencies in the "theory"*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you to support it.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*She has done an excellent job of exposing you as a fraud (although not much effort was necessary as the "creationist" label you use kills your credibility from the start).*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I will not waste time with you hollie,you're such an Ideologue that you can't have a reasonable discussion.



*That makes, what, 6 times you've responded to her saying that you won't respond to her anymore?*


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It refutes god identically.  No observation of abiogenisis, no observation of god. Identical.  Biogenisis observasion and a lack abiogenisis is insufficient to come to a conclusion either way.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Same thing, living organisms producing living organisms. Not god producing living matter.  Your view is a hypothesis, my view is scientific fact.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

Sorry I missed the convo in real time, but then again, it went nowhere.  Nothing changed in the point that <a>biogenisis is insufficient to prove or disprove evolution and god.  It simply leaves the question of how life began as unaswered.

It is interesting to learn that creationism views life as being cut from whole cloth and says adaptation is is simply the expression of already existant genes. I'll have to verify that, though, as creationists have a habit of mangling things. "I don't know" gets replaced by god, with no reason as to why that particular "I don't know" at that particular point.  I have no way of knowing if the replacement is the result of the reporter or the hypothesis.

And this makes consistent sense.

"God" <=> "I don't know".

I can't explain it...god
Shit happens...god.
No reason...god has a plan
I don't want to know<=>god.
I don't want to admit it<=>god
I don't want to be responsible<=>god

Perfect.

Now I know.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


your explanation is based on a false premise...
by definition it's not valid.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


lol! you do realize that this: Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory."ywc ..obliterates even the imaginary credibility you never had.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...


he basic design of humans is highly flawed.


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...







No, "they" don't.  Evolution is based on mutations.  Mutations occur all the time and the vast majority of them are bad so result in death of the organism.  It is estimated that 45% of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry due to mutations that are harmful to the organism.

However, every now and then a mutation occurs which is either benign or beneficial.  If it is benign then it sticks around until a environment occurs where it is beneficial or it just simply sticks around.  Sometimes though, the mutation is immediately beneficial.  In that case the organism is able to out compete its challengers and they die off and the critter with the mutation remains.

That can take a few years to millennia to millions of years.  Everything depends on the environment.  That's why 90% of the evolutionary processes we see occur in the temperate zones where the environment changes enough to winnow out the competitors faster.

Your misstatements about evolution and the evolutionary process are not doing you any good.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


the shit you attempt to pass of as explanations are not!


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...








Indeed it is.  The female birth canal is an excellent example of that.  It is so poorly "designed" that up until the advent of the C section vast numbers of innocent wonderful women and children, died in childbirth because the baby couldn't make the corner and get out.

I somehow find it difficult to imagine God making such a stupid error in His design.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Just to help you people out that are being mislead by daws and hollies poor attempts at lying.
> 
> scientific law
> Web definitions
> ...


who is the you your speaking too?
you conveniently left out  objective.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I will not waste time with you hollie,you're such an Ideologue that you can't have a reasonable discussion.
> ...


that's just one of the "things" he does...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bullshit! Living fossil
> ...




Yeah, isn't evolution incredible, amazing?  Still, substituting god for "I don't know" will never reveal anything about nature. You have to live with "I don't know".  And, most unfortunately, we will all die with more "I don't knows" than anything else.  And what really sucks is there ain't no heaven where things are magically revealed.  All there is is what you leave behind.

And life is a precariously balanced thing.  There are more ways for it to go wrong than ways to go right.  Every species that goes extinct will never be seen again.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it's been explained to me by other creationists that god made the birth canal small so women would remember that sex is a sin......?
didn't make any sense then, still does not.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


you're going straight to hell!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

A comment, above, got me considering evolution and climate change. **The Law Of Shit Happens* is applicable here and I suspect that a big issue may be the common *fallacy of shit don't happen*. *

I would like to first discuss this *Law Of Shit Happens*.

*The Law Of Shit Happens**is a generalization *of Murphy's Law. *For common, and apparently indemic fallacies, like the**fallacy of shit don't happen*, it is important to reitterate it regularly.*

The reason we don't realize how often shit happens is because it is usually just little shit. *We are, by our own nature, intent on ignoring the little shit. *So, when we think about shit happening, we only recall the big shit. *And as big shit doesn't happen all the time to everyone, we tend to believe that it is uncommon.

As we are of a tendency to get use to things, ignore them, it is important to reframe, recast, and rename such an important law of nature. *It is a provable fact that shit happens all the time. *

To paraphrase Shakespeare;

*There are more ways that shit can happen, in heaven and earth then are dreamt of in your philosophy.*

Right now, somewhere in this world, shit is happening. **Indeed, while the likelihood of any particular rare shit happening is very unlikely, there are so many ways that shit can happen, it happens all the time.

And, unfortunately, bad shit happens far more readily than good shit.

The theory of evolution, in fact, rests on a foundation that is firmly supports by**The Law Of Shit Happens*.

Nothing about the theory of evolution requires that a species evolve or even adapt. *In fact, the current rate of global warming is considerably faster than species have typically evolved. *We can expect, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that many will fail to adapt and thereby become extinct.

The short of it is that "Most vertebrates would need to evolve 10,000 times faster than their normal rates to survive climate change over the next century, according to a new study."






"Published online in the journal Ecology Letters, the study concludes that most land-based vertebrate species evolve too slowly to adjust to the dramatically warmer climate expected by 2100. If they can't make high-speed adaptations or move to a new ecosystem, many terrestrial animal species will cease to exist, the researchers report."

The study, *, here,*, is summarized in a article on *the Huff Post*, as*"Climate Change Outpaces Evolution, And Some Species Won't Be Able To Keep Up, Researchers Say".

The study is "Rates of projected climate change dramatically exceed past rates of climatic niche evolution among vertebrate species", by Ignacio Quintero and John J. Wiens, was published on June 24th, 2013, in Ecology Letters. *

The original article, by Russel McLendon, "Climate change outruns evolution", appears *here, on the Mother Nature Network* and was published on July 11th, 2013.

The abstract reads, "A key question in predicting responses to anthropogenic climate change is: how quickly can species adapt to different climatic conditions? Here, we take a phylogenetic approach to this question. We use 17 time-calibrated phylogenies representing the major tetrapod clades (amphibians, birds, crocodilians, mammals, squamates, turtles) and climatic data from distributions of > 500 extant species. We estimate rates of change based on differences in climatic variables between sister species and estimated times of their splitting. We compare these rates to predicted rates of climate change from 2000 to 2100. Our results are striking: matching projected changes for 2100 would require rates of niche evolution that are > 10 000 times faster than rates typically observed among species, for most variables and clades. Despite many caveats, our results suggest that adaptation to projected changes in the next 100 years would require rates that are largely unprecedented based on observed rates among vertebrate species."

The unfortunate, and dangerous aspect of Creationism, Intelligent Design, and fundamemtalist Christianity is the overwhelming amd demonstrated lack of responsibility that the perspective affords. *Religious fundamentalism repeatedly shifts the responsibility onto god, either by denying personal responsibility of past actions and saying god was responsible or denying personal responsibility for future action and saying god willntake care of it. *

God is neither responsible for climate change, nor will god take care of it. *Nature is not responsible for climate change, except in that it is the nature of mankind, nor will nature necessarily adapt.

**If we are lucky, the anthropogenic global warming and pursuant climate change will not be completely devistating. *The shame of it is that mankind, in its history of ecological disasters, has never achieved a disaster of such global proportions or with the potential for such damage. *But, "if we are lucky" is a is not the perspective that rational adults take in dealing with the future.*Denial is not the perspective that responsible adults take in dealing with the future. *

Having hope and having faith is part of being a responsible adult but it is tempered with the realistic examination of the past. Science provides us with the most succinct methodology for that realistic examination. *And while we hope for the best, have faith in our abilities, we prepare for the worst and act accordingly. *

What we don't do is deny the worst, hope it won't be that bad, and have faith that god will take care of it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

I just wanted to present this little guy again.  He (or she) is amazing.  We have to respect the amazingly incredible rare circumstances that occurred to create this little creature.  There are innumerable ways to kill him and only one way that he came to being.  Once gone, he is gone forever.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I can't because there is no evidence that refutes it,and no the claim was made by her.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

"Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple."

Classic.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Do you have an example ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



For the simple minded, it is that simple. However, to suggest that science does not contradict a flat earth, geocentrism, etc. is a claim only a zealot would make.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


true as "real" science is about evidence the bible is not.....


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I asked you why ?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

"Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple."

That is one of Einstein's postulates, eh?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Teleology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A teleology is any philosophical account that holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature. The adjective "teleological" has a broader usage, for example in discussions where particular ethical theories or types of computer programs are sometimes described as teleological because they involve aiming at goals.[citation needed]
Teleology was explored by Plato and Aristotle, by Saint Anselm during the 11th century AD, and later by Carl Jung and Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgment. It was fundamental to the speculative philosophy of Hegel.
A thing, process, or action is teleological when it is for the sake of an end, i.e., a telos or final cause. In general, it may be said that there are two types of final causes, which may be called intrinsic finality and extrinsic finality.[1]
A thing or action has an extrinsic finality when it is for the sake of something external to itself. In a way, people exhibit extrinsic finality when they seek the happiness of a child. If the external thing had not existed that action would not display finality.
A thing or action has an intrinsic finality when it is for none other than its own sake. For example, one might try to be happy simply for the sake of being happy, and not for the sake of anything outside of that.
Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided because whether they are true or false is argued to be beyond the ability of human perception and understanding to judge.[2] Some disciplines, in particular within evolutionary biology, are still prone to use language that appears teleological when they describe natural tendencies towards certain end conditions, but these arguments can almost always be rephrased in non-teleological forms.......


by this definition creationism is teleological and has no scientific value.
thanks for debunking your own shit!


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...








I agree.  The Bible is a historical reference in one case and a historical novel in the other.  It is however, not concerned with science in the slightest.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


because evolution is not perfect just good enough..


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is a great deal of evidence refuting biogenesis as well as other creationist claims.

Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...







I gave you one example.  Why don't you deal with that one first.  The human birth canal is a horrible place to be as a baby.  That is responsible for uncounted deaths of women and children before the invention of the C section.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

The bible contradicts the bible!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



We have a mechanism correcting the copying errors ,and most mutations do nothing at all but when mutations cause change most of the time they are harmful.

Care to compare the number of Beneficial mutations vs the harmful mutations. We have approximately 6,000 genetic disorders. Do you understand how the many harmful mutations effect mutation fixation ?

Every living organism experience mutations and you had better learn your theory if you wish to debate it.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What really incompetent designers your gawds turned out to be.

They should be fired for such gross errors.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



God said that women would suffer during childbirth as an extra punishment for eve's sin.

But all the imperfections are due to heredity that was brought on by sin. At least you can agree that the flaws you speak of are due to heredity though.


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...








Yes, I KNOW that.  Copying errors?  What, all of a sudden God is simply a Xerox machine?
Practice what you preach sister.  Educate yourself.  You're doing a piss poor job of it right now.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

Here it is;

"RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE"

RMK-QLEE-KVY-ELL-SKVAC-LEY-EV-ARLK-KVGE

RiMK-QueLEE-KiVveY-ELL-SKiVAC-LEY-EV-ARLaK-KiVGE

Which translates to "Sometimes, good shit happens".


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...







Yes I understand how women are evil and need to be punished.  How do you reconcile that with the innocent MALE children who never had a chance?  I can understand how God wouldn't care about those pesky female children (not really I'm just taking an extreme viewpoint so you can see how ridiculous that statement was) they're just going to lead good boys into sin after all....but what about all those hundreds of thousands of male children who never, ever had a chance...?

And the flaws are due to evolutionary screw-ups.  If it was purely hereditary those people would have died off and it would no longer be a problem.  See how science works?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Listen if you wish to do this don't Dodge! and respond to what I posted. Oh and do give credit to your source.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You don't have a clue as to why even though I provided the answer to you ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Even by the standards of creepiness that define your comments, the above is really, really creepy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



That is where you're wrong.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The question was what caused the flaws ?

I already provided an answer.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


smells like creationist bullshit to me.


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...






I'm sorry.  The Bible was written at least 50 years after all of these things were "predicted".  Climate change fraudsters do the exact same thing and it is just as ridiculous when they do it. 

Put another way, Nostradamus "predicted" a whole bunch of stuff too.  The only problem is you have to turn your head a little sideways and close your eyes and cover one ear for it to really make sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



 I have, that is why I am now a creationist.

What did I have wrong concerning your  theory ?


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...






No, you didn't.  You dodged the question like you do whenever you have no answer for the tough questions that scientists ask you.  Just like the climate change fraudsters do.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


know what, fuck you .. I did not dodge..
what I posted answers your post fully...too bad you are too willfully ignorant to understand.


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...









First off it's not my theory.  Secondly you focused on one side of the equation not on both.  That's your flaw.  And you are a creationist because you believe in it.  There is no scientific support for creationism.  None.  Any time you have to ignore vast amounts of observed data and historical fact you have no case.  It's as simple as that. 

However, I don't care.  In my perfect world you are free to believe as you wish and to teach what you want to whoever you want.  Just never, ever deny me the ability to do the same.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Aparently, god created flaws in his brain and perception. He must have commited some really bid sin.

Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you just keep believing that.. your answer has no validity....my statement is correct.
I love it when you get all jesused  up and full of shit.
makes it more fun to knock you down.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


non credible source. been debunked countless times....
ywc only brings it up when he's getting his ass handed to him .


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



No God did not show partiality.

Gen 3:14  And the Lord God said to the snake, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field; you will go flat on the earth, and dust will be your food all the days of your life: 
Gen 3:15  And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded. 
Gen 3:16  To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master. 
Gen 3:17  And to Adam he said, Because you gave ear to the voice of your wife and took of the fruit of the tree which I said you were not to take, the earth is cursed on your account; in pain you will get your food from it all your life. 
Gen 3:18  Thorns and waste plants will come up, and the plants of the field will be your food; 
Gen 3:19  With the hard work of your hands you will get your bread till you go back to the earth from which you were taken: for dust you are and to the dust you will go back.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


a steaming pile of nonsense answer...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Wrong the OT was written 3,500 years ago and the NT was written within 70 after the death of Christ.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


non credible source....subjective and not science...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Repeat your question. if you're referring to the birth canal it's due to heredity and perfections that were lost.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I showed that his point was wrong. if you can't keep up take notes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

School is out for the day do have a good evening.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


the birth canal was never perfect...to say it was is a lie just as much a lie as your supernatural reason for it being flawed...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit! you did not.
you posted some crap that you think has some relevance to westwall's post.
there is no evidence god said or did what those scriptures claim. 
like I SAID non credible source....subjective and not science.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

Hey, the bible is a great historical document, no one doubts that. But it isn't science, by any stretch of the imagination. We've had 2000 odd years to go over it, with a fine tooth comb.


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...








None of which addresses the problem of children dying in childbirth BEFORE they can learn of the Word of God which dooms them to eternal damnation.  Seems to me....if there was a God controlling all of that it would be counterproductive to produce a child only for it to be eternally damned.....without a chance.


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...







So, you're saying that evolutionary processes were able to warp mankind in a mere 6000 years.  Is that correct?  Or did God manufacture man with those flaws already inherent in His design?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



One last response for the day it was not meant to answer your birth canal question only partially. It was mainly directed at your rhetoric concerning evil women.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Ok since you're are reasonable I will hang out for a while.I am saying yes the flaws were passed on to all. How long has man been on this planet I do not know. I say between 6,000 to 12,000 years.

God created man perfect and then handed down the punishment of death for sin ,and I believe he handed down his punishment through our genes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 18, 2013)

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

 Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

I have certainly learned a lot, here.  I like getting to the bottom of issues, where the foudation of the disagreement lies.  And, it is clear that it all rests on the difference in axioms or postulates that often go unstated.

It generally comes down to axioms that are so ingrained that neither side recognizes what it is that they are taking as patently obvious such that they go without saying.

"Real science doesn't contradict the Bible" is one.

The false until proven true vs true till proven false is another.

"I don't know" equals "god did it for a reason" seems to be one.

Faith vs 95-99% confidence level.

Faith vs deductive reason.

I'm all for hope and faith.  I go to sleep, each night, resting assured that I will wake up the next day.  Still, I lock my doors.

Life isn't a science experiment.  And god knows I've tried.  So, science doesn't negate having hope.  But blind faith isn't a substitute for rational thought and deducing good hypothesis from existing science. 

The bible served its purpose, providing something, anything, when there was nothing else to go on.  It filled in for law, history, psychology, a dictionary reference, an explaination for nature, and something to read where none existed.  

It has been thoroughly vetted.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> 
> Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.
> 
> ...



YWC has already established that he is unqualified to engage on this topic.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> 
> Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.
> 
> ...



"contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics"...

Oh, good god...  Jesus Christ... For crying out loud...

Another bastardization of the second law of thermo.  By that interpretation, my air conditioner and refrigerator wouldn't work. A steam locamotive wouldn't function. My car wouldn't run. Weather and climate wouldn't exist.  Life itself wouldn't work.

This is right up there with saying that the theory of relativity means everything is a matter of opinion.

2nd Law of Thermo says that for a LARGE ISOLATED SYSTEM, delta-entropy is greater than or equal to zero.

Life exists, functions, because it is not a closed system. It uses external energy to do work in opposition to the second law of thermo.  The sun is where that energy comes from, and geothermal energy as well as gravitational energy.


----------



## westwall (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...









You do know where the 6000 year figure came from do you not?


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Big_D2 said:
> ...



Both evolution and ID have adequate reasoning why we have such developed and sophisticated organs such as the eyes, heart, and brain.  However, only evolution have adequate reasoning why we have defects such as the detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> 
> Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.
> 
> ...



Oh no. Not this same silly Beisner cut and paste again. 

Yet more silliness from the ICR. 

E. Calvin Beisner 

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy. He has published over ten books and hundreds of articles, contributed to, or edited, many other books, and been a guest on television and radio programs. A ruling elder in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he has spoken to churches, seminars, and other groups around the country for nearly twenty years.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Beisner

Beisner is a political activist and dominionist who used to be a theologian at the Knox Theological Seminary (Ft. Lauderdale). He staunchly defends pretty much every kind of radical wingnut lunacy that exists, and generally vies with Brian Fischer for the position of the most fractally wrong delusional maniac alive at the moment.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another dodge...
the whole idea of original sin is not only counter productive it's silly.
if adam & eve hadn't  done what they did there would be no human race..unless I'm wrong and god didn't like what he made...you know how kids can be a pain in the ass..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> 
> Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.
> 
> ...


bullshit 

E. Calvin Beisner
E. Calvin Beisner is a founder of and the national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and formerly served on the pastoral staff of a church he planted, Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church, in Broward County, Florida. An author and lecturer on the application of Christian worldview, theology, and ethics to economics and the environment, political philosophy, public policy, and reaso 
World's Largest Professional Network | LinkedIn


Lee Spetner
Lee Spetner
Jerusalem College of Technology *>* Publications *>* B'Or Ha'Torah *>*Home
Lee M. Spetner is an American physicist and author, known best for his critique of the modern evolutionary synthesis. In spite of his opposition to neo-Darwinism, Spetner accepts a form of non-random evolution outlined in his 1996 book "Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evol 
en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> 
> Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.
> 
> ...



*that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. *

You should post the Second Law. Then I'll be happy to show you the error in this claim.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> 
> Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.
> 
> ...



Oh good gawd. Not another Henry Morrisism.

Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics | NCSE


One of the cornerstones in the crumbling foundation of creationist "science" is the notion that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The classical version of this law may be stated as follows: The entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. (An isolated system is one that does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings.) Creationists originally argued that a decrease in entropy is exactly what evolution requires, hence the conflict with the second law. This argument was used in an article by Dr. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) as late as 1973. As is the usual practice among creationists, he tried to support it with out-of-context quotations from the writings of respected scientists.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.



You mean like how the Bible says the geocentric model is correct (when it isn't advocating a flat Earth that is), but how We've known since 1610 that simply is not true.

Or how the Bible outright says the circumference of a circle is 3 time its diameter when every 9th grader knows it's really 3.14159... times.

Or maybe the time the Jews are told not to eat rabbits because they chew cud, but rabbits in the real world don't chew cud.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> ...



Undoubtedly, that is always the mistake, taking some science out of context, forcingbit to fit an incorrect and predetermined conclusion.  There is a reason that, fundamentally, science is written in mathematical form. It is the langiafe of obnoxious precision.  It workes because it is grounded in the most basic of natures elements, counting things... time, distance, mass, charge, ... I'm sure there are more... expression in measurement, in the context of the specific environment under which that measure is made is everything.

*&#916;S>=0 for a isolated system*, is a the fundamental aspect of the second law.  

I can only guess what the problem is but I believe it is the attempt to understand science in words only which opens up the potential to drop half the statement, overgeneralize, and apply it outside the context for which it is meant.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> ...



Sorry, you were the one that turned tail and ran when asked to engage, why is that ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> ...



It is a closed system and that is why we see entropy on all things.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I should have worded that differently not how long man has been on the planet but how long ago did creation begin. 

Yes I do,and I also know a day is a thousand years to the LORD, so were the the days of creation a thousand years each or were they like the days of man. If we go by the days of man somewhere around 6,000 years by tracing the ancestry of adam.

If the days of creation were a 1,000 years we are looking at around 12,000 years.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



No daws do you know the condition of the birth canal of eve 6,000 years ago ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> ...



Who you should be researching is Byles


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> ...



Like I told Hollie you need to research byles  the evolutionist ,he is the one who gave the 9 conditions for mutation fixation to take place.

Dr.Lee Spetner is a very well respected among his peers. He is a Biophysicist and knows things beyond your comprehension who is a evolutionist.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> ...



1.second law of thermodynamics   a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/second+law+of+thermodynamics


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.
> ...



That is just ignorance of the scriptures for anyone to claim the bible teaches a flat earth ,you should stay away from your atheist hate sites they will mislead you.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Incorrect.  Fundmentally incorrect.

[edit]
An isolated system is inherently closed.  Open systems exchange energy and matter.  Closed systems exchange energy, though not matter.  Isolated systems exchange neither energy or matter.
[end edit]

This is so fundamental as to defy any more basic explaination. All life are open, non-isolated systems.

To say otherwise is to simply ignore a very basic concept of thermo.

"We see entropy in all things" is a meaningless point.  We see energy is all things as well. We see matter is most things.  We see time and space in all things.

Living things, by their nature, are open systems that absorb energy and matter, constantly using it to do work.  Living things eat and excrete. That is an open system.

At least try not to be absurd.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



*BULLSHIT.  Are you telling me that it is scientifically possible for a man to die and awake three days later?*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



How so when scientists consider earth a closed system ? the reason is because no serious amount of matter enters and leaves earth. The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in. This is the only reason they say it is both open and closed but that is nonsense. The sun is pure energy and that is why the energy of the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*YOU make the positive assertion is biogenesis is a valid theory so the burden is on you, NOT on the person challenging you.  You claim to be educated so I'm surprised you didn't know that.*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



The abilities of God is beyond mans comprehension if it were not so we could answer a lot of earths mysteries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Now that you understand your mistake, you'll stop using the Second Law incorrectly?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in. *

Makes your Second Law error so obvious.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



It is not a theory it is a law. You have bought IN to the spin and lies. Living organisms come from other living organisms they do not come from Abiogenesis.

If you wish to refute the law produce the evidence that shows otherwise.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The ignorance is yours in that you simply don't understand any of the bibles. As is the case with so many religious extremists, you have a need to selectively interpret the bibles in a way that allows you to ignore the errors and contradictions. It's intellectually dishonest, but it calms an emotional requirement to continue in your deep stupor.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Nope as I have explained it is simple reasoning. The sun is so powerful the atmosphere can't prevent the energy of the sun penetrating the atmosphere.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Hey, the bible is a great historical document, no one doubts that. But it isn't science, by any stretch of the imagination. We've had 2000 odd years to go over it, with a fine tooth comb.




*YWC thought Sharknado was a documentary.*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Biogenesis has long ago been discarded as a valid theory. It is a relic that religious extremists cling to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, we receive energy from the sun. Proof of your Second Law error.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*
Once again, you are dodging the point that you know will embarrass you.  Consider me shocked.*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 19, 2013)

Everyone have a good weekend I will continue this later getting ready for Vegas.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yeah, he clearly spends too much time on science.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are distracting yourself, again, from the point.  The 2nd Law of Thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.

Nothing about the second law forbids life developing.


----------



## westwall (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...








The 6,000 year figure came from the Bishop Ussher when he sat down in his bathtub and calculated all the begats and the lifetimes of the various folks in the Bible.  I don't remember the exact year but it was around 1650 that he calculated that figure.  Do you see a problem with the timeline here?

Furthermore, who's to say that a day is only 1000 years to God?  A MAN?  What man can know, or even more to the point, has the temerity to define what Gods day is like?

Here are my thoughts on it.  God, if he existed, and made this universe, swished his finger through the primordial ooze and then sat back to watch what happens.  His or Her day is billions of years long and consists of doing whatever an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipowerful deity wishes to do...which I doubt has anything to do with humanity.  The Universe is far too vast for a deity to be tied down to one tiny little planet.....don't you think?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

Update:

To be more technically precise;

"·*Open - exchange of both H and M with S
·*Closed - exchange of H but not M with S
·*Isolated - exchange of neither H nor M with S

Which of these describes Earth?* The answer depends on context."

M:mass  S:Enrtopy H:Enthalpy(heat?)

This doesn't change any general or basic points, it is just more precisely correct as "isolate" vs "closed" are considered different as a closed system doesn't exchange matter with its surroundings, only heat/energy.

Regardless, the earth receives energy from the sun.  That energy is used by living organisms. That energy also drives the climate which performs work.

There are few things on this planet, and nothing in nature, which is isolated or closed.  Life is neither.  



Donald T. Haynie - Biological Thermodynamics - Earth: Open or Closed?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

A thermous creates an isolated system.
My refrigerator is closed until I open it.
My coffee cup is an open system
Living organisms are definitively open systems.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



We'll discount Daniel 4:10-11 because it was a dream, but what about When the Devil showed Jesus the whole Earth from a mountaintop? Regardless of how high this mountain is, one cannot see the other side of a sphere from a static point. (Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5)

But let's discount the Flat Earth claims then. What about the geocentric model that has been proven wrong by countless observations and experiments? Or the fact that the Bible is wrong on basic geometry? Or basic rabbit biology?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

> We'll discount Daniel 4:10-11 because it was a dream, but what about When the Devil showed Jesus the whole Earth from a mountaintop? Regardless of how high this mountain is, one cannot see the other side of a sphere from a static point. (Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5)



It is a demonstration of the theory of relativity.  Light bends around gravitational mass.  See, you just have to think about it and the bible predicts everything.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Typical lie from a faux "Christian". We have already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are unqualified to engage in any serious scientific discussion. That you are gullible enough to believe this deliberate misconstruing of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is additional evidence. So to address your question as to why I am not willing to engage you on any scientific topic it is because the outcome is a foregone conclusion. You will be humiliated by your ignorance and then deny that that your ignorance was exposed. Only a fool does the exact same thing and expects a different outcome each time. With you the outcome is always the same.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

The following are the succinct expressions of thermo.  They apply to large bodies.  A cup of water is large. The volume that can be observed in a microscope, where grains of pollen are visible, is not large enough.

Thermodynamics defines an ideal set of laws.  Like all physics, it is difficult to so contol the environment as to create the ideal conditions.  For instance, a thermous is very close to an isolated system, still it will lose heat.

The first law is;

-For an isolated system:  &#916;U=0
Energy is constant. Change in energy is zero

-For a non-isolated system:  &#916;U=Q-W

Change in internal energy is total heat minus work. Energy is conserved. 

Adding heat increases energy.  Doing work on the system increases energy.  The direction, the minus sign is important.  When a system does work, it loses energy.  

A nice note is that friction is a form of work.  Friction in an iaolated system is no change of energy to the system. The work done increases the heat without changing the energy. If automobile brakes were not cooled, they would get too hot.  For a closed system the work done by the system and, typically, the heat is lost to the environment.

The 2nd law is;

-For a closex system  &#916;S>=0
Entropy increases to equilibrium

-For an open system  dS= &#948;Q/T
Change in entropy requires a change in heat and how much is required is inversely proportional to temperature.

Simple implications of first and second laws include

dU=T dS - &#948;W
dU=T dS - p dV

These basically say that work may be extracted from the energy.  But, in doing so, there are specific change to temperature and entropy. The direction of that change is apparent from the equations.  Still, the context of the system is significant.  The form does not guarantee that any particular system is suitable.  For instance, right now I am hungry, so my entropy is low and less work is available.

The 3rd law is;

S(T&#8594;0)&#8594;0

At absolute zero temperature, entropy is zero.

At the very least, any understanding of thermo should include these.  They are measurable.  They are defined in specific contexts. Care should be taken to not over apply them, to not presume they imply things without clearly proving that they do.

Note that a virus is not large enough to be simply defined by the laws of thermodynamics presented here. It may or may not be true that these apply.  One may not presume that they do as, by definition, a virus is below the size that is defined by thermodynamics. 

Without extensive consideration, it is inapprooriate to apply the laws of thermodynamics to the origin of life except, perhaps, to note that the Earth was very hot at one time, increases temperature is higher entropy.  High entroly means more ways that things may be arranged.  As such, the instantaneous probability of life beginning was likely higher than now.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> &#8226;The 3rd law is;
> 
> S(T&#8594;0)&#8594;0
> 
> At absolute zero temperature, entropy is zero.



Don't forget, it is impossible to reach absolute zero through a finite number of steps and it is impossible to carry out an infinite number of steps.

Or as a professor once said you can boil down the three laws of thermodynamics to this:

1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't quit the game.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The 3rd law is;
> ...



Love that saying.  It is typically all I remember without review. It needs the zeroeth law in it.   

How about  

0)  You can keep score.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

This seems to be a solid reference;

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jrembold/pdfs/Resources/Stat_Mech_Notes_Completed.pdf

It is mathematically succinct. It is annoyingly succinct. It concerns itself with thermo to the level of quantum mechanics, so we can be sure that is misses nothing. That benefit is offset by the fact that it also requires considerable knowledge to understand all of it.  There are many notations which I am not familiar with. Still, what I can garnish from it is clear. At least, if we know algebra, we can garnish somethings with clarity. And, we know where we stand.

I am still searching for a succinct and definitive reference that isn't so intense. But it needs to be clear enough to not be misunderstood.  I would rather be clear regarding my limitations than believe I know more than I do.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 19, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Sounds good to me or maybe something like "everyone can play" or "all players are equal" or something.

Whichever professor first devised that little ditty has the eternal gratitude of generations of science and engineering students.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 19, 2013)

Drunk grad students!!!


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jul 19, 2013)

Excuse my ignorance and my want for things to be broken down in the simplest of terms.

As I understand it, the anti-creationists insist that the 2nd Law of Thermo doesn't apply because the universe is not a closed system.

I beg to differ.  And so does Einstein.  Not only is it impossible to prove the universe is a closed system, it doesn't even make sense.  How can a vacuum exist in an open system?

Again, maybe I'm way off base here.  The anti-creationists boast of "acing" their classes in Thermodynamics and use a lot of big words, so I'm obviously way out of my league.

So where did I go wrong?  (Please bear in mind that I'm a simple man so keep the words under 30 letters each and keep your insults and laughter to a minimum so I won't feel so emasculated that I don't get through your reply) -- And I ask that the reply be in 1,000 words or less, else I might have to stop for a coffee break while reading it, and lose interest.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Excuse my ignorance and my want for things to be broken down in the simplest of terms.
> 
> As I understand it, the anti-creationists insist that the 2nd Law of Thermo doesn't apply because the universe is not a closed system.
> 
> ...



It'a usually best to break things down to the specific and simplest terms.

Nobody said anything about the universe, at least not intentionally.  A relevant systems would be the Earth, which is not isolated but is closed, for most practical purposes.  It absorbes solar energy constantly.  We probably prefer to think of it as not receiving or expelling mass, though a few people in Russia might disagree with that, not to mention a few astronauts.  But, for the most part, it is closed but not isolated.

For our purposes, its real important to be clear on isolated vs closed.  Closed means energy/heat exchange but not mass.  Isolated means nothing gets in or out. And open means matter and energy get in and out.  I have to be careful about those, to not forget there are three.

An auto engine would be an open system.
A rocket would be open.
A steam engine would be closed, I'm pretty sure.

There aren't many isolated systems I can think of.  A thermous is about it. It depends on the boundary drawn.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 20, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Excuse my ignorance and my want for things to be broken down in the simplest of terms.
> 
> As I understand it, the anti-creationists insist that the 2nd Law of Thermo doesn't apply because the universe is not a closed system.
> 
> ...



No. I'm not certain where you got this information, but it is wrong. 

First this: 



> keep your insults and laughter to a minimum so I won't feel so emasculated that I don't get through your reply



I'm not going to laugh at you or talk down to you or insult you. This is a teachable moment. 

There are three types of thermodynamic systems: Open, Closed, and Isolated.

Open means matter and energy (in the form of light and heat) can be exchanged. Think of a house. Sunlight can go into the house, I can shine a flashlight out of the house. A brick can go through the window, I can throw the brick right back out.

Closed means only energy can be exchanged. My house now has plexiglass windows. Sunlight can pass through, but bricks don't.

Isolated means no mass or energy can be exchanged. Outside of chalkboard examples, the only known isolated system is the Universe. So far as we know, the Universe exchanges nothing with any other Universe (assuming another one even exists outside of the one we're in now). What was in the Universe at the creation of the Universe is all we have to work with.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system does not decrease. That's somewhat confused with the idea that order decreases. What it means is the amount of usable energy (aka heat) in a system will be lost unless some outside energy is added to it. Energy doesn't flow from cold to hot without some external cause.

Think of your car driving down the street. Now kill the engine. You coast to a stop, right? What's really happening is the friction is moving the available energy from your car into the surrounding environment and it is converted to heat in the process. The friction between your tires and the pavement heats up the pavement slightly, causing a loss in energy from your car. Wind resistance because of friction heats the surrounding air slightly by stealing it from you car. Your car's entropy is increasing. 

The disorder part of entropy is more confusing, but is less a physical law than a law governing statistical mechanics. Take ice in a glass for example. Because of the physics behind ice, the molecules in ice can only be arranged in certain configurations. Melt the ice so we're left with a liquid and the possible configurations increases. Entropy has increased. You have a plate, solid and organized. Drop the plate and it shatters. You have increased the entropy. You aren't likely to be able to drop the shards and have it spontaneously reorder itself into a solid plate. Let's say we have two containers of gases, a red gas and a blue gas. There is a valve between the containers. If we only open the valve for a short time, very little of the gases will mix. The longer the valve is open, the more the gases will mix. Given enough time, we will have an equal amount of each gas distributed evenly between the two containers. Entropy has increased.

But what about evolution? Well, even if we were to accept the idea that the entropy means what the Creationists think it means, it's still a flawed interpretation because the Earth is not an isolated system. We receive all kinds of energy from the Sun. There is not a fixed amount of available energy or heat or matter on Earth because we are constantly getting new heat and energy and matter from the Sun, meteors, and the like. 

This is somewhat difficult to explain with breaking out the mathematics, but this is Freshman level physics. Fortunately, there are any number of available resources to explain what is going on. Try Khan Academy ( Khan Academy ) or Hyperphysics ( HyperPhysics ) or here ( Entropy and the Laws of Thermodynamics ) or better yet, sign up for an Intro to Physics class at your local college. You'll need to have passed algebra to do the basic math (or Calculus if you want to try Physics I and II for Scientists and Engineers).


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

We have to be careful with the internet as it gets sloppy.  Depending on the source, closed may or may not mean isolated.   Some sites do not make it clear that thermo applies to large numbers of particles.  Entropy has been determined to have a number of different uses that are fundamentally the same but not apparently.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 20, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Excuse my ignorance and my want for things to be broken down in the simplest of terms.
> 
> As I understand it, the anti-creationists insist that the 2nd Law of Thermo doesn't apply because the universe is not a closed system.
> 
> ...



While both itfitzme and Steven_R have offered better responses than my will be....
I think that in time, you will discover the slogan anti-creationists tends to pre-define both your argument and your agenda. _The 2nd law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution_ was an earlier tactic employed by young earth creationists (YECists), allegedly as a foil to evolution and an ancient earth / universe.  The tactic involved claims that the 2nd law of thermo was a supposed unassailable obstacle to evolution because the planet operated as an isolated or closed system. Most people (most people) understand that our sun is the engine that drives any number of crucial electro  chemical processes on our planet. Thus, the planet does not operate as a closed system but rather an open system receiving energy from an external source.

When critics of YECists pointed out these flaws in the alleged violation of the 2nd law of thermo as used by creationists, they retreated to various specious arguments and some rather silly reinterpretations of the law, designed to detour around their faulty re-writing. Over the last 20 years or so, the only YECists who even approach the "2nd thermo" argument have been the more loopy of the YECists as represented by the _Institute of Creation Research,_ _Answers in Genesis_, and the _Hovind Entertainment Network_ among the more notorious of the Christian creation ministries. And make no mistake, if you read the about,or the statement of faith section of the above organizations, they are fundamentalist Christian ministries with a pre-commitment to literal biblical creation.

I can only urge you to review the relevant science data, here, for one example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html


----------



## editec (Jul 20, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The 3rd law is;
> ...





Oh my god_ that's brilliant!~_

Kudos to that professor


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...


I use to but now just read and discuss many different subjects concerning science.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


 I disagree, a closed system allows energy but not matter and total entropy of a closed system never decreases.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 20, 2013)

I hate doing this on my phone but I have read an article dealing with the 2nd law that I will introduce to this discussion on Monday when I get home.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 20, 2013)

Actually several articles


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 20, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 The Second Law of Thermodynamics - CMI Mobile


----------



## Hollie (Jul 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You make the mistake of reading "science" on Harun Yahya's website.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 20, 2013)

Entropy at work.  Entropy at work: skeptic blunders on thermodynamics - CMI Mobile


----------



## Hollie (Jul 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



"Creation Ministries International"?

Could you have offered a less credible source? That's a rhetorical question, btw.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse my ignorance and my want for things to be broken down in the simplest of terms.
> ...



Not better, just different.  

You might want to be aware that "closed" may be a bit fuzzy.  I've seen it used with and without reference to "isolated".  This happens.

I ran across a nice presentation that explained how context is everything as to if Earth is taken as closed or isolated.

  But, you know some people... Give them the chance to ignore your context and say you're wrong.....

Me, personally, I've never been anti-much of any thing.  I am, though, pro-science, pro-reason, pro-responsibility, pro-individual rights, pro-resolution, and more.  The problem is, there are some things that just can't be reconciled. I am forced to take a side, be pro-vocative, have a pro-gram.   I don't want to.  People have a right to believe what they want to, in the privacy of their own home and mind. But it is irresponsible, even abusive, to put complete non-sense out in public.  I am pro-sense, which forces me to be anti-non-sense. 

Inspite of my best efforts, I'm forced by them to be anti-theist.  I've given YWC the option of accepting that faith is an alpha of 5%. People have a right to believe.

A problem is that the emotional brain has no difficulty puttimg things together that simply cannot exist in reality. I am pro-reality.

  I'd rather be ambi-theist.  But, it seems, because I am pro-science, I am forced to be some sort of a-theist.
_______________________________________________

*Six Types Of Athiests*

A study of the variability in the perception and actions of athiest was recently published.

ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND NONBELIEF: A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF TYPE AND NARRATIVE. By Christopher F Silver

"Previous research and studies focusing on the diverse landscape of Belief in America have continually placed those who profess no belief in a God or gods into one unified category infamously known as the religious nones. This catch-all category presented anyone who identified as having no religion as a homogeneous group in America today, lumping people who may believe in God with the many who dont. Moreover, it also assumed that all Non-believers were the same. Based on their personal experiences and involvement in the atheist community, Principal Investigator Chris Silver and Thomas J. Coleman III knew that not only did this religious none category fail to accurately capture and reflect the diversity of beliefs (or un-belief) but that even the terms of atheism and agnosticism suffered from a similar lack of description.*Each term was pregnant with meaning and interpretation from a variety of different types of people. Moreover, beyond the psychology of nonbelief, atheism and agnosticism proved sociologically complex as well. "

*CNN-Blog-Six-Types-Of-Athiests*

*The CNN Article*

*Study Author Discusses*

*The Study: Six Types Of Athiests*


----------



## westwall (Jul 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...









I agree!  It's the skepticalscience.com of the creationist world!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

Entropy is a measure of the number of ways that a system can arrange itself.

Entropy is literally an accounting of the number of ways that the particles can be arranged.

Mathematically it is;

S=k*ln(&#937;(E))

where &#937;(E) is the number of ways the particles be arranged. k is Boltzman's constant. ln(x) is the function, natural logarithm.

Someone figured out that counting the number of ways a system of particles can be arranged, taking the natural log, and multiplying by k, gives a number that can be compared to other things.

As a specific example, we can consided two coins that are being flipped repeatedly. Two coins can be arranged in four ways, TT, HT, TH, and HH. So, the entropy is

S=k*ln(4)=k*1.386=1.9*10^-23 J/K

Care has to be taken when understanding the 2nd law.

Entropy is used in communication theory. In information theory, higher entropy represents more information.

I use it as a measure of the utility of a forum member. Because it is a personal formula, I am free to devise any numerical method I want. 

My measure is

S(Info,Posts)=Info/Posts where Info is a count of the number of sentences that present unique imformation about the objective world. Incorrect information is counted as a negative number. Posts is the total number of sentences. So,

1 >= S(Info,Posts)=Info/Posts >= -1

Someone that posts "You're stupid", or a variation of it, in five seperate posts, has an personal utility entropy of 

S(-1,5) = -.2

Someone that constantly posts but provides no useful info has S=0. Someone that constantly posts bad info has an S &#8594; -1. Someone that posts unique and useful info has an S &#8594; 1.

It is a weak but accurate measure. Weak, accurate measures have high utility because they can be done intuitively. I don't do logarithms in my head. Even Newton did them in this notebook.

It is also modifiable for a number of utilities.  Taking the absolute value gives me an info entropy regarding the utility that is provided as I use bad ideas to look up good ideas.  Anyone that has a near zero entropy is put on ignore.  They have no utility.

I can count the instances of the use of the second person pronoun. This serves as a measure of objectivity.  People that have high subjective negative entropy get ignored.  They are trolls.

Entropy is an awesome concept.  It must, though, be used appropriately, in the context for which it was devised.

High entropy means more countable states.  It does not necessarily mean more dissorder.  

Someone, in some site, somewhere on the interweb, pointed out that a desk of items has no more or less entropy than the same items which have been strewn on the floor.  

I am thankful for that clarity as it is correct. This would be the case as, whatever the order on the floor may be, it is still a single state of organization.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*total entropy of a closed system never decreases. *

You can add energy to a system and make it more ordered.
Even if you disagree.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 20, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The energy would have to be directed because undirected energy just speeds up destruction. In the article I posted it gave an example of what would happen with undirected energy. If you stand out in the sun to long it would cause mutations.The body cannot deal with undirected energy.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

"The energy would have to be directed because undirected energy just speeds up destruction."

I'm not even sure what that means.  The sun sends energy out in all directions.  The earth orbits the sun and revolves on its axis.  The axis has a tilt from the orbital plane.  The moon orbits the earth.  In this simple system of cycles, other cycles come about. These include night and day, tides, and seasons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*The energy would have to be directed because undirected energy just speeds up destruction.*

You should quit while you're behind.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

"total entropy of a closed system never decreases", spontaneously.

"total entropy of a closed system" will increase, spontaneously, towards maximum.

Isolated system.  I may have screwed the pooch in an earlier post.  And it seems some internet science sites may vary.  Some may use (open,closed) and others may be using (open, closed, isolated). I am being wary of this issue.  

I'm now going with

Isolated : Thermous bottle    &#916;U=0         &#916;S>=0 always and will tend to maximum.
Closed: Ideal piston             &#916;U=Q-W     dS= &#948;Q/T
Open: Rocket

Specifically, I'm going with this

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jrembold/pdfs/Resources/Stat_Mech_Notes_Completed.pdf

Because is is the most compete and succinct I can find.  Hyper-physics is good, but he doesn't talk about the context of macro-systems, just shows a glass of water.  It led to some miscomceptions.

jrembold's is a bitch to read, but it is precise.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



But that isn't always true.  Plants are designed to absorb and direct sunlight.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

Get this. Page 29,

Postulate: An Approach to Equilibrium. *An isolated system that is not in equilibrium will approach equilibrium if left undisturbed for a sufficiently long time.

Then

Remark 3: The above postulate would be false for a truely isolated system.

Ah, really?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 20, 2013)

I look at the websites for Creation Science or Young Earth Creationism or Geocentrism and I see very smart people but who are delusional. Some of the people on those websites have degrees directly related to the ideas they are espousing, but ignore everything they were taught to justify to themselves just why their faith in a Bronze Age creation myth trumps what they know. They have a conclusion and then cherry pick evidence or twist it around to make it seem like all the science is false and that what is right backs up their religion. They use science to support a perversion of science. 

Michael Behe is a biochemists who rejects evolution in favor of Intelligent Design with a mechanism called Irreducible Complexity. The problem is his entire community have come out with evidence that Irreducible Complexity is wrong. Dr. Behe is so respected, what with his admission that astrology is science, that his department at Lehigh University has a disclaimer about him on their website. Gerry Bouw has a PhD in Astronomy from Case Western Reserve University, which is not exactly a charm school. Robert J. Bennett got his PhD in physics from Stevens Institute of Technology, another excellent institution.  They are also geocentrists (Sun revolves around the Earth), because the Bible tells them so. I'm not one to go out of my way to pick on a man's religion, but when a scientist has to either twist or disregard the evidence that is in front of his eyes in order to make the Bible work, there is something fundamentally wrong with that person still calling himself a scientist. Ptolemy said the Earth was unmoving and everything orbited Earth and it was accepted as such until 1610 when Galileo showed moons around Jupiter. It becomes impossible to ignore the evidence, so Tycho Brahe modifies the model to make every other planet's moons orbit their planet, all those planets orbit the Sun, which still orbits the Earth. Four centuries worth of observations and mathematical models that function versus the Bible and these scientists go with the Bible. 

That's just a symptom, not the disease. The biggest problem is that we have a scientifically illiterate society. I can understand why. Science has answered the day to day questions (why do babies look like their parents, what causes the tides, why does the baking soda and vinegar volcano work) and what's left seems like a very esoteric subject that only matters to experts. Science is inaccessible to average people. The days of a guy rolling two balls down ramps is over. It now takes a decade of study to be able to understand these papers that are redefining the universe. I get it, but it is exceptionally dangerous to be scientifically illiterate on the most basic of matters.

The problem with websites like Answers in Genesis and other creationist sites is that for people who just don't know what the science says, it is easy to muddy the waters. When you have an agenda and an audience that doesn't know what they are reading/watching/hearing it is easy to bamboozle with pithy sayings, misdirections, half-truths, twisted logic, and outright lies. It's just another con-job to reinforce what the listener wants to hear. It's complicated by the fact that the science is difficult and that the scientist trying to refute the Creationist-types has to speak in non-technical terms. How do I really explain entropy to refute the Creationist idea of the Second Law of Thermodynamics when I can't use math because the audience never took Calc I? How do I explain how we know that dinosaurs were wiped out 65mya when the Creationist outright lies about radiometric dating and geological layering when I can't illustrate in technical terms just how we know those things are right? How do I show that molecular biology has used DNA in evolution when the people I'm talking to just don't have the vocabulary to have the conversation in the first place?


----------



## Agent.Tom (Jul 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


It's tempting to dismiss information out of hand considering the source and I'm guilty of doing it.  But really you should resist the temptation and address the article.  It's hardly possible that any source of loads of information could submit 100% lies.  So... I venture to say there is some truth coming from that site.  Maybe this article has some truth to it.

So rather than taking the lazy way out and dismissing something you don't read.. (which us Christians could never get away with when people attack the bible).. read it and tell youwerecreated where it is verifiably wrong.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

"How do I really explain entropy to refute the Creationist idea of the Second Law of Thermodynamics when I can't use math because the audience never took Calc I? How do I explain how we know that dinosaurs were wiped out 65mya when the Creationist outright lies about radiometric dating and geological layering when I can't illustrate in technical terms just how we know those things are right? How do I show that molecular biology has used DNA in evolution when the people I'm talking to just don't have the vocabulary to have the conversation in the first place?"

I have enough trouble just being sure I don't mangle the interpretation of the math after I think I've figured it out.

The reason I picked the most incomprehensible publication on thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, is because I know it hasn't been misrepresented because I know nobody would bother misrepresenting it in a language that is incomprehensible in the first place.


You know, and I know, that if we want to make a suit that fits without wasting cloth, we have to measure. *And the math is the measure. *No recipe, in a cookbook, is written without precise measures. *No business man would have an accountamt that couldn't count. *In truth, we only really know a thing in so much as we can count it.

There really just is no other way. *If they can't count it, they don't know it.

For me, I've been in the lab, heating a bar, measuring the most infintesimal change, and comparing it to the ideal model. *And I know how absolutely minor is the difference between the noise and the model.*

Every scientist adds something to the greater body of science. No one person really knows all of it. *There is this interplay betweem the mathmeticians, theoretical physicists, and the experimental physicists such that the science slowly progresses forward. *

There is a point where you realize that it is all just a description. *Still, it is the best and simplest description. *

If you really want to, you can put the earth in the center, orbit the sun around it, and the planets about it. *We can put Jupiter in the middle. *We can put any planet in the middle. *In truth, there is a center of mass for the Solar system, an instantaneous point that keeps changing as thd Sun, the planets, their moons, and all the asteroids go zipping about. *But, because the Sun is the most massive of all the objects, the simplest, *and best description, is the one with it in the center. *

The truth of the matter is that if someone really wants to believe an idea, there is nothing that will convince them otherwise. They will find a way to wiggle their way to it and away from a more comprehensive truth. *What is important is what you think and if you find that it is consistent with everything that you know.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*"So rather than taking the lazy way out"*

Because this tells me everything I need to know.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 20, 2013)

An isolated system is a closed system for which dU=0.
What is true for an isolated system is true for a closed system where dU=0.

A closed system is an open system where dM=0.
What is true for a closed system is true for an open system where dM=0.

Those are a quintuplet of statements that the reference doesn't make.  They would be the "dumb" questions that one would ask as a student in his thermo class.  They are the "obvious" ones that he wouldn't bother to write down.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> You know, and I know, that if we want to make a suit that fits without wasting cloth, we have to measure. *And the math is the measure. *No recipe, in a cookbook, is written without precise measures. *No business man would have an accountamt that couldn't count. *In truth, we only really know a thing in so much as we can count it.
> 
> There really just is no other way. *If they can't count it, they don't know it.



Someone much wiser than me once said, "Don't be afraid of numbers. Analysis without data is not analysis; it's an opinion."

If it can't be quantified, it can't be analyzed. If it can't be analyzed, it isn't science.


----------



## Big_D2 (Jul 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is proof for macro-evolution:
> ...



That article where you source claims that E Coli absobs the citrate (Pos et al. 1998) is actually saying it converts it to acetate and succinate, not absorbing it.  E Coli ONLY absorbs it after 20+ years of evolution.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 21, 2013)

That the E. Coli was actually observed evolving was just a bonus. The real payoff was reading how Dr. Lenski verbally (literarily?) bitch-slapped Andrew Schalfly in the process.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 21, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Oh but I don't think I am I will go more into detail when I get in front of a computer.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 21, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Get this. Page 29,
> 
> Postulate: An Approach to Equilibrium. *An isolated system that is not in equilibrium will approach equilibrium if left undisturbed for a sufficiently long time.
> 
> ...



I see some sites suggest the wary is an open system,I see some say it is closed system,and yes even some that claim an isolated system. The universe I see differing opinions on as well but in my opinion I believe the universe is an isolated system and earth is a closed system. We  the earth does not Exchange enough matter to be considered an open system.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> 
> Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.
> 
> ...


*
the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity.*

What is more complex, an acorn or a mighty oak tree?
A fertilized human egg or you?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I see some sites suggest the wary is an open system,I see some say it is closed system,and yes even some that claim an isolated system. The universe I see differing opinions on as well but in my opinion I believe the universe is an isolated system and earth is a closed system. We  the earth does not Exchange enough matter to be considered an open system.



I suggest not using the internet as your source of physics information, or at least limit your searches to reputable sites like MIT OpenCourseWare (ocw.mit.edu) or if you can do the math scienceworld.wolfram.com or any college level Intro to Physics texts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 21, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I see some sites suggest the wary is an open system,I see some say it is closed system,and yes even some that claim an isolated system. The universe I see differing opinions on as well but in my opinion I believe the universe is an isolated system and earth is a closed system. We  the earth does not Exchange enough matter to be considered an open system.
> ...



Physics is definitely something I should avoid it is something that is obvious I do not have a  background in. I should stick to where I can be close on biololgy and origins. That deals with more on my background.. That really is in my opinion where you can if we are a product of chance or purposeful design.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 21, 2013)

As reluctant as I may be to make statements of the following tense; YWC should stop making statements with regard to the second law of thermodynamics.  The world will be differentially better for it.

There are a few people, on this forum, who really should stop making statements that purport to impart scientific information.  They really should stop.  I highly doubt they will.

[EDIT: Which YMC has actually decided to do, having written such a post while I was writing this one.]


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are absolutely correct that, for all practicle purposes, the Earth is a closed system.   There is some mention of a minor loss of atmosphere to evaporation into space and there are the regularly scheduled meteors.  Still, and until someone puts a significant number to it, the difference those make is nill.  Obviously any loss of atmosphere must be negligable or we'd all be in trouble.  Interestingly, there is actually a measurable amount of meteoric material on roofs of houses.  It is still just dirt, for all practicle purposes.  (meteor=>meteoric, from meteors or like meteors)

It is this mangling of the second law that appears to be some bad internet meme. The second law does not say that things tend to become more random.

It says that, for a large isolated system of ultimate particles (gas, liquid), if they can be organized in more than one order, they will end up randomly swapping around between all of those arrangements.  It also says that, for a closed system, one that allows heat to enter, the rate of change for entropy with respect to the rate of change of heat is inversly proportional to temperature.

Isolated:           &#916;S>=0
Not Isolated:    dS=dQ/T  which also give T dS=dQ

Q is heat, which is the flow of thermal energy across the boundary.  Thermal energy is the average kinetic energy of the ultimate particles. 

Entropy is literally based on counting the number of ways the particles can be organized.  That could be multiple non-random organizations.

If a diamond is isolated from external heat and mass, it will always remain in its crystaline form as a diamond.  It won't spontaneously change.    &#916;S=0.  

The non-isolated case of the second law, dS=dQ/T, when combined with the first law that energy is conserved, is what describes thermodynamic cycles like engines and weather.  

(The reason I keep using the math is as they say, "A picture is worth a thousand words".  A physics formula expresses a half dozen general prose sentences.  The context of the formula, like "isolated system of ultimate particles", keeps it from expressing thousands of incorrect prose statements.  Together, they create a very restricted picture worth thousands of words.  Even then, we have to be cautious because scale is everything.  An effect may be theoretically true, even actually true, but it is insignificant in its effect.)

All that said, the first and second laws combine to provide descriptions of dynamic systems that define some restrictions to what happens when work is extracted from thermal energy.  One might interpret that because some energy is always lost to heat, then randomness is the result.  This, though, is the magic of living things.  They take the energy from the Sun and turn into continued life.  That they do is insufficient to demonstrate that organization, even cyclical self replicating organiztion of matter isn't possible.  Indeed, it is in the case of crystals which are self organizing.  That is a far cry from a virus or bacteria, but in the case of DNA, that is the whole thing about them. DNA is the ultimate self replicating molecule.

If there is any hope that this meme might be relevantly applied, it would be to the Universe as a whole. Currently, to the best of our knowledge and information, the Universe is an isolated system.  As a whole, the entropy of the Universe can only increase or remain constant.  That is, of all the states of organization that the Universe can exist in, over a long enough time, and on the average, it will exist in all the states that it can be organized.  But that is so increadibly generalized and abstract as to have no practicle relevance.

(If anything is more relevant it would be that my spelling entropy tends towards maximum, only offset by continued energy expended to reduce it.  Left to its own devices, my spelling and typos would exhibit all possible organizations of letters that would still phonetically represent the words!)


----------



## daws101 (Jul 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


since there is no proof that eve was anything more than a story book character, no one has any evidence she even had a birth canal..
as to the false date of 6,000 years...it's bullshit.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that in itself refutes your closed system nonsense..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist .....biased not objective therefore not credible.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



is it just me or is this pseudo scientific bullshit : What we believe
STATEMENT OF FAITH 
(See also Good News)
(A) PRIORITIES
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(B) BASICS
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, mans sin.
(C) THEOLOGY
The Godhead is triune: one God, three PersonsGod the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to Gods wrath and condemnation.
Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individuals repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
(D) GENERAL
The following are held by members of the Boards (Directors) of Creation Ministries International to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The gap theory has no basis in Scripture. Nor has the day-age idea (so-called progressive creation), or the Framework Hypothesis or theistic evolution.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
(Also available in Afrikaans, Albanian, Indonesian, Portuguese, Russian and Slovenian)


----------



## daws101 (Jul 21, 2013)

hollie said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


bump


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > You are distracting yourself, again, from the point.  The 2nd Law of Thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.
> ...



It is a meaningless philosophical diatribe.  Philosophy is proven irrelevant by more philosophy and, as philosophy has no solid mathematical or scientific foundation, it is necessarily meaningless.

There is simply no way to philosiphicalize to an answer of how life began.  There is limited opportunity to theorize onto it.  Thermodynamic laws don't provide any basis for proving it either way.  At best, they put some restraint on how  it came about.  Observation of something is required.  

I am forever overwhelmed by how a few subatomic particles and a few forces of nature so quickly expands into the complexity of the periodic table of elements.  That plethora of seemingly simple set of elements explodes into an extrordinary number of chemicals which further combine into a seemingly infinite variety of organic and inorganic forms.

And for all we know, the circumstances of the early Earth was both complex and significantly different in ways that we cannot begin to imagine.  We may have, over the past hundreds of years of investgation, by one of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of scientists, run across, picked up, examined, and tossed away the very evidence simply because they had no clue what they were looking at.  And that is assuming it even has survived the geological processes that churn the very ground beneath our feet.  We know where oil came from, and yet to look at it, it bears no resemblence to the very creatures from which it came.

We can hypothesize, to the end of days, but without some theoretical or empirical basis, it remains simply that, a hypothesis. A book, written by men, is not the basis for a hypothesis.  The repeatable observations and recipes, from a book, written by a cook or blacksmith, have far more relevance.

For me, it is enough to learn what others have already figured out instead of chasing after an answer that is confined to some moment long lost in history.

The day the Sun no longer shines, the Earth's core solidifies, the wind stops, and life still continues on will be the day that some mysterious force is shown as violating the laws of thermodynamics.  Until then, it is all just physics, chemistry and biology.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 21, 2013)

I read "The Second Law Of Thermodynamics: An Answer To Critics", by Jonathan Sarfti, at least as far as I didn't feel I was wasting my time.

Fundamentally, the entire argument of the article is this; *If we ignore living things and then examine all non-living nature, the non-living things aren't living, ergo, life can't arise without intervention. It starts with an incorrect statement that applies subjective perception to an objective principle, then proceeds*forward, adding one more subjective opinion after another.

These statements are either false,*unproven, non-sequiter, or otherwise not necessarily true.

"Entropy is a measure of dissorder".

Entropy is a measure of all the ways a system can be organized, whether the are meaningful or not.

"Usable energy is running out."

Energy is just energy. *"Usable" is an interpretation we assign to something. *It isn't a physical quality intrinsic to energy or matter. *It is the same as "utility" and "value".

"Information tends to get scrambled."

Again, "information" is not an objective quality of the physical world.

"Order tends towards disorder."

Same problem as before. *If I take ten pingpong balls and arrange them in rows and columns, we say they have "order". *It is, though, just one of a million different ramdom arrangmemts. *It is, physically, no more unique than any other arrangement.

"A random jumble won't organize itself."

This is simply a non-sequiter that was arrived at as if the previous meaningless points had relevance. "Random jumble"s did organize themselves.

"The Universe is an isolated system, so it is running down."

The Universe will never "run down". *Energy is conserved, as is momentum. There is no evidence to support this and fundamental principles that say the opposite.

"Open systems still have a tendency towards dissorder."

Regardless of any "tendancy", open systems are, by definition, open to outside energy and matter. Depending on the system, they not only don't actually move to dissorder, they actually grow.

"Raw energy cannot generate the specific complex information in living things."

It did.

At this point, as I'm only a half dozen paragraphs into the article, I am fed up. *It is a study in the psychology of how to mislead people by manipulating perception rather than an examination of nature.

The real shame is that*Jonathan Sarfti has obviously wasted a perfectly good life, having spent it in studying the techniques of sophistry.

And I wasted too much time on it.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics - CMI Mobile


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Finally back in front of my computer. I was in Vegas and just could not respond on my phone it was a major pain in the you know what.

Itfitzme thank you for the information on physics it really is not a subject That I am as well versed in as I should be. That said philosophy in science it exists andnecessary for building theories and coming up with assumptions. I believe many come in and suggest only empirical evidence should be accepted that is not the case because only empirical evidence can be interpreted wrong. Philosophy plays a large part in science all you need to do is look at theories that are filled with conjecture. Many people are affected by the bias when interpreting evidence and their assumptions.

If we just relied on empirical evidence we wouldn't get very far in science. Still you need to have sound logic to properly interpret if you lack sound logic you will get too many bad assumptions and faulty interpretations.

I will post this and show how important logic and philosophy really are  in performing good science.





The Design Argument

Does the intricate design of the universe serve as evidence for the existence of God?

Imagine walking in the desert and coming across two small stones in close proximity to each other. Most probably, you would think nothing of it. Two stones randomly sitting beside each other is no big deal.

You continue your walk in the desert and stumble upon three rows of stones piled up in a brick-layer fashion. Chances are you would quickly surmise that someone was here and arranged these stones in this manner. It didn&#8217;t just happen.

You continue your walk and happen to find a watch lying in the middle of the desert. Would you suspect that a windstorm somehow threw these pieces together and randomly created a watch?

Somebody made that watch. It didn&#8217;t just happen. Design implies designer.
DID THE UNIVERSE HAVE A DESIGNER?

The intricacy of design in our world is staggering&#8212;infinitely more complex than a simple brick wall or a watch. Dr. Michael Denton, in his book &#8220;Evolution: A Theory in Crisis&#8221; describes the intricate organization of nerve cells in the brain [pp. 330 - 331].

There are 10 billion nerve cells in the brain. Each of the 10 billion cells sprouts between 10,000 to 100,000 fibers to contact other nerve cells in the brain, creating approximately 1,000 million million connections, or, 10 to the 15th power.

It is hard to imagine the multitude that 1015 represents. Take half of the United States, which is 1 million square miles, and imagine it being covered by forest, with 10,000 trees per square mile. On each of the 10,000 trees, which are on each of the one million square miles, there are 100,000 leaves. That&#8217;s how many connections are crammed inside your brain. And they&#8217;re not just haphazardly thrown together. They form an incredibly intricate network system that has no parallel in the industrial world.

Imagine walking by that in the desert! The natural response when perceiving design of such mind-boggling complexity is to conclude that there must be a designer behind everything who created it. None of this just happened.
RANDOM WRITING SAMPLE

Rabbeinu Bachya, in his major philosophical work &#8220;The Duties of the Heart&#8221; [10th century] presents this argument in the following manner:

    Do you not realize that if ink were poured out accidentally on a blank sheet of paper, it would be impossible that proper writing should result, legible lines that are written with a pen? Imagine a person bringing a sheet of handwriting that could only have been composed with a pen. He claims that ink spilled on the paper and these written characters had accidentally emerged. We would charge him to his face with falsehood, for we could feel certain that this result could not have happened without an intelligent person&#8217;s purpose.

      Since this seems impossible in the case of letters whose formation is conventional, how can one assert that something far subtler in its design and which manifests in its fashioning a depth and complexity infinitely beyond our comprehension could have happened without the purpose, power, and wisdom of a wise and mighty designer? (&#8220;The Duties of the Heart,&#8221; The Gate of Oneness, Chapter 6)

The two most common objections to this argument go as follows:

    The argument is too simple. There seems to be a big jump from concluding that someone must have made rock formations in the desert to concluding that there is a Creator who must have made the universe.

    What about evolution? Over a very long period of time everything could have come about as a random occurrence! With millions of years to play around with, isn&#8217;t it possible for some kind of order to emerge just by chance? 

Let&#8217;s address these two objections.
ADDRESSING ARGUMENT NUMBER ONE

The principle &#8220;design implies designer&#8221; applies across the board, whether the designer is a Bedouin nomad piling rocks in the desert or the Infinite Source of all existence. Intellectually it is the same logical process. In fact, there is more reason to assume a designer in the latter case since the level of design is much higher.

Simplicity is not an inherent fault in an argument. Perhaps the reason why some people take issue with this application of logic is due to the accompanying consequences.

Since the Bedouin doesn&#8217;t make any moral demands on our life, there is no resistance to drawing the logical conclusion that someone designed that rock formation. But when the conclusion points to God, cognitive dissonance kicks in, creating an instinctive opposition to what one perceives to be threatening. [See the previous article in this series: &#8220;Seeing the Elephant&#8221;

When the interference of cognitive dissonance is removed, what is the objective standard of design that we need to see in order to conclude something was created? What we need is a control experiment that determines this threshold of design in a case that has no threatening consequences. &#8220;The Obvious Proof&#8221;, a book by Gershon Robinson and Mordechai Steinman, delivers a compelling presentation of the design argument, and describes such a control experiment involving millions of people concluding the necessity of a designer.

The laboratory consisted of theaters across the globe that showed the film &#8220;2001: A Space Odyssey.&#8221; In the film, American scientists living in a colony on the moon discover during a dig the first evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets. What did they find? A simple monolith&#8212;a smooth, rectangular slab of rock. The Americans keep this significant discovery secret, afraid of the widespread culture shock and social ramifications this would have without proper preparation.

Thousands of film critics and millions of moviegoers went along with the film&#8217;s basic assertion, agreeing that intelligent creatures other than man must have created this smooth, rectangular monolith. It didn&#8217;t just randomly appear. Free from all emotional and intellectual bias, in the comfort of darkened theaters with popcorn in hand, people unanimously agreed that a simple, smooth slab with a few right angles was conclusive proof of intelligence.

When the conclusion does not point to God, everyone realizes that the simplest object can serve as the threshold of design, the point at which one concludes an object could not have come into existence by random accident. The universe, infinitely more complex than a monolith, had to have been created.
WHAT ABOUT RANDOM EVOLUTION?

Given enough tries over a long period of time, isn&#8217;t it possible for complex structures to emerge randomly? After all, with sufficient trials even improbable events eventually become likely.

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University, uses a national lottery to illustrate this point [&#8220;Origins&#8221;, Bantam, p.121]. The odds of winning the lottery may be 10 million to one. Winning would be incredibly lucky. But if we were to buy a lottery ticket every day for the next thirty thousand years, a win would become probable, (albeit very expensive).

But what are the odds of life coming about by sheer chance? Let&#8217;s take a look at two examples to get a sense of the odds involved in random evolution.

Physicist Stephen Hawking, writes in his book &#8220;A Brief History of Time&#8221;:

    It is a bit like the well-known horde of monkeys hammering away on typewriters&#8212;most of what they write will be garbage, but very occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare&#8217;s sonnets. Similarly, in the case of the universe, could it be that we are living in a region that just happens by chance to be smooth and uniform?

Well could it be?

In response to Hawking, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a physicist, calculated the odds of monkeys randomly typing an average Shakespearean Sonnet in his book &#8220;Genesis and the Big Bang.&#8221; He chose the one that opens, &#8220;Shall I compare you to a summer&#8217;s day?&#8221;

    There are 488 letters in the sonnet ... The chance of randomly typing the 488 letters to produce this one sonnet is one in 26 to the 488th power, or one in 10 to the 690th power. The number 10690 is a one followed by 690 zero&#8217;s! The immense scale of this number is hinted at when one considers that since the Big Bang, 15 billion years ago, there have been only 10 to the 18th power number of seconds, which have ticked away.

      To write by random one of Shakespeare&#8217;s sonnets would take all the monkeys, plus every other animal on earth, typing away on typewriters made from all the iron in the universe, over a period of time that exceeds all time since the Big Bang, and still the probability of a sonnet appearing would be vanishingly small. At one random try per second, with even a simple sentence having only 16 letters, it would take 2 million billion years (the universe has existed for about 15 billion years) to exhaust all possible combinations.

Robert Shapiro cites Nobel laureate Sir Fred Hoyle&#8217;s calculation of the odds of a bacterium spontaneously generating [p.127]. At first Hoyle and his colleague, N. C. Wickramasinghe, endorsed spontaneous generation, but reversed their position once they calculated the odds.

A typical bacterium, which is the simplest of cells, is made up of 2,000 enzymes. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe took the probability of randomly assembling one enzyme and multiplied that number by itself 2,000 times to calculate the odds of a single bacterium randomly coming together. Those odds are 1 in 1040,000. Hoyle said the likelihood of this happening is comparable to the chance that &#8220;a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.&#8221;

These are the odds of just a single, simple cell, without which evolution cannot even get started. Never mind the odds of more advanced compounds like an organ or all the enzymes in a human being.

Shapiro writes:

    The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.

For all intents and purposes, an event with the probability of 1 in 1040,000 qualifies in real-world terms as impossible.
SOME THINGS ARE IMPOSSIBLE

Imagine you are the presiding judge over a murder trial. Ballistic tests match perfectly with a gun found in the possession of the accused. The odds of another gun firing the bullet that killed the victim are let&#8217;s say one in a billion.

The defendant claims that it is a sheer fluke that his gun happens to match the ballistics tests and that there must be another gun out there that is the real murder weapon. &#8220;After all,&#8221; he says, &#8220;it is a possibility.&#8221;

The defendant&#8217;s fingerprints are found all over the victim&#8217;s body. He claims there must be another person out there who happens to have astonishingly similar fingerprints. Again, it is possible.

There are also eyewitnesses who testify to seeing a man gunning down the victim who looks just like the defendant. The defendant claims there must be another person out there in this big world who looks just like him, and that man is the real murderer. After all&#8212;it&#8217;s not impossible.

You are the judge, and you need to make a decision. What do you decide?

In the pragmatic world of decision-making, odds this high are called impossible. One needs to weigh the evidence and come to the most reasonable conclusion.

Does the universe have a Creator? Look at the design, look at the odds and look honestly within. Where does the more rational conclusion lie?


Intelligent Design Argument


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Many theories require philosophy science but if your assumptions are wrong your theory suffer from bad interpretations and I feel that much of science makes this common mistake. You can't argue against sound logic and win.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 22, 2013)

Oh good gawd. 

That was every failed, juvenile creationist argument (to include the silly "blind watchmaker") cut and paste. Although this time, the blind guy was in the desert.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Oh good gawd.
> 
> That was every failed, juvenile creationist argument (to include the silly "blind watchmaker") cut and paste. Although this time, the blind guy was in the desert.



You are not using your logical thinking to see the importance of logic.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh good gawd.
> ...



I find no logic in emotional appeals to supernaturalism. 

Really, dude. Cutting and pasting a library of failed creationist arguments is a waste of bandwidth.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



How ?

The aims of scientific philosophy.

The aims of scientific philosophy can be exposed as the following three.

First, its basic aim is to defend the scientific insight of the philosophy and that it should use the hypothetical-deductive method as any other science.

A second aim is to theoretically develop the philosophy applying this hypothetical-deductive method to show that it can make some advances, not like what happens in the eternal repetition of approaches of unscientific philosophy, the speculative one.

Finally, as any other science, a scientific philosophy aim is to apply in the practice its theoretical developments to show that the scientific vision of the philosophy can not only build theories but also use them usefully in the world.

Scientific Philosophy


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Science has built theories that have only one presupposition in Mind.

Key terms.

1. Random 
2. Chaos
3. Chaotic system
4. Chance
5. Unguided
6. Complexity
7. Logic

They even have produced theories for some of these terms why ? it seems obvious they have to explain away these terms and evidences that are observed in nature to be able to say design is not a viable explanation.

They can't have a designer because many of the theories taught in schools would have to be redefined or go away or worse yet allow the teachings of design and creation in school.

They have to show what they teach in schools are possible but does it really stand up to logic ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Science has built theories that have only one presupposition in Mind.
> 
> Key terms.
> 
> ...



Ironic given that none of your "creationism" has managed to "stand up to logic".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Science has built theories that have only one presupposition in Mind.
> ...



It is logical to assume a designer. Because you don't understand the abilities of the designer does not mean the assumption is illogical.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Science has been trying to figure out the designers methods and repeating it. They will not eliminate the designer if they unlock the mystery only strengthen  the view it took intelligence and design to make it happen.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It is never logical to imagine a fantasy and then delude oneself that this fantasy was responsible for everything you see.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Science has been trying to figure out the designers methods and repeating it. They will not eliminate the designer if they unlock the mystery only strengthen  the view it took intelligence and design to make it happen.



Science has been doing nothing of the sort. Your delusion is threatened by science making factual discoveries that eliminates any involvement by your mythical "creator".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> 
> Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.
> 
> ...



*the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity.*

What is more complex, an acorn or a mighty oak tree?
A fertilized human egg or you?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


let me get this straight, you post a link a site that is diametrically opposed to what you believe as proof of something there is no quantifiable evidence for.
wow! how desperate are you?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Science has built theories that have only one presupposition in Mind.
> 
> Key terms.
> 
> ...


The Biblical God Concept - A Logical Disproof 

            The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is solely in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

             It involves only three definitions, each of which is self-evident.  One is of a being, a second is of worship and the third is of a Biblical type god.
            The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality.  Of course Descartes defined himself as this type of entity on the basis of obviousness.  Very exactly, in that we have no way to test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality we cannot know whether they do.  Additionally, however, our experiences suggest that when we dream or hallucinate we internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality.  Accordingly, especially with empirical suggestions that we sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality, we cannot rule out that it is our nature to do so all of the time.  Therefore, our definition of a being is self-evident.
            The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist.  In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.
            The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it.  This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.

            We shall proceed with a logical technique that involves reduction ad absurdum.  That is, we shall first assume that a Biblical type god exists and from this using only logic arrive at a self-contradictory (absurd) proposition.  This will leave only that a Biblical type god does not exist and the disproof will be complete.  As such, assume that a Biblical type god exists.

           By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it.  By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so.  Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence.  However, they are beings.  By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions.  Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible.  At the same time, by definition it is perfect.  In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.  Consequently, we have both that the Biblical type god does and does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.

           This is the absurdity.  Our only alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.

 Quod Erat Demonstrandum

            It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed.  Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived.  Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect.  That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate.  In this, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

             Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.


            As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this writing.  It is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.  As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey that meaningful development as the entities we are may only be realized in the form of internal rewards.  That is, it may only be realized through decisions that challenge the self in goodness of motive.  Only these afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.



                                                                                  John Jubinsky

                                                                            MAMathematics, CPA


The Biblical God Concept - A Logical Disproof | The Rational Response Squad


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Oh good gawd.
> ...




*Coming from a creationist, your talk about logic is pretty humorous.  Creatioinism is anti-logic.*


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Progression of knowledge and Really Big Numbers

Pythagorus was a philisopher. *Today, the pythagorean theorem is taught in grade school.

Education duration, in years.

Grade school. 12 years
Undergrad GE. 2 years
Bachelor's of science 2 years
Master's of science 2 years
Doctorate of philosophy specialization 3 years
Doctorate of philosophy thesis 3 years
** *(They are then allowed out in public)

Year of education to achieve PhD, ~24 years. *Number of minutes, 12.6E+06.
Number of seconds, 7.57E+08.
*
Philpsophy comes after the science is said and done. *After*7.57E+08 seconds of intensive study and examination, then we get to be all philosophical.

And as science has progressed, specialization has become more and more restrictive because the knowledge base has expanded. *

There are some 83 official doctorate degrees, in the US. Each PhD student pursues a personally defined specializes thesis. *For 2008, there were 48.8E+03 awarded, each, presumably, with a unique thesis, in the US.

*"It is hard to imagine the multitude that 10^15 represents.", is not a measure of nature.

Nature is full of hard to imagine numbers. These are just a few.

Stars: * * * * * * * **10E24 stars
Sand: * * * * * * * * *10E19 grains
Distance across known universe: 8.8E26 m
Avagadro's Number: 6.0221415E23 molecules/mole
Dia hydrogen atom: *1.06E-10 m
Dia hydrogen nucleus: 2.40E-15 m
Non-repeating digits in PI. oo
Repeating digits in 1/3. * * *oo

Age of the earth: * * 1.432E+17 seconds
Age of the universe: *4.345E+17 seconds

Number of bacterium possible by doubling each 30 minutes for half the earth age of

1.432E+17 seconds/60=2.38667e15 minutes

2.38667e15/2= 1.199e+15 minutes.

1.199e+15/30=3.9778e+13 cycles.

2^3.9778e13=Infinity,

at least to the best Google calculator can do.*

This is an interesting study of classification and naming of numbers.

Large Numbers at MROB

Wiki, of course, discusses large numbers

Large numbers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The universe is full of really big numbers.  That they are "unimaginable" is simply perception.  And, as I've stated before, the "fallacy of shit don't just happen", is not proof of anything.

All that has to happen is for one bacterium to form. The it is two, then four, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 2^14, 2^15, and on it goes.  All that had to happen was for it to happen, one time.

Take a can of your favorite chili and put it in a bowl.   Cover it. Put the bowl in aside, in a warm and shady spot. Come back in a few days.  It is just that easy for mold, fungi, and bacteria to grow.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The "slackjawed yokel" defense is no more relevant than any of your other delusions as to the existence of your mythical "creator".


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

"For all intents and purposes, an event with the probability of 1 in 1040,000 qualifies in real-world terms as impossible.
SOME THINGS ARE IMPOSSIBLE"

You are confusing impractical and statistically insignificant with impossible.  Impossible is P(E) == 0.  Anything P(E) > 0 is, by definition, possible.  

This is what I mean by playing word games, wallking definitions across definitional sets, why philosophy isn't mathematically precise in describing nature, and, by it's nature, a failure at proving anything.

The probability of A is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000 is really small.  In practice, in human terms, in manufacturing, really small is impractical. What is impractical is, for all intents and purposes, considered impossible.  Therefore, A is impossible.

It is a meaningless proof that relies of similarity of definitions to mutate, evolve, from one real definition to complete nonsense.  The difference is that, in human thought, anything can evolve.  In reality, nature, there are some things that really are impossible, like a person literally walking on water.  And there are things that, while constrained by real natural laws, are difficult, they are not impossible.  Evolution is constrained, not impossible.

I understand. It wasn't your fault.  You were trained, you were lied to. 

Now that you know, it is now your fault. Going forward, you have no excuse.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



How would you prove its only fantasy ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Science has been trying to figure out the designers methods and repeating it. They will not eliminate the designer if they unlock the mystery only strengthen  the view it took intelligence and design to make it happen.
> ...



Yes they have. They have been going on the presupposition that there is no designer. They are trying to show natural undirected processes  are the cause eliminating  the possibility of a designer. They have to show that chaos produces order seen in nature.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.
> ...


 What is your point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Do you think a creationist would disagree with these arguments made by ID ? Crationists make the same arguments.

You should have this straight by now. I have said in the past I agree with ID on many points, most importantly irreducible complexity.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Provide the evidence that shows the theory of creation is anti-logic, and take the points on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



My point is your Second Law error was an error. Do you see it yet?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Big numbers in nature is not a problem even if you work from 6,000 to 12,000 years either. It is the order to which complex things came in to existence that is the problem.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Do you have a problem with logic or no ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "For all intents and purposes, an event with the probability of 1 in 1040,000 qualifies in real-world terms as impossible.
> SOME THINGS ARE IMPOSSIBLE"
> 
> You are confusing impractical and statistically insignificant with impossible.  Impossible is P(E) == 0.  Anything P(E) > 0 is, by definition, possible.
> ...



There are many things working against macro-evolution, however the counter part micro happens within a group and there is no doubt in that. My question would be why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ? no,because in a closed system does exchange energy but not matter.

If that is not what you were referring to please point it out.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What extremists choose to ignore is that their arguments for the supernatural only survive in the philosophical realm.

I understand you _must_ abdicate reason and rationality regarding the gods and delve into the philosophical (and metaphysical), because reason and rationality do not survive in the realm of the supernatural. Philosophical arguments are essentially useless for drawing conclusions because ultimately, there's no requirement for the conclusions to be valid or not. They produce nothing of any real utility for problem solving.

This is characteristic of philosophy in general and theology in particular. When arguing in the void of evidence, the best that can be assembled is an appeal to supernatural / metaphysical human constructs, ie:, gods. These are ideas with no obvious connection to reality and truth. This is why science cures disease, looks back in time to the very edge of our universe and sends humans into outer space, while philosophy and theology do not.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



For the umpteenth time onus is on you to prove that your delusion is real.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ?*

Are you more complex than a fertilized egg?
It must be because you used energy.
That's why your Second Law error is an error.

It's why the claim that the Second Law makes evolution impossible, is so silly.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your paranoid delusions have no basis in reality. Science doesn't care about your fantasy and is under no obligation to prove anything to you.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Quite clearly, you're hoping to retreat to a version of the "prove it isn't", weasel. It is impossible to prove a negative. So your comment is already logically vacuous.

But, as to negligence regarding the "prove it isn't" weasel, evidence and _reason_ are the only tools we have to discriminate between demonstrable fact vs. claims to supernatural entities (the gods), which are human constructs. While you will recoil in fits of denial that we have solid evidence that natural laws exist, we have nothing at all to suggest that your partisan gods are anything but re-inventions of earlier gods.

Where is the equivalent evidence for your "designer gods?"


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



What do you to go by to determine that the origins of life was a product of chaos converted to order ? Or that the origins of natural processes were produced by unguided naturalism?

With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to a supernatural designer. If you or any Flat Earth'ers have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Advocates of designer gawds are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. The whole Behe invented "irreducibly complex" argument is not taken seriously by the relevant science community. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of. And those answers do very well.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity". Slackjawed yokels might gaze in wonder at things they cannot comprehend but normal rational people understand that there are a set of basic laws of physics and chemistry that result in predictable outcomes. The universe has always existed and will always exist. Given billions of years and billions of planets the odds of what we observe are most certainly the result of chance. Your irrational belief in sky fairies has no bearing on either the origin or the outcome.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.



Michael Behe was just about laughed out of the courtroom with his Irreducible Complexity nonsense during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. I wouldn't hang my hat on anything he says.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It takes more than energy.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

    "What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13 

    teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is directionlessness, having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

    "The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution] 

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.
> ...



I am impressed with a judges knowledge of science in that case


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 22, 2013)

> "The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."



Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Earth is not a closed system. Right from it's original formation it has been receiving both energy and matter from outside. That process is still happening therefore earth is an open system. The fact that we can still see meteor showers and find meteorites on the planet is physical evidence that disproves your ridiculous claim about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy *

And since we get energy from the sun, your Second Law claim is in error.
Still don't see it?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

"Living cellsby surviving, growing, and forming complex organismsare generating order and thus might appear to defy the second law of thermodynamics. How is this possible? The answer is that a cell is not an isolated system: it takes in energy from its environment in the form of food, or as photons from the sun (or even, as in some chemosynthetic bacteria, from inorganic molecules alone), and it then uses this energy to generate order within itself. In the course of the chemical reactions that generate order, part of the energy that the cell uses is converted into heat. The heat is discharged into the cell's environment and disorders it, so that the total entropythat of the cell plus its surroundingsincreases, as*demanded by the laws of physics."







Catalysis and the Use of Energy by Cells - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf


----------



## Hollie (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



His understanding was leaps and bounds beyond the misguided fools on the school board and the delusional morons at the Discovery Institute.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




You're a bit slow to see the implication. Behe and the rest of the ID'iot cabal were met with testimony from scientists who had only to present the case for reason and rationality in a logical, factual manner.

Before proceeding further, I must take note of a key problem with your appeals to the gods. It is an acknowledgement that the laws you speak of are not really laws at all. They are merely temporary and reprievable rules imposed by the gods, to be removed at some point.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> > "The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.



Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > > "The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."
> ...



*That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.*

Life only exists on this planet? Link?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


he or anyone else has no need to, as the complete lack of any evidence of an intelligent creator (not  the appearance of design) does that all by itself..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > > "The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."
> ...



Well, now there is the problem, basing expectation on insufficient evidence. The only observation of life is on this planet.  So far, we have eight classified planets, in this Solar system, of which we have observed life on one.  That is a statistically insignificant sample with which to draw a conclusion.

Again, it is the fallacy of shit doesn't happen.  The fact is that shit does happen, however improbable it may be.

None of it leads to the conclusion that life didn't arise spontaneously.  Early it did.

Probability of life existing, 100%, empirical observation.

Probability of God existing, 0%, empirical observation.

Probability of god creating life, 100%*0%=0%.

You insist on creating god out of nothing, to fill in for what you don' know. 

If life exists nowhere else in the universe, all it proves is that life exists nowhere else in the universe.  Nothing more.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that comprehension problem popping up again? or are you just dodging the statement?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You made a very weak argument.


S YSTEMS

An isolated system is one so completely sealed off from its environment that neither matter nor energy passes through its boundaries. This is an imaginary construct, however, an idea rather than a reality, because it is impossible to create a situation in which no energy is exchanged between the system and the environment. Under the right conditions it is perhaps conceivable that matter could be sealed out so completely that not even an atom could pass through a barrier, but some transfer of energy is inevitable. The reason is that electromagnetic energy, such as that emitted by the Sun, requires no material medium in which to travel.

In contrast to an isolated system is a closed system, of which Earth is an approximation. Despite its name, a closed system permits the exchange of energy with the environment but does not allow matter to pass back and forth between the external environment and the system. Thus, Earth absorbs electromagnetic energy, radiated from the Sun, yet very little matter enters or departs Earth's system. Note that Earth is an approximation of a closed system: actually, some matter does pass from space into the atmosphere and vice versa. The planet loses traces of hydrogen in the extremities of its upper atmosphere, while meteorites and other forms of matter from space may reach Earth's surface.

Earth more closely resembles a closed system than it does an open onethat is, a system that allows the full and free exchange of both matter and energy with its environment. The human circulatory system is an example of an open system, as are the various "spheres" of Earth (geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) discussed later. Whereas an isolated system is imaginary in the sense that it does not exist, sometimes a different feat of imagination is required to visualize an open system. It is intricately tied to its environment, and therefore the concept of an open system as a separate entity sometimes requires some imagination.

How it works - Earth Systems


----------



## daws101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


most people make asses of themselves while in VEGAS. you do it all the time.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > > "The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."
> ...



Its a shame that your extremist beliefs dont allow you even a rudimentary understanding of the subjects you argue against. The Big Bang theory refers to a cataclysmic event in which there was a major disruption in existing matter and energy. We see evidence for this in the background radiation of the universe.

Otherwise, be careful of what you ask for. Suppose life exists elsewhere? That would be utterly devastating to the religious articles of christianity and the other Abrahamic religions as "creation" is uniquely an earthly event. Send a probe to Mars, and prove life developed off the planet Earth. This we are doing. What fundies are doing to establish their suppositions... well, forgive the irony, but, god only knows.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


non credible site!


----------



## Hollie (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> You made a very weak argument.



How strange that you would link to a site espousing Atheistic, evolutionist ideas.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry,yes I do see it,but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system. What they were showing was more was needed. To accomplish would be energy which we have but other things are needed as well, new coded genetic information and teleonomy. These are the critical issues that need an answer.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Some will reinterpret the "meanin" of the bible. Others will claim it to be a hoax.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Really,I am sure if it's anything like the dover trial that judge had one of the plaintiffs write up his judgement. hardly fair would you agree ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Yep for now lol. We have something to talk about if not.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



We are gonna have to just agree to disagree here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*but the argument was not that they were denying energy is required to produce an upward,complex organization in a closed system. *

Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law.

It's because they don't know what the 2nd Law said. Now you do.

Will you keep repeating their error? Or admit you were wrong to use their argument?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You are denying I said that in other threads and I believe in this one as well. Why did you dodge my question ?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > > "The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."
> ...


why is it you always pull this shitty old sock out of your ass when it's in a crack?
there is no possible way you could know that there is NO LIFE on other planets.
 the best analogy describing ass hats like you is. you peeked out your window and erroneously decided that all your neighbors are dead or the neighborhood had been abandon long ago..
neither is fact..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I went back and read that article I did not see where they were making that argument.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I've never dodge your questions ...you still don't get it ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're correct they are saying that the 2nd law would interfere with evolution but the whole article goes in to why. I will tomorrow read it again and point out why they say the 2nd law interferes with evolution.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


hey slapdick that's one of the errors .....


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



There is no evidence of it right ? is that not your same argument regarding God ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 22, 2013)

Have a good night all,talk to some of you tomorrow.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong you just wish it was...
saying there is no life other than on earth is a false assumption because we don't have the means at this time to know that.
god on the other hand, the supposed  creator of all things should be easy to spot.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




Yep, the Earth is practically a closed system, right up to the point that an metiorite explodes over Russia.  Then it's not so closed.

During the formation of the solar system, it clearly was not.

You continue to use the same faulty logic, a behavior that may now call deceitful and and dissingenuous.  

You take a probability of zero and call it a certainty.

You take small probabilities and call them zero.

You take that set A intersects set B and that B intersects C to mean that C equals A.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You misquoted their argument?
How sad for you.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

"Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."

Which is a fallacious argument. *In fact, the second law says the opposite. *It says that entropy increases in an isolated system towards maximum complexity. If all the gas molecules are initially at one end, which is simpler, they end up all over the place, which is more complex. *Entropy is a measure of the number of arrangements, the complexity.

And, the second law also includes statements for the condition of non-isolated systems, which allow for even more control over the arrangements

The fact is, you have been misled by false logic. And you bought into it. *Now, you are propogating g
false logic. *And as it has been pointed out, you are doing so with full awareness.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 22, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Given the sheer size of the universe and the fact that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, it is not only possible but probable that there is life somewhere out there. 

That said, the only life that we know about is what's on the Earth and whatever bacteria hitched a ride on any of our various space shots. Simply put, extraterrestrial life has not been proven to exist. There is no example we can point to and say "this is what we've found."

There is zero evidence for the existence of whatever supernatural concepts one wants to believe in. Indeed, the supernatural is by definition outside of the natural world, so there would be no evidence either way for science to examine.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

They do scrub the space probes, don't they?  Or are we now sending bacteria out into the universe ?  And if not, why not?  Why not send bacteria and the like out ahead of us, just to see what grows?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> They do scrub the space probes, don't they?  Or are we now sending bacteria out into the universe ?  And if not, why not?  Why not send bacteria and the like out ahead of us, just to see what grows?



They try, but I doubt that they manage to kill 100% of all the bugs that ever come in contract with our probes, landers, and satellites. I guess the hope  is any stowaways aren't extremophiles an simply won't survive the journey or very long at the destination.

It's one of the concerns about a mission to Europa. What if we do manage to get a probe there, get through the ice, and send our robot into an alien ecosystem with some hitchhiker from Earth on it? How can we prevent that? It's one of the reasons the Russians have been so reluctant to drill into Lake Vostok.


----------



## westwall (Jul 22, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...








The Earth is as open a system now as it was back then.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 22, 2013)

So far, 786 known planets and one with known life.

That puts us at P(life)=1/786.  That is a statistically significant sample.  But, we should caution that we haven't been to all of them, so the resolution is not good.

There are nine known habitable planets.  P(habitable)=9/786.  That is statistically significant, though again, caution on that resolution.

Probability of life on a habitable planet.  P(life on habitable)=1/9.  Not statistically significant.  

BTW: *SETI: Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence*

Why? Because we can't find any on Earth, that's why!!


----------



## westwall (Jul 22, 2013)

This is the bible for planetary habitability.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Habitable-Planets-Man-Stephen-Dole/dp/B002F9FUS6]Habitable Planets for Man: Stephen Dole: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Since matter can freely fall to earth from space and does so on a regular basis the only "weak argument" is your belief in a "creator".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



That source had a strong background in Physics. The source said an open system freely exchanges matter and and energy in both cases and that is not the case with this planet.

This argument is based on theory not factual empirical evidence that you're making.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And yet, energy absorbed by this planet from solar radiation is testable and measurable. 

How do we test for the gods?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."
> 
> Which is a fallacious argument. *In fact, the second law says the opposite. *It says that entropy increases in an isolated system towards maximum complexity. If all the gas molecules are initially at one end, which is simpler, they end up all over the place, which is more complex. *Entropy is a measure of the number of arrangements, the complexity.
> 
> ...



I want to know for sure whether the theory of evolution contradicts the 2nd law. Tell me why it doesn't ? seriously this is but one of many arguments why the theory does not happen the way that is claimed in theory.

I am not purposefully trying to mislead anyone,I want the facts. It seems to me the creationists make a good argument if you think just because energy is pumped in to something it makes it better to me that is wishful thinking. Because we all know if we do not possess the mechanisms to control the energy and use it to our benefit it would be destructive to us, Which is a case if a person is out in the sun to long without protection.

This is also a problem for those that think chemical evolution happened and in the process formed life. These chemicals baking in the sun or exposed to oxygen and or worse yet these chemicals trying bond and form amino acids or any molecule are soluble in water.

We keep coming back to it taking a living organism, to reproduce another living organism, not natural processes producing the origins of life. Anyone who is being honest in science would admit this fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."
> 
> Which is a fallacious argument. *In fact, the second law says the opposite. *It says that entropy increases in an isolated system towards maximum complexity. If all the gas molecules are initially at one end, which is simpler, they end up all over the place, which is more complex. *Entropy is a measure of the number of arrangements, the complexity.
> 
> ...



	1.The second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy.

This is not claiming what you're claiming sorry. This law shows that the process of evolution or origins of life would contradict this law.

So far the creationists argument is solid.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Yes , the Judges closing argument, which was his decision, was written out by a member of the plaintiffs, which was a member of the aclu in dover PA.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You can assume it all you want and believe it, but the view is not based on evidence. Nature convinces me of a creator and the science I have learned only reinforces that view.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The fact is the science community is divided on this matter but my sources arguments make more sense to me.

We have an atmosphere that acts as a shield I believe that goes against an open systems definition.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Because of radiation there is no God


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Substitute "Bigfoot" for "the gods" in your comment above. Oddly, Bigfoot becomes just as viable.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The forever befuddled.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yes you're.

If you don't have anything to add to the conversation take your rhetoric somewhere else.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."
> ...



No, their argument shows they don't understand the 2nd Law. Not solid in the least.

*This law shows that the process of evolution or origins of life would contradict this law.*

LOL! Please show how.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That would have applied to your pointless one-liner. That would also apply to your mind-numbing cut and pasting from creation ministries.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



LOL! you need to show how a spontaneous process that results in an increase in entropy produces order. Like evolution or chemical evolution that would have caused the origins of life.

When mutations actually cause change the results is usually not good. Evidence: over 6,000 genetic disorders and counting with very few benefits from mutations you can point to.

How bout the order of this planet. How the atmosphere acts as a shield,how we benefit from the sun and the moon.

It is totally absurd to think this just all happened from a huge explosion of a tiny spec.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie it's this simple,you bore me.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*
Until you can prove that there is, they will go on doing so.  The ball is in YOUR court.  Why do you have such difficulty grasping that simple concept?*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*IT REQUIRES THE EXISTENCE OF A SUPERNATURAL BEING.  First you have to prove the existence of that supernatural being and then prove that it is responsible for creating and managing the entire universe.  Until you can prove that, your juvenile arguments are easily dismissed.*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



"How about the order of this planet"?

That's boilerplate creationist nonsense taken from your creation ministries. How about Tungusta? How about cometary bombardment of this planet? Did you ever read of a little dalliance that happened 65 million years ago?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



There is evidence of purposeful design and that gets ignored. This to is a simple concept.

Science should have no bias but what do we see, a rejection of evidence over presuppositions.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Don't let being befuddled cause you to stop flailing your pom poms for Harun Yahya.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I think it is obvious why you're dodging your obligation to prove your assertions.*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Ok then you need proof of this natural process converting non living matter to living matter by your reasoning.

I find a watch on the ground is it natural to assume nature produced that watch or a designer produced that watch. what does the evidence infer ?

Why would we look at animate and inanimate objects differently ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What evidence is there for "purposeful design"?

You would first need to present evidence of designer gawds and then present evidence that the designer gawds intended their designs to function as "designed". 

Maybe you're hearing voices from the gods?

Show your evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I have never believed order can come from chaotic systems.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.
> ...



*Exactly.  He was forced under oath to agree that his definition of science would also include astrology. The trial was a crushing defeat for the creationism/ID movement.*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Are you suggesting that mechanical components are subject to biological reproduction?

I'm not aware that Rolex watches have ever bred to produce a little Rolex.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



How bout a sun,moon,atmosphere,oxygen,organs,blood,veins,skeletal structures,food,water. Can you imagine life without any of the above ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Did I say that ? and did you understand the terms animate and inanimate objects ?

Why would we conclude one was designed and the other was not designed ?


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



*This is what the judge said in his decision:*

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3

_The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy_.

*and*

_Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when consid ered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources._


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



*I think he gets it.  He just won't acknowledge it.  Ignorance can be cured.  Intentional ignorance like his cannot.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Bullshit.*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do you have a clue as to what you're "saying"?

The watchmaker analogy is stupendously silly. You should understand that mechanical components are different from biological organisms. 

Identify for us how you know with certainty that your gods have "designed" existence  vs. Zeus having designed existence.... and baby Rolex watches.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why would a member of the aclu write his closing statement that also happened to be a member oif the plaintiffs against the defendants the school board.

How do we know this happened because he copied it word for word with the same grammar errors.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*What YOU consider valid evidence is nothing of the sort.*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



When his arguments crash to the ground in flames, he retreats to conspiracy theories.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*And you're dodging again.  Who do you think you're fooling?*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Oh and one more thing it was not won on the basis of science but because of the constitution. A key phrase that came from a letter written by Jefferson. I am sure I don't have to remind you of that phrase. The aclu should be a big enough hint.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



So we have differing opinions mine come from observation and logic.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Are the black helicopters also circling overhead?


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



*Here is another assertion that you will run away from supporting.  Documentation, please?

Even if such a thing were true, the judge is not going to affix his signature to something he does not agree with.  Let's see your proof.*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



No I'm not.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I've had more intelligent debates with my 10 year old nephew.*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and one more thing it was not won on the basis of science but because of the constitution. A key phrase that came from a letter written by Jefferson. I am sure I don't have to remind you of that phrase. The aclu should be a big enough hint.



Oh darn. Not that constitution and science buggaring things up again.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You really don't understand that creationists and ID'ERS agree on many things however we disagree on a few things ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



I don't run from anything. If I am wrong I am a big enough person to admit it. I will not admit I am wrong until it is proven just like you so stop with the rhetoric.

CSC - A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs? Proposed ?Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Look, let's not get sidetracked, and get back to my questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Here are some more facts concerning the myths of dover.

3 Myths About the Dover Intelligent Design Trial - Evolution News & Views


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


This silliness has been promoted by various ID'iot creation ministries. 

A lot of goofy christian extremist nonsense. 

Study Shows Discovery Institute Copied Book For Law Review Article ? Dispatches from the Creation Wars


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



* you need to show how a spontaneous process that results in an increase in entropy produces order.*

No. All I need to show is that living things can get more complex.
That shows the claim that living things cannot get more complex, because of the 2nd Law, is wrong.
Not sure about you, but I am more complex than I was as a fertilized egg.

*How bout the order of this planet. How the atmosphere acts as a shield,how we benefit from the sun and the moon.*

Less babbling that shows your ignorance of physics would make you sound less stupid.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Ok you are using a natural process that is coded in our genes. What happens to us once we reach our limits in the process ?

So are you saying we don't benefit from having the atmosphere nor the sun or moon ?

Stupid ?

Are you one of those that does not believe this planet is unique ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Ok you are using a natural process that is coded in our genes. What happens to us once we reach our limits in the process ?*

Does this have something to do with your silly ideas about the 2nd Law?

*So are you saying we don't benefit from having the atmosphere nor the sun or moon ?*

Are you saying purple wangfingers don't warble nicks?
Not sure about you, but I kinda like oxygen and sunlight.
Still doesn't have anything to do with your 2nd Law silliness.

*Are you one of those that does not believe this planet is unique ?*

Try, for a post or two, to stay on the topic of the 2nd Law. Please.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What I am asking you what happens to many of us once we reach our prime ? some never reach their prime.

An earlier question was concerning  my evidence of purposeful design.

The 2nd law is proven by what is observed.

second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy

Hmm this is interesting

law of thermodynamics - (physics) a law governing the relations between states of energy in a closed system

second law of thermodynamics - definition of second law of thermodynamics by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. How does this improve organisms in complexity ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

So the 2nd law applies to closed systems.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

If these 6,000 genetic disorders can't spread through the whole genepool, why is it you believe all the beneficial mutations it took to go from a bacterium to a microbiologist did ? and even the science community infers beneficial mutations are rare.

So a creationist is ignorant or naive for asking these all important questions.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



*It was also easily demonstrated in the Kitzmiller trial that ID is just creationism in a fancy dress.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Look, let's not get sidetracked, and get back to my questions.



*By all means lets get back to the fact that you keep avoiding producing proof of a supernatural being that controls the universe.  You make the positive assertion - you produce the proof


Now this is the part where YWC does his fundy tapdance to avoid the challenge once again.*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Only because the intelligent agent has not shown up in court yet


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Look, let's not get sidetracked, and get back to my questions.
> ...



I have opened the discussion, take a question and let's discuss it. The thread became inactive once a little reality was introduced to the discussion. Now are you gonna just fall back to rhetoric like hollie ?


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I keep asking myself why I am trying to reason with someone like you who doesn't have the capacity to reason.  I have this small glimmer of hope that maybe you'll smarten up and get some integrity but it appears that you have a death grip on your cult of ignorance, so I am not going to waste any more time.  You are choosing to remain stupid.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Yet another attempt to avoid the issue.  Are you trying to set a record?*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Sure I can reason, that is why I no longer believe as you do. Now choose a question and see if you can have a logical discussion without falling in to a stupor like hollie.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



Which issue ? I have raised several.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

I will just wait til someone comes along that wishes to have an adult conversation.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You have missed the point that the ID'iot / creationist cabal brought in their "experts" who were expert only at demonstrating that their arguments were a colossal waste of time.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Jul 23, 2013)

Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.

They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.  They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God.  They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky.  They believe that makes them appear intelligent.

Ignore them.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.
> 
> They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.  They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God.  They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky.  They believe that makes them appear intelligent.
> 
> Ignore them.



*
YOU just made us appear intelligent.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. How does this improve organisms in complexity ? *

You're less ordered now than when you were an egg? Is that what you're saying?

That would explain a few things.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 23, 2013)

Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not.    But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy.  (as you so state)    

But let that not trouble the text book writers.

Anyway, they can do as they please.  I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin.      The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!"      And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons.   (easy to google)      Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be).           Jesus has given us signs enough.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

turzovka said:


> Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not.    But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy.  (as you so state)
> 
> But let that not trouble the text book writers.
> 
> Anyway, they can do as they please.  I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin.      The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!"      And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons.   (easy to google)      Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be).           Jesus has given us signs enough.




Shroud of Turin Not Jesus', Tomb Discovery Suggests

The Shroud of Turin - McCrone Research Institute (McRI) - Chicago, IL

The Fraud of Turin | Center for Inquiry

ShadowShroud


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 23, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.
> 
> They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.  They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God.  They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky.  They believe that makes them appear intelligent.
> 
> Ignore them.



It isn't possible to create a "strawman" for something that doesn't exist.  By definition, the entire concept of god as an object is a strawman from the outset. "Strawman" requires that there be something real to begin with.  

And your failure to present an argument, in the first place, isn't the fault of others.  Not presenting an argument leaves no option but to fill in the gaping hole that you refuse to address.

Case in point, this post where you claim that athiests create a strawman "telling people there's no guy in the sky", yet present no evidence of what you think proof or object is.

So, yeah, there is no guy in the sky.  And yeah, whatever you unstated "objective" argumemt is, it is wrong.  It is wrong because you have none.  I know you have none because you state none.  It is entirely reasonable to say you have none, based on the evidence that you present none, because that is all naturalism and science have to go on, the real evidence. 

Clearly you feel that you are right.  And I can say that with equal certainty.  

But, you don't get to present nothing, make no definitive statement, and then whine about strawman arguments.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not.    But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy.  (as you so state)
> ...




I've done my homework.     

The burden now lies on the skeptics.    Scores of questions about facts about that cloth and its remarkable qualities they have NO ANSWER for.      Until they can, they're claims of fraud are on life support.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This video of the meteor that exploded over Russia would prove otherwise.

Video: Russian meteor shock wave went 'round the world twice' - Telegraph

This list of a impact craters proves otherwise.

List of impact craters on Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia












Odds of Death by Asteroid? Lower Than Plane Crash, Higher Than Lightning - Wired Science

"The 15-meter meteorite impacted the atmosphere and exploded above the Chelyabinsk region of central Russia, injuring an estimated 1,200 people and causing roughly 1 billion rubles ($33 million U.S.) in damage. It was the largest meteorite to hit the country in more than a century."

Damages of $33 million US dollars would say otherwise.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.
> ...



Not really but think what you like.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, because I am past my prime and everything is beginning to break down due to disorder. What is the cause of things breaking down ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> > Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.
> ...



But we can turn the tables on this comment and say the very same thing for the origins of life.

It is a strawman argument to suggest evolution and natural processes brought life to where it is now.

It is strawman argument to suggest life on other planets exist. So science now uses strawman arguments for their theories ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to this planet ? We know of other impacts how is this interacting with other systems ?

The 2nd law applies to closed systems.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 23, 2013)

turzovka said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...


*
So someone has proven that the shroud was actually the burial cloth of Jesus???  The skeptics don't have the burden of proof.

*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're less ordered than an egg. Thanks for admitting the obvious.
That explains your ignorance.
Thanks, just wanted to point that out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Living organisms aren't closed systems. Durr.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I feel like I am but thanks for avoiding the obvious answer that supports what I have been saying.

You defeated your own point by trying to show what is contained in our genes is evolution. What it really was, is the instructions of what you will be,  and when your body will break down, while you were just an egg.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Whoa but the system we live in is a closed system. Why does everything decay with age ? if this system has an effect on homes,cars,ect surely it has an effect on living organisms correct ? that is only obvious by observation. Durr.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


speaking of weak arguments....
what's the source's  name?
the Irc mayhap?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."
> ...


as solid as diarrhea...


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 23, 2013)

turzovka said:


> Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not.    But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy.  (as you so state)
> 
> But let that not trouble the text book writers.
> 
> Anyway, they can do as they please.  I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin.      The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!"      And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons.   (easy to google)      Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be).           Jesus has given us signs enough.



Which journals is Jesus producing peer-reviewed papers in?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


the assumption slapdick is yours..STEVEN R. IS STATING FACT.
"  the supernatural is by definition outside of the natural world, so there would be no evidence either way for science to examine"...steven r.
that view is based on logic, as there is no evidence to prove the supernatural exists.
nature has convinced you of nothing , it does not possess the power of persuasion.
you were indoctrinated in creator worship long before you had any idea of what science was .  
meaning that any observations you make concerning nature, man, or anything else is tainted by that indoctrination, making it erroneous and subjective..not quantifiable.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins)
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
Index


Claim CF001.1:

    Systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder. 

Source:

    Wallace, Timothy, 2002. Five major evolutionist misconceptions about evolution. - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution - 


CreationWiki response:

Here again is a scientific concept, worded for non scientists. Unfortunately it is poorly worded. A better wording would be:

In the absence of an organizing force, systems or processes invariably tend to go from order to disorder.


(Talk Origins quotes in blue)

1. This is an attempt to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies an inevitable increase in entropy even in open systems by quibbling with the verbiage "left to themselves." The simple fact is that, unless "left to themselves" means "not acted upon by any outside influence," disorder of systems can decrease. And since outside influence is more often the rule in biological systems, order can and does increase in them.

This is a a straw man fallacy. It assumes the most restrictive possible meaning of "left to themselves." It also assumes that the claim forbids decreases in entropy. Neither of which is the case, it only speaks of the most natural trend. Finally, my proposed rewording eliminates this argument.


2. That the claim is false is not theory. Exceptions happens all the time. For example, plants around my house are left to themselves every spring, and every spring they produce order locally by turning carbon from the air into plant tissue. Drying mud, left to itself, produces orderly cracks. Ice crystals, left to themselves, produce arrangements far more orderly than they would if I interfered. How can a trend to disorder be invariable when exceptions are ubiquitous? And why do creationists argue at such length for claims which they themselves can plainly see are false?

This response is only legitimate with the original wording. With my suggested rewording all three fail to meet the qualification of being "In the absence of an organizing force."

    Trees and all living things have an organizing force, i.e. cell functions and cell division, as controlled by DNA. 

    Drying mud has an organizing force in the form of a combination of the contraction of the drying mud and its adherence to the underlining material. 

    Ice crystals have an organizing force resulting from the electrical imbalance in water molecules. 

water molecule

So all three examples have an organizing force.

3. Disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, not disorder

This is the lynch pin of the Talk Origins argument. However when entropy is examined statistically it can be considered a measure of randomness. Now the more random a system is the more disordered it is. The formula for statistical entropy is:

S = k ln w

S is entropy.

k is the Boltzmann Constant = 1.380&#8201;6504(24) X 10-23 J K-1

w is the number of equivalent equally probable configurations. This is a direct measurement of disorder.

Random or disordered systems have such a significantly higher number of equivalent equally probable configurations, that they can basically be considered inevitable. Now it is true that entropy is not equivalent to disorder, but entropy is logarithmically related to disorder. Entropy can be considered a measurement of disorder in the way that the Richter Scale is a measurement of earthquakes or decibels are a measurement of sound. The result is that it is accurate to call entropy a measure of disorder.

Reference 1: [ J Philip Bromberg, Physical Chemistry, 1984, pg. 690]

Note: This is a standard college text book, to the best of my knowledge the author is not a creationist.

Reference 2: wikipedia


    (although disorder defined to apply to microscopic states can be relevant to thermodynamics). 

True, but it can be shown that disorder as applied to any set of statistical states can also be relevant to thermodynamics; both microscopic and macroscopic. It also needs to be noted that increased disorder on the molecular level causes an increase in disorder at the macroscopic level.

    There are no laws about disorder as people normally use the word. 

This is totally false! The above referred-to text book [Bromberg] uses analysis of the entropy of an unshuffled and shuffled deck of cards as an example of the statistical analysis of entropy. This works on organisms, cars, and buildings, as well as a deck of cards. 

Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins)
> Talkorigins.jpg
> Response Article
> This article (Systems left to themselves invariably tend towards disorder (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.
> ...


creationism is not science making this site Scientifically invalid...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both &#8220;closed&#8221; (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

    &#8220;...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.&#8221; [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined &#8220;law&#8221; must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth&#8217;s biosphere, appearing to &#8220;violate&#8221; (or in Isaak&#8217;s words, be &#8220;irrelevant to&#8221 the 2nd law of thermodynamics? 

- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


as always your belief is not relevant....


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both closed (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
> 
> ...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
> 
> ...


another pseudo scientific creationist site.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Crackerjaxon said:
> ...



Except science makes none of the argumemts, presents none of the theories, that you seem to continue to ascribe to it.  You seem to be unable to distinguish between the body of science, some individual scientists hypothesis, theories and laws of science, working hypothesis, unworkable hypothesis, deductions that follow first principles, blog statements by individuals that have no concept of science, and your own personal misunderstandings.

There is no scientific proof that life does or does not exist on other planets.  There is no scientific proof of how life first began.  There is no scientific proof of God the creator, Intelligent Design, or Creationism.  

The current probability of life existing on any given planet in the universe is now one in 786 (or whatever that number is) because we have evidence of 786 (or whatever that number is) planets and demonstrated proof of life on one.  There is some hupothesis of the probability of life on other planets, devised by some sciency dude.  It is a formula based on a number of unknown values, a model. Further, we have some reasonable deduction of what is called "the Goldilocks zone", that narrows down the habitable planets to nine.  That gives us a probability of 1/9 which is a sample size that is statistically insignificant.

If you ask me, I believe that there is no life beyond Earth. My belief is that the circumstance necessary for life to develop is so unbelievably improbable that out of all the planets, around all the stars, in all the galaxies in the universe, it happened only once.  I believe that we are the only creatures to ever have looked out into the sky and asked the question, "Are we alone?"

There is overwhelming scientific proof of evolution.  

The hypotheais, the undeniable working hypothesis, based on all proven, demonstratable, empirical, sciemtific evidence is that life began due to an initial condition in which otherwise inanimate chemical compounds first developed into a self replicating structure.

The useless hypothesis is that some mythical intelligent independent force or being initiated those conditions.

Science does not fill in the "I ain't got a clue" with a completely unsupported supposition for which there is no physical and natural basis upon which to support it. You are welcome to believe it, if that's what makes you feel better.  

But, fundamentally, every living creature is comprised of inanimate material.  The only thing that distinguishes living cells from non-living structures is that living structures are a more complex structure of otherwise inanimate materials that are self sustaining and self replicating until something interupts that process.

And the absolute wonder of science and medicine, which continues to push back the line of the unknown, is that a surgeon can now put a patient on the operating room table, stop the heart from beating, literally stop a human life as we typically know it, and replace a number of organs, including installing an artificial heart.

Regularly, surgeons stop a heart, literally killing the person, and then start life right back up again.  And they do this without intervention of some external intelligent force.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


those are not evidence of design or a designer...


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> But we can turn the tables on this comment and say the very same thing for the origins of life.
> 
> It is a strawman argument to suggest evolution and natural processes brought life to where it is now.


It seems that whenever you try to turn the tables, you bump your head in the process.

Youre not defining a strawman argument. 
Evolution and natural processes provides the best explanation of how life appears on the planet. You deny that obvious fact because evolution and natural processes conflict with accounts in the various bibles. 
You dont understand evolution at all, do you? Here is a short primer: 

1. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do. 

2. Populations have a huge amount of genetic variation for every physical trait they possess. 

3. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer. 

4. This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness. 

5. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable. 

6. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever. 

7. As natural selection continues to act on the genes (both old and new) populations can eventually reach a point where all of the old genes for a certain trait have been replaced by the newly evolved genes. 

8. Physical traits therefore have no theoretical limit to the direction or extent of evolution they can experience. 

Now, think about that for a while before you come back and ask another question.

In the meantime, define for us how it is that magical gawds via unnatural processes explains anything?






> It is strawman argument to suggest life on other planets exist. So science now uses strawman arguments for their theories ?



Life on other planets beyond our solar system is a hypothesis. It is through a hypothesis that the discipline of the scientific method can be used to gather data and reach conclusions.  But your position seems unable to account for all the mysteries that are no longer mysterious, or all the paradoxes that have been resolved. We actually know vast amounts about the universe that we didnt know just a few years ago. So you are little more than a dogmatic religious extremist if you believe that a mystery will always remain a mystery and thus choose to fall back into the gods did it security blanket where your fears, ignorance and superstitions are coddled.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...


bump


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.
> 
> They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.  They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God.  They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky.  They believe that makes them appear intelligent.
> 
> Ignore them.


Robert A. Heinlein

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills. [Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long]


History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. [Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long]


Of all the strange crimes that humanity has legislated out of nothing, blasphemy is the most amazing - with obscenity and indecent exposure fighting it out for second and third place. [Robert Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus Long]


Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful--just stupid.) [Robert Heinlein]


One man's religion is another man's belly laugh. [Robert Heinlein]


The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history. [Robert Heinlein]


If you pray hard enough, you can make water run uphill. How hard? Why, hard enough to make water run uphill, of course! [Robert A. Heinlein, Expanded Universe]


The hell I won't talk that way! Peter, an eternity here without her is not an eternity of bliss; it is an eternity of boredom and loneliness and grief. You think this damned gaudy halo means anything to me when I know--yes, you've convinced me!--that my beloved is burning in the Pit? I didn't ask much. Just to be allowed to live with her. I was willing to wash dishes forever if only I could see her smile, hear her voice, touch her hand! She's been shipped on a technicality and you know it! Snobbish, bad-tempered angels get to live here without ever doing one lick to deserve it. But my Marga, who is a real angel if one ever lived, gets turned down and sent to Hell to everlasting torture on a childish twist in the rules. You can tell the Father and His sweet-talking Son and that sneaky Ghost that they can take their gaudy Holy City and shove it! If Margrethe has to be in Hell, that's where I want to be! [Robert Heinlein, Alexander Hergensheimer in Job: A Comedy of Justice]


Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. [Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice]


Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything... just give him time to rationalize it. [Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice]


There is an old, old story about a theologian who was asked to reconcile the Doctrine of Divine Mercy with the doctrine of infant damnation. 'The Almighty,' he explained, 'finds it necessary to do things in His official and public capacity which in His private and personal capacity He deplores. [Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988) Methuselah's Children]


God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be true, but it sounds good, and is no sillier than any other theology. [Lazarus Long, _Time Enough for Love_ by Robert Heinlein]


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not.    But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy.  (as you so state)
> ...


thanks for posting credible  refutation of that myth...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'm glad to point out that living things can get more complex by taking in energy.

Glad to point out the ignorance of your 2nd Law idiocy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No, we are not living in a closed system. The only thing closed here is your mind.

It's for the best, it's too small to contain very much. New info might kill you.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both &#8220;closed&#8221; (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
> ...



And pseudo scientific creationist sites are a staple for the boy.

The TrueOrigin FAQ

_We ARE trying to do exactly what is stated at the outset on this site&#8217;s &#8220;home&#8221; page &#8212; which is to demonstrate that the NeoDarwinian Macroevolution belief system does not find &#8220;overwhelming&#8221; unequivocal support in the data of empirical science, and that *the biblical creation model in fact finds compelling, corroborative support* in the same data available to and used by evolutionists._

The same data available to and used by evolutionists? 

That's odd, I wasn't aware that "evilutionists" used spontaneously combusting shrubs, Arks, 600 year old men, men rising from the dead, parting seas, magic tablets, fat naked babies playing harps, winged horses, etc., as support for science and evolution. 

Why is it that these religious extremists never actually present the data supporting magic and supernaturalism that "supports", how shall we say... magic and supernaturalism


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Considering the existence of extremophiles living near hot smoker vents on the ocean floors that have no connection to the Sun based food chain, yeah I can see life without the Sun.

The moon is nice, but life can do just fine without it.

Atmosphere might be a little harder to get around, but Europa effectively has no atmosphere and life may be abundant beneath the ice.

Oxygen is the only one of those things that life as we know it has to have, but then again life arose on a primordial Earth that had an oxygen poor atmosphere.

Blood, bones, organs are all absent in single celled organisms and they do just fine without them.

Food. Define food. Plants use sunlight as food. 

Water. Life as we know it needs water (although viruses don't but the jury is still out on whether or not a virus is technically a lifeform). But why wouldn't there be any water? Other than H2 and O2, H2O is the most abundant compound in the universe, largely because of the molecular physics involved. The only way to not have water is to change the laws of physics and at that point this whole exercise is nothing more than mental masturbation.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jul 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Uh oh. Now you did it. Ywc will soon drench the thread with biblical tales of "fountains of the deep", thus "proving" that, well, your schooling was a waste of time. You could have read the bibles for all your science and saved a bundle on student loan payments.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 23, 2013)

Hollie said:


> That's odd, I wasn't aware that "evilutionists" used spontaneously combusting shrubs, Arks, 600 year old men, men rising from the dead, parting seas, magic tablets, fat naked babies playing harps, winged horses, etc., as support for science and evolution.



My understanding is that those things are issued when tenure is granted. Postdocs just get a halo and an answer to the question of just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Grad students are lucky if they can find a free meal to scrounge.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 23, 2013)

And the voice of the PI did spake, "yea, there is an abundance of donuts in the conference room." And there were. And the PI spake again, "I give you, my graduate students who have suffered and toiled under my hand these donuts this very day." And so the PI did.  The donuts were of many varied kinds with crullers and jellies and chocolate and glazed kinds among them. The donuts were from the land of Krispy Kreme. Verily did the graduate students, hungry and famished and underpaid, pounce upon the donuts. And the PI saw that it was good and the graduate students did rejoice.

From the Book of Tenure 3:24-27


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 23, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.
> 
> They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.  They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God.  They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky.  They believe that makes them appear intelligent.
> 
> Ignore them.



You have absolutely no clue as to my experience of god.

I can assure you that it exceeds any experience you have ever had and are likely to ever have.

You have no clue and if Christ himself were standing on the street corner, I am quite sure you would trip all over yourself as you hurried to church.

That you presume to know other's experience of god is all I need to know.  

It is all I need to know because, while I cannot presume to know what another's experience is, I can define real and objective constraints to what it can really be.

What it cannot be is an objective and autonomous experience.

And this gets to the core of it.  Hollie, Daws101, and Steven_R might very well make a personal statement of some personal and subjective experience.  Having read their posts, I can nearly guarantee, sufficieny to put money on it, that they would frame it as how they feel or what they believe without presenting it as being objective.  They would not presume that their personal feelings or subjective experience is necessarily representative of mine, or anyone elses.  They would not presume that their personal, subjective sense of the world takes precidence, is somehow superior, to anyone elses.  They will hardly presume their objective experience is somehow superior to anyone elses, except that that objectivity has been carefully vetted.

I can say that I believe that life on other planets is extra-ordinarily unlikely, and get no rebutal. I can say that the current odds are 1/786 (or whatever that number is) and likely get no rebutal. It probably just passes by as benignly, "yeah, whatever."

If I were to say that it is *guaranteed* that life exists beyond this Earth, I'd expect to be called to the carpet to prove it.  Possibly after a delay as they did a quick google to see if anything changed since they last looked.


----------



## turzovka (Jul 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not.    But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy.  (as you so state)
> ...



First you tell me if it would make a difference to you or not?

None who have replied to me really care enough to know the truth.   Or they are afraid of it.

Because if they cared, they would have done the easy to access homework long ago.    

The Shroud of Turin is a real life miracle.   And science is what says it is so.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/eBqe5xvYnNc]The Meaning of Life: Growth and Learning - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

turzovka said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



Scientist re-creates Turin Shroud to show it's fake - CNN.com


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Idiocy  the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

 I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what the fuck to you mean by early life..?
Microbial mats of coexisting bacteria and archaea were the dominant form of life in the early Archean and many of the major steps in early evolution are thought to have taken place within them.[2] The evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, around 3.5 Ga, eventually led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere, beginning around 2.4 Ga.[3] The earliest evidence of eukaryotes (complex cells with organelles) dates from 1.85 Ga,[4][5] and while they may have been present earlier, their diversification accelerated when they started using oxygen in their metabolism. Later, around 1.7 Ga, multicellular organisms began to appear, with differentiated cells performing specialised functions.[6] Bilateria, animals with a front and a back, appeared by 555 million years ago.[7]
The earliest land plants date back to around 450 Ma (million years ago),[8] although evidence suggests that algal scum formed on the land as early as 1.2 Ga. Land plants were so successful that they are thought to have contributed to the late Devonian extinction event.[9] Invertebrate animals appear during the Ediacaran period,[10] while vertebrates originated about 525 Ma during the Cambrian explosion.[11] During the Permian period, synapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, dominated the land,[12] but most of this group became extinct in the PermianTriassic extinction event 252.2 Ma.[13] During the recovery from this catastrophe, archosaurs became the most abundant land vertebrates, displacing therapsids in the mid-Triassic;[14] one archosaur group, the dinosaurs, dominated the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.[15] After the CretaceousPaleogene extinction event 66 Ma killed off the dinosaurs,[16] mammals increased rapidly in size and diversity.[17] Such mass extinctions may have accelerated evolution by providing opportunities for new groups of organisms to diversify.[18]
Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Nonsense!

What would happen if the Sun disappeared? | Spaceanswers.com


What would we do without the moon? | ScienceNordic


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



 origins of life ?  Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture.


----------



## dblack (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Likewise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat.*

Yes. So? You're telling me our cells are not a closed system.
Welcome to the party, pal.

*So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?*

You started out as an egg. After you took in a lot of energy, you are a complex, though not very smart, adult.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No I am not claiming cells are closed systems and does it really matter.

The Harvard scientist, John Ross, comments:

    ...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.6

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Be specific.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Oh my. Another cut and paste from the ICR. For the more excitable of the fundies, the ICR seems to be among the go-to sites for "quotes" that have been edited, parsed or faked by Henry Morris.


----------



## dblack (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



"origins of life ?  Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."

You seem to be taking the position that, unless we can provide a convincing alternative, we must accept your supernatural explanation for the origins of life. We don't.

More importantly, we don't have to accept it as science, because it's not. You might not find evolution theory convincing, and that's fine, but it *is* science. Supernatural explanations are not.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> So the 2nd law applies to closed systems.



YWC's mind is an "Isolated system". Nothing that matters can freely pass between his mind and reality and it is a complete waste of energy even trying.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Go easy on the boy. He's a Harun Yahya Academy graduate.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Fair enough But you see I have stated I can't show evidence that proves Gods existence.I can only provide evidence that infers a designer. Daws however takes a story about the past and acts like it is a fact because he simply does not understand fact from possibility. You can choose to believe that if you wish it's fine  but don't act like it refutes anything like he or she does.

I would argue that is not science.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > So the 2nd law applies to closed systems.
> ...



The way science defines systems are there any biological closed systems ?

How do you explain decay in nature if not by entropy ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I don't believe U of A is the academy you claim it is.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your "irreducible obtuseness" stands in the way of your ever being capable of learning. Instead you pose questions where you are already biased with creationist disinformation.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I haven't seen a single instance where you have provided evidence that "infers a designer".

For that matter, the terminoligy is a waffle. If you had evidence of a designer, be it space aliens, Zeus, or some other entity, you would have presented it. What you have presented is a desperate need to press your fundamentalist religious agenda despite an utter lack of any reliable or supportable data.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Creationists who cite the entropy principle against the evolutionary philosophy are, time and again, dismissed as either ignorant of thermodynamics or dishonest in their use of the second law.*

Yeah, that pretty much covers it.

*In an open system (such as the earth receiving an influx of heat energy from the sun), the entropy always tends to increase*

Which doesn't stop cells, or complex organisms, from getting more complex or evolving.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Let's try this on for size the 2nd law and special relativity are closely related, if the 2nd law falls so does special relativity. The 2nd law applies to all systems in this universe.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Nothing will ever fit your distorted creationist mindset.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Who really cares when all knowledge is supplanted by and subordinate to "the gawds did it"


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Your comment is predictable.

 Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *

The popular syndicated columnist, Sydney Harris, recently commented on the evolution/entropy conflict as follows:

    There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.1

As Harris points out, the law of increasing entropy is a universal law of decreasing complexity, whereas evolution is supposed to be a universal law of increasing complexity. Creationists have been pointing out this serious contradiction for years, and it is encouraging that at least some evolutionists (such as Harris) are beginning to be aware of it.

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?


Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics?



As far as I interpret it, the law of ever increasing entropy states that "a system will always move towards the most disordered state, never in the other direction".

Now, I understand why it would be virtually impossible for a system to decrease it's entropy, just as it is virtually impossible for me to solve a Rubik's cube by making random twists. However the (ever so small) probability remains.

Why does this law underpin so much of modern physics? Why is a theory that breaks this law useless, and why was Maxwell's demon such a problem? Does this law not just describe what is most likely to happen in complex systems, not what has to happen in all systems?
thermodynamics statistical-mechanics entropy arrow-of-time
shareimprove this question

edited Oct 28 '12 at 23:22
Qmechanic&#9830;
19.1k42151

asked Oct 28 '12 at 22:58
Hannesh
1283

1 Answer
active oldest votes
up vote 9 down vote accepted


Hannesh, you are correct that the second law of thermodynamics only describes what is most likely to happen in macroscopic systems, rather than what has to happen. It is true that a system may spontaneously decrease its entropy over some time period, with a small but non-zero probability. However, the probability of this happening over and over again tends to zero over long times, so is completely impossible in the limit of very long times.

This is quite different from Maxwell's demon. Maxwell's demon was a significant problem because it seemed that an intelligent being (or more generally any computer) capable of making very precise measurements could continuously decrease the entropy of, say, a box containing gas molecules. For anyone who doesn't know the problem, this entropy decrease could be produced via a partitioning wall with a small window that the demon can open or close with negligible work input. The demon allows only fast-moving molecules to pass one way, and slow-moving ones the other way. This effectively causes heat to flow from a cold body of gas on one side of the partition to a hot body of gas on the other side. Since this demon could be a macroscopic system, you then have a closed thermodynamical system that can deterministically decrease its entropy to as little as possible, and maintain it there for as long as it likes. This is a clear violation of the second law, because the system does not ever tend to thermodynamic equilibrium.

The resolution, as you may know, is that the demon has to temporarily store information about the gas particles' positions and velocities in order to perform its fiendish work. If the demon is not infinite, then it must eventually delete this information to make room for more, so it can continue decreasing the entropy of the gas. Deleting this information increases the entropy of the system by just enough to counteract the cooling action of the demon, by Landauer's principle. This was first shown by Charles Bennett, I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end.

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Your comment is predictable.
> 
> Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?
> by Henry Morris, Ph.D. *


How is it that you remain so befuddled about the pointless exercise of cutting and pasting volumes of material from creationist charlatans?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Your comment is predictable.
> ...



Befuddled not me. You didn't read this.

"Hannesh, you are correct that the second law of thermodynamics only describes what is most likely to happen in macroscopic systems, rather than what has to happen. It is true that a system may spontaneously decrease its entropy over some time period, with a small but non-zero probability"


 "I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Befuddled? I think you have made yourself the poster child for befuddled.

Cutting and pasting material from the ICR replete with selected "quotes" from unknown authors and unknown context is a standard tactic you have used before.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Exactly. YWC is just trolling because he already has all the wrong "answers" from those misinformed creationist websites.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yeah, let's just look the other way and claim irrelevant or nonsense even though the problem is acknowledge by scientists.

The misinformation is to assume the 2nd law is contradicted by any system. What's really funny is ,you are surrounded by evidence supporting the law of entropy and you can see the evidence in the heavens as well ,and yet,you try to wiggle around it like it doesn't exist.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're agreeing with the biggest troll in this forum and her name is hollie,just ask her mentor ruggedtouch. They are twins.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Without the moon life would have developed differently, I'll grant you that. Entire ecosystems would not exist, or would exist in radically different forms, but there would still be life. Even if life were dependent on the moon, that would have made a difference if life began in tidal zones. What about if life first started around sea vents? 

Without the Moon, Would There Be Life on Earth?: Scientific American


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You've already admitted you don't know enough about physics to be able to argue about thermodynamics. What makes you think that the creationist sites are competent or unbiased enough to give an accurate assessment in the first place? Just because they are telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean they are telling you the truth.

Take a physics class before you claim to understand what's going on with thermodynamics and entropy.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 24, 2013)

1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.


Well, that was pointless.

I have to assume you have avoided any attempt at addressing any and all comments because you're simply not up to the task.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 24, 2013)

turzovka said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



I'm sure Joshua-ben-Joseph was a great guy with a great message, regardless of whether or not he was somehow divine. The Bible is a fantastic book with wonderful stories and good ideas on living. But Jesus is not a scientist and the Bible is not a science text any more than _Principia Mathematica_ is a religious text or Peter Higgs is a prophet. 

Religion and philosophy answer the question, "why?" Science answers the question "how?" Two totally separate endeavors with two totally separate goals and two totally separate methodologies. They're not looking for the same thing so they are not interchangeable.  

As long as religion stays on its side of the street and science stays on its side, all is well.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what an odd thing for you to say everything you've ever posted is conjecture...fucking specious too ,not to mention based on a false premise ..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Does Entropy Contradict Evolution? scientifically invalid site.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no need we've been over this a billion times you were full of shit then and nothing changed ...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


excuse me? that should read: I (YWC) however take a story about the past and act like it is a fact because I simply do not understand fact from possibility."
ALSO, THE ONLY  INFERENCE ywc can make is he believes there is a designer as there is no evidence to bolster that claim.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Henry Madison Morris was an American young earth creationist and Christian apologist. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. He is considered by many to be "the father of modern creation science." He wrote numerous creationist and devotional books, and made regular television and radio appearances.


again no credibility due to religious bias...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 24, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.


having that dream again?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Because I can see the contradiction that either are ignored or tried to be explained away. 

Then turn to rhetoric and attack the creationist for bringing it up. Hell even people that are not creationist admit to the problem then they are attacked for agreeing with the problem raised.sorry but that is not how the science community should act if they truly are seeking the facts.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > "origins of life ?  Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."
> ...



Then you don't understand what science is. Science is a self-correcting mechanism that relies on the evidence. The evidence points to abiogenesis as the probable start of life, thanks in large part to our understanding of bio- and organic chemistry. The evidence points to evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life, thanks in large part to two centuries of evidence including fossils, genetics, and geology. The evidence points towards a 14 billion year old universe, thanks in large part to our understanding of physics and cosmology and CBR.

The best part is if those ideas are wrong, science will fix itself. Wrong ideas get kicked to the curb, period. It might take a while but the truth will out. So far there has been nothing within the scientific communities to overturn those ideas, only from zealots from outside the scientific community. Even the scientists like Behe aren't publishing peer-reviewed papers in support of their ideas, but rather are appealing to a scientifically illiterate general public with claims that the science is wrong; a public that doesn't understand the technical aspects of science. 

Look at you. You're defending creationist arguments about physics, using their ideas, yet you yourself have said you don't understand the physics in the first place. You're arguing without being able to judge your own evidence for itself.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The very post you quoted I stated a fact you really are clueless.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Well daws sorry only saw one post worthy of a response.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Really ? please don't go down this road and you're a practicing scientist


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no contradiction to be explained away. The people writing those websites you're relying on are crackpots and zealots who are misrepresenting what the science says, either from a lack of their own understanding or deliberately or because they just throw away science in favor of a Bronze Age creation myth. The general public doesn't understand enough about thermodynamics to know the arguments the creationists are putting forth is just nonsensical. 

It's not a question of not wanting to "teach the controversy." It's a question of no controversy existing at all.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I was converted from your side, and it was a very easy transition.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Sorry but creationists have been pointing it out for many years.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 24, 2013)

"I can only provide evidence that infers a designer"

And this is the problem, seeing a pattern in toast and concluding it infers a designer.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


your favorite lie !


----------



## daws101 (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


people are only converted because they have never really broken free of their religious indoctrination.
you were only playing at non belief .
like any addict you fell off the wagon...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


they are pointing at nothing then...an imaginary tempest in a teapot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*"I believe. The point is that even though living beings may appear to temporarily decrease the entropy of the universe, the second law always catches up with you in the end."*

Who ever claimed living beings decrease the entropy of the universe?

The only thing increasing in this thread is your idiocy.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 24, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


bump!


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



*She is not a troll.  She is effectively exposing your dishonesty as are many other people here.  Do you lack the capacity to be embarrassed?*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 24, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> 1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.


*
Is that how you see it?  LOL.  In reality, YWC is kicking his own ass.*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I believe that was sarcasm directed at people like yourself,You can ask him yourself.



Mark Mitchison

Currently doing a PhD in Controlled Quantum Dynamics at Imperial College and the University of Oxford.

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No,she falls in the same category as several others here,not mentioning any names.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.
> ...



Hell I only see two people that are responding, and I don't think they have accomplished what you're claiming.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 24, 2013)

By far the best and most reasonable poster in my thread is Itfitzme.

Sorry didn't mean to leave out Steven_R


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.



To do that one must look into the causes of mental illness not science vs non science.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 24, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.
> ...



I doubt you would recognize reality.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.
> ...



You have had your ass handed to you so many times. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 24, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > 1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.
> ...



The only ones dreaming are you and Hollie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



None of the silliness, disguised as science, that you have posted was sarcasm.

Have you given up on your 2nd Law stupidity, or do we need to continue bashing you over the head with it?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 24, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



*TROLL:*

Troll -
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

forum troll -
Someone who gets pleasure by typing annoying/controversial/offensive words at strangers on internet forums, for them to read.

person 1:can someone tell me how to do this?*

troll: you're stupid, i hope you're not as ugly as you are stupid, then you will have problems







http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forum troll


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Actually, no. Sorry, but creationist arguments have been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The affirmative position always carries the burden of proof. This is why creationist arguments fail. The arguments are configured only to undermine science and cast doubt upon the established biological and historical record. 

The arguments for magic and supernaturalism are not valid ones. What creationists expect and what they demand in connection with appeals to supernatural agents means little, if anything, in science. If people refuse to accept scientific consensus because it conflicts with their fundamentalist religious beliefs, that is not the fault of science. I find nothing about the natural processes of evolution which offends my common sense or expectations. It doesnt fall to the scientific community to explain why intelligent design is not the most reasonable explanation for existence. IDiots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the designers of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 24, 2013)

Heat is work and work's a curse
And all the heat in the Universe
Is gonna cooool down 'cos it can't increase
Then there'll be no more work and there'll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah - that's entropy, man!
And all because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which lays down:
That you can't pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
Try it if you like but you far better notter
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler
Oh, you can't pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
You can try it if you like but you'll only look a fooler
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
That's a physical Law!
Oh, I'm hot!
Hot? That's because you've been working!
Oh, Beatles - nothing!
That's the... Second Laws of Thermodynamics!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 24, 2013)

Although it relates to disorder in certain respects, people often become confused about &#8220;entropy,&#8221; the second law of thermodynamics, as disorder.

 So, it is being redefined in many introductory textbooks for physics and chemistry as energy dispersal thanks to retired chemistry professor, Frank L. Lambert.

 &#8220;Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds from the simpler elements.* Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions,* it only demands a &#8220;spreading out&#8221; of energy in all processes.&#8221;

&#8211;Frank L. Lambert, from the website:
Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041
Academic and professional biography
entropy.lambert@gmail.com 
September 2012


Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It seems youre suffering from some paranoia. 

After all these pages, were still left with you hoping to denigrate science (and science promoters), as a means to further your extremist religious beliefs. All of these pages of posts and still you wont step up to the plate to defend creationism / ID with some testable data that can be peer reviewed. Shirley, there must be _something_ you can offer that will allow a comprehensive examination of your evidence for the gods did it. 

I was also expecting that at some point, Creationists / IDiots would finally propose their *General Creation Theory*...but after these pages of posts, it doesnt exist. In that sense, how disappointing that creationists /IDiots have such little _faith_ that their claims to supernaturalism will survive the glaring light of scrutiny. 

Just as Einsteins _General Theory of Relativity_ was the subject of relentless peer review, creationists /IDiots certainly have the right to have their *General Creation Theory *available for similar review. It only makes sense that creationists /IDiots have the same opportunities for peer review and testing of their theories as the relevant science community has.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> IDiots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the designers of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance.



 Come on now. The IDers have a designer in mind, but it most certainly is not God.  Sure the ID crowd is tied inextricably to the Fundamentalist Christian movement and the textbook _Of Pandas and People_ changed all mentions of a Creator to Designer right after Edwards v. Aguillard, and Phillip E. Johnson wants to turn America into some pseudo-theocracy and thinks the Wedge Document can accomplish just that, but the Designer is most assuredly not the God from the Bible.

Nope. Not at all. Not a chance. No way.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 24, 2013)

This is a nice, long, well written prose description of the meaning of the second law of thermodynamics.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Which really starts here

*The Second Law of Thermodynamics (2)*

I'm on page four. But I thought I should present it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 25, 2013)

This concept of "dissorder" bothered me because it requires than that order be definable and measurable. This cause a problem because "order" is a psychological process of perception.*

For me, the questions are a) how do I identify the quality distinctly as unique from all other things? and b) how do I count it?

In nature, what we see as order is what we choose to see as order. From stand point of the basic laws of thermodynamics, there is no distinction of states that we would consider "ordered" from other states that we would not. (I'll try to talk about this more later. *There may be complex distinctions, just none so simple that thermo laws will capture it easily)

The support is easier and comes from

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (6)

I've copied far to much, hopefully i'll get away with it. I want to point out how many times this estemed proffessor makes this point.

Paragraph after paragraph, example after example, he repeats two points;

*1) Enropy does not measure order or disorder.
2) Entropy measures energy dispersing outward.*

"About ENTROPY! Scientifically, qualitatively, entropy is simple -- *entropy change is just a way of measuring exactly what we have been talking about, how much change occurs at a specific temperature when energy spreads out according to the second law.*

*But that word entropy has been so erroneously defined and so misused by so many people* that I'm sorry that I got trapped into talking about it when were thinking about what a city looks like after a huge earthquake! That mess of broken buildings and busted bridges would be foolishly called "an example of entropy increase" by many people who aren't scientists -- and even by some chemistry teachers.

Q: What's wrong with that? My chem text says that "Entropy is disorder" and a mess is disorder, isn't it?

A: Your text may be excellent in other topics, but it's just plain dumb wrong where it says that! *Entropy only involves energy and its spreading out (and temperature), not appearance or neat patterns. *Even when considering molecules precisely arranged in a crystal, any question about entropy must be like "What is the energy distribution here? *How is the crystal vibrating and the molecules moving fast but almost staying in one place," not "How orderly is this pattern?"* Energy, energy, energy!

*Entropy is not "disorder". No way. No how. That's an old 1890s idea that was obsolete after statistical and quantum mechanics became fully developed in chemistry.* However, it hasn't yet been eliminated from a few textbooks. They may be good in other parts but they simply don't tell you the straight stuff about entropy if they use that old obsolete definition with "disorder".

Q: Hey! You can't just say a text is wrong and expect me to believe you! You'd better give me solid evidence that "entropy is not disorder" if my chem book says it is.

A: Of course. Your text is out of date because most new editions of college/university general chemistry textbooks have deleted "entropy is disorder" and adopted my approach.

Click on welcome to entropysite to whats new and scroll down to May 2009 to see the list of new editions that have thrown out disorder and now define entropy in terms of energy dispersal. (Your professor can check
Disorder  A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions
This is the article that helped convince textbook authors to delete disorder. Also for your professor, the article at
http://entropysite.oxy.edu/entropy_is_simple/index
html describes the bases for interpreting entropy as energy dispersal and an improved approach to microstates.)

Q: OK. What IS entropy, really?

A: It's simple basically because you know about the second law -- *that energy spreads out and disperses rather than staying concentrated, i.e., localized in one place. Entropy just measures what happens in that kind of process of energy dispersing.* And that's why your text says that entropy is always increasing in the world -- it's because spontaneous reactions/events are what are always happening and they happen because then energy spreads out!. (Actually, we should always say "entropy change" because we're measuring the difference in energy distribution "after" some happening versus the "before".)

More precisely: Entropy (change) in chemistry measures either by

1) how much molecular motional energy has been spread out in a reversible process divided by the constant absolute temperature, T

S = q(rev)/T

[ q is the amount of energy (motional energy, thermal energy, "heat") that is dispersed to a system at T from the surroundings at a very very slightly higher temperature than T, or vice versa, from the system at a tiny bit higher temp than the surroundings at T. Because the temperature differences are so small, this gradual dispersal of motional energy ("heat") in either direction is essentially reversible. This is the case in phase changes, at the melting point or the boiling point. (As some more advanced texts state, when you heat a system - i.e., increasing the "how much" motional energy is in a system - by calculus you can find the S change )];

or (2) how spread out the original molecular motional energy (i.e. no change in q) of a system becomes (e.g, when an ideal gas spontaneously expands into a vacuum and increases in volume or when different ideal gases or liquids mix. (No change in temperature in the processes.)

*Entropy change doesn't measure "disorder"! (What are the dimensions of "disorder"?* Malarkeys per minute or some such nonsense? The scientific dimensions of entropy change are joules/Kelvin.) *Entropy change in chemistry measures the spreading of molecular motional ENERGY. *(For more details of that kind of energy of molecules moving ["translating"] and rotating and vibrating, see
Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics
Your professor could check the site for instructors at
ENTROPY IS NOT "DISORDER"
)

Q: If entropy measures how much energy has been dispersed in a bunch of chemicals, and that's q, why bother with dividing by T?

A: Because you don't really have entropy (or entropy change) if you don't include that absolute temperature, T. With entropy properly defined that way you have immense power in understanding how important is any energy change to that "bunch of chemicals". Entropy change, S, doesn't merely measure energy spreading out, it shows us exactly how important to a system is the dispersion of a given amount of energy in that system or substance at a particular temperature.

How's this for an analogy: If a quiet library represents a low temperature system (relatively small number for T), and you yelled "HEY, YOU!" there, everybody would jump and the librarian would turn purple. However, in a football game at touchdown time (like a high temperature system, very large number for T), if you yelled "HEY, YOU!" just as loudly, nobody would notice it. The effect of the "energy spread out in your yelling" is a lot different in a library than in a stadium!

The scientific application is this: an amount of energy dispersed, say a q of 10 joules, from the surroundings (that are just infinitesimally warmer than 100 K) to a cold 100 K system would certainly be important (q/T = 10 J/100 K= 0.1 J/K) while the same amount of 10 joules spread out from different surroundings (just infinitesimally warmer than 1000 K) to a 1000 K system would be relatively trivial. (q/T = 10 J/1000 K = 0.01 J/K)

Now, you know that a hot pan will cool down if the room is cooler than the pan -- we started with that -- it's our lifetime experience -- it's what we called the second law and we interpreted it as energy spreading out if it can. But is there any quantitative way that we can show that the second law "works"? Yes! That's where the power of entropy comes in! Entropy measures energy's spreading out; the larger the entropy increase, the greater the spreading out and the more probable is the event. Just look at that preceding paragraph: If a 1000 K and a 100 K system are in contact and 10 joules of motional energy were allowed to flow from one to the other, which direction would the energy flow? Only if energy flowed from the 1000 K system to the 100 K system would there be any entropy increase -- (the calculation that you will learn from your text and class is not as simple as the arithmetic for the reversible transfer in the preceding paragraph, but the direction of the process is adequately indicated by that easy arithmetic.).

So entropy increases when "heat" (transfer of energy) spontaneously flows from something hot to something colder. (Same as "entropy change is positive in sign.")

Q : So that's all?? Just hot pans cooling down again? And that one little q(rev)/T is entropy change?

A: ALL? HOLD IT now!! That's just like your question "Is that all?" when we first talked about the second law. And then we went on to see the amazing implications of the second law -- that it's the greatest generality in all of science -- that it's incredibly important for your understanding of how the world works -- that it's the greatest good and baddest bad for your own being alive. Ya can't have anything more important than that! Exactly parallel, entropy is of enormous importance in ANY serious understanding of chemistry and chemistry is central to everything in this universe.

The words and meaning of "entropy" and "second law" are so closely related (entropy being the quantitative measure of the qualitative law) that they are often used interchangeably. *Never never forget that entropy MUST always be connected with ENERGY in general, and specifically with ENERGY that is being or has been dispersed.*

[Entropy is more fully discussed in Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics . In the Appendix to the site you are now reading (accessible from the Last Page) are given some details of processes in which q is zero --i.e., the original ENERGY of the system is unchanged but it is more spread out over more volume; thus entropy increases. Those processes include a gas expanding into a vacuum, or two or more ideal gases or liquids mixing. An ideal solute dissolving in a solvent also involves no change in original ENERGY but the entropy of the solution increases because an added solute allows that energy to be more spread out.]

Q: You sure are yelling LOUD and long about energy being connected to entropy!

A: Absolutely!! THAT'S the big mistake that popular writers and even some teachers make about entropy. They've heard that antique erroneous statement about "entropy is disorder" so often that they too say that anything you can see in the world as mixed-up or messy is an example of an entropy increase. Nonsense. Total nonsense. You have to focus on how much and how widely is energy dispersed in their examples. When and how and what kind of energy got spread out has to be the first question in any example they talk about or we think about. Here, look at some horrible actual quotes.

In a textbook, there is a picture of Einstein's desk taken the day he died. Like most desks where scientists have been working hard, it looks messy. But the textbook says "Desktops illustrate the principle that there is a spontaneous tendency toward disorder in the universe..." Wow! Stay away from desktops -- you don't ever want to get caught by the scary spontaneous tendency that happens there! Here's a quote and a photo that really deceives a reader by the first four words that I've italicized: "If left to themselves, the books and papers on the top of my desk always tend to the most mixed-up, disordered possible state." (And that was written by a scientist!) Wasn't he ever near that desk of his? Some mysterious alien force from outer space did it? Another, from a book about entropy that sold over a million copies: "Anyone who has ever had to take care of a house, or work in an office, knows that if things are left unattended, they soon become more and more disorderly..." Unattended means that nobody is around, doesn't it?. Isn't that writer implying that things all by themselves cause this disorderliness, rather than people? (He should be told that King Tutankhamen's tomb was left unattended -- really unattended -- for 3274 years and its arrangement of things was found to be seemingly unchanged, though dusty, when the tomb was finally opened in 1922.)

* You get the point. The messy appearance of a bunch of visible objects (and even the neat molecular order in an x-rayed crystal) have nothing to do with entropy.* The only questions are "what is the energy process that made the objects that way? In what way was energy dispersed and how much energy change at what T occurred? In the usual dumb examples like those quotes in the paragraph above, it is in the ATP of the muscles of the people who pushed the papers/books/clothes/pizza plates around where energy has been dispersed and so only there has the entropy increased.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You mind pointing out the lie ?


Idiocy the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Are you speaking for yourself or for everyone daws ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.
> ...



The ol mental illness answer when you have no answer for something,like demonic possession or belief that there is a designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Come on now,you really think a man with a solid education is gonna say "
 living beings decrease the entropy of the universe"

That looks like sarcasm about the ones promoting Misinformation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You seem to be an honest person what do you think of Hollie and Daws ? now for lonestar,he has had many disrespectful comments lobbed at him by the two in question. I have had the same dealings with the two. I to have been provoked. But when they step in it I get pleasure out of exposing their ignorance.

So can a person just make posts like lonestar has out of frustration ? Lonestar is no Troll.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Heat is work and work's a curse
> And all the heat in the Universe
> Is gonna cooool down 'cos it can't increase
> Then there'll be no more work and there'll be perfect peace
> ...



If we lose the energy of the sun we are done.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Although it relates to disorder in certain respects, people often become confused about entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, as disorder.
> 
> So, it is being redefined in many introductory textbooks for physics and chemistry as energy dispersal thanks to retired chemistry professor, Frank L. Lambert.
> 
> ...



Redefine a term that needs no redefining "Entropy" or redefine the law ? it never was a law if it's need to be redefined.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



What ignorance have you exposed... beyond your own?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > IDiots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the designers of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance.
> ...



Of course the designer is believed to be the Almighty! You don't have to prove the existence of the Almighty to prove purposeful design. The alternative is a non-intelligent source produced purposeful designs,hmm no contradiction there.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



How convenient that you exempt yourself from the responsibility of supporting your claims.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Hollie your comments towards people who do not believe as you,it's apparent you fit the definition of a Troll. most of your copy and paste jobs come from the opposite sites from creationists. They have a dog in the hunt.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Hell hollie, all one has to do is check out a poster called ruggedtouch. You either plagiarize this poster or you were this poster. You copy and paste this person word for word and use the same exact insults.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Anyway this thread is not about you and daws, Thank God, let's move on.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy. I think it's time for purposeful design , the origins question,and discussing Neo darwinism and it's mechanisms.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There must be some level of awareness you reach where you perceive clues that you're  demonstrating you know really very little about the subjects that you claim to be able to critique. It's just remarkable that you spend as much tine as you do denigrating subject matters you don't have the first clue about.  You might want to try learning something about the subjects you rail against. 

The amount of time and bandwidth you expend cutting and pasting from fundamentalist Christian websites and from Harun Yahya is alarming. You should have learned from hard experience that lies and conspiracy theories earn you no credibility.  How is it possible that you have not come to grips with the reality that the creation ministries have to consistently lie and mislead about these subjects? 

There is faith, but you should not have faith in lies and falsehoods. Have you ever considered why you are being manipulated and lied to? And why do you further those lies and manipulations? It is not difficult to come to conclusions about such deceptive behaviour being willful or prompted by simple ignorance.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hell hollie, all one has to do is check out a poster called ruggedtouch. You either plagiarize this poster or you were this poster. You copy and paste this person word for word and use the same exact insults.



You're obsessing. This was addressed previously and you were exposed as a fraud then.

Your real objection is that I have repeatedly exposed your phony, edited and falsified "quotes" cut and pasted from various extremist websites.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Anyway this thread is not about you and daws, Thank God, let's move on.



Why is it that you're obsessing over me, directing your posts at me, but claiming the thread is not about me?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You might want to go back and reread the views you're supposed to be parroting. Right there in the Dover trial the IDiots said many times that the Designer they were pushing was NOT the God for the Bible. That would be illegal, so it's definitely not God.

They wouldn't have lied under oath to push an agenda...would they?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This concept of "dissorder" bothered me because it requires than that order be definable and measurable. This cause a problem because "order" is a psychological process of perception.*
> 
> For me, the questions are a) how do I identify the quality distinctly as unique from all other things? and b) how do I count it?
> 
> ...



All good stuff, but sadly wasted. 

I think at some point it becomes perfectly reasonable to just stop trying to explain science to people who put their fingers in their ears and start singing hymns. If they don't want to hear it, one can't make them and there are much better things one can do with one's time. If they choose to live in ignorance and superstition instead of reason, that's their choice.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 25, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




*No, I'm not a creationist.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



*The highlighted comment is something that creationists always run from because they can't afford to acknowledge it.  There is a reason why creationists resort to quote mining and outright fraud in order to support their "theory".  They do it because they must - they have no credible evidence.  I have a hard time believing that intelligent adults actually believe such juvenile nonsense.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 25, 2013)

_If you're looking for a little background reading on scientific creationism, it's best not to take the word scientific too seriously.  A three-year database search of 4,000 scientific publications - focusing on the names of people associated with the Institute for Creation Research and on phrases and keywords such as 'creationism' - didn't turn up a single paper.  A follow-up study of 68 journals found that only 18 of 135,000 total manuscript submissions concerned scientific creationism, and all 18 were rejected.  Reasons cited included 'flawed arguments,' 'ramblings,' and 'a high-school theme quality.'  ~Science, September 1985_
_
In all of these efforts, the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must.
--William J. Bennetta, California Academy of Sciences_


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 25, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> *The highlighted comment is something that creationists always run from because they can't afford to acknowledge it.  There is a reason why creationists resort to quote mining and outright fraud in order to support their "theory".  They do it because they must - they have no credible evidence.  I have a hard time believing that intelligent adults actually believe such juvenile nonsense.*



It comes down to the sorry state of science education in this country. The average person simply doesn't know enough science to be able to listen to the IDers and Creationists and recognize that their arguments are crap on any technical level. The man on the street doesn't know enough about physics, so when one of the anti-science spouts off about how entropy doesn't work that way or Irreducible Complexity or "It's just a theory" it sound perfectly reasonable.

Short of turning public schools into STEM factories for kids, I don't know how to change this either.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



That's a really good observation. The history of the christian fundamentalist "creationist" agenda has reminded me of a Hollywood blockbuster movie car chase. We see cars racing down the highway, careening off the guardrail, bumpers and fenders flying off, all to the accompaniment of screeching tires and loud thuds.        

ID has become self-destructive. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more pathetic.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > *The highlighted comment is something that creationists always run from because they can't afford to acknowledge it.  There is a reason why creationists resort to quote mining and outright fraud in order to support their "theory".  They do it because they must - they have no credible evidence.  I have a hard time believing that intelligent adults actually believe such juvenile nonsense.*
> ...



*It is a sad state.  In a time when we are falling behind other countries in science education, these nitwits want to go in the other direction and teach our kids that fantasy is fact for their own selfish goals.  If I was an astronaut sitting in a capsule on top of millions of pounds of explosive liquid oxygen, I'd be more than a little nervous to find out that the technicians that have my life in their hands majored in "creation science".  I can't believe in the year 2013 that we even have to have this laughable debate.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



*
The ID "theory" was developed to replace creationism by stripping it of references to god and they tried desperately to distance themselves from creationism during the trial but suffered a major embarrassment when someone dug up the history of revisions of the text book they were using and it clearly showed that they removed the word "creationism" and replaced it with "intelligent design" and to add insult to injury, there was an instance where they didn't totally obliterate the word creationism before inserting ID so they ended up with a printed text book that used a word like "CreIntelligent Designism"
*


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 25, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



cdesign proponentsists

The so-called missing link between Creationism and ID.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



His sarcasm was directed at you? Okay.

So are you going to continue pushing your 2nd Law error?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jul 25, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...



That much is obvious.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy. I think it's time for purposeful design , the origins question,and discussing Neo darwinism and it's mechanisms.



*One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy.*

Not so fast, sparky.

Do you admit that the 2nd Law in no way disproves evolution or increasing complexity?


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



*Yeah, that was it!*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 25, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



*You say that like it's a bad thing!*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> cdesign proponentsists
> 
> The so-called missing link between Creationism and ID.



The gods really do have a sense of humor.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 25, 2013)

Complete Dover Trial Transcripts

Dover Trial Transcripts :: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy. I think it's time for purposeful design , the origins question,and discussing Neo darwinism and it's mechanisms.
> ...



It would be irresponsible to let him move forward, completely misrepresenting the 2nd law.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 25, 2013)

This is nice of pbs;

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial


----------



## daws101 (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


everything you post is based on a lie, that pretty much covers it. 


you question is ridiculous ...
your fairytale say in very clear terms god boinked everything into existence... from the simple to the complex.. so food would not have been a problem. 
problem is it's way too convenient and completely and utterly false.
there is no evidence of any kind to support a creator. 

Using a Poison to Turn Sunlight into Food
Bacteria from a hot spring in California conduct photosynthesis with arsenic--and suggest a process that might have predated typical photosynthesis

By David Biello

Arsenic, a deadly poison, kills by blocking the ability of cells to produce and consume energy. Yet, some red and green slime mats in briny hot springs in Mono Lake, Calif., use the potent compound rather than water to carry energy during photosynthesis (the process used by bacteria and plants that converts sunlight into food) new research in Science reveals.

The newly discovered microbes steal two electrons from the arsenic in the spring water, turning it into so-called arsenate, and use the energy to transform carbon dioxide into food. This only happens in the presence of light, which provides the energy to initiate the process, according to microbiologist Ronald Oremland of the U.S. Geological Survey, who led the discovery.

These are not the only bacteria that use poison to make food: They are from the genus Ectothiorhodospira, which largely relies on another poison, toxic hydrogen sulfide, for the same purpose. By analyzing the genetic material of the microbe, the researchers have also determined that this is a primitive process, going back at least three billion years, according to Oremland. That could mean that arsenic-based photosynthesis predates the oxygen-producing variety that enables life as we know it.

Not everyone agrees. "I don't think this is an ancient organism that predated most purple bacteria but something that evolved after purple sulfur bacteria already existed," says molecular biologist Donald Bryant of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who reviewed the paper for Science, speaking of the new bacteria's ancient relatives that are thought to have evolved earlier. "It is an interesting case in which nature has taken something that is normally quite toxic and made good use of it for growth."

Using a Poison to Turn Sunlight into Food: Scientific American

the most important part "the researchers have also determined that this is a primitive process, going back at least three billion years"

that fact all by itself lays waste to creationism fairytales.  

[ame=http://youtu.be/q71DWYJD-dI]How did the evolution of complex life on Earth begin? - The Gene Code, Episode 1 - BBC Four - YouTube[/ame]

Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth?

Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation
Editor's Note: We asked several scientists from various fields what they thought were the greatest mysteries today, and then we added a few that were on our minds, too. This article is the last of 15 in LiveScience's "Greatest Mysteries" series.

Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another.

Indeed, some scientists think life appeared the moment our planet's environment was stable enough to support it.


The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Australia that are about 3.4 billion years old. Ancient as their origins are, these bacteria (which are still around today) are already biologically complexthey have cell walls protecting their protein-producing DNA, so scientists think life must have begun much earlier, perhaps as early as 3.8 billion years ago.

But despite knowing approximately when life first appeared on Earth, scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.

"Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists," said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.

The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists' understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe.

Lots of ideas

Today, there are several competing theories for how life arose on Earth. Some question whether life began on Earth at all, asserting instead that it came from a distant world or the heart of a fallen comet or asteroid. Some even say life might have arisen here more than once.

"There may have been several origins," said David Deamer, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "We usually make 'origins' plural just to indicate that we don't necessarily claim there was just a single origin, but just an origin that didn't happen to get blasted by giant [asteroid] impacts."

Most scientists agree that life went through a period when RNA was the head-honcho molecule, guiding life through its nascent stages. According to this "RNA World" hypothesis, RNA was the crux molecule for primitive life and only took a backseat when DNA and proteinswhich perform their jobs much more efficiently than RNAdeveloped.

"A lot of the most clever and most talented people in my field have accepted that the RNA World was not just possible, but probable," Deamer said.

RNA is very similar to DNA, and today carries out numerous important functions in each of our cells, including acting as a transitional-molecule between DNA and protein synthesis, and functioning as an on-and-off switch for some genes.

But the RNA World hypothesis doesn't explain how RNA itself first arose. Like DNA, RNA is a complex molecule made of repeating units of thousands of smaller molecules called nucleotides that link together in very specific, patterned ways. While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical.

"The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot," said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. "To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky."

The anthropic principle

But "astronomical" is a relative term. In his book, The God Delusion, biologist Richard Dawkins entertains another possibility, inspired by work in astronomy and physics.

Suppose, Dawkins says, the universe contains a billion billion planets (a conservative estimate, he says), then the chances that life will arise on one of them is not really so remarkable.

Furthermore, if, as some physicists say, our universe is just one of many, and each universe contained a billion billion planets, then it's nearly a certainty that life will arise on at least one of them.

As Dawkins writes, "There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack."

Shapiro doesn't think it's necessary to invoke multiple universes or life-laden comets crashing into ancient Earth. Instead, he thinks life started with molecules that were smaller and less complex than RNA, which performed simple chemical reactions that eventually led to a self-sustaining system involving the formation of more complex molecules.

"If you fall back to a simpler theory, the odds aren't astronomical anymore," Shapiro told LiveScience.

Trying to recreate an event that happened billions of years ago is a daunting task, but many scientists believe that, like the emergence of life itself, it is still possible.

"The solution of a mystery of this magnitude is totally unpredictable," said Freeman Dyson, a professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University in New Jersey. "It might happen next week or it might take a thousand years."   
Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth? | LiveScience


----------



## daws101 (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I always speak for myself .
unlike you who has chronic incurable messiah complex. 
but to answer your slapdicky statement.. I am speaking from first hand  experience with "CINO'S" (CHRISTIANS IN NAME ONLY)Like yourself.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


he is prone to hallucinations ....


----------



## daws101 (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 25, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


what an underwhelming retort.
 "texans, the lowest form of white man there is!" -Robert  Duvall -geronimo an american legend.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


his hurry to move on to the next round creationist story time is insightful ..


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Although it relates to disorder in certain respects, people often become confused about entropy, the second law of thermodynamics, as disorder.
> ...



It simply never meant "dissorder".  There is no measure of "orderliness" beyond human perception of what has been determined to be "orderly".  

Randomness doesn't mean "dissorder".  

If I choose to assign "Coming by sea" to "heads" and "Coming by land" to "tails", then the sequences of signals, {TT, TH, HT, and HH} may or may not be randomly distributed is a series of events. But in no way may we say that there is "dissorder".  

The error isn't in the succinctly defined laws of thermodynamics.  The error is in the prose definition mutating away from that which it is to something which it is not.  

Lambert isn't, so much, redefining it. That has already been done, and quite inapropriately.  Lambert is presenting the appropriate definition, applying the  words that properly define what the succinct mathematical measures and definition actually represent.  When a term has been defined then improperly redefined, further "redefining" it to return it to its original definition may be locally redefining it. It is, globally, properly defining it.

Mathematically, an analogy would be that of subtracting what has been inapropriately added.  The original definition of entropy never meant "dissorder".  "Dissorder" was added and Lambert is subtracting it.

Entropy means "Dispersal of energy" had "to dissorder" added to it, "of energy was dropped.  A=B+C became A=B+C-C+D which yielded the erronious definition of A=B+D.  So, Lambert is returning it to the proper definition by subtracting D and adding C.

If someone took a hammer to your car door, then the body repair took a hammer to it again, you wouldn't say that the repair shop was damaging your car by redenting it. You would say that someone dented your car and the body shop was "undenting" it.  Correctly, you might say the body shop was "redenting" or "rebending" it.

"Defining" + "redefining" + (-1)*"redefining" = "defining".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...


 You might be right but I do remember reading something someone admitted this intelligent agent was the Christian God.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > This concept of "dissorder" bothered me because it requires than that order be definable and measurable. This cause a problem because "order" is a psychological process of perception.*
> ...



If you are gonna be a scientist may I suggest that you understand creationists carry the same degrees as many of the secularists,they just have different interpretations of the very same evidence.. You really think they did not learn the same science as the secularists ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > YWN666 said:
> ...


 Most creationists did not major in creation science  because its not taught in major universities nor community colleges,you nitwit. Ask yourself why we may be falling behind. Help Obama has been in charge and still blaming bush lol.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I counted back, three posts of his, and saw no other behavior except trollish behavior.

If YWC says, "it is ..." and Daws replies, "It is...", followed by YWC responding, "You are [incorrect negative adjective]"  That is frustration and poor, offensive behavior.

If Daws then relies with "Well, you are [incorrect negative adjective]", that is defense in response to offense.

If Daws says, "It is...", then someone pops in to reply, "You are [unfounded negative adjetive]", that is trollish behavior.  If a series of multiple responses are "You are [inapropriate adjective]", that is clear, repeated trollishness, sufficient to conclude that the individual is a troll.  I really don't care what he feels his intent is.  Intent is a rather meaningless concept.  We cannot directly measure actual intent, only infer it from behavior.  Three instances of trollishness is sufficient enough to infer intent.  Negligence is not an excuse.  Failure to avoid displaying oneself as a troll is sufficient to infer intent to be one.  There is no reasonable expectation of getting an objective response after presenting trollish behavior.  The reasonable expectation is that the response to offensive behavior is defensive bahavior.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Do you understand there are several different views between Ider's and creationist,I will admit they did try to hide that the Christian God is the intelligent agent. That to me is an insult and disengenuious on their part. I am s biblical creationist and don't hide it. I Di agree with many of their views and explanations in science.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Painting with a broad brush are you. You have old earth creationists. You have young earth creationists. You have Ider's. They are not the same, and have different views  that can't be reconciled.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Behe is the one hanging on to Irreducible Complexity when the rest of the biological community has said it's nonsense. Bouw is the one hanging on to Geocentrism five centuries after Copernicus first proposed the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other way around.

It's not a question of different interpretations. It's the intellectual dishonesty, it's disregarding everything they were taught and the procedures they know, it's the perversion of science and making the evidence fit the hypothesis instead of the other way around that goes with putting science behind religion and using those credentials to push an agenda that is the problem with the "scientists" supporting the non-science. I can live with a different interpretation, but the mental gymnastics people like Behe and Bouw go through to make their worldview somehow compatible with science (or the science compatible with their worldview) just destroys any credibility they have.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system. Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy ?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Most creationists did not major in creation science  because its not taught in major universities nor community colleges,you nitwit.



I wonder why science departments aren't teaching Creation Science alongside Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Biology, Meteorology,  and Hydrology.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not from what I have been reading. Hell I have even quoted people on your side agreeing with me.

Give me an example of any organism reducing entropy ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy. I think it's time for purposeful design , the origins question,and discussing Neo darwinism and it's mechanisms.
> ...



You have not shown it does not affect either,so why would I admit to that ? entropy would affect both.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy. I think it's time for purposeful design , the origins question,and discussing Neo darwinism and it's mechanisms.
> ...



I am not a sundevil ,I am a wlidcat.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This is nice of pbs;
> 
> NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial



Do you realize they were one of the plaintiffs


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Now prove it conjecture boy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



I was agreeing with them


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Look not trying to be rude but you people can't make up your mind. You know that dissorder is a problem for your theory. Hell that is one of evolutionists favorite arguments that the universe and nature does not show order because order would infer design.

Talk about reversing directions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Like no other person of science never went against the establishment ? namely secularists gaining control over the creationist. I happen to agree with his views on Irreducible Complexity. Intellectual dishonesty,that is just a little over the top don't you think ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Most creationists did not major in creation science  because its not taught in major universities nor community colleges,you nitwit.
> ...



Didn't you understand the Judgement in the Dover trial ? hell because of a little phrase spoken of in a letter by Jefferson.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Jefferson simply explained the 1st amendment in layman's terms. At least he did so for anyone capable of comprehending that the unholy alliance between church and state had been the primary cause of considerable suffering and death for mankind over the millennia.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Like no other person of science never went against the establishment ? namely secularists gaining control over the creationist. I happen to agree with his views on Irreducible Complexity. Intellectual dishonesty,that is just a little over the top don't you think ?



There is a difference between having an unconventional idea and disregarding and/or intentionally misrepresenting what science has discovered.

And no, I don't think intellectual dishonesty is over the top considering some of the things the ID crowd and their allies among Fundamentalist Christianity have done.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



When the evidence was laid out before the court the Judge flat out said the ID was just Creationism rebranded and therefore is not science. Because it is just Creationism with a new paint job, it can't be introduced in public schools because of the First Amendment and the whole separation of church and state concept.

So yeah, I understood perfectly what the judgment was.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




*I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system. *

Great.

*Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy?*

You still don't get it. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy increases.
You can look at a plant or an animal and by using outside energy, they can decrease entropy in themselves, without changing the fact that entropy, universe-wide, is still increasing.
The fact that an oak tree is more complex than an acorn can be explained by the sunlight energy it used to make itself more complex.

So claiming that because, universe-wide, entropy is increasing, therefore life cannot evolve into more complex forms, is just plain wrong.

Do you get it yet?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


and? an admission of belief is not evidence. lol!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no need what's posted is proof.
unlike when you post GOD SAID.....is conjecture. slapdick.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Your comment fails credibility on a couple of levels. As it happens so frequently with the creationist cabal, suspicious credentials seem to haunt a great many of the fundies.

In addition, Im always suspicious of creationist authors who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. What we see frequently is that creationist often have no academic credentials to give them credibility for work in the field of creation voodoo science  and their degrees (often from degree mills), do not coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving dissertation on life sciences. 


Suspicious Creationist Credentials




Secondly, lets remember that most of the creation ministries require a formal, signed statement of faith from the charlatans who represent these Christian fundamentalist organizations.

For one example:
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis


Quite clearly, by employing evidence and _reason_, we can readily discriminate between theories deserving credibility: the rational position being natural laws; the extremist Christian position being supernatural intervention. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your gods (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observer who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You haven't defined the system.

It also doesn't really matter because your assumed premise for the question is faulty from the outset.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2013)

Fun with Fundies.


*Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit*

Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit - Law Blog - WSJ

Austin federal judge Sam Sparks dismissed a suit by the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research, which seeks the right to grant a master&#8217;s degree in science from a biblical perspective. And by &#8220;dismissed,&#8221; we mean the judge tore it apart.

*&#8230;*

That claim was dismissed by Sparks in an opinion that criticized the Institute&#8217;s arguments as incoherent. At one point he writes that he will address the group&#8217;s concerns &#8220;to the extent [he] is able to understand them.&#8221; At another, he describes the group&#8217;s filings as &#8220;overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information.&#8221; Click here: Judge Sam Sparks Ruling in ICR v. Texas Higher Ed Coordinating Board
for the judge&#8217;s opinion.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 25, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Fun with Fundies.
> 
> 
> *Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit*
> ...


what the judge said seems kinda familiar....?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Who is "you people"?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As is so often the case, you're completely befuddled. "Dissorder" has nothing to do with biological evolution. If you're going to argue against those theories presented by atheistic evilutionists, you shoud acquire at least a middling understanding of the subject.

Hell, you're befuddled ^2


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Now that I think of it, I had never heard of this concept that entropy means "dissorder" until you said it, apperently drawing it from some Creationist "proof".


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 25, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > This concept of "dissorder" bothered me because it requires than that order be definable and measurable. This cause a problem because "order" is a psychological process of perception.*
> ...



Oh, I have no expectation of him actually learning science.  He's constructed a false image in his mind.  It is quite ironic.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



YWC is trying to play a game of "gotcha". A normal person would learn something from consistently losing this game. But YWC isn't interested in "learning science" at all. He only wants his beliefs validated. So far he has a perfect record of striking out but he still persists. Such is the irrational nature of belief.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This is nice of pbs;
> 
> NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial


*
Excellent show but I also recommend the book "The Devil in Dover" by Laurie Lebo for a more in depth explanation of the trial.*


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



*Have you ever asked yourself why?  Here is a hint:  CREATIONISM IS BULLSHIT*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Like no other person of science never went against the establishment ? namely secularists gaining control over the creationist. I happen to agree with his views on Irreducible Complexity. Intellectual dishonesty,that is just a little over the top don't you think ?
> ...



Creationists were the earliest scientists. They don't attack real science,they reveal the weaknesses of theories that lacks evidence and is taught as fact. They poke holes in stupid baseless theories that cause people to reject God. 

Deal with it,the creationist is slowly but surely poking holes in peoples vivid imaginations. ID are not allies to creationists you are beginning to sound like many of the angry Ideologues in this thread.

What are you worried about you have the courts and the government on your side ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Believe as you wish.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



But remember, creationism / ID is not in any way connected with Christian fundamentalism. 

It's "creation science".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Listen, I don't believe the current theory of evolution is even possible let alone ever happened. I believe small changes happened but only because the genetic data for these small changes already existed in our genome.

I believe there are limits to adapting to the environment and that is why the extinction list is so long.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



For someone who allegedly believes in the "Truth" YWC certainly has no problem with fabricating blatant lies. Then again his "Truth" is also a fabrication so it goes with the territory.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 26, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Sounds similar to addictive behavior, random reward strengthens it. I'm sure I've got mine, just to close to see.  After all, why would anyone,  in their right mind, spend the day reading and posting in this thread???!!


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Which confirms my suspicion that the various science disciplines that corroborate evilution are nothing more than a global conspiracy among those atheistic evilutionist scientists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You're the one making the claim that certain systems have the ability to decrease entropy, and I am asking you of an example of a living organism that can do as you claim.  So do you have evidence or is this just making an explanation up to fend off the hordes of critics ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



The group trying to build themselves up while trying to smear others and discredit competing theories. This is an argument used to discredit ID and creationism because we both accept the things that show order within our universe but we also acknowledge we are living in a system suffering from dissorder as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



 Entropy

(Science: radiobiology) The amount of disorder in a system. 

Entropy - definition from Biology-Online.org


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ? stick around you foolish children.

We can start discussing mutation rates and see just what a problem reality is for your theory. I can share with you my 11 years of working in mutation research.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ? stick around you foolish children.
> 
> We can start discussing mutation rates and see just what a problem reality is for your theory. I can share with you my 11 years of working in mutation research.



Oh my, the angry fundamentalist has laid down the gauntlet.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ? stick around you foolish children.
> 
> We can start discussing mutation rates and see just what a problem reality is for your theory. I can share with you my 11 years of working in mutation research.



You alleged experience is belied by the ignorance readily apparent in your posts.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I am fairly certain I never made such a statement.  I don't usually make general statements.  I can say that the combination of the first and second laws of thermodynamics yields a behavior for certain systems by which energy is transformed into work.  I can say that living organisms maintain their entropy by drawing on external resources, at least for as long as they can, and managing to spin of a "child" before nature gets the best of them.

"certain systems have the ability to decrease entropy" doesn't sound like a statement I'd make, especially in conversation with you as your definition of entropy includes "dissorder" making any discussion of the entropy of systems rather meaningless given your incorrect understanding of it.

I think, perhaps, you've simply lost any capacity to know what I personally have said or think, the moment you put me into a category of "you people".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ? stick around you foolish children.
> ...



This observation is accurate or it may seem to be the case because you have been brainwashed in to believing things you can't defend. It is very easy to point out the benefits of mutations, sarcasm intended.

You can't run from reality, it always catches up with you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Sorry should not have lumped you all together. The creationist thread is full of this argument once purposeful design was mentioned.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Ironic coming from the epitome of creationist brainwashed believers.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well, yeah. Anyone who hasn't accepted the majority religion of the socio-political / geographic region of their birth is obviously brainwashed.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well, just goes to show you, if you look hard enough, you can always find someone that has screwed things up.

I don't see any formal definition of measurememt with that incorrect colloquial definition, no Boltman constant, no formal description if what is being measured.  It's a rather meaningless website.

I'm pretty sure I already presented this

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Entropy

and Lambert's website.

So you seem to be the one that continues to disseminate incorrect information.


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh my, claiming victory while you run from my questions. Want to learn real science ?



*I was just going to say the same thing to you.  You are either clueless or self-deluded.*


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


You go, boy.

While the web can be an invaluable source of information, it can also be a playground for cut and pasters such as ywc.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I want to know more about and what are these system possessing the ability decrease dissorder. We have a universe experiencing decay and everything in it.

Living organisms are experiencing genetic decay that is threatening the survival of animal, human populations,and plant populations. What is the cause of this genetic decay ? No Natural selection can&#8217;t prevent this genetic decay because the majority of mutations are recessive and can find their way in to a population through hidden carriers, rarely showing up as the double recessive that can be attacked by natural selection.This is a problem for what your theory calls for but this is reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That's awesome.
So have you given up on the 2nd Law silliness?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Thank you for confirming that you don't understand genetics and evolution at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I want to know more about and what are these system possessing the ability decrease dissorder.*

Plant a seed. Add water. Place in sunlight.

The plant will decrease disorder. It will turn CO2 and H2O into a nice structure of cellulose.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



They can play with all the calculus they want,they can't determine the level of dissorder in a system. You would have to have an accurate amount of order and dissorder at the point of origins.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How did the extinction list grow so long in just 6,000 years?


----------



## YWN666 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I think extinction has a lot to to with unnatural intervention, namely humans killing them on a large scale or destroying their habitat*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You keep pointing to natural cycles as your evidence. I don't have a problem acknowledging natural cycles. what I have a problem with are the extrapolations of these natural cycles and promoting a theory that you have no support for.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You clearly don't know what I believe or know.  Neither are you able tk distinguish between reality and what you read. Apparently, you will believe anything you read...or rather, pick and choose to believe one thing you've read over some otherthing you've read, depending on what you want to believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Ok big boy it is your chance to be specific concerning my ignorance of genetics. Poop or get off the pot.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



If you're speaking of genetic decay,it's a fact. Would you like to compare numbers concerning beneficial mutations vs harmful mutations ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

YWN666 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So much for the extinction events of the past according to theorists. Do you believe everything you read on the net ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> YWN666 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So Ken Ham's creation museum depicts historical fact. The dinosaurs became extinct due to competition from co-existing with humans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You, and the others who misunderstand the 2nd Law, said order can never increase.
Said that things can't get more complex.
I just showed the simplest of examples proving your claim was wrong.

Will you continue in error, or admit you were wrong?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The only people that are buying the Creationist "victories" and "hole-punching" are people who don't know or understand what science does, how it does it, and what the findings mean. In short, your arguments are intended for laymen who don't know any better. Scientists dismiss your nonsense out of hand for good reason; namely because they know the science. Creationism is no more valid of an explanation of anything than the guy screaming about the Loch Ness Monster, Chemtrails, and the Queen of England is a lizard lady from Alpha Centuri 12.

Believe what you want, but it is factually wrong.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


extreme bullshit alert!
the kind of creationist pseudoscience that YWC  is pontificating about did not even exist until the 1960's..
 Creation science or scientific creationism[1] is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.[2][3] It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution.[4] It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide.[5] The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in "creation ex nihilo" (Latin: out of nothing); the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 6,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed "baraminological" kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.[6] As a result, creation science also challenges the commonly accepted geologic and astrophysical theories for the age and origins of the Earth and Universe, which creation scientists acknowledge are irreconcilable to the account in the Book of Genesis.[4] Creation science proponents often refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" or as "Darwinian evolution".


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


your belief is not relevant..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


bump!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They are excellent examples that present a qualitative example of "orderliness" seeming to increase.

I am not sure how to get quantitatively.  Entropy is simply a non-sequiter.  I had this great image of the metabolic pathways of a cell.  They are considerable and, qualitatively, it is all "orderliness".  Indeed, the more metabolic pathways that a cell has, the greater will be both "orderliness" and entropy.  

Entropy simply doesn't distinguish between "orderliness" and "dissorder".  It only counts the number of states that a system can settle into, over the long run.

The more complex the organism, the more metabolic pathways, the greater the number of ordered states, and the greater the entropy.

There is another place where entropy doesn't extend, at least as far as I understand it, superconductivity. As I understand it, in superconductivity, the electrons are coupled so there is no resistance, no friction, no thermodynamic losses.  Of course, as is usually with these things, it may not scale up.

But it at least raises the question as to if the macrodynamic laws of thermo is simply an artifact of the fact that the velocities, energy, and momentum of the mass of particles is spead out over a band of velocities, energy and momentums.  The work can be extracted from the majority of the particles in the system, in mass, the spread of energy results in inefficiency in the transfer, ergo heat loss.

The fact that energy is conserved is everything.  The second law simply says that, lacking any prefered direction for the energy to go, it will go equally in all directions.  At a quantum mechanical level, if there are multiple states of equivalent probability, then multiple packets of energy will be shared "equally", probabilistically, between all the equivalent states.

There is no natural law that requires there be inefficiency losses in energy as a photon transfers from one particle to another.  Obviously, right?

The second law is a mass process property of probabilities, not an absolute law of individual particles. It simply makes no sense at an individual particle level.  

The second law of thermo is just a statistical accounting, nothing more. Statistical processes are dependent on having a statistically significant number of partticles or a statistically significant number of times.  Extending it beyond what it is, simply counting states and presenting the mean and varience, is completely inappropriate.

And statistics doesn't have a measure of "orderliness".

People decide a straight flush is a winning hand.  Statistis doesn't distinguish this from any other set of cards that we might decide is a winner.  

Thermo doesn't distinguish between dead and alive, they are just another arrangement.  For that matter, a living cat, in a box, has greater entropy than does a dead cat in a box.  And if you don't feed either, over the long run, they both have the same entropy.

The whole entropy thing is a strawman arguement.  No evolution theory says that entropy decreases due to living organisms or that it is proof of evolution. The entropy argument was introduced by creationists, misrepresenting the meaning of entropy, to "prove" that God must exist.  YWC then created a strawman argument, saying that evolutionists claim that life reduces entropy.  And it is all based on a false equivalency between "entropy" and "dissorder".  If "entropy" meant exaclty the same thing as "dissorder", Kelvin, Caurnot, Joule, or whomever coined the phrase, would have just called it "dissorder" and left it as that.

As far as I'm concerned, in YMC's vision of the world, "entropy" is equivalent to "dissorder" and "dissorder" is equivalent to "entropy".  When he says "dissorder", it also means "entropy" and when he says "entropy", it also means "dissorder".  As such, any statement that he makes which uses either term is simply incorrect by definition.

There is no "correct" response to a non-sensical statement.  There is no response to "Purple fingerwangs kibble nits."


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Ywcs' propensity for spewing pseudoscience bullshit is matched only by his willful ignorance.
none of the threads he's posted are really about the subject matter or faith.
they are about his narcissism.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Sounds kinda like a conspiracy.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

GSA Today
The evolution of creationism
Table of Contents

&#9702;Introduction
&#9702;Faith in Nature
&#9702;Finding Time
&#9702;Testimony of the Rocks
&#9702;The Roots of Creationism
&#9702;The Birth of Modern Creationism
&#9702;Creationism Today
&#9702;References
 David R. Montgomery*

Quaternary Research Center and Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences, Box 351310, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1310, USA

Abstract

For centuries, natural philosophers, their scientific successors, and theologians alike sought to explain the physical and natural world. The now common cultural narrative of perpetual conflict between science and religion simplifies the arguments and struggles of the past and overlooks cross-pollination between those who embraced faith and reason as the keys to understanding earth history. When geologists unequivocally dismissed the idea of a global flood and recognized Earths antiquity, many conservative theologians acknowledged that there was more to the past than literally spelled out in Genesis, the opening chapter of the Bible. But some Christiansthose we now call creationistsrejected this perspective and chose to see geology as a threat to their faith. In so doing, they abandoned faith in reason and cast off a long-standing theological tradition that rocks dont lie. 

Introduction

The story of historical views on Noahs Flood shows how there is far more to the story of the relationship between science and religion than the simple portrayal of a long-running feud (Gillespie, 1951; Glacken, 1967; Davies, 1969; Rudwick, 2005; Montgomery, 2012). By the end of the nineteenth century, conservative Christians generally accepted that there was no geological support for reading Noahs Flood as a globe-wrecking deluge and that natural revelations established by science should guide biblical interpretation. Even the original fundamentalists accepted geologic evidence that contradicted the view of a six-day creation followed by Noahs Flood as all there was to earth history (Numbers, 1993). But the forerunners of modern creationists chose to defend their preferred literal reading of scripture no matter what the rocks revealed. Dismissing the findings of geologists, they rejected reason in the name of faith. In this sense, modern creationism evolved in response to geological discoveries. The following brief review traces aspects of this story to illustrate how geological debates evolved into theological schisms anchored by creationist views with no scientific currency.

Faith in Nature

For the first millennium of Christianity, major theologians embraced knowledge of the natural world in order to defend against pagan challenges to biblical authority. Saint Augustine (354413), Thomas Aquinas (12251274), and John Calvin (15091564) all endorsed reason as the way to learn about the world. Augustine was among the first to caution against advocating for biblical interpretations that conflicted with what one could observe for oneself. Centuries later, Aquinas praised the pursuit of knowledge and insight gained from experience reading Gods other booknature. 

Writing at the time of the Reformation, Calvin, too, considered the revelations of both nature and the Bible as fundamental truths. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), Calvin explicitly embraced the idea of respecting natural truths revealed through the study of nature: If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God (McNeill, ed., 1960, p. 273274).

Calvin believed in keeping an open mind when it came to evaluating what we can learn about the natural world from observation and experience. In his view, closing ones eyes to the way the world works was to close ones eyes to God. 

Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin all believed that Noahs Flood was a global flood. They interpreted fossil seashells found in rocks as compelling proofhow else could the bones of marine creatures have ended up entombed in rocks high in the mountains?

Biblical interpretations accommodated new discoveries as knowledge of the natural world grew, because theologians adhered to the principle that Gods works in the natural world could not conflict with His Word in the Bible. Generation after generation of natural philosophers slowly uncovered facts inconsistent with a global flood, making it increasingly implausible to understand earth history in ways consistent with traditional literal interpretations of the Bible. 

Finding Time

In 1669, when Steno, the venerated grandfather of geology, laid down his principles for reading the rock record, he interpreted his observations of the Tuscan landscape as recording six stages, one of which corresponded to Noahs Flood (Fig. 1). Stenos insights framed how to read earth history directly from the rocks. In arguing that the Flood laid down strata that subsequently collapsed to form todays topography, Steno indirectly introduced the idea of tectonic controls on landforms, a foundational concept of modern geomorphology.


Stenos six-stage model for the formation of the landscape around Florence, involving (1) precipitation of fossil-free sedimentary rocks into a universal ocean; (2) excavation by fire or water of great subterranean caverns; (3) collapse of undermined continents and the inundation of newly formed valleys in a great flood (Noahs Flood); (4) deposition of layered sedimentary rocks containing fossils as the floodwaters receded; (5) renewed undermining of younger rocks in valleys; and (6) a final round of collapse to create modern topography. Letters serve to identify the same locations or rock layers in successive panels. 


Stenos little book, with its simple diagrams, formalized how to read earth history using the basic principles of geometry. The key wasnt the underlying mathematical symmetry astronomers found in the heavens; it was simple rules based on what one could see for oneself. Before Steno, only a curious few read beyond the cover of natures great book to ponder the relationship between rocks and the lay of the land. 

A century later, geologic history began to challenge theological tradition after discoveries like James Huttons unconformity, separating two distinct sandstones, at Siccar Point (Fig. 2) demonstrated that Earths history was too complicated to be accounted for by a single flood, no matter how big. Mainstream theologians willing to allow that there was more to the geological story than laid out in the Bible, and that the days of creation may have been allegorical, were less inclined to give up on the reality of a global flood. Many believed that the biblical flood inaugurated the most recent geological age. The lack of human remains in rocks thought to pre-date the flood was widely considered to confirm this view.


James Huttons unconformity at Siccar Point, Scotlandthe contact between the gently inclined Devonian Old Red Sandstone and vertically dipping Silurian graywacke that established a compelling case for the vast scope of geologic time. The expanse of time required to uplift and erode the two mountain ranges that were the source for the sand in these deposits was unimaginable to Hutton. Photo by David R. Montgomery.


Although it is commonly assumed that eighteenth-century Christian theologians were opposed to science, some orthodox churchmen openly accepted the idea that Earth was ancient. In 1785, the Reverend James Douglas presented A Dissertation on the Antiquity of the Earth to the Royal Society. Douglas noted that sound geological observations supported the idea that the world was much older than the traditional 6000 years inferred from biblical interpretation: Many well-informed persons have therefore been inclined to suppose that the earth was created in six expanses of time instead of six days (p. 40).

By 1800, the question under debate among natural philosophers was whether Earth was tens of thousands or millions of years old. Some, however, refused to consider geologic evidence and simply rejected an old Earth outright. In his Genius of Christianity (1802), François-René de Chateaubriand (17681848) argued that God created the world with all the marks of antiquity and decay (Roberts, 2007, p. 43). This new idea that God made the world to appear ancientand therefore one could not investigate earth history by studying Earth itselfbroke with tradition and garnered little support in the nineteenth century.

Testimony of the Rocks

In his influential Natural Theology (1802), Reverend William Paley echoed Aquinas and argued that because the Bible and nature shared the same author, scientific revelations that contradicted biblical interpretations provided natural guidance for better interpreting scripture. As realization grew that the world was unimaginably old, those seeking to reconcile biblical interpretation with geological findings employed two primary arguments. The day-age theory held that each day in the biblical week of creation corresponded to a geologic or cosmic age. The other theory, known as the gap theory, held that God created the world long ago but remodeled it for human use a few thousand years ago. The time in between wasnt recorded in the Bible, creating an indeterminate gap between the first two verses of Genesis.

In 1807, Londons Geological Society was founded to promote the elevation of facts and observations over imaginative theories. Central to the issue of whether a global flood shaped the world was the question of what carved valleys. Did topography form beneath the waters of a great flood, or did rivers slowly cut their own paths? Studies of regional geology were seen as key to such fundamental questions. 

In his inaugural address to the Princeton Theological Seminary in 1812, Archibald Alexander (17721851) promoted the need for scientific literacy among those preparing for the ministry. Alexander noted that natural history, and geology in particular, could help resolve difficult or ambiguous Bible passages. He preached that Christians should respect truth in all its forms because failure to take heed of scientific knowledge would only breed contempt for believers and hinder the spreading of the Gospel.

At the same time, geologists moved the search for evidence of Noahs Flood out of the rocks and up into surficial deposits and the form of topography as they continued to see the biblical deluge as a geologically significant event. In his Reliquiae Diluvianae (Relics of the Flood, 1823) Oxfords first geology professor, Reverend William Buckland, gathered facts thought to demonstrate the reality of a global flood. He described great accumulations of bones he believed were deposited by an enormous flood immediately antecedent to the formation of those superficial and almost universal deposits of loam and gravel, which seems impossible to account for unless we ascribe them to a transient deluge, affecting universally, simultaneously, and at no very distant period, the entire surface of our planet (Buckland, 1823, p. 146). 

Buckland went on to admire the way in which originally horizontal strata were inclined such that mineral deposits and coal were accessible to miners, as well as how convenient it was that fertile soils were found in flat valley bottoms. Like many of his contemporaries, he thought geological evidence confirmed the Genesis stories and showed how well the world was designed for human use. 

After several decades studying Europes rocks and surficial deposits, Buckland eventually admitted to having let his imagination run wild in his zeal to defend a global flood. He formally reversed course when he was asked to prepare a volume in a series of treatises illustrating the power, wisdom, and goodness of God, as manifested in the creation, which was commissioned by the will of the Earl of Bridgewater. In his 1836 volume, Buckland acknowledged new geological discoveries that contradicted his earlier views. There was no geological evidence of a global flood after all. 

Shortly after Bucklands recantation, Louis Agassiz invoked stray boulders in the Swiss Alps, grooved rock outcrops, and scratches on the underside of a rock overhang near Edinburgh to convince geologists that most of the evidence traditionally interpreted as resulting from a global flood actually recorded a flood of ice.

Particularly compelling was Charles Lyells argument that the cinder cones of southern France were too fragile to have survived a global flood. Deep valleys were incised into hard lava flows that could be traced back to their volcanic source in the cinder cones. Thus, the valleys must have been carved after the cinder cones formed. Lyell reasoned that Noahs Flood could not have carved the valleys because any flood capable of carving valleys into solid rock would have swept away the loose cinders that formed the volcanic cones. 

In the third volume of his Principles of Geology (1833), Lyell concluded that Noahs Flood must have been a local or regional affair rather than a global deluge. Perhaps, he proposed, catastrophic flooding of a low-lying area like the Caspian Sea may have been recorded in the biblical flood story. 

By the late nineteenth century, educated Christians widely endorsed the idea of a local flood in response to new geologic evidence. Theologians across denominational bounds endorsed variants of Lyells Caspian Sea hypothesis as a reasonable way to generate a devastating flood in humanitys ancestral homeland. In 1863, the Dictionary of the Bible dismissed the notion of a universal flood and argued that a local flood in the lower valley of the Euphrates River provided a reasonable interpretation compatible with scripture. Many nineteenth-century Christiansgeologists and archaeologists among themconcluded that the biblical flood story described a devastating Mesopotamian flood.

Forerunners of modern creationists adopted a different approach. In 1857, Philip Henry Gosse, a leading British naturalist, published Omphalos (bellybutton in Greek), in which he argued that Earths apparent antiquity was an illusion. In his view, all the worlds strata, fossils, and even fossil footprints were created at the same time, along with glacial furrows and polished rocks, evidence for the retreat of Niagara Falls, and mammoth bones gnawed by wolves. Confident he had the answer for the geological problems of the age of the world and the effects of the Flood, like Chateaubriand, he too thought God simply made the world to look old. Geologic evidence of past epochs of earth history was created to appear as if all the preceding eras of its history had been real (Gosse, 1857, p. 351).

Gosse argued that because all organic life exists in a cycle of birth, growth, decline, and death, everything must have started somewhere within this cycle back at the Creation. Adam was not created as a fertilized embryo, for he had no mother. Gosse professed that as surely as the first man had a bellybutton, trees were created with rings and rocks with fossils. Victorian minds ridiculed mercilessly his idea that God preloaded fossils into rocks back at the original Creation. 

The Roots of Creationism

The roots of modern creationism run directly back to George McCready Price (18701963), an amateur geologist with no formal training. In a book designed to look like a geology textbook, Price (1923) asserted that there was no order to the fossil record. Rejecting the idea of fossil succession, he argued that the succession of organisms that geologists read in the fossil record was really just a mixed-up sampling of communities that lived in different parts of the antediluvian world. He considered the fossil record too incomplete to confidently reconstruct the past, citing the occasional discovery of animals thought to be extinct and known only from fossils. 

Leading fundamentalists praised Prices book, calling it a great and monumental work of an up-to-date scientista masterpiece of real science by one of the worlds leading Geologists, and the sanest, clearest and most irrefutable presentation of the Science of Geology from the standpoint of Creation and the Deluge, ever to see the light of day (Numbers, 1992, p. 98). But even some of Prices most ardent supporters had questions about his new flood geology. In a 1924 review in the evangelical journal Bibliotheca Sacra, the editor credited Price with throwing a wrench into the smooth running machinery of the evolutionary theory butwondered why it was that when fossils were found in the wrong order, they were always in exactly the reverse of that predicted by geologists (Numbers, 1992, p. 95). How could strata have gotten flipped upside down after Noahs Flood laid them down if the Bible did not mention subsequent catastrophes? Despite such qualms, fundamentalist proponents of flood geology were inclined to assess Prices credibility by the conclusions he reached rather than the strength of his arguments or evidence. 

Byron Nelson (18931972), one of Prices flood geology disciples, reviewed the history of thinking about flood geology in The Deluge Story in Stone (1931). In praising Buckland as an upstanding nineteenth-century catastrophist, and overlooking Bucklands famous recantation of Noahs Flood, Nelson glossed over the reasons mainstream geologists abandoned flood geology in the first place. He then blamed the demise of flood geology on education having passed into the hands of men more or less lacking in religious convictions (Young, 1995, p. 252).

Other fundamentalist theologians joined in steadfastly defending Prices global flood. Herbert Leupold (18921972) dismissed all criticism related to the distribution and migration of animals to and from the ark as pointless. He thought that eruptions of vast amounts of subterranean water caused huge waves that deposited the entire fossil record, drowning mammoth, dinosaur, and man alike. Illustrating just how wide the communication gulf had become between geologists and fundamentalists by the mid-twentieth century, Leupold wondered when will geologists begin to notice these basic facts? (Young, 1995, p. 283). Such ignorance of how geologists had already considered, tested, and refuted a global flood helped keep flood geology alive in the twentieth century. 

Despite the efforts of Price and his followers, during the first half of the twentieth century, the majority of Christiansand evangelical fundamentalistscontinued to endorse attempts to reconcile geology and Genesis. Even prominent anti-evolution crusader Harry Rimmer (18901952) acknowledged that Earth was quite ancient and thought the biblical flood was a local affair rather than a global catastrophe. Twentieth-century fundamentalist circles split into young-Earth creationists, who defended a global flood, and old-Earth creationists, who acknowledged geological evidence that we live on an ancient planet but maintained that God fashioned it for eventual human use. 

The Birth of Modern Creationism

Curiously, the founders of modern young-Earth creationism grounded their unorthodox views in a surprisingly perceptive critique of pre-plate tectonics geology (Montgomery, 2012). John Whitcomb and Henry Morris wrote The Genesis Flood (1961), the book that spawned the creationist revival and resurrected evangelical faith in a global flood. Whitcomb, an Old Testament teacher, and Morris, a hydraulic engineer, embraced literal biblical interpretation to argue that the world was a few thousand years old and that Noahs Flood had laid down all the sedimentary rocks before carving the topography we know today. Their lack of geological training did not stop them from claiming that a global flood provided a better explanation for the geologic record than did the theories of geologists. 

Following Price, Whitcomb and Morris argued that the stratigraphic column worked out by geologists was fiction because, they believed, it was based primarily on the illusion of fossil succession. Pointing out that if one stacked up the greatest thickness of sedimentary beds in every geological age, the pile would reach more than 100 miles high, they held this ridiculous height to invalidate the conventional geologic column. In coming to this conclusion, they breezed by the facts that the average thickness of the rocks of any geological age is only a fraction of its maximum thickness and that only a fraction of Earths dynamic history is preserved in any one region of the planet. 

Whitcomb and Morris did not go so far as to suggest that Christians reject geological facts, but maintained that the long and complex history of the planet that geologists read in the rock record was fiction. In their zeal to dismiss conventional geology as a sham, they described it in terms that serve well to describe their own work: Procrustean interpretations, pure speculation and dogmatic authoritarianisma system purporting to expound the entire evolutionary history of the earth and its inhabitants, yet all the while filled with innumerable gaps and contradictions (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 212). 

In their view, the plain meaning of Gods words trumped anything science could throw at it. The instructed Christian knows that the evidences for full divine inspiration of Scripture are far weightier than the evidences for any fact of science (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 118). 

They read the Bible to determine geologic history and then looked for scientific support for their viewsand dismissed or ignored contradictory evidence. They were surprisingly forthright about it: We take this revealed framework of history as our basic datum, and then try to see how all the pertinent data can be understood in this context (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961; preface to the 6th printing). 

Their view of earth history was based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. In the beginning, at the Creation, God made Earths core and some kind of crust. Rocks that display evidence of internal deformation, like folds or minerals that form only at high pressures or temperatures, date from the First Day. Over the next week, a tremendous amount of geological work was accomplished, especially on the Third Day, when mountains were thrust up and ocean basins were carved out in a great rush of water as the planet was remodeled into a suitable dominion for man (Fig. 3). All this erosion and deposition formed the non-fossilbearing sedimentary rocks and carved mountains into them. Several thousand years later, the Flood ripped up the entire surface of the planet, killed everything not aboard the ark, and laid down fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks. Then the present geological era began after a brief Ice Age caused by all the snow accumulating on freshly uplifted mountains. As far as the appearance of great antiquity, it was just that. The world was created to seem old. Whitcomb and Morris simply dismissed fossil evidence for a long history of life on the basis of overwhelming Biblical evidence (1961, p. 457) and asserted that it was impossible to learn the age of the world through studying the operation of natural laws now in operation. The idea laughed out of Victorian England took root in Cold War America. Still, at the time, Morris admitted he knew few evangelicals who bought into their views (Numbers, 1992).

One of many awkward facts facing advocates of a global flood is that although most of the worlds sedimentary rocks are found on continents, a global flood would have preferentially deposited sediments in low spots, such as ocean basins. Many flood geology proponents adopted the ecological zonation theory of Prices student Harold Clark, which held that geological strata with distinct fossil assemblages represented antediluvian ecological zones. While they argued that the sedimentary cover on the modern continents was eroded from the ocean basins, this begs the question of how whole ecological communities of organisms and coral reefs could be transported intact and without mixing across great distances to be deposited preserving their original ecological zonation.

Creationism Today

When nineteenth-century geologists shelved the idea of a global flood as the central event in earth history, even the original fundamentalists accepted that the opening book of the Bible could not wholly explain the past. Later, in waging war on evolution, reactionary evangelicals resurrected discredited seventeenth-century ideas to explain topography, rock formations, and earth historyinvoking a mysterious vapor canopy that they held fell from the sky to trigger Noahs Flood. The displays at the Creation Museum in Peterson, Kentucky, USA, explicitly reject reason, branding it the enemy of faith and invoking a centuries-long, ongoing conspiracy of scientists to mislead the faithful about the nature of the world. Despite centuries of geological research that contradicts creationist claims, Gallup tracking polls from 1982 to 2012 have consistently found that more than 40% of Americans believe that God created people fewer than 10,000 years ago (Gallup, 2012). 

While struggles over the geological implications of biblical interpretations date back to the earliest days of the Church, the story of how naturalists wrestled over reconciling the biblical flood with a growing body of contradictory geological evidence shows that the twentieth-century revival of flood geology recycled ideas previously abandoned in the face of compelling evidence. In light of nineteenth-century scientific discoveries, it appeared reasonable to read the biblical account of the Flood as either allegorical or a story told from the perspective that the whole world appeared flooded from the ark. Time and again, Christians accommodated geologic findings by reinterpreting Genesis to preserve the integrity of both natural and scriptural truths. 

Of course, there were significant holes in conventional geological theories when Whitcomb and Morris laid out their biblically inspired views on earth history. Plate tectonics did not yet provide an explanation for the origin and distribution of mountains and other geological problems, such as the presence of fossils of temperate and tropical creatures entombed in rocks at high latitudes. But when the plate tectonics revolution swept through the earth sciences and explained previously perplexing observations, creationists ignored what they considered yet another misguided geological theory. 

While geological thought has evolved over the past several centuries, Christianity has tooto the point where several varieties of creationists now argue bitterly amongst themselves. Young-Earth creationists believe the world is fewer than 10,000 years old and that Noahs Flood remodeled it into the topography we know today in one fell swoop a few thousand years ago. Old-Earth creationists accept geological evidence and endorse ideas such as the gap or day-age theories and progressive creationism (also known as theistic evolution), through which God guided evolution in creating the diversity of life. The latest step in the evolution of creationism is based on repackaging as intelligent design the inherently untestable assertion that God designed the world with a particular purpose or goal in mind. Today, after losing repeated court battles over efforts to teach creationist views in science classrooms, the creationist strategy appears to have shifted to promoting efforts to question evolution. 

Generally left out of the resulting debates is the simple fact that creationists lack any independently supported geological evidence to support their views. The late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould described a global flood as the only specific and testable theory the creationists have offered, noting that the claim that creationism is a science rests above all on the plausibility of the biblical flood (Gould, 1982, p. 12, 10). And yet, the geological case for a global flood that creationists offer as an alternative to evolution was discredited before Darwin set foot aboard The Beagle. 

Geologists assess theories by how well they fit data, and creationists evaluate facts by how well they fit their theories. This simple distinction frames an unbridgeable intellectual rift. Nowhere is this divide deeper than over how to interpret the story of Noahs Flood, for the ideas invoked to explain such an event have been refuted time and again, and there is no geologic evidence of a global deluge. Following Whitcomb and Morris, todays creationists continue to pick and choose evidence to support beliefs their faith inspires. Given the ongoing conflict over what to teach in science classrooms, perhaps teaching the historical evolution of creationism offers a fresh way for students to learn about the history of geology, and thereby our knowledge of the world and how it works. How many creationists today know that modern creationism arose from abandoning faith that the study of nature would reveal Gods grand design for the world? 

REFERENCES CITED
1.Buckland, W., 1823, Reliquiae Diluvianae; or, Observations on the Organic Remains Contained in Caves, Fissures, and Diluvial Gravel, and on Other Geological Phenomena, Attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge: London, John Murray.
2.Davies, G.L., 1969, The Earth in Decay: A History of British Geomorphology 1578 to 1878: New York, Elsevier Publishing, 390 p.
3.Douglas, J., 1785, A Dissertation on the Antiquity of the Earth, Read at the Royal Society, 12 May 1785: London, G. Nicol. 
4.Gallup, 2012, In U.S., 46% hold creationist view of human origins: Gallup Inc., In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins (last accessed 14 Sept. 2012).
5.Gillespie, C.C., 1951, Genesis and Geology: New York, Harper & Row, 315 p.
6.Glacken, C., 1967, Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century: Berkeley, University of California Press, 800 p.
7.Gosse, P.H., 1857, Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot: London, J. Van Voorst, 376 p.
8.Gould, S.J., 1982, Creationism: Genesis vs. geology: The Atlantic, v. 250, no. 3 (Sept.), p. 1017. 
9.Lyell, C., 1833, Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earths Surface by Reference to Causes Now in Operation, v. III: London, John Murray, 398 p. 
10.McNeill, J.T., editor, 1960, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559 translated edition (Institutio Christianae religionis by J. Calvin; trans. by F.L. Battles): Philadelphia, The Westminster John Knox Press, 1800 p. 
11.Montgomery, D.R., 2012, The Rocks Dont Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noahs Flood: New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 302 p.
12.Nelson, B., 1931, The Deluge Story in Stone: Minneapolis, Augsburg Press, 190 p.
13.Numbers, R.L., 1992, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism: New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 458 p.
14.Paley, W., 1802, Natural Theology: Or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature: London, R. Faulder.
15.Price, G.M., 1923, The New Geology: A Textbook for Colleges, Normal Schools, and Training Schools; and For the General Reader: Mountain View, California, Pacific Press Publishing Association, 726 p.
16.Roberts, M.B., 2007, Genesis Chapter 1 and geological time from Hugo Grotius and Marin Mersenne to William Conybeare and Thomas Chalmers (16201825), in Piccardi, L., and Masse, W.B., eds., Myth and Geology: London, Geological Society Special Publication 273, p. 3949. 
17.Rudwick, M.J.S., 2005, Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution: Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 708 p.
18.Scheuchzer, J.J., 1731, Kupfer-Bibel in Welcher die Physica Sacra oder Geheiligte Natur-Wissenschaft (Sacred Physics): Augsburg and Ulm. 
19.Whitcomb, J.C., and Morris, H.M., 1961, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications: Philadelphia, The Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 518 p.
20.Young, D.A., 1995, The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Churchs Response to Extrabiblical Evidence: Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 341 p.

GSA Today - The evolution of creationism


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


to quote one of my favorite movie lines: "Hippy, you think everything's a conspiracy!"


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We are looking at an increase in complexity in a different way. You're going from an egg to a human a totally natural cycle. It did not need an increase in new genetic information for this cycle. Your argument is as natural as a child as he or she ages can do more complicated math. That is a natural cycle not evolution and an increase in complexity.

I am looking at an increase in new genetic information to go from an ape to a human now that is an increase in complexity. We are looking at complexity much differently.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


is it just me or is ywc backpedaling?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The earliest scientists believed in creation now is that to where you can understand the point ? some believed in other gods over the creationists God. They were not teaching the theory of creationism because it was not necessary. 

I am amazed you are dumb enough to assume that is what I meant


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Prove to me genetic information is stored anywhere but the Genome.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No I am clarifying what I meant. I said it earlier by going in to detail on neo darwinism and the mechanism for evolution. You really didn't understand my point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Does anyone understand that the modern day theory of evolution calls for a complexity increase ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Does anyone understand that the modern day theory of evolution calls for a complexity increase ?



You really do make yourself the village ID'iot with this nonsensical tripe.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone understand that the modern day theory of evolution calls for a complexity increase ?
> ...



In evolution do organisms get more complex over time ?

Let's see, single celled organisms vs multicelluar organisms.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Hollie throwing rocks at glass houses. lol


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




I've never spoken of genetic decay.

I'm refering to your use of the phrase "you people", a clear indicator of ingroup/outgroup thinking. *I'm refering to your saying "your theory calls for but this is reality."

I'm refering to your insistence on using "entropy"="disorder", which I clearly showed is not the correct scientific definition which you continue to disseminate. *

I am refering to your insistence on perscribing to me a concept of life decreasing entropy/dissorder, an idea that I have never put forth. *It is clear that there are no natural constraints on what an open or closed system may do within it's boundaries, that is all dependent upon the nature of the system and it's surroundings.

I am refering to your insistence on ignoring what I actually say, from the beginning.

From the outset, I made it clear that entropy is defined as

S=k*ln(&#937;(E)) where &#937;(E) is a count of the states that the ultimate particles can arrange themselves into. *&#937;(E) does not have a definition of "order" and "disorder".

Attempting to extend thermodynamics to the details of cells, is precarious, at best. It requires being able to detail every single possible arrangement of atoms and molecules, along with the probability of each, without including any that cannot exist. *It's a fools errand.

Any definition that uses "order" and "dissorder" is a useful analogy, at best, sloppy at its worse. Attempting to tie entropy to dissorder to genetic mutations is simply meaningless. *This is what you would like to do, in a feable attempt to "prove" that therefor, by some undemonstrated default, god must exist.

The problem is, you've never seen god. *And I can assure you that you never will.  It isn't in your nature.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie throwing rocks at glass houses. lol



From another thread: 

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


So tell us, why is it that sharks, for one example, have not gotten "more complex"?

Ever hear the term "fitness for survival"?

It's as though you are incapable of learning.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Jul 26, 2013)

So, we have the Creationists thread AND this one? Is there really a need for two threads about the exact same debate and with the usual suspects?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



So why is it wrong to assume disorder when speaking of entropy ?

entropy science definition
Listen See in a sentence

A measure of the amount of energy in a physical system not available to do work. As a physical system becomes more disordered, and its energy becomes more evenly distributed, that energy becomes less able to do work. For example, a car rolling along a road has kinetic energy that could do work (by carrying or colliding with something, for example); as friction slows it down and its energy is distributed to its surroundings as heat, it loses this ability. The amount of entropy is often thought of as the amount of disorder in a system. See also Heat death

entropy - Science Definition

heat death science definition

The eventual dispersion of all of the energy within a physical system to a completely uniform distribution of heat energy, that is, to maximum entropy. Heat death for all macroscopic physical systems, including the universe, is predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. See more at entropy, thermodynamics.

heat death - Science Definition

thermodynamics science definition
Listen See in a sentence

The branch of physics that deals with the relationships between heat and other forms of energy. Four basic laws have been established.
&#9830; The first law states that the amount of energy added to a system is equal to the sum of its increase in heat energy and the work done on the system. The first law is an example of the principle of conservation of energy.
&#9830; The second law states that heat energy cannot be transferred from a body at a lower temperature to a body with a higher one without the addition of energy. Thus, warm air outside can transfer its energy to a cold room, but transferring energy out of a cold room to the air outside requires extra energy (as with an air conditioner).
&#9830; The third law states that the entropy  of a pure crystal at absolute zero is zero. Since there can be no physical system with lower entropy, all entropy is thus defined to have a positive value.
&#9830; The zeroth law states that if two bodies are in thermal equilibrium with some third body, then they are also in equilibrium with each other. This law has its name because it was implicitly assumed in the development of the other laws, and is in fact more fundamental than the others, but was only later established as a law itself.

thermodynamics - Science Definition


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> So, we have the Creationists thread AND this one? Is there really a need for two threads about the exact same debate and with the usual suspects?



You're correct although there are some new characters. You can't argue philosophies with out this debate. It always ends up going down this road.

I really wanted to know why naturalism is considered more scientific over creationism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I am looking at an increase in new genetic information to go from an ape to a human now that is an increase in complexity.*

I know how you're looking at it. Things cannot get more complex, 2nd Law.

That's why I continue to mock your scientific ignorance. Do I need to continue?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > So, we have the Creationists thread AND this one? Is there really a need for two threads about the exact same debate and with the usual suspects?
> ...



The study of the natural world can be done with methods of science that can increase knowledge. Creationism is nothing more than stealth religious fundamentalism and appeals to supernaturalism.

This concept has been explained to you dozens of times yet you are incapable of learning.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The ignorance is not mine.

 Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism
(including a rebuttal of Frank Steigers Thermodynamics FAQs in the Talk.Origins Archive)
© 2005-2007 T. Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.



        Scientific Responses!
        See how evolutionist scientists responded to this article through exchanges with the author:
           John Gunn, Ph.D. - Part 1
           John Gunn, Ph.D. - Part 2
           Tom Schneider, Ph.D. - Part 1
           Tom Schneider, Ph.D. - Part 2
        The debate between proponents of evolutionism and creation scientists concerning thermodynamics seems likely to continue without end.  This is not because the laws of thermodynamics (and their ramifications) are subject to debate or relativistic interpretation, but because a handful of dogmatic evolutionists continue to vocally and energetically deny the truth concerning a simple matter of scientific knowledge:

            The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world.  (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)

        While many highly qualified scientists who number themselves in the camp of evolutionism are candid enough to acknowledge this problem, the propagandists of evolution prefer to claim the only problem is that creationists misunderstand real thermodynamics.

        This strategy is exemplified in Frank Steigers Thermodynamics FAQs in the Talk.Origins Archive, one title of which (Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics) may be said to better describe the how-to nature of his text than his case against the creationist writers he wishes to discredit.

        Steiger accuses creationists of having created voodoo thermodynamics based solely on metaphors, and provides Talk.Origins readers with a detailed, albeit error-ridden, treatise on the subject.  But while he may appear to have a handle on the mathematics and applied science of thermodynamics, Steiger himself steps out of the realm of scientific knowledge to defend the standard dogma of the evolutionist faith, using his own metaphors and semantic smoke and mirrors to make evolutionism appear immune to the best established scientific law known to man.

        The purpose of this document is twofold:

            To adequately familiarize the reader with the true scientific nature and ramifications of thermodynamics, as documented by leading non-creationist scientists.
            To document and dispel for the reader such common pseudo-scientific evolutionist errors as those perpetuated in Steigers essays, and elsewhere. 

        To accomplish this aim, the subject matter shall be presented in the following consecutive sections within one document:

            Understanding Thermodynamics

            The Evolutionists Spin

            Both Cannot Be Correct

        Every effort has been made to explain the matters addressed in this document as simply and understandably as possible.  While matters of science can sometimes seem beyond comprehension, the aim here has been clarity, yet without oversimplifying where the details truly matter.

        Understanding Thermodynamics
        Back To Top

        The essence of Classical Thermodynamics concerns itself with the relationship between:

            heat
            mechanical energy (or work-ready energy)
                    and
            the conversion of either of these into the other

        All matters of physics, chemistry, and biological processes known to man, are universally subjectwithout exceptionto the first and second laws of thermodynamics hereafter, simply the first law and the second law.

        While the properties of heat and useable energy may not seem particularly significant in a debate concerning origins, the first and second laws (which govern those properties and their transformations) speak profoundly to the nature of matter, energy, and therefore the universe itself.  Within the realm of science, these are among the most immovable, universal laws of science, as the following scientific authorities testify:

            [A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability.  Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me.  It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of it basic concepts will never be overthrown.
            [Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, Thermodynamics in Einsteins Universe, in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509 and in Isaac Asimovs Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 76.]

            No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles.
            [Harold Blum, Times Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 119.]

            If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.
            [Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.]

            The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment.  The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.
            [G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.]

            There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude.  On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.
            [A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.]

            Although it is true that the amount of matter in the universe is perpetually changing, the change appears to be mainly in one directiontoward dissolution .  The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere the cosmos heart is turning to cold; matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space.

            The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate heat death or, as it is technically defined, a condition of maximum entropy . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny.  For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible.  Nature moves only one way.
            [Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.]

            ...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics....
            [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

        Having had a glimpse at the significance and respect afforded the laws of thermodynamics within the scientific community, lets now examine what these laws say, and to what they apply.
        The First Law

        Since the controversy between evolutionists and thermodynamics involves mainly the second law, we will only briefly look at the first law, sometimes referred to as the law of conservation, which tells us essentially that

            Nothing is now coming into existence or going out of existence; matter and energy may be converted into one another, but there is no net increase in the combined total of what exists.

        Regarding this first law, Isaac Asimov offers this noteworthy comment:

            This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make.  No one knows why energy is conserved... All that anyone can say is that in over a century and a quarter of careful measurement scientists have never been able to point to a definite violation of energy conservation, either in the familiar everyday surroundings about us, or in the heavens above or in the atoms within.
            [Smithsonian Institution Journal, 1970, p.6]

        The Second Law
        On the other hand, the second law tells us what can and cannot take place in terms of the relationships and transformations between matter, energy, and work, and their respective properties, as well as those of information and complexity, saying

            Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.
                   ...or...
            The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.

        (Entropy is a measure of (1) the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or (2) the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system.)

        To help ensure an adequate understanding of what the second law means, consider the following, also from Isaac Asimov:

            Another way of stating the second law then is: The universe is constantly getting more disorderly! Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us.  We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily.  Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.  How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate.  In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.
            [Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]

        This is the essence of Classical Thermodynamics.  Similarly, the generalized 2nd law applies to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropyin this case informational entropy)and likewise, applied to matters Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropyin this case statistical entropy).

        The Evolutionists Spin
        Back To Top

        Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

        Beginning with the Big Bang and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationshipdown to every atom, molecule, and beyondis the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.

        This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists speculations concerning biological life and its origin.  The story goes thatagain, in violation of the second lawwithin the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.

        Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular community members which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.

        Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second laws demand for increased disorder and break-down, managed (by some further unknown random mechanism) to leave untouched the entire biological self-assembly process and the self-gathered material resources from which the first living organism built itself.

        Evolutionism takes its greatest pride in applying this same brand of speculation to the classic Darwinian hypothesis in which all known biological life is said to have descended (by means of virtually infiniteyet randomadditional increases in organized complexity) from that first hypothesized single-celled organism.  This process, it is claimed, is directly responsible for the existence of (among other things) the human being.
        Details, Details...

        Perhaps the reader should be reminded (or informed) at this point that not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described self-creation myth.  Yet very ironically, its the only origins account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular beliefs.

        To be sure, many corollary hypotheses have been produced to show how one or another biological or geological phenomenonor an empirical fact gathered in any scientific disciplinemight be explained in evolutionary terms (often not without the use of highly convoluted, incredible, and unprovable stories).  But as Karl Popper observed, a theory that seems to explain everything really explains nothing.  Popper insisted that a theorys true explanatory power comes from making narrowly defined, risky predictionssuccess in prediction being meaningful only to the extent that failure is a real possibility in the first place.  Evolutionists find ways to explain and/or produce after-the-fact predictions for any and every empirical fact or phenomenon presented to themfrequently ignoring established standards for logic and scientific method.

        In the same manner, many evolutionists are so convinced of evolution as a fact that they are compelled to either ignore or dismiss the applicability of the second law to biological processes.  The presupposition of evolution as fact leaves no alternative but that it must be possible in spite of the second law.  But no one can explain satisfactorily how a presumed process of nature (evolution) has moved steadily towards higher arrangements of ordered complexity, when the foremost law of nature demands that (in Asimovs words) all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.
        Open vs. Closed Systems

        The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.

        The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

        Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing.  In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale.  This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenonfact, not theory.

        The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an exception because we live in an open system: The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.

        But simply adding energy to a system doesnt automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or build-up rather than break-down).  Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropyin fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your cars paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

        Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:

            ...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
            [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

        So, what is it that makes life possible within the earths biosphere, appearing to violate the second law of thermodynamics?

        The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply.  These are:

            a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
            a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy. 

        Each living organisms DNA contains all the code (the program or information) needed to direct the process of building (or organizing) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems.  This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organisms physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

        Living systems also have the second essential componenttheir own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy.  Plants use photosynthesis to convert the suns energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

        So we see that living things seem to violate the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures in spite of the second laws effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

        While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earths open-system biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described abovenor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

        In short, the open system argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law.  Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with careand within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.
        Steigers Brand of Thermodynamics

        Frank Steiger has published two essays in the Talk.Origin archive, in which he does a respectable job of iterating the common evolutionist answer to this problem.  But while the answer he presents may be adequate to convince many willing believers in evolutionism, careful examination proves it to be nothing less than the same inadequate work-around commonly served up as an answer to second law objections.

        Steiger also wrongly attributes false and misleading claims to his creationist counterparts, which, if taken at face value, would lend to Steiger much more relative credibility than he otherwise deserves.  Add this to his failure to meet the second laws challenge to evolutionism, and Steigers work is reduced in simple terms to the same old song and dance with a few pot shots thrown in for effect.

        Not far into the more lengthy of his two Talk.Origins essays (The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability), Steiger attributes to creationists a:

            wide-spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. 

        ...which he then attempts to dispute by means of a grossly erroneous generalization:

            In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules.  Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution.  Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks. 

        The order found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy).  The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibriuma lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function.  These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect order in the form of simple patterns.

        Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and eggs developing into chicks).  His equating these two very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see.

        On the other hand, Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) has no problem recognizing the difference, having described it this way:

            Organized systems are to be carefully distinguished from ordered systems.  Neither kind of system is random, but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external wiring diagram with a high information content ...  Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information.  It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic order.
            [Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]

        Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference:

            The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures.  This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions.  Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.
            [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]

        Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:

            As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings...  The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal...  It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA.  The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however...  The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature.  Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.
            [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Lifes Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]

        Steigers blurring of the distinction between these two phenomena can logically be attributed only to either indefensible ignorance or a willful misrepresentation of the facts.

        Later, Steiger declares that:

            ...a system can go from a more probable state to a less probable state, providing S for the system is negative. In cases where the system interacts with its surroundings, S can be negative providing the over-all entropy of the system and its interacting surroundings is positive; the over-all change can be positive if the entropy increase of the surroundings is numerically greater than the entropy decrease of the system. 

        Dont be alarmed.  By way of explanation, S simply refers to change in entropy.  A positive change (increase) in entropy is the general, universal tendency as described above (=less order, complexity, available energy, a more random, disorderly, and probable state).  A negative change (decrease) in entropy is invariably an isolated and temporary event (=more order, complexity, available energy, a less random, disorderly, and probable state).

        This profound statement on Steigers part, then, is simply stating the obviousrestating the second law in terms of a systems more or less probable state as a direct consequence of the respective increase or decrease in entropy.  He correctly acknowledges that a less probable state may be reached by a system, only as long as it is an open system (i.e., able to interact with its surroundings) and there is an external increase in entropy exceeding the measure of systems internal decrease in entropy.

        It is significant that Steiger does not take the time here to consider whether such a phenomenon tends to happen spontaneously, routinely, or with any constancywithout a directing program (e.g., DNA) and a means of energy storage and conversion (e.g., photosynthesis, metabolism) in any living organism (as described earlier).  A declaration that a theoretical decrease in entropy is possible serves little in explaining biological processes and their relationships to energy and organized complexity.  Steiger seems to avoid altogether any discussion of how biological processes achieve and sustain the very decrease in entropy which he goes to great lengths to demonstrate as mathematically possible.

        In fairness, it must be said here that the thermodynamicist need not concern himself with the how (i.e., the process) of a matter in order to generate the mathematical calculations of entropy change from the beginning to the end of any theorized event.  However, we must remember that the ability to calculate this change on paper by no means renders the event likely, or even possible.

        Classical Thermodynamics may thus be employed to postulate the alleged entropy change of an event (e.g., spontaneous generation, or a macro-evolutionary event), apart from defining or identifying a mechanism or means by which the event could conceivably take place.  Yet the barrier of the generalized 2nd law remains firmly in place and applicable to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory (e.g., the increase and preservation of information contained in genetic code), as well as that of statistic entropy and its applicability to systems (e.g., highly complex and integrated biological systems found in all living organisms).

        In any case, Steiger goes on to observe that:

            ...when living things decay after death, the process of decay takes place with an increase in entropy ... a spontaneous change in a system can be reversed, providing the system interacts with its surroundings in such a manner that the entropy increase in the surroundings is more than enough to reverse the systems original entropy increase. 

        (One cant help but wonder whether this paragraph is meant as an attempt to go beyond the myth of spontaneous generation to suggest the notion of spontaneous resurrection!) In any case, Steiger continues:

            The application of energy can reverse a spontaneous, thermodynamically irreversible reaction.  Leaves will spontaneously burn (combine with oxygen) to form water and carbon dioxide.  The suns energy, through the process of photosynthesis, will produce leaves from water vapor and carbon dioxide, and form oxygen. 

        Apart from his ostensible intention to portray these two processes as reversals of one another, it seems to have escaped Steigers notice that the process photosynthesis does not function apart from the complex cellular apparatus inherent in leavesit does not produce leaves, but is an inherent function of them.  To postulate photosynthesis as a non-biological, independent leave-producing phenomenon is to misrepresent it entirely.

        Now we come to some of Steigers best material.  Still emphasizing the possibility of reversibility, he tells us:

            If we unplug a refrigerator, heat will flow to the interior from the surroundings; the entropy increase inside the refrigerator will be greater than the entropy decrease in the surroundings, and the net entropy change is positive.  If we plug it in, this spontaneous irreversible change is reversed.  Due to the input of electrical energy to the compressor, the heat transferred to the surroundings from the condenser coils is greater than the heat extracted from the refrigerator, and the entropy increase of the surroundings is greater than the entropy decrease of the interior, in spite of the fact that the surroundings are at a higher temperature.  Here again, the net entropy change is positive, as would be expected for any spontaneous process. 

        While serving as an excellent model of thermodynamics in action, Steigers refrigerator does still more in that it demonstrates the need for an energy conversion mechanism before a deliberate, sustained decrease in entropy is possible.  Furthermore, the starting and stopping of the machines compressor can hardly be described as spontaneous eventsthey are the planned, willful, and deliberate actions of intelligent agents, executed with a view to accomplishing specific end results.

        As if this splendid refrigerator werent enough, Steiger also shares the following model (popular among evolutionists) with his readers:

            If a water wheel is connected by shafts, belts, pulleys, etc. to a pump, the pump can raise water from the downstream side of the water wheel to an elevation even higher than that of the upstream reservoir.  Some of the water would spontaneously raise itself to an elevation even higher than original, but the rest of it would end up below the water wheel on the downstream side.

            While it is not possible for all of the water to raise itself to an elevation higher than its initial elevation, it is possible for some of the water to spontaneously raise itself to an elevation higher than initial. 

        Once again we are looking at a carefully designed and implemented mechanism for creating and sustaining an apparent decrease in entropy.  One is compelled to wonder why Mr. Steiger must rely only on man-made mechanisms to illustrate his claim that spontaneous entropy decreases can, and do, occur all the timeostensibly requiring neither design, plan nor storage or conversion of energy!

        But wait!  Theres more!  Not only are we invited to pretend along with Mr. Steiger that he has demonstrated spontaneous generation to be thermodynamically possibleeven probable, but we are quickly assured that we need not concern ourselves with the details of how:

            The fact that the water wheel and pump are man-built contraptions has no bearing on the case: thermodynamics does not concern itself with the detailed description of a system... 

        Here Steiger blithely excuses himself from facing a most profound fact: Spontaneous, sustained decreases in entropy do not occur in nature apart from the presence of a design or plan and a means of storing and/or converting energy.  To declare that this has no bearing on the case is to betray (or feign) an utter ignorance of the roles played in biological processes by energy and the work that produces organized complexitymatters that most certainly involve thermodynamic relationships (particularly involving the generalized 2nd law and informational, as well as statistical entropy, as discussed above).
        Complexity Simplified(?)

        Now Steiger takes on the task of redefining complexity so that his readers will find the improbable at least believableif not inevitable:

            A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane...

            ...A simpler analogy to the airplane/junkyard scenario would be the stacking of three blocks neatly on top of each other.  To do this, intelligent design is required, but stacking does not violate the laws of thermodynamics ... all that is required is the energy to pick them up and place them one on top of the other... 

        What Steiger fails to tell his readers is that the airplane/junkyard scenario stands up to probability analysis, as indicated by his need to substitute a block-stacking illustration, completely side-stepping the thermodynamic improbability of evolution.  Having briefly alluded to the problem, he quickly and effectively ignores it by changing the subject!

        In concluding his Probability essay, Steiger asserts that:

            ...The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc.  It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.

        This accusation finds no support in the balance of his essay, so one wonders on what basis Steiger feels qualified to register it.  This writer knows of no creationist position concerning thermodynamics other than the classic understanding.  That creationists point out the conflict between thermodynamics and evolutionist doctrine is no more a questionable position than if on a similar basis they were to say that boulders are unlikely to spontaneously levitate.

        Steigers own distortion of the facts of thermodynamics and biological process seems to indicate that it is in fact his position that challenges reality, for if he were right, such things as turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc., would require no design at all, and would function satisfactorily with no energy storage or conversion devices!

        To more accurately restate one of Steigers parting shots in the essay:

            evolutionism (in the guise of scientific fact) doesnt have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

        Attributing (More) False Attributes to Thermodynamics

        Although much of what is said in Steigers second essay (Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics) has already been dealt with above, some of his claims deserve special treatment.

        Briefly, in the False Attributes essay Steiger repeats the error of blurring the distinction between the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds growing into trees, eggs developing into chicks) and low-energy formation molecular crystals (crystalline salts form when a solution evaporates, and crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules).

        In this essay, however, he goes a step further, claiming falsely that creationists insist that for both of these phenomena there must be a programmed energy conversion mechanism to direct the application of the energy needed to bring about the change. Thus, having confused two very different processes for his readers by describing them as similar, he falsely accuses creationists of a sweeping generalization which they do not makeeffectively setting up for his personal refutation a straw-man postulate.

        Next, attempting to relegate changes requiring human thought and effort to a place outside the realm of thermodynamic analysis, Steiger attempts to ridicule the prospect that systems concerned with constructing a building, manufacturing an airplane, making a bed... etc., involve thermodynamics, implying that the changes in entropy inherent in the associated systems and processes are not covered by the science of thermodynamics.  (Apparently Steiger does not believe the laws of thermodynamics to be universal.)

        Among the claims attributed to creationists, Steiger says the energy conversion mechanism required for biological life (as described above) comes from God. Note that neither Steiger, nor any evolutionist, has produced a plausible naturalistic explanation for the origin of such a complex and essential biological process as an energy conversion mechanism (e.g., photosynthesis in plants, metabolism in animals).

        [These (and a host of other no less complex, highly integrated, biological systems and structures) bear every indication of functional, purpose-oriented design.  But this completely escapes the notice of the likes of Steiger, whose apparent commitment to defining science as the application of only naturalistic philosophy to the study of the natural world forbids them from seriously considering the logical implication of the evidence.]

        Another claim of Steiger is that The ICR chapter [chapter 3 of Scientific Creationism, edited by Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research] states flatly that entropy can never decrease. This is an outright falsehood.  Whether deliberate or not, it is an indefensible misrepresentation of the publication cited, the author of the publication, and creationists in general.  (Noteworthy is the fact that Steigers essay conveniently neglects to cite the page on which Morris supposedly states flatly that entropy can never decreasemost likely due to there not actually being such a page in Morris book.)

        Again refusing to face reality, Steiger claims that:

            There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism.  Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work.  It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved... Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics.  Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics. 

        First we are told that no energy conversion mechanism need be accounted for.  Then it is inferred (again) that the changes in (and relationships between) heat and work within biological processes are somehow outside the realm of thermodynamics.  Next comes a concession that, okay, it is reasonable to assume that such conversion mechanisms actually exist (whew!), yet we are now firmly assured that the changes in (and relationships between) heat and work within biological processes are surely outside the scope of thermodynamicsand to disagree with Steiger here is to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics!

        Whats wrong with this picture?  Since when do the changes in (and relationships between) heat and work within biological processes (e.g., photosynthesis and metabolism) fall outside the scope of thermodynamics?  Under what branch of scientific analysis are these thermodynamic relationships to be understood if not that of thermodynamics?  By what natural laws are they governed, if not those of thermodynamics?

        It seems that it is not the creationists who distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics. At least they recognize the universal application of thermodynamic principles to all processes involving heat, work, and the relationships between the twoboth on paper (i.e., mathematically defined) and in every real-world process in which they are found.

        Tired as it is, Steigers effort to define molecular biological processes as outside the scope of thermodynamics is renewed in his claim that:

            The use and application of thermodynamics is strictly limited by the mathematical treatment of the basic equations...  There is no provision ... for any mechanism that would overcome the laws of thermodynamics... Thermodynamics is limited by the equations and mathematics... If it cant be expressed mathematically, it isnt thermodynamics! 

        It seems fair to say at this point that Frank Steiger hasnt done the math (or his biology homework)and this seems to be his sole basis for these declarations, designed to evade entirely the perennial issue of lifes ability to thrive in apparent contradiction to thermodynamic law.

        Finally, Steiger concludes by erroneously claiming that Creationism would replace mathematics with metaphors... Creationists have created a voodoo thermodynamics ... in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.

        Let the reader be the judge.  If the laws of thermodynamics are universally applicable to all processes and systems (and according to respected science authorities they are), by what right does Frank Steiger selectively label as mere metaphors those highly complex processes and systems which produce and sustain the even more highly complex, integrated machinery of biological life?

        Both Cannot be Correct
        Back To Top

        That someone is practicing voodoo thermodynamics is not at issue here.  The question is who?  The following statementscomplete with metaphors(!)from respected (evolutionist) scientists dont seem to reflect Steigers perspective, effectively indicating that it is he who has resorted to distorting and perverting the true nature of thermodynamics in order to convince his readers that his naturalistic religious views have scientific validity:

            The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter.  The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue.  Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.
            [C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

            We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of lifes complex organization.  We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work.  But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order.  A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization.  The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.
            [G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]

            Closely related to the apparent paradox of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent paradox of spontaneous self-organization in nature.  It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place?  Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays fro which they assembled.  Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one.
            [J.W. Patterson, Scientists Confront Creationism, L:R: Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]

        We are faced with a choice between accepting the universal applicability of the laws of thermodynamics as generally understood, or believing that the likes of Frank Steiger are justified in their efforts to drive a wedge of semantic confusion between those laws and the postulates of evolutionism.

        We have seen that (contrary to Steigers false accusations) the principles of thermodynamics are neither ignored nor altered by those creationists who describe them as universally applicable, demonstrating their relationships with biological processes.

        We have seen how Steiger has repeatedly attempted to blur the distinction between dramatically different processes; has denied the applicability of thermodynamics to heat and work relationships within biological processes; has ignored the applicability of informational entropy and statistical entropy to the biological processes and properties of all living organisms; has falsely attributed obviously erroneous statements to creationist publications; and has generally turned a blind eye to the challenge posed to evolutionism by the realities of thermodynamic principles.

        It must be emphasized that Frank Steiger is not alone.  The above practices are not uncommon among many hard-core evolutionists.  Whether theirs is at all a reasonable, rational faith seems clear in the methodologies they employ in its defence.  The plain facts of science will remain neither ignored nor hidden in the long run, however, and many respectable evolutionist authorities resort to neither tactic, preferring to acknowledge such problems as those raised by the science of thermodynamics.

        Unfortunately for all evolutionists, such problems show no intention of going away. 

- Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism -


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*The ignorance is not mine.*

When you repeat it and defend it, the ignorance is yours.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Unfortunately for all evolutionists, such problems show no intention of going away.
> 
> - Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism -



Unfortunately for religious extremists, there are those who will prey upon their fear and ignorance.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 26, 2013)

> Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> 
> Unfortunately for all evolutionists, such problems show no intention of going away.
> 
> - Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism -



The fundamental flaw in that link is based in the inane creationist *ASSUMPTION* that the universe was "*created from nothing*". 



> The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which t*he physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing*,



That violates the law of conservation of matter and energy. Too bad ignorant creationists aren't willing to explain how they get around that *"insurmountable problem" *before they attack the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).*

"Evolutionist theory" says no such thing.

*Beginning with the Big Bang and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationshipdown to every atom, molecule, and beyondis the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.*

Wrong, again.

*This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes thatagain, in violation of the second lawwithin the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.*

Saying that it's a violation of the 2nd Law doesn't make it so.

*Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization,*

Increases in complexity and organization do not violate the 2nd Law.

*Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second laws demand for increased disorder and break-down*

But of course the 2nd Law doesn't demand increased disorder and break-down.

*But no one can explain satisfactorily how a presumed process of nature (evolution) has moved steadily towards higher arrangements of ordered complexity, when the foremost law of nature demands that (in Asimovs words) all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.*

Of course by taking in food/energy, we are not "doing nothing".

*an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.*

Duh.

*The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an exception because we live in an open system: The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.*

If only we could get you clowns to accept this fact.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


that is what you meant, you were attempting and failing to link the idea that creation pseudoscience is the same as the creation myth..that the "so called" first scientists believed.
they are not the same.


Faith in Nature

For the first millennium of Christianity, major theologians embraced knowledge of the natural world in order to defend against pagan challenges to biblical authority. Saint Augustine (354&#8211;413), Thomas Aquinas (1225&#8211;1274), and John Calvin (1509&#8211;1564) all endorsed reason as the way to learn about the world. Augustine was among the first to caution against advocating for biblical interpretations that conflicted with what one could observe for oneself. Centuries later, Aquinas praised the pursuit of knowledge and insight gained from experience reading God&#8217;s other book&#8212;nature. 

Writing at the time of the Reformation, Calvin, too, considered the revelations of both nature and the Bible as fundamental truths. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), Calvin explicitly embraced the idea of respecting natural truths revealed through the study of nature: &#8220;If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God&#8221; (McNeill, ed., 1960, p. 273&#8211;274).

Calvin believed in keeping an open mind when it came to evaluating what we can learn about the natural world from observation and experience. In his view, closing one&#8217;s eyes to the way the world works was to close one&#8217;s eyes to God. 

Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin all believed that Noah&#8217;s Flood was a global flood. They interpreted fossil seashells found in rocks as compelling proof&#8212;how else could the bones of marine creatures have ended up entombed in rocks high in the mountains?

Biblical interpretations accommodated new discoveries as knowledge of the natural world grew, because theologians adhered to the principle that God&#8217;s works in the natural world could not conflict with His Word in the Bible. Generation after generation of natural philosophers slowly uncovered facts inconsistent with a global flood, making it increasingly implausible to understand earth history in ways consistent with traditional literal interpretations of the Bible.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


your question is not relevant....


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


edited for wall of text and false premise,- Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism -


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

How the universe appeared from nothing
10:22 28 July 2011
Animation
Space
MacGregor Campbell, consultant


There's no such thing as a free lunch, or so the saying goes, but that may not be true on the grandest, cosmic scale. Many physicists now believe that the universe arose out of nothingness during the Big Bang which means that nothing must have somehow turned into something. How could that be possible?

Due to the weirdness of quantum mechanics, nothing transforms into something all the time. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that a system can never have precisely zero energy and since energy and mass are equivalent, pairs of particles can form spontaneously as long as they annihilate one another very quickly.

The less energy such a system has, the longer it can stick around. Thanks to gravity &#8211; the only force that always attracts &#8211; the net energy balance of the universe may be as close to zero as you can get. This makes its lifespan of almost 14 billion years plausible.

If you take inflation into account, which physicists think caused rapid expansion in the early universe, we begin to see why MIT physicist Alan Guth calls the universe the "ultimate free lunch."

You can read the full story here or check out the rest of our Existence special.

I

New Scientist TV: How the universe appeared from nothing


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Pay attention from the same article above.

The Evolutionists Spin
Back To Top

Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

Beginning with the Big Bang and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationshipdown to every atom, molecule, and beyondis the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.

This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists speculations concerning biological life and its origin.  The story goes thatagain, in violation of the second lawwithin the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.

Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular community members which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.

Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second laws demand for increased disorder and break-down, managed (by some further unknown random mechanism) to leave untouched the entire biological self-assembly process and the self-gathered material resources from which the first living organism built itself.

Evolutionism takes its greatest pride in applying this same brand of speculation to the classic Darwinian hypothesis in which all known biological life is said to have descended (by means of virtually infiniteyet randomadditional increases in organized complexity) from that first hypothesized single-celled organism.  This process, it is claimed, is directly responsible for the existence of (among other things) the human being.
Details, Details...

Perhaps the reader should be reminded (or informed) at this point that not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described self-creation myth.  Yet very ironically, its the only origins account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular beliefs.

To be sure, many corollary hypotheses have been produced to show how one or another biological or geological phenomenonor an empirical fact gathered in any scientific disciplinemight be explained in evolutionary terms (often not without the use of highly convoluted, incredible, and unprovable stories).  But as Karl Popper observed, a theory that seems to explain everything really explains nothing.  Popper insisted that a theorys true explanatory power comes from making narrowly defined, risky predictionssuccess in prediction being meaningful only to the extent that failure is a real possibility in the first place.  Evolutionists find ways to explain and/or produce after-the-fact predictions for any and every empirical fact or phenomenon presented to themfrequently ignoring established standards for logic and scientific method.

In the same manner, many evolutionists are so convinced of evolution as a fact that they are compelled to either ignore or dismiss the applicability of the second law to biological processes.  The presupposition of evolution as fact leaves no alternative but that it must be possible in spite of the second law.  But no one can explain satisfactorily how a presumed process of nature (evolution) has moved steadily towards higher arrangements of ordered complexity, when the foremost law of nature demands that (in Asimovs words) all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Ok I have wasted enough time with you just sit back and watch.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 as always: :News to Note, September 11, 2010 - Answers in Genesis

bullshit from a non scientifically valid site....


btw:Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992) was a science-fiction writer and science popularizer who wrote an enormous number of books about a wide variety of subjects, including history, Shakespeare, and the Bible.
_f I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul. -- Isaac Asimov, I. Asimov: A Memoir
I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time. -- Isaac Asimov, in "Free Inquiry", Spring 1982, vol.2 no.2, p. 9
Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism. --Isaac Asimov, "On Religiosity," Free Inquiry
this phrase:  (in Asimov&#8217;s words) &#8220;all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.&#8221;-  Isaac Asimov  .
is totally out of context and is a conflict of interest.._


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 not relevant either.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/qYW2xXxFVtU]Bill Maher lays waste to Religion - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).*
> 
> "Evolutionist theory" says no such thing.
> 
> ...



You are doing the very thing the source said. For your information you can eat all you like but eventually the decay of energy happens and we break down and die.That is true for all objects both inanimate and animate.


2nd Law of Thermodynamics
The second law is concerned with entropy, which is a measure of disorder. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).*
> ...



*The second law is concerned with entropy, which is a measure of disorder. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases.*

I may have put on a few pounds, but I'm not the universe yet.
Still confused? Still pushing your error?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).*
> ...


why the need to post the second law from difference sources and an inordinate  amount of times ?
every one here knows it and also knows you don't..


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
> The second law is concerned with entropy, which is a measure of disorder. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases.
> 
> 2nd Law of Thermodynamics



I promised myself I wasn't going to continue this nonsense, but I will one last time.

Let's try this in simple terms. The Four Laws of Thermodynamics is all about heat (work energy).

The Zeroth Law concerns heat equilibrium.
The First Law says you can't get more energy in a system than you start with.
The Second Law says as time goes on, heat (work energy) decreases. The only way to stop that loss is to get to Absolute Zero.
The Third Law says it is impossible to get to Absolute Zero.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (heat movement) has to do with remaining work energy in a system. 

As time goes on and stuff happens, the energy available for work (heat) decreases. The disorder is a concept of statistical mechanics relating to work energy decreasing, not with genetics or life, or whatever other talking points your pseudoscientists are feeding you. 

There are many fine books on the subject of Thermodynamics and physics in general. Please read one before you continue this any further.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 26, 2013)

Nice massive cut and paste.  Words, words, everywhere and not a number to think.

The question is, what is the total entropy of the universe, the rate of change due to the burning of the Suns fuel, and the relative size of the entropy of life on this planet by comparison?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 26, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
> ...



My intro to thermo was all about calculating the dynamics of various thermo cycles, along time ago. *And it involve thumbing through endless tables of enthalpy and entropy. It was all about steam, superheated steam, and that sort of thing. *You know, functional stuff, so the laws were glazed over before we dove into the details.

I've been thumbing about the net, not very organized, to get a better sense of the full theory. *It gets awfully intense, with microstates, phase space, and other quantum stuff.

All in all, the "plant can't work because it defies the laws of thermo" seems to be a typical undergrad student bio error. ***I see the "disorder" thing pop up in bio sites. Even some really silly examples that just don't represent entropy. There is something in the presentation of it, to bio students, that leaves them missing some context that physics and engineering students are afforded.*

I've been building this image, from the small cell, to the whole universe. I've had a few brain farts myself, along the way. *The universe is estimated at 10^100 J/K. * The density is really small, by comparison. *The whole thing, from the level of photosynthesis to the holographic limit of the universe (whoo hoo, new big term for me) is of such a massive change in scale that the whole exercise seems just silly.

The radius of the visible Universe is estimated at 1.7e26 m (18 thousand million lightyears) plus or minus 20 percent or so. *The Planck scale length 1.6e10^-35 m. *That's 10^61 or so. *Life on this planet is on an order of magnitude smaller than quantum length is an order of magnitude smaller.

Life on this planet, and the small fluctuations that it creates in entropy, is so minute that it is imeasurable against the background of the cosmos. *Scale is so important and at that scale, we aren't.

The idea of god just seems arrogant, in some ways.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 26, 2013)

The astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson believes that Earth has been visited by intelligent extraterrestrial life.  But they couldn't find any intelligent life here so they left.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> >
> > Unfortunately for all evolutionists, such problems show no intention of going away.
> >
> ...



Not a problem,did matter always exist ? I would doubt it since our universe had a beginning and even if matter always existed, Where did the energy come from ? What ignited the bid bang ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No because when you answered the spin part of my article you should have done a better job it was revealing.

You have been making the argument for increasing complexity and then deny it. The theory of evolution don't call for the same thing increasing in complexity to make us better fit and survive our surroundings. lol If macro-evolution did take place that is exactly what happened. lol

Read over your answers then consider reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
> ...



Great explanation but environment does have an effect on biological organisms. What do you think we use to induce mutations ? that is right radiation, is this not an energy source in our environment ?

The 2nd law does have an effect on this planet and there is no way around it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Nice massive cut and paste.  Words, words, everywhere and not a number to think.
> 
> The question is, what is the total entropy of the universe, the rate of change due to the burning of the Suns fuel, and the relative size of the entropy of life on this planet by comparison?



Don't know but it is enough to have an effect on both animate and inanimate objects.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson believes that Earth has been visited by intelligent extraterrestrial life.  But they couldn't find any intelligent life here so they left.



They did,God and the Angels.


----------



## DarkLion (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Not a problem,did matter always exist ? I would doubt it since our universe had a beginning and even if matter always existed, Where did the energy come from ? What ignited the bid bang ?



What created god? There has to be a beginning somewhere, at some point _something_ spawned from nothing. So far, the big bang is a far more viable theory than celestial faerie tales


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

The ID advocates are a thorn in evolutionists sides.That is funny darwinism of the gaps.

Francis Collins, Evolution and "Darwin of the Gaps" - Evolution News & Views

Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - Video

The Bacterial Flagellum ? Truly An Engineering Marvel! | Uncommon Descent

Molecular Biology Animations - Demo Reel - Video


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Not a problem,did matter always exist ? I would doubt it since our universe had a beginning and even if matter always existed, Where did the energy come from ? What ignited the bid bang ?
> ...



According to the word of God he has always existed. That defies logic but his creations do the same thing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

Irreducible complexity. ID is not science, yeah right !

Molecular Machine Bacterial Flagella - Intelligent Design - Scott Minnich - Video Excerpt - Video

Design flaws.

Refuting The "Bad Design" Vs. Intelligent Design Argument - William Lane Craig - Video


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> The ID advocates are a thorn in evolutionists sides.That is funny darwinism of the gaps.
> 
> Francis Collins, Evolution and "Darwin of the Gaps" - Evolution News & Views
> 
> ...



ID'iot advocates are a laughable joke.

Read the transcript of the Dover trial.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Irreducible complexity. ID is not science, yeah right !
> 
> Molecular Machine Bacterial Flagella - Intelligent Design - Scott Minnich - Video Excerpt - Video
> 
> ...



Irreducible complexity is a non-scientific appeal to supernaturalism proposed by Behe.

It's been dismissed as a crank claim by the relevant science community.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What word of the gods?

Identify a single, reliable account of the gods offering their "words".


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson believes that Earth has been visited by intelligent extraterrestrial life.  But they couldn't find any intelligent life here so they left.
> ...



False.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. What is funny is the clowns responding to his videos are using the very same attacks, rhetoric, and nonsensical arguments that have been made here. I challenge you all to watch these videos.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Di_projVs]Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (1 of 5) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_P8Fqe_cOA]Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (2 of 5) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-mNAkMFgCc]Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (3 of 5) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaQdUIyi8fI]Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (4 of 5) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM7EH-f0718]Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (5 of 5) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## DarkLion (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> According to the word of God he has always existed. That defies logic but his creations do the same thing.



Um, no. There is an inherent logic to the universe and to life. To the casual observer nature may seem like pure chaos, and to a certain extent it is, but beneath the chaos there is very fundamental logic to it all. The laws of physics, for example. 

To say that god has always existed is little more than a cop out.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > According to the word of God he has always existed. That defies logic but his creations do the same thing.
> ...



I have no reason to believe the God that created all we see has any limitations other than he can't sin.

But I challenge any all critics to listen to the explanations and the logic in these videos.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

Todd part 4 is what we discussed but listen to the crux of your argument concerning the egg to a human.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

The bible is confirmed by scientific observation. It is describing the opposite of evolutionist. The evolutionist believe life and the universe went from chaotic and or simple to order and complexity.

The bible teaches the opposite from order to chaotic and complexity to simple.

Psa 102:25  Of old didst thou lay the foundation of the earth; And the heavens are the work of thy hands. 
Psa 102:26  They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; Yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; As a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: 

Then God promises a new heavens and earth why ? because all of nature and the universe has gone to simple and chaotic.

Isa 65:17  For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 

2Pe 3:13  But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 

The bible is being confirmed by science and through the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I challenge any and all hyper-religious cranks to identify the "logic" connected with your partisan supernatural gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> The bible is confirmed by scientific observation. It is describing the opposite of evolutionist. The evolutionist believe life and the universe went from chaotic and or simple to order and complexity.
> 
> The bible teaches the opposite from order to chaotic and complexity to simple.
> 
> ...


The earth is not flat and none of the various bibles makes a coherent definition for thermodynamics. 

So no. Your extremist beliefs / claims are vapid.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > The bible is confirmed by scientific observation. It is describing the opposite of evolutionist. The evolutionist believe life and the universe went from chaotic and or simple to order and complexity.
> ...



Another example of you exaggerating the truth of the scriptures but that is expected from you.

There is no point in trying to reason with someone not reasonable. Heck you are so anti God you won't listen to an explanation why creationist believe as they do even though observations confirm the word of God and what creationists believe.

Have a good day


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 27, 2013)

I am starting to feel bad for YWC.

Serious.

This poor dupe has been pushing every angle he can dream up to justify a myth.  

THOUSANDS of appeals.  No results.

Hasn't moved the needle one tiny bit.

It's sad.

That is all.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This is your usual tactic of obfuscation. It's a shame that you insist on spamming the board with your silly youtube videos and selected verses from one of more of the bibles. Yet, when you're tasked with assigning some relevancy to your spamming, you head for the exits. 

The earth is not flat, species evolve, the universe is billions of years old mankind did not coexist with dinosaurs.

These are material facts no matter what your bibles (or Ken Ham) claims in contradiction.    

Run along now and stop using your extremist beliefs and your ignorance like a badge of dishonor.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> I am starting to feel bad for YWC.
> 
> Serious.
> 
> ...



Huggy, are you still trying to convince yourself there is no designer ? anyone with an ounce of reasoning can see the strength in Dr. Wielands explanation of the 2nd law and evolution.

You have a nice day.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> There is something in the presentation of it, to bio students, that leaves them missing some context that physics and engineering students are afforded.*



If I had to venture a guess, it's that bio majors are allowed to take the algebra-based versions of Physics I&2 but the rest of the hard sciences have to take the calculus-based versions. It's recommended that bio guys take the calculus-based versions, but not required. 

They just aren't doing the math that gets to the core of the concept. Plus it becomes and esoteric topic that really doesn't come into play with what they do. Even if they learn entropy, it can be forgotten long before they get to grad school.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're being intentionally obtuse. If you're not willing to listen to what the physics mean, then I can do nothing for you. Go bang your Bible if that's what you want, but it's not a science text no matter how many crackpots and zealots you find to claim otherwise.

James Clerk Maxwell > Moses


----------



## DarkLion (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I have no reason to believe the God that created all we see has any limitations other than he can't sin.
> 
> But I challenge any all critics to listen to the explanations and the logic in these videos.



I don't have time to watch your argumentum ad youtubium


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. What is funny is the clowns responding to his videos are using the very same attacks, rhetoric, and nonsensical arguments that have been made here. I challenge you all to watch these videos.
> 
> Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (1 of 5) - YouTube
> 
> ...



Dr. Carl Wieland emloys the same faulty, rhetorical, slight of hand tricks, from the beginning.

He begins with invoking the existance of god as the cause of all natural laws. 

He turns "tendency" into "must" and "unlikely into "never". He does this in his first example, the black and white balls, arranged in lines. ( 7min 50sec)



			
				Carl said:
			
		

> "There are heaps of different arrangements you would get from that. But, I think that you all can be *fairly sure* that viewed from a distance they would end up being grey.
> 
> So, in other words, if you wanted to go the other way, if you wanted to go back from this state to the other state, what would you have to do? Sort them all out. In another words, you would have to apply intelligent programming. You would have to choose according to a plan. Thing, left by themselves, without intelligent programming. Because, you see, things left by themselves, without intelligent programming, without a plan, will *tend* to go in one way, and not the other way, why is that? Why are things going to go from order to dissorder, *in every case*? Why is it when you shake the box, you're not going to get the letter A or your name spelled out in black or white balls or something? Why is it that you're going to get lots of combination but basically they will all be grey, they will all be randon? The answer is chance."



The errors are numerous and, in some cases, disingenuous. Atoms are not simply balls. Oxygen and hydrogen atoms combine to form water. I can shake a jar of water for hours and it will still be arranged so that two hydrogen atoms are attached to one oxygen. I must, through electrolysis, apply a considerable amount of energy to disassociate the hydrogen "balls" from the oxygen "balls" to get a more random collection of H2 and O2 gases. Once done, a small spark will trigger a catastrophic exposion in which the H2 and O2 gases once again combine to form water. And they will do so quite spontameously. It requires intelligent intervention, electrolysis, to create a more random mixture of O2 and H2. A small, simply unintelligent spark, creates a cascade to greater "order", H2O, water.

The problem with the example is he repeatedly takes "fairly sure" and assumes always, "they would end up being grey". Well, no the wouldn't. As raw probabilities, they would often arrange in a "pattern" that we would "recognize". While, more often than not, they would come to rest in some random arrangement that appeared grey from a distance, they would also come to rest, in many different patterns, even partial patterns, that we would recognize as "orderly". The best way to see this is to take the bottom of the box, add small indentations that create "quantum" spacing, define all the numerous "patterns" that one can arrange balls into, and calculate the raw odds. This is far more appropriate, the quantum "wells", if you will, because, in fact, nature is quantum, with descrete and individual minimum lengths, speeds, energies, and momentums.

Further, it would be far more appropriate to add magnets to the balls, little south poles to the white balls and little north poles to the black balls. Then, as nature really does, when the box of balls is shaken, the balls would stick together as atoms really do.

All in all, the speaker simply demomstrates his disengenuous rhetorical trick repeatedly, as in "without a plan, will *tend* to go in one way, and not the other way, why is that? Why are things going to go from order to dissorder, *in every case*?" *"will tend"* suddenly becomes *"in every case"*.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The best way to see this is to take the bottom of the box, add small indentations that create "quantum" spacing, define all the numerous "patterns" that one can arrange balls into, and calculate the raw odds. This is far more appropriate, the quantum "wells", if you will, because, in fact, nature is quantum, with descrete and individual minimum lengths, speeds, energies, and momentums.




That's really a great way to conceptualize the process.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Dr. Carl Wieland emloys the same faulty, rhetorical, slight of hand tricks, from the beginning..



Not surprisingly, Carl Wieland has been associated with two of the more notorious Christian creationist ministries: AIG and Creation Ministries International. 

Strange how we're told that creationism / ID is not a religious claim when those flailing their pom poms for creationism are typically the same snake-oil salesmen fronting for fundamentalist Christian ministries.

Strange, that!


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Irreducible complexity. ID is not science, yeah right !
> ...



I wonder if Behe started sprouting his Irreducible Complexity stuff before he was granted tenure. I can't find his CV (that's odd in and of itself) and his Lehigh University webpage just has selected publications, but it would be interesting to see which came first.

As it is, his department has a disclaimer on their website all but writing him off as a kook.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

I am reminded of what I call, "The Fallacy Of Small Samples".  I've had to break myself of it, or at least partition it off, to assure I don't fall to it inadvertently.

It goes like this: 

You go to the filing cabinet, at work, and pull a file.  Upon inspection, you find that it has errors in the documentation.  What do you conclude?

A common reasoning is that, as the odds me pulling the one file with and error is so small, then the cabinet must be full of errors.

This could not be further from the truth.  The reality is that no conclusion can be drawn.  The reality is that a sample size of one tells us nothing about the distribution of errors in the cabinet.  In order to gauge that distribution, even under the simpest of statistical sampling, to be 95% confident, we must randomly pull 30+ files. 

I also call it "The Fallacy That Shit Doesn't Happen".  If statistics tells us anything, it tells us that, in even the most random of processes, shit does happen.  Nature, life, is not a completely random process, like black and white balls in a box.

  But that nature has non-random tendencies, isn't sufficient proof of god.  Naturalism, and science, examines nature, recognizes that there are non-random processes, then compares these to each other to produce an explaination for this non-ramdomness within the context of nature.

What Carl did, in the video series, was to begin with the supposition that god is responsible for all forces of nature, even gravity. He defines "non-random" as being caused by god, presents an example, a weak one at that, of balls becoming arranges in a pattern by human intervention, ignoring that they will also be arranged in patterns by pure chance, then invokes the "Shit doesn't happen" fallacy as proof that god must exists.

In short, he says god causes patterns, patterns exist, therefor god exists.  It is the circular reasoning that is repeatedly pointed to.  He simply obscures the nature of his circular reasoning by lengthening his argument, a lengthening that requires repeated use of probability fallacies, like "tends to" becomes "always", and "unlikely" becomes "never".

Now, this isn't to say that single samples are not ever indicative of a larger pattern.  I have learned, and a bit late in life, that when a person lies, I cam be sure that it is a pattern of behavior. Life, and people, are not random in nature. The do exhibit non-random patterns due to feedback.  

I can be sure that, because something so simple as oxygen and hydrogen gas will arrange itself into a new, non-random arrangement, called water, then more patterns of arrangement are possible, quite to the contrary of simple statistics. 

I can be sure that, as Carl uses logical fallacies in his first video, then he does so in the remaining.  And I don't need to invoke some supernatural force, "the devil", to account for the nature of evil that he represents.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> I also call it "The Fallacy That Shit Doesn't Happen".  If statistics tells us anything, it tells us that, in even the most random of processes, shit does happen.  Nature, life, is not a completely random process, like black and white balls in a box.
> 
> But that nature has non-random tendencies, isn't sufficient proof of god.  Naturalism, and science, examines nature, recognizes that there are non-random processes, then compares these to each other to produce an explaination for this non-ramdomness within the context of nature.



Someone mentioned to me that even though there is randomness, it can lead to predictable results. Snowflakes fall, completely randomly, but snowdrifts always seem to show up in the same place. The geology, weather patterns, the mechanics of snow all add up to turn a random event into a predictable one. We can't predict where a particular snowflake will end up but we can predict the behavior of a whole lot of them.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The best way to see this is to take the bottom of the box, add small indentations that create "quantum" spacing, define all the numerous "patterns" that one can arrange balls into, and calculate the raw odds. This is far more appropriate, the quantum "wells", if you will, because, in fact, nature is quantum, with descrete and individual minimum lengths, speeds, energies, and momentums.
> ...



Well, we can thank Bohr, Boltzmann, and others for their honest accounting of the observations that nature presented them with, for not being stuck with the dogma of their own minds, born out of our experiences in a macro world of continuous spectrums.

If not for them, I wouldn't get it.  I can be sure that I would never have gotten it.

Rigth now, I am still stuck at being able to transition from spread spectrums to descrete probabilities.   In general, I understand it.  Binomial processes become multinomial when grouped.  These become normal ans Poisson distributions, in the limit.  Normal becomes t distributions for smaller sample sizes. That is all fine.

Where I remain stuck is two fold, in actual application.  If I, say, happen to run across my housemate, repeatedly during the day, how do I deal with or divide up a continuous time spectrum into something managable so I can determine the odds of us crossing paths.  What are the odds that he would randomly end up in the kitchen, shortly after I start cooking, if he just happened to need to do something completely independent.  I swear that guy shows up because he heard me, and just pretends he has a "reason".

The other is the descrete number of arrangements of gas molecules in that isolated box.  S=k*ln(#_arrangements), basically.  #_arrangements is a phase space of qualities that fully describe the ultimate particles.  Those qualities are vector kinetic energies and momentums, I think.  And those are quantized to Plank energies and monemtums.  I think that's the thing there.  But, a) I don't have Borh or Boltzmann's observations to guide me and b) they haven't personnally explained it to me. All I've got to go on is someone heard it from someone else that heard it from someone else.  And I've read enough crap to know how badly that can go.

Quantum time isn't going to cut it, in the first one. The odds of "this minute", "this ten", "this hour" is managable but what about overlaps?  I'm there for the first half of this ten, he showed up im the last half, we never met but the calculation is as if we did.  Does descrete time periods produce a valid result regardless of the length chosen?  What is the criteria for a valid length?  Is it convergent or divergent in the limit?

And, for the box, which the Plank units are specified, is it a constant +/- half a plank unit where The constant is a continuous variable, or is the variable itself descrete and then, where do they line up on my otherwise continuous number scale?  Is it at zero or something to do with the box size?  In other words, how do I define the location and size of the "quantum wells" in that box of black and white balls?

Grrr


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I also call it "The Fallacy That Shit Doesn't Happen".  If statistics tells us anything, it tells us that, in even the most random of processes, shit does happen.  Nature, life, is not a completely random process, like black and white balls in a box.
> ...





Yeah, it is awkward.

 The Normal Random Distribution is not just any old random distribution.

We can't say exactly what days it will rain on this coming year, but we know the majority will likely happen during the winter and not during the summer.  We can't say exactly how much rain, but we can say that it is higly likely to be more than some amount. 

It always comes down to odds.  And odds have a pattern.

Most people that view nine balls lined up into ten holes, with one random hole left open, will still recognize a line.  Suddenly, Carl's, random order of things, isn't so random anymore. 

It randomly rained five out of seven days this week, it really doesn't matter which particular days were not rainy days.  That is still a lot of rain.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Carl Wieland emloys the same faulty, rhetorical, slight of hand tricks, from the beginning..
> ...




No pattern there.  Just coincidence, completely random.

I learned this trick of taking low probabilities and concluding no probability, here, from analysing YWC.  I wasn't aware of the logic fallacies last week.  He presented them, I recognized them, then they were clearly repeated by Carl in his video.

Coincidence?  I don't know..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> The ID advocates are a thorn in evolutionists sides.That is funny darwinism of the gaps.
> 
> Francis Collins, Evolution and "Darwin of the Gaps" - Evolution News & Views
> 
> ...


all the above are not scientifically valid...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that would be the alleged word of god ...!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Irreducible complexity. ID is not science, yeah right !
> ...


rreducible complexity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article covers irreducible complexity as used by those who argue for intelligent design. For information on irreducible complexity as used in Systems Theory, see Irreducible complexity (Emergence).

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4]
Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[6][7] and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity.[8] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101 (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


if god had no limitations then sin would be an act of self discipline, not something he could not do, but would not do..
to sin god would have had to sin to know what it is and why not to do it...
since god is imaginary, believers endow god with every conceivable super power they can dream up!


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > What created god? There has to be a beginning somewhere, at some point _something_ spawned from nothing. So far, the big bang is a far more viable theory than celestial faerie tales
> ...



Not only does god defy all logic, it defies all reason, all sense, all nature, and all sanity.  It is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

On the other hand, logic and reason are grounded in the experience of nature.  Life is nature and inherently makes sense, defying nothing.  Logic and reason of nature, biology, and physics are born out of observation of nature, biology, and physics.  So life is logical, natural, reasonable, sensical, and sane.

The only thing that defies nature is a mind that refuses to accept nature, to learn from it, to change to correspond to it.  That is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

The more I read and concider these things, the clearer becomes how ordinary is insanity. Insanity is refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update.

They say, insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting different results.  "refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update" is the same thing.

Naturalism and science are inherently sane, logical, reasonable, and natural, because they constantly accept the reality of nature as it presents and reveals itself, on its own terms.  Creationism refuses to accept reality, warping and twisting reason and logic into the most unnatural manner, in a desperate attempt to continue adhering to an old and defunct concept, expecting different results.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Geez, am I getting testy.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Geez, am I getting testy.


time you had a snickers bar!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 27, 2013)

How To Differentiate Between Subjective and Objective Observations

By Mina Sorvese

There are two types of observations, subjective and objective. Telling the difference between subjective and objective observations is relatively simple once you are aware of what you are looking for.

The key differences between subjective and objective observations are exactly as the words imply, "subjective" meaning within the mind and "objective" which has actual material existence in the real world.

If something is subjective, it relates to a person's inner feelings, opinions, and thoughts. Something that is subjective cannot be proven or dis-proven, you cannot prove a person has a certain thought or feeling about something nor can you say with any certainty that they do not think or feel a certain way. For example if I were to mention that I had a headache without anything to go on other than my words, you could not know if it were true or not, it is subjective.

Something that is objective can be proven or dis-proven. If I were to say something were gooey and you were to touch and feel that yes it is indeed gooey, it would be an objective observation. Objective observations are material and can be felt, seen, tasted etc. If I were to say I had a headache and you could see that a large nail was sticking into my head, you could safely assume that my head were aching. Your observation would be objective based upon the material evidence, being the nail.  A person may indicate that they are tired simply by stating that they are feeling tired. Without any physical evidence, yawning, drooping eyelids, slow movements... there is not any way to truly know if it is fact or not, making this subjective. If the same person were to begin yawning or better yet, to fall asleep, it will have become objective, because if they have fallen asleep it has been proven that they were tired.
How To Differentiate Between Subjective and Objective Observations.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. What is funny is the clowns responding to his videos are using the very same attacks, rhetoric, and nonsensical arguments that have been made here. I challenge you all to watch these videos.
> ...



It's pretty simple really,you believe something that goes against known laws of Physics.There are many scientists that will admit there is no evidence that contradicts the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Dr. wieland completely and logically defeated the arguments that was being presented.If you leave any system to randomness will it drift towards disorder or not ? This is exactly what I said that if you didn't have a coded message to change an egg in to a human it would be a random process not the message forcing it's will on the matter.what are the chances of that egg becoming a human absent of the coded message in Dna ?

How many examples of randomness, do you need to admit, a random process would only produce a chaotic disorderly system ?

Thesaurus Legend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun	1.	randomness - (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
entropy, S
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
conformational entropy - entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
thermodynamics - the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
	2.	randomness - the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

So now how would you ever get order and complexity from unguided natural processes ? 

How would you get the genetic language with an absence of intelligence ?

The big bang produced chaos how did chaos produce order and complexity ?

The only chance in a chaotic event you would have to regain order is quickly, the more time that goes by the worse the disorder.

The bibles account makes much more sense according to the evidence.That order was at it's highest level after creation, and since creation the universe and everything in it has been affected by disorder, and it just keeps getting worse, being supported by the 2nd law.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > I also call it "The Fallacy That Shit Doesn't Happen".  If statistics tells us anything, it tells us that, in even the most random of processes, shit does happen.  Nature, life, is not a completely random process, like black and white balls in a box.
> ...



Whoever told you that, was probably on drugs,no offense.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > DarkLion said:
> ...



Sorry but naturalism is sane  even though you have no evidence naturalism produced any sort of origins. You guy's are fumbling the ball. It looks like Carl shook you guy's up.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist.  You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise.  His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Carl Weiland ridiculous presentation didn't shake up anything.  From the outset, he demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of physics and statistics.  Either he's an idiot or a scam artist.

You shouls send him money.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Sadly, what Carl Weiland also proved is how gullible many people are.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Sadly, what Carl Weiland also proved is how gullible many people are.



Worse than that, it shows how bad of a the scientific community it doing getting science into the hands of the public.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


 He does a pretty good job pointing out the important points of this issue. He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others. His presentation, I wished I could have seen it not just hear it. His easy to understand why theories of naturalism like abiogenesis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law. I was not intending on offending you but make you better understand why creation believe as they do. Dr. Carl made an awesome argument for creationism. In the process showed the rediculous views of your side.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Every time, every single time, one of you Creationist, YEC, or IDers go with that stuff, this is all I can think of:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How To Troll][Ignorance Is Bliss] - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Hello, McFly, that's what I said, naturalism is sane, you are not.  What part of that confused you?  To many words?


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Only if you are a complete idiot that can't tell the difference between a box of marbles and a cat.

Nothing about classical thermodynamics, which has been since updated to mechanical statistics, forbids the processes of living organisms.  Indeed, they depend on it, just as a steam locamotive depends on it to climb a mountain, which by your accounting, is physically impossible.

Except for simply being stupid, I can find no other accounting for creationists.  Stupid and evil.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



He does no such thing except to prove that shaking a box of rocks will not arrange themselves into a pattern if you just ignore all the patterns that they will often arrange into.

Oh, and that living organisms aren't just a box of rocks. He proved that.

And honestly, your existence is an offense to humanity, a humanity that has bled and died for the right to be educated.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



No scam artist if you look at his background. Why would people holding doctorate degrees in science bother debating him if he is what you claim ?

I would say since you can't attack his argument and resort to pointless character assassination, he is not what you claim, and has reduced you to hollie and daws's level.

I am sure he took physics in high school, and at the college level. To get in to medical school you can't be an average student.

Wieland is a medical doctor graduating from Adelaide University in South Australia, but stopped practising medicine in 1986.[1] This was due to an accident Wieland was in with "a fully laden fuel tanker at highway speeds."[2] He endured five and a half months in hospital and has undergone more than fifty operations, as discussed in his book, Walking Through Shadows. He is a past president of the Christian Medical Fellowship of South Australia.[citation needed]

Wieland has said that during his time at university he was an atheist. In 1976 Wieland formed the Creation Science Association (CSA), a South Australian creationist organisation modelled after the Creation Research Society. In 1978 this organisation began publishing a magazine, Ex Nihilo (later called Creation Ex Nihilo), "to explain and promote special creation as a valid scientific explanation of origins." In 1980, CSA merged with a Queensland group to form the Creation Science Foundation, which subsequently became Answers in Genesis

Carl Wieland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think any of you in this forum could do well in a debate against him.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Sadly, what Carl Weiland also proved is how gullible many people are.



By your pointless posts I would say he made to much sense and you don't have an answer for it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Randomness promotes order got it.


----------



## DarkLion (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Whoever told you that, was probably on drugs,no offense.



You obviously don't understand what he said. A snowflake's pattern is random as it falls to the earth; but geological conditions determine where snowdrifts will be. Everything adheres to the laws of nature and physics. Even the random pattern of the snowflake falling is conditional upon wind, humidity etc. But you don't get that. And with that, you have answered your own question: Why isn't creationism considered equal to naturalism? Because faith doesn't equal science, and it never will.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 27, 2013)

This is a pattern

                    1
                   1 1
                  1 2 1
                 1 3 3 1
                1 4 6 4 1
              1 5 10 10 5 1
            1 6 15 20 15 6 1
           1 7 21 35 35 21 7 1
          1 8 28 56 70 56 28 8 1
        1 9 36 84 126 126 84 36 9 1

This is a pattern. Anyone that is fluent enough in statistics and probability should recognize it.

What is it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*You have been making the argument for increasing complexity and then deny it.*

I denied increasing complexity? Where?
What were you smoking when I did that?
Perhaps you can point it out?

*Read over your answers then consider reality.*

I consider reality, that's why I can keep pointing out your errors.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others.*

Where did anyone on my side claim the 2nd Law could be violated?
I demand proof of your claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


If you watched the Dr. Carl's videos he mentions one famous scientist that participates in debates not sure but I am thinking Professor Adler.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 I didn't mean you and itfitzme. sorry for that error,but many who try to argue against intelligent design that are evolutionist they argue that there is bad design and there is no order.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> This is a pattern
> 
> 1
> 1 1
> ...


 Sorry I am not, I don't know.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Whoever told you that, was probably on drugs,no offense.
> ...



I guess you are right that is random but I don't see that as order.


----------



## DarkLion (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > This is a pattern
> ...



Pascal's Triangle. Look deeply at it. It's sort of based on the Fibonacci sequence.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no "bad design" in the natural world. On the other hand, the gods who you claimed "designed" all of existence can only be described as incompetent if their "design" is nature.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As we see with regularity, the liars and phonies at AIG are best confronted simply by presenting them with facts.

If we look at his (Wieland's) background, we see another fundamentalist crank.

*Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics*

Response to Wieland: Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics



> Dear Carl Wieland,
> I have just come across your article on the Web entitled 'Junk-making' viruses neutralize an evolutionary argument, in which you claim that the evolutionary argument based on shared pseudogenes is invalid. As you may be aware, I have written an extensive article (posted at the Talk.Origins Archive) in which I outline in detail why retroposons/pseudogenes shared between species argue strongly for common ancestry and therefore support evolution. I am writing to you now to explain why I believe the conclusions of your article to be erroneous.
> 
> *&#8230;*
> ...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > > Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated
> ...



The singularity contained compressed matter so it existed before the Big Bang. The onus is on you to prove that matter was "created".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You would have to prove your claim.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That really puts the kabash on the silly 6,000 year old earth myth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Todd part 4 is what we discussed but listen to the crux of your argument concerning the egg to a human.



Yes, he admits that locally things can get more ordered.

He admits his argument is wrong, but is too stupid to realize it.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So YWC has just admitted that matter has always existed and will always exist. You should quit while you are only this far behind.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

"When I gave a lecture in Japan, I was asked not to mention the possible re-collapse of the universe, because it might affect the stock market."-Stephan Hawking

And boom, down goes the rational behavior assumption in economics.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Todd part 4 is what we discussed but listen to the crux of your argument concerning the egg to a human.
> ...



No ,he admits things can get more ordered and complex because of coded genetic information because it forces it's will on matter,and that is is a temporary state. You see the friggen evidence all around you 

Be careful slinging that term stupid around so recklessly.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Do you understand speculation and conjecture ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Listen, I did no such thing. You will not find any intelligent scientist saying what existed and what things were like before the Big Bang because they don't know. That would no longer be science either.

You must not understand the 2nd law if matter and energy existed before the Big Bang that would present problems because of the 2nd law. Did you not read Hawkings article ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Yep. Even those terms are generous when applied to the 6,000 year old earth myth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*No ,he admits things can get more ordered and complex *

Yes, so his claim that they cannot is wrong........the opposite of right.

Like I said, stupid.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I can't help but note the absurdity of someone like you lecturing anyone on science.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The singularity consisted of matter and and energy and is entirely consistent with the 2nd law. You are pretending that your "creator" created matter but that would violate the 2nd law. Hawkings is correct that we do not know what form matter and energy took prior to the Big Bang but he is not saying that matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. There are no intelligent scientists who are agreeing with your delusion that matter was "created".

Once again your creationist agenda obstructs your comprehension of reality.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Thank you for bringing up Dr. Max ,now you can see his argument get shredded by Dr. Lee Spetner.

That shows integrity on Dr. wieland's part. Just like hawking did in that article I posted.

Now watch this destruction of Dr. Max's argument.

Spetner:	

Now Ed, thats ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I dont have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS:  IN MAXS POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Max  misleading.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



There is no evidence showing matter existed before time,zero none. You simply don't know don't act like you do.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



You still don't get it what I have been saying ever since we started exchanging thoughts.

You have received your quota of my responses to you for the day.

Have a good day.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Take a class in Microbiology and Molecular biology then maybe you will see how foolish you're being.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course there is. What did the singularity consist of prior to the Big Bang? Fairy dust? Your "creators" dandruff? Matter exists! That is an irrefutable fact. The singularity consisted of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang. The onus is on *YOU* to prove that the singularity did not contain any energy/matter prior to the Big Bang.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



He disproves his own claim. Hilarious!

Me: Things can get more ordered, more complex.

Creationist: No they can't, that would violate the Second Law.

Me: A tree is more ordered and complex than an acorn.

Creationist: Why are you saying there is an exception to the 2nd Law?

Me: That's not an exception.

Creationist: Take a class in Microbiology and Molecular biology 

Me: LOL!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 You might want to add genetics to that list. Listen it is basically this simple would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about or would those organisms need gene and the genetic information for the energy to do work ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


What a shame your best offering is Spetner, another discredited fundamentalist hack.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Now you're claiming that genetics proves that the 2nd Law means things can't get more complex, more ordered?

*would just energy produce the order and complexity that you keep harping about *

Harping? It's the clowns who claim complexity cannot increase. 
I keep showing that it can, with no violation of the 2nd Law. Try this:
A pile of coal and a pile of iron ore are turned into a skyscraper.

Is that a violation of the 2nd Law? Why or why not?


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 28, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Strictly speaking, you're kind of both right. When the inflationary epoch ends at 10^-33s the inflation field begins to decay into elementary particles, namely the quark-gluon. It isn't until 10^-6s to 1s after TBB that the universe is cool enough for protons and neutrons to form and it takes a few thousand years of cooling before the first protons and electrons get together to for the atoms that we all know and love today.

There's no matter as we know it at TBB, but there's also the precursor of matter as we know it at TBB because the things that will make up matter are already present.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Classical thermodynamics and mechanical statistics are based on some very strict definitions of the systems, not the least of which is to treat mass and energy seperately.  This is clear in that the general classifications of systems, isolated, closed, and open, are defined as constant mass and energy, constant mass, and variable mass and energy, respectively.

It would seem that, when we get to the level of the universe near the simgularity point, this distinction begins to faulter.

The relationship is given by Einstein's equation of;






When relativity must be accounted for, while total energy is conserved, mass is not.  Mass is simply another form of energy.  This could not be more clear as exemplified by an atomic explosion in which, to the best of my understanding, litterally converts mass into energy.  Mass is not conserved beyond the level of classical assumptions.

Frankly, I'm not even sure what to do with the fact at the cosmological level, space itself is no longer a constant.  As far as I can make of it, the expansion of the universe is not simply a "stretching" but literally the creation of new, never before existent space.  And, as time itself is litterally another measure of distance, a measure of space, the reciprocal of length, time, as we know it is no longer some fixed quality of reality.

Trying to go from classical thermodynamics to the big bang, based on fuzzy philosophical connections just doesn't make sense.

What I cam be sure of is that any description that does not count the physical qualities is meaningless.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I don't get how a modern philosophical interpretation of a Bronze Age creation myth is supposed to have any weight at all when discussing cosmology, physics, biology, or any number of other areas, but there you go.

Even so, it is very difficult to wrap one's brains around some of these concepts. I have difficulty getting my brother to understand that the "Theory of Everything" he sees on TV isn't really a single idea that accounts for everything, but rather a tool to combines the classical world and the quantum world, both of which exist and both of which are in direct opposition to each other. All that theory really would be is a bridge between the two world so that they both make sense.

As difficult as these concepts are, with the math they are dense and almost unintelligible barring years of studies. Without the math they become almost meaningless ideas with no way to really grasp them.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



In the real world, it is you who has not been able to form a coherent or consistent argument.

Lets be honest. Youre consumed whole by people not believing in your gawds.  Youre incensed by it. Thats exactly why you spend so much time proselytizing.  Its also why youre completely oblivious to, and utterly hostile to the facts of science.  Its why you repeatedly have cut and pasted falsified, parsed and edited quotes even in the face of those falsifications being repeatedly exposed as hoaxes.  

I'll have a great day. Jeebus loves me, yes he does.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning. why do you avoid the obvious ? For evolution and for organisms to get more complex as they supposedly did through evolution they needed the same thing plus new beneficial genetic information.

The life cycle is ran through a cycle of needs. Would an organism that lacked the coding be considered disorder and randomness ?and would that organism exist if not for that coding,energy and all the other elements needed ?

What does that skyscraper look like over many years ? The important issue you're leaving out is what I have been pointing out. The skyscraper when completed is at the maximum order. That sounds like creation to me. Things once they were created were at maximum order and through the 2nd law they gained disorder and they break down.

Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point you won't fully understand creation makes more sense according to the evidence.

Things getting more complex are doing so because of the blueprints and the genetic information. Nothing get's more complex through random processes that would violate the 2nd law. Only through order do things get more complex.

I think I have said it enough even daws and hollie can understand it now.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



In your dreams.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



A little help, here.

As I understand it, classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time... 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today. So, a somewhat discredited theory of an oscillating universe (a big crunch compressing matter followed by TBB), is a minor possibility 

Conclusion: Conservation of Energy did not play a part in the creation of the universe...it was a by-product.

On a side note, when I listen to how fundies such as ywc describe their gods, I am always taken by two things: How really weak they make their gods while trying to make them omnipotent, and how indistinguishable those gods are from both humans and human conventions of demons.

The gods would have had to purposely create a very old looking, very spread out universe to see what we clearly see today. One wonders how is doing that -at the same time offering the creation story as inerrant  - is any different from the gods perpetrating and perpetuating a lie?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Nope. In reality. Something your challenged by.

The Evolution of Improved Fitness

The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner


Spetner winds up stuttering and mumbling when he's befuddled just as you do.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Even by your standards of absurdity, that comment sinks to new levels of silliness.

Have you not been able to understand that mechanical devices and biological organisms are... you know... different?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Which source did you plagiarize this time ?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Impress us with some more phony "quotes" from your creation ministries. I'll be pleased to expose more of your lies.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Typical stupidity on your part.

Whether animate or inanimate complex things are built and designed through instruction.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do you ever grow weary of me kicking your butt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*That skyscraper would need a blueprint and planning. *

Obviously. Now the fact that locally things got more complex and more ordered does not violate the 2nd Law.

Everything you said after this is meaningless.
Your claim and Dr Wieland's is wrong. 

*Until you recognize my point and Dr. Wieland's point *

I recognize your point.
And I mock it. 

*Things getting more complex *

Thanks for admitting your error. Now deny it some more.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're obviously trying to make some connection with your designer gawds. You haven't.

Yet another of your failed attempts at proselytizing.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Self congratulations for nothing. Come on, cut and paste some more of your phony "quotes". 

For a self-entitled religionist, it is surprising that you take no objection to lies and deceit to press your fundamentalist agenda.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> As I understand it, classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into &#8220;being&#8221; after Planck time... 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.



Pretty much.



> So, a somewhat discredited theory of an oscillating universe (a &#8220;big crunch&#8221; compressing matter followed by TBB), is a minor possibility



No so much, or rather given that the universe is not only expanding, but expansion is accelerating, it seems more likely that we end up with the Big Freeze, where the temperature asymptotes towards Absolute Zero.  The Heat Death of the Universe is similar, but is the result of entropy being equal everywhere. Time effectively stops because there will be no change anywhere, for ever.

Other ideas like the Big Rip, the Big Crunch, and the Big Bounce are all possible, but right now the generally accepted idea is that the universe gets cold and dies. 

Unlike many storybooks, mythologies, and fables, in the real world there is no happy ending.


----------



## eots (Jul 28, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > As I understand it, classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time... 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.
> ...



You think you comprehend the universe from its beginning to its end ...lol...talk about_ myths and fables.._.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

But superconductivity provides a philosophical way out. *The note that the whole "heat death" is asymptotic means it never happens.

The age of the universe is actually quite young, if my impression of the numbers is correct, it is a long ways off.

Dark matter and dark energy are a huge hole in our understanding. *All we know is there is something there that we can measure only indirectly. *And, curiously, dark energy seems to be created out of nothingness as space is created out of nothingness.

I remain a bit unconvinced that the whole expanding universe is actually correct. *My lack of conviction may be ignorance or, in fact, well founded. *I can't say for sure because, I am, unfortunately, really a bit ignorant.

Still, the basis for the changing size of the universe is that as we look back into time, across the great expanse of space, we use certain objects of standard brightness. *We also know the wavelength of certain emmisions, like hydrogen atoms. *We also know that light disperses with distance.

As we know that the speed of light is constant, then we can determine the distance to these objects based on their brightness. As we can determine the initial frequency of the emited light, we can determine that it has been red shifted. *This is accounted for by the objects velocity, away from us, being greater at greater distances. *And, if I am to understand this correctly, refined measurements have determined that the rate of change of the velocity (acceleration) varies with distance.

In the balance of all this, the interpretation is that space has expanded at different rates since the beginning of the initial acceleration.

Still, the entire thing is grounded in how we measure distance amd frequency of an electromagnetic wave, a huge mass of photons, as they pass by.

If we place two detectors, at some distance D, and then adjust that distance until they both peak at the exact same time, the distance between them is the wavelength. *We use some standard clock, a repeating cycle of something, that ticks of seconds, and the number of ticks between peaks of the wave is its frequency. *We would use, fundamentally, another electromagnetic wave like that emited from our local hydrogen atom transition.

This whole process of comparing things in nature to each other then yields the result that, no matter what we do, the speed of light is invarient regardless of how fast we are moving relative to it.*

c=dx/dt.

Here is the the thing. *dx/dt is constant. *But, fundamentally, dt is, in fact, a measurement of distance. *We are setting up a devise that is dependent upon a standard wave of "known" distance and time between peaks.

So all you have, really, in standard units, is that dx/dt=1. When we are "flying" our contraption, for measuring an electromagnetic wave, along the longitudinal direction of the wave, all we are really saying is that we cannot fundamentally distinguish between time and length. *Time and length are changing simultaneously to get dx/dt to work out. *In our measurement, as the change in x goes, so goes the change in time. *

If I'm to understand it correctly, Einstein had a paradigm shift that changed our concept of time and space, based on Maxwell's proof that that the speed of electromagnetic waves in free space is constant. *Measurements of light matched this speed and we correctly concluded, along with the body of other scientific evidence, that light is an electromagnetic wave. Einstien leveraged this to the invariance of light in all reference frames, proved special relativity, and moved on to general relativity.

Others took the special relativity results, along with the constant speed of light, and used it to work out the expanding universe. *There is, though, some additional stuff in the hypothesis which is more than just doppler shifting. Remember, not only are far away galaxies doppler shifted due to difference in speed, but actual space itself is being created between them. Not only is the distance changing because of the velocity, but also because there is actually more distance being created.

But there is this additional issue that, in fact, the presence of mass and energy also affects the shift in wavelength. *

dx/dt is constant, wavelength is shifted, dx, this allows time to be held constant, as wavelength is the reciprocal of frequency, so frequency changes without changing time, except for as accounted by relativity and new space. *In order to get everything to balance out appropriately, additional dark energy and dark matter is inferred. *

Now we have time, space, energy, and mass all this variability in frequency and wavelength to adjust dx with respect to dt in order to hold dx/dt constant.

It may very well be that, in fact, when all is said and done, that the current rate of expansion and acceleration of the universe are not what they are interpreted to be. *Rather, when this whole dark matter and energy thing gets sorted out, another paradigm shift occurs and it turns out that light is being stretched and compressed in some other fashion as it traverses time and space.

The last paradigm shift was the result of a patent clerk, a quiet genius, working in some nondescript but technical position, and studying physics at some nondescript state university. *He was, in fact, unaware of much of the most recent developments in physics simply because the library was not open when his time was free. He was independently building his own theories of physics with no one to tell him differently. *Had he been more embedded with the main stream, working out the details of string theory, under the watchful eye of his graduate adviser, he may have never devised relativity. *In fact, Einstein resubmitted his thesis a couple of times because his graduate adviser kept rejecting them. Of his four landmark papers of 1905, his thesis was the least controversial of his papers, the brownian motion paper.

It may take another such, marginally attached, but sufficiently immersed individual. *Perhaps next time, it will be some guy, or gall, studying at a nondescript university, sequestered all night in some lone observatory.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> But superconductivity provides a philosophical way out. *The note that the whole "heat death" is asymptotic means it never happens.
> 
> The age of the universe is actually quite young, if my impression of the numbers is correct, it is a long ways off.
> 
> ...



I suspect that you are correct about where the next breakthrough might come but the isolation will be self imposed. The nature of the internet is such that all ideas, good, bad and indifferent are exposed to the light of day. As a rank amateur I find the concepts to be fascinating and thought provoking. The very concept of "dark matter" makes me wonder if the reason why we are witnessing an expanding universe is perhaps because the sheer volume of energy generated by billions of stars are "heating" that dark matter and thereby causing it to expand and "push" the universe apart. Pure speculation on my part but one can't help wondering. 

Then there is the background radiation. What if those "hot spots" are universes just like our own but so far away that all we can register from them is that minute variation in temperature? Are the colder "spots" where new singularities are forming? Is our universe as we observe it just a small part of a greater "tidal" mass of universes that are akin to weather high and low fronts here on earth but on a cosmic scale? 

We have no way to measure any of these ideas so they are just as much fantasies as anything written in the bronze age. But it was only 500 years ago that the true nature of the solar system was discovered and only 2 decades ago that the first extrasolar planets were discovered. If we don't ask questions like these we won't ever find out if they are wrong or right. The process of discovery is what is important. To continue to explore and find out more about the universe is perhaps what gives real purpose to our lives.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

The problem with the internet is that there is simply to much noise and no way for the uninitiated to sort the brilliance from the bs.  What a university professor gets paid to do, is just that, present only the brilliance.  And, for those that have ever been through it, they know that most professors are required to prove it. Students are a critical bunch and professors are well aware of it.  They don't get to simply rest on their laurels.

It creates a fine balance where the student is sufficiently immersed in the material, material that has been well vetted, that it keeps building to a marvelous gestalt, for lack of a better term. For most of us, it is enough to just grasp the material, let alone go beyond it.  For those that do go beyond it, the opportunity for advancement in academia and industry is likely to keep them busy on someone elses project.  

I knew one brilliant mathemetician who complained that graduate work left him no opportunity to follow his own ideas as he was to busy under the thumb of his graduate advisor.  Another couple of curious instances include; 

the pair of guys that discovered the doubke helix molecule of DNA.  The textbooks said what they had produced wasn't possible.  Fortunately, they were lousy students, prefering to spend their time in the lab and getting "C"s on exams.  Brilliant experimenters, lousy students. And when their thesis was reviewed, one of the more learned PhD's pointed out that, yes, as a matter of fact, he was well aware that the standard textbooks were wrong.  (I can't seem to corroborate this story though.)

Another case is, well damn it, now I forget....


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

There is the case of the young man in India, who was working out mathematics, teaching himself, and having some trouble with a proof.  So he writes to a professor of mathematics at a prominent university for help.  They immediately flew to India and brought him back to the university sonl he could explain the proofs that he had developed to even get to the place where he was stuck, proofs that solved numerous age old unresolved mathematical quandries.

Unfortunately, that's not the one I forgot...


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

The Indian mathematician was easy enough to find

Srinivasa Ramanujan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it notes him having sent sample proofs, but not why.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

Of course, for every one of these people, there are a million more crackpots and probably a hundred more geniuses that go unrecognized.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

I'm becoming more suspicious of the DNA boys story as I read that they apparently stole the discovery from a female collegue;

Daily Kos :: Who Really Discovered the Double Helix?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I know you're more intelligent than this. Really ? mocking reality. Sorry you resort to a desperate attempt at making a point. You're are using a cycle that has coded instructions as the basis of your point. It really is a poor analogy.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> There is the case of the young man in India, who was working out mathematics, teaching himself, and having some trouble with a proof.  So he writes to a professor of mathematics at a prominent university for help.  They immediately flew to India and brought him back to the university sonl he could explain the proofs that he had developed to even get to the place where he was stuck, proofs that solved numerous age old unresolved mathematical quandries.
> 
> Unfortunately, that's not the one I forgot...



Now I remember...

So the story goes...  The guy who discovered that the brain produces its own compounds that are opiate like substances.  He had the idea for years but waited till the end of his career to pursue it so that it didn't hurt his reputation.

Now, before YMC gets to excited, there is a big difference between the advancement of science as new developements challange and refine current understanding or completely ignoring basic science, as does Carl Weiland, in an attempt to prologate complete nonsense.

Creationism has absolutely no basis in reality, is not some new development that will revolutionize science.  As presented here, it is obviously designed to completely ignore science by litterally lying about the most fundamental rules of probability and statistics, as well as taking established science, glossing over the fundamentals, taking them completely out of context, and misinterpreting them in them most gross fashion.

It is equivalent to Hitler's use of Eugenics.  

Everything I have learned here demonatrates to me that, quite ironically, Fundamentalist Christian Conservatist Creationism is grounded in everything that is evil in this world.

Thanks to social psychology, and the likes of Milgram, Zimbardo, and many
others, evil is ordinary, identifiable, and measurable.  And by every measure, I see that, in fact, Creationism and those that adhere to it are clearly evil.

There are two types of people in this world, those that divide the world into to types of people, and those that don't.

There are conspiracy theorists, and everyone else.

If you find yourself saying, "You people..." or "Your people...", well, you figure it out.  

If you think your part of some special group, the chosen few... well, there you go... so did Nazi Germany, and we all know how that turned out, don't we.

I'm just saying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, I'm mocking your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law.

Coded instructions mean the 2nd Law works?  Or that it doesn't work?


----------



## DarkLion (Jul 28, 2013)

Amen. Why must some, if not most, divide people up into little groups? People these days are obsessed with labels. I believe to label something is to become closed minded to it


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Amen. Why must some, if not most, divide people up into little groups? People these days are obsessed with labels. I believe to label something is to become closed minded to it



Personally, I can't say.  I've never been part of a group.  I take everyone as unique, on their own terms.  And when you read the scientific liturature, from the top like Friedman, to the posting of some highschool biology teacher, you recognize that they are all just doing their darndest, to make sense of this huge creation that we call science.  There us no "you people".  

There is, though, the body of work that tens of thousands of people have contributed to. Part of that includes the top of the field, like Feinman.  Another part is the pyramid of professors and teachers that absorb and restate that material in a manner suitable for the particular group of students that are attempting to digest it. Then they do their best to describe it to a general audience. We could spend a dozen full time lifetimes learning it and never understand it all.

I am learning that there seem to be a subset of humans that see themselves as part of some select group. They reveal themselves when they decide to label me.  It's odd because I happen to not know anybody, so I can't really be part of a group of "You people...".

Shit, I'd be tickle pink if there was one person that was willing to muddle through this thing with me.

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies

If there is any "You people", it is some 3.3 billion people that just go to work each day, do their job, pay their bills and taxes, pick up some news or their favorite show on TV, and just get along.  This is as true here as it is in Iran and North Korea.  (I knocked off 6%, 1% at the top and 5% at the bottom, then rounded)

And I can guarantee that most of us feel like idiots.  From Feinman on down, everyone feels dumb.  But man, when something is just wrong....and most people keep pointing it out, over and over and over.  Things are difficult enough to learn and figure out.  Why be ignorant (I love that word, ignore-ant), purposeful... you don't even have to add "on purpose" to it, that's redundant...

I'm just trying to find the right words that I know are right, most people agree with, can't be to terribly misconstrued, and moves thing in the right direction.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes. Somewhere between 2.7 and 3.5 billion years ago life supposedly showed up, in truth they don't know. That is  a lot of time to pass in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases,and you think complexity and order would increase. Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.

Face it, the universe and everything in it were created and we are seeing the effects of the 2nd law at work no matter how you fudge the numbers.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Amen. Why must some, if not most, divide people up into little groups? People these days are obsessed with labels. I believe to label something is to become closed minded to it



That is nature at work. Every living organism stay's with their own kind.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 28, 2013)

The reason a public university education works as providing the best objective system of gaining knowledge is

1) People, including administration and professors get paid to be the leaders, organizers.

2) Nobody decides what the material is except the students and faculty.

What some may not recognize, that becomes apparent at the grad level, is that the faculty really competes with each other for students.  They advertise their course in the catalog and students sign up.  That becomes a vote, by a group of students, who gets to be "learning" leader for three hours a week.  Once elected, the students then play follow the leader for three months. It is quite democratic.  And it is really helpful.  My position is that I pay someone else to light a fire under my ass.  Knowing that; a) I'm going to have waisted good money by flunking, b) it will be noticed if I don't show up today, and c) not having to figure out what to study; it really moves along very well. You do that for four or six years straight, and it is really incredible. It really doesn't matter if its your local community college, a state U, or MIT.  (Sure, MIT is harder, Harvard is better on a resume, whatever) It doesn't matter if it is a general curriculm, elecronic engineering, or associate of arts in, oh ... art.  As long as it is an accredited program that builds the body of knowledge as a program. Trust me, Kahn Acadamy is great, but it isn't the same.  No matter what you think you know, there is more.  Taken intro to statistics, no take intro to linear regression.  Now take analysis of variance. Now, go buy another book on them, really, stuff I didn't study?  I had to laugh because every text book I own is "Intro to [blank]".  For every textbook, each chapter becomes ten more "Intro to"s.

People stop at PhD, not because they know everything, but because at that point, even everyone with a PhD just says, "Dude, really, that's enough already.  Find something to do or someone to talk to".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 28, 2013)

That is only considering the age of earth, now consider the age of the universe. Absurd is the proper term. I am headed off to the beach in Cali ,I will check in later have a good night all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*The 2nd law has a greater affect as time passes.*

Can you prove it?

*in a universe where entropy never decreases but over time only increases*

An acorn growing into an oak tree decreases entropy in itself. 

*Sorry but that is absurd if you really believe in the 2nd law.*

You still don't get it.


----------



## newpolitics (Jul 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> 
> Is creationism scientific?



One word: Evidence.

Why are you going outside this system we call the universe, to explain phenomena that happen within the universe? You need to provide a justification for belief by any evidence of ANYTHING outside of this system. You haven't, and can not, so therefore, creationism is unscientific.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes every object animate or inanimate decays over time.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



As time passes that oak tree will slip in to decay and die. That tree completed it's cycle.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Jul 29, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> ...



You would like to think so.


----------



## Hollie (Jul 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> DarkLion said:
> 
> 
> > Amen. Why must some, if not most, divide people up into little groups? People these days are obsessed with labels. I believe to label something is to become closed minded to it
> ...



The response of a simpleton. The "kind" notion is nothing more than slogans taken from the various bibles and has no definition outside of a religious slogan.


----------



## orogenicman (Jul 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How, then, is creationism&#8212;as opposed to &#8220;naturalism,&#8221; defined as &#8220;a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted&#8221;&#8212;scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define &#8220;scientific.&#8221; Too often, &#8220;science&#8221; and &#8220;naturalism&#8221; are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as &#8220;the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.&#8221; Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> 
> Is creationism scientific?



Hello.  I just stumbled upon this thread, and haven't read it all the way through.  So without getting into all of the other issues likely brought up, I would like to address the above.  The answer to your first question is that there is nothing "supernatural". Either it occurs naturally or it doesn't.  The term supernatural is just a made up concept given to something people don't understand or can't themselves explain.  It is rooted in 19th century mysticism.  Since there is nothing that is in this universe that cannot be explained by natural means, resorting to so-called supernatural agents is simply irrational and lazy thinking.  Creationist views are left out of science for a very simple reason.  "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything.  Science is a process for understanding and explaining the world around us and within us.  If "God did it" were all you needed to explain the world, we wouldn't have cars, television, cell phones, computers, and all the other technological conveniences that we enjoy.  Moreover, we wouldn't understand how to breed cats, dogs, horses, and all of the animal we have created for our own purposes.  And I say created because we most certainly have created them.  The dog is a human bred species.  It never existed in the wild.  Same with modern cattle and horses and many other domestic animals.  Artificial selection is the method we have used to create these animals.  The only difference between artificial selection and natural selection is time, and the agent doing the selection, in this case, nature itself.  

If an animal likes termites, but has a short snout and a short tongue, it is going to have to tough time getting at them to eat them.  But if 1/3 of those animals have a snout with a tongue that is just long enough to reach the termites in their mound, they will be more successful in acquiring the food they like.  And so over time, they will be more successful in breeding than the ones with shorter snouts, so eventually there will be more longer snouted critters eating termites.  Today we call them aardvarks.  No need to resort to a creator to explain their existence.  No need to be lazy and say "god did it".  This is how science works, how it has answered so many questions and so enriched all of our lives.

So to answer your last question - "God did it" - Doesn't explain anything, and is not scientific.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And that proves evolution can't happen?

You poor boy. Your brain is decaying in this thread.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No one denies that trees die and decay.
Only idiots claim the 2nd Law means things cannot get more complex.


----------



## HUGGY (Jul 29, 2013)

YWC is living proof that nature tries many experiments that fail.  Just because the mind developed to a point that it has the power to speculate does not gaurantee that his dream of a god will ever materialise.  There are sound reasons why the "what if?" in the human brain appeared.  It is purely a survival tool.  It is a natural extension of strategy to elude a predator and further developed leapfrogging natural selection in organizing a human society by assembling many brains to act in concert on the same problems.  

It is unfortunate that some members of the human race have side tracked this developement of a shared responsibility to design further survival strategies onto the capricious and unproven will of a mythical being.

There is an upside and a down side to any strategy.  These believers in putting thier survival eggs in the "god basket" have willfully forgotten that any strategy proven unworkable by facts and real tangeable proof have just been lucky that in 2000 years thier tangent strategy has not had to withstand a devastating test.  If they did it would rid the world of a lot of useless consumtion of resources that would otherwise be focused on things that actually progressed and furthered human developement in directions that promoted our future survival ..not welcomed human destruction..AKA death..(heaven)  I E "The apolocolypse is not a survival strategy".


----------



## daws101 (Jul 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


so what as you've been told countless times.. flaws in a theory or science in general  are no evidence that your fantasy is correct.none of "believers"has presented anything that gives "the god did it" conjecture and veracity at all.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


using stephen Hawking(an atheist) as a source is a conflict of interest...on the other hand it's a fine example of your tenuous grasp on reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others.*

Where has anyone on "our side" claimed that the 2nd Law can be violated?
Do you feel that the complexity of an oak tree, compared to an acorn, is a violation? 

Show some specifics, instead of general accusations.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you've proven you don't!
a 6000 year old earth is neither, it's a fantasy...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 30, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


the big bang theory states " all the energy and matter in the universe  were compressed into a infinitesimally small space.."
I don't understand how that translates to nothing for creationists...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 30, 2013)

DarkLion said:


> Amen. Why must some, if not most, divide people up into little groups? People these days are obsessed with labels. I believe to label something is to become closed minded to it


we need labels to to tell the difference between ketchup and catsup...!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 Thanks for agreeing with over time all objects are affected by decay which is the result of disorder that leads to death. What we exp over time is devolution. Things are not getting better or improving in complexity,that is what you need for evolution to trend upwards. You should know by now the basics of macro evolution. Micro-adaptations do happen but they are minor changes and the genetic information is already in the Genome to adapt.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 1, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> ...


What a silly response knowing is no evidence anyting arising from natural uguided processes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 It has been explained to you. It is a temporary state from genetic data forcing its will on on matter. It is only part of the programmed process.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> ...



Yes it does it just gets ignored. No naturalistic processes can't account for origins of any object except through programmed information.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No only idiots denies how complextity arises lol. You really not as intelligent as I first thought.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Ironic!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Natural processes are the only processes we have any evidence for. Repeatedly, you have been tasked with defining a single occurrence (just one), of an un-natural or supernatural process or event and you have failed at every request.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's true, the entropy of the universe is increasing.
At the same time things can get more complex.
Just look how complex your ignorance has become.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Complexity arises? Don't tell the creationists, they'll bring up the 2nd Law to deny it.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 1, 2013)

looks as if ywc is using the swoop in and swoop out method of posting ...it's popular with the "you're never gonna make me " crowd.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 U of A does not produce ignorance they educate so the educated can teach the ignorant. You are all here must have missed me.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 1, 2013)

daws101 said:


> looks as if ywc is using the swoop in and swoop out method of posting ...it's popular with the "you're never gonna make me " crowd.



It's "complex" ...

Alternating swooping and holding one's breath till he turns blue.. 

It would be hilarious if so many people were not involved in the same self deceit and so proud to show it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*U of A does not produce ignorance*

Apparently they don't reduce it either.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 No offense,but we are not talking about Alabama or Arkansas.


----------



## Agent.Tom (Aug 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Natural processes are the only processes we have any evidence for. Repeatedly, you have been tasked with defining a single occurrence (just one), of an un-natural or supernatural process or event and you have failed at every request.


In passing, I just want to say that anything that happens for the very first time--not having been established prior as a 'natural process'--must therefore be described as supernatural.  The first lightning bolt was supernatural, by definition.  So was the first rainfall, the first tsunami, tornado, hurricane, fire, etc.

I think we--assuming no one will insist on being stubborn for the sake of avoiding real conversation--can all agree that at this very moment, not all possible "processes" have occurred.  Other "processes" will surely occur in the future for the very first time, and again, by your definition, they must be labeled supernatural.  Shouldn't we all agree that, by definition, supernatural processes can and will continue to occur?

Going a different way--supposing that you reserve the word "supernatural" to mean only "miraculous" processes brought about by an entity or entities with unimaginable power--I have to ask out of curiosity.  Do you really believe that a being creating a universe must be supernatural and executing a supernatural process, when (see quantum physics) our universe could be _virtual_?  Surely you realize that one day, assuming the human race continues to thrive, we will finally gain the ability to create virtual realities where everyone inside is either a "user" or an artificial intelligence?  You know that is coming.  Does the computer programmer that creates a virtual reality, a supernatural being?  No.  But would that programmer necessarily be defined as supernatural to the people _inside_ that reality?  Yes, absolutely.

Is it that difficult to imagine that the universe we experience is the result of a giant pile of--for lack of a better word--_code_.  The Programmer, having all powers one could imagine, is no more supernatural in this scenario than a programmer that wrote _The Sims_.

FYI this theorem would go far in explaining so many formerly unexplainable things.  For example:  In our normal world, we as Christians imagine what God's dimension is like.  We also wonder what God looks like, and wonder why He doesn't just materialize in our world and satisfy everyone's curiosity.  OK -- now, imagine a character in _The Sims_, wondering the same thing.  He knows what's going on around him in his virtual world that exists only as lines of code.  You are playing _The Sims_ and he is wondering what you look like, what your "dimension" is like, and wonders why you won't materialize in his world to prove your existence and satisfy his curiosity.

Please resist the temptation to laugh and marginalize me, saying I should be wearing a tinfoil hat because I claim we are all _Sims_.  I am making no such claim.  I am only trying to come up with real-life examples that could help us understand there is no need to dismiss creation as some impossible, "miraculous," "unscientific," "supernatural" event.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 2, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Natural processes are the only processes we have any evidence for. Repeatedly, you have been tasked with defining a single occurrence (just one), of an un-natural or supernatural process or event and you have failed at every request.
> ...



Certainly there is merit in your programmer/Sims scenario as a means to "explain" the universe. But if you are going to use this then you have to explain the inconsistencies too. If our universe is virtual then your programmer has written some really buggy code. That contradicts the notion of an omnipotent "programmer/creator".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Agent.Tom said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


 Example please.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Natural processes are the only processes we have any evidence for. Repeatedly, you have been tasked with defining a single occurrence (just one), of an un-natural or supernatural process or event and you have failed at every request.
> ...



I would have to say that was a well thought out response Tom.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Agent.Tom said:
> ...



Viruses, famine, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, genetic diseases, asteroids, etc, etc.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your ignorance is nation wide.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


Signs of the fault of humanity and disorder which we have been discussing. The only way those problems would have never been experienced was for man to obey God.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't deny I am ignorant of many issues. Are you suggesting you have all the answers and possess no ignorance ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As predictable as clockwork. Whenever you are faced with irrefutable facts you start spewing superstitious drivel while you beat a hasty retreat back into your shell.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'm suggesting that your defense of the "Evolution is impossible, because of the 2nd Law" meme, is a good display of your ignorance.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I see you missed the grammar and english courses or maybe wine with your nighttime meds is not a good idea.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Agent.Tom said:
> ...


a woman's birth canal!


1. The wisdom in wisdom teeth
 Anyone who has had trouble with their wisdom teeth would know that these third molars bring nothing but pain. The reason for this is quite simply that we do not have enough room in our mouths.

Our distant ancestors, with their slightly longer jawbones, may have had room for them. But in the mouth of the modern human, wisdom teeth often end up having nowhere to grow to and become stuck (compacted) and have to be removed.

Wisdom teeth may have helped our distant ancestors chew all that harsh unprocessed foods, but today, they are little more than an example of outdated design that most people can do without.

2. The appendix
 Even though it has been extensively researched, scientists have not managed to identify any clear function for the human appendix. But whereas we do not know what it is good for, we certainly know how life-threateningly harmful it can be.

Between five and ten percent of people will develop acute appendicitis in their lifetimes. When this happens, the appendix fills with pus and has to be surgically removed.

Interestingly, other mammals seem to have a similar structure to the human appendix, which they use for certain kinds of digestion. This strongly suggests that, like our wisdom teeth, our appendixes are inherited from our distant ancestors.

In addition, recent studies have suggested that removing the appendix may reduce the chances of developing ulcerative colitis. Add the fact that no adverse effects have been noticed from removing the human appendix, and the case for a design flaw is very strong.

3. Looking the wrong way?
 We know that our eyes are certainly not the best in the animal kingdom. But whereas a suboptimal design seems to serve our purposes well enough, the human eye, as those of other vertebrates, nevertheless seems to be rather strangely laid out.

Our eyes are essentially wired backwards with the light-sensitive cones and rods (the eyes 'film') situated behind a webbing of blood vessels and nerve fibres and facing away from the light.

One consequence of this design is that the nerves have to travel through the eye, which is why the human eye has a blind spot at its centre. By contrast, an animal like the squid has its eyes wired the correct, or more obvious, way around with the photoreceptors pointing toward the light.

In addition, the connection between the optic nerve and the retina is surprisingly fragile  something which makes the retina prone to detaching as we age.

4. Down the wrong pipe
 Another aspect of the human body that is widely considered to be an example of questionable design is the way in which air and food briefly share the same pipe. In essence, this is why we can choke on our food.

A number of scientists have suggested that it may have been a better design to keep the trachea (air pipe) and oesophagus (the pipe food travels down) completely separate. Instead, these two cross, which is why food can go down the wrong pipe - something that can be fatal.

A small valve, or flap, called the epiglottis, helps close the trachea when swallowing food. While this does solve the problem most of the time, it certainly isnt a perfect solution.

Furthermore, in children, the epiglottis can become infected, which can lead to severe inflammation. Though this can be easily treated, it can be very dangerous when treatment is not available.

5. Haemorrhoids
 Haemorrhoids refers to a condition where veins in and around the anus become inflamed. They can at times be itchy and painful, and are usually first suspected when blood is noticed in the stool.

Possible causes include a genetic predisposition, the increased pressure in the rectum during pregnancy and straining during bowel movements. By the age of 50, an estimated 50% of adults would have experienced haemorrhoids.

There are strong suggestions that squatting during bowel movements may have a protective effect, something which suggests that modern toilets are at least part of the problem.

Either way, exposing veins to the kind of pressures and friction present in the rectum is certainly not good design.

Not adapted for longer life
 Just as haemorrhoids suggest that our bodies have not adapted to modern toilets, a number of other body flaws also involve our inability to adapt to our changing circumstances.

One of the major changes of the last few hundred years, is that human beings are getting much older. This means we are more aware of how our eyes, ears, backs, hips and brains fail to stand up to the passing of time.

But, the mere fact that we are living longer suggests that we are doing a good job of adapting to the weak spots in our design. Whether it is using vaccines to train our bodies to spot infections, or wearing glasses to see better, we are certainly making progress.

But inguinal hernias, cancer, labour pain, autoimmune diseases (where the body attacks itself) are all still with us. All of which suggests that in terms of plugging the gaps in the design of the human body, we have a long way to go.  (Marcus Low, Health24)

Reviewed by Prof Don du Toit, head of anatomy at Stellenbosch University

Sources:
 Olshansky, SJ. If humans were built to last. Scientific American. March 2001.
 Theobald, D. The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy December 2006.
Mayo Clinic
 digestive.niddk.nih.gov

5 body flaws | Health24

you want fries with that?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...


bump


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Those problems are fixed when we become Pak Protectors.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Larry Niven! HAVEN'T READ HIS STUFF SINCE THE 80'S.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There's been some recent stuff that really fills in some of the holes.
You should catch up.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 2, 2013)

Agent.Tom said:


> In passing, I just want to say that anything that happens for the very first time--not having been established prior as a 'natural process'--must therefore be described as supernatural.  The first lightning bolt was supernatural, by definition.  So was the first rainfall, the first tsunami, tornado, hurricane, fire, etc.
> 
> I think we--assuming no one will insist on being stubborn for the sake of avoiding real conversation--can all agree that at this very moment, not all possible "processes" have occurred.  Other "processes" will surely occur in the future for the very first time, and again, by your definition, they must be labeled supernatural.  Shouldn't we all agree that, by definition, supernatural processes can and will continue to occur?


Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.

Something that happens for the first time is clearly not _by definition_, supernatural. The first bolt of lightning, the first tornado, hurricane, etc., were not supernatural events that became less so as humankind learned the causes. The causes were always natural, just not understood as to the mechanisms.

What is interesting about your choice of hurricanes (for one example), as a supernatural event is that one can make the case for these events being entirely a product of your gods. According to believers, it is the gods who are responsible for all existence and so the gods are ultimately responsible for hurricanes and all other natural disasters. 

There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the gods that cobbled it together. The gods don't cause an earthquake? Yes, they established the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earths crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gods don't cause a tornado? Yes, they established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, they could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.







> Going a different way--supposing that you reserve the word "supernatural" to mean only "miraculous" processes brought about by an entity or entities with unimaginable power--I have to ask out of curiosity.  Do you really believe that a being creating a universe must be supernatural and executing a supernatural process, when (see quantum physics) our universe could be _virtual_?  Surely you realize that one day, assuming the human race continues to thrive, we will finally gain the ability to create virtual realities where everyone inside is either a "user" or an artificial intelligence?  You know that is coming.  Does the computer programmer that creates a virtual reality, a supernatural being?  No.  But would that programmer necessarily be defined as supernatural to the people _inside_ that reality?  Yes, absolutely.



Im not at all substituting the term "supernatural" for "miraculous". They are quantitatively different terms.

What a shame that you cannot define for us a single discovery by humanity that has had a supernatural cause, ie:, a cause not explainable by natural circumstances. Many ancient peoples had beliefs in gods, spirits and all sorts of superstitions which were used to explain phenomena they didnt understand. The Abrahamic god of the desert is a more recent but no less a vehicle for superstition. Share the knowledge why _your_ gods are extant to the exclusion of other, more ancient gods. When you can share that knowledge in a way that would verify your claim that you in some way attain supremacy over the Dayaks, then you'd have some cleats in the turf. But its all gainsaid. The only thing we have ("we" meaning those who don't embrace your particular theology) is your assertion that your spiritual knowledge is somehow better. You like to drop it in my lap that you know for certain that your gods are extant so hey-- why don't you show me the tool(s) that places your beliefs in supremacy to all others?


Secondly, I have no reason for believing a being created anything. I understand you will default to this alleged being as the gods, but in terms of evidence, were left with nothing more than your partisan claims to one or more partisan gods.

Actually, your thought experiment tells us nothing about the possibility of whether or not I wish the Bible to be wrong. I dont wish the Bible to be anything. I wish you to make a supportable argument without the need to use the Bible as proof of something when its the veracity of the Bible that is in question. Your argument only tells us about your capacity to draw false conclusions out of willful neglect of any real standard of care. 

Im only holding your feet to the fire for the purpose of demanding you demonstrate the truth of claims that you have already made. 



Is it that difficult to imagine that the universe we experience is the result of a giant pile of--for lack of a better word--_code_.  The Programmer, having all powers one could imagine, is no more supernatural in this scenario than a programmer that wrote _The Sims_.



> FYI this theorem would go far in explaining so many formerly unexplainable things.  For example:  In our normal world, we as Christians imagine what God's dimension is like.  We also wonder what God looks like, and wonder why He doesn't just materialize in our world and satisfy everyone's curiosity.  OK -- now, imagine a character in _The Sims_, wondering the same thing.  He knows what's going on around him in his virtual world that exists only as lines of code.  You are playing _The Sims_ and he is wondering what you look like, what your "dimension" is like, and wonders why you won't materialize in his world to prove your existence and satisfy his curiosity.
> 
> Please resist the temptation to laugh and marginalize me, saying I should be wearing a tinfoil hat because I claim we are all _Sims_.  I am making no such claim.  I am only trying to come up with real-life examples that could help us understand there is no need to dismiss creation as some impossible, "miraculous," "unscientific," "supernatural" event.



Im thinking youre spending waaaaaaay too much time in imaginary worlds.

First, let us agree that any ultimate understanding of existence is unknowable. The theist relies on a god(s)-caused worldview (faith) and the materialist relies on the nature-caused worldview, each calling upon a bottom plank that cannot ultimately be proven. Philosophically speaking, we cannot beg the question to support the contention, therefore gods cannot be used to support the contention of gods, and calls to the _a priori_ status of logic cannot be used to support the existence of logic. And the kicker is, not even my statement above is exempt from that fatal flaw of argumentation-- I might be wrong or right that we can't beg the question, but cannot prove either.

Given that, we decide to agree that we all exist in a reality and that reality has some constants. This, we can call the _penultimate_ level of realism, and that is the true level by which we all are forced to operate. It is here we offer our worldviews based upon our presuppositions, because we have to dismiss the impossibility of the ultimate level in order to function.

We are therefore reduced to the probability factor, which is argumentation not based upon solid proof but upon consistent behavior of the natural world. At this point, it's purely a choice between theist and materialist as to what worldview makes the greater amount of sense.

The theist is burdened by creating, to explain the natural realm, a whole supernatural realm as if by doing so it answers the fundamental questions of why are things the way they are-- as opposed to doing what it _really_ does, which is now create a whole _new_ set of questions about the supernatural realm that cannot be answered. It's very much like a child asking his father at a David Copperfield show, "How does he do that?" and being asked to accept without question the reply, "Magic." The reply answers nothing, and of course it has the same effect of obscuring what the truth truly is, and it opens up a larger question which is, "What the heck is 'magic'"? We can see this in the Evolutionist / Creationist debate. The _only_ people who fight the overwhelming evolutionary evidences are those with a vested interest in the literal accuracy of the Genesis mythology -- a mythology that is no more or less sacrosanct than the creationist mythologies of any other religious belief system. By accepting the two chapters of Genesis as the answer, they not only accept no answer as the answer ("magic!"), they forever preclude themselves from embracing what the _true_ answer is. Asserting "god did it" only puts off by one huge step answering the question itself.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This is the only post of yours which has not been thoroughly refuted.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Is this your weak Attempt at suggesting no intelligent creator would have created things the way they currently are ?

As Tom said earlier any natural process arising through without being guided would in fact be miraculous, hmm,now what ?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I suggest that you reread what he actually said as opposed to what you believe he said.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You can't present a viable explanation and sure as hell can't produce a viable mechanism for macro-evolution that is required for your theory to possess any kind of credibility.

You fell victim of the bate and switch and possessing a vivid imagination. You think all your conjecture adds up to something meaning ful but you're merely wishing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



No need to.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



In which case quote his actual words that allegedly support your statement.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 2, 2013)

fun fact: YWC yammers on


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*You can't present a viable explanation and sure as hell can't produce a viable mechanism for macro-evolution that is required for your theory to possess any kind of credibility.*

Well, first of all, it's not my theory.
Second, oh, that reminds me of the 2nd Law.
The one that you think prevents things from becoming more complex.
That still makes me laugh.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Would you rather I use the term supernaturalism ? He thinks that other natural processes would arise,not sure I totally agree with that but what would be the source for supernaturalism ?

Tom was trying to get us to compromise and admit any natural process arising would be considered a supernatural act and the compromise was using the term miraculous but have it your way because I prefer an act of supernaturalism.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



A rainbow can be accounted for through the fact of refraction of incident sunlight on rain droplets in the atmosphere using Snell's law.

In contrast, "god did it", still does not explain the rainbow (or anything else).


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Increasing entropy does not imply increasing complexity, just as evolution does not imply increasing complexity. The human genome, for instance, has less complexity and fewer genes than many other species.  For instance, humans have 46 chromosomes, while chimpanzees have 48.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Increasing entropy does not imply increasing complexity*

I never claimed it did.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





> At the same time things can get more complex.



Those are not your words?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Why yes, they are.
Maybe you should reread my original post?
It's clear you're confused


----------



## Hollie (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are chronically confused. A natural process would suggest such process is without the need or requirement for "guidance" from your gawds or anyone else's gawds.

Most processes in nature have an established hierarchy of causes and effects that are understood as to the mechanisms. 

So, tell us what "miracles" you see occurring in nature that are not guided by the gods.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Perhaps I am.  I'm just going on what you posted, dude.  If you want to clarify, go right ahead.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Look at the Sun, entropy is increasing.
Look at a tree growing in the Sun, it's getting more complex.

You think there is a conflict between those two statements?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes.  First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing.  That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems.  Trees don't live in a closed system.  They can just as easily become LESS complex.  Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I didn't say you had to look at the sun to know the entropy of the universe is increasing.
I didn't say trees lived in a closed system. I didn't say trees couldn't evolve into a less complex tree, I said a growing tree is growing more complex. 
I know that evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

So help me out, what was the conflict?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



God did it never explains a process. God did it is merely an inference. No different then a natural cycle is extrapolated from for evidence for naturalism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Are you trying to suggest the universe has no affect on a closed system ? If all the different organisms were a product of macro-evolution didn't they get more complex ?

It's pretty simple for as long the universe has been around and the whole time decreasing in order how did organisms get more complex ?

I don't believe evolution ever happened the way they currently teach. I believe small changes happens within in a family but not enough to account for all the different organisms that has ever existed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You should probably just sit there.
Every time you open your mouth, you say something silly.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't know but I think you guys are wasting your time. Going from an amoeba  to a microbiologist, I would say according to your theory you do have an arrow pointing towards complexity.

How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?

You need to quit using a cycle of an organism as your argument ,that is a bad analogy.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 2, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgcy-V6YIuI]Skeeter Davis -- The End Of The World - YouTube[/ame]

Why?  Oh Why?...

If enough people stopped believing in god would it be the end of the world?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 2, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Does the universe have an effect on the supposed open system earth ?

Sorry I just noticed I said a closed system.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 2, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB10MHhftXc]Gene McDaniels Sings A Hundred Pounds of Clay 2010 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...









Texas Blind Salamander (Eurycea rathbuni)


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 2, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ogV49WGco]God Only Knows - Bioshock Infinite - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The universe IS a closed system.



> If all the different organisms were a product of macro-evolution didn't they get more complex ?



No.  Humans, for instance, are genetically LESS complex than their ape cousins, the chimpanzee.  I can cite many other examples, if you like.



> It's pretty simple for as long the universe has been around and the whole time decreasing in order how did organisms get more complex ?



It is irrelevant.  On a planet that is NOT a closed system, organisms can become more, or less, complex.  Natural selection makes no requirement that an organism be more complex than its predecessor.  The only requirement is that any modification result in offspring having a survival advantage over its predecessors.  If that advantage means that it becomes LESS complex, that's what happens.



> I don't believe evolution ever happened the way they currently teach. I believe small changes happens within in a family but not enough to account for all the different organisms that has ever existed.



And that's because you are illiterate on the subject.  There is a cure for your ailment.  Take some biology classes.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



To say that a growing tree is growing more complex, is a broad statement that doesn't apply to every tree, in fact, it probably doesn't apply to any tree.  Saplings have exactly the same number of genes that a full grown tree has, and its cells function in exactly the same way that adult tree cells do.  So how is it getting more complex?  Larger, yes?  But more complex?  Doubtful.  If there is any difference in complexity between a sapling and an adult tree it is in the adult tree's ability to reproduce.  But that is simply a matter of genetic programming - genes that turn on or off when a tree reaches a certain age, genes it already possesses.


----------



## eots (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Darwinism is a belief system..like religion...a very fundamentalist group of zealots for the most part..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Inference is the non-logical, but rational, means, through observation of patterns of facts, to indirectly see new meanings and contexts for understanding.  What patterns of facts have you observed that lead you to believe that "god did it"?  Did you document these patterns?  Did you publish your findings?  Did others replicate your findings?  How is your indirect observation of "god did it" more meaningful than a direct observation that doesn't require "god did it" as an explanation?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



And yet microbiologists, like all human beings, have fewer genes than a grape.  Again, complexity is not a requirement for survival.  Human beings require fewer genes than a grape, and yet we have survived just fine, thank you very much.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How is the Earth a closed system when all that energy (from the sun) is streaming into it from elsewhere?


----------



## eots (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



create life where there is no life and you will have proven your theory


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Ah yes, the science is a religion argument.  How quaint.


----------



## eots (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



it seems more the domain of darwinist..not all science


----------



## eots (Aug 3, 2013)

While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically  String Theory.

Does String Theory Confirm the Bible? | Creation, Evolution, and Genesis


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Except that Darwinism is not the same as the theory of evolution.  Except that the theory of evolution is one of the most accepted scientific theories (accepted by virtually all scientists in all walks of life), and one of the most successful scientific theories of all time.  I'm sorry if you didn't get the memo.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

eots said:


> While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically  String Theory.
> 
> Does String Theory Confirm the Bible? | Creation, Evolution, and Genesis


----------



## eots (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically  String Theory.
> ...



Its funny watching these evolution fundamentalist resort to posting inane pictures when their _THEORY _is questioned..equally as amusing as when they say that the other simple does not understand what a _theory _means in scientific terms and that it is even greater than a fact..but for some reason when it come to scientific theories that may cause ripples in their rigid belief system this high regard for theory seems to diminish


----------



## eots (Aug 3, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY]Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



What's funny is that you believe that there is a question about whether evolution occurs or is a valid scientific paradigm.  It does occur, and is a valid scientific paradigm.  The only people who question it don't understand it or are afraid of what it implies.  That is the simple truth of the matter; whether or not you believe it is is irrelevant.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 3, 2013)

eots said:


> While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically  String Theory.
> 
> Does String Theory Confirm the Bible? | Creation, Evolution, and Genesis



The "quiet revolution" you claim is taking place is quiet for a very good reason: your conspiracy theories regarding aliens breeding with humans and living among us has never left obscure blogs of wacky conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 3, 2013)

eots said:


> Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube



Conspiracy theorists are always ripe for the picking with youtube videos. The producers of these silly videos (often fundamentalist creation ministries), can take "quotes", images, collections of 1950's vintage newsreels and snippets of out of context comments and combine it all into a five minute info-mercial to get the message "the gawds did it".


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically  String Theory.
> ...



One would have to be a few cards shy of a full deck to believe that kind of idiotic nonsense, don't you think?.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*So how is it getting more complex? *

A tree is more complex than an acorn.
An adult human is more complex than a fertilized human egg.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I think you folks differ on the definition of complex..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Try performing a heart transplant on a fertilized human egg.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 Your point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 Not true,humans have more complex traits. I can list the differences if you like. All life possesses complexity,but humans possess the most complexity.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Genetically, humans are less complex than many other life forms.  I'm afraid this is a fact that you are not going to be able to ignore.  The evidence is undeniable.  The fact that humans are physiologically and anatomically so similar to other mammals is readily demonstrated by the fact that were it not so, we would never have seen all the advances in medicine that we've seen in the past 100 years.  As a species, we are not as unique as you've been led to believe.


----------



## eots (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Well if that is the case we have ministers of defense from Britain and Canada..several of the men who walked on the moon and generals in charge of nuclear facilities all a few cards short of a full deck...all having the same shared delusion at the same time...I have a hard time accepting that is the case


----------



## eots (Aug 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube
> ...



I posted the sworn statements from 4 hrs of testimony from the disclosure project which included Apollo astronauts ,defense minister and top ranking military and high level NASA employees  who have petitioned congress and have stated their willingness to testify before congress under oath ..there was nothing from the 1950s newsreels..nothing was out of context and not one of these people said the gawds did it...this nonsense you spew is only you cognitive dissonance because this information challenges your belief system


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What does that have to do with YWC's misunderstanding of the 2nd Law or anything I've said on this thread?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You asked, 
How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?
Do you have head trauma?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I am a believer that genetic programming is the result of a intelligent programmer. The design  of all things both inanimate and animate is evidence of a designer. Natural processes arising would not be natural but supernaturalism.

Who or what could we infer is the cause of the processes by observing natural processes at work.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Does a closed system ,the universe. Have an effect on an open system such as the earth ?

I always get a chuckle when Evolutionlists try to make the argument of similarity between the chimp and human and I quickly point out the differences.  I would have earlier but did not have my pc. I was on my phone.  While 18 pairs of chromosomes are very similar, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show differences. Genes and markers are not in the same order. Y chromosome are different sizes and many of the markers do not line up.  
Scientists have also found non random regions that correspond with insertions in the human line. 
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes chimps have 24.  I am well aware of the explanation of two small chromosomes fusing in the chimp.  Chimps have around 23 kilobases same as other apes.  That is 1,000 dna base pairs.  Humans are very different  having much shorter telomeres 10 kilobases long.

I have taken many classes in science, not just biology.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So how do you explain how we evolved from other organisms ? oh and thanks for refuting your own argument that humans and chimps are related through genetic similarity.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I said in an earlier post that was a typo. I am still not convinced the earth is an open system but for the sake of argument, my question still stands.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No not science,only some theories.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Of course it is, you just added supposed mechanisms. Have you heard of Neo Darwinism ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The better term would be micro-adaptations not evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We both corrected your bad analogy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It is a small endangered species .there are many ways to take this point on. I will simply ask you how do you know that this species is not just a victim of a bad trait passed on or it got less complex ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



LOL!

Tell me again how the 2nd Law disproves evolution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



An organism that evolved into a sightless organism.

Is that more complex than its ancestor which could see?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You won't find any disagreement with me on that account.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The origin of biological complexity is directly related to the origin of function through an underlying connection between the two phenomena.  Thus the emergence of both function and complexity are found to be governed by the same single driving force, the drive toward greater dynamic kinetic stability.  If performing a specific task requires a certain amount of complexity, the function evolves to a point of stability.  It requires no more complexity than is required to perform the task.  On the other hand, some species, acting through their own artificial 'self selection' can evolve in unique and sometimes bizarre ways to perform what is outwardly a simple task.  Thus we have birds with brightly colored plumage that is used to attract mates and ward off rivals.  In this case, it is the female that is driving the complexity through her biased selection of mates.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I suspected that you would not answer my questions.  If you aren't going to answer them, there is nothing more to say here.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Erm, I did no such thing.  You are confused.

We evolved from other organisms exactly the same way every other organism evolved, through natural selection, though we also had a hand in our own evolution as well.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The earth doesn't require you to be convinced.  It isn't about you.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



If you truly believe that, then you don't understand scientific theories.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Darwinism originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been misused by creationists to refer to the origin of life and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution which have no connection to Darwin's work. It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin's, and his predecessors, work in place of other theories including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.[2][3]

The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on its context.[4] In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.[5]

The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860,[6] and was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts such as Spencerism. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later called Lamarckism. The strict neo-Darwinism of August Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During this period, which has been called "the eclipse of Darwinism", scientists proposed various alternative evolutionary mechanisms which eventually proved untenable. The development of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s, incorporating natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form.[7]

While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[5][8] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel,[9] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of yet more recent developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift for example.[10]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



There are two forms of evolution:  Microevolution and macroevolution.

The following article gives a succinct description of both.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



'Regressive Evolution' In Cavefish: Natural Selection Or Genetic Drift

Feb. 16, 2007  "Regressive evolution," or the reduction of traits over time, is the result of either natural selection or genetic drift, according to a study on cavefish by researchers at New York University's Department of Biology, the University of California at Berkeley's Department of Integrative Biology, and the Harvard Medical School.

Previously, scientists could not determine which forces contributed to regressive evolution in cave-adapted species, and many doubt the role of natural selection in this process. Darwin himself, who famously questioned the role of natural selection in eye loss in cave fishes, said, "As it is difficult to imagine that eyes, although useless, could be in any way injurious to animals living in darkness, I attribute their loss wholly to disuse."

The research appears in the most recent issue of the journal Current Biology. 

Cave adaptations have evolved in many species independently, and each cave species can be considered a replicate of the same evolutionary experiment that asks how species change in perpetual darkness. This makes cavefish a rich source for the examination of the evolutionary process.

In this study, the researchers examined the genetic basis of regressive evolution in the eyes and pigmentation of Mexican cavefish. To do so, they mapped the quantitative trait loci (QTL) determining differences in eye and lens sizes as well as the melanophore--or pigment cell--number between cave and surface fish. These QTL represent genes where new mutations arose in cave populations. To better understand the genetic basis for regressive evolution, they focused on two alternative explanations for regression: natural selection, in which beneficial DNA mutations become more common over time, and genetic drift, in which the frequencies of these mutations can rise or fall over time due solely to statistical variation.

Their results suggested that eyes and pigmentation regressed through different mechanisms. Mutations in cave populations that affected eye or lens size invariably caused size reductions. This observation is consistent with evolution by natural selection and inconsistent with evolution by genetic drift. By contrast, mutations in cave populations that affected pigmentation sometimes caused increases instead of decreases in pigment cell density, consistent with evolution by random processes and genetic drift.

Allaying Darwin's doubts about the role of natural selection in eye loss, the researchers suggest that the high metabolic cost of maintaining the retina is the source of selection against eyes in the cave. By contrast, no such great cost is associated with pigmentation--thus, the two traits regress for different reasons.


----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

*This guy Nails it...*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxUwaq00Rc]David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> *This guy Nails it...*
> 
> David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube



Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Discotute.



#24: David Berlinski 

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches throughâ¦Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative cows cannot evolve into whales argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play the skeptic (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks thats the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).


----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *This guy Nails it...*
> ...



you really are a zealot and a conspiracy theorist aren't your interesting how much like you this editorial blog uses nothing but empty  ad hominem attacks and strawmen as your main argument without actually addressing directly any of his views...


----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *This guy Nails it...*
> ...



thanks for posting this its _priceless_..the comparative  level of intellect between your crass blogger and David Berlinski speaks volumes on the issue


----------



## Hollie (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I can see you're infuriated that anyone would challenge your posted youtube video. 

Screeching about a zealot and a conspiracy theorist is really pointless and only serves to define your having no argument to present.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You have a need to further yet another conspiracy theory. 

How strange that Berlinski has associated himself with the Disco'tute. These frauds have a demonstrated pattern of phony claims.

Very strange how frauds and conspiracy theorists seem to find common ground.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Yeah, it is priceless. Your hope to further conspiracy theories by promoting such frauds as Berlinski and the Disco'tute is worth pointing out.


----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I find it equally interesting how you and your blogger both like to characterize anyone challenging your theories as being "angry" when in fact ..it is your blogger spewing out the name calling and obvious anger and David Berlinski who engages in a calm reasoned debate...you like to call others conspiracy theorist but almost every rebuttal of yours  suggest some conspiratorial motives for all that question your theory..its intresting to see how seems to mirror the behavior of christian fudamantalist


----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



lol..See ya did it again....


----------



## Hollie (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


A "calm, reasoned debate", does not indicate that Berlinski has anything valid or factual to offer. 

I think your need to believe in conspiracy theories colors your ability to operate in the rational world.

Maybe if you actually presented evidence instead of just floating conspiracy theories....


----------



## Hollie (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



lol. You're befuddled.

Floating conspiracy theories won't help when you're arguments are as baseless as your conspiracy theories.


----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



what conspiracy theory is that ?...you seem obsessed with conspiracy theories...it makes any reasoned discourse impossible


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *This guy Nails it...*
> ...



Indeed.  His arguments are about as insane as the looney stuff that Pat Robertson spews.  He claims that evolution is not real because women don't have tails.  He also has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science for that matter.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The fallacy lies in the name of that video. "*Science v's God*"? What utter nonsense. The first minute or so is clips from 1950's newsreels about the TofR. Granted no one in the video said anything about God but the believers are taking the statement "*Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it*" as if this is somehow "*proof*" of the existence of their deity.

The indisputable facts are that there is an issue with the mathematical reconciliation between Einstein's TofR and Quantum mathematics. This does NOT equate to a  "*Science v's God*" showdown at all. It is just an acknowledgement that we still need to figure out what is happening inside a singularity. 500 years ago the believers persecuted those who said that the earth was not the center of the universe. 25 years ago we had no evidence that there were planets around other stars. Given time this problem will be solved without the need for any "*supernatural entity*". 

In summary the limitations of our knowledge do *NOT* equate to proof that there is a God. That superstition was the foundation of religion. Religion is never going to provide the answer to this problem. Hard working scientists will eventually do so given enough time.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




A challenge to any scientific theory ALWAYS includes an argument for why an alternative theory better explains the evidence, and then presents that theory in detail with supporting, falsifiable, repeatable  evidence.  Simply declaring one's opposition to the theory with the rant na nana na na doesn't do it.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> *This guy Nails it...*
> 
> David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube



I have to agree if by "nails it" you mean that he panders shamelessly to the "anti-elitists" who consider advanced education to be a "sign of the devil"?


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *This guy Nails it...*
> ...



The theist will cling tooth and nail to thier belief including the last resort position nulear option of "the devil" as the reason for any logical argument against god.  

An intelligent human being not suffering from mental ilness has as much chance of presenting a lack of evidence of a diety to these people as one does entering the day room of a mental hospital and finding reason.

I joke about the religeous being crazy but the joke is not far from the truth.  They can make up as many "devils" as it takes to thwart the wall of scientific knowledge closing in around them.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I have, your theory violates the 2nd law I never said my theory violates the 2nd law. Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

What happens to earth when the universe reaches equilibrium ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




That would be devolution not evolution. You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Ok just because you disagree you are gonna take your cards and go home.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



YWC just proved that he doesn't even know what the term "devolution" means let alone understand the concepts of evolution. But to give YWC his due credit he is doing a magnificent job at destroying his own credibility thus saving us all the time and trouble.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



* Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.*

You have a problem with the fact that while entropy is increasing, across the universe, order can increase locally. It makes you look silly.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*That would be devolution not evolution.*

Scientifically, explain the difference.

*You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.*

Find some examples living outside of caves and your silly point might have some merit.

*You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell*

Can you try that again, in English?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



B.S. tactic to avoid a response.the theory of evolution and naturalism require huge amounts of faith, some are just not honest enough to admit it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh no I was wondering how long it would take you to quote something from talk origins. Look the science community extrapolates from micro-adaptations as evidence for macro- evolution. They extrapolate from natural cycles and processes for naturalism not having a clue how either could have arose unguided.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Do you understand neo darwinism ? this is the current most accepted theory of evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You really are so biased it clouds your thinking.  look up devolution and follow the conversation nitwit.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's possible BUT does not confirm it actually happened on this planet the way you claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They may be the result bad genetics.

They may be in their environment because they are blind. They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered.

You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.

Do you know they have very little data on this species ,and you are trying to make an argument solely on this species being blind ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*It's possible*

Increased local order is possible? Thanks for finally admitting your error.
I mean, claiming the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

*BUT does not confirm it actually happened on this planet the way you claim.*

You haven't seen increased local order? Are you a blind cave salamander?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*They may be in their environment because they are blind.*

Right. The blind salamanders just happened to find their way to a cave. 
Did they use little canes? Seeing eye dogs?

I think you should just sit there, you're being stupid again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.*

You never explained the difference between evolution and devolution.
If you don't mention the 2nd Law, there is a slight chance you won't look like an idiot.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I admit your claim is possible but unlikely. No I see order slowly moving towards disorder as the 2nd law claims now if that has been going on for 14 billion years we would not be here.

Look at the big picture. My theory is in complete agreement of the 2nd law yours is not, got it ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I admit your claim is possible but unlikely.*

Increased local order is unlikely?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The term evolution only adds confusion. The definition of evolution supports my claim for evolution having an arrow pointing towards complexity.

ev·o·lu·tion  
/&#716;ev&#601;&#712;lo&#862;oSH&#601;n/
Noun

    The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
    The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

The difference between micro-adaptations which is what is observed is an aid to survival of ones environment.

dev·o·lu·tion  
/&#716;dev&#601;&#712;lo&#862;oSH&#601;n/
Noun

    The transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, esp. by central government to local or regional administration.
    Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.

Synonyms
transfer - degeneration

Devolution is what is observed in the whole universe in agreement with the 2nd law.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Take your own advice and discover that you misused the term "devolution" because you erroneously assumed it to mean the opposite of evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why should I just sit back ? because I actually cause you to think, is that the problem ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Pointing out your errors requires almost no thinking.

Which is still much more thinking than you've done on this thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



An increase in order without being unguided ? 

You see the order you observe now has been in existence since it's creation and is slowly decreasing.

Did you know that there are theories of the universe reaching equilibrium within 5 billion years conveniently about the time the sun will lose it's energy ?

So what has been happening for 14 or 15 billion years ?

So in the last 4.5 billion years complex life arose and now is gonna be no more in 5 billion years ? The evidence does not support natural causes that complexity arose. It would be in defiance of the 2nd law as creationists have stated for many years.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Evolution

The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form

Devolution

Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.

Yep they are the opposite. Is that not what Todd was inferring with his blind salamander species ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Pat yourself on your back. I am not the one feeling threatened to where I need to resort to insults. You have an ego problem and don't take correction well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Let me know where you ever corrected me. LOL!

Your idiocy doesn't threaten me, it tires me.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Aw you were corrected just not willing to admit it.

Why do you keep posting if that is the case ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Why do you keep avoiding questions put to you Todd ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Show me.

For some reason, I think even the dumbest can learn.
You're beginning to change my mind.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The conversation has dried up unless you respond to the questions put to you.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How strange that ywc now claims to believe in evolution... now that it's convenient because his earlier denial as to the mechanism has been shot down in flames.


----------



## dblack (Aug 4, 2013)




----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Nice use of the strawman again...lol


----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



given a few billion years maybe...


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Thank you for conceding your ignorance. Simply because a subspecies of salamander has *EVOLVED* by adapting to an environment where there is no light and therefore no need for eyes is NOT "devolution" or even "degeneration to a lower or worse state" for that matter. The physical toll of maintaining an expensive organ like the eyes when they provide no survival benefit in that environment is simply not worth it so these salamanders have *EVOLVED* to make better use of their bodies physical resources. 

Before descending from the trees mankind had tails. We still have vestigal remnants of them. By ridding ourselves of our tails you would allege that we have "devolved" and "degenerated to a lower or worse state". Instead our bodies* EVOLVED* because we no longer needed our tails and those resources were better utilized elsewhere. 

As usual you have no grasp of the subject matter that you claim to have "expert" knowledge about from your "education" at the University of Arizona.


----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Nice story..


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Oh ye of little faith!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Substantiated by the facts provided in this post by Oregenicman.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/300473-why-is-naturalism-considered-scientific-and-creationism-is-not-post7638337.html#poststop


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Posting what someone has said is not a strawman.  Try again.


----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Trying to equate him to Pat Robertson is a classic example of a strawman and you lose all credibility when you do it..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You lied about correcting me, and I'm getting tired of mocking your idiocy, so you may be right.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 4, 2013)

It is a really simple argument the OP has presented.  

Why shouldn't believing in myths and sky fairies not be just as plausable as not believing in myths and sky fairies.

Having the "right" to believe in made up nonsense including god does not gaurantee that the scientific community need to give your made up crap any validity.

"Faith" has zero worth as evidense.  Multipy one mans faith by a billion(guesstimated number of christians) and you still have zero factual evidense that a god does or ever has existed.

Yes..it is possible and almost certain that a billion people can and are wrong.  You have had over 3000 years including the Jews to make your case for a god.  That is a lot of time.  That is a lot of time wasted.  

Archeology and what we like to call modern scientific method, free from the suffocating preasures, and yes the threatening of the very lives of those seeking true knowledge, free of the church, has only been around a tiny fraction of the time honest fact based knowledge and discovery have been applied to our earth's history.  Many billions of scientific investigations have discovered many billions of answers and solved many billions of pieces of the puzzel.

Not being able to prove a few things 100%(yet) is not equal to not being able to prove anything 100%.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





I have always claimed to believe in Micro-evolution, and the better term for it was micro-adaptations. Did you slip and hit your head  ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Run off child. quit trying to mask your ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



According to a few theories you only have 5 billion years left but I believe it's really much less than that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Both orogenicman and I corrected you on your poor analogy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are embarrassed and have to react like hollie would,don't worry I am use to it. Now can you start responding to my questions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Wrong on both counts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your idiocy does not embarass me.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Complete and utter rubbish.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 4, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Right, because that would be too demeaning to Pat Robertson.


----------



## eots (Aug 4, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So he counters that argument with the reverse strawman...lol


----------



## Hollie (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That's strange when you always claimed evolution was false. You're quite befuddled.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I respond to your lies and falsehoods. I counter your falsehoods with facts. That is why you react with such pith and vinegar. 

I've been a positive influence on you. I've noticed a marked reduction in your cutting and pasting of falsified "quotes". After you were repeatedly exposed as a fraud for your cut and pasted lies, you did learn that those lies were a simple matter to debunk.


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 5, 2013)

THe OP is a strawman because naturalism is not considered "scientific." Science can only take place within a naturalistic framework, by definition, because the natural what is detectable, testable, and therefore able to be theorized . This is known as methodological naturalism, which doesn't make any claims about reality. The OP fails to make this distinction, and therefore is fueling a debate based on this ambiguity. It is arguing against metaphysical naturalism, which is a strawman, since science does not claim what metaphysical naturalism claims, which is that the natural universe is all that actually exists. Two totally different things. To reiterate, the OP attempts to pigeon hole all naturalism into "metaphysical naturalism" and call this scientific, when science makes no claims about the composition of reality, it merely tests what is available, which is the natural universe, and hence, necessarily abides by methodological naturalism, which doesn't claim that the natural universe is all that exists, but is bound to it for its methodology to work.

A little intellectual honesty would be nice from the creationists around here, please.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Anyone can visit the creationist thread to show you're are mistaken or deliberately lying.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No hollie, I know enough to speak for myself, I just copy and paste out of convenience when I have to keep repeating the same things over and over until it sinks in.


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I've been to that thread. I've partaken in it. Nowhere in it have you, nor anyone else, shown your position to be sound or valid, or Hollie's to be the opposite. It's humorous to witness your victorious posturing when you succeeded nowhere in proving your supernatural claims, nor disproving the scientific claims with respect to evolution in the 1200+ pages of that thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Really ? because the 2nd law calls for equilibrium to come to the universe about the time of the sun losing it's energy. Both happen to be theories.

Yes the universe suffered entropy for to long for life to arise on earth when it supposedly did.


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And You know this... how? Please demonstrate. 

Claims are easy to make. Backing them up is another thing altogether. Let's see it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The one befuddled is yourself because I am speaking of macro-evolution. You don't understand the difference with all the lessons  you have gotten from me by now.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Which I addressed and you conveniently ignored.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> THe OP is a strawman because naturalism is not considered "scientific." Science can only take place within a naturalistic framework, by definition, because the natural what is detectable, testable, and therefore able to be theorized . This is known as methodological naturalism, which doesn't make any claims about reality. The OP fails to make this distinction, and therefore is fueling a debate based on this ambiguity. It is arguing against metaphysical naturalism, which is a strawman, since science does not claim what metaphysical naturalism claims, which is that the natural universe is all that actually exists. Two totally different things. To reiterate, the OP attempts to pigeon hole all naturalism into "metaphysical naturalism" and call this scientific, when science makes no claims about the composition of reality, it merely tests what is available, which is the natural universe, and hence, necessarily abides by methodological naturalism, which doesn't claim that the natural universe is all that exists, but is bound to it for its methodology to work.
> 
> A little intellectual honesty would be nice from the creationists around here, please.



Hmm so you put naturalism in the same category as creationism but deny the evidence of a designer and believe that origins was not result of design but natural processes. Kinda contradicting yourself there.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Gee, even more utter and complete rubbish.

The sun is ALWAYS losing energy.  That is not theory.  That is observed fact.  Next.


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no appreciable difference between micro and macro evolution, since the two are arbitrarily and subjectively defined and this ambiguity, again on the creationist side, lends its to moving the goal posts in debate whenever it is convenient for them to do so. This is a clever ad hoc distinction invented by creationists to deal with changes that we can detect in the laboratory, and that they can't refute. The fact is, speciation events have been detected in laboratories, which is "macro-evolution". Most importantly, with respect to the claims of only "micro-evolution" being genetically possible, you would need to provide a genetic regulatory mechanism that would act as a barrier to evolution only going as far as the "micro" level for this distinction to be possible, and also, a sufficient reason for this barrier to exist. You haven't yet done either of these things, other than macro-evolution would refute your position. When does the genome that is changing due to genetic drift "know" that it is has reached its limit as far as micro-evolution, and therefore has to stop before reaching a macro-evolutionary change, according to your framework? You have yet to explain this.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I am not refuting real science, only pseudoscience. Yes I have I have dealt with the origins of life, and showed the faulty reasoning on Dna similarity. I have also dealt with the problems of the evolution mechanisms.

Your response had nothing to do with the post you quoted.


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I realize that you think you have deal with it, but you haven't, only in the usual creationist way of faulty logic, bad argumentation, and zero evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Well let's see, since the time the universe has come in to existence supposedly, the universe has been experiencing entropy with an increase. The more disorder over time the less chance for order to be restored and you needed order for life to arise naturally.

This is exactly why creation makes more sense with the available evidence because creation was done through order and according to the 2nd law has been heading towards disorder ever since creation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Bullshit ? especially if you add the evidence for Punctuated Equilibrium. The terms were produced by evolutionists and for a reason. Don't give me your bate and switch copout answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...




The faulty logic is not mine.


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Okay. I can agree with your first sentence, but you have completely failed in demonstrating how life couldn't have arisen naturally, because you are implicitly and arbitrarily assigning time values to entropy's increase of value, and saying abiogenesis necessarily would have happened after this point. How do you know this, since you have no objective quantitative measure of the increase of entropy, or how little is required for life to begin? You have a long way to go here.


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Punctuated Equilibrium is not some embedded defeater for evolution within the theory itself, as you wish it to be. It is an apt description for the facts we see, and you have no evidence to preclude it is a possibility.


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > THe OP is a strawman because naturalism is not considered "scientific." Science can only take place within a naturalistic framework, by definition, because the natural what is detectable, testable, and therefore able to be theorized . This is known as methodological naturalism, which doesn't make any claims about reality. The OP fails to make this distinction, and therefore is fueling a debate based on this ambiguity. It is arguing against metaphysical naturalism, which is a strawman, since science does not claim what metaphysical naturalism claims, which is that the natural universe is all that actually exists. Two totally different things. To reiterate, the OP attempts to pigeon hole all naturalism into "metaphysical naturalism" and call this scientific, when science makes no claims about the composition of reality, it merely tests what is available, which is the natural universe, and hence, necessarily abides by methodological naturalism, which doesn't claim that the natural universe is all that exists, but is bound to it for its methodology to work.
> ...



You obviously didn't understand anything of what I wrote. It's hard to respond to you, therefore. Which naturalism are we talking about? You need to make a distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. If it is metaphysical naturalism you are referring to, then this is not considered more scientific, and your OP fails definitionally. It is merely incidental that many scientists are metaphysical naturalists, but that is not logically connected to the idea that metaphysical naturalism is more "scientific" itself.  If by naturalism you are referring to methodological naturalism, then you're OP also fails, since there are no truth claims being made bout the constitution of reality by methodological naturalism, only about what can be studied. It is also tautological that methodological naturalism is considered scientific, since by definition, since science can only study what is in the natural universe. If it could study the supernatural, it would cease to be the supernatural. However, this form of naturalism is not a worldview, as is metaphysical naturalism. So, either way, you're OP fails, no matter which form of naturalism you pick. I don't expect you to understand this, and I may not have explained it extremely clearly, but basically, you are not defining what form of naturalism you are referring to in the OP. I suspect it is metaphysical naturalism, the belief that only the natural exists, in which case, it is not considered more scientific. You are conflating methodological and metaphysical naturalism to make your point, which is a basic category mistake. OP fail.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Where does the 2nd Law give a time frame for the universe to "come to equilibrium"?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are completely flummoxed with regard to thermodynamics, aren't you?  

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated (closed) system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibriumthe state of maximum entropy."

Again, the universe is a closed system, one where the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies.  The same cannot be said for terrestrial life forms because they are not closed (isolated) systems.  You eat, you breath, you eliminate waste, the Earth receives energy from outside (in the form of sunlight).  Neither you nor the Earth are closed systems.  Your body is continuously renewed, you constantly grow new cells to replace dying ones.  That's why you must eat food and drink water, to provide more energy and raw materials for these renewal processes.  The universe cannot do this because it has all the matter and energy it will ever have and has ever had.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


to eots there is no difference...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 5, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it's  what he does best!
next he'll rationalize it and claim "you" aren't intelligent enough to understand it .


----------



## daws101 (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


you left out this little gem:"They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered."-YWC..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


WOW SLAPDICK ! BLIND SALAMANDERS like all other life forms that live in lightless environments they  evolved to thrive in that environment .
their blindness is not a degradation or devolution, (where the fuck did you get that idea?)
it's an adaptation to conditions like all evolution.
visible light sensing organs are useless in a lightless environment.
an easy analogy: use it or lose it.
life forms  living in lightless condition are as complex and healthy as their "seeing" counterparts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That is correct and it will one day give off no more energy, it's been figured mathematically at 5 billion years from now.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



If you understood how hard it would be for a new trait to arise from a mutation, and spread through the whole population, you would see the impossibility of punctuated equilibrium.

The current mutation rate is to slow and traits from mutations do not spread through the complete population as the theory claims.

Things were created as they are and if any new trait arises it is because the genetic information was already present in the Genome.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



Once again natural processes and cycles exist but it is because of of programmed information. If a natural process or cycle arose, it would do so because it was being guided.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It don't,it was mathematically figured. The theory of the universe coming to equilibrium exists because there are some that believe the universe has no choice but to reach equilibrium because of the 2nd law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*It don't,it was mathematically figured. *

Great. Show me the calculation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...



When the sun is no more and the universe experiences maximum entropy what will this open system do ?

If you can't see the effects of the 2nd law right now all around you,you're blind.


----------



## eots (Aug 5, 2013)

youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > youwerecreated said:
> ...



give or take a few billion ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Couldn't locate the calculation but look up the theory of the Big Crunch and the Big Rip..

The one I read said 5 billion years, hell they don't know, just throwing figures out there.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 5, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Time: How long does the sun have left? - Bing Videos


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I could explain the difference between the Sun and the Universe, but I'm afraid it might go over your head.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The sun obeys the laws of thermodynamics because it is a closed system.  The Earth, however, is not a closed system.  It gains energy - from the sun.  And when the sun dies, and it will eventually, it won't matter if the Earth then becomes a closed system - it won't because it will be destroyed when the sun dies.  And that is something else entirely.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Standard fundie Christian boilerplate, thoroughly debunked and discarded. 


CB101.2: Mutations and new features.

_Claim CB101.2:
Mutations only vary traits that are already there. They do not produce anything new._

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 103. 
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 51. 



Response:
1. Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution. 


2. Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:  the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985); 
 adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975); 
 the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980); 
 evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998); 
 modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984); 
 evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984); 

 There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:  Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000). 

 Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004) 


3. For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > newpolitics said:
> ...


two humans are not a viable beginning for the human race..
just how many babies could eve produce before she ran out of eggs or hit menopause
not to mention did adam lose his testosterone at the same rate as modern men.?


----------



## eots (Aug 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



with cloning technology the possibilities are endless...


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 5, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuGkMu751K8]Dylan, B Springsteen -All Along The Watchtower-Forever Young - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Have at it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Agreed, but clearly the earth is affected by the 2nd law.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The second law applies to closed systems.  The Earth is not a closed system.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



True, but YWC must be a closed system because nothing is getting through to him.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Indeed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I understand this.

Then maybe they have wrongly defined what the earth is because it is clear everything on this planet eventually decays unless they are maintained in some way.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



True, my body is experiencing a slow drift towards disorder.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The difference is that without the input of energy from the sun, there would be no life at all.  So life is indeed maintained, and this happens because we have a healthy energy budget coming from the sun.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yeah. That must be it. "They" have it wrong because science conflicts with your worldview which is based upon a literal interpretation of the bibles.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yep without the sun we would definitely not exist, and it does give us the energy needed to survive our life cycle. eventually though the nutrients we take in is not enough and our bodies break down and we eventually die.

Same as our cars ,homes,and everything around us.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No it doesn't, only unfounded theories you claim is science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Yep without the sun we would definitely not exist, and it does give us the energy needed to survive our life cycle.*

That energy which allows evolution to occur. Despite your 2nd Law confusion. Excellent!


----------



## Hollie (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What "unfounded" theories are you babbling about?

Not all scientific theories are "law". Is the theory of gravity "unfounded"? How about Special Relativity?

How about conservation of energy? Do we throw it out because of biblical tales and fables?

Do the bibles supply the theory of magic which supplant natural laws?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, but without the external energy (food, water, sunlight), we would not only die much faster, we would not even exist.  The 2nd law only applies for isolated (closed) systems.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?


----------



## eots (Aug 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



conservation of energy and gravity are laws...unlike for example sting theory


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Sting theory?  Is that like when you tell what you consider to be a biting joke but end up falling flat on your face?

I don't think anyone here is arguing that string (note spelling) theory is a scientific law.  But neither is it something you can simply set aside.  Just so we are clear, you cannot say "it is only a theory".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You will one day understand the life cycle is not evolution, and you will see the down side of that programmed cycle some day.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I believe that is what I said. Maybe the earth is defined wrong because you see the effects of the 2nd law all around you why is this hard for you to grasp ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Predictable. When your arguments fail, you typically resort to threats / warnings of judgements from the gods. 

You're really in no position to be judging others.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

I believe several theories that are widely accepted are accepted based on to much conjecture.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I believe several theories that are widely accepted are accepted based on to much conjecture.



Of course you do, dear.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Hollie it is a fact once an organism reaches it's prime, it is all down hill from there .now do you need an explanation of this observed fact ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I believe several theories that are widely accepted are accepted based on to much conjecture.
> ...



When a theories strongest arguments come from conjecture it is not a very good theory.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What is the benchmark, the standard by which we define an organism's "prime"?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, dear.

How utterly pointless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'll just be happy to see you no longer repeating your 2nd Law errors.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No one here said anything about life cycles (i.e, development).  How confused can you get?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Because you are confused about how thermodynamics works in living organisms.

Thermodynamics of Living Systems



> Living systems are composed of complex molecular configurations whose total bonding energy is less negative than that of their chemical precursors (e.g., Morowitz's estimate of E = 0.27 ev/atom) and whose thermal and configurational entropies are also less than that of their chemical precursors. Thus, the Gibbs free energy of living systems (see equation 7-6) is quite high relative to the simple compounds from which they are formed. The formation and maintenance of living systems at energy levels well removed from equilibrium requires continuous work to be done on the system, even as maintenance of hot water in a water heater requires that continuous work be done on the system. Securing this continuous work requires energy and/or mass flow through the system, apart from which the system will return to an equilibrium condition (lowest Gibbs free energy, see equations 7-7 and 7-8) with the decomposition of complex molecules into simple ones, just as the hot water in our water heater returns to room temperature once the gas is shut off.
> 
> In living plants, the energy flow through the system is supplied principally by solar radiation. In fact, leaves provide relatively large surface areas per unit volume for most plants, allowing them to "capture" the necessary solar energy to maintain themselves far from equilibrium. This solar energy is converted into the necessary useful work (negative Se in equation 7-11) to maintain the plant in its complex, high-energy configuration by a complicated process called photosynthesis. Mass, such as water and carbon dioxide, also flows through plants, providing necessary raw materials, but not energy. In collecting and storing useful energy, plants serve the entire biological world.
> 
> ...



Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life



> Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Molton has defined life as "regions of order which use energy to maintain their organization against the disruptive force of entropy."1 In Chapter 7 it has been shown that energy and/or mass flow through a system can constrain it far from equilibrium, resulting in an increase in order. Thus, it is thermodynamically possible to develop complex living forms, assuming the energy flow through the system can somehow be effective in organizing the simple chemicals into the complex arrangements associated with life.
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Life is a cycle and the cycle is determined by your genes.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So what?  Evolution is not cyclic.  Are you on drugs?  No comment on my reply #2046?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You do not notice conjecture when you post it ? specifically the origins article.

The other why would I not understand that since I already mentioned how the energy from the sun helps humans through the energy that is transferred from the food we eat and it must be broken down in to chemicals and taken in for the reproduction of cells.

I love the comment from complex molecules to simple molecules. There is no such thing as a simple molecule. Physics not my specialty but molecular biology that is a different story.

Summarize for me what you just posted. I would like to see if you understand what you posted.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Where an organism is at it's maximum fit. I would say for humans late 20's or early 30's.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



H2 is a very simple molecule.  In fact, it is as simple as it gets.

I have a much better idea.  Since you claim to understand molecular biology (your statement about it being conjecture indicates that you understand far less than you suppose), you summarize it, and I'll tell you if you are correct.  And that way, I'll know if you not only read it, but understand it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That is correct because evolution is not in the programming of the organism which makes it less likely for evolution to occur.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I already mentioned how the energy from the sun helps humans through the energy that is transferred from the food we eat*

Now you see why we mocked your earlier 2nd Law idiocy.

*Physics not my specialty *

Obviously.

*but molecular biology that is a different story.*

Molecular biology is your specialty? LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*That is correct because evolution is not in the programming of the organism *

Who said it was? Link?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You posted it if you don't understand it why would you post it ? I already broke it down for you that is what I thought 

Here I will help you out. The sun=energy it benefits the plants = leaves or food leaves or food=chloroplast chloroplast=sugars sugars=ordered sugar molecules.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> You posted it if you don't understand it why would you post it ? I already broke it down for you that is what I thought
> 
> Here I will help you out. The sun=energy it benefits the plants = leaves or food leaves or food=chloroplast chloroplast=sugars sugars=ordered sugar molecules.



I have to ask...

Are you a farce? Is this whole thing a put on? Dude, you're like something out of the Onion...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So you think a mutation can force it's will on the genetic information even though there are mechanisms correcting most mutations ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 6, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > You posted it if you don't understand it why would you post it ? I already broke it down for you that is what I thought
> ...



So you didn't understand how the sun benefits living organisms in producing elements crucial to preserving organisms alive ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


it's possible sting could have a theory...after all he did write synchronicity...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Sting theory?  Is that like when you tell what you consider to be a biting joke but end up falling flat on your face?
> 
> I don't think anyone here is arguing that string (note spelling) theory is a scientific law.  But neither is it something you can simply set aside.  Just so we are clear, you cannot say "it is only a theory".



*
Sting theory* is the theory of an ego-maniacal bass player who turns out to have far less talent than he imagines and really did need his band mates after all.



Glad I could help with that...


----------



## eots (Aug 6, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Sting theory?  Is that like when you tell what you consider to be a biting joke but end up falling flat on your face?
> ...



Precisely !

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w5W1oulwSI]STRING THEORY by eots - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 7, 2013)

*EPIC..*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uG3qC6KBw]Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate by wiser Christian professor - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

eots said:


> *EPIC..*
> 
> Agnostic Richard Dawkins destroyed in debate by wiser Christian professor - YouTube



That was an awesome debate,I watched it several months ago. Priceless turning the athiest and agnostic question on them. There question is who created God ? and Lennox knocks dawkins off balance with the universe created you who or what created the universe ?

Dawkins was not gonna take the bate by attempting an answer to that question, where Lennox would jump on him with even more difficult unanswered questions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Here I will help you out. The sun=energy it benefits the plants = leaves or food leaves or food=chloroplast chloroplast=sugars sugars=ordered sugar molecules. *

Living things created more complex, more ordered, higher energy molecules?
Don't tell the creationists, they'll mumble something about the 2nd Law.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > *EPIC..*
> ...


really? what debate were you watching?

http://shockawenow.webs.com/ a god and gamer site! now that's credible.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 7, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/TjxZ6MrBl9E]Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## newpolitics (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 
There are no mechanisms correcting any mutations during meiosis, and this is sexual reproduction. If you are claiming there is, explain during which phase of Meisosis this would happen, and how it would know what to repair, since the whole point of Meiosis is to produce a viable gamete from both parental chromosomes, producing new genetic information, which means there is no template against which to make any repairs.

"Homologous recombination is a type of genetic recombination in which nucleotide sequences are exchanged between two similar or identical molecules of DNA. It is most widely used by cells to accurately repair harmful breaks that occur on both strands of DNA, known as double-strand breaks. Homologous recombination also produces new combinations of DNA sequences during meiosis, the process by which eukaryotes make gamete cells, like sperm and egg cells in animals. These new combinations of DNA represent genetic variation in offspring, which in turn enables populations to adapt during the course of evolution.[1] Homologous recombination is also used in horizontal gene transfer to exchange genetic material between different strains and species of bacteria and viruses."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homologous_recombination


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Don't tell the evolutionists this is not evolution or getting more complex this is simply a programmed cycle.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



This debate took place at University of Alabama at birmingham. Yep it's a conspiracy!


----------



## Hollie (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your babbling gets more absurd by the moment.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism - YouTube



Game set match 

So the creator used the same elements as he did for all organisms similarity proves nothing. That is merely called an inference.

Did you not understand what I posted concerning humans and chimps and other apes ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


TO YOU it MUST BE.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Dawkins: One Fact to Refute Creationism - YouTube
> ...


you have no proof of a creator so anything taken from that is based on false premise....game set match ! slapdick!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Since the evolutionists didn't bring up the 2nd law, your comment is rightly ridiculed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

newpolitics said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The only mutations passed on during meiosis are germline mutations. Germline mutations do have repair mechanisms not sure where you got your information but it is bad information. 

DNA repair mechanisms in mammalian germ c... [Histol Histopathol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

You also have enzymes correcting copying errors during Dna replication.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You need new material dumbshit!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


naw!  on the other hand you need actual facts not fairy tales.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Clearly you have given no example of my view being wrong concerning the 2nd law.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I just provided some and corrected your buddy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

Anyways it is time to ignore daws and hollie again.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes he has ever time you have mentioned it.
but ass always your not man enough to admit you're wrong..

here's more links proving you wrong..
 A superior list of links to scientific views of evolution as well as to the whole spectrum of creationist sites is in http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html

        A scientific analysis of the problems creationists face in asserting that the second law is somehow an obstacle to evolution is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

        A brief, but very substantive, response to creationists&#8217; attributing false implications to thermodynamics is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html

        A well-reasoned summary, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith" by a chemical physicist, who is also a devout Christian is in his Web page http://steamdoc.s5.com

For info from NASA on substances in space: http://www.astrochem.org


----------



## daws101 (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


only in your dreams! what's it like to be so desperate..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Anyways it is time to ignore daws and hollie again.


of course it is, all the best chicken shit posters do it!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your side has claimed evolution can't happen, because the 2nd Law says things tend toward less energy, less order. Clearly, as even photosynthesis shows, with added energy, more ordered, more complex, higher energy molecules can form.

Wasn't that your sides view of the 2nd Law? 
If not, please explain what your view of the 2nd Law is.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thank me for providing you ammunition and making my job harder. 

I believe I stated it poorly in the past posts. Creationists view is not that it prevents an increase in order that things actually have a normal tendency to go towards disorder.

The earth is a closed system yes but the sun produces forces on the earth that produce entropy. The energy from the sun needs to be organized to decrease entropy or it will be random and increase entropy.

Now do you understand how random mutations would greatly affect evolution or the origins of life for that matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Creationists view is not that it prevents an increase in order that things actually have a normal tendency to go towards disorder.*

Without adding energy, they do. 
So what? Why does that make evolution impossible?
Because energy is added to Earth, after all.

*The earth is a closed system *

No, it really isn't. And you should stop confusing closed and isolated.
It makes your "point" muddled.

*but the sun produces forces on the earth that produce entropy. *

Please explain further, in your own words.

*The energy from the sun needs to be organized to decrease entropy or it will be random and increase entropy.*

Your continued use of the word "organized" has nothing to do with your attempt to use physics in your argument. You should stop using it.

*Now do you understand how random mutations would greatly affect evolution *

I should think it was obvious that mutations are part of evolution.
Do you suppose anyone on "my side" of this issue has ever claimed otherwise?
If so, where?
If not, do you feel you're scoring some point here?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 7, 2013)

Todd

Just adding energy does not produce order. Evolution is a solely a random process what happens with random processes in a system ? it will increase entropy. Yes energy is added to earth but unusable energy can and does produce harm.

Sorry once again I called earth a closed system when it is actually an open system.

Uv rays damage skin and our eyes.It can cause cancer and cause harmful mutations. The suns energy also causes oxidation on paint etc. Not all energy from the sun is organized and this is some of the examples of damage caused by non organized energy.

Wrong because unuasble energy which is unorganized, can't do work and that unusable energy increases entropy.

Random processes, such as random mutations,will increase entropy and disorder not order and complexity. The point is random mutations do not do as your side claims.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Todd
> 
> Just adding energy does not produce order. Evolution is a solely a random process what happens with random processes in a system ? it will increase entropy. Yes energy is added to earth but unusable energy can and does produce harm.
> 
> ...



*Just adding energy does not produce order.*

In the case of photosynthesis, it certainly does.

*Evolution is a solely a random process what happens with random processes in a system ?* 

It apparently turned bacteria into you. The effort may have been wasted.

*Not all energy from the sun is organized *

None of the energy from the sun is organized.
*
Random processes, such as random mutations,will increase entropy and disorder not order and complexity. *

That's an interesting claim.

*The point is random mutations do not do as your side claims.*

That's another one.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Todd
> 
> Just adding energy does not produce order. Evolution is a solely a random process what happens with random processes in a system ? it will increase entropy. Yes energy is added to earth but unusable energy can and does produce harm.



Except that evolution is not a random process, because its primary forcing, natural selection, is not random.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Todd
> ...



Copying errors and breaks in Dna strands are not random ?

Natural selection can produce both complexity or a less adapted organisms and that is not random ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Todd
> ...



That would seem to be evidence for purposeful design. where would we be without plants and the sun ?

Bacteria in to me,you can prove this how ?

You're now contradicting yourself. You just pointed to photosynthesis as evidence if that energy was not ordered so it could do work ,it would also harm the plants.

Would you like to compare mutations by the numbers. All the beneficial mutations you can confirm vs the harmful mutations that can be confirmed ?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The argument for design is very similar to the argument for a finely tuned universe.  The problem with both is that, for instance, there is no evidence that the universe is finely tuned for life and plenty for just the opposite, that life is finely tuned for the universe, having evolved in order to adapt to it.  Not only is there no evidence for a finely tuned universe, if it has a divine designer, he should give up his day job, because, damn.

I mean, what engineer in his right mind would create an entertainment center right next to a sewer system?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*That would seem to be evidence for purposeful design.*

You skipped a few steps there. LOL!

*where would we be without plants and the sun ?*

Hungry and in the dark?

*You're now contradicting yourself. *

No, just contradicting you.

*You just pointed to photosynthesis as evidence if that energy was not ordered so it could do work *

ESL? Photosynthesis shows you don't understand the 2nd Law.

*Would you like to compare mutations by the numbers.*

As soon as you admit your 2nd Law error, we can try to move the discussion forward.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I understand it you however don't understand photosynthesis.

The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories


CHAPTER 7
Thermodynamics of Living Systems
It is widely held that in the physical sciences the laws of thermodynamics have had a unifying effect similar to that of the theory of evolution in the biological sciences. What is intriguing is that the predictions of one seem to contradict the predictions of the other. The second law of thermodynamics suggests a progression from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, in the physical universe. Yet biological evolution involves a hierarchical progression to increasingly complex forms of living systems, seemingly in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. Whether this discrepancy between the two theories is only apparent or real is the question to be considered in the next three chapters. The controversy which is evident in an article published in the American Scientist 1 along with the replies it provoked demonstrates the question is still a timely one.
The First Law of Thermodynamics
Thermodynamics is an exact science which deals with energy. Our world seethes with transformations of matter and energy. Be these mechanical or chemical, the first law of thermodynamics---the principle of the Conservation of Energy---tells us that the total energy of the universe or any isolated part of it will be the same after any such transformation as it was before. A major part of the science of thermodynamics is accounting---giving an account of the energy of a system that has undergone some sort of transformation. Thus, we derive from the first law of thermodynamics that the change in the energy of a system (E) is equal to the work done on (or by) the system (W) and the heat flow into (or out of) the system (Q) Mechanical work and energy are interchangeable, i.e., energy may be converted into mechanical work as in a steam engine, or mechanical work can be converted into energy as in the heating of a cannon which occurs as its barrel is bored. In mathematical terms (where the terms are as previously defined):

E = Q + W (7-1)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics describes the flow of energy in nature in processes which are irreversible. The physical significance of the second law of thermodynamics is that the energy flow in such processes is always toward a more uniform distribution of the energy of the universe. Anyone who has had to pay utility bills for long has become aware that too much of the warm air in his or her home during winter escapes to the outside. This flow of energy from the house to the cold outside in winter, or the flow of energy from the hot outdoors into the air-conditioned home in the summer, is a process described by the second law of thermodynamics. The burning of gasoline, converting energy "rich" compounds (hydrocarbons) into energy "lean" compounds, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H20), is a second illustration of this principle.

The concept of entropy (S) gives us a more quantitative way to describe the tendency for energy to flow in a particular direction. The entropy change for a system is defined mathematically as the flow of energy divided by the temperature, or,

S [Q / T] (7-2)

where S is the change in entropy, Q is the heat flow into or out of a system, and T is the absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin (K).

    [Note: For a reversible flow of energy such as occurs under equilibrium conditions, the equality sign applies. For irreversible energy flow, the inequality applies.]

A Driving Force

If we consider heat flow from a warm house to the outdoors on a cold winter night, we may apply equation 7-2 as follows:

ST = Shouse + Soutdoors - Q / T1 + Q / T2 (7-3)

where Sr is the total entropy change associated with this irreversible heat flow, T1 is the temperature inside the house, and T2 is the temperature outdoors. The negative sign of the first term notes loss of heat from the house, while the positive sign on the second term recognizes heat gained by the outdoors. Since it is warmer in the house than outdoors (T1 > T2), the total entropy will increase (Sr > 0) as a result of this heat flow. If we turn off the heater in the house, it will gradually cool until the temperature approaches that of the outdoors, i.e., T1 = T2. When this occurs, the entropy change (S) associated with heat flow (Q) goes to zero. Since there is no further driving force for heat flow to the outdoors, it ceases; equilibrium conditions have been established.

As this simple example shows, energy flow occurs in a direction that causes the total energy to be more uniformly distributed. If we think about it, we can also see that the entropy increase associated with such energy flow is proportional to the driving force for such energy flow to occur. The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe (or any isolated system therein) is increasing; i.e., the energy of the universe is becoming more uniformly distributed.

It is often noted that the second law indicates that nature tends to go from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity. If the most random arrangement of energy is a uniform distribution, then the present arrangement of the energy in the universe is nonrandom, since some matter is very rich in chemical energy, some in thermal energy, etc., and other matter is very poor in these kinds of energy. In a similar way, the arrangements of mass in the universe tend to go from order to disorder due to the random motion on an atomic scale produced by thermal energy. The diffusional processes in the solid, liquid, or gaseous states are examples of increasing entropy due to random atomic movements. Thus, increasing entropy in a system corresponds to increasingly random arrangements of mass and/or energy.

Entropy and Probability

There is another way to view entropy. The entropy of a system is a measure of the probability of a given arrangement of mass and energy within it. A statistical thermodynamic approach can be used to further quantify the system entropy. High entropy corresponds to high probability. As a random arrangement is highly probable, it would also be characterized by a large entropy. On the other hand, a highly ordered arrangement, being less probable, would represent a lower entropy configuration. The second law would tell us then that events which increase the entropy of the system require a change from more order to less order, or from less-random states to more-random states. We will find this concept helpful in Chapter 9 when we analyze condensation reactions for DNA and protein.

Clausius2, who formulated the second law of thermodynamics, summarizes the laws of thermodynamics in his famous concise statement: "The energy of the universe is constant; the entropy of the universe tends toward a maximum." The universe moves from its less probable current arrangement (low entropy) toward its most probable arrangement in which the energy of the universe will be more uniformly distributed.
Life and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
How does all of this relate to chemical evolution? Since the important macromolecules of living systems (DNA, protein, etc.) are more energy rich than their precursors (amino acids, heterocyclic bases, phosphates, and sugars), classical thermodynamics would predict that such macromolecules will not spontaneously form.

Roger Caillois has recently drawn this conclusion in saying, "Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right."3 This prediction of classical thermodynamics has, however, merely set the stage for refined efforts to understand life's origin. Harold Morowitz4 and others have suggested that the earth is not an isolated system, since it is open to energy flow from the sun. Nevertheless, one cannot simply dismiss the problem of the origin of organization and complexity in biological systems by a vague appeal to open-system non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The mechanisms responsible for the emergence and maintenance of coherent (organized) states must be defined. To clarify the role of mass and energy flow through a system as a possible solution to this problem, we will look in turn at the thermodynamics of (1) an isolated system, (2) a closed system, and (3) an open system. We will then discuss the application of open-system thermodynamics to living systems. In Chapter 8 we will apply the thermodynamic concepts presented in this chapter to the prebiotic synthesis of DNA and protein. In Chapter 9 this theoretical analysis will be used to interpret the various prebiotic synthesis experiments for DNA and protein, suggesting a physical basis for the uniform lack of success in synthesizing these crucial components for living cells.

Isolated Systems

An isolated system is one in which neither mass nor energy flows in or out. To illustrate such a system, think of a perfectly insulated thermos bottle (no heat loss) filled initially with hot tea and ice cubes. The total energy in this isolated system remains constant but the distribution of the energy changes with time. The ice melts and the energy becomes more uniformly distributed in the system. The initial distribution of energy into hot regions (the tea) and cold regions (the ice) is an ordered, nonrandom arrangement of energy, one not likely to be maintained for very long. By our previous definition then, we may say that the entropy of the system is initially low but gradually increases with time. Furthermore, the second law of thermodynamics says the entropy of the system will continue to increase until it attains some maximum value, which corresponds to the most probable state for the system, usually called equilibrium.

In summary, isolated systems always maintain constant total energy while tending toward maximum entropy, or disorder. In mathematical terms,

E / t = 0

(isolated system)

S / t 0 (7-4)

where E and S are the changes in the system energy and system entropy respectively, for a time interval t. Clearly the emergence of order of any kind in an isolated system is not possible. The second law of thermodynamics says that an isolated system always moves in the direction of maximum entropy and, therefore, disorder.

It should be noted that the process just described is irreversible in the sense that once the ice is melted, it will not reform in the thermos. As a matter of fact, natural decay and the general tendency toward greater disorder are so universal that the second law of thermodynamics has been appropriately dubbed "time's arrow."5

Closed Systems near Equilibrium

A closed system is one in which the exchange of energy with the outside world is permitted but the exchange of mass is not. Along the boundary between the closed system and the surroundings, the temperature may be different from the system temperature, allowing energy flow into or out of the system as it moves toward equilibrium. If the temperature along the boundary is variable (in position but not time), then energy will flow through the system, maintaining it some distance from equilibrium. We will discuss closed systems near equilibrium first, followed by a discussion of closed systems removed from equilibrium next.

If we combine the first and second laws as expressed in equations 7-1 and 7-2 and replace the mechanical work term W by P V, where P is pressure and V is volume change, we obtain,

    [NOTE: Volume expansion (V> 0) corresponds to the system doing work, and therefore losing energy. Volume contraction
    (V 0) corresponds to work being done on the system].

S [E + P V] / [T] (7-5)

Algebraic manipulation gives

E + P V - T S 0 or G 0 (7-6)

where

G = E + P V - T S

The term on the left side of the inequality in equation 7-6 is called the change in the Gibbs free energy (G). It may be thought of as a thermodynamic potential which describes the tendency of a system to change---e.g., the tendency for phase changes, heat conduction, etc. to occur. If a reaction occurs spontaneously, it is because it brings a decrease in the Gibbs free energy (G 0). This requirement is equivalent to the requirement that the entropy of the universe increase. Thus, like an increase in entropy, a decrease in Gibbs free energy simply means that a system and its surroundings are changing in such a way that the energy of the universe is becoming more uniformly distributed.

We may summarize then by noting that the second law of thermodynamics requires,

G / t 0, (closed system) (7-7)

where t indicates the time period during which the Gibbs free energy changed.

The approach to equilibrium is characterized by,

G / t 0, (closed system) (7-8)

The physical significance of equation 7-7 can be understood by rewriting equations 7-6 and 7-7 in the following form:

[S / t] - [ 1 / T (E / t + P V / t)] 0 (7-9)

or

(S / t ) - (1 / T H / t ) 0

and noting that the first term represents the entropy change due to processes going on within the system and the second term represents the entropy change due to exchange of mechanical and/or thermal energy with the surroundings. This simply guarantees that the sum of the entropy change in the system and the entropy change in the surroundings will be greater than zero; i.e., the entropy of the universe must increase. For the isolated system, E + P V = 0 and equation 7-9 reduces to equation 7-4.

A simple illustration of this principle is seen in phase changes such as water transforming into ice. As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surrounding. The change in the entropy of the system as the amorphous water becomes crystalline ice is -0.293 entropy units (eu)/degree Kelvin (K). The entropy change is negative because the thermal and configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal.

    [NOTE: Confirgurational entropy measures randomness in the distribution of matter in much the same way that thermal entropy measures randomness in the distribution of energy].

Thus, the thermodynamic conditions under which water will transform to ice are seen from equation 7-9 to be:

-0.293 - (-80 / T) > 0 (7-l0a)

or

T 273oK (7-l0b)

For condition of T 273oK energy is removed from water to produce ice, and the aggregate disordering of the surroundings is greater than the ordering of the water into ice crystals. This gives a net increase in the entropy of the universe, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.

It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however. The E + P V term (equation 7-9) in the polymerization of important organic molecules is generally positive (5 to 8 kcal/mole), indicating the reaction can never spontaneously occur at or near equilibrium.

    [NOTE: If E + P V is positive, the entropy term in eq 7 9 must be negative due to the negative sign which preceeds it. The inequality can only be satisfied by S being sufficiently positive, which implies disordenng].

By contrast the E + P V term in water changing to ice is a negative, -1.44 kcal/mole, indicating the phase change is spontaneous as long as T 273oK, as previously noted. The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force, T S) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.

Morowitz6 has estimated the increase in the chemical bonding energy as one forms the bacterium Escherichia coli from simple precursors to be 0.0095 erg, or an average of 0.27 ev/ atom for the 2 x 1010 atoms in a single bacterial cell. This would be thermodynamically equivalent to having water in your bathtub spontaneously heat up to 360oC, happily a most unlikely event. He goes on to estimate the probability of the spontaneous formation of one such bacterium in the entire universe in five billion years under equilibrium conditions to be 10-1011. Morowitz summarizes the significance of this result by saying that "if equilibrium processes alone were at work, the largest possible fluctuation in the history of the universe is likely to have been no longer than a small peptide."7 Nobel Laureate I. Prigogine et al., have noted with reference to the same problem that:

    The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.8

It seems safe to conclude that systems near equilibrium (whether isolated or closed) can never produce the degree of complexity intrinsic in living systems. Instead, they will move spontaneously toward maximizing entropy, or randomness. Even the postulate of long time periods does not solve the problem, as "time's arrow" (the second law of thermodynamics) points in the wrong direction; i.e., toward equilibrium. In this regard, H.F. Blum has observed:

    The second law of thermodynamics would have been a dominant directing factor in this case [of chemical evolution]; the reactions involved tending always toward equilibrium, that is, toward less free energy, and, in an inclusive sense, greater entropy. From this point of view the lavish amount of time available should only have provided opportunity for movement in the direction of equilibrium.9 (Emphasis added.)

Thus, reversing "time's arrow" is what chemical evolution is all about, and this will not occur in isolated or closed systems near equilibrium.

The possibilities are potentially more promising, however, if one considers a system subjected to energy flow which may maintain it far from equilibrium, and its associated disorder. Such a system is said to be a constrained system, in contrast to a system at or near equilibrium which is unconstrained. The possibilities for ordering in such a system will be considered next.

Closed Systems Far from Equilibrium

Energy flow through a system is the equivalent to doing work continuously on the system to maintain it some distance from equilibrium. Nicolis and Prigoginelo have suggested that the entropy change (S) in a system for a time interval (t) may be divided into two components.

S = Se + Si (7-11)

where Se is the entropy flux due to energy flow through the system, and Si is the entropy production inside the system due to irreversible processes such as diffusion, heat conduction, heat production, and chemical reactions. We will note when we discuss open systems in the next section that Se includes the entropy flux due to mass flow through the system as well. The second law of thermodynamics requires,

Si 0 (7-12)

In an isolated system, Se = 0 and equations 7-11 and 7-12 give,

S =Si 0 (7-13)

Unlike Si, Se in a closed system does not have a definite sign, but depends entirely on the boundary constraints imposed on the system. The total entropy change in the system can be negative (i.e., ordering within system) when,

Se 0 and | Se | > Si (7-14)

Under such conditions a state that would normally be highly improbable under equilibrium conditions can be maintained indefinitely. It would be highly unlikely (i.e., statistically just short of impossible) for a disconnected water heater to produce hot water. Yet when the gas is connected and the burner lit, the system is constrained by energy flow and hot water is produced and maintained indefinitely as long as energy flows through the system.

An open system offers an additional possibility for ordering---that of maintaining a system far from equilibrium via mass flow through the system, as will be discussed in the next section.

An open system is one which exchanges both energy and mass with the surroundings. It is well illustrated by the familiar internal combustion engine. Gasoline and oxygen are passed through the system, combusted, and then released as carbon dioxide and water. The energy released by this mass flow through the system is converted into useful work; namely, torque supplied to the wheels of the automobile. A coupling mechanism is necessary, however, to allow the released energy to be converted into a particular kind of work. In an analagous way the dissipative (or disordering) processes within an open system can be offset by a steady supply of energy to provide for (S) Se type work. Equation 7-11, applied earlier to closed systems far from equilibrium, may also be applied to open systems. In this case, the Se term represents the negative entropy, or organizing work done on the system as a result of both energy and mass flow through the system. This work done to the system can move it far from equilibrium, maintaining it there as long as the mass and/or energy flow are not interrupted. This is an essential characteristic of living systems as will be seen in what follows.
Thermodynamics of Living Systems
Living systems are composed of complex molecular configurations whose total bonding energy is less negative than that of their chemical precursors (e.g., Morowitz's estimate of E = 0.27 ev/atom) and whose thermal and configurational entropies are also less than that of their chemical precursors. Thus, the Gibbs free energy of living systems (see equation 7-6) is quite high relative to the simple compounds from which they are formed. The formation and maintenance of living systems at energy levels well removed from equilibrium requires continuous work to be done on the system, even as maintenance of hot water in a water heater requires that continuous work be done on the system. Securing this continuous work requires energy and/or mass flow through the system, apart from which the system will return to an equilibrium condition (lowest Gibbs free energy, see equations 7-7 and 7-8) with the decomposition of complex molecules into simple ones, just as the hot water in our water heater returns to room temperature once the gas is shut off.

In living plants, the energy flow through the system is supplied principally by solar radiation. In fact, leaves provide relatively large surface areas per unit volume for most plants, allowing them to "capture" the necessary solar energy to maintain themselves far from equilibrium. This solar energy is converted into the necessary useful work (negative Se in equation 7-11) to maintain the plant in its complex, high-energy configuration by a complicated process called photosynthesis. Mass, such as water and carbon dioxide, also flows through plants, providing necessary raw materials, but not energy. In collecting and storing useful energy, plants serve the entire biological world.

For animals, energy flow through the system is provided by eating high energy biomass, either plant or animal. The breaking down of this energy-rich biomass, and the subsequent oxidation of part of it (e.g., carbohydrates), provides a continuous source of energy as well as raw materials. If plants are deprived of sunlight or animals of food, dissipation within the system will surely bring death. Maintenance of the complex, high-energy condition associated with life is not possible apart from a continuous source of energy. A source of energy alone is not sufficient, however, to explain the origin or maintenance of living systems. The additional crucial factor is a means of converting this energy into the necessary useful work to build and maintain complex living systems from the simple biomonomers that constitute their molecular building blocks.

An automobile with an internal combustion engine, transmission, and drive chain provides the necessary mechanism for converting the energy in gasoline into comfortable transportation. Without such an "energy converter," however, obtaining transportation from gasoline would be impossible. In a similar way, food would do little for a man whose stomach, intestines, liver, or pancreas were removed. Without these, he would surely die even though he continued to eat. Apart from a mechanism to couple the available energy to the necessary work, high-energy biomass is insufficient to sustain a living system far from equilibrium. In the case of living systems such a coupling mechanism channels the energy along specific chemical pathways to accomplish a very specific type of work. We therefore conclude that, given the availability of energy and an appropriate coupling mechanism, the maintenance of a living system far from equilibrium presents no thermodynamic problems.

In mathematical formalism, these concepts may be summarized as follows:

(1) The second law of thermodynamics requires only that the entropy production due to irreversible processes within the system be greater than zero; i.e.,

Si > 0 (7-15)

(2) The maintenance of living systems requires that the energy flow through the system be of sufficient magnitude that the negative entropy production rate (i.e., useful work rate) that results be greater than the rate of dissipation that results from irreversible processes going on within the systems; i.e.,

| Se | > Si (7-16)

(3) The negative entropy generation must be coupled into the system in such a way that the resultant work done is directed toward restoration of the system from the disintegration that occurs naturally and is described by the second law of thermodynamics; i.e.,

- Se = Si (7-17)

where Se and Si refer not only to the magnitude of entropy change but also to the specific changes that occur in the system associated with this change in entropy. The coupling must produce not just any kind of ordering but the specific kind required by the system.

While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in terms of thermodynamics, the origin of such living systems is quite another matter. Though the earth is open to energy flow from the sun, the means of converting this energy into the necessary work to build up living systems from simple precursors remains at present unspecified (see equation 7-17). The "evolution" from biomonomers of to fully functioning cells is the issue. Can one make the incredible jump in energy and organization from raw material and raw energy, apart from some means of directing the energy flow through the system? In Chapters 8 and 9 we will consider this question, limiting our discussion to two small but crucial steps in the proposed evolutionary scheme namely, the formation of protein and DNA from their precursors.

It is widely agreed that both protein and DNA are essential for living systems and indispensable components of every living cell today.11 Yet they are only produced by living cells. Both types of molecules are much more energy and information rich than the biomonomers from which they form. Can one reasonably predict their occurrence given the necessary biomonomers and an energy source? Has this been verified experimentally? These questions will be considered in Chapters 8 and 9.

Thermodynamics of Living Systems


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

Todd.

The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories


CHAPTER 8
Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life
Peter Molton has defined life as "regions of order which use energy to maintain their organization against the disruptive force of entropy."1 In Chapter 7 it has been shown that energy and/or mass flow through a system can constrain it far from equilibrium, resulting in an increase in order. Thus, it is thermodynamically possible to develop complex living forms, assuming the energy flow through the system can somehow be effective in organizing the simple chemicals into the complex arrangements associated with life.

In existing living systems, the coupling of the energy flow to the organizing "work" occurs through the metabolic motor of DNA, enzymes, etc. This is analogous to an automobile converting the chemical energy in gasoline into mechanical torque on the wheels. We can give a thermodynamic account of how life's metabolic motor works. The origin of the metabolic motor (DNA, enzymes, etc.) itself, however, is more difficult to explain thermodynamically, since a mechanism of coupling the energy flow to the organizing work is unknown for prebiological systems. Nicolis and Prigogine summarize the problem in this way:

    Needless to say, these simple remarks cannot suffice to solve the problem of biological order. One would like not only to establish that the second law (dSi 0) is compatible with a decrease in overall entropy (dS < 0), but also to indicate the mechanisms responsible for the emergence and maintenance of coherent states.2

Without a doubt, the atoms and molecules which comprise living cells individually obey the laws of chemistry and physics, including the laws of thermodynamics. The enigma is the origin of so unlikely an organization of these atoms and molecules. The electronic computer provides a striking analogy to the living cell. Each component in a computer obeys the laws of electronics and mechanics. The key to the computer's marvel lies, however, in the highly unlikely organization of the parts which harness the laws of electronics and mechanics. In the computer, this organization was specially arranged by the designers and builders and continues to operate (with occasional frustrating lapses) through the periodic maintenance of service engineers.

Living systems have even greater organization. The problem then, that molecular biologists and theoretical physicists are addressing, is how the organization of living systems could have arisen spontaneously. Prigogine et al., have noted:

    All these features bring the scientist a wealth of new problems. In the first place, one has systems that have evolved spontaneously to extremely organized and complex forms. Coherent behavior is really the characteristic feature of biological systems.3

In this chapter we will consider only the problem of the origin of living systems. Specifically, we will discuss the arduous task of using simple biomonomers to construct complex polymers such as DNA and protein by means of thermal, electrical, chemical, or solar energy. We will first specify the nature and magnitude of the "work" to be done in building DNA and enzymes.

    [NOTE: Work in physics normally refers to force times displacement. In this chapter it refers in a more general way to the change in Gibbs free energy of the system that accompanies the polymerization of monomers into polymers].

In Chapter 9 we will describe the various theoretical models which attempt to explain how the undirected flow of energy through simple chemicals can accomplish the work necessary to produce complex polymers. Then we will review the experimental studies that have been conducted to test these models. Finally we will summarize the current understanding of this subject.

How can we specify in a more precise way the work to be done by energy flow through the system to synthesize DNA and protein from simple biomonomers? While the origin of living systems involves more than the genesis of enzymes and DNA, these components are essential to any system if replication is to occur. It is generally agreed that natural selection can act only on systems capable of replication. This being the case, the formation of a DNA/enzyme system by processes other than natural selection is a necessary (though not sufficient) part of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

    [NOTE: A sufficient explanation for the origin of life would also require a model for the formation of other critical cellular components, including membranes, and their assembly].

Order vs. Complexity in the Question of Information
Only recently has it been appreciated that the distinguishing feature of living systems is complexity rather than order.4 This distinction has come from the observation that the essential ingredients for a replicating system---enzymes and nucleic acids---are all information-bearing molecules. In contrast, consider crystals. They are very orderly, spatially periodic arrangements of atoms (or molecules) but they carry very little information. Nylon is another example of an orderly, periodic polymer (a polyamide) which carries little information. Nucleic acids and protein are aperiodic polymers, and this aperiodicity is what makes them able to carry much more information. By definition then, a periodic structure has order. An aperiodic structure has complexity. In terms of information, periodic polymers (like nylon) and crystals are analogous to a book in which the same sentence is repeated throughout. The arrangement of "letters" in the book is highly ordered, but the book contains little information since the information presented---the single word or sentence---is highly redundant.

It should be noted that aperiodic polypeptides or polynucleotides do not necessarily represent meaningful information or biologically useful functions. A random arrangement of letters in a book is aperiodic but contains little if any useful information since it is devoid of meaning.

    [NOTE: H.P. Yockey, personal communication, 9/29/82. Meaning is extraneous to the sequence, arbitrary, and depends on some symbol convention. For example, the word "gift," which in English means a present and in German poison, in French is meaningless].

Only certain sequences of letters correspond to sentences, and only certain sequences of sentences correspond to paragraphs, etc. In the same way only certain sequences of amino acids in polypeptides and bases along polynucleotide chains correspond to useful biological functions. Thus, informational macro-molecules may be described as being and in a specified sequence.5 Orgel notes:

    Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.6

Three sets of letter arrangements show nicely the difference between order and complexity in relation to information:

    1. An ordered (periodic) and therefore specified arrangement:

    THE END THE END THE END THE END

    Example: Nylon, or a crystal.

        [NOTE: Here we use "THE END" even though there is no reason to suspect that nylon or a crystal would carry even this much information. Our point, of course, is that even if they did, the bit of information would be drowned in a sea of redundancy].


    2. A complex (aperiodic) unspecified arrangement:

    AGDCBFE GBCAFED ACEDFBG

    Example: Random polymers (polypeptides).

    3. A complex (aperiodic) specified arrangement:

    THIS SEQUENCE OF LETTERS CONTAINS A MESSAGE!

    Example: DNA, protein.

Yockey7 and Wickens5 develop the same distinction, that "order" is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as could might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, "organization" refers to physical systems and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts. Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity. In short, the redundant order of crystals cannot give rise to specified complexity of the kind or magnitude found in biological organization; attempts to relate the two have little future.
Information and Entropy
There is a general relationship between information and entropy. This is fortunate because it allows an analysis to be developed in the formalism of classical thermodynamics, giving us a powerful tool for calculating the work to be done by energy flow through the system to synthesize protein and DNA (if indeed energy flow is capable of producing information). The information content in a given sequence of units, be they digits in a number, letters in a sentence, or amino acids in a polypeptide or protein, depends on the minimum number of instructions needed to specify or describe the structure. Many instructions are needed to specify a complex, information-bearing structure such as DNA. Only a few instructions are needed to specify an ordered structure such as a crystal. In this case we have a description of the initial sequence or unit arrangement which is then repeated ad infinitum according to the packing instructions.

Orgel9 illustrates the concept in the following way. To describe a crystal, one would need only to specify the substance to be used and the way in which the molecules were to be packed together. A couple of sentences would suffice, followed by the instructions "and keep on doing the same," since the packing sequence in a crystal is regular. The description would be about as brief as specifying a DNA-like polynucleotide with a random sequence. Here one would need only to specify the proportions of the four nucleotides in the final product, along with instructions to assemble them randomly. The chemist could then make the polymer with the proper composition but with a random sequence.

It would be quite impossible to produce a correspondingly simple set of instructions that would enable a chemist to synthesize the DNA of an E. coli bacterium. In this case the sequence matters. Only by specifying the sequence letter-by-letter (about 4,000,000 instructions) could we tell a chemist what to make. Our instructions would occupy not a few short sentences, but a large book instead!

Brillouin,10 Schrodinger,11 and others12 have developed both qualitative and quantitative relationships between information and entropy. Brillouin,13 states that the entropy of a system is given by

S = k ln (8-1)

where S is the entropy of the system, k is Boltzmann's constant, and corresponds to the number of ways the energy and mass in a system may be arranged.

We will use Sth and Sc to refer to the thermal and configurational entropies, respectively. Thermal entropy, Sth, is associated with the distribution of energy in the system. Configurational entropy Sc is concerned only with the arrangement of mass in the system, and, for our purposes, we shall be especially interested in the sequencing of amino acids in polypeptides (or proteins) or of nucleotides in polynucleotides (e.g., DNA). The symbols th and c refer to the number of ways energy and mass, respectively, may be arranged in a system.

Thus we may be more precise by writing

S = k lnth c = k lnth + k lnc = Sth + Sc (8-2A)

where

Sth = k lnth (8-2b)

and

Sc = k lnc (8-2c)

Determining Information: From a Random Polymer to an Informed Polymer

If we want to convert a random polymer into an informational molecule, we can determine the increase in information (as defined by Brillouin) by finding the difference between the negatives of the entropy states for the initial random polymer and the informational molecule:

I = - (Scm - Scr) (8-3A),

I = Scr - Scm (8-3b),

= k lncr - k lncm (8-3c)

In this equation, I is a measure of the information content of an aperiodic (complex) polymer with a specified sequence, Scm represents the configurational "coding" entropy of this polymer informed with a given message, and Scr represents the configurational entropy of the same polymer for an unspecified or random sequence.

    [NOTE: Yockey and Wickens define information slightly differently than Brilloum, whose definition we use in our analysis. The difference is unimportant insofar as our analysis here is concerned].

Note that the information in a sequence-specified polymer is maximized when the mass in the molecule could be arranged in many different ways, only one of which communicates the intended message. (There is a large Scr from eq. 8-2c since cr is large, yet Scm = 0 from eq. 8-2c since cm = 1.) The information carried in a crystal is small because Sc is small (eq. 8-2c) for a crystal. There simply is very little potential for information in a crystal because its matter can be distributed in so few ways. The random polymer provides an even starker contrast. It bears no information because Scr, although large, is equal to Scm (see eq. 8-3b).

In summary, equations 8-2c and 8-3c quantify the notion that only specified, aperiodic macromolecules are capable of carrying the large amounts of information characteristic of living systems. Later we will calculate "c" for both random and specified polymers so that the configurational entropy change required to go from a random to a specified polymer can be determined. In the next section we will consider the various components of the total work required in the formation of macromolecules such as DNA and protein.
DNA and Protein Formation:
Defining the Work

There are three distinct components of work to be done in assembling simple biomonomers into a complex (or aperiodic) linear polymer with a specified sequence as we find in DNA or protein. The change in the Gibbs free energy, G, of the system during polymerization defines the total work that must be accomplished by energy flow through the system. The change in Gibbs free energy has previously been shown to be

G = E + P V - T S (8-4a)

or

G = H - T S (8-4b)

where a decrease in Gibbs free energy for a given chemical reaction near equilibrium guarantees an increase in the entropy of the universe as demanded by the second law of thermodynamics.

Now consider the components of the Gibbs free energy (eq. 8-4b) where the change in enthalpy (H) is principally the result of changes in the total bonding energy (E), with the (P V) term assumed to be negligible. We will refer to this enthalpy component (H) as the chemical work. A further distinction will be helpful. The change in the entropy (S) that accompanies the polymerization reaction may be divided into two distinct components which correspond to the changes in the thermal energy distribution (Sth) and the mass distribution (Sc), eq. 8-2. So we can rewrite eq. 8-4b as

G = H - TSth - T Sc (8-5)

that is,

(Gibbs free energy) = (Chemical work) - (Thermal entropy work) - (Configurational entropy work)

It will be shown that polymerization of macromolecules results in a decrease in the thermal and configurational entropies (Sth 0, Sc 0). These terms effectively increase G, and thus represent additional components of work to be done beyond the chemical work.

Consider the case of the formation of protein or DNA from biomonomers in a chemical soup. For computational purposes it may be thought of as requiring two steps: (1) polymerization to form a chain molecule with an aperiodic but near-random sequence, and (2) rearrangement to an aperiodic, specified information-bearing sequence.

    [NOTE: Some intersymbol influence arising from differential atomic bonding properties makes the distribution of matter not quite random. (H.P. Yockey, 1981. J. Theoret. Biol. 91,13)]. 

The entropy change (S) associated with the first step is essentially all thermal entropy change (Sth), as discussed above. The entropy change of the second step is essentially all configurational entropy reducing change (Sc). In fact, as previously noted, the change in configurational entropy (Sc) = Sc "coding" as one goes from a random arrangement (Scr) to a specified sequence (Scm) in a macromolecule is numerically equal to the negative of the information content of the molecule as defined by Brillouin (see eq. 8-3a).

In summary, the formation of complex biological polymers such as DNA and protein involves changes in the chemical energy, H, the thermal entropy, Sth, and the configurational entropy, Sc, of the system. Determining the magnitudes of these individual changes using experimental data and a few calculations will allow us to quantify the magnitude of the required work potentially to be done by energy flow through the system in synthesizing macromolecules such as DNA and protein.

Quantifying the Various Components of Work

1. Chemical Work

The polymerization of amino acids to polypeptides (protein) or of nucleotides to polynucleotides (DNA) occurs through condensation reactions. One may calculate the enthalpy change in the formation of a dipeptide from amino acids to be 5-8 kcal/mole for a variety of amino acids, using data compiled by Hutchens.14 Thus, chemical work must be done on the system to get polymerization to occur. Morowitz15 has estimated more generally that the chemical work, or average increase in enthalpy, for macromolecule formation in living systems is 16.4 cal/gm. Elsewhere in the same book he says that the average increase in bonding energy in going from simple compounds to an E. coli bacterium is 0.27 ev/atom. One can easily see that chemical work must be done on the biomonomers to bring about the formation of macromolecules like those that are essential to living systems. By contrast, amino acid formation from simple reducing atmosphere gases (methane, ammonia, water) has an associated enthalpy change (H) of -50 kcal/mole to -250 kcal/ mole,16 which means energy is released rather than consumed. This explains why amino acids form with relative ease in prebiotic simulation experiments. On the other hand, forming amino acids from less-reducing conditions (i.e., carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water) is known to be far more difficult experimentally. This is because the enthalpy change (H) is positive, meaning energy is required to drive the energetically unfavorable chemical reaction forward.
2. Thermal Entropy Work
Wickens17 has noted that polymerization reactions will reduce the number of ways the translational energy may be distributed, while generally increasing the possibilities for vibrational and rotational energy. A net decrease results in the number of ways the thermal energy may be distributed, giving a decrease in the thermal entropy according to eq. 8-2b (i.e., Sth 0). Quantifying the magnitude of this decrease in thermal entropy (Sth ) associated with the formation of a polypeptide or a polynucleotide is best accomplished using experimental results.

Morowitz18 has estimated that the average decrease in thermal entropy that occurs during the formation of macromolecules of living systems in 0.218 cal/deg-gm or 65 cal/gm at 298oK. Recent work by Armstrong et al.,19 for nucleotide oligomerization of up to a pentamer indicates H and -T Sth values of 11.8 kcal/mole and 15.6 kcal/mole respectively, at 294K. Thus the decrease in thermal entropy during the polymerization of the macromolecules of life increases the Gibbs free energy and the work required to make these molecules, i.e., -T Sth > 0.
3. Configurational Entropy Work
Finally, we need to quantify the configurational entropy change (Sc) that accompanies the formation of DNA and protein. Here we will not get much help from standard experiments in which the equilibrium constants are determined for a polymerization reaction at various temperatures. Such experiments do not consider whether a specific sequence is achieved in the resultant polymers, but only the concentrations of randomly sequenced polymers (i.e., polypeptides) formed. Consequently, they do not measure the configurational entropy (Sc) contribution to the total entropy change (S). However, the magnitude of the configurational entropy change associated with sequencing the polymers can be calculated.

Using the definition for configurational "coding" entropy given in eq. 8-2c, it is quite straightforward to calculate the configurational entropy change for a given polymer. The number of ways the mass of the linear system may be arranged (c) can be calculated using statistics. Brillouin20 has shown that the number of distinct sequences one can make using N different symbols and Fermi-Dirac statistics is given by

= N! (8-6)

If some of these symbols are redundant (or identical), then the number of unique or distinguishable sequences that can be made is reduced to

c = N! / n1!n2!n2!...ni! (8-7)

where n1 + n2 + ... + ni = N and i defines the number of distinct symbols. For a protein, it is i =20, since a subset of twenty distinctive types of amino acids is found in living things, while in DNA it is i = 4 for the subset of four distinctive nucleotides. A typical protein would have 100 to 300 amino acids in a specific sequence, or N = 100 to 300. For DNA of the bacterium E. coli, N = 4,000,000. In Appendix 1, alternative approaches to calculating c are considered and eq. 8-7 is shown to be a lower bound to the actual value.

For a random polypeptide of 100 amino acids, the configurational entropy, Scr, may be calculated using eq. 8-2c and eq. 8-7 as follows:

Scr = k lncr

since cr = N! / n1!n2!...n20! = 100! / 5!5!....5! = 100! / (5!)20

= 1.28 x 10115 (8-8)

The calculation of equation 8-8 assumes that an equal number of each type of amino acid, namely 5, are contained in the polypeptide. Since k, or Boltzmann's constant, equals 1.38 x 10-16 erg/deg, and ln [1.28 x 10115] = 265,

Scr = 1.38 x 10-16 x 265 = 3.66 x 10-14 erg/deg-polypeptide

If only one specific sequence of amino acids could give the proper function, then the configurational entropy for the protein or specified, aperiodic polypeptide would be given by

Scm = k lncm
= k ln 1
= 0
(8-9)

Determining scin Going from a Random Polymer to an Informed Polymer

The change in configurational entropy, Sc, as one goes from a random polypeptide of 100 amino acids with an equal number of each amino acid type to a polypeptide with a specific message or sequence is:

Sc = Scm - Scr

= 0 - 3.66 x 10-14 erg/deg-polypeptide
= -3.66 x 10-14 erg/deg-polypeptide (8-10)

The configurational entropy work (-T Sc) at ambient temperatures is given by

-T Sc = - (298oK) x (-3.66 x 10-14) erg/deg-polypeptide
= 1.1 x 10-11 erg/polypeptide
= 1.1 x 10-11 erg/polypeptide x [6.023 x 1023 molecules/mole] / [10,000 gms/mole] x [1 cal] / 4.184 x 107 ergs

= 15.8 cal/gm (8-11)

where the protein mass of 10,000 amu was estimated by assuming an average amino acid weight of 100 amu after the removal of the water molecule. Determination of the configurational entropy work for a protein containing 300 amino acids equally divided among the twenty types gives a similar result of 16.8 cal/gm.

In like manner the configurational entropy work for a DNA molecule such as for E. coli bacterium may be calculated assuming 4 x 106 nucleotides in the chain with 1 x 106 each of the four distinctive nucleotides, each distinguished by the type of base attached, and each nucleotide assumed to have an average mass of 339 amu. At 298oK:

-T Sc = -T (Scm - Scr)

= T ( Scr - Scm)

= kT ln (cr - lncm)

= kT ln [(4 x 106)! / (106)!(106)!(106)!(106)!] - kT ln 1

= 2.26 x 10-7 erg/polynucleotide

= 2.39 cal/gm 8-12

It is interesting to note that, while the work to code the DNA molecule with 4 million nucleotides is much greater than the work required to code a protein of 100 amino acids (2.26 x 10-7 erg/DNA vs. 1.10 x 10-11 erg/protein), the work per gram to code such molecules is actually less in DNA. There are two reasons for this perhaps unexpected result: first, the nucleotide is more massive than the amino acid (339 amu vs. 100 amu); and second, the alphabet is more limited, with only four useful nucleotide "letters" as compared to twenty useful amino acid letters. Nevertheless, it is the total work that is important, which means that synthesizing DNA is much more difficult than synthesizing protein.

It should be emphasized that these estimates of the magnitude of the configurational entropy work required are conservatively small. As a practical matter, our calculations have ignored the configurational entropy work involved in the selection of monomers. Thus, we have assumed that only the proper subset of 20 biologically significant amino acids was available in a prebiotic oceanic soup to form a biofunctional protein. The same is true of DNA. We have assumed that in the soup only the proper subset of 4 nucleotides was present and that these nucleotides do not interact with amino acids or other soup ingredients. As we discussed in Chapter 4, many varieties of amino acids and nucleotides would have been present in a real ocean---varieties which have been ignored in our calculations of configurational entropy work. In addition, the soup would have contained many other kinds of molecules which could have reacted with amino acids and nucleotides. The problem of using only the appropriate optical isomer has also been ignored. A random chemical soup would have contained a 50-50 mixture of D- and L-amino acids, from which a true protein could incorporate only the Lenantiomer. Similarly, DNA uses exclusively the optically active sugar D-deoxyribose. Finally, we have ignored the problem of forming unnatural links, assuming for the calculations that only CL-links occurred between amino acids in making polypeptides, and that only correct linking at the 3', 5'-position of sugar occurred in forming polynucleotides. A quantification of these problems of specificity has recently been made by Yockey.21

The dual problem of selecting the proper composition of matter and then coding or rearranging it into the proper sequence is analogous to writing a story using letters drawn from a pot containing many duplicates of each of the 22 Hebrew consonants and 24 Greek and 26 English letters all mixed together. To write in English the message,

HOW DID I GET HERE?

we must first draw from the pot 2 Hs, 2 Is, 3 Es, 2 Ds, and one each of the letters W, 0, G, T, and R. Drawing or selecting this specific set of letters would be a most unlikely event itself. The work of selecting just these 14 letters would certainly be far greater than arranging them in the correct sequence. Our calculations only considered the easier step of coding while ignoring the greater problem of selecting the correct set of letters to be coded. We thereby greatly underestimate the actual configurational entropy work to be done.

In Chapter 6 we developed a scale showing degrees of investigator interference in prebiotic simulation experiments. In discussing this scale it was noted that very often in reported experiments the experimenter has actually played a crucial but illegitimate role in the success of the experiment. It becomes clear at this point that one illegitimate role of the investigator is that of providing a portion of the configurational entropy work, i.e., the "selecting" work portion of the total -T Sc work.

It is sometimes argued that the type of amino acid that is present in a protein is critical only at certain positions---active sites---along the chain, but not at every position. If this is so, it means the same message (i.e., function) can be produced with more than one sequence of amino acids.

This would reduce the coding work by making the number of permissible arrangements cm in eqs. 8-9 and 8-10 for Scm greater than 1. The effect of overlooking this in our calculations, however, would be negligible compared to the effect of overlooking the "selecting" work and only considering the "coding" work, as previously discussed. So we are led to the conclusion that our estimate for Sc is very conservatively low.

Calculating the Total Work: Polymerization of Biomacromolecules

It is now possible to estimate the total work required to combine biomonomers into the appropriate polymers essential to living systems. This calculation using eq. 8-5 might be thought of as occurring in two steps. First, amino acids polymerize into a polypeptide, with the chemical and thermal entropy work being accomplished (H -T Sth). Next, the random polymer is rearranged into a specific sequence which constitutes doing configurational entropy work (-T Sc). For example, the total work as expressed by the change in Gibbs free energy to make a specified sequence is

G = H - T Sth - T Sc (8-13)

where H - T Sth may be assumed to be 300 kcal/mole to form a random polypeptide of 101 amino acids (100 links). The work to code this random polypeptide into a useful sequence so that it may function as a protein involves the additional component of T Sc "coding" work, which has been estimated previously to be 15.9 cal/gm, or approximately 159 kcal/mole for our protein of 100 links with an estimated mass of 10,000 amu per mole. Thus, the total work (neglecting the "sorting and selecting" work) is approximately

G = (300 + 159) kcal/mole = 459 kcal/mole (8-14)

with the coding work representing 159/459 or 35% of the total work.

In a similar way, the polymerization of 4 x 106 nucleotides into a random polynucleotide would require approximately 27 x 106 kcal/mole. The coding of this random polynucleotide into the specified, aperiodic sequence of a DNA molecule would require an additional 3.2 x 106 kcal/mole of work. Thus, the fraction of the total work that is required to code the polymerized DNA is seen to be 8.5%, again neglecting the "sorting and selecting" work.

The Impossibility of Protein Formation under Equilibrium Conditions

It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.

Under equilibrium conditions the concentration of protein one would obtain from a solution of 1 M concentration in each amino acid is given by:

K= [protein] x [H2 0] / [glycine] [alanine]... (8-15)

where K is the equilibrium constant and is calculated by

K = exp [ - G / RT ] (8-16)

An equivalent form is

G = -RT ln K (8-17)

We noted earlier that G = 459 kcal/mole for our protein of 101 amino acids. The gas constant R = 1.9872 cal/deg-mole and T is assumed to be 298oK. Substituting these values into eqs. 8-15 and 8-16 gives

protein concentration = 10-338 M (8-18)

This trivial yield emphasizes the futility of protein formation under equilibrium conditions. In the next chapter we will consider various theoretical models attempting to show how energy flow through the system can be useful in doing the work quantified in this chapter for the polymerization of DNA and protein. Finally, we will examine experimental efforts to accomplish biomacromolecule synthesis.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

Summary of Thermodynamics Discussion
Throughout Chapters 7-9 we have analyzed the problems of complexity and the origin of life from a thermodynamic point of view. Our reason for doing this is the common notion in the scientific literature today on the origin of life that an open system with energy and mass flow is a priori a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life. We have examined the validity of such an open and constrained system. We found it to be a reasonable explanation for doing the chemical and thermal entropy work, but clearly inadequate to account for the configurational entropy work of coding (not to mention the sorting and selecting work). We have noted the need for some sort of coupling mechanism. Without it, there is no way to convert the negative entropy associated with energy flow into negative entropy associated with configurational entropy and the corresponding information. Is it reasonable to believe such a "hidden" coupling mechanism will be found in the future that can play this crucial role of a template, metabolic motor, etc., directing the flow of energy in such a way as to create new information? 

Specifying How Work Is To Be Done

*Snipped Copy and Paste. -Intense.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

*I understand it you however don't understand photosynthesis.*

OMFG! You owe me a new keyboard.
What do you feel it is that I don't understand about it?
In your own words, I don't feel like sifting thru the wall of text that you no doubt don't understand.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

Todd why do you have a problem acknowledging the 2nd law all around us ?

econd Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?




Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Evolutionary tree&#8212;scene from the ORIGINS motion picture series.
Evolution versus a basic law of nature

Scores of distinguished scientists have carefully examined the most basic laws of nature to see if Evolution is physically possible - given enough time and opportunity. The conclusion of many is that Evolution is simply not feasible. One major problem is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    law of science: basic, unchanging principle of nature; a scientifically observed phenomenon which has been subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of gravity, the laws of motion).

    thermodynamics: the study of heat power; a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.1

Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Decaying buildings. Massive structures may appear to be capable of lasting almost forever, but they will not. The need for ongoing repairs stems, in part, from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Scene from the ORIGINS motion picture series.)

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.

........

    "Living organisms, however, differ from inanimate matter by the degree of complexity of their systems and by the possession of a genetic program&#8230; The genetic instructions packaged in an embryo direct the formation of an adult, whether it be a tree, a fish, or a human. The process is goal-directed, but from the instructions in the genetic program, not from the outside. Nothing like it exists in the inanimate world."

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

You wanted the argument from the creationist point of view of concerning the 2nd law and how it affects evolution you have it. The points you take exception to we can discuss. I am not gonna continue exchanging jabs with you let's talk about the issues.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

*Todd why do you have a problem acknowledging the 2nd law all around us ?*

I don't and I haven't.

You have a point?
I ignored all the walls of text.

Distill your point into a few sentences and I'll be happy to point out your errors.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 8, 2013)

It seems ywc was feverishly scouring the web and found a blog by Lambert Dolphin.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist. the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins. When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue. Heck you will find well respected evolutionists quoted that are in agreement with much of the creationist views.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

*That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist.*

The creationist argument is, the 2nd Law, which applies to isolated systems, makes evolution impossible in the Earth's open system.

* the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins. *

Not at all.
*
When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue.*

I'll probably try to read your wall of crap and mock you some more later.
Stay stupid.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:
			
		

> That is why you don't understand the argument by creationist. the 2nd law is a problem for evolution and origins. When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue. Heck you will find well respected evolutionists quoted that are in agreement with much of the creationist views.



Heck. Everytime I've seen ywc make the statement that his cut and paste "quotes" from "well respected evolutionist", support his claims to magic, I've found his "quotes" to be edited, parsed, out of context, or simply fabrications by the fundie wackos he cuts and pastes from.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You can't argue against the facts genius.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You lie.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Heck. I have an entire catalog of your fraudulent "quotes" in the "Creationist" thread. 

Heck. You seem to forget that your creation ministries are purveyors of fraudulent, edited, parsed and phony "quotes".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

* The second law of thermodynamics suggests a progression from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, in the physical universe. Yet biological evolution involves a hierarchical progression to increasingly complex forms of living systems, seemingly in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. *

There is no contradiction.

*The burning of gasoline, converting energy "rich" compounds (hydrocarbons) into energy "lean" compounds, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H20), is a second illustration of this principle.*

Excellent! Let's use glucose, CO2 and H2O is our talk.

*The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe (or any isolated system therein) is increasing; i.e., the energy of the universe is becoming more uniformly distributed*

Excellent!

*An open system is one which exchanges both energy and mass with the surroundings. *

Great! Sounds like the Earth, or a plant.

*In living plants, the energy flow through the system is supplied principally by solar radiation. In fact, leaves provide relatively large surface areas per unit volume for most plants, allowing them to "capture" the necessary solar energy to maintain themselves far from equilibrium. This solar energy is converted into the necessary useful work (negative Se in equation 7-11) to maintain the plant in its complex, high-energy configuration by a complicated process called photosynthesis. Mass, such as water and carbon dioxide, also flows through plants, providing necessary raw materials, but not energy. In collecting and storing useful energy, plants serve the entire biological world.*

Holy crap! He just refuted your original claim.
I see no problem with this from the evolutionary side of the argument.

So why is your original claim correct and your source incorrect?

*While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in terms of thermodynamics*

Check it out, he's calling you irrational!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

*It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.*

It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.


----------



## eots (Aug 8, 2013)

> it's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.



we are lucky  someone thought of that...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*When you read and understand this wall of text you let me know then we can continue.*

Thanks, that was funny.
Let me know when _you_ understand this wall of text.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And yet, you continue to argue against the facts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

I blame the Tnuctipun.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Copying errors in DNA strands are not a result of natural selection.  Those are mostly random.  There is nothing random about natural selection.  It is exactly like artificial selection with two exceptions - the time scale of the changes, and the driving mechanism, which in the former is primarily a result of changes in an organism's environment.  Natural selection doesn't support less adapted organisms.  They tend to die off, leaving the better adapted organism to reproduce.  Natural selection does produce more complexity.  It also produces less complexity.  The issue isn't whether or not an organism is more complex.  The issue is does its complexity (or simplicity) give it a survival and reproductive advantage within the environment in which it finds itself?

We have artificially selected animals for thousands of years.  Nature has done essentially the same thing for billions of years.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?


----------



## eots (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


*then explain this...*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9aj4PTEl6Q]Family Matters - Dueling Accordions - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

That is what I call you being willfully disruptive of threads.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 8, 2013)

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?


----------



## eots (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> That is what I call you being willfully disruptive of threads.



no answer I see
.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
> 
> Why male and female?



Why not?  Do you have an aversion to the sexes?  

Seriously, though:

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 8, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > That is what I call you being willfully disruptive of threads.
> ...



No question, I see.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
> ...


Yep. There are survival advantages, especially among mammals which often rear their young as mating pairs. Conservation of energy and resources - protecting the young when a one of the pair hunts for food. 

Why did the gawds experiment with asexual reproduction in the natural world?

Those gawds. They're such kidders.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


is there any credible non creationist evidence that proves Natural selection can't do both?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Todd.
> 
> The Mystery of Life's Origin:
> Reassessing Current Theories
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Continued-
> 
> The Mystery of Life's Origin:
> Reassessing Current Theories
> ...



edited for pseudo scientific content religious bias, and wall of text.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Todd why do you have a problem acknowledging the 2nd law all around us ?
> 
> econd Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?
> 
> ...




edited for pseudo scientific content religious bias, and wall of text.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 8, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


bump! might as well bump! go ahead and bump!....paraphrased from van halen's jump!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 8, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
> 
> Why male and female?


more proof that some question are stupid!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 8, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
> 
> Why male and female?


you want a really puzzler why asexual reproduction?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
> 
> Why male and female?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Looks like a skill that will make reproduction unlikely.

I predict that gene will die out......


----------



## Intense (Aug 8, 2013)

*Thread Pruned and Reopened. Copy and Pastes need to be short in content, post only enough to make your point, The Link is there both for verification and elaboration. Thank You.*


----------



## daws101 (Aug 8, 2013)

I don't know about anybody else but YWC owes me a new mouse!
the wheel is  still smoldering !


----------



## eots (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



good lord willing...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * The second law of thermodynamics suggests a progression from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, in the physical universe. Yet biological evolution involves a hierarchical progression to increasingly complex forms of living systems, seemingly in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. *
> 
> There is no contradiction.
> 
> ...



No he didn't. You didn't grasp my argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 8, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * The second law of thermodynamics suggests a progression from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, in the physical universe. Yet biological evolution involves a hierarchical progression to increasingly complex forms of living systems, seemingly in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics. *
> ...



Restate your argument, in your own words, 100 words or less and I'll make it clear he did.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.*
> 
> It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.



Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

 Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes. Evolution would have to produce this stored genetic information. natural selection is supposed to accomplish this because the living organism will use free energy from its environment to pay for the production of this new genetic information, it has to do it without violating the second law. This proposition  has never been proved experimentally, so the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 8, 2013)

Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.*
> ...


The "law of degeneration"? Let me guess, that's some wacky concept invented by your creation ministries, right?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.



The "law of not absorbing too much energy so it doesn't damage the plant" takes care of that.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.*
> ...



Since biological systems are not isolated due to the continuous input of energy, they do not violate the 2nd law, which pertains ONLY to isolated systems.



> Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes.



Wrong.  Would you agree that humans are more complex that most single celled organisms?  If you do, then explain why Amoeba dubia has a genome that is 200 times larger than that of humans, or salamanders and lilies, which contain more than ten times the amount of DNA that is in the human genome, yet these organisms are clearly not ten times more complex than humans. .

Complexity does not depend on the amount of genes present in the organism.  It depends on the amount of non-coding DNA present, that is, DNA that does not code for proteins.   The thousandfold greater size of the human genome compared to that of E. coli is not due solely to a larger number of human genes. The human genome is thought to contain approximately 100,000 genes&#8212;only about 25 times more than E. coli has. Much of the complexity of eukaryotic genomes thus results from the abundance of several different types of noncoding sequences, which constitute most of the DNA of higher eukaryotic cells.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.



But the more important question is: Does a living plant have a soul created by god?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.



Blue-green algae are photosynthetic, and yet they don't have leaves.  Next.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That is not what I am saying. Just because one has more genetic information does not make it more complex. To make a change to a Trait or function it would require new genetic information stored in the genome and passed on to offspring.

It was the new genetic information that would cause a change that would make an organism more complex.

Humans walk differently,have morals,more intelligent, that is just a few of the traits that makes a human more complex than other primates.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.
> ...



He created plants for food I doubt it. Some people take the term soul and apply the wrong definition to the term.

I personally believe a soul is any living organism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
> ...



How is this a puzzler ? the designer chose the method of reproduction for all groups of organisms.

Funny that a unguided and random process would produce such mechanisms of reproduction.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.
> ...



However the organism gathers that energy to maintain complexity. Next.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So, algae has a "soul".


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Says who? Where?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Funny that the designers designed multiple processes that are so prone to error. 

Why are the designers such incompetent designers?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That is exactly what you were saying.  Don't you even read your posts?



> Just because one has more genetic information does not make it more complex. To make a change to a Trait or function it would require new genetic information stored in the genome and passed on to offspring.



Not true at all.  Many "new traits" simply come from already existing genes that are turned off or turned on, depending on the trait.  For instance, if you want humans with tails, simply turn on the genes that already exists in our genome for tails.



> It was the new genetic information that would cause a change that would make an organism more complex.



Wrong.  See above.



> Humans walk differently,*have morals,more intelligent*, that is just a few of the traits that makes a human more complex than other primates.



I don't know about that.  You don't see chimpanzees destroying the planet, do you?

You underestimate the complexity of other primates, both anatomically, and socially/intellectually.

And yet, we share many traits with our other primate cousins. For instance, traits we share with all other primates:

1) Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception) 

2) Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears 

3) Color vision 

4) Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects) 

5) Grasping fingers aid in power grip 

6) Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits 

7) Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones 

8) Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars 

9) Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex 

10) Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire 

11)  Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes 

12) Prolongation of postnatal life periods 

13) Reduced litter sizeusually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young) 

14) Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest 

15) Complicated social organization

Just 4% of our genome separate us from Bonobos.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



No and that is not what the scriptures teach.

Gen 2:7  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 

Gen 1:21  And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good. 

Every living organism over all is a soul.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



The bible, I posted it in a post to hollie.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is not a science book.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



They only produce errors in this decaying world.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Really?  I challenge you to eat some Jimson weed seeds.  Let me know when you do so I can call in the guys with white coats.

By the way, almost nothing we eat today occurs in the wild.  We have created our own food through thousands of years of artificial selection.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's actually comically tragic to see you attempting to explain away your earlier gaffes with stuttering, mumbling excuses.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That is not what I said don't put words in my mouth.

We can agree that new traits or functions come from already existing genetic information. But your side is claiming that these changes come from mutations.

Humans do commit crimes but that is a choice would you rather have a world designed and ran by chimps ?

Similarity does not prove evolution that is merely circular reasoning and it's not science.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So, shellfish have "souls"?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You don't have to break anything to me. A Question  concerning a soul was raised how would or should I respond to that question ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Are you saying nomadic humans did not eat plants in the wild ? and I never said all plants should be consumed for food ,hell some of these plants provide medicine.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I quoted what you said.  Anyone can see it.  Apparently you are in denial.



> We can agree that new traits or functions come from already existing genetic information. But your side is claiming that these changes come from mutations.



Many do.  Your point?



> Humans do commit crimes but that is a choice would you rather have a world designed and ran by chimps ?



I prefer the Bonobo way - they solve all their conflicts with sex.  Works for me.  



> Similarity does not prove evolution that is merely circular reasoning and it's not science.



Erm, what?  If we share 96% of our genetic make up with Bonobos (making them our closest animal relative), that certainly DOES prove evolution has occurred.  Are you suggesting that we are not apes?  Because if you are, then you really haven't learned much of anything about biology.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The obvious answer is that you should have referenced the Greek goddess of the soul, Psykhe (Psyche).


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You could simply agree that the concept of the soul is not scientifically workable, and that the idea is simply a mythological delusion.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Then perhaps you should rephrase your statement.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



My point is mutations along with natural selection are the mechanisms for evolution according to your theory. Not already stored genetic information.

We do not share our Dna with other primates,Dna similarity does not prove this to be accurate.

All it shows is we were produced by many of the same ingredients. What your side say's is misleading because when you get down to biological measurements we are not even close to being related.

If you keep repeating the same nonsense do you believe you're scoring points ? if you can't observe the obvious differences between groups of organisms that are produced with the same ingredients what doe that say for your logic?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Now you know why you're ignored most of the time.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Why would I do that it was just a term used by our ancestors.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Maybe you should quit looking for something to jump on and simply discuss the issues.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Now you know why your specious claims are met with challenges you cannot address.

Identify for us why your gawds are true and Psykhe is not.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Because it is true?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.*
> ...



*more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.*

Why?

*the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.*

The law of degeneration? Now you're just making shit up.

I mean more than before. LOL!


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you want to have a discussion, accuracy is important.  It is not accurate to say that plants were created for us to eat, because most plants are not edible, and most of the plants we eat, we created.


----------



## eots (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



most plants are not edible ?? most edible plants we created ??...link ?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 9, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
> 
> Why male and female?



Still no answer huh?

Oh and a Wikipedia link isn't an answer.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 9, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
> ...



Can't answer it either huh? It figures.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.

Purebred animals over time suffer from Genetic degeneration because they are from a much smaller gene pool. The mut is from a much larger gene pool that is why they are healthier than purebreeds. More mutations remain in a smaller gene pool than in a much larger gene pool. Being from a much larger gene pool slows genetic degeneration. Your side does not want to admit to this observed fact because it presents problems for their theory.

11.3 The degeneration law
The examples named above, especially the blind water scorpion, the flightless cormorant, and the day-fly, show a simple and logical, but as far as I know not yet formulated, biological law. It goes as follows:

A species or population has a tendency in the long run to lose those characteristics that it does not absolutely need to survive.

For clarification: that is tendency and in the long run. That means in practice, in terms of a human life span, that it can take a very long time before it is done. Furthermore: the time it takes, depends on the largeness of the population. The larger a population, the slower degeneration occurs. The smaller a population, the quicker it will impoverish and degenerate over time.
The reason for this law is mutation and that is called genetic drift. If a certain characteristic (flight, sight, or whatever) is no longer a determining factor for the survival of the species, a mutation which damages that characteristic will not be selected out. The carrier of this mutant characteristic can therefore reproduce in peace and by sheer coincidence; the lost characteristic can spread throughout the entire population. This coincidental spreading of genes, which does not particularly take place due to selection, is a familiar concept, called genetic drift. Genetic drift  is sheer coincidence: who mates with who and how many offspring do they have, which can reproduce again, etc. But other factors such as this also play a part: can a mutant gene hitch a ride with a very beneficial gene, because it is very close to this beneficial gene on the chromosome?. This makes the chance that the two become separated by recombination very small. Because the beneficial gene is selected for, the mutant hitches a ride and also spreads itself throughout the population. This arbitrary aspect of genetic drift can just as easily mean that a mutant characteristic disappears again by pure coincidence! But in the long run, a mutation will damage that characteristic again, so that it can once more spread itself by genetic drift. However, if at a certain point in time every individual of the population has become homozygous for that damaged characteristic, there is no way back, because the original undamaged gene has been lost. And that means that a population in the end has a tendency to lose that characteristic.It can be clear that the degeneration law is an appropriate name for this law.[5]

Evolution is in fact Degeneration: 11. Degeneration Exists

This is a good read on the reality of degeneration.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*not yet formulated, biological law*

Like I said, making shit up.

*more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.*

Why?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.:



Why was I so sure you would cut and paste something so utterly absurd?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
> 
> Why male and female?



Seemed like a good way to combine DNA.
Can you come up with a better one?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So observed facts are making shit up ?

A theory is that making shit up ?

Or is it you have a problem with me calling degeneration a law ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.:
> ...



Ok then explain to me how the observation of degeneration is absurd ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
> ...



Wow a thinking natural process


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What was the "observation of degeneration" which you claim was addressed? What exactly was the observation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The law of degeneration? <--------making shit up


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Get back to your faulty claims about the 2nd Law.
When you admit your error, then you can join another discussion.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


There is no requirement for a "thinking natural process"whatever that means. The are advantages to pairing as a means of furthering chances of survival for offspring.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 
I said most plants that we eat today we created. Example:








Corn's ancestor----------------------- Modern corn.

I could go on for pages.  Do you really need me to in order to be convinced?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



He'll be back after his poison ivy salad lunch.


----------



## eots (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



so ancient  corn and grain was non-edible..lol


----------



## eots (Aug 9, 2013)

I think its the other way around

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoTBXkHcikI]Experts discuss the findings of the Roundup GM cancer trial 360p - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



mmm Ivy..now thats good eats


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 9, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Red Herring.


----------



## eots (Aug 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



also edible..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 9, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You've got the wrong variety there.......


----------



## daws101 (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.*
> ...


he idea of degeneration goes back to the 18th century, and had significant influence on science, art and politics from the 1850s to the 1950s. These concepts meant that humanity's development was no longer fixed and certain, but could change and evolve or degenerate into an unknown future, possibly a bleak future that clashes with the analogy between evolution and civilization as a progressive positive direction.
As a consequence, theorists assumed the human species might be overtaken by a more adaptable species or circumstances might change and suit a more adapted species. Degeneration theory presented a pessimistic outlook for the future of western civilization as it believed the progress of the 19th century had begun to work against itself.
Contents  [hide] 
1 History
2 Art
3 See also
4 References
5 Bibliography
6 External links
History[edit source | editbeta]

One of the earliest scientists to advocate degeneration was Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and other monogenists such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, they were believers in the "Degeneration theory" of racial origins. The theory claims that races can degenerate into "primitive" forms. Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were white and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor dieting. Buffon believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.[1]
By the mid 18th century, naturalists such as Carl Linnaeus recognised a large number of species, each with its own place in nature and with adaptation to a particular geographical location. Both points made the story of Noah's Ark seem untenable, with its prospect of organisms migrating from one point over vast stretches of hostile territory. From 1749 onwards Buffon published a series of volumes of his Natural History in which he proposed that creatures had arisen by divinely ordained laws, separately in the old world and in the Americas. Where humans and families of animals were found in both continents, he suggested that they had migrated from the old world at a time when the world was warmer and routes were open, but had changed to suit the new conditions by degeneration from the ideal type. For an example of this "degeneration of animals", he described the cat family, in which the lion was distinct from the cougar, and the leopard from the jaguar, but differed even more from each other. From this he concluded "that these animals had one common origin and that, having formerly passed from one continent to another, their present differences have proceeded only from the long influence of their new situation." He wavered as to whether truly new species were produced by this process, and it is unclear as to whether this concept can be thought of as an early theory of evolution.[2]
George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll claimed that modern savages were degenerate descendants from originally civilized peoples. He opposed evolution and followed cultural degeneration.[3]
By 1890 there was a growing fear of degeneration sweeping across Europe creating disorders that led to poverty, crime, alcoholism, moral perversion and political violence. Degeneration raised the possibility that Europe may be creating a class of degenerate people who may attack the social norms, this led to support for a strong state which polices degenerates out of existence with the assistance of scientific identification.
In the 1850s French doctor Bénédict Morel argued more vigorously that certain groups of people were degenerating, going backwards in terms of evolution so each generation became weaker and weaker. This was based on pre-Darwinian ideas of evolution, especially those of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who argued that acquired characteristics like drug abuse and sexual perversions, could be inherited. Genetic predispositions have been observed for alcoholism and criminality.
The first scientific criminologist Cesare Lombroso working in the 1880s believed he found evidence of degeneration by studying the corpses of criminals. After completing an autopsy on murderer Villela he found the indentation where the spine meets the neck to be a signal of degeneration and subsequent criminality. Lombroso was convinced he had found the key to degeneration that had concerned liberal circles.[4]
In the twentieth century, eradicating "degeneration" became a justification for various eugenic programs, mostly in Europe and the United States. Eugenicists adopted the concept, using it to justify the sterilization of the supposedly unfit. The Nazis took up these eugenic efforts as well, including extermination, for those who would corrupt future generations. They also used the concept in art,
For further information, see Daniel Pick's book Faces of Degeneration, or the work of Sander Gilman.
In Alexey Severtzov's typology of the evolution directions this term is used in an ethically neutral way; it denotes such an evolutionary transformation that is accompanied by a decrease in complexity, as opposed to aromorphosis (accompanied by increase in complexity, cp. anagenesis[5]), and idioadaptation (this term designates such an evolutionary transformation that is accompanied by neither a decrease nor increase in complexity, cp. cladogenesis) (see, e.g., Korotayev 2004).
Degeneration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the law of degeneration is a debunked pseudo science like phrenology 
of course slapdick would use a debunked theory to  bolster an imaginary creator.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 9, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.
> ...


is that why vegetables scream when you boil them?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


what designer? the one you make up, and have no evidence for.
asexual reproduction  is far older the sexual reproduction, so once again you are talking out your ass.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


there is no corroborating evidence that any of the above quoted scriptures actually happened.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 9, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


there is no need to answer it ..beside any answer given that does not match your superstitions ,no matter how factual will be judge wrong by your willful ignorance
btw any derivative of god did it is not an answer it's an excuse..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


check this out:

 DEGENERATION - the end of the evolution theory" is a book translated from Dutch into English.

Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was published on the 24th of November in 1859
and the complete first print of 1.250 books was sold out on that day.

In the Netherlands "Degeneration" was published on the 24th of November 1997
and the complete first print of 5.000 books was sold out that day.
In total more then 15.000 books in Dutch are now sold.

TODAY the English translation is available on the internet, so everyone can see why this Dutch version caused such a stirr...

Please acknowledge that this translation was made with very limited funds and the help of volunteers.
So please report ANY translation errors  as soon as you see them or make other comments.

Furthermore, the author is looking for ways to get this book published. If you can be of any help, please respond...

Now discover why evolutionary theory will be turned upside down...

this line tell the story: Furthermore, the author is looking for ways to get this book published. If you can be of any help, please respond...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Debunked  

What is your hang up concerning slapping dick ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Do you have a clue of what you're talking about ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You mock something and don't even realize how you affect your own arguments for what you believe. If life has existed as long as you say,don't you think the food we ate did a good job because after all we supposedly became more complex .we needed that source of energy that came from the food we ate remember.

Maybe man should quit playing God because we are finding that genetically altered food is not a good thing.

Institute for Responsible Technology - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Degeneration is one of the terms used to describe this problem and another is degradation. This a problem for evolution.

Heredity (Edinb). 2005 Oct;95(4):255-73.
Genetic resource impacts of habitat loss and degradation; reconciling empirical evidence and predicted theory for neotropical trees.
Lowe AJ, Boshier D, Ward M, Bacles CF, Navarro C.
Source

School of Integrative Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia. a.lowe@uq.edu.au
Abstract

The theoretical impacts of anthropogenic habitat degradation on genetic resources have been well articulated. Here we use a simulation approach to assess the magnitude of expected genetic change, and review 31 studies of 23 neotropical tree species to assess whether empirical case studies conform to theory. Major differences in the sensitivity of measures to detect the genetic health of degraded populations were obvious. Most studies employing genetic diversity (nine out of 13) found no significant consequences, yet most that assessed progeny inbreeding (six out of eight), reproductive output (seven out of 10) and fitness (all six) highlighted significant impacts. These observations are in line with theory, where inbreeding is observed immediately following impact, but genetic diversity is lost slowly over subsequent generations, 

Genetic resource impacts of habitat loss an... [Heredity (Edinb). 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

How did organisms in small groups over large spans of time evolve and become more complex with all the inbreeding going on to grow a population ? with all the growing evidence it is getting harder and harder to accept the supposed age of this planet and the theory of evolution. Just one more nail in the coffin of mans pseudoscience.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Dude, EVERYTHING we eat is genetically altered.  And look - you are still here!  Oh my.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Not everything, you're mistaken.

I notice you avoided the major point.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, pretty much everything.

If you had a major point, I would have addressed it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No you're wrong about all foods being genetically modified. Ever heard of organic food ?

The major point was if the food was not sufficient how did everything manage to survive and increase in complexity according to theory ?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Hehehe.  Dude, ALL domestically cultivated food is modified = does not contain  the original genetic make up of the original plant or animal.  Artificial selection does that.  This applies whether or not the food is organically grown, and whether or not the modification occurs in a field, a barn, or a petri dish.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Are you trying to spin your way out of your ignorant argument ? just admit you were wrong it's ok to be wrong sometimes.

or·gan·ic food (&#333;r-gan'ik f&#363;d)
Food grown or raised without the use of additives, coloring, synthetic chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, hormones), radiation, or genetic manipulation and meeting criteria of the U.S.D.A. Standard National Organic Program. 

organic food - definition of organic food in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 10, 2013)

*Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?*

Is naturalism like nudism?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The phrase "organic food" is a sham because you cannot grow modern corn and call it genetically non-manipulated.  ALL modern corn is genetically manipulated.  All peas are genetically manipulated.  All green beans have been manipulated.  ALL modern food has undergone artificial selection to improve the product, and therefore has been genetically manipulated.  Anytime you raise a food plant, and select the best seeds from those plants for next year's crop, you have manipulated the genes of that food crop.


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



organic food is hardly a sham and no one is calling it.. genetically non-manipulated...but there is a huge difference between selective breeding and
and genetically modifying with genes for other species ...


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A]Seeds Of Death - Full Movie - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Oh, I agree completely that laboratory manipulation of the genes of food is different than field manipulation of the genes of our food.  That difference being primarily one of time.  Natural selection takes thousands to millions of years.  Artificial selection takes a few generations.  Genetic manipulation in the laboratory can take as little as a year, maybe two.  Regardless, what is going on in all cases is genetic modification.


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



the difference is one method will kill you or leave to sterile and the other will not


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Here is the difference that you seem to be confused over. Cross pollination is natural which falls under the term as organic .Genetic modifications are when scientists alter the genome of foods. Selective breeding would also be consider natural and not altering the genome.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Any time you selectively breed a species, that is, breed them to have specifically sought after traits, you are genetically modifying that species, regardless of the methodology you use.


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



you are selectively breeding for natural traits ,not introducing traits that never existed in the species...huge diffrenece


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why is it so different?  Look at dogs today.  Look at what 30,000 years of selective breeding has done to them (particularly the last 100 years).  Dogs are a completely new species from their wolf ancestors.  Corn is still corn.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


debunked by who?..slap dick?
if you're seriously suggesting the any of the pseudo science god did it dogma by creationists is the answer then you should not be too surprised by the laughter !


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


YES! It's obvious you don't!


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



why is it different...because we are not fusing spider genes with dog genes thats how its different and dogs and wolfs are in fact in the same species..thats why they can breed naturally together...if you take away selective breeding and  dogs are  left to interbreed on their own, revert to a stereotypical form within a few generations -- stocky animals with yellowish, medium coats, furry tails, short muzzles and upright ears.


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1l4SNEly6k]Wild dhole - Asiatic wild dogs - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> wild dhole - asiatic wild dogs - youtube


welcome to another episode of off on a tangent with eot's !


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > wild dhole - asiatic wild dogs - youtube
> ...



It was your little friend that brought up dog breeding and genetically modified foods I am just correcting his misconceptions


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


no you're not..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/qO9IPoAdct8]If Atheists Ruled the World - YouTube[/ame]

BTW THIS IS SATIRE !


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > wild dhole - asiatic wild dogs - youtube
> ...



You do not have anything to add but ignorance and stupidity to this thread ,take a hike slapdick!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


as always you're wrong.How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology?
In: Biology	 
Answer:
Selective breeding is one form of biotechnology important in agriculture and medicine, because when scientists manipulate the genetic makeup of an organism, they are using biotechnology.
How is selective breeding a form of biotechnology


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



They also fuse genes from plants to animals and vice versa. These guys just do not understand genetics well enough to argue it.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


NO THANKS i'm staying ..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

youwerecreated said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


you can always dream...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Still your ignorance shows up.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


sure slapdick....


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Eots explained it earlier I won't waste time with someone that can't read.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I know you are pretty dense but just maybe this won't go over your head.

Recombinant DNA technology in eukaryotes - An Introduction to Genetic Analysis - NCBI Bookshelf


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



GM Crops Being Mixed With Human, Other Animal Genes Field Experiments Of Bizarre Genetically Engineered Crops Doubled In Past Two Years Authorized Experiments Are A Risk To Human Health And The Environment


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.*

Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Really? Explain how these modified crops do that.


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4M-5_qqJD4]France checks the scientific validity of shocking GM food study - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified.*

If US corn yield was 60 bushels per acre in 1964 and 80 bushels per acre in 1969, the genome didn't change?


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

Genetically Engineered Crop Gene Found for First Time in Bacteria in Human Digestive System
Concerns About Antibiotic Resistance Raised

WASHINGTON - July 17 - New evidence from British scientists raises serious questions about the safety of genetically engineered foods. A study published by the British Food Safety Standards Agency (FAS) showed for the first time that a gene inserted in a genetically engineered crop has found its way into bacteria in the human gut. Many engineered crops have antibiotic resistance marker genes inserted in them, and there are fears that if material from these marker genes passes into humans, people's ability to fight infections may be reduced.

Friends of the Earth


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Really? Explain how these modified crops do that.


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



By mixing genes from totally unrelated species,you can create toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies not present before


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



To change a trait or function you need new genetic information.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I should have said that a little differently.

If you cross breed a jersey cow with a holstein cow to get more milk you achieved the trait naturally that means the gene already exists in the genome .now if you selectively remove a gene and added a foreign gene to get the milk production up,you have just GM that organism. You're manipulating the genome by adding a gene that did not exist before.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Now all you need to do is show why new genetic information violates the 2nd Law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How did US corn yield go from 60 bushels per acre in 1964 to 80 bushels per acre in 1969? Do you feel they added a gene that did not exist before?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Now all you need to do is find the toxins, allergens, or carcinogens that you feel were added by the new genes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.

Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't know but you have a couple of choices. They increased the acreage,they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding.

Now how did it happen ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


eot's does what he always does...spews bullshit. just like you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't think you realize how hard it is to remove and add a new gene. I can't even imagine removing those things.If we could do that we could eliminate genetic disease and disorders.

That is what they are working on but they are not even close.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it confirms what I posted, thanks!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you just debunked your shit yet again...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 is that the sound of ass kissing I hear...say anything except I was wrong...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Major uses of cropland, selected years, 1949-2002
Cropland used for crops Cropland Total
Year Harvested Failed Fallowed 1 Total 2 Idle 3 pasture 4 cropland 2
Million acres
1949 352 9 22 383 26 69 478
1954 339 13 28 380 19 66 465
1959 318 10 31 359 33 66 458
1964 292 6 37 335 52 57 444
1969 286 6 41 333 51 88 472
1974 322 8 31 361 21 83 465
1978 330 7 32 369 26 76 471
1982 347 5 31 383 21 65 469
1987 293 6 32 331 68 65 464
1992 306 8 24 338 56 67 460
1997 321 7 21 349 39 68 455
2002 307 17 16 340 40 62 442
1 Cultivated summer fallow.
2 Distribution may not add to totals due to rounding.
3 Includes all acreage diverted from crops under the Acreage Reduction Program (ARP), the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and other Federal acreage reduction programs shown


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I can't help it you can't understand the simple explanation that eots gave you. Biotechnology is bioengineering.That is not selective breeding  this is the technology used to create genetically modified food or enzymes they produce for oil spills.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Ok you have two choices left.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I am saying I maybe wrong and it does seem like a bad argument. Yes I am an honest person and when I am wrong or feel there is a good chance I was wrong I can admit it. Some of you can learn from my admission.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yes biotechnology.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Hey dumbshit stop while you're behind.

bi·o·tech·nol·o·gy  (b-tk-nl-j)
n.
1. The use of microorganisms, such as bacteria or yeasts, or biological substances, such as enzymes, to perform specific industrial or manufacturing processes. Applications include the production of certain drugs, synthetic hormones, and bulk foodstuffs as well as the bioconversion of organic waste and the use of genetically altered bacteria in the cleanup of oil spills.
2.
a. The application of the principles of engineering and technology to the life sciences; bioengineering.

 Selective breeding

Definition

noun

The intentional breeding of organisms with desirable trait in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits.


Supplement

It involves breeding techniques such as inbreeding, linebreeding and outcrossing. 

Thanks for once again revealing your ignorance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*They increased the acreage*

What does that have to do with yield per acre?

*they genetically modified the corn or it was through selective breeding*

Between 1964 and 1969, what could they have done?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I will say you're correct, the more I have read the more I believe it's a bad argument to say evolution would violate the 2nd law.*

Thanks, my arm was getting tired from beating you over the head for the last few weeks.

*Now for the kicker,how did the Dna code arise ? how is new genetic information produced so evolution can take place ?*

In a way that didn't violate the 2nd Law.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry my mistake on the per acre. I am waiting for you to offer an explanation you brought it up.

The only doubt I have left is if the 2nd law only applies to the universe but until they say otherwise I will accept my correction.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Agreed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



*I don't think you realize how hard it is to remove and add a new gene.*

It's not that difficult to add a new gene, they do it all the time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



They genetically modified the corn. They bred a new type, never before seen on Earth, that had a much higher yield.

Look up the Green Revolution.

We've been genetically modifying our crops since the first farmer saved the biggest seeds to plant the following year. Our food crops now look nothing like they did when we first started farming.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Gene cloning is not as easy as you think. You have to extract the Dna and locate the one gene that is responsible for the desired trait. Where it is hard you have thousands of genes to analyze.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry Todd, we have a problem because the 2nd law supposedly only applies to a closed or isolated system.

What I was speaking of was developed here in an open system. What is your response to this ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



For this reason, I only buy what they call organic food lol.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And yet, nature does this all the time.  Do you know how much of our own genetic make up is not actually our own?  You should read about endogenous retroviruses sometime, and how much of our genetic makeup originated from other life forms.  We even have genes in our DNA that originated from sponges.

Yes, dogs go feral, but they have never reverted back to their original wolf ancestors.  They may be feral, but they are still dogs.


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



lol...thats because they were never wolves..they were wild dogs


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I don't know where you ever got that idea, but it is wrong.  Dogs have only been around for the last 30,000 years, and that is because we bred them from wolves.  There is no dispute whatsoever on this matter.


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

Part 1:  Myths about origin and nature

From the book: The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs
Copyright 2009 by Alexandra Semyonova -- All Rights Reserved

 Myth 1: The dog is a descendant of the wolf. Because of this 
we should regard him as a sort of tame wolf in our living room.

World's first dog lived 31,700 years ago, ate big - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com | NBC News


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



My response is that it doesn't violate the 2nd Law. And you agreed.
Changing your mind again?
Perhaps you have another law you feel evolution violates?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Keep eating your modified organic food.


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

They tell us that 
We lost our tails 
Evolving up 
From little snails 
I say it's all 
Just wind in sails 
Are we not men? 
We are DEVO!


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



enjoy your spider goats...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Mmmmmmmm.....spider goats.


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPa8Vxqvkn0]Spiders genetically merged with Goats - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 10, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBDG3-bXcxQ&list=PLfh42-c43eeapAwJVOkxxxMy4DvynPc8Y]May 1 2013 Breaking News Labs Mixing Human DNA Animal DNA - end times news update 4-12-13 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> Spiders genetically merged with Goats - YouTube



Science is cool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 10, 2013)

eots said:


> Spiders genetically merged with Goats - YouTube


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Spiders genetically merged with Goats - YouTube
> ...



it can be cool... it can be a horror show...


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

The First Canids - Hesperocyon and the "Bone-Crushing Dogs"

Paleontologists agree that the late Eocene (about 40 to 35 million years ago) Hesperocyon was directly ancestral to all later canids--and thus to the genus Canis, which branched off from a subfamily of canids about six million years ago. 





> This "western dog" was only about the size of a small fox, but its inner-ear structure was characteristic of later dogs,


and there's some evidence that it may have lived in communities, either high up in trees or in underground burrows. Hesperocyon is very well-represented in the fossil record; in fact, this was one of the most common mammals of prehistoric North America.
Dog Evolution - The Story of Prehistoric Dogs


a small fox   like.."stocky animals with yellowish, medium coats, furry tails, short muzzles and upright ears."


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> Part 1:  Myths about origin and nature
> 
> From the book: The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs
> Copyright 2009 by Alexandra Semyonova -- All Rights Reserved
> ...



Irony #1 - the idea that your link actually proved your claim.  From your link:

"Germonpré believes dog domestication might have begun when the prehistoric hunters killed a female wolf and then brought home her pups."

And this:

"Crockford, however, is not convinced the Aurignacians domesticated dogs. She instead suspects dogs may have undergone "self-domestication" from wolves more than once over history, which could explain why the animals appear and then seemingly disappear from the archaeological record."

It is my opinion that the latter is the correct answer.  At any rate, you are completely wrong.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

_Hesperocyon_ is not a dog.  It isn't even a _Canis_.  It is ancestral to all _canids_ (which includes foxes and coyotes).  Wolves branched from _Canids_ six million years ago, and is its own genus, _Canis_.  The grey wolf is _Canis lupus_.  The domestic dog is _Canis domesticus_.  It is a descendent of wolves, bred by humans from wolves.  End of story.


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Part 1:  Myths about origin and nature
> ...



it was to point out all the ifs and maybes and disappearing and re-appearing dogs in your absolute theory


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> _Hesperocyon_ is not a dog.  It isn't even a _Canis_.  It is ancestral to all _canids_ (which includes foxes and coyotes).  Wolves branched from _Canids_ six million years ago, and is its own genus, _Canis_.  The grey wolf is _Canis lupus_.  The domestic dog is _Canis domesticus_.  It is a descendent of wolves, bred by humans from wolves.  End of story.



End of your story..

The Canidae /&#712;kæn&#616;di&#720;/ [2] are the biological family of carnivorous and omnivorous mammals that includes domestic dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, and many other lesser known extant and extinct dog-like mammals. A member of this family is called a canid


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I am told that the 2nd law only applies to isolated and closed systems if that is the case it would not apply to this planet.

How can the production of the Dna language violate a law on this planet that does not apply to it ?

If the 2nd law applies to this planet then yes it would affect evolution, after all we see all systems on this planet run their cycle and eventually wear down and die,is this due to order or disorder ? everything breaks down over time on this planet whether it is inanimate or animate.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I will keep eating my selectively bred food that is not GM or shot up with steroids. Do you know food that are GM are to be labled as such ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Spiders genetically merged with Goats - YouTube
> ...



Science that violates the ethics of man is not cool nor more importantly the creation of God.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*How can the production of the Dna language violate a law on this planet that does not apply to it ?*

Ask the Creationists who still believe it does. 
I'm just glad that you were able to learn the error of that claim.

Was there another law you felt evolution violated?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I will keep eating my selectively bred food that is not GM or shot up with steroids.*

Excellent! I hope you feel you're getting value for the higher prices.

*Do you know food that are GM are to be labled as such ?*

Not that I've heard.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That is what I read.

If the 2nd law does apply to this planet then yes I do believe it would violate the 2nd law. How ever I do believe natural unguided systems would produce disorder so I still believe there are to many things working against evolution. We have mechanisms  working against evolution that would be ezymes as well as natural selection. I feel that small trait changes do happen within a genepool but only because those genes already existed in the genepool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*If the 2nd law does apply to this planet then yes I do believe it would violate the 2nd law.*

You admitted your error now you're backtracking?
Is that what you're saying?

*How ever I do believe natural unguided systems would produce disorder *

The 2nd Law doesn't mentioned guided or unguided, so it must not matter.

*We have mechanisms  working against evolution that would be ezymes as well as natural selection.*

Enzymes work against evolution? How?

Natural selection works against evolution? How?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > _Hesperocyon_ is not a dog.  It isn't even a _Canis_.  It is ancestral to all _canids_ (which includes foxes and coyotes).  Wolves branched from _Canids_ six million years ago, and is its own genus, _Canis_.  The grey wolf is _Canis lupus_.  The domestic dog is _Canis domesticus_.  It is a descendent of wolves, bred by humans from wolves.  End of story.
> ...



Which does not refute anything I've said.  Your point?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I am told that the 2nd law only applies to isolated and closed systems if that is the case it would not apply to this planet.

How can the production of the Dna language violate a law on this planet that does not apply to it ?

If the 2nd law applies to this planet then yes it would affect evolution, after all we see all systems on this planet run their cycle and eventually wear down and die,is this due to order or disorder ? everything breaks down over time on this planet whether it is inanimate or animate.[/QUOTE]

The Earth is not an isolated or closed system, since it constantly receives energy from the sun, and constantly loses energy via radiation into outer space.  How many times do I have to say it?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Both genetic engineering and selective breeding result in modification of an organism's genotype. In other words, the organism's genes are changed in some way. If one or more genes from another species are introduced, the resulting genome consists of recombinant DNA. ..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you've admitted nothing...all you've done is qualify   what you would do IF you were wrong. 
(maybe,seem  or feel there is a good chance I was wrong) are deflections. 

this :"Some of you can learn from my admission.-"ywc is an attempt to deny responsibility by tossing shit around and seeing what sticks..

 an  admission goes like this: I WAS WRONG .I SEE THAT KNOW. 

VERY SIMPLE, RIGHT?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


just back from church and all jesused up!


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Indeed.  I would like for him to explain how improving our food is unethical.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it would have a lot entertainment value but zero carbs of reality.


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



unregulated transgenic technology has the potential for all kinds of disastrous results


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I agree.  Unregulated trans genetic technology has the potential to do widespread damage.  Can you name a single trans genetic project that is not regulated?


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNpmxvbBqHo]Obama Signs Monsanto Protection Act - Frankenfish Heads To U.S. Market - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The Green Revolution must violate the 2nd Law. Somehow.


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

due to recent revelations by defense ministers and Apollo astronauts I am forced to consider genetic modification could be a part of the explanation for life on earth


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



the green evolution has no connection to transgenic bio engineering


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> due to recent revelations by defense ministers and Apollo astronauts I am forced to consider genetic modification could be a part of the explanation for life on earth



Tnuctip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I think the problem is that it is in violation of conservatives "god given right" to beat down any effort that smacks of progress.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> due to recent revelations by defense ministers and Apollo astronauts I am forced to consider genetic modification could be a part of the explanation for life on earth





Nevermind.  I don't want to know what that meant.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > due to recent revelations by defense ministers and Apollo astronauts I am forced to consider genetic modification could be a part of the explanation for life on earth
> ...



I've got a better one for you:

Shrike - Hyperion Cantos Wiki


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll9tgImSMWM]BREAKING!!! Astronaut Edgar Mitchell TELLS OBAMA ALIENS ARE REAL! July 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQdvYFMBAU]BREAKING!!! UFO ALIEN DISCLOSURE by Canadian Minister of Defense May 2013 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkwxuHE03aM&list=TLC0zE_OklGYM]Disclosure Project Witness Testimony Archives - Gordon Cooper - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXCzsm1CV3A]BREAKING!!! UFO Alien Disclosure by Head Minister Of Defense UFO PROJECT DECLASSIFIED - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)




----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


>



A childish picture is your only response to two defense ministers and two Apollo astronauts ?...I guess defense ministers and Apollo astronauts just do not have your experience of scientific mind...lol


----------



## Hollie (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


>



Don't encourage the boy regarding his space alien conspiracy theories. He's locked and loaded to drench the thread with buckets of YouTube videos.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> Obama Signs Monsanto Protection Act - Frankenfish Heads To U.S. Market - YouTube


so what? that's still regulated....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Well, golly gee, I'm convinced.  Oh wait...No I'm not.

I'm an amateur astronomer (and a disabled professional geologist) who has observed and photographed the sky all of his life.  And so you can believe me when I say that I have never seen anything in the sky that I could not explain or identify.  Secondly, I know hundreds of other amateur astronomers and quite a few PhD astronomers, and know of none who thinks that UFOs are real.  And finally, farmer Bob (or even an Apollo astronaut) may be the most honest, god-fearing person on the planet, but we still need unambiguous physical evidence that a UFO landed in his corn field.

But I will make you a promise.  I am going to be out at the LAS observatory tonight watching the Perseid meteor shower with about 100 others.  If ET shows up, I promise that you'll be the first to know.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> due to recent revelations by defense ministers and Apollo astronauts I am forced to consider genetic modification could be a part of the explanation for life on earth


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

Hehehe.


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



yes the nerve of these Apollo astronauts and defense ministers to think the rival your vast astronomical experience or connections with other astronomers...what were they thinking ?...and clearly if a craft was really  seen by high ranking military and was tracked  by multiple radar stations as it shut down nuclear defense systems as claimed...you and your Friends would of seen it on your telescope


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



They were probably thinking "when is this going to be finished so I can get my check and go have another drink?".


----------



## Hollie (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Told ya'. Get the boy started on his space alien thing and he's like a babbling brook.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



As long as he is babbling about space aliens, he is not babbling on about evolution.  It's a win-win for the rest of us.


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

There is a extensive list of high ranking individuals who unlike farmer bob served in positions of the highest national security and  along with Apollo crew and defense minsters are  willing to testify under oath and under penalty of perjury before congress as to there direct knowledge of an alien presence or witnessing of alien technologies and petitioning for disclosure of the records that they say will confirm their testimony...but  guy with telescope and his alleged friends says they are mistaken..Well, golly gee, I'm convinced. Oh wait...No I'm not.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No, I am saying if the 2nd law applies to this planet then I do believe evolution would violate it.

Enzymes work to correct copying errors in other words mutations. This is the main mechanism for new information.

Mutation fixation is not that easy with natural selection removing traits from the genepool as well as the other mechanisms mentioned that work against them mutations.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> There is a extensive list of high ranking individuals who unlike farmer bob served in positions of the highest national security and  along with Apollo crew and defense minsters are  willing to testify under oath and under penalty of perjury before congress as to there direct knowledge of an alien presence or witnessing of alien technologies and petitioning for disclosure of the records that they say will confirm their testimony...but  guy with telescope and his alleged friends says they are mistaken..Well, golly gee, I'm convinced. Oh wait...No I'm not.



100 anecdotes is as useless as 1, because anecdotal evidence is not science.  Line up all the so-called experts you care to, but until you make ET appear before a panel of acknowledged scientific experts, you got nothing.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Evolution does not violate the 2nd law because it is not an isolated system.  It requires energy and mass input to work.  Good god man, are you daft?


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I just find it interesting how he accurate reporting of these profound testimonies of such highly placed people as astronauts ministers of defense 
high rankling military that commanded nuclear facilities can be characterized as_ babble_ and can be so offhandedly  dismissed in the most childish manner ..these responses completely irrational on so many levels..it is a fascinating look at human psychology and the phenomenon of  cognitive dissonance


----------



## Hollie (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The boy is like a little doll with a pull string in the back. Give'em a tug on the string and he'll rattle off one of several programmed comments.


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > There is a extensive list of high ranking individuals who unlike farmer bob served in positions of the highest national security and  along with Apollo crew and defense minsters are  willing to testify under oath and under penalty of perjury before congress as to there direct knowledge of an alien presence or witnessing of alien technologies and petitioning for disclosure of the records that they say will confirm their testimony...but  guy with telescope and his alleged friends says they are mistaken..Well, golly gee, I'm convinced. Oh wait...No I'm not.
> ...



that's not true.. expert witnesses testimony is in fact strong evidence..even more so when from such highly credible people in such large numbers  who are in fact petitioning to have documents declassified and are willing to testify under oath and with penalty of perjury


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



My comments are factual and intelligent unlike yours...you can not even address the issue with anything but childish quips and aviodence


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > There is a extensive list of high ranking individuals who unlike farmer bob served in positions of the highest national security and  along with Apollo crew and defense minsters are  willing to testify under oath and under penalty of perjury before congress as to there direct knowledge of an alien presence or witnessing of alien technologies and petitioning for disclosure of the records that they say will confirm their testimony...but  guy with telescope and his alleged friends says they are mistaken..Well, golly gee, I'm convinced. Oh wait...No I'm not.
> ...



until you can show an animal giving birth to another species narturaly ...you got nothing


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Listen in your attempt at covering up your ignorance you once again expose your ignorance.

Genetic engineering is really not even the term preferred in the scientific community,they prefer the term transgenic. This is the method where recombinant dna of a gene genetically engineered and is dna prepared by transplanting or splicing genes from one species into the cells of a host organism of a different species. This dna becomes part of the host's genetic makeup and is replicated.

Genetic engineering alters the genetic makeup of an organism using techniques that remove heritable material or that introduce DNA prepared outside the organism either directly into the host or into a cell that is then fused or hybridized with the host.[4] This involves using recombinant nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) techniques to form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection and micro-encapsulation techniques.

Genetic engineering DOES NOT NORMALLY INCLUDE TRADITIONAL ANIMAL AND PLANT BREEDING, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process.[4] However the EUROPEAN COMMISSION HAS ALSO DEFINED GENETIC ENGINEERING BROADLY as including selective breeding and other means of artificial selection.[5] Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic engineering,[6] are closely related and genetic engineering can be used within them.[7] Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing artificially synthesized genetic material from raw materials into an organism.[8]

If genetic material from another species is added to the host, the resulting organism is called transgenic. If genetic material from the same species or a species that can naturally breed with the host is used the resulting organism is called cisgenic.[9] Genetic engineering can also be used to remove genetic material from the target organism, creating a gene knockout organism.[10] In Europe genetic modification is synonymous with genetic engineering while within the United States of America it can also refer to conventional breeding methods.[11][12] The Canadian regulatory system is based on whether a product has novel features regardless of method of origin. In other words, a product is regulated as genetically modified if it carries some trait not previously found in the species whether it was generated using traditional breeding methods (e.g., selective breeding, cell fusion, mutation breeding) or genetic engineering.[13][14][15] Within the scientific community, the term genetic engineering is not commonly used; more specific terms such as transgenic are preferred.

Genetic engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you are directly adding genetic information to the Genome.

This is how you do it if you are doing it through selective breeding or artificial selection.

 Artificial Selection

artificial selection

More commonly known as selective Breeding, where professionals study the genotype and phenotype of parent organisms in the hope of producing a hybrid that possesses many of the desirable characteristics found in their parents. 

Artificial Selection - definition from Biology-Online.org

 Selective breeding

Definition

noun

The intentional breeding of organisms with desirable traits in an attempt to produce offspring with similar desirable characteristics or with improved traits. 

Selective breeding - definition from Biology-Online.org

Now you can add a gene that never existed in the Genome of an organism and then selectively breed that organism. Usually through selectively breeding you're analyzing the Geno and Phenotype genes of the parents hoping you will pass on the desired traits of the parents.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do you have proof of GMO crops improving our food ? Link ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



They have no idea what they are saying. Transgenic technology is way to new to reach the conclusion it is improving our food. If it turns out to be safe then not only can they improve the food but they take on current and future genetic disorders and Slow aging as well.

It is just way to early to trust the technology. I will be honest I hope it proves to be safe but I will remain cautious.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Don't be a Troll.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

Q: What next?
A: Proceed with caution.

Whether biotech foods will deliver on their promise of eliminating world hunger and bettering the lives of all remains to be seen. Their potential is enormous, yet they carry risks&#8212;and we may pay for accidents or errors in judgment in ways we cannot yet imagine. But the biggest mistake of all would be to blindly reject or endorse this new technology. If we analyze carefully how, where, and why we introduce genetically altered products, and if we test them thoroughly and judge them wisely, we can weigh their risks against their benefits to those who need them most.

Altered Food, GMOs, Genetically Modified Food - National Geographic


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


not if they used their cloaking device..
you do understand that UFO stands for: UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT ...right?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > There is a extensive list of high ranking individuals who unlike farmer bob served in positions of the highest national security and  along with Apollo crew and defense minsters are  willing to testify under oath and under penalty of perjury before congress as to there direct knowledge of an alien presence or witnessing of alien technologies and petitioning for disclosure of the records that they say will confirm their testimony...but  guy with telescope and his alleged friends says they are mistaken..Well, golly gee, I'm convinced. Oh wait...No I'm not.
> ...


bump!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


in your case it would be cognitive bias...I wondered how long it would take you to start twofer (truther) babbling when when your favorite fantasies don't fly with rational people.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*No, I am saying if the 2nd law applies to this planet then I do believe evolution would violate it.*

Our systen, Earth, receives energy, so the 2nd Law doesn't apply.
Your continuing claim that it in any way could ever prevent evolution only confirms your ignorance.

*Enzymes work to correct copying errors in other words mutations.*

Every mutuation is corrected by enzymes and that is why evolution cannot occur?
Is that your claim?


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



objects that can shut down nuclear defense systems and travel at 18,000 confirmed by both radar and highly credible eyewitnesses at the very least at would indicate highly advanced technology well beyond any capabilities known to established scientific technology


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




once again slapdick you're attempting to twist the facts as you done many many times.
most recently the circle is a sphere debate were I handed you your ass .
 the point is:Both genetic engineering and selective breeding result in modification of an organism's genotype. In other words, the organism's genes are changed in some way ..end of story.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


anecdotal evidence....not hard evidence....


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

oh btw eot's, how were you "forced" to come your decision on linkage between gmo's and ufo's ?
waterboarding?  baton up the ass ?
or was it just plan old specious reasoning?


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



radar is hard evidence ..a nuclear shut down is hard evidence..especially when combined with multiple high level eyewittnesses


----------



## daws101 (Aug 11, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


did anybody bother to film or tape these actions or are there printouts? ...or any records at all?....   if not it's anecdotal.


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> oh btw eot's, how were you "forced" to come your decision on linkage between gmo's and ufo's ?
> waterboarding?  baton up the ass ?
> or was it just plan old specious reasoning?



I am making no connection to GMO and UFOS...I am saying given the recent revelations of two national defense ministers and hundreds of high ranking military and space program personal along with the historical and archaeological evidence from the past theories proposing an explanation for human origins involving ancient astronauts take on a new level of credibility that warrants serious consideration...you from your position and perspective my not agree but no less than two former defense minister and several Apollo astronauts have reached a vastly different view than you  both Edgar Mitchell and  the Canadian defense minister say.. I can tell you unequivocally we have had on going alien contact and willing to risk their reputation and legacy on their statements and have both said they are willing to testify before congress under oath and under penalty of perjury as to what they know...to me this carries a lot of weight and is worthy of serious and reasoned consideration


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



there is confirmations of many of the sightings on radar recently declassified yes..and there are extremely credible witnesses as to photographic evidence they are personally aware of that remain classified..do you really think defense minsters..Apollo astronauts..decorated fighter pilots US Airforce Commanders do not consider these little questions before making such statements or going to such lengths ??...I am not privileged to their information first hand so I can not say with certainty what is going on here but clearly there is something  going on well beyond our present understanding


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asnaykgZE8M]Bill Nye attempts to debunk Bob Jacobs' UFO claim. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No I don't think so because if the 2nd law applies to this planet, for over a billion years it has been drifting towards disorder. So your telling me that the genetic code and all things necessary to form a viable cell was developed ? then that cell in turn evolved every living organism that has existed since ?

I never said every mutation but most mutations do nothing at all that get through or they are repaired. Either way just comparing the numbers of beneficial mutations vs harmful mutations hands down far more genetic disorders can be pointed to than benefits from mutations.

The theory takes faith to believe.


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It Indeed does.. its quite a fantastic tale,when you stop and think about it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 11, 2013)

*No I don't think so because if the 2nd law applies to this planet, for over a billion years it has been drifting towards disorder.*

What? We receive energy, 2nd Law doesn't apply.

Are you clear?


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

sky gods and Jesus and friends makes a lot more sense really...that everything and all life is a expression of _the one_ that has always been and always will be


----------



## eots (Aug 11, 2013)

at best from our limited prescriptive we can struggle to understand some of the mechanics involved..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 11, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I went back and read how we got here and it seems I did not finish my sentence. here is what I said.

"Of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not altering the genome,in other words genetically modified. If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you."

It should have been "of course you selectively breed for certain traits that however is not directly altering the genome in the lab.In other words genetically modified with another species gene being fused.If they were not close enough genetically you could not produce offspring. You are not,I repeat you are not modifying the genome like you do for genetically modified food. Dawson shows his ignorance for agreeing with you."

Of course when you add a new trait to an organism you alter the genome


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

eots said:


> sky gods and Jesus and friends makes a lot more sense really...that everything and all life is a expression of _the one_ that has always been and always will be



Thats not true at all. Like so many things theistic in nature, the dogma is quite the opposite of the reality. The jeebus and friends are merely variations on a theme - reinventions of earlier gawds designed by humans to placate their fears and superstitions. As science progresses and nature's mysteries are resolved, the god's job description narrows considerably. Once it was felt that the gods moved the clouds and the winds, the flowers opened by the touch of a celestial finger, and that tornadoes, earthquakes, plagues, volcanoes and floods were by divine fiat. As humans peeled back the layers of Nature and discovered the geometry of the solar system, the engines of weather, the inexorable movement of the plates of the earth and so on, the job of the god was moved further back in the hierarchy of importance. Today, the (semi) monotheistic gods are merely paper shufflers.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's comedy gold to watch you re-write your posts as they are dismantled.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What a shame that your designer gawds are such incompetent designers.

"Faith" is required only to believe that your gawds have created that which depicts such careless design.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 12, 2013)

You, did your god create him/her? And why?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Wrong I just did not complete what I was saying. Daws tried to suggest that genetic engineering and selective breeding were pretty much the same thing and that is false. All you had to do was read the 2nd to the last sentence in what I quoted.

Biotech
ge·net·i·cal·ly modified organism (j-nt-k-l)
n. Abbr. GMO
An organism whose genetic characteristics have been altered by the insertion of a modified gene or a gene from another organism using the techniques of genetic engineering.

You were saying ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> You, did your god create him/her? And why?



No that is your mechanism for evolution at work. My church it's funny had a similar question yesterday from a member of the church. Once they post that video I will share it and lets see Gods answer to similar questions.

We know the old saying is why do bad things happen to good people Jesus said there is only one that is good and that is God. My question to you is why do good things happen to bad people ?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > You, did your god create him/her? And why?
> ...


So you're saying that this person is a product of the evolutionary roll of the dice and NOT a product of your god? Really?

According to theists, bad people will get judged and sent to burning hell for all eternity, so that's not such a good thing?  Personally, I think that good and bad are subjective feelings not recognized by the laws of nature. Like a black hole that does "bad" as others see it, but "good" as far as it's concerned.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Hmm let's look at the definition of evolution and see if you have the right view of evolution.

ev·o·lu·tion  
/&#716;ev&#601;&#712;lo&#862;oSH&#601;n/
Noun

    The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
    The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

So do you think that child is a more complex form ?

According to some theists that believe in a place of torment but I believe they have a doctrine not supported by scripture. It is due to taking everything written in the bible literally. Not everything in the bible is literal and way you find that out is by actually reading the bible.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Being more or less complex is irrelevant. Is this child a product of a) evolution, or b) god, or c) other (please specify).

The bible is a bunch of books written by men, not god.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Is relevant, if anything the child is a product of devolution. All things are a product of Gods creation. Since man made a choice now we are living the consequences of those choices.

If that choice was the correct choice we would not see the misery,pain,and death we observe now. Now we know the difference between good and evil and that was a choice adam and eve made. They made a choice to go away from God and perfection and go to chaos and evil.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Holy Malarkey Batman!! 

You got any proof whatsoever of what you claim?

Btw, so god disfigures children for Adam and Eve's mistake? Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



One of the dangers faced by of cut and pasters is that they tend not to understand the terms they are cutting and pasting definitions for. There are differences separating willful ignorance vs. sheer stupidity. Simply cutting and pasting a definition for evolution could involve _both_ willful ignorance _and_ sheer stupidity. 

Biological evolution does not necessarily require or result in greater complexity. Biological Evolution is a process by which results in heritable changes within a population are spread over many generations.

Once again for the cut and pasters: 

Individuals do not evolve. Populations do. Populations have a huge amount of genetic variation for every physical trait they possess. 

Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer.  This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The real product of human "devolution" are religious extremists who unfortunately, poison the gene pool.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Believing that we were created, and there is a loving God that didn't completely abandon us, is the only faith I need to believe as I do.

Adam and eve made a choice that left all of creation living with the consequences of their choice. We are living in a decaying world not that place called eden where adam and eve had their choice of perfect food and really everything they needed,plus peace and tranquility.

Rom 5:12  Adam sinned, and that sin brought death into the world. Now everyone has sinned, and so everyone must die. 
Rom 5:13  Sin was in the world before the Law came. But no record of sin was kept, because there was no Law. 
Rom 5:14  Yet death still had power over all who lived from the time of Adam to the time of Moses. This happened, though not everyone disobeyed a direct command from God, as Adam did. In some ways Adam is like Christ who came later.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Hmm natural selection is a thinking process interesting.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



The gene pool is poisoned because of the choice made by adam and eve.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As befuddled as always.

Cutting and pasting dictionary definitions that are relevant to a particular topic is difficult when you don't understand the topic.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are wholly illiterate regarding the bible tale. According to the biblical tales and fables, your gawds lied to adam and eve. Satan told the truth. 

How is it that you are so completely ignorant regarding the tales and fables your various bibles really describe?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



But remember, "creation science" relies on "science". 

Really, it does.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Where do you think science came from ? the fields of science exist because of the creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Your words not mine.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I put many years in to studying the scriptures ,it is not I that is wholly illiterate regarding the bible.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As I wrote that, yes, those are my words. 

As befuddled as always.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Rote memorization has not helped you a bit with identifying the errors and inconsistencies within the various biblical tales and fables.

It cannot have come as a surprise to you that your gawds lied to A&E. I spelled out for you earlier the nonsense that defines the genesis tale.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Wrong, dummy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You're calling the wrong person a dummy, my comment came from this comment "
Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness"

Is natural selection a guided mechanism ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You used the word thinking.
You should try it sometime.

Just to be clear, you were wrong about your claim that the 2nd Law prevents evolution?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Hollie said natural selection decides, the better way to say it is very simple, better adapted organisms have a better chance of survival.

decides  3rd person singular present of de·cide (Verb)
Verb

    Come to a resolution in the mind as a result of consideration.

Not if the 2nd law applies to this planet. You said the genetic code could arise as long as it don't violate the 2nd law. So are you contradicting yourself by saying that the 2nd law does apply to this planet ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You're eternally befuddled. Your comment about natural selection being a "thinking process" makes no sense. Similarly, suggesting that natural selection is a "guided process" also makes no sense. 

Congratulations, you're two for two with suggestions that make no sense.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Maybe you should choose your words more wisely nitwit.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So you believe in the bible because you feel like it, not because you have any proof of its god. Got it. 

PS Do you know that you're a moron?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Maybe you should takes some biology classes.  Natural selection is non-random, but is neither a guided process nor a decision tree.  It is non-random because specific adaptations occur as a result of specific changes in the environment of a species.  Darwin's finches are a clear example of this principle.  No one decided that the finches must change as a result of their isolation in an environment that was different than the one in which they were accustomed.  It was simply a matter of biological survival of the species.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your failure to understand some pretty basic concepts is of your own manufacture.

There was nothing in my comments that indicated evolution being a "thinking process"  or a "guided process".   Maybe your lack of a science vocabulary is something you need to work on.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > oh btw eot's, how were you "forced" to come your decision on linkage between gmo's and ufo's ?
> ...


are you trying to set a guinness world record for the most times defence minister and astronauts is used on a thread?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


since you don't believe the planet is a billion years old ,making everything you posted a lie..another nice job of debunking your own shit.


----------



## eots (Aug 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



are trying to set a record for the most inane comments in a single thread by breaking your old record ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


everything else   you said is a dodge to keep from saying the most horrible thing you know...I was wrong...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


that would be you....constant repetition of that phrase is not evidence or in no way is persuasive it lost all that the first time you used it..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


if he ever admitted he was wrong his head would explode... causing great joy among the people!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


still dodging THEY ARE THE SAME THING ..TWO METHODS WITH THE SAME RESULT ...WHAT DOUCHEBAGGERY!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > bumberclyde said:
> ...



what are you a spam bot or what  ? how many times are you going to use your inane little picture instead of big people words ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...





Science is nothing more than formalized common sense. You observe something happening, come up with an idea for how it works, test that idea, if that idea passes the test then that idea becomes a useful rule. If the idea fails to explain it, then you start over and try to come up with another idea. And if a better idea later comes along which explains the phenomenon better than the old rule, you replace it. God didn't create science - it's just the method rational people have always used to understand the universe around them and improve their control over it, even in prehistoric times before anybody had a name for it or was consciously aware of the process.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 12, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



There is plenty of evidence to infer a creator. You have no evidence to prove everything exists on the basis of chance.

PS Do you know that you're a moron ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I assure you I have had more science classes then anyone on your side of the issues in this thread. Yes the environment can cause small micro-adaptations that is not evolution. Like a animals shed in the summer and grow longer hair in the winter it is part of the genetic programming.

There are many different explanations concerning the Galapagos finches.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No I am doing the opposite and showing you how rediculous some of your views are. Yep showing your ignorance one post at a time.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Listen idiot ,because some other idiot say's that selective breeding and bioengineering is pretty much the same is just someone that don't have a clue of what he is talking about. Face it you're a dumbshit and probably always will be.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



My daddy can beat your daddy up


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Changing traits yes,same process no. Remain stupid.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > youwerecreated said:
> ...



Remember, this is probably the dumbest person that visits this forum.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Commonsense tells me I am related to apes


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

Daws loves the thought of being a knuckle dragger ,can't prove it but he believes it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Just to be clear, you were wrong about your claim that the 2nd Law prevents evolution?

Yes you were wrong, no you were not.

Simple answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Seems you have taken a few science classes, I have a few questions for you.

1. How did the DNA code arise?

2. Name a coding system that arose without intelligent design?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Actually, it would be biology and DNA that would tell of a common ancestor. The fosill record would be another clue... excepting the clueless. 

Obviously, you find a book of largely unknown authorship, rife with errors and contradictions and which appeals to your fears and superstitions to frame common sense.


----------



## eots (Aug 12, 2013)

common sense tells me 'science' has not yet uncovered the secretes of life...but for some reason loves to pretend it has


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



1. If you type the expression: "How did the DNA code arise" into a search engine, you will find authoritative sources (to exclude Harun Yahya, your go-to source), that will provide plausible answers.

2. DNA


1a. How did your gawds obtain primacy over the Greek gawds, or Hindu gawds (other than merely being the religion you were born into)?

2a. Identify why a book (in your case the various bibles), is a reliable indication of supernatural gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > But remember, "creation science" relies on "science".
> ...



No kidding, really? So we're to believe that cosmology and specifically geocentrism exist because of the "creator"? In what science text will I find a comprehensive description of the firmament? 

I suppose that the science of medicine owes a debt to the "creator" for allowing dead men to rise. Where is the science of "un-deading" the dead practiced, exactly?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I assure you that you haven't.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The DNA "code" was invented by Watson and Crick to make it easier to decipher the crystalline structure of DNA.  To call DNA itself a code is a misnomer.  It isn't a code.  It is a rather large crystalline organic molecule.

You didn't know this?  So much for you biology education.  You should ask for a refund.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So much for yours ! you can spin it all you like but the the genetic code is the genetic language for all living organisms. You sure did avoid the questions.

The DNA story

The Genetic Language

Home ? Language and Genetics ? Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics

Translating the genetic code

The genetic code - the language of genetics

Now this is funny because I agree with these folks. They know this code did not happen by chance through natural processes.

Scientists claim aliens put secret genetic code in human DNA | Blastr


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The genetic code is exactly what it is called. Now will you provide any code that was not produced through intelligence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 12, 2013)

For your listening pleasure.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xAGZo5_OjI]Alan Jackson - How Great Thou Art (Improved) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogxLNlgKM8c]Alan Jackson - Amazing Grace - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Anyone with any training at all in biological evolution and genetics (and at least one hemisphere of their brain functioning) knows that it doesn't happen by chance. Natural selection is not random.  This has been pointed out ad infinitum to you, but you seem completely happy to recite the creationist play book verbatim and ignore anything contrary to it.  

No one (not even the guy - Francis whatshisname - the Christian evangelist scientist who lead the team that sequenced the first human genome) in the scientific community is claiming that it is anything other than a natural process.  There are no magic spells being recited, no bearded sky daddies waving magic wands over the Earth to get the biochemistry of life set in motion.  Because that is what it is, biochemistry working on time scales from nanoseconds to millennia.  There is nothing unambiguous about this.  There are mountains of data to support it.  All you appear to have is Alan Jackson songs on youtube.  How sad is that?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your question is a red herring.  The genetic "code" is a human construct created by human scientists in order to decipher what is going on inside of the DNA molecule.  That is all it is.  There are no angels in heaven typing out the four amino acids that make up DNA on a heavenly DNA typewriter, dude.  It is a complex dance of chemical reactions that is quantifiable, repeatable, and completely and utterly natural.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The "genetic code" is a confusion of terms (and a slogan), misused by religious extremists who don't know any better. DNA at it's most basic level is a chemical compound. I don't know of anyone who is assigning magical / mystical codes to the chemical composition of water... unless of course, the religious extremist is going to propose that the "code" for water was produced by the gods.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What evidence? And I NEVER said that things exist by chance, you made that up... like the rest of your argument.

PS. Yes I do. Do you?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Breaking news, I am a creationist.

Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on much of the ideas of natural selection, except the idea that natural selection leads from molecules to man evolution.

the only speciation that has ever been observed is in a population that produced distinct populations was because they rarely interbreed usually because of geographic isolation or other factors.

Speciation has never been observed to turn one kind of an animal into another. Lions and tigers are both members of the cat family, they are considered different species because of their geographic isolation but it is possible to breed the two.

An adaptation is a physical trait that is a inherited characteristic that gives an organism the ability to survive in a certain environment.

Evolutionists look at a characteristics and assume that they were produced through a gradual series of changes and call it an adaptation to a given environment. The problem with this scenario are the amount of time for such changes and lack the mechanism to cause the changes.

No Alan Jackson is not all we have.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Is the genetic code the blue print that gets translated to form an organism yes or no ?

You're argument is juvenile. I have mountains of evidence and the community that agree with me.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 13, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



In your view would we exist if it were not for random chance ? or do you believe everything exists because of an intelligent designer ?

By all means explain how we got here if neither of the two choices I supplied apply to your view.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


It looks like we got here from the Big Bang. Whether that was designed by a god is not known at this time. To presume you know for a fact (even though you have none) that an invisible god exists and is punishing children by disfiguring them because of what some alleged people did way back when in some mythical garden is pure arrogance, if not outright lunacy. Or do you actually have any real proof?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Just to be clear, you were wrong about your claim that the 2nd Law prevents evolution?

Yes you were wrong, no you were not.

Simple answer.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 13, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



So you can't prove how we got here nor can I. I take the belief in a creator on the basis of faith just as you take the view we came here through the big bang on faith. Neither view is science ok. You believe there is evidence to infer naturalism I see evidence that infers purposeful design. We see the same evidence and have different interpretations of the evidence.

Curious though, I see these kind of comments all the time by people who doubt creation ever happened but then come back with a similar comment to yours.

Why would a loving and just God allow what is currently going on in this world. Is it that you want to believe but can't imagine God allowing all the bad things going on in this world ? or is it because you can't answer the questions so you deliberately slap at a creationist ? because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I don't believe I was wrong because I am finding out that the earth is a closed system not an open system.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Your comment about seeing the same evidence is comedy gold. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya and christian ministries hardly qualifies as reliable evidence. Similarly, cutting and pasting verses from the bibles is evidence of only your ability to cut and paste.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No kidding?  And here I was thinking that you were a Nobel-winning biologist.  You have my sympathy.  



> Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on much of the ideas of natural selection, except the idea that natural selection leads from molecules to man evolution.



It is known that there are several camps in the creationist cult.  None of them have a clue as to what evolution really is.  For instance, none of them, as your statement above readily  admits, understand that evolution is not about the origin of life.  Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life.  However life came about, it evolves.



> the only speciation that has ever been observed is in a population that produced distinct populations was because they rarely interbreed usually because of geographic isolation or other factors.
> 
> Speciation has never been observed to turn one kind of an animal into another. Lions and tigers are both members of the cat family, they are considered different species because of their geographic isolation but it is possible to breed the two.



Proving yet again how very little creationists understand about evolution.  If a cat could, for instance, evolve into a dog, that would REFUTE evolution, not support it.  Come on, surely your creationists play book has itself evolved in the past ten years.  You mean to tell me that they are still trying to push this nonsense?



> An adaptation is a physical trait that is a inherited characteristic that gives an organism the ability to survive in a certain environment.
> 
> Evolutionists look at a characteristics and assume that they were produced through a gradual series of changes and call it an adaptation to a given environment. The problem with this scenario are the amount of time for such changes and lack the mechanism to cause the changes.



So your problem is that you not only reject natural selection, but believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years.  Oh my.  You have serious issues, dude.



> No Alan Jackson is not all we have.



Coulda fooled me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The Earth receives no matter or energy?

Where did you find that out?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



A blueprint that Watson and Crick invented in order to make sense of the chemical structure of DNA.  Before these two gentlemen, no one understood how DNA was put together, much less how it worked.



> You're argument is juvenile. I have mountains of evidence and the community that agree with me.



You have diddly squat.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You have Alan Jackson.  I have Neil:


----------



## Hollie (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> ... because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.



Oh my. A bible thumping, hair-on-fire, Endtimes 'awaitin, death cultist.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I don't take the BB on faith, it's science that showed the BB, you know, that pesky little proof your god theory lacks. And until you can provide some proof that a scientist can back up properly (no quacks), god is merely a THEORY. The FACTS show that man has yet to figure out the who and why of the BB.


----------



## eots (Aug 13, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Until you can create life from non living substances or show me a creature of one species giving birth naturally to a creature of another species all you have is a theory


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

eots said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution.  Brilliant move, Einstein.  As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...


You, so you actually believe that the only reason that there's life on earth is because a god put it there? And put humans intact like the bible says? FUCKING WOW!!! All along I was debating with an imbecile!!! 
Unless of course, you have ANY proof of the story of creation as per the bible..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



*WTF*?  How you got that out of my posts is a big mystery.  Care to explain?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 13, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



I can make the same claim. It's this simple, everyone is affected in how they interpret evidence by our presuppositions. I know I was once on your side then came to this side. Anyone who says they are not affected by their presuppositions are not being honest.

There is evidence to support design, enough for it to be a theory.It just gets rejected because there is no direct evidence of God himself but wait there is no evidence of a mechanism for how everything just arose without direction.


----------



## eots (Aug 13, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



the story of creation as per the bible..would seem to hold so clues as to the nature of existence..but contains inaccuracies if taken  literally..I dont think science has even come close to understanding the nature of existence  it understands some of the physics and mechanics of the life process and exsistence


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



You are forgetting one thing, even if scientists discover a way to create life all you did was show it could only be accomplished through intelligence.

Thank you !


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Agreed lol he is the imbecile.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



I was replying to the post that you also replied to, sorry, if I fucked that up.

So You, the reply is for you, what say you?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Actually no, clueless. The attempts so far to spark life are being done with an acknowledgment of conditions on the planet as they existed in the distant past. As you believe the planet is only 6,000 years old, that is an obvious difficulty for you.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Sorry, clueless. There is no testable evidence to support magical design just as there is no testable evidence for your magical gawds.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Recreating in the laboratory the natural conditions that existed when life first appeared does take intelligence, human intelligence.  Since they were the natural conditions that exited 4 billion years ago, when there was no life on the planet, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that a magic sky daddy waved his magic wand and sparked into existence the first life forms into existence.  Particularly when we prove that it can be done naturally.  And most particularly since you have no evidence that said magic sky daddy even exists.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Aug 13, 2013)

If you believe we started out as simple single celled life forms, and developed into complex beings, then how did that single celled organism start out with complex DNA?  
Birds started out with hollow bones, so they'd be light enough for flight. They didn't end up that way, they began that way.
And explain the complexity of an eye.  It started out complex, and has remained complex through out.

We have to stop thinking that God, and science oppose each other.
They oppose each other like a thumb opposes the fingers. 
*Together*, they can grasp anything........


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> If you believe we started out as simple single celled life forms, and developed into complex beings, then how did that single celled organism start out with complex DNA?
> Birds started out with hollow bones, so they'd be light enough for flight. They didn't end up that way, they began that way.
> And explain the complexity of an eye.  It started out complex, and has remained complex through out.
> 
> ...



Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?

DNA came before single-celled organisms (and before that came RNA), and were very simple compared to what we see today.

Birds did not start out with hollow bones.  Birds started out as therapod dinosaurs, which evolved into birds.  And the therapods did not have hollow bones, though some had breast bones like birds, and most had bird-like pelvic girdles.

As for the complexity of the eye:


----------



## eots (Aug 13, 2013)

many a truth has been refuted ad nausea for decades...


----------



## eots (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe we started out as simple single celled life forms, and developed into complex beings, then how did that single celled organism start out with complex DNA?
> ...



For something that is supposed to a certainty these folk sure use the phrases _could of _and_ might have_ a lot


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

That's it?  That's your response?  Really?


----------



## eots (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> That's it?  That's your response?  Really?



it would seem that it might be..that is to say it could be


----------



## daws101 (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 a dodge to keep from saying the most horrible thing you know...I was wrong...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 13, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> If you believe we started out as simple single celled life forms, and developed into complex beings, then how did that single celled organism start out with complex DNA?
> Birds started out with hollow bones, so they'd be light enough for flight. They didn't end up that way, they began that way.
> And explain the complexity of an eye.  It started out complex, and has remained complex through out.
> 
> ...



It truly is a shame that Christian creationists still seek to inflict these _arguments from incredulity_ on anyone when they have been thoroughly trashed for decades. 


CB301: Eye complexity

Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved. 

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7. 
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68. 


Response:
1.	This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872). 
	photosensitive cell 
	aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve 
	an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin 
	pigment cells forming a small depression 
	pigment cells forming a deeper depression 
	the skin over the depression taking a lens shape 
	muscles allowing the lens to adjust 

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists. 

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate &#946;&#947;-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona &#946;&#947;-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single &#946;&#947;-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


speaking of inane..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I think Bumberclyde was referring to eots..


----------



## The Irish Ram (Aug 13, 2013)

> Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?



Sure, I'll play.
 What Science tried to refute yesterday it confirms today.  If that's not the case why do we keep having to change our minds?  Doesn't 4 dimensions refute 3?  And 10 refute 4?  Infinite, maybe?  


Einstein was convinced there were  3 dimensions, before someone told him about a forth.
Science and biology constantly break *their* old beliefs and understanding with new discoveries.  You couldn't have convinced a biologist that single celled organisms were anything *other* than simple to the core, before they discovered DNA.  So, for now we teach, simple/yet somehow complex.......

So explain flight.  Did dinosaurs want to fly, so they decided to mutate over millions of years till one said, "I think we are capable of flight now?  Where is the plethora of evolving bones in various stages?  How long did it take before something flew?

As for, we used to be monkeys:
Did one Neanderthal give birth to a modern, or did some of them have smart babies and some weren't so randomly blessed? Why? Or did they all start evolving at once and mankind was born and Neanderthal was passe?  How is it then that we have unearthed modern man's camps  found to exist at the same time we thought Neanderthals were still just Neanderthals?   Now what biology? 

As for the amazing eye:
Let's see what the messiah of random evolution had to say after he wrote the Origin of Species, about his personal doubts that evolution could ever have been responsible for something as complex as the eye: 
"The eye, to this day gives me a shudder because it is an organ of extreme perfection."

Here's what evolutionist Dr. Mayer said about the eye:
" It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs, could be improved by random mutation."

For sight to occur, one million optic nerves with  protective sheaths have to simultaneously begin growing out of the eye through flesh to the optic center in the brain where they have to identify and *precisely align with* one million separate optic nerves growing out of the brain. * For each eye*.  

So how long was everything blind before evolution did it's thing?  Did randomness *finally* fine tune the eye over millions of years,  or is God a master biologist from the beginning.
We adapt to our environment, we don't change into something else.  We are the Adamic race who has been able to see and think since Adam. 

To believe that our Universe, including humanity accidentally evolved into life from dead inanimate matter by random chance over billions of years flies in the face of intelligence, literally.  
It's either random and chaotic, or orderly, with *Laws*.  
We are infants in understanding God's handiwork. 
Who's Laws do you think physicists are discovering anyway??


----------



## daws101 (Aug 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


 really? most of the greatest scientific discoveries came about by accident or serendipity just the opposite of intelligence.
also you conveniently leave out  that is no evidence  god or the designer is intelligent...or even exists..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 13, 2013)

eots said:


> many a truth has been refuted ad nausea for decades...


that's a meaningless statement in this context as science is about facts not truth..
truth good & evil ,god are all philosophical concepts.. not facts..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 13, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


why do you believe the laws need to be  the no evidence for or against deity's ?
 the laws are in essence cause and effect.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 13, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting.  Welcome to the scientific method.  Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?

By the way, nine times out of ten, the laws of physics, once determined, are not repealed.  Einstein didn't replace Newton.  He expanded on Newton's discoveries.  There is an explanation for flight.  It is called the theory of flight.  That theory has enabled man to build airplanes, hang gliders, and rocket ships to the Moon and beyond.  And just like the theory of flight explains the fact of flight, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.  And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it.  Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution.

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.  A Neanderthal woman did not magically give birth to a fully formed _Homo sapiens sapiens_.  That just doesn't happen.  Moreover, it is not clear at all that we are direct descendants of Neanderthals.  It is highly probable that Neanderthals are a divergent species.  Meaning that modern humans and Neanderthal likely descended from a common earlier species.  DNA analysis indicates that some living human populations have Neanderthal genetic material while others do not.  This would not be the case if all humans were descended from Neanderthal.

And your argument assumes that humans aren't evolving today.  We certainly are.  We are living longer, and growing larger than ever before.

And finally, I have a question for you.  From what web site did you copy and paste your creationist response?  Do you understand the rules here about plagiarism?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Aug 13, 2013)

> All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting. Welcome to the scientific method. Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?
> 
> By the way, nine times out of ten, the laws of physics, once determined, are not repealed. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He expanded on Newton's discoveries. There is an explanation for flight. It is called the theory of flight. That theory has enabled man to build airplanes, hang gliders, and rocket ships to the Moon and beyond. And just like the theory of flight explains the fact of flight, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it. Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution.
> 
> ...



God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow.  He doesn't have to rely on correction.  The number of dimensions He created doesn't change. Our discovery of them does.

Man kept adapting his equations on flight till he found one that worked.  They used physics.  They didn't *invent* physics in order to fly. They *discovered* what was already in existence and worked with it.

Theories *might* explain facts.  If they *did* explain the facts of flight or evolution they would be the Law of flight, the Law of evolution.
A theory is a belief that hasn't  been proven or established as law.  Law however has been established *by* *science* as immutable. Until now, we never questioned the 1st and 2nd LAW of thermodynamics.  Turns out now they've decided something can possibly, come from nothing, maybe.

Newton *knew* who's law's he was discovering.  Einstein bumbled along with help from the past and his present.  And our present thinkers say maybe Einstein was wrong, not only about dimensions, but also the belief that nothing can be faster than the speed of light. < On that *he* was immutable. And we bought it because we had nothing better to oppose the idea.  We've thought our way clear to seeing things differently in our age.  

Adaption happens to populations to survive their habitat. They don't switch species.  You proved my point by claiming it is not clear, *at all*, that we are direct descendants of Neanderthal.  Because what I was taught in science class was that they were sure of it.  Sure enough to replace Creationism with their monkeys. 
That their monkey chart no longer applies  shows how fragile our science is.  In fact, if what they taught me was true, we should all have traces of Neanderthal DNA.  The fact that they have found it in some individuals, but not all makes science think that a few modern women had sex with some Neanderthals in a camp nearby.   In other words, she was slumming, not evolving.

Not only does my argument assume that we are no longer evolving, but some notables in the science field believe we are now, devolving.  Where in the evolutionary ladder do we recognize a turning point in evolution?  Darwin never mentioned one.  The concept is contrary to the theory of evolution itself, and yet, here we are.  

We live longer due to technological advancements. We haven't evolved into healthier human beings. We fix hearts now, control the pressure of our blood, take vitamins. And yes, we certainly have grown larger.  Our utensils have evolved into shovels.

The Europeans thought for sure that the children of the people that migrated to America were being poisoned by the food and sea life they were consuming here and that they would evolve into savages like the ones that were here when the immigrants arrived.  The immigrants offspring *were* much bigger and stronger than the Europeans.  Turns out it was rich soil.

And finally, I study to show myself approved.  If you think there is a web sight out there that I stole my response from, charge me before the powers that be and bring your proof.  I'll give them a list of books that developed my beliefs and my response.

_______________________________________________

In the game of energy, and thermodynamics, you can't even break even.~ plagiarized from Isaac Asimov.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Proving the point that it had to be directed. How do they know the conditions of this planet 2.7 billion years ago ?

Seriously ? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer ?


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 13, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> > All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting. Welcome to the scientific method. Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?
> >
> > By the way, nine times out of ten, the laws of physics, once determined, are not repealed. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He expanded on Newton's discoveries. There is an explanation for flight. It is called the theory of flight. That theory has enabled man to build airplanes, hang gliders, and rocket ships to the Moon and beyond. And just like the theory of flight explains the fact of flight, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it. Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution.
> >
> ...



*"God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow"*

Nonsense.  If that were true Moses would have come down from the Mountain with something more credible than stone tablets that any stone cutter of the time could have fashioned.  A God that existed now as then would have provided something proving he is a god of now as then.  Maybe a titanium tablet with today's graphics and font in the language of that period..maybe ALL of the languages of that period.  But no.. it was a hokey work of chiseled rock.  You god is a loser....a no talent loser.  Or maybe the real answer is that Moses was a fraud.  Maybe the people of the period were just the stupid precursors to what is now the moder day Christian and Jew.  AKA gulible morons.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?
> ...



"the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.  And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it.  Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution."


Really? What ?

What's Holding Back Cures? Our Collective Ignorance (And No, Not A Pharma Conspiracy) - Forbes

Conclusion

Im sorry, but I just dont get it. Am I missing something? Am I just a contrary curmudgeon? Evolution is already an essential part of all science. Medical scientists already understand evolution and apply its principles appropriately. I didnt see a single example in their book of any significant practical development in medical care that would not have occurred in the general course of medical science as it is commonly practiced, without any need for a separate discipline of Darwinian medicine. Evolutionary explanations, whether true or speculative, may satisfy our wish to understand why, but I cant see that they have much objective usefulness.  Instead, they have produced at least one major annoyance: a movement that preaches to us how we ought to revert to the supposed diet of our ancestors (the Cave Man Diet, etc.).

Do We Need ?Evolutionary Medicine?? « Science-Based Medicine


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

What one reader (David Gorski) had to say about your last article:



> Im going to have to disagree with you strongly here, Harriet. Until pretty recently, evolutionary thinking has never been an integral part of medicine, except in distorted forms like eugenics and nonsense like the paleo diet. In particular, I would take issue that doctors regularly think about evolution. Practicing doctors, in my experience, rarely, if ever, think about evolution with respect to medicine. Although evolutionary considerations have been (and continue to be) important in some areas of research, before the last few years, there were really only two areas in medicine where evolutionary thinking has played a significant role in actual clinical practice. Thats in infectious diseases (the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria) and in medical oncology, where, as Ive discussed before, the evolution of different subclones in cancer is one of the major hurdlesif not the single most insurmountable hurdlein designing systemic cancer therapies. I note that the latter of these has only come to the fore in a big way over the last few years. So, while its true that evolution undergirds virtually every aspect of the genomics revolution, because evolutionary theory is the very basis we use to compare genes, identify mutations, and infer function, that thinking, sadly, has not filtered down to actual clinical practice very much yet, even now.
> 
> I also have to echo Emils comment. Nesses book is old. Its practically ancient. 18 years is an eternity in biomedical research. Back when that book was written, we did not know the sequence of the human genome because the Human Genome Project was in its infancy. Its final results were six years away. In 1994, it was not possible to do whole genome expression profiling, thus analyzing the expression of every gene in the genome simultaneously. Our most recent techniques, next generation sequencing sequencing techniques that allow us to sequence entire genomes and transcriptomes and identify every transcribed sequence, non-coding sequence, and chromosomal alteration were well over a decade away. The sophisticated computer algorithms and bioinformatics approaches that allow us to infer these evolutionary relationships from sequence and proteome data did not exist.
> 
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It has to be directed because we have no evidence for a magic sky daddy?  Seriously?  That's the argument you want to present?

We know because those conditions are preserved in the sediments that were deposited 2.7 billion years ago.

You know repeating lies and strawman arguments (i.e., Seriously? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer?) has never made them true no matter how many times you repeat them.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> > All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting. Welcome to the scientific method. Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?
> >
> > By the way, nine times out of ten, the laws of physics, once determined, are not repealed. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He expanded on Newton's discoveries. There is an explanation for flight. It is called the theory of flight. That theory has enabled man to build airplanes, hang gliders, and rocket ships to the Moon and beyond. And just like the theory of flight explains the fact of flight, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it. Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution.
> >
> ...



Wow, that was the longest bit of word salad I've seen in a very long time.  The only question that comes to mind is how you managed to keep a straight face while typing it, because, damn.


----------



## eots (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I find in amusing that someone that would use terms like magic sky daddy to characterize the concept of an unifying intelligence to existence and creation would accuse someone of using strawmen


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do you also find it amusing when so many of your fellow Christians pray to their magic sky daddy and not only expect a response, but expect that their prayers will be magically answered?


----------



## eots (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes the power of intention and the effect of the observer an interesting phenomenon not yet understood by science however.. I do not think there is anything magical about any of it..I have little doubt that all of creation and the intelligence behind it operates of principals that ultimately could be measured and calculated with enough understanding...like with primitive people the only thing that makes us think its somehow magical is our lack of understanding of the principals at work


----------



## eots (Aug 14, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFCwN5uqSS4]Can group meditation bring World Peace Quantum Physicist, John Hagelin explains - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots (Aug 14, 2013)

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality
Feb. 27, 1998 &#8212; REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.
Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That's why I'm an agnostic, there's no real proof one way or the other to prove or disprove a god. If someone ever comes up with real proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Atheists and theists are delusional.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow.  He doesn't have to rely on correction.  The number of dimensions He created doesn't change. Our discovery of them does.



Actually, it just isn't true that the gods are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The number of religions and gods that have come and gone are evidence of that. 

What is comical is your insistence that your gods are the " real" gods for no other reasons than parentage and place of birth. For you, the gods are the Christian gods. Had you been born in India to Hindu parents, you would, almost certainly be worshipping (and imposing) very different gods. It's just a fact that for the majority of religious people, their religion has nothing to do with faith but rather, is nothing more than a function of adopting the biases and traditions of their cultural norms.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So that would be a yes you do find it amusing.  Got it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> What one reader (David Gorski) had to say about your last article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Evolutionary medicine

Evolutionary medicine or Darwinian medicine is the application of modern evolutionary theory to understanding health and disease. The goal of evolutionary medicine is to understand why people get sick, not simply how they get sick. Modern medical research and practice has focused on the molecular and physiological mechanisms underlying health and disease, while evolutionary medicine focuses on the question of why evolution has shaped these mechanisms in ways that may leave us susceptible to disease. The evolutionary approach has driven important advances in our understanding of antibiotic resistance,[1] cancer,[2] autoimmune disease,[3] and anatomy.[4] Medical schools have been slower to integrate evolutionary approaches because of limitations on what can be added to existing medical curricula.[5]

Evolutionary medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > What one reader (David Gorski) had to say about your last article:
> ...



Which proves my point, and confirms what David Gorski has said.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Counterexamples to Evolution


The theory of evolution does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. If any one of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[2]), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%. 

Counterexamples to Evolution - Conservapedia


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You were making the claim to the opposite of how evolutionary medicine plays such an important role in medicine.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I was not making a claim.  I was pointing out the fact that the theory of evolution has advanced medical science far beyond where it would be without it.  And that is true.  "The evolutionary approach has driven important advances in our understanding of antibiotic resistance,[1] cancer,[2] autoimmune disease,[3] and anatomy".  And while it is true that medical schools have been "slower to integrate evolutionary approaches because of limitations on what can be added to existing medical curricula" that has not diminished  medical research using evolutionary approaches.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


there you go again, you do not believe the earth is even close to 2.7billion years old which precludes you from making any reasoned statement about events or conditions in a era you don't believe ever happened.
there is no evidence of an intelligently guided process. where's god's barcode or copyright?
your use of the word randomness is an intentionally false depiction of processes and conditions you don't believe occurred. 
in other words shut the fuck up...till you have a clue.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > What one reader (David Gorski) had to say about your last article:
> ...



Tell us again how the 2nd Law makes evolution on Earth impossible, because it's a closed system.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what I find amusing is this:" the concept of an unifying intelligence to existence and creation".. is meaningless gobbledygook..trying and failing epically to appear profound.
it's right up there with the shit Jack Van Impe  Jack Van Impe - Royal Baby Prince George the Antichrist
spews every sunday.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Counterexamples to Evolution
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. If any one of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[2]), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.
> ...






the Question evolution! campaign by Creation Ministries International is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.[1] The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found HERE.


so much for scientific  objectivity and credibility.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


if you hadn't noticed YWC will argue minutia...especially after he's had his ass handed to him.
 btw excellent job!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> there you go again, you do not believe the earth is even close to 2.7billion years old which precludes you from making any reasoned statement about events or conditions in a era you don't believe ever happened.
> there is no evidence of an intelligently guided process. where's god's barcode or copyright?
> your use of the word randomness is an intentionally false depiction of processes and conditions you don't believe occurred.
> in other words shut the fuck up...till you have a clue.



Psst, sparky?

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, based on radiographic testing.

Where the hell did you come up with 2.7?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Counterexamples to Evolution
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. If any one of the 48 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[2]), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.
> ...



Gee whiz. There's less than a 9% chance that evolution is true?

I suppose I'll need to trash all that earth science, chemistry, paleontology, geology, physics, etc., I've been poisoned with and read the various bibles. I've long had a suspicion that the earth really is flat. I'm convinced that the bibles are the only books anyone needs to read.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > there you go again, you do not believe the earth is even close to 2.7billion years old which precludes you from making any reasoned statement about events or conditions in a era you don't believe ever happened.
> ...



False. The earth is less than 10k years old. If you had studied your lessons at the madrassah, you would know that.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > there you go again, you do not believe the earth is even close to 2.7billion years old which precludes you from making any reasoned statement about events or conditions in a era you don't believe ever happened.
> ...


I didn't shit head...once again you make an ass out of yourself..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > there you go again, you do not believe the earth is even close to 2.7billion years old which precludes you from making any reasoned statement about events or conditions in a era you don't believe ever happened.
> ...


try reading post#2478..


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> False. The earth is less than 10k years old. If you had studied your lessons at the madrassah, you would know that.



IF he had said 6,000 - would at least know where he came up with it.

But 2.7? That seems an arbitrary figure. But Daws has trouble with things like simple facts.

I really wish he'd join the other side.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> I didn't shit head...once again you make an ass out of yourself..



Ah, the meanies were hacking the board and changing your posts again, got it....


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > False. The earth is less than 10k years old. If you had studied your lessons at the madrassah, you would know that.
> ...


you just keep thinkin that.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Aug 14, 2013)

> Hollie;7684194
> Actually, it just isn't true that the gods are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The number of religions and gods that have come and gone are evidence of that.
> 
> What is comical is your insistence that your gods are the " real" gods for no other reasons than parentage and place of birth. For you, the gods are the Christian gods. Had you been born in India to Hindu parents, you would, almost certainly be worshipping (and imposing) very different gods. It's just a fact that for the majority of religious people, their religion has nothing to do with faith but rather, is nothing more than a function of adopting the biases and traditions of their cultural norms.



And yet there are Christians in India, China, Russia, Egypt etc.
I could have been born anywhere and would know the God of Abraham.  
Actually it is true, from beginning to end.
Religions and gods do come and go, but what Christ said will never pass away. Christians have God, not gods.
I have provided several reasons for belief in God.  Your assessment is limited, not my post.
You would have us believe that If there was an explosion in a printing shop, when the dust cleared an unabridged dictionary would be the result.  You're comical.

God said He was light.  Want to talk about what science simply can't explain?  
How  light make decisions.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't shit head...once again you make an ass out of yourself..
> ...


right...beleive that lie... and don't take any responsibility for your douchebaggery.
btw you never did tell me who everybody was?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie;7684194
> Actually said:
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > there you go again, you do not believe the earth is even close to 2.7billion years old which precludes you from making any reasoned statement about events or conditions in a era you don't believe ever happened.
> ...



He was referring to the age of life on Earth, not the age of the Earth.  2.7 - 3.5 is the currently accepted range.  Further research will likely narrow he range.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Because the earth would have been exp more and more disorder for almost 2 billion years. Tell me how order and complexity arose after that long of disorder ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Counterexamples to Evolution
> ...



So scientists do not question their own theories ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > there you go again, you do not believe the earth is even close to 2.7billion years old which precludes you from making any reasoned statement about events or conditions in a era you don't believe ever happened.
> ...



When did life supposedly appear on earth ? some say earlier in time.

That must have went over his head.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That is your opinion, there are others that don't agree with it. What did they add to the curricula according to the source ?

Hell the medical researchers and evolutionists were at odds with each other.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


specious conjecture.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes they do .on the other hand what you posted are not questions they are leading statement with a forgone conclusion..aka trick questions from a biased source...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > False. The earth is less than 10k years old. If you had studied your lessons at the madrassah, you would know that.
> ...



We don't need or want him discussing the issues.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



And yet daws could not explain it to him


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


another classic false assumption /accusation.
to reiterate: "there you go again, you do not believe the earth is even close to 2.7billion years old which precludes you from making any reasoned statement about events or conditions in a era you don't believe ever happened."-DAWS
slapdick.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And so is the view that disorder can result in more order.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


false! there you go again, you do not believe the earth is even close to 2.7billion years old which precludes you from making any reasoned statement about events or conditions in a era you don't believe ever happened.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 14, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> God said He was light.  Want to talk about what science simply can't explain?
> How  light make decisions.



I'm sorry; light makes decisions?

You've lost me here.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



If you know this than rationally you should be able to decipher What I am doing, or is it that comprehension problem raising it's head again ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it's called chaos theory.

Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including meteorology, physics, engineering, economics and biology. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. This was summarised by Edward Lorenz as follows:[5]
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Chaotic behavior can be observed in many natural systems, such as weather.[6][7] Explanation of such behavior may be sought through analysis of a chaotic mathematical model, or through analytical techniques such as recurrence plots and Poincaré maps.
Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > God said He was light.  Want to talk about what science simply can't explain?
> ...


not surprising!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you're doing  the same old debunked bulshit you always do..
plus plagiarizing.
you want fries with that.

btw rational and rationally are above your pay grade...
what you believe is by definition not rational...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> He was referring to the age of life on Earth, not the age of the Earth.  2.7 - 3.5 is the currently accepted range.  Further research will likely narrow he range.



Okay, I'll buy that.

4.6 billion years includes the period of the proto-Earth, and perhaps one with less mass and no moon.

4.56 - commonly rounded to 4.6, is the accepted age of our planet. I should have guessed that Daws would confuse life on Earth with the age of the Earth. The boi has some comprehension challenges.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Right! another conjecture filled theory to shape your vivid imagination.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



2 billion years of disorder means evolution cannot occur?
*
Tell me how order and complexity arose after that long of disorder?*

Tell me why the length of time makes the slightest difference?
If the Earth was 1 million years old, energy could be used to perform work, make things ordered and complex but when the Earth is 2 billion years old, energy can't perform work, make things ordered and complex?

Is the Earth too old now for a tree to use the Sun's energy to turn CO2 and H2O into something more complex?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It is not an opinion.  It is a fact that the theory of evolution has advanced medical researchfar beyond what it would otherwise have achieved.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No one can rationally decipher what you are doing because what you are doing is not rational.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > He was referring to the age of life on Earth, not the age of the Earth.  2.7 - 3.5 is the currently accepted range.  Further research will likely narrow he range.
> ...


wrong again, your insistance that I said that make you look even more assholish if such a thing were possible.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


strike three! 
it's no more conjectrous than evolution.
and far less conjectrous  then creationist pseudoscience babble.
btw vivid imaginations shape theories .
they are not shaped by them.
since you lack an imagination of any kind, it's not surprising you spew and gobble up the false premise shit you do.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I bet if you took your car with a full tank of gas, and just parked it outside with the key in the ignition ,that car would never start itself. 

I am sure you would go along with that logic but go against that logic by thinking chemicals left to themselves would fully develop a cell that produced all life. 

Is what you believe rational ?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> When did life supposedly appear on earth ? some say earlier in time.
> 
> That must have went over his head.



It depends on how you define "life." Chemicals that would spontaneously regenerate appeared nearly 4 billion years ago. The earliest fossils date 3.5 billion years. I would say that the earlier estimate points to the "precursor to life," the cosmic soup, if you will. Thus I stick with the well established 3.5 billion year figure.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


false comparison..the reason why is obvious..
thanks for playing..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Because as time passes disorder would increase and with the more disorder the less of the chance of it becoming ordered.

Once again you are using a bad argument. the only reason why that tree can use the suns energy to overcome disorder is because of it's genetic coding that forces it's will on matter but that is only a temporary state of a natural cycle.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> not surprising!



So, you also think that light makes decisions?

Figures...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Wow, you REALLY need to take a chemistry class, because, damn!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Ok the truth is you can't admit your view is illogical. It takes something to flip that switch to start that car,just like it takes something to properly sequence those chemicals and convert them into something that would produce life.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Nah I don't,whip that magic on me.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If a system has input and output, would you call that an isolated system, or an open system?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > not surprising!
> ...


you really have a talent for false assumption..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


*
Because as time passes disorder would increase and with the more disorder the less of the chance of it becoming ordered.*

Time passing does not make order less likely with the application of energy.

Some of the atoms that make up the Earth get more ordered all the time, why do you refuse to see?

*the only reason why that tree can use the suns energy to overcome disorder is because of it's genetic coding *

It's true, things are becoming ordered on the Earth, even now. Even 4.6 billion (or so) years after the Earth was formed. With no violation of the 2nd Law in sight.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


the truth is you're making a false comparison..a car is not and does not have the potential to be life.
your example is neither logical  log·i·cal  [loj-i-kuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference.
2.
reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind: logical thinking.
3.
reasonable; to be expected: War was the logical consequence of such threats.
4.
of or pertaining to logic.  
 OR RATIONAL 

ra·tion·al  [rash-uh-nl, rash-nl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2.
having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3.
being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4.
endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5.
of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


YEAH YOU DO!
any thing you might have learned was tossed out when you had your Epiphany.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Open system.

Earth is a closed system.

http://www.uvm.edu/~cmehrten/courses/earthhist/Earth Closed System.pdf


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit .

Is earth an open or closed system?
In: Geology, Environmental Issues	
Answer
both. For everything except energy, it's closed. 
For energy (i.e. the sun's input, radiation into space at night) it's open. 


One definition of a closed system is a system that can exchange energy with it's environment but not matter. Therefore the earth is a closed system by this logic.

Is earth an open or closed system


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I know you did not read what I posted,heck it even has your favorite things daws,pictures.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



A closed system allows energy in and out. Which is why a tree can turn simple molecules, CO2 and H2O into complex molecules like sugars and cellulose. No violation of the 2nd Law here.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Daws you have a fully functional car all you need is to evolve a mechanism to turn that key. Just as you need a mechanism to properly sequence chemicals at each stage to produce life.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Wrong answer.  For matter, even though it receives a miniscule amount of matter in the form of meteorites and space dust, and loses a miniscule amount of matter to space in the form of gases such as helium and water vapor, it is essentially closed with respect to matter. But with respect to energy, it is an open system, since it constantly receives energy from the sun and from cosmic rays, and constantly emits infrared radiation back into space.  For energy, it is an open system.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The argument is that life would have never formed in a disordered system and that means no chance of evolution.not the evolution that would result in all the diversity of life according to theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



There are others that agree that the earth is a closed system for the very reasons that was given on the pdf form.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


*
The argument is that life would have never formed in a disordered system *

I know, because of the 2nd Law. LOL!

Come on, you're putting us on. You can't really be this stupid.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


false ...I read it the first time you posted it .this is the umptheenth you've done so 
and you're still wrong.
besides it's basic science.
I understand the idea that something could be two thing at the same time befuddles you.
it's more proof you have no imagination.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


justification of a false premise.
your post reeks of desperation.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


major bullshit.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> The argument is that life would have never formed in a disordered system *
> 
> I know, because of the 2nd Law. LOL!
> ...



Don't confuse "stupid" and "desperate."

YWC is desperate, desperate to prove that what is irrefutable, somehow is false. What I don't understand is, if he needs for this all to be the creation of god, why not simply say that god used evolution to to make the species? Why this silly attempt to deny fully established evidence?

It is simple fact that life evolves. Sometimes it evolves in an intelligent manner, we have documented protists who consume other protists and incorporate DNA sequences, thus evolving through assimilation. Observed fact. There is no rational argument against the reality of evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



The issue faced by ywc is not resolved by allowing evolution to have been a mechanism of the gods. He is confronted with the undeniable evidence (by rational people), of an ancient earth. That is in direct opposition to his insistence for a literal genesis tale. There is no way to reconcile the two vastly different timelines.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That you choose to remain ignorant on these issues is entirely your problem.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> The issue faced by ywc is not resolved by allowing evolution to have been a mechanism of the gods. He is confronted with the undeniable evidence (by rational people), of an ancient earth. That is in direct opposition to his insistence for a literal genesis tale. There is no way to reconcile the two vastly different timelines.



I can't do much to help him rectify a literal Genesis tale; the closest I could get would be the idea that a day to god is a million years to man, or something.

Once people grasped chemistry, and the fact that isotopes decay, then the presence of certain elements in the atmosphere or in surface bombardment (such as by gamma rays) meant that we can glean the relative age of things.

Carbon-14 decays by low energy b - radiation emission to nitrogen 14 with a half-live of 5730 years. Since an item that is underground or fossilized is not subjected to the introduction of the carbon 14, the rate of decay can give us a good idea of the age of things.

Oh, I know YWC will complain that Carbon-14 rates in the atmosphere vary, and thus it isn't accurate - BUT should the variation throw the date of a rock off by a full million years, it is irrelevant to a 4.6 billion year time line - it doesn't even affect the decimal.

Sorry - the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, this isn't a guess, it isn't conjecture, it's fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



I don't believe I am desperate, you might want to reconsider.


Possible Sites for the Origin of Life

There are many different theories about where the origin of life occurred. These theories range from life beginning in deep sea thermal vents to bacterial life arriving from other places in the universe, among others. Some of these theories are more credible than others, yet all provide an interesting explanation for life's beginnings.

Significance of Water

Everyone knows that liquid water is essential for humans to survive. In fact, it is essential in the chemistry of all biological systems. Water (chem window: give link to water module) provides the medium in which the transport of molecules can occur in reactions. Because water is necessary for all life, scientists look for evidence of liquid water wherever they search for life, whether it is somewhere on Earth, or even somewhere else in our solar system or beyond. In fact, astronomers are currently examining the satellites of Jupiter, Europa and Ganymeade, and Titan, one of Saturn's satellites, to see if they contain liquid water and the conditions which may give rise to life as we know it.

Hot link to web sites

Before we look to see where life may have begun elsewhere in the universe, let's look at where, or how, life might have begun on the earth.

Thermal Vents

One current theory is that life originated deep beneath the surface of the ocean at deep sea hydrothermal vents. These hydrothermal vents were first discovered in 1979. Soon after, scientists made an exciting discovery. These vents release hot gaseous substances from the center of the earth at temperatures in excess of 572oF. Previously scientists were sure that life could not exist, deep beneath the surface of the ocean. After the discovery of hydrothermal vents, they found ecosystems thriving in the depths of the ocean. These ecosystems contained various types of fish, worms, crabs, bacteria and other organisms which had found a way to survive in a cold, hostile environment without energy input from sunlight. Because life had been found to exist where it previously was thought unable to, many scientists began to ask questions as to whether or not this was where life may have originated on the earth.

On the molecular level, the chances of life originating at deep sea thermal vents is not likely. It is known that organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures, and are destroyed as quickly as they are produced. It has been estimated that life could not have arisen in the ocean unless the temperature was less than 25oC, or 77oF.

Supporters of this theory claim that the organic molecules at the thermal vents are not formed in 300oC temperatures, but rather in a gradient formed between the hydrothermal vent water, and the extremely cold water, 4oC (39.2oF), which surrounds the vent at the bottom of the ocean.

The temperatures at this gradient would be suitable for organic chemistry to occur. Debates still remain, however, as to the gradient's effectiveness in producing organic compounds.

Extra Terrestrial Sources

Panspermia
In the early twentieth century, a Swedish chemist named Svente Arrhenius developed a theory called panspermia. Arrhenius' theory accounted for life's origins by simply stating that life did not originate on the Earth, but originated elsewhere in the universe. He believed that cellular life reached the Earth hiding inside a meteor which hit the Earth long ago. Newly uncovered evidence suggests that this might be possible, since an organism inside a meteor (Picture of impactor) would be safe from the high levels of radiation in space, and would be kept at a relatively low temperature. The odds of an organism surving inside a meteor for thousands of years, however, are not high. It is even less likely that organisms would be able to withstand the high energy impacts of bolides into the Earth or other planetary objects. Most scientists today do not look at this hypothesis as a very likely origin of life on the earth. However, it is considered possible, at least for now, and so is still a candidate for life's origin on earth.

Frozen Ocean
Three billion years ago, the Sun which lights our solar system was thirty percent less luminous than it is today. Mant people believe that if the Earth's atmosphere was the same then as it is today, the oceans would be frozen. But recently, Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has proposed that the oceans would not completely freeze. Instead, he calculates that only the top 300 meters of the ocean would freeze over.


You might think that icy cold water trapped under hundreds of meters of ice would not be beneficial to life beginning, but in fact it is advantageous in many aspects. One advantage is that the layer of ice would provide a protective shield by preventing ultra-violet light, which enters the earth's atmosphere and destroys organic compounds, from reaching the developing molecules. Another advantage is that it would provide safety from the devestating effects of impact frustration. ( Definition Box -Impact frustration is a theory which says that life may potentially have arisen many times, but was wiped out due to severe bolide impacts) The water beneath the ice would be cold, allowing for organic molecules to survive over much longer periods of time. These organic molecules could have been provided by the hydrothermal vents still prevalent on the ocean floor today. With a sufficient supply of organic molecules safe from ultra-violet radiation and bolide impact frustration, many believe that this was the environment allowing life to get a foothold on a hostile earth.

With a barrier between the atmosphere and the ocean, the debate concerning the composition of the atmosphere becomes much less significant. All of the components needed for organic syntheses such as the Strecker synthesis would be provided and kept stable, while the bottom of the ocean would provide a place for organics to gather and react. Following this reasoning, the atmospheric composition may only be important after life came out of the water, when life had already begun.

Possible Sites for the Origin of Life


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Funny on youtube no one knows what the earth was like when life began.

Answer:
Earth 3.5 billion years ago, was nothing like what it is today. No plants, animals, nothing. Volcanoes erupted poisonous gases, methane and ammonia was in the atmosphere, and it would have been impossible to breathe. The Earth was also only one continent (until it was later broken up into several, which is another topic). Acidic rain, and deadly thunderstorms occurred for several millions of years. This is a shot in the dark, but it most likely (as we have no actual idea of what it *looked* like) resembled Mars. Lifeless, and unlivable. By the way, I find it odd that if the earth is 4 billion years old, and Mars is just as old, why there is no life on Mars (at least nothing like Earth's life), but there is life on the Earth. Kind of an interesting question huh?

What was earth like 3.5 billion years ago


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Pictures of planets forming

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...KKrMyQHcwoGYCg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071


Pictures of mars and the moon.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...Bs2ayQH2-oCgAw&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071

Hmm, mars and the moon are as old as the earth what happened ? why is there no life on them ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Funny on youtube no one knows what the earth was like when life began.
> 
> Answer:
> Earth 3.5 billion years ago, was nothing like what it is today. No plants, animals, nothing. Volcanoes erupted poisonous gases, methane and ammonia was in the atmosphere, and it would have been impossible to breathe. The Earth was also only one continent (until it was later broken up into several, which is another topic). Acidic rain, and deadly thunderstorms occurred for several millions of years. This is a shot in the dark, but it most likely (as we have no actual idea of what it *looked* like) resembled Mars. Lifeless, and unlivable. By the way, I find it odd that if the earth is 4 billion years old, and Mars is just as old, why there is no life on Mars (at least nothing like Earth's life), but there is life on the Earth. Kind of an interesting question huh?
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Pictures of planets forming
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...KKrMyQHcwoGYCg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071
> 
> ...



Mars must have more disorder...........


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The issue faced by ywc is not resolved by allowing evolution to have been a mechanism of the gods. He is confronted with the undeniable evidence (by rational people), of an ancient earth. That is in direct opposition to his insistence for a literal genesis tale. There is no way to reconcile the two vastly different timelines.
> ...



The age of the Earth isn't determined using carbon 14.  It is determined using Uranium-lead isotopic ratios.


----------



## eots (Aug 14, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Funny on youtube no one knows what the earth was like when life began.
> 
> Answer:
> Earth 3.5 billion years ago, was nothing like what it is today. No plants, animals, nothing. Volcanoes erupted poisonous gases, methane and ammonia was in the atmosphere, and it would have been impossible to breathe. The Earth was also only one continent (until it was later broken up into several, which is another topic). Acidic rain, and deadly thunderstorms occurred for several millions of years. This is a shot in the dark, but it most likely (as we have no actual idea of what it *looked* like) resembled Mars. Lifeless, and unlivable. By the way, I find it odd that if the earth is 4 billion years old, and Mars is just as old, why there is no life on Mars (at least nothing like Earth's life), but there is life on the Earth. Kind of an interesting question huh?
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEUjQCCcCeA]Photos of Phobos Monolith, Mars Moon. Featuring Buzz Aldrin - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 14, 2013)

Mars lost most it's atmosphere when its interior dynamo failed, taking most of its water with it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Funny on youtube no one knows what the earth was like when life began.
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 14, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Pictures of planets forming
> ...



I wonder why.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



'Cause you're an idjit.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And you're Naive !


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Our moon

Google Image Result for http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a16_m_3021.gif

Pictures of the earth,yeah we are not unique at all.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...ntal%2Fearth%2Fgeophysics%2Fearth.htm;400;321


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's the will of the gods. 

You're not allowed to question it.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> There is no evidence that contradicts the works of the creator,only a bunch of so called intelligent people with vivid imaginations. You make to much of the little we know Vs the many unknowns.
> 
> Only a fool will not ponder why this planet is so uniquely set up compared to other planets. Only a fool will think it just happened and all this life just sprang into existence.
> 
> ...



Wow, that one post of yours demonstrated nearly every one of the items in my critique.  That's just sad.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > There is no evidence that contradicts the works of the creator,only a bunch of so called intelligent people with vivid imaginations. You make to much of the little we know Vs the many unknowns.
> ...



Why is that sad I am a realist with a background in science and yet do not lack the ability to reason.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

More to ponder.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU]Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs]Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> There is no evidence that contradicts the works of the creator,only a bunch of so called intelligent people with vivid imaginations. You make to much of the little we know Vs the many unknowns.
> 
> Only a fool will not ponder why this planet is so uniquely set up compared to other planets. Only a fool will think it just happened and all this life just sprang into existence.
> 
> ...



We have no evidence of any "creator", thus no mechanism to connect any "works" to a "creator". Your inventions of supernatural agents calls into question your ability to function in the rational world. 


Only a fool (or a religious zealot), would make the claim that the planet is "uniquely set up", when "set up" is intended to presume supermagical intervention. When you consistently fail to provide support for your claims, they are dismissed as specious. 


The fool has cut and pasted far too often from Harun Yahya. 

The cell is a biological organism. You can ascribe all the magical, supernatural attributes  you wish. Add all the flowery language you find on Harun Yahya describing cell structure ad you wish. But as someone with a limited science background and vocabulary, you do come across as wholly incompetent. 


Do you have any clue that your comments self-contradict?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> More to ponder.



More Disco'tute quackery to ignore.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


A "realist" who believes in magic, supernaturalism and mythical gawds. 

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that copying and pasting from Harun Yahya denotes a science background.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You need to contact your teachers and ask for a refund, because, damn.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You are right I should get a refund for the B.S. I was taught as a fact, yet saw through all that when I matured.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



There is some really good science being taught out there, but there is also a lot of Ideological science being taught as well, if you want to call it science.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Interesting what fully formed planets look like compared to earth. Not to many comments concerning this issue.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Our moon

Google Image Result for http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a16_m_3021.gif

Pictures of the earth,yeah we are not unique at all.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pict...tm;400;321


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Interesting what fully formed planets look like compared to earth. Not to many comments concerning this issue.



What exactly is a "fully formed planet".

Not too many comments are required for such a pointless statement.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting what fully formed planets look like compared to earth. Not to many comments concerning this issue.
> ...



You are befuddled over that question


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Our moon
> 
> Google Image Result for http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a16_m_3021.gif
> 
> ...



This planet is unique in terms of the limited timeframe that we have been searching.

Why do you think unique=gawds?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I suppose that "ideological science" is any science that contradicts the various bibles?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Did this epiphany when you "matured" happen just after you fell down and bumped your head?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'll take that to mean you recognized the pointlessness of your comment.

Is the moon "fully formed"? How about the other planets / sun rotating about the earth? What do the bibles tell us?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Our moon
> ...



Compared to the other planets, why do you think it doesn't infer a creator ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No it is science with nothing but a vivid imagination to support such a theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No after I worked as a Lab tech for several years. I read the bible and went away from what I was taught and believed at a young age.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The moon ,mars and the earth are supposedly the same age which I do agree with. we just don't know the accurate age. So do you think mars,the moon and earth are fully formed planets ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Conditions affecting this planet such as an atmosphere, liquid water, gravity, etc. are not evidence of gawds.

 Bibles, Books of the Dead, etc are not evidence of gawds. 

Why do you think Vishnu is a gawd?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do you realize how important water is for life ? do you realize how important everything you named is for life plus the sun and moon ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What defines a "fully formed planet"? 

This appears to be some nonsensical standard/ benchmark you have "thunk-up".

Mars has a very thin atmosphere and surface gravity. What percentage of "fully formed"  do you rate Mars? What is the rating scale?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Tell me again about the disorder, I love that story!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The definition entirely misses the key element of a solar system object, namely its role in the formation of the solar system," Charbonneau said. "There are eight fully formed planets. The other objects-Ceres, Pluto, Charon, [2003 UB313], and hundreds of thousands of others, are the fascinating byproducts of the formation of these eight planets."

Astronomers Sharply Divided on New Planet Definition | Space.com

Earth's Moon Could Become a Planet | Space.com


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



dis·or·der  (ds-ôrdr)
n.
1. A lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion.
2. A breach of civic order or peace; a public disturbance.
3. An ailment that affects the function of mind or body: eating disorders and substance abuse.
tr.v. dis·or·dered, dis·or·der·ing, dis·or·ders
1. To throw into confusion or disarray.
2. To disturb the normal physical or mental health of; derange.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes. That's why I named them. You will notice I left out any mention of gawds. 

Why do you think that is?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So, what defines a "fully formed planet"?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I don't believe I am desperate, you might want to reconsider.



You seem to have a need to deny certain facts in order to cling to your interpretation of ancient texts.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> The age of the Earth isn't determined using carbon 14.  It is determined using Uranium-lead isotopic ratios.



Understood, but the process was easier to explain using carbon-14.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you believe our Earth infers a designer, I must say that your designer isn't a very good one.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



So you rather be on mars ? 

Like I said you are seeing the imperfections of his creation from the fall of man.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe I am desperate, you might want to reconsider.
> ...



Why would I cling to it ? I have no reason to doubt the scriptures and the creator of the Universe.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Other than the evil man does to his fellow man this planet brings a lot of joy even in this imperfect world.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Other than the evil man does to his fellow man this planet brings a lot of joy even in this imperfect world.



How generous of you to speak on behalf of all those people killed and maimed via floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. 

It was your gawds who created the conditions underwhich these disasters occur.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You don't doubt a flat earth?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're "religion is based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to this God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to now basis" will be revealed to him in the after world.  This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above:  All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man. "

- Dr. James Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

And the problem with individual revelation, as Thomas Paine noted, is that:

"Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him".

Now, farmer Bob may be the most honest, God-fearing man anyone has ever known, but we still need unambiguous evidence that the virgin Mary appeared to him in his corn field.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Aug 15, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting. Welcome to the scientific method. Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?
> ...



Apparently you think pond scum is a more credible scenerio.  

God provided the blue print for the Universe, and the dimensions He used to create it.  That you can't find it in Genesis while others can, is not God's problem.  You just haven't evolved enough to understand it.  Perhaps your mama went slumming. 

*Does your monkey brain know why Moses got tablets and Adam didn't? * 

My God told me what will happen tomorrow.  Did your god Darwin share the future with you, primordial soupy?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Other than the evil man does to his fellow man this planet brings a lot of joy even in this imperfect world.



That is a rather naïve claim.  I'm not so sure Mother Earth was bringing joy to these people:


Or these people:


But it sure looked like the people cared for one another, and not being evil in any way.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



Indeed, you can find almost anything in the Book of Genesis?  Why?  Because God is so clever to have written such a book?  No.  You can find almost anything in that book because people see what they want to see.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


NOTE: nowhere does this paper infer, mention, hint that god was responsible...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> If you believe our Earth infers a designer, I must say that your designer isn't a very good one.



That's a pretty odd statement...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Why would I cling to it ? I have no reason to doubt the scriptures and the creator of the Universe.



You have all reason to doubt that your scripture is literal - virtually all evidence refutes the Genesis account of creation.

Allegory is the only way one can rectify the Bible with observed reality.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe our Earth infers a designer, I must say that your designer isn't a very good one.
> ...


really? how?
consider all the flaws and weaknesses in humans...then read the statement again.
even you should get it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 15, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> Apparently you think pond scum is a more credible scenerio.
> 
> God provided the blue print for the Universe, and the dimensions He used to create it.  That you can't find it in Genesis while others can, is not God's problem.  You just haven't evolved enough to understand it.  Perhaps your mama went slumming.
> 
> ...



Since God told you what will happen tomorrow, can you let me in on a couple of hot stock tips? Or maybe the winning lotto numbers?

You know, if it's not too much trouble?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> really? how?
> consider all the flaws and weaknesses in humans...then read the statement again.
> even you should get it.



This is why I call you an idiot, Daws - you are just the other side of the same coin that is YWC. You discard all fact that interferes with the rigid dogma that you base your views on.

Life on this planet is a marvel - a wonder that shines as beacon in the void of space for as far as we can probe. The closest known planet that has the mass and distance from a star as Earth - so as to be possible to house what we classify as life, is 22 light years away - and then the planet would need a spinning core to create the magnetic field that life depends on. 

You have a political hatchet to grind against Republicans - but humans as a species are far from flawed or weak, we represent the most successful adaptation of life to the environment in the history of this planet. No other creature has ever thrives and molded it's environment to ensure the propagation of the species the way humans have.

The fact that there is no cosmic goat herder who sends his son to be nailed to a cross, hardly precludes the possibility of an intelligence behind life and our perception of it.

"What is, is so much more than we can imagine." - Dr. Lisa Randall - Chair of Physics, Harvard University.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > really? how?
> ...


funny but it's you who come off "sounding" like YWC.
wow! the the continuously false  assumption that i'm an idiot...

btw I never disregard facts...this: "but humans as a species are far from flawed or weak, we represent the most successful adaptation of life to the environment in the history of this planet. No other creature has ever thrives and molded it's environment to ensure the propagation of the species the way humans have.
almost  other creatures on this planet are perfectly adapted to their environments."-UC08   however is not a fact  it's a half truth. 
we are very destructive generalists. our "molding" of the environment has done more to  threaten all life on this planet than any other cause.  
the paradox is we could could choose to do it differently .
The rest of your post is a wishful thinking kind of bigotry.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Other than the evil man does to his fellow man this planet brings a lot of joy even in this imperfect world.
> ...



I guess you,daws and hollie suffer from comprehension problems. I said other than the evil man does to fellow man and this imperfect world. The imperfect world would cover natural disasters no ? and pestilence,and all the other things not so pleasant because after all it's an IMPERFECT WORLD!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I was mocking the stupidity of man and you proved my point


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are the best example of that stupidity on this thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Why would I cling to it ? I have no reason to doubt the scriptures and the creator of the Universe.
> ...



The bible is historical,literal,and mataphoric. You have to cross reference scriptures to get sometimes the true meaning. The bible is cleverly put together to show it's critics the fools that they are. Example,hollie, earlier referring to a flat earth.

Give me evidence that refutes genesis please.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Daws you are simply dense.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > really? how?
> ...



Don't put me the opposite of him unless you are referring to intelligence


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You are falling in the category with daws.

Don't you just hate it when I bring you back to reality by comparing other planets and exposing the many flaws in your Ideological science.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Microadaptations do occur but microadaptations are already found in the genetic information. The 2nd law does not prevent this process but I do believe would have not come into existence unless it was a product of creation. Your side believes that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old and life didn't show up on the planet only 2.7 billion years ago. That is 2 billion years this planet was exp an increase in disorder. There is no way order would have improved to where life could arise. So the creation model better fits the evidence. So in a sense yes the 2nd law would have prevented life to arise so yes in a sense it would have prevented any kind of evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Not only that there is not one planet like earth In our solar system. Awfully convenient that only this planet would have formed to where it could support life. Then you need more miracles like nonliving matter converting in to life. That is a stretch of the imagination.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


ANOTHER BULLSHIT JUSTIFICATION of your nonsense.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The writing and syntax of the bibles do define a flat earth. 

Please give us the cleverly put together biblical description of the firmament... whatever that is.

As to the genesis fable, I already gave you a detailed account of that bit of absurdity.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


cross reference two different bibles only serves to highlight the flaws , contradictions in both compendiums..
btw what is MATAPHORIC?
A mata that has a tendency? 

PHORIC

: having (such) a bearing or tendency <thanatophoric>


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Australopithecus afarensis, 3.6-2.9 million years ago.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Not only that there is not one planet like earth In our solar system. Awfully convenient that only this planet would have formed to where it could support life. Then you need more miracles like nonliving matter converting in to life. That is a stretch of the imagination.



This planet possesses physical characteristics that set it apart from others in this solar system. That has nothing to do with convenience and nothing to do with any gawds. It has to do with physical sciences we understand. 

So...yes. It was convenient that the planet is in the particular location it is, relative to the sun and other planets. It's also not so convenient that the planet rotates about it's axis and has the convenience of an atmosphere that generates convection currents. Those conditions combine to create swirling winds we call twisters. How inconvenient that the planet has land masses (plates), that move. That tectonic plate shifting causes earthquakes. 

How inconvenient that the planet was in just the wrong place 65 million years ago when it was impacted by a large object striking in the Yucatan. 

To ascribe your gawds as the magic hand-wavers who *poofed*  those characteristics into existence is just silly. Or possibly, it's all true and your designer gawds are just hopelessly inept designers.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Moby Dick and Homers Illiad are historical, literal and metaphorical. Why aren't you thumping others with those books?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Not only that there is not one planet like earth In our solar system. Awfully convenient that only this planet would have formed to where it could support life. Then you need more miracles like nonliving matter converting in to life. That is a stretch of the imagination.
> ...


you did notice that ywc amended his bullshit from: "no other planet" to "no other planet in this solar system.." 
in a failed attempt to appear correct.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I suppose I should say "thank you" for making no pretense at all that "creation science", creationism " intelligent  design" or whatever other hoax you call it is anything other than christian fundamentalism .


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If this world (created by your god) is imperfect, it implies one of two things or both:

1) Your god is not perfect, not omnipotent; and/or
2) Your god has malevolent intent, and is not a benevolent, loving god.

In which case, why would you worship such a malevolent deity?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Reality? Your claim that the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible?
The claim that the older the Earth is, the more difficult evolution is, because an older Earth is more disordered?

I prefer the real reality, not your scientifically confused "reality".


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You should not be so hard on yourself.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe our Earth infers a designer, I must say that your designer isn't a very good one.
> ...



Why?  Of all the planets in the solar system, ours may or may not be the only place where life exists, but it is also one of the most dangerous places for life to exist.  Why would a loving, benevolent deity create such a hostile world and place his "loving children" on it?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


maybe he's just impotent ..( rimshot)


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Maybe it simply doesn't exist.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


"That's a pretty odd statement." Uncensored2008 

 below is my answer to that same statement 
 quote: Originally Posted by daws101 View Post
really? how?
consider all the flaws and weaknesses in humans...then read the statement again.
even you should get it.

 Uncensored2008's  response
"This is why I call you an idiot, Daws - you are just the other side of the same coin that is YWC. You discard all fact that interferes with the rigid dogma that you base your views on.

Life on this planet is a marvel - a wonder that shines as beacon in the void of space for as far as we can probe. The closest known planet that has the mass and distance from a star as Earth - so as to be possible to house what we classify as life, is 22 light years away - and then the planet would need a spinning core to create the magnetic field that life depends on. 

You have a political hatchet to grind against Republicans - but humans as a species are far from flawed or weak, we represent the most successful adaptation of life to the environment in the history of this planet. No other creature has ever thrives and molded it's environment to ensure the propagation of the species the way humans have." Uncensored2008 


what do you think? rational or irrational?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Maybe it simply doesn't exist.


I guess you I and hollie are all going to hell for heresy !


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Getting back to the OP, the biological theory of evolution is one of the most successful if not the most successful scientific theories ever.  But it isn't simply evolution that creationists attack.  They attack astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, physics, chemistry, geoscience, and even medical science.  In other words, they accept the products of science while unabashedly reject the science behind those products.  So it isn't simply7 evolution they have an issue with.  They have an issue with all of science.  And is would be rather simple thing to simply ignore the noise except that many of these people are very rich (because they've stolen from their flock) and are very influential, and frankly, understand how to influence the preliterate masses, who are their primary audience.  And so it falls on the scientists to do more to get the word out and set the record straight.  Fortunately, the media has decided to ignore the issue altogether, and so a lot of their arguments aren't getting the press they used to get.

The fact is that there is no "controversy" to teach.  Evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, anthropology, geology, paleontology, and other disciplines.  And unless or until something else comes along that better explains the very large mountain of data that exists, it will continue to exist in this capacity.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I didn't want to give you any wiggle room. Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ? Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?We can see a long ways and still no planet anything like this one.

All I can do is pray for some of you, that your eyes may some day will open.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



You can keep telling yourself this nonsense but man truly is limited ,you will find that out someday.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Typo.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Nope, all it shows is he fulfilled his promise to Adam and Eve.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Your side has it backwards. Your side believes we started with chaos went to order. Really how it was ,we started with perfection and went slowly to disorder and we continue on that road til judgment day.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I am because I allow myself to sometimes get out of line while discussing these issues.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh brother


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

daws101 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Really ? I have 8 children.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 15, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Getting back to the OP, the biological theory of evolution is one of the most successful if not the most successful scientific theories ever.  But it isn't simply evolution that creationists attack.  They attack astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, physics, chemistry, geoscience, and even medical science.  In other words, they accept the products of science while unabashedly reject the science behind those products.  So it isn't simply7 evolution they have an issue with.  They have an issue with all of science.  And is would be rather simple thing to simply ignore the noise except that many of these people are very rich (because they've stolen from their flock) and are very influential, and frankly, understand how to influence the preliterate masses, who are their primary audience.  And so it falls on the scientists to do more to get the word out and set the record straight.  Fortunately, the media has decided to ignore the issue altogether, and so a lot of their arguments aren't getting the press they used to get.
> 
> The fact is that there is no "controversy" to teach.  Evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, anthropology, geology, paleontology, and other disciplines.  And unless or until something else comes along that better explains the very large mountain of data that exists, it will continue to exist in this capacity.



There are some in the scientific community already calling for a new theory. what say you ?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Getting back to the OP, the biological theory of evolution is one of the most successful if not the most successful scientific theories ever.  But it isn't simply evolution that creationists attack.  They attack astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, physics, chemistry, geoscience, and even medical science.  In other words, they accept the products of science while unabashedly reject the science behind those products.  So it isn't simply7 evolution they have an issue with.  They have an issue with all of science.  And is would be rather simple thing to simply ignore the noise except that many of these people are very rich (because they've stolen from their flock) and are very influential, and frankly, understand how to influence the preliterate masses, who are their primary audience.  And so it falls on the scientists to do more to get the word out and set the record straight.  Fortunately, the media has decided to ignore the issue altogether, and so a lot of their arguments aren't getting the press they used to get.
> ...



I say that they are one out of millions.  I'd say they are irrelevant.  Look.  Here's how it works.  Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



*Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ? *

Formed differently? The mechanism of formation was different how, exactly?

*Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?*

Liquid water, ozone layer, magnetic field.
And we have the 2nd Law on our side.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Your side believes we started with chaos went to order.*

It's amazing how orderly things can get when you apply a bit of energy.
Look at how disordered liquid water and carbon dioxide gas are compared to a nice orderly cellulose structure. Amazing. Just takes a bit of sunlight.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You don't have the slightest clue as to what the A&E fable actually portrays.

Your gawds lied to A&E. The talking serpent told the truth. How comical that with all your bible thumping blustering, you've never actually read the tale.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Getting back to the OP, the biological theory of evolution is one of the most successful if not the most successful scientific theories ever.  But it isn't simply evolution that creationists attack.  They attack astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, physics, chemistry, geoscience, and even medical science.  In other words, they accept the products of science while unabashedly reject the science behind those products.  So it isn't simply7 evolution they have an issue with.  They have an issue with all of science.  And is would be rather simple thing to simply ignore the noise except that many of these people are very rich (because they've stolen from their flock) and are very influential, and frankly, understand how to influence the preliterate masses, who are their primary audience.  And so it falls on the scientists to do more to get the word out and set the record straight.  Fortunately, the media has decided to ignore the issue altogether, and so a lot of their arguments aren't getting the press they used to get.
> ...


How unremarkable that "some" calling for a new theory are fundie christians.

Their theory is predictable: "the gawds did it"


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



A death cult mentality. The prescription for a maladjusted personality.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You are gonna deny the obvious differences now of other planets from this one ?

There is so much more than that. If you admit some of the differences why the question above. No the 2nd law would work against some of the current theories.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Showing that Darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes energy is very important to this planet. Mercury and Venus get plenty of energy from the sun and look at them. Then you have other planets getting energy not as much as Mercury and Venus. So just pumping in energy does not make the differences. It don't look so ordered on the other planets in our solar system.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Proof is not completely needed as the creator says my ways are not your ways and you can go mad trying to figure out the intelligence of God. God mentions faith there is plenty of evidence to confirm he is out there just many reject the thought for their own personal reasons. Many of us our faith does not get shaken because we were warned of these days.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You may want to actually address reality and review the Dover trial. Creationism was once again exposed as a fraud. The drubbing taken by the christian fundies was humiliating.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What a convenient excuse to defend an indefensible argument: "proof is not completely needed".

How about a little three part harmony for the religious extremist. Here we go:

*Row row row your boat, gently down the stream...*


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You don't really have any response to common sense questions so you resort to changing the subject and divide and conquer. We both know that no court is gonna stand up for God because the perverting of the constitution. One simple letter written by Jefferson gave the secularists the ammunition they needed to pervert the constitution and what our forefathers really wanted.

The forefathers did not want God removed from the public and schools. They just did not want Christianity as a state sponsored religion like it once was in England, and to allow others to openly practice their religions. something you would not get in a theocracy such as middle eastern countries.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh and Dover was about intelligent design not creationism. It has been pointed out to you how the Judge was unethical in his judgment and how he ignored evidence for intelligent design like peer reviews, evidence he allowed in.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I knew Darwin wrote a book but I never heard of the book of creationist ?


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

hollie said:


> youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



right.. Like they exposed the fraud of oj and casey anhtony


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Ever heard of the fucking bible?


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

bumberclyde said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > bumberclyde said:
> ...



yes ,but i never realized it was the sole reference and basis of intelligent design


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Evolution is not accepted on the basis of scientific merit but as a religious preference by it's proponents.

Science has no more proven the doctrines of evolution than it has proven the existence of Peter Pan. Evolution is entirely a faith based religion; the evidences that have been fabricated to support it under the banner of science are entirely without mreit and falter under the most benign scrutiny.

It is a weak satanic deception standing in mortal opposition to the scriptures to undermine your chances for eternal salvation.

Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Here's a small sampling of other evolutionists who have been delivered from the bondage of their false religious dogma.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert&#8217;s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described &#8220;atheistic evolutionist,&#8221; Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were &#8220;sinners.&#8221;

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Video on there as well as interviews of these scientists.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Easy now!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It's not.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


You're hoping weak excuses will supplant yet another failure on the part of religious extremists to impose their fundamentalist beliefs upon the public school system. 

The arguments made at the Dover trial by the religious lobby were appeals to partisan gawds and supernaturalism. As usual, you confuse proselytizing and your need to impose your religious beliefs on others with a coherent argument supported with facts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



A natural process arising such as spontaneous generation would in fact be considered supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > bumberclyde said:
> ...


Of course it is. It's a simple matter to review the "about" page or the "statement of faith" section of the Christian fundie websites your cut and paste from.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



of course it is ?...I think you need to research the subject a little


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not true at all. You have a real issue recognizing facts.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So You, what other books do creationists really on? Book of Mormons? Any others?


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yes the "magic  soup' theory.. that can not be replicated in laboratory conditons


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



TO NAME A FEW OF THE OLDIES..
Baha'i
Buddhism
Christianity
Confucianism
Jainism
Judaism
Hinduism
Islam
Mormonism
Paganism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Zoroastrianism


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You obviously have no indication of what you're hoping to convey. 

You need to stick with your space alien conspiracy theories.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Buddy, try to stay focussed. We're talking about You, a white christian creationist.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hollie said:
> ...



they are not my theories it is the testimony of the men who walked on the moon ..but clearly thats too much for you to handle so you need to pretend its my theory to comfort yourself


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



You are the one that needs to stay focused.you made a statement about creationist.. but now you say it was about me specifically..and its  still completly based on false assumptions


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



.... it's like putting fresh batteries in a child's toy.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hollie said:
> ...



it is isn't it.. interesting watching how you simple can not address directly where the information came from and have to attributive it to me or make corny one liners to maintain the avoidance...wind her up and watch her go


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



It is, isn't it. It's comical to watch your sweaty, feverish rants in desperate attempts to defend your space alien / hybrids / gubment' conspiracy theories.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



lol see...you attributed it to me and ignored the Apollo crew elephant in the room again...because that brings you little mind some comfort and fits your belief system...lol...its classic...I could watch it all day


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Well, yeah. Your saliva-slinging tirades are comedy gold. Are you aware that the black helicopters are circling above?

You have something on your chin.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hollie said:
> ...



whats does any of this have to do with the sworn testimony of apollo crew ???..lol...you sound like a crazy person


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hollie said:
> ...



Now you are completely incoherent..what is it you are struggling to say ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



What is incoherent about " Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???"


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



" Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???"is an incomplete sentence


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS3vxtb_ZxI]Soup of Life - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



That's a conspiracy.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



"That's a conspiracy." is also an incomplete sentence...I am becoming concerned about you, maybe you should just forget about the sworn testimony of the Apollo crew for awhile and come back to it when you are feeling better


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



The alleged sworn testimony was faked, just like the moon landing. 

You need conspiracy theories with a greater entertainment quotient.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ? *
> 
> Formed differently? The mechanism of formation was different how, exactly?
> 
> ...



I remember once in an oceanography class, a person made the argument that conditions on Earth are perfect for life, therefore the Earth must have been created to to support life.

Of course I countered that life adapts. It isn't that Earth has perfect conditions, it is that life has adapted to the conditions of the Earth. If conditions were different, life would have adapted differently. 

What neither Daws nor YWC can grasp, both embroiled in their competing dogma, is that life and the mechanisms of adaptation, are the real magic. It's constant, it's all around us, at the microbial level, life is in a constant stat of flux, evolving and adapting. At the macro-level it is less obvious, but no less true, changes in environment spur changes in the flora and fauna. 

This is why I find the warmists and their projections of doom to be laughable, and why I find the promoters of the cosmic goat herder equally laughable. Life adapts.

Micheal Crichton wrote that evolution isn't really slow, but rather it's small. We are evolving constantly, it doesn't take millions of years, but the changes are small, and only with the advent of modern medicine were we able to detect these changes. The accumulation of change needed to become recognizable may take long periods, but change itself is constant.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



So you create a conspiracy theory where the testimony of Apollo crew was fake and apparently the moon landing. all to protect your darwinian belife system...you just get crazier by the minute don't you


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



What is a Darwinian belife system?


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

you are not familiar with the Darwinian evolutionary philosophical belief system ?.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

There is no indisputable proof for the big bang And there is none for evolution. And yet you accept those with the conviction and belief equal to any religious zealot


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> There is no indisputable proof for the big bang And there is none for evolution. And yet you accept those with the conviction and belief equal to any religious zealot



That's really clueless.

You should stay with what you know: space alien conspiracy theories.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> There is no indisputable proof for the big bang And there is none for evolution. And yet you accept those with the conviction and belief equal to any religious zealot



Logical fallacy of false equivalence. If you want to argue the Big Bang, start a thread.

And yes, there is irrefutable proof of evolution, overwhelming in fact.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > There is no indisputable proof for the big bang And there is none for evolution. And yet you accept those with the conviction and belief equal to any religious zealot
> ...



nonsense...


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

claims of "irrefutable proof" do not mean anything at all, if one does not specify what such a proof is


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ? *
> ...



Microadaptations do happen but you can't provide an example of it resulting in what would be considered macroevolution. They extrapolate from microadaptations as support for all organisms evolving from one cell.

Scroll down and watch this video,this is a major problem for anyone who believe life came in to existence naturally and then for macroevolution to happen.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f4a_1267306340


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



From your link:

"Evolution is not accepted on the basis of scientific merit but as a religious preference by it's proponents.

Science has no more proven the doctrines of evolution than it has proven the existence of Peter Pan. Evolution is entirely a faith based religion; the evidences that have been fabricated to support it under the banner of science are entirely without mreit and falter under the most benign scrutiny.

It is a weak satanic deception standing in mortal opposition to the scriptures to undermine your chances for eternal salvation."



What a joke! Do you realize such nonsense makes you appear to be an unreasonable (and possibly dangerous), zealot?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No sir.  What creationists have done time and time again is demonstrate how willfully ignorant you are about the theory of evolution.  And YWC, I have seen this claim of 700 scientists many times before, and every time I've looked into it, the vast majority of those "scientists" weren't actually scientists.  So you don't even have that going for you.  The fact is that the scientific community left creationism behind in their wake over 100 years ago.  So you can keep on arguing 19th century pseudo-science if you feel you must, but realize that the scientific community considers it as valid as the Flat Earth theory.  Which means, it belongs on the dust heap of abandoned 'theories', and nowhere else.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And we all know what faith is - a belief in something not in evidence.  Which is why creationism is nothing more than a religious belief.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



you have a belief in a theory..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The public schools are state-sponsored.  As such, religion has no place in it.  Look, there are over 400,000 churches in the United States.  Take your pick, and go pray in one.  No one is stopping you.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ]Evolution Vs. God - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDRz5cSziQ]Scientists: The Theory of Evolution is wrong (part1) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ylfLqiyRo]Scientists: The Theory of Evolution is wrong (part2) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dWimXdtzWs]Collapse of Evolution - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You really ought to read the transcript of the trial.  The Judge (a conservative Bush appointee) affirmed that ID was nothing more than creationism (a religious belief) intentionally re-named to try to bypass the previous the Supreme Court ruling against it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*You are gonna deny the obvious differences now of other planets from this one ?*

Why would I deny that Earth has liquid water, an ozone layer and a magnetic field?

*No the 2nd law would work against some of the current theories.*

No it doesn't.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You may want to actually address reality and review the Dover trial. Creationism was once again exposed as a fraud. The drubbing taken by the christian fundies was humiliating.
> ...



That's really nonsense. ID (as branded by the Disco'tute), is just the latest burqa that has been slapped on Christian fundamentalism. 

Christian creationism has gone through several titles as efforts and failures by fundies to force Christian fundie beliefs into the public schools have been thrown out by the courts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Yes energy is very important to this planet.*

Yes, which is why your 2nd Law claim is just so damn funny.
And by funny, I mean it shows your ignorance.

*Mercury and Venus get plenty of energy from the sun and look at them.*

Yes, your 2nd Law claim would be silly if you made it for Mercury and Venus.
*
So just pumping in energy does not make the differences.*

The difference it makes is it shows the idiocy of your 2nd Law claims.

*It don't look so ordered on the other planets in our solar system.*

Well shit, who said it did? Link?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.
> 
> Evolution is not accepted on the basis of scientific merit but as a religious preference by it's proponents.
> 
> ...



OMG!  He was a pediatrician and fundamentalist theologian, and NEVER taught the theory of evolution.



> Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)



I have found no evidence whatsoever that he was ever actually a chemist other than the fact that he once worked for a pharmaceutical company.  We don't even know what university he is supposed to have attended.  For all we know, he was a salesman, which actually better fits what he does at Answers in Genesis.  He is not a geologist, and there is no history of him ever actually taking any geology classes.  But he would have us believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same geologic time period.  You'd have to be a complete idiot to listen to the friggin nonsense of this guy.



> Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)



The only professional work of note that this man has done was his dissertation - on tadpoles.  His entire career, in fact, has been involved with creationism, not evolutionary science.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Strawman argument.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Oh that's brilliant.  You are claiming that creationists cite all of these treligions as evidence for evolution?  You really ought to consider rephrasing that bullshit post.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Trying desperately to steer the conversation in another direction, eh?  Oh dear.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hollie said:
> ...




roflmao!


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hollie said:
> ...



yes , she keeps doing that every time she feels challenged on her evolutionary beliefs she brings up space aliens


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



I think you need to gather your thoughts and try this one again


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Soup of Life - YouTube



Origin of life experiments revisited

Modern analysis of forgotten samples has given chemists in the US additional insights into the origins of life on Earth.

Stanley Miller became famous with a single experiment carried out during his PhD thesis with Harold Urey. The experiment simulated conditions in a sealed apparatus, which according to Urey's previous work were believed to have predominated on the primeval Earth, including an ocean, a reducing atmosphere, and a spark discharge meant to simulate lightning. After only a few days, this experiment produced a rich mixture of organic molecules including some of the amino acids found in proteins today. 

Over the next half-century, Miller continued to study prebiotic chemistry and possible origins of life in many variations but he never reached a definitive explanation of the origin of life.

Following Miller's death in May 2007, his former student Jeffrey Bada, a geochemist at the University of California at San Diego, inherited the contents of Miller's lab and office and discovered samples from 1958. The samples were clearly labelled and referenced in Miller's lab notebook but never reported. Bada's group has now analysed these samples using modern HPLC and mass spectrometry to gain two independent descriptions of their chemical composition.  

The unreported (until now) 1958 experiment again involved a spark but the gas mixture included both reduced and oxidised substances and was the first experiment to contain hydrogen sulphide (H2S). Bada's team found that the unreported samples contained a greater abundance and variety of biologically relevant molecules than Miller had reported in his 1950s studies. The samples also contained oxidation products of the sulfur-containing amino acids cysteine and methionine, which Miller didn't report making until the 1970s. 

While a gas mixture like the one Miller used in 1958 may not be representative of the Earth's early atmosphere overall, Bada and coworkers believe that it may well mimic the complex chemical conditions near volcanic sites (particularly near black smokers on the ocean floor). 

The study 'demonstrates how the addition of hydrogen sulphide may have been important in producing a richer assortment of key building block such as amino acids,' says Bada. 'It seems increasingly apparent that volcanic plume chemistry may have played an important role in the synthesis of organic compounds on the early Earth.' 

Bemused by the new findings from old samples, biochemist Kevin Plaxco from the University of California at Santa Barbara comments: 'Miller was such a pioneer that even now, four years after his death and more than 50 years after the experiments in question, his work is still yielding surprises.'
*******************
What this also shows is that the ability to perform high performance biochemical analysis of samples 50 years ago didn't exist, which is why Miller didn't detect these compounds back then.  Modern HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography) can detect organic compounds down to parts per trillion.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


1.
I didn't need any wiggle room.
2. you have no evidence that this is the only planet or moon in the system that has life.
3. we can only see very large objects very far away. so as always your assumption is specious.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> claims of "irrefutable proof" do not mean anything at all, if one does not specify what such a proof is



One of the hallmarks of scientific theories is that they can be falsified (shown to not be true).  One obvious way to refute evolution is to find a bunny rabbit in Cambrian sediments.  Got ANYTHING like that?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


classic non answer..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Erm, your video is not a response to my post.  Try again, in your own words.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Soup of Life - YouTube
> ...



so in short its a belief..and may or may not be true...intresting


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



intelligent design is no more faith based than evolution


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Cheers,


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


false based  on a false premise

Argument from false premises
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An argument from false premises is a line of reasoning which can lead to wrong results.[1] A false premise is an untrue proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.
For example, consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably unsound, because its first premise is false  one could hose down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, or the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained, and that the streets are wet. This of course does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships. The adage warns, "Correlated does not necessarily mean causally related".
A false premise can also be a premise that is poorly, or incompletely, defined so as to make the conclusion questionable. The following joke from Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar illustrates the point:
"An old cowboy goes into a bar and orders a drink. As he sits there sipping his whiskey, a young lady sits down next to him. ... She says, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about women. ...' A little while later, a couple sits down next to the old cowboy and asks him, 'Are you a real cowboy?' He replies, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a lesbian'." [2]
The mistake the cowboy makes is that he assumes that the definition of a lesbian is somebody who spends the "whole day thinking about women." The reason the joke works is because in a certain way that definition could apply to lesbians, but it fails to address the point that a lesbian is a homosexual female. The cowboy is neither homosexual nor female; therefore, he is not a lesbian.
Argument from false premises - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I chose the simple wiki because you have trouble with multisyllabic words.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No more so than I have a 'belief' in gravity.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


wow! that exchange was not about you.
however you thinking it was is proof of your egotism.
8 kids, how sad for them, can you remember all their names.?


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > claims of "irrefutable proof" do not mean anything at all, if one does not specify what such a proof is
> ...



another is observable evidenced do you have any observable evidenced of one kind of creature turning into another kind ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


[ame=http://youtu.be/AYBRbCLI4zU]Evolution - What Darwin Never Knew - NOVA PBS Documentary - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



A belief is something not in evidence that is held to be true (you know, like a belief in god).  Macroevolution is not one of those, since there is an abundance of evidence to demonstrate that it is true.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



such as..have you observed this ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


fucking bible, fucking, bible fucking bible..now what?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


odd how only creationists use the term spontaneous generation
Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts. Doctrines supporting such processes of generation held that these processes are commonplace and regular. Such ideas are in contradiction to that of univocal generation: effectively exclusive reproduction from genetically related parent(s), generally of the same species.
The doctrine of spontaneous generation was coherently synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. Today it is generally accepted to have been decisively dispelled during the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur. He expanded upon the investigations of predecessors (such as Francesco Redi who, in the 17th century, had performed experiments based on the same principles). However, the experimental difficulties are greater than people might think, and objections from persons holding the traditional views persisted. Many of these residual objections were routed by the work of John Tyndall, succeeding the work of Pasteur.[2] Ultimately, the ideas of spontaneous generation were displaced by advances in germ theory and cell theory.
Disproof of the traditional ideas of spontaneous generation is no longer controversial among professional biologists. Objections and doubts have been dispelled by studies and documentation of the life cycles of various life forms. However, the principles of the very different matter of the original abiogenesis on this planet  of living from non-living material  still are under investigation.

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That is one of the best videos I have seen. 

Reminds me of some of these threads on here.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Of course, that is the lie that you folks tried to present to the judge of the Dover trial.  Want to read what he said about that?

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court

Next, and as stated, religious opponents of evolution began cloaking religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting "creation science" or "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First Amendment. "Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man." McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1259. In 1982, the district court in McLean reviewed Arkansas's balanced-treatment law and evaluated creation science in light of Scopes, Epperson, and the long history of Fundamentalism's attack on the scientific theory of evolution, as well as the statute's legisl ative history and historical context. The court found that creation science organizations were fundamentalist religious entities that "consider[ed] the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry." Id. at 1260. The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. Id. at 1266. The court concluded that creation science "is simply not science" because it depends upon "supernatural intervention," which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable. Id. at 1267.

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that Arkansas' balanced-treatment statute coul d have no valid secular purpose or effect, served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 1264, 1272-74.

Five years after McLean was decided, in 1987, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's balanced-treatment law in Edwards for similar reasons. After a thorough analysis of the history of fundamentalist attacks against evolution, as well as the applicable legislative history including statements made by the statute's sponsor, and taking the character of organizations advocating for creation science into consideration, the Supreme Court held that the state violated the Establishment Clause by "restructur[ing] the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 593.

Among other reasons, the Supreme Court in Edwards concluded that the challenged statute did not serve the legislature's professed purposes of encouraging academic freedom and making the science curriculum more comprehensive by "teaching all of the evidence" regarding origins of life because: the state law already allowed schools to teach any scientific theory, which responded to the alleged purpose of academic freedom; and if the legislature really had intended to make science education more comprehensive, "it would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind" rather than permitting schools to forego teaching evolution, but mandating that schools that teach evolution must also teach creation science, an inherently religious view. Id. at 586, 588-89. The Supreme Court further held that the belief that a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint and that the Act at issue "advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety." Id. at 591, 596. Therefore, as noted, the import of Edwards is that the Supreme Court made national the prohibition against teaching creation science in the public school system.

The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter "ID"), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005). Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer "everyone understands to be God." Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase "purposeful arrangement of parts."

Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).

Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants' expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas' rhetorical statement, "what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]" and answer: "On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy." (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)).

A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. Dr. Barbara Forrest, one of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses, is the author of the book Creationism's Trojan Horse. She has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits which were admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID's religious, philosophical, and cultural content. The following is a representative grouping of such statements made by prominent ID proponents.5

Phillip Johnson, considered to be the father of the IDM, developer of ID's "Wedge Strategy," which will be discussed below, and author of the 1991 book entitled Darwin on Trial, has written that "theistic realism" or "mere creation" are defining concepts of the IDM. This means "that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . ." (Trial Tr. vol. 10, Forrest Test., 80-81, Oct. 5, 2005; P-328). In addition, Phillip Johnson states that the "Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose." (11:16-17 (Forrest); P-524 at 1). ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible, which begins, "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God." (11:18-20, 54-55 (Forrest); P-524; P-355; P-357). Dembski has written that ID is a "ground clearing operation" to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and "Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion." (11:50-53 (Forrest); P-386; P-390). Moreover, in turning to Defendants' lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705) (emphasis added). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.

In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID's religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer. The courts in Edwards and McLean expressly found that this characteristic removed creationism from the realm of science and made it a religious proposition. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1265-66. Prominent ID proponents have made abundantly clear that the designer is supernatural.

Defendants' expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means "not designed by the laws of nature," and that it is "implausible that the designer is a natural entity." (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered. (38:97 (Minnich)). Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr. vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005). Turning from defense expert witnesses to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing. (11:8-15 (Forrest); P-429). Additionally, Dembski agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32-34, Sept. 28, 2005).

Further support for the proposition that ID requires supernatural creation is found in the book Pandas, to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are directed. Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature. (P-11 at 6). Professor Haught, who as noted was the only theologian to testify in this case, explained that in Western intellectual tradition, non-natural causes occupy a space reserved for ultimate religious explanations. (9:13-14 (Haught)). Robert Pennock, Plaintiffs' expert in the philosophy of science, concurred with Professor Haught and concluded that because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent, immaterial, non-natural being, ID is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label. (5:55-56 (Pennock)). It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID's religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.

A "hypothetical reasonable observer," adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 531 (citations omitted); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 624-25. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. (P-461; P-28; P-566; P-633; Buell Dep. 1:13, July 8, 2005). Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work. (10:102-08 (Forrest)).

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards , which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact  fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86  (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe's assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.

The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.

Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism. One significant difference is that the words "God," "creationism," and "Genesis" have been systematically purged from ID explanations, and replaced by an unnamed "designer." Dr. Forrest testified and sponsored exhibits showing six arguments common to creationists. (10:140-48 (Forrest); P-856.5-856.10). Demonstrative charts introduced through Dr. Forrest show parallel arguments relating to the rejection of naturalism, evolution's threat to culture and society, "abrupt appearance" implying divine creation, the exploitation of the same alleged gaps in the fossil record, the alleged inability of science to explain complex biological information like DNA, as well as the theme that proponents of each version of creationism merely aim to teach a scientific alternative to evolution to show its "strengths and weaknesses," and to alert students to a supposed "controversy" in the scientific community. (10:140-48 (Forrest)). In addition, creationists made the same argument that the complexity of the bacterial flagellum supported creationism as Professors Behe and Minnich now make for ID. (P-853; P-845; 37:155-56 (Minnich)). The IDM openly welcomes adherents to creationism into its "Big Tent," urging them to postpone biblical disputes like the age of the earth. (11:3-15 (Forrest); P-429). Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID's relations hip with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism. (Fuller Dep. at 67, June 21, 2005) (indicated that ID is a modern view of creationism).

Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term "creationism" applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2; 10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24).


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hollie said:
> ...



Is this some childish attempt to refute these facts or is this your opinion of the Apollo crew ?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


>









"Quotes posted by Daws are almost always lies" - Benjamin Franklin.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


way to dodge responsibility there eot's.
it's attributed to you because you brought it....the apollo crew did not.
also since you believe it ,it's just as much your's as the astronauts ..


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



No, and if I did, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution.  The problem here, as usual, is that you truly do not understand the theory, what it is and what it is not.  There are no "Kinds".  That is an expression made up by creationists because they don't believe in the concept of species.  Try again.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


wow another desperate attempt at who gives a fuck.
besides ben franklin would have laughed in your face...on principle alone.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I have about as much faith in one judges findings as I do in the oj case or the Casey Anthony trial


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Maybe you should do more research. 


CSC Header Graphic
CSC - About CSC 		CSC - Contact 		CSC - Search 		CSC - Links 		CSC - Home
Printer Friendly Version
Dotted Line
A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs&#65533; Proposed &#65533;Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law&#65533;
By: David DeWolf & John West
Discovery Institute
December 12, 2006


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal judge John E. Jones' ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since the decision was issued, Jones' 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a "masterful decision" based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones' lengthy examination of "whether ID is science" came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys. In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones' 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU's proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones' analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones' examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.

CSC - A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs? Proposed ?Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> way to dodge responsibility there eot's.
> it's attributed to you because you brought it....the apollo crew did not.
> also since you believe it ,it's just as much your's as the astronauts ..



Yeah, but you attribute to Sinclair Lewis a quote on Fascism in 1835 - Fascism which arose in 1923 -  With it in mind that Lewis was not even born until 1885......

So let's just say that credibility isn't something one would associate with you, Daws....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I refer you back to my post #2761.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Evidence my dear boy, I presented mine where is yours ?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> wow another desperate attempt at who gives a fuck.
> besides ben franklin would have laughed in your face...on principle alone.



ROFL

You're such a fraud, and such an utter fool.

Laughing at your antics is the highlight of my day....


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



perhaps its a concept requiring more faith and imagination than I can give it..


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.
> ...



Typical and predictable tactic. You really think a Dr. didn't take college science


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You deny the obvious ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


what facts.?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hollie said:
> ...



Look the only ones trying out of desperation to change the current conversation was you.

Evolutionists desperation on display.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > way to dodge responsibility there eot's.
> ...


again so what..even funny is you missed the obvious joke completely...the poster is sarah palin quoting sinclair lewis. .
as always you are grasping at straws and missing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Cheers my butt you are doing the same thing people in that video eots posted are doing. This also shows your ignorance of evolution.

Dr. Theobald showed speciation or microadaptations and tried passing it off as macro evolution, it didn't change kinds so how is this macroevolution.

Typical bate and switch tactics.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I never said I believe it..I said  can find no easy explanation or way to  offhandedly dismiss the testimony of these highly experienced and intelligent men and that there is enough evidence and sworn testimony of high ranking military and NASA personal that it requires serious consideration and investigation


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > wow another desperate attempt at who gives a fuck.
> ...


I think the same about you..
first it was the idiot false assumption now it's the fraud false assumption...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


translation you believe it.
if you did not you'd either ignore it or not drag it out every time you feel the need.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Uncensored is so dead on about you.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


hardly he /she suffers the same delusions you do.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



its actually you and your little friend hollie that like to use it as your strawman and your translation only shows how illogical you are with your belief that when presented with compelling testimony and evidence  it must be fully accepted or completely ignored ti....this philosophy does however explain much about your thought processes


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


thanks for proving my point.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That's just sad.  Okay, now listen to what a REAL scientist has to say:


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


ah oh ..now you've done it ...evoked the demon carl sagan..!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> what facts.?



Indeed!

?When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag? (or whatever).? « shoqvalue.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What evidence did you feel you provided?
What evidence do you feel I need to provide?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Ha!  The Discovery Institute was one of the plaintiffs in the case.  They had their hat handed to them by a conservative judge.  One would think that if they still had a prayer in the matter, that they would have appealed to the Supreme Court.  That fact is that they didn't because they knew they would lose.  End of story.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> again so what..even funny is you missed the obvious joke completely...the poster is sarah palin quoting sinclair lewis. .
> as always you are grasping at straws and missing.



Lying about Sarah Palin makes it funny?

Well dayum....

I'd call you a fucktard - but that would be insulting to rdean....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Well, it doesn't surprise me that you are in denial of concepts that have been around nearly 400 years and are still in wide use today.  After all, you are still waiting for ET to land in your back yard.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > what facts.?
> ...


wow a fringe right blog! nuff said!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> I think the same about you..



Aw Daws, thinking is not your forte'...



> first it was the idiot false assumption now it's the fraud false assumption...









"Daws always was a fucking fool." - John F. Kennedy, 1776


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > again so what..even funny is you missed the obvious joke completely...the poster is sarah palin quoting sinclair lewis. .
> ...


how am I lying about sara no live brain cells palin?
whoever composed the poster did exactly what I described.. 
and yes she a religofacist ..although she has no clue she is.
damn you're sooo easy!


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You have an addiction to this conspiracy theory like a crack addict needs a fix. Why get defensive when it is noted that your OCD - like proclivities cause you to champion this conspiracy at every opportunity.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Geology and paleontology are not prerequisites for medical school.   Here is the problem.  Almost every one of your so-called experts are not experts in the fields that matter.  Sure I can probably find an engineer who thinks that neurosurgery is the path to the devil, but then, he isn't an expert on neurosurgery, is he?

And whether or not your so-called doctor took any of these courses is irrelevant to whether or not he passed them, and certainly not relevant to whether or not he is qualified to claim scientific expertize on these matters.

I on the other hand, am a published geologist, someone who worked in the field for over 20 years before becoming medically disabled.  Contrary to what you believe, it actually matters what experts you rally to your argument.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the same about you..
> ...


 another false assumption.. not only would jfk have laughed at you but just for laughs and giggles sent you to russia with rolls of microfilm up your ass .


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No one in the modern scientific community is arguing for spontaneous generation.  Hence, your argument is a strawman argument.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



I don't know what you are doing, but I am trying to stay on topic.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I am waiting for ETS  to land in my yard  ? really ?..I do not even know if there are ETS or if there is if they are anywhere close to us..however I do find it interesting that it is a concept that existed thousands of years ago and still to this day it is reported by defense ministers and Apollo crew that there is unequivocal evidence of alien contact...dont you ?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> how am I lying about sara no live brain cells palin?



Well, lets see - did Palin actually mis-quote Sinclair - or was that you, cutting and pasting from a hate site with no more discernment than a feral baboon? 

And you saying SHE has no brain cells is rich irony indeed.. 



> whoever composed the poster did exactly what I described..
> and yes she a religofacist ..although she has no clue she is.
> damn you're sooo easy!



I've never seen Palin advocate the use of the state to silence views she opposes.

Now YOU OTH.....

ROFL

Get thee to a baboonary....


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What?  You mean presenting the evidence that was asked for?  Yeah, what an evil thing for me to do.  



> Dr. Theobald showed speciation or microadaptations and tried passing it off as macro evolution, it didn't change kinds so how is this macroevolution.
> 
> Typical bate and switch tactics.



That is because "kinds" is not a scientific term.

"*Microevolution*, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. 

What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. 

*Macroevolution* is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level."

Speciation has been demonstrated numerous times in the lab, in the field, and in the fossil record.

The relatedness of all life on this planet has been described in minute detail via genetic analysis, and is ongoing.  For anyone to deny these findings, you'd have to be completely scientifically illiterate.


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I believe it is you that has some conspiracy surrounding  the sworn statements of Apollo crew and defense ministers..clearly you do not believe these statements and question the motives...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 you'll find that YWC will use the same rote phrases incessantly..


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...





> Well, it doesn't surprise me that you are in denial of concepts that have been around nearly 400 years and are still in wide use today. After all, you are still waiting for ET to land in your back yard.



right...
__________________


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> Evolution is based on mutation.
> If you start with a simple micro organism, no matter how it came to be on earth, you only have that single organizational, informational unit.  If you copy it sequentially time and time again,  it must accumulate enough copying errors (mutations) to lead to the diversity of living forms on earth.
> And here is it's downfall:
> Any organized living system that developed or emerged from pond scum  4 billion years ago, if allowed to copy itself over and over would destroy itself, because for every favorable mutation there would be *hundreds of unfavorable mutations.*
> ...



Where did you get the "millions and millions of transitional forms of mutants", from?

Honestly, your post was boilerplate Christian creationist "...what are the odds?". Another variation being, "...it's just too complicated to have happened by random chance". 

Fitness for survival is a reality of evolution you should acquaint yourself with.     

On the other hand, if you can't account for the fosill record, could it be that the gods have played a cruel joke on you?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Aug 16, 2013)

So you think every mutation is a favorable one?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


Isn't there a 12 step program for folks like yourself who are addicted to conspiracy theories?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> Evolution is based on mutation.
> If you start with a simple micro organism, no matter how it came to be on earth, you only have that single organizational, informational unit.  If you copy it sequentially time and time again,  it must accumulate enough copying errors (mutations) to lead to the diversity of living forms on earth.
> And here is it's downfall:
> Any organized living system that developed or emerged from pond scum  4 billion years ago, if allowed to copy itself over and over would destroy itself, because for every favorable mutation there would be *hundreds of unfavorable mutations.*
> ...



This might be true if evolution worked that way.  But evolution doesn't work that way.  Evolution works on populations of organisms, not individual organisms.  Organisms in most populations are not genetically identical.  There is genetic diversity within populations.  Those which are not genetically diverse do have many of the problems you cite, and are much more prone to extinction.  But genetic diversity is what allows evolution to occur most successfully.

As for your argument about transitional species, it is a misnomer.  ALL species are transitional.  Your genes are not identical to your parents, nor is theirs identical to their parents'.  You are all different, even though you are all human beings.  Your genetic inheritance is in flux, it is transitioning from something to something else.  As for species that never made it, well, dude, the vast majority of life that has ever lived on this planet never made it.  And contrary to your lie (the biggest lie that creationists promote) many of these so-called transitional fossils have, in fact, been found.  That you don't know this is just something else you don't know.  And that is because you haven't studied the fossil record.  I have all my life.  So I do know.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> So you think every mutation is a favorable one?



The "millions and millions of mutants" was an exaggeration, right?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Right.  Ever hear of a guy named Carolus Linnaeus?  Look him up.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > how am I lying about sara no live brain cells palin?
> ...


yes dear ! you've never seen her do or say anything that takes even a fractional amount of brain power.
I never invoked or advocated silencing anybody...however asshats like you like to play the oppressed and claim anyone who disagrees with you is attempting to  violate your first amendment rights.
like you're doing now.
 it's far more enlightening and expedient to watch you pitch fits and shit yourselves over minutia.
a fine example is your epicly failing attempted character assassination..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> So you think every mutation is a favorable one?


no ..what's your point?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Aug 16, 2013)

> Evolution is based on mutation.
> If you start with a simple micro organism, no matter how it came to be on earth, you only have that single organizational, informational unit. If you copy it sequentially time and time again, it must accumulate enough copying errors (mutations) to lead to the diversity of living forms on earth.
> And here is it's downfall:
> Any organized living system that developed or emerged from pond scum 4 billion years ago, if allowed to copy itself over and over would destroy itself, because for every favorable mutation there would be hundreds of unfavorable mutations.
> ...



Survival of the fittest means there had to be a fittest emerge in the species, *and * it had to beat out *all of the unfit mutants of the species. * 
Which means one micro organized system would not only become the fittest micro organism,  but then it would have to mutate into something completely different and beat out the unfit in *that* species, as well.  And it would have to do it for every one of the millions of species of life on earth. 

There is *no* fossil evidence of transitional forms of all of the species on earth (and it would have to encompass *all* of the species).
Where all the millions of unfit fossils are hidden?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Evolution is based on mutation.
> > If you start with a simple micro organism, no matter how it came to be on earth, you only have that single organizational, informational unit. If you copy it sequentially time and time again, it must accumulate enough copying errors (mutations) to lead to the diversity of living forms on earth.
> > And here is it's downfall:
> > Any organized living system that developed or emerged from pond scum 4 billion years ago, if allowed to copy itself over and over would destroy itself, because for every favorable mutation there would be hundreds of unfavorable mutations.
> ...


false
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




most famous transitional fossil..can you name it?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)




----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IzHxftS8MI


 halielooya  brother!


----------



## The Irish Ram (Aug 16, 2013)

Individuals make up a population and all in the population have a single informational unit regardless of what that particular unit envelopes.  They *all *had to mutate to become something else. 



> As for your argument about transitional species, it is a misnomer. ALL species are transitional. Your genes are not identical to your parents, nor is theirs identical to their parents'.



My point exactly.  I am not identical to my parents, but I am still a human and had human babies as well.  I didn't transition into a bunny.  Just like monkeys didn't transition into humans.  They produced the fittest monkeys, by adapting to their environment. 

Siblings don't mate because of the fear of unfavorable mutation of their offspring.  Evolution suggests they should be able to mate and produce favorable mutations that go on to become the fittest of their species.  
Where are all the unfavorable mutated fossils stemming from the population of simple organisms? There should be substantial mutant fossil record for every species' lineage.

Evolution tells us mutation is upwardly mobile. It's just the opposite.  Unfavorable mutation would over whelm every species that mutates, before a favorable mutant came along.  A fit transitional example would be an anomaly.


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 16, 2013)

*Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?*

Creationism can't be proved scientifically.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I don't know who you are referring to.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Lieberts idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described atheistic evolutionist, Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were sinners.

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude  what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)

Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Hell my education don't seem to impress anyone because I disagree with the nonsense you have been brainwashed with. This is a tactic used by your side ,never mind addressing the questions just attack ones background ,A sign of you losing.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> Individuals make up a population and all in the population have a single informational unit regardless of what that particular unit envelopes.  They *all *had to mutate to become something else.



No, this is not true.  And that is not how speciation occurs.  Natural selection works on populations, not individuals.  1/3 of a population can gain an advantageous mutation that the rest don't, for instance. And for that 1/3, it gets passed on, while the other 2/3ds don't have the trait to pass on to their offspring.  One single individual is simply too low a number to make a difference.



			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> As for your argument about transitional species, it is a misnomer. ALL species are transitional. Your genes are not identical to your parents, nor is theirs identical to their parents'.





			
				IR said:
			
		

> My point exactly.  I am not identical to my parents, but I am still a human and had human babies as well.  I didn't transition into a bunny.




That's right, because if you did transition to a bunny, that would not only refute evolution, but all of science.  Good luck with that, because that is not what evolution is about.




			
				IR said:
			
		

> Just like monkeys didn't transition into humans.  They produced the fittest monkeys, by adapting to their environment.



But then, no one in the scientific community is saying that monkey's transitioned into humans.  Monkey's are not our direct descendants.  And by the way, we are not descended from modern apes, either.  Modern apes and humans are descended from an ape ancestor.  Humans are, whether or not  you care to accept it, apes.  So it isn't simply a matter of being descended from an ape.  We ARE apes.  The anatomy and genetics are unmistakable.



			
				IR said:
			
		

> Siblings don't mate because of the fear of unfavorable mutation of their offspring.



There is truth to the fact that mating among siblings cause genetic problems.  It is also true that siblings have mated throughout the history of life on this planet.



			
				IR said:
			
		

> Evolution suggests they should be able to mate and produce favorable mutations that go on to become the fittest of their species.
> Where are all the unfavorable mutated fossils stemming from the population of simple organisms? There should be substantial mutant fossil record for every species' lineage.



You cannot expect every species that ever lived to be represented in the fossil record.  The nature of fossilization is such that that will never be the case.  There, however many examples of mutations in the fossil record.



			
				IR said:
			
		

> Evolution tells us mutation is upwardly mobile. It's just the opposite.  Unfavorable mutation would over whelm every species that mutates, before a favorable mutant came along.  A fit transitional example would be an anomaly.



Nonsense.  Not every unfavorable mutation is always fatal.  Moreover, not every unfavorable mutation is a dominant trait in every individual that has it. The mutation can be recessive in one individual and dominant in other.  And it is true that favorable mutations are anomalous.  They are, after all, mutations.  But being anomalous is not equivalent to being fatal.  Einstein's brain was likely anomalous.  And yet his was the most brilliant mind of the 20th century.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You are full of crap buddy. Did you click on the link showing you the closing statements from the Aclu and that activist Judge ? By the way what was your point because the Judge was appointed by Reagan ?

I am dealing with another Ideologue, biased in his opinions,got it!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I hate to embarrass you but Speciation is not macroevolution


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your education doesn't impress anyone because you've not demonstrated to us that you have a relevant education.

By the way, I want to see a bibliography for each and every one of your so-called experts.  After all, if they are the experts you say they are, surely they've published relevant peer reviewed scientific publications to back up their claims.  And while you are doing that, I will post one of my publications:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY (ECHINODERMATA, LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN)

Secondly, this is all you have?  Really?  None of the people you've cited have ever been known to conduct research in evolutionary science. Not a one.  So for any of them to say "I was a fervent believer in evolution but no longer am" is less than meaningless.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

The Irish Ram said:


> Individuals make up a population and all in the population have a single informational unit regardless of what that particular unit envelopes.  They *all *had to mutate to become something else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Evolution tells us mutation is upwardly mobile."

Evolution says no such thing.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Individuals make up a population and all in the population have a single informational unit regardless of what that particular unit envelopes.  They *all *had to mutate to become something else.
> ...



Why do we have more genetic disorders popping up over benefits from mutations ?

We are at around 6,000 genetic disorders. how many beneficial mutations can you document ?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



OMG!  What part of the judge's conclusions (of which I posted a link to the entire finding) did you not understand?  If I posted it from a different source, it would say THE EXACT SAME THING.  Get over it.  The courts have handed you guys your friggin hats.  The fact is that creationism is nothing more than a freak religious belief held by a very few radical fundamentalists.  The fact is that ID is creationism's twisted step-child.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



No doubt, you can list all 6,000, right?  I won't say that I know how many beneficial mutations that human beings have, but I can cite a few.  One is our large brain, and associated intelligence.  Another is our binocular vision.  Another is our five digited extremities with opposable thumbs.  Another is our bipedalism.  Shall I continue?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I hate to break it to you, but by definition, it is.  Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales, and that's your problem because your religion says that it can't be true because it doesn't fit in with your young Earth nonsense.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Seriously what really fits the evidence best is what matters. Unless you can give a viable explanation for origins you can't rule out the creator. We can point to what happens to undirected processes and then compare it to the results of directed processes.

Random or purposeful design which better fits the evidence. Who makes bigger assumptions atheistic evolutionist or creationists ?



Although some Christians have attacked evolution as just a theory, that would be raising Darwins idea to a level it doesnt deserve.

A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe somethingan educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis.

Over time, if a hypothesis continues to stand up to scrutiny and many different experiments, the scientific community may begin referring to it as a theory. In essence, this means that because the hypothesis has not been disproved over many years and no other known hypothesis works, then we can be reasonably sure that its accurate.

Theories, however, are not imperishable. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. (See Louis Pasteurs Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs).
Where Evolution Falls Short

Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory. First, theres no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test evolutionary events in the past.

Some point to natural selection as a form of evolution in action, but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed tests to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.
So What Is It?
Free online book: Evolution Exposed: Biology

Check out this free online book that reveals and refutes every instance of evolution in Americas most popular biology textbooks, or purchase a copy.

Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.

Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalistswithout meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.

Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You're completely wrong run off to talk origins and try to spin the meaning of the two terms.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And that is the classic god of the gaps argument.  If you don't know what that is, I suggest you look it up.  Congratulations.  When you can list professional bibliographies for these guys, then we'll have more to talk about.



> Random or purposeful design which better fits the evidence. Who makes bigger assumptions atheistic evolutionist or creationists?



Actually, the fact of the matter is that there are many more Christians who support the theory of evolution than oppose it.  I know that must chafe your arse, but live with it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Do you doubt the real scientists that have made the claim ?


Hope Through Knowledge

There are over 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed down through the generations, many of which are fatal or severely debilitating. Since 1997, the GDF has worked with Mount Sinai to help provide funding for research to improve early detection and treatment options for many of these disorders

Genetic Disease Foundation: Hope Through Knowledge

So explain mutation fixation to me and why so many harmful mutations exist in the gene pool and would have a negative affect on evolution ?

If evolution easily spreads through the gene pool why do we not all have the same genetic disorders ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Only foolish ones.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I can cite from a hundred different sources and they will all tell you the same thing.  See, this is your problem.  You don't understand even the most basic concepts of the theory.  So to suggest to any of us that you know what you are talking about is just pure horse manure.

So, do you want to talk about the age of the Earth?  I can spend hours talking about it, so let's have at it, grasshopper, if you dare.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Right, so every Christian denomination except radical evangelicals got it wrong.  Oh my.  Talk about being biased!


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



 You are intellectually and emotionally unprepared to accept the reality that creationism (under whatever label),  is a religious claim. Previously, creationists made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was (as you may recall) originally called "Biblical Creationism". Faced with a drubbing in the courts, and the correct legal decision that it was merely religion in disguise, creationists regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references.That scam fooled no one. When that met an equally embarrassing Bums Rush out of court, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more desperate and more pathetic.

In the same way, when creationists find themselves unable to deal with the multiple independent sources of evidence for evolution that include the fossils, the genetic comparisons, comparative anatomy, biogeography, ecology etc., they retreat further and further toward hurling bible verses. But how does that help them?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



_Evolution: Not Even a Theory - Answers in Genesis_

Oh good lord. AIG. What a joke.

Attached is a link to their "statement of faith".

It reads like a propaganda statement for a cult initiation. 


The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I spent a lot of money on this education spare me the B.S. Hell they can't even produce macroevolution using Bioengineering,that is replacing genes. Can you explain why they can't ? and why do they hide it from the public ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 16, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Just about the only thing you have gotten right today. The LORD is good.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Because there are over 6 billion human beings on the planet.  Unless you are suggesting that each of us have had sex and babies with every other human being (in which case, damn), what's your point?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You keep resorting to the god of the gaps argument.  You should ask your school for a refund, because, damn, dude.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I fully expected you would bail. You have a habit of stuttering and mumbling your way past challenges to your specious opinions.

It Is actually quite interesting to see, coincidently, the double standards, lack of standards and self-serving biases that are embraced by religious extremists.   

Taking a look at the About section of answers in genesis, we find the usual biased application of predefined conclusions used to press a specific religious agenda.

_About Answers in Genesis_

About Answers in Genesis - Answers in Genesis



> Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a millions of years old earth (and even older universe).



Oh, cool. Theres no way to misinterpret that statement of faith as anything but cult indoctrination.

Then theres this:



> AiG teaches that facts dont speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there arent separate sets of evidences for evolution and creationwe all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Biblethe history book of the universeprovides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the evidence confirms the biblical account.
> 
> For an elaboration of AiGs presuppositional thrust check out our Get Answers sectionfor example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the worlds geology, anthropology, and astronomy.




Did anyone see that? Note the terms used:
AiG teaches that facts dont speak for themselves, but must be interpreted.

Of course, those facts must be interpreted by this particular group of flat earthers. Its obvious that any interpretation is going to lead to a predefined conclusion. Why? Its detailed in their next statement:


> For an elaboration of AiGs presuppositional thrust.



Would anyone like to explain to fundie zealots what presuppositional thrust means and why it literally screams of amateur bias?

The simple truth is that taking as dishonest and biased approach as a presuppositional thrust screams out an irreconcilable contradiction to finding any truth. This of course is not unique to christianity in particular. All religions believe that they are exclusively the one true faith, that deviation from certain precepts of their core beliefs will ultimately condemn the transgressor to an eternity of suffering in the fires of hell, (remember, god loves his children), and that all other faiths are either corrupted or false. Oh yeah, lets remember that specific deviations from conformance to these doctrines will cause the transgressor to receive such punishments that are both arbitrary and unreasonable, (but, god loves his children).

Science doesn't carry the burden of being compelled to contrive data to support a presuppositional thrust. Science doesnt care what the end result is. Scientists strive to validate and falsify regardless of where the data leads.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another so what post..! religious epiphanies are not evidence no matter what the educational background.
like it or not fair or not .

your education might impress more people if your grammar was at college level.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


edited for pseudoscience nonsense...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 16, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


assumption..


----------



## eots (Aug 16, 2013)

hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hollie said:
> ...



are you attending that to deal with your apollo crew conspiracy ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I am saying some people put to much trust in man and are fools for doing so. People actually believe macroevolution has been observed and you're one of them by posting that case of microadaptations by Dr. Theobald and calling it macroevolution.

You have done the typical thing of evolutionists trying to say that microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing. I don't like the term evolution because that is not what is observed. What is observed are results of microadaptations and selective breeding. We also are seeing the results of that genetic information that was in the Genome all along.

Why is it we can point to more genetic disorders from mutations than benefits from mutations ? That is exactly what your side needs is beneficial mutations and a lot of them for the diversity of life.

We have have many new genetic disorders popping up why can't we point to many benefits from mutations ?

Explain to me how a gene takes over a population to bring about evolution ?

Why is macroevolution a theory when the scientific method can't be used to verify ?

Age of the earth really,tell me why the dating methods are so reliable ? and you're not trying to change the subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



There are gaps in every theory  but I do have a reason to believe everything is the result of creation. That is the same thing for you for those gaps you believe naturalism fills those gaps.

I credit my school for teaching me to test all things and use reason in the process. We have tried to cause evolution in the lab on flies and bacterium for a long time and it hasn't happened why ? Now the science community can remove genes and add genes and can't produce macroevolution why ?

What happens to organisms that reach their limits of adapting ? or changing? give me an example of this.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



 Creationist have been saying and proving this for a long time but actually they say at least 4% difference in the Dna of chimps and humans,which is double the size of immense.

When considering that many human characteristics and bodily functions require the complex interaction of many protein-encoding genes, even a difference of 2 percent (as is the case with humans and chimps) can be considered immense.

10 Things Our Genes Can Tell Us : Discovery Channel

Why have we not found a genetic defect in apes that humans share ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Human-chimp genetic differences: New insights into why humans are more susceptible to cancer and other diseases



> In research published in September's American Journal of Human Genetics, Yi looked at brain samples of each species. She found that differences in certain DNA modifications, called methylation, may contribute to phenotypic changes. The results also hint that DNA methylation plays an important role for some disease-related phenotypes in humans, including cancer and autism.



Why did the gods feel a need to create humans and primates with such similar DNA structure?

Were primates a first try by the gods at human "creation" but just a little off?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I would also like to know why apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans 23 ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That's not identified in the bibles?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



This is the beauty of it all that is going over your head. God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed.

The big difference is the genetic information that is translated.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Understanding Genetics


Why are the gods so careless about their "design"?  

With 6,000 harmful mutations, why are the gods such inept "designers".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Doesn't have to be this evidence destroys the myth of ape and humans being related.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Thanks for pointing out what was confirmed yesterday that there are 6,000 genetic disorders that can be passed on to members of the gene pool. Which in turn is a problem for evolution.

Do learn something about genetic inheritance, and mutation fixation.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Hell, that might be true if the gods were so great. However, we have no reason to believe the tales and fables which served as the invention of your gods.

Hell, your gods are only "your gods" because you happened to have been born in a geographic location where the Christian gods were the "most popular".

How really arbitrary and capricious is it that you are the bible thumping zealot when had you been born in the islamist Middle East, you would have become the Koran thumping, muhammud worshipping zealot.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Speechless I know,don't worry I have that affect on some.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Thanks for pointing out that you have no clue regarding either genetics or evolution. 

I'm afraid that your posting of the _6,000 genetic disorders&#8482; _ slogan fails to account for the fact that all genetic "disorders" (mutations), are harmful.

Did you know that they have discovered that genetic disorder No. 6001 causes the debilitating condition of religious fundamentalism?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Here, I corrected your post:

_Dumbfounded_ I know,don't worry my posts suggest that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I never made that claim but I have made the claim beneficial mutations are rare and the numbers do not lie.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

Ok hollie, enough with your rhetoric, if you care to address some of the questions asked this morning I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


And with consistency, you use the _6,000 genetic disorders _ slogan as though it precludes mutations that have a positive attribute for fitness.

I understand it serves your science-loathing agenda but it also demonstrates a lack of objectivity.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Ok hollie, enough with your rhetoric, if you care to address some of the questions asked this morning I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.



OK fundie man, enough of your sidestepping. As you know, your rhetorical "questions" are posed as a means to discredit science in the hopes that it will serve your religious agenda.

I noted without a moment of hesitation your rush for the exits regarding AIG's biased application of predefined conclusions used to press a specific religious agenda. 

You insist that others answer your "questions" (which they do), but you typically shuffle -off when you are tasked with addressing the explicit bias announced by the creation ministries your cut and paste from.

While you arrogantly demand that others address your rhetoric, you refuse to address the inherent anti-science / anti-intellectual bias in your religious dogma as a means to further your religious agenda without the intellectual baggage of conscience or a moral compass. You ignore the blatant double standard inherent in all of this without a hint of the dishonesty associated with doing so. Ive pointed this out to you on several occasions but with consistency, you blithely proceed on as though you don't understand the concept of a double standard.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Ok hollie, enough with your rhetoric, if you care to address some of the questions asked this morning I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.



Not surprisingly, your 6,000 genetic disorders slogan (as opposed to _mutations_  it seems youre unable even to understand the terms yourre using), has its umm _genesis_ in the twisted mind of Henry Morris.  

Gee whiz. As usual, your science literacy comes from a Christian extremist website. 


CB101: Most mutations harmful?

_Claim CB101_:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful. 


Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57. 
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100. 

Response:
1.	Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007). 

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial. 

2.	Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following: 
	Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995). 
	Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977). 
	Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983). 
	A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002). 
	Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000). 
	In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997). 

3.	Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996). 

4.	High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000). 

5.	Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13). 


Links:
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection. Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection 
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans. Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Define "translated" as it applies to genetic information.


While you're hoping to dodge or perform an Olympic sport quality _backstroke_ to your "translate" foible, there's this: 

Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving - The Panda's Thumb


Ok people want more science, let&#8217;s give them what they are asking for. Most of us are familiar with the claims by creationists that most or all of the mutations are found to be detrimental. And before anyone calls this a strawman, remember that it was Ray I believe who insisted on a 100% detrimental mutation rate. In addition, ID proponents seem to take seriously Sanford&#8217;s concept of &#8216;genetic entropy&#8217; which based on what I have read about his argument is a rejuvenated 2nd law of thermodynamics argument. Of course, most familiar with science would understand that most mutations are neutral and that some are detrimental and few are beneficial. However, recent research has shown that the beneficial mutation rates are much higher than originally expected.

Marianne Imhof and Christian Schlotterer report in Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations, PNAS January 30, 2001 vol. 98 no. 3 1113&#8211;1117 [read online]



The central role of beneficial mutations for adaptive processes in natural populations is well established. Thus, there has been a long-standing interest to study the nature of beneficial mutations. Their low frequency, however, has made this class of mutations almost inaccessible for systematic studies. In the absence of experimental data, the distribution of the fitness effects of beneficial mutations was assumed to resemble that of deleterious mutations. For an experimental proof of this assumption, we used a novel marker system to trace adaptive events in an evolving Escherichia coli culture and to determine the selective advantage of those beneficial mutations. Ten parallel cultures were propagated for about 1,000 generations by serial transfer, and 66 adaptive events were identified. From this data set, we estimate the rate of beneficial mutations to be 4 x 10-9 per cell and generation. Consistent with an exponential distribution of the fitness effects, we observed a large fraction of advantageous mutations with a small effect and only few with large effect. The mean selection coefficient of advantageous mutations in our experiment was 0.02. 

Not to be outdone, researchers in 2007 reported on a rate which was another 1000 times faster 



Evolution by natural selection is driven by the continuous generation of adaptive mutations. We measured the genomic mutation rate that generates beneficial mutations and their effects on fitness in Escherichia coli under conditions in which the effect of competition between lineages carrying different beneficial mutations is minimized. We found a rate on the order of 10-5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates, and a mean selective advantage of 1%. Such a high rate of adaptive evolution has implications for the evolution of antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity.

Perfeito L, Fernandes L, Mota C, Gordo I Adaptive mutations in bacteria: high rate and small effects. Science. 2007 Aug 10;317(5839):813-5.

Have these e-coli bacteria no shame&#8230;




How is it you know with certainty that "God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed" is true?

Evidence for evolution from authoritative / reliable sources has been offered to you. You _must_ ignore those because it conflicts with the religious dogma you simply accepted from your parents.

I'll expect that you can counter that evidence from authoritative / reliable sources. Remember - simply cutting and pasting from AIG is problematic for your side. Remember that I posted the "statement of faith" from the charlatans at AIG?.... which you scurried away from without addressing?... remember that?


----------



## Metacrock (Aug 17, 2013)

there might be a way to hold to creations ideas and be scientific. I've never seen it done. the reason i because creationism assumes it has the answer before the data is in. If you come to a different conclusion as a result of the data and stop being a creationist you are out of the club.

The scientific evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis is so strong the time is passed when one might take a neutral position. yet theoretically it's possible to withhold judgement. It's not possible to be a creationist and withhold judgement. Either you believe in evolution in which case you are out or you don't accept it which the necessary pre condition to being a creationist.

one can't really be scientific and say "you  must uphold this conclusion even if we don't know the findings of the data."

Belief that God created the universe is not the same thing as "creationism." I believe God created the universe. He used evolution to do it. I can accept the possibility of evolution and still believe in God but I can't hold to the possibility of evolution and be a creationist.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

Metacrock said:


> there might be a way to hold to creations ideas and be scientific. I've never seen it done. the reason i because creationism assumes it has the answer before the data is in. If you come to a different conclusion as a result of the data and stop being a creationist you are out of the club.
> 
> The scientific evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis is so strong the time is passed when one might take a neutral position. yet theoretically it's possible to withhold judgement. It's not possible to be a creationist and withhold judgement. Either you believe in evolution in which case you are out or you don't accept it which the necessary pre condition to being a creationist.
> 
> ...



So should atheistic views be left out of interpreting evidence. Sorry but presuppositions do affect both sides.

So which God do you believe in just curious ?

Microadaptations exist no doubt and that gets extrapolated as evidence for macroevolution that is a fact.


----------



## Metacrock (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Metacrock said:
> 
> 
> > there might be a way to hold to creations ideas and be scientific. I've never seen it done. the reason i because creationism assumes it has the answer before the data is in. If you come to a different conclusion as a result of the data and stop being a creationist you are out of the club.
> ...




Yes, science is systematic disinterested observation f the workings of the physical world. Atheism is  a metaphysical assumption. So metaphsyical assumptions, even though they are probably hard to avoid, should be left out much as possible in a scientific hypothesis.

I think you mean to ask with which religious tradition do I identify? I am a Christian. I believe the same reality stands behind all traditions, the thing that makes religious traditions different is the cultural constructs though which they they are filtered.

Jesus is is not a cultural constrict, he was a historical person. It's not the tradition that's true but the object of it's devotion. So in other words, not Christianity but Jesus himself that constitutes truth with the capital T. Jesus = THE TRUTH, Christianity is just his fan club. so to speak.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That is not only not true, it doesn't even address what I posted. Misdirection.  Try again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*This is the beauty of it all that is going over your head. God is so great he can use the same ingredients and mechanisms but produce the bio diversity that is observed.*

And he can take billions of years and start with pond scum. Cool!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Ok hollie, enough with your rhetoric, if you care to address some of the questions asked this morning I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.
> ...



* Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995). *

This is one of my favorites.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 Answer the question ? Since you left off the original question I will go back and look at what was asked.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Here are the questions.

So explain mutation fixation to me and why so many harmful mutations exist in the gene pool and would have a negative affect on evolution ?

If evolution easily spreads through the gene pool why do we not all have the same genetic disorders ?

The 2nd question was a poor question which I concede,I don't know what I was asking. Why didn't you address the first question ?

So are you admitting there are more recent genetic disorders then benefits from mutations ? which is what you need for your theory to be even viable.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This is your favorite ! 



First and foremost, D.C. does not have his scientific facts straight concerning nylon-eating bacteria. To my knowledge there has not been a gene duplication event associated with Arthrobacter sp. K172 gaining the ability to digest the byproducts of nylon manufacture (what they essentially &#8220;eat&#8221; in the wastewater from nylon-producing plants). Rather, what happens is point mutations (single base pair changes in the DNA) that alter the active site of the enzyme EII, an enzyme the bacteria already possess. EII&#8217;s normal function is to break down a substance that is chemically similar to nylon. Thus, the mutations slightly alter EII so it can break down nylon that is very similar to the substance it normally breaks down. Clearly, this is not an example of a gain of information mutation but rather an alteration of currently existing information.

Overall, the mutations are degenerative to EII because they reduce its specificity (now the bacteria can &#8220;eat&#8221; the normal product and nylon). Dr. Kevin Anderson and I in our paper addressing supposed beneficial mutations stated this about EII:
- See more at: Nylon-eating Bacteria Again | Dr. Georgia Purdom's Blog

Nylon-eating Bacteria Again | Dr. Georgia Purdom's Blog


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You are gonna have to prove this one.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What is not true ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



First and foremost, how us it that I was so certain that your response would be from a fundie extremist

From the AIG website:

Dr. Georgia Purdom is a compelling and dynamic lecturer and well qualified to speak on the relevance of Genesis to the issue of biblical authority. She is the only female Ph.D. scientist engaged in full-time speaking and research for a biblical creationist organization in North America. Dr. Purdom states, A proper understanding of Genesis is very important because it is foundational to biblical authority and a Christian worldview. Its about so much more than the creation/evolution controversy. Its about the truthfulness and authority of Gods Word.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Is there a point in there ? I would put my bible first before any secular science text book. The secular science text books have earned that opinion.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course. We all know that science is just a global conspiracy.

Keep your biblical, flat earth worldview.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why do you doubt God's power?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 17, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Dr. Georgia Purdom, hypocrite | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That you would actually believe that the bible is a science book is not surprising but does show the breadth of your stupidity.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 17, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



All of it.  Creationists haven't "proven" anything.  Furthermore, we have found genetic defects in apes.  Humans are apes, dude.  Moreover, there are genetic diseases that can be traced in primate evolution:

Human genetic disorders, a phylogenetic perspective. [J Mol Biol. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI

"Our results show that LPL deficiency is the oldest and should affect humans, apes, and monkeys. ApoB deficiency should affect humans and great apes, while a disorder in the HPRT gene (leading to the Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) is unique to human, chimpanzee, and gorilla. Similar results can be obtained for cancer."

Now.  Care to actually address my earlier post?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's not I that doubts his power.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Excellent. So if God took billions of years and pond scum to get to us, that would be okay with you?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



https://bible.org/seriespage/what-does-it-mean-not-teach-or-have-authority-over-men-1-timothy-211-15


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I never said I thought the bible was a science book. I do believe there are things mentioned in the bible that have been confirmed by modern day science and technology. I guess you're getting angry over my questions.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Angry? Not in the least.  You said "I would put my bible first before any secular science text book".  That certainly does imply that you are using the bible to support your notions of science.  I think it is disingenuous of you to make claims like the one you made that apes and humans don't share genetic defects, and when shown that you are wrong you don't acknowledge your error.  I don't think you are being honest in your arguments, nor do I think you are learning anything from these discussions. So what's the point in having them in the first place?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Look, I am talking rare genetic disorders,animals suffer from cancer,heart disease. The apes do not suffer from Aids or Malaria. 




nherited mutations of oncogenes

A few cancer syndromes are caused by inherited mutations of proto-oncogenes that cause the oncogene to be turned on (activated). For example, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN2) is caused by an inherited mutation in the gene called RET. People affected by this syndrome often develop an uncommon thyroid cancer called medullary cancer of the thyroid. They also develop other tumors, including pheochromocytoma and nerve tumors. Inherited mutations in the gene called KIT can cause hereditary gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). And inherited mutations in the gene called MET can cause hereditary papillary renal cancer.
Acquired mutations of oncogenes

Most cancer-causing mutations involving oncogenes are acquired, not inherited. They generally activate oncogenes by chromosome rearrangements, gene duplication, or mutation. For example, a chromosome rearrangement can lead to formation of the gene called BCR-ABL, which leads to chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Acquired mutations that activate the KIT gene cause most cases of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). 



Inherited abnormalities of tumor suppressor genes have been found in some family cancer syndromes. They cause certain types of cancer to run in families. For example, a defective APC gene causes familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), a condition in which people develop hundreds or even thousands of colon polyps. Often, at least one of the polyps becomes cancer, leading to colon cancer. There are many examples of inherited tumor suppressor gene mutations, and more are being discovered each year. For more information about inherited mutations and cancer, see our document Heredity and Cancer.
Acquired mutations of tumor suppressor genes

Tumor suppressor gene mutations have been found in many cancers. Most of these mutations are acquired, not inherited.

For example, abnormalities of the TP53 gene (which codes for the p53 protein) have been found in more than half of human cancers. Acquired mutations of this gene appear in a wide range of cancers, including lung, colorectal, and breast cancer. The p53 protein is involved in the pathway to apoptosis. This pathway is turned on when a cell has DNA damage that can't be repaired. If the gene for p53 is not working properly, cells with damaged DNA continue to grow and divide. Over time this can lead to cancer.

Acquired changes in many other tumor suppressor genes also contribute to the development of sporadic (not inherited) cancers.

Gene mutations that can lead to cancer


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Chimps and gorillas, in fact, suffer from a form of HIV that affects only them.  That virus has been used as a model for human HIV in research looking for a cure to human AIDS.  How many times do I need to correct your mistakes?  You know, there is something available on the internet that might help you find the right answers.  It's called Google.  Alternatively, you can use Bing.  Or you can take some college level science classes.  You choose.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Encyclopedia of American Loons: #329: Georgia Purdom


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yeah, after reading more of her stuff, it becomes apparent why she works for Answers in genesis:  No one else will hire her.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



According to the evidence he didn't though so what is your point ?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What evidence, where?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Correct me with conjecture 

HIV-Like Virus Found in Gorillas
Sean Markey
for National Geographic News
November 9, 2006

A form of HIV has been found in wild gorillas in western central Africa. This is the first time the AIDS-causing virus has been detected in primates other than chimps and humans. 

HIV-Like Virus Found in Gorillas

Can you recognize conjecture ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Of course once one goes against the establishment it's like they are not qualified


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So, your evidence that I am presenting conjecture is an article that actually verifies that what I was saying is true?  Facepalm time.

Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) is real, dude.  You have been corrected.  Are you going to acknowledge it, or are you going to sink even further into the quagmire of your own denial?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The evidence of mutation fixation.The mutation rate.Defense mechanisms preventing mutations from taking over a gene pool. The limits on adapting in organisms. Just to name a few.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The real question here is how she managed to get her PhD in the first place.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Making shit up is not the same as presenting scientific evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That is your sides faulting reasoning because something is similar they must be the same. Same argument as Dna similarity.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If one species of immunodeficiency virus needs a different protein coating to become viral in its host as compared to another species of immunodeficiency virus, that doesn't mean that it is no longer an immunodeficiency virus.  A leopard frog and a bull frog are two different species of frogs.  But they are both still frogs.

So your response is going to be to delve even further into your quagmire of denial.  That's just sad.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You are getting desperate.

"We found they were infectedand to our surprise are infected with a virus which is closely related to the one we find in chimpanzees and also in humans." 


What Is HIV?

To understand what HIV is, lets break it down:

H  Human  This particular virus can only infect human beings.

I  Immunodeficiency  HIV weakens your immune system by destroying important cells that fight disease and infection. A "deficient" immune system can't protect you.

V  Virus  A virus can only reproduce itself by taking over a cell in the body of its host.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus is a lot like other viruses, including those that cause the "flu" or the common cold. But there is an important difference  over time, your immune system can clear most viruses out of your body. That isn't the case with HIV  the human immune system can't seem to get rid of it. Scientists are still trying to figure out why.

We know that HIV can hide for long periods of time in the cells of your body and that it attacks a key part of your immune system  your T-cells or CD4 cells. Your body has to have these cells to fight infections and disease, but HIV invades them, uses them to make more copies of itself, and then destroys them.

Over time, HIV can destroy so many of your CD4 cells that your body can't fight infections and diseases anymore. When that happens, HIV infection can lead to AIDS.
What Is AIDS?

To understand what AIDS is, lets break it down:

A  Acquired  AIDS is not something you inherit from your parents. You acquire AIDS after birth.

I  Immuno  Your body's immune system includes all the organs and cells that work to fight off infection or disease.

D  Deficiency  You get AIDS when your immune system is "deficient," or isn't working the way it should.

S  Syndrome  A syndrome is a collection of symptoms and signs of disease. AIDS is a syndrome, rather than a single disease, because it is a complex illness with a wide range of complications and symptoms.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome is the final stage of HIV infection. People at this stage of HIV disease have badly damaged immune systems, which put them at risk for opportunistic infections (OIs).

You will be diagnosed with AIDS if you have one or more specific OIs, certain cancers, or a very low number of CD4 cells. If you have AIDS, you will need medical intervention and treatment to prevent death.

For more information, see CDCs Basic Information About HIV And AIDS.
Where Did HIV Come From?

Scientists believe HIV came from a particular kind of chimpanzee in Western Africa. Humans probably came in contact with HIV when they hunted and ate infected animals. Recent studies indicate that HIV may have jumped from monkeys to humans as far back as the late 1800s.

For more information, see CDC's Where Did HIV Come From?
HIV/AIDS 101
What Is HIV/AIDS? How Do You Get HIV or AIDS? Signs & Symptoms U.S. Statistics Global Statistics A Timeline of AIDS

Yes double face palm.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I can't help it you can't understand you're wrong.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Here is how it works, YWC.
You present a thesis.  Then you make an argument supporting your thesis using EVIDENCE.  Then using that evidence, you try to convince others that your thesis is valid.  You present statistical error to root out bias and other issues.  Then we read it, and present our pros and cons.  In this way, we have what is called a "diaologue".  Want to try it?  You might find it entertaining.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



According to your evidence? LOL!
You don't even understand the 2nd Law.

If you mean the scientific evidence, yes, it points to billions of years and pond scum.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Do you understand the difference between inherited genetic disorders  and ones that come from a break down of an individuals system ?

Why I raised the Hiv virus was because of the rarity. You got exposed, maybe google isn't your friend.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I would suggest learning what inheritance means first.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do you understand that in some individuals, a breakdown in individual systems can be inherited (i.e., can be a genetic disorder)?



> Why I raised the Hiv virus was because of the rarity. You got exposed, maybe google isn't your friend.



What does the relative rarity of HIV have to do with anything?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Dude, I have forgotten more about the subject than you will ever know.  But hey, test me on it.  I'm game.

By the way, you realize that you are moving the goalpost, right?  RIGHT???


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are the one making an argument against the 2nd law. You gave a weak argument and did not realize the important role genetic programming plays. The genetic programming provides the natural cycles.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Pay attention.

To understand what HIV is, lets break it down:

H  Human  This particular virus can only infect human beings.

I  Immunodeficiency  HIV weakens your immune system by destroying important cells that fight disease and infection. A "deficient" immune system can't protect you.

V  Virus  A virus can only reproduce itself by taking over a cell in the body of its host.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus is a lot like other viruses, including those that cause the "flu" or the common cold. But there is an important difference  over time, your immune system can clear most viruses out of your body. That isn't the case with HIV  the human immune system can't seem to get rid of it. Scientists are still trying to figure out why.

We know that HIV can hide for long periods of time in the cells of your body and that it attacks a key part of your immune system  your T-cells or CD4 cells. Your body has to have these cells to fight infections and disease, but HIV invades them, uses them to make more copies of itself, and then destroys them.

Over time, HIV can destroy so many of your CD4 cells that your body can't fight infections and diseases anymore. When that happens, HIV infection can lead to AIDS.
What Is AIDS?

To understand what AIDS is, lets break it down:

A  Acquired  AIDS is not something you inherit from your parents. You acquire AIDS after birth.

I  Immuno  Your body's immune system includes all the organs and cells that work to fight off infection or disease.

D  Deficiency  You get AIDS when your immune system is "deficient," or isn't working the way it should.

S  Syndrome  A syndrome is a collection of symptoms and signs of disease. AIDS is a syndrome, rather than a single disease, because it is a complex illness with a wide range of complications and symptoms.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome is the final stage of HIV infection. People at this stage of HIV disease have badly damaged immune systems, which put them at risk for opportunistic infections (OIs).

You will be diagnosed with AIDS if you have one or more specific OIs, certain cancers, or a very low number of CD4 cells. If you have AIDS, you will need medical intervention and treatment to prevent death.

For more information, see CDCs Basic Information About HIV And AIDS.
Where Did HIV Come From?

Scientists believe HIV came from a particular kind of chimpanzee in Western Africa. Humans probably came in contact with HIV when they hunted and ate infected animals. Recent studies indicate that HIV may have jumped from monkeys to humans as far back as the late 1800s.

What Is HIV/AIDS?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



 it has always been about inheritance your ignorance on what you're arguing got exposed. Not moving the goalposts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Also you do not understand viruses and that is why you made a foolish argument. You thought that Hiv was passed from parents through inheritance.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


  Listen up.  I'm, only going to say this once (unless it goes right over your pointy little head, in which case, I may repeat it).  Be it an HIV or a SIV, both are immunodeficiency viruses.  Both have the same effect on their respective hosts.



> Human Immunodeficiency Virus is a lot like other viruses, including those that cause the "flu" or the common cold. But there is an important difference  over time, your immune system can clear most viruses out of your body. That isn't the case with HIV  the human immune system can't seem to get rid of it. Scientists are still trying to figure out why.



They've long ago figured out why HIV cannot be eliminated by the human immune system.  It can't be eliminated because it DESTROYS the immune system.  HIV doesn't kill people.  Because it destroys the immune system, it leaves one vulnerable to many other bacteria and viruses.  And those diseases are what ultimately kill people.

We know that HIV can hide for long periods of time in the cells of your body and that it attacks a key part of your immune system  your T-cells or CD4 cells. Your body has to have these cells to fight infections and disease, but HIV invades them, uses them to make more copies of itself, and then destroys them.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That you actually believe that you've made any sort of rational case for your argument is just sad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*You are the one making an argument against the 2nd law.*

I'm not the one claiming the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible.
Look, when you take in energy, you can evolve. 
Sorry you haven't taken in any energy or information for so long.

*The genetic programming provides the natural cycles.*

So what?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Also you do not understand viruses and that is why you made a foolish argument. You thought that Hiv was passed from parents through inheritance.



Erm, what?  Do point out where I ever made that case.

Having said that, and since YOU brought it up, here, HIV is passed from mother to fetus,  though not via inheritance.  What is interesting, though is not that the mother can infect the fetus; what is interesting is the research that made that determination in the first place.  In trying to learn how the fetus became infected from the mother, it was discovered that the human genome contains fragments, and in a few cases, entire genomes of viruses.  These are called endogenous retroviruses.  HIV is a retrovirus, but is not endogenous.

Demystified . . . Human endogenous retroviruses



> Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are a family of viruses within our genome with similarities to present day exogenous retroviruses. HERVs have been inherited by successive generations and it is possible that some have conferred biological benefits. However, several HERVs have been implicated in certain cancers and autoimmune diseases. This article demystifies these retroviruses by providing an insight into HERVs, their means of classification, and a synopsis of HERVs implicated in cancer and autoimmunity. Furthermore, the biological roles of HERVs are explored.



More at the link - highly recommended reading.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I don't disagree with anything you said here but what does this have to do with genetic inheritance which is what this whole discussion was about ?

I will also like to give you evidence that is real, and not conjecture that supports the bibles account of creation.

All groups of organisms have mutations, and all groups of organisms have genetic disorders, and theses genetic disorders gets passed to the next generations.

Unless the first life was free of genetic disorders ,that is for each species ,how could a small group survive ? Then you have to acknowledge that every new family would have to overcome these genetic disorders to survive as well.In smaller populations this would be destructive to that small group.

This fits that all families were created as they were, and through microadaptations and cross breeding is where we get all the diversity in a family group. But I also believe God created many different species within a family group. So the genetic disorders that are found in each family was due to inheritance. The very thing you claimed was an aid in macroevolution would destroy small groups refuting the theory.

Remember the creation account is that each family started with a small group. the same would be for evolution so which theory is supported by the facts ?

If all organisms have genetic disorders and passed them on to their offspring for 2.7 billon years can you imagine the number of genetic disorders found in the human gene pool ? genetic disorders would have been passed to all these small groups which has happened, and we have seen the extinction of many species due to these genetic disorders.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are claiming that order increased after 2 billion years for this planet. Look at the other planets in our solar system compared to Earth. You have no evidence to support this ever happened but your imagination.

So what ? the energy we get helps in reproduction but it is the genetic programming that allows the energy to be put to work. They need each other is that a  coincidence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Also you do not understand viruses and that is why you made a foolish argument. You thought that Hiv was passed from parents through inheritance.
> ...



You are trying to spin out of your horrible ignorant argument. What do you think my point was ? here I will tell you a rare genetic disorder that was passed from our ancestors would show genetic inheritance proving we are related.

Just admit this is something you forgot or ignorant of or ask for a refund from your institution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*You are claiming that order increased after 2 billion years for this planet.*

Isn't it obvious?

*You have no evidence to support this ever happened but your imagination.*

No evidence that things can get more complex when you add energy? Are you daft?

*the energy we get helps in reproduction but it is the genetic programming that allows the energy to be put to work.*

Awesome. Genetic programming allows things to use energy and get more complex.
Welcome to reality. Most of us have been here for quite some time.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The 2nd law shows it had to begin with order sorry.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Where does it show that? Besides your imagination?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



By looking at the evidence in our solar system,there is plenty of evidence suggesting I am right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There's evidence that life can't evolve on Earth, because of the 2nd Law? 

Your argument is devolving in this thread.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Erm, compared to when it first formed (when the solar system was a literal wrecking ball of debris slamming into itself), it is now quite calm and collect.  Next.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Of course, you dont understand the science youre hoping to vilify.

What youre unable to reconcile is that the establishment science community holds to science as a process of discovery, _standards of proof_, peer review and testing of the assertions by others.

On the other hand, we have your cast of charlatans representing the various extremist Christian ministries who invariably require those that shill for them to acknowledge a pretentious and dishonest statement of faith.

Its the individuals ignorant of science or those who grew up in environments where religion was wielded like bloody truncheons who are the ones manipulated by extremists representing creation ministries. Its the extremists who will sacrifice integrity, honesty and truth for repulsive self satisfaction as a means to press their fanatical agenda. Its cowardly beyond words and its an abandonment of any ethical standard.

Science is the process of discovery which confirms or refutes assertions. Looking past Plank time may (or may not) provide the evidence of what initiated the Big Bang. The study of black holes may provide clues as to time / space dimensional shifts. Science will investigate and rigorously test these processes. Otherwise we have:

The gods did it.

Its a mystery.

Well never know

Its blasphemy to question the dogma.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I am showing it never happened keep up.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Your posts are getting more and more less coherent. Meteor showers,the earth does not show near the impacts as other planets.

Nor are there any friendly environments out there other than earth.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Wouldn't consistency and an ethical standard suggest you provide such evidence?

Since you have written: _I would put my bible first before any secular science text book_, why not provide a link to the comprehensive "plenty of evidence" within any of the bibles?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Well put Hollie.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are missing the point:







Compared to today,  the solar system was a shooting gallery.  The Moon is direct evidence of this.  The Earth doesn't show all this damage because - hello - the Earth is a dynamic system that erodes things like craters.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Had you studied 8th grade Earth Science, you would have known the answer to that question.

With reference to wind, water, freeze/thaw cycles, can you define erosion?

With reference to piles of rock debris at the base of mountains/cliffs, abutments, can you define gravity

With reference to objects (meteors, etc.), burning up in the atmosphere, can you define you know atmosphere? Have you heard (topical subject), of the Perseid meteor shower?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another out of context justification.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2013)

Did anyone else catch ywc's comment _"... more and more less coherent_"?

Is that correct "phraseonology" or "syntaxological appropriateness"?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


thanks for sharing your delusions of self importance.
btw slapdick it's EFFECT NOT AFFECT
 Comparison chart</> EMBED THIS CHART
Improve this chart	Affect	Effect
Verb Meaning:	As a verb, to affect something means to cause it to change in some way. This is affect's most common usage.	As a verb, "to effect" means "to bring about".
Noun Meaning:	As a noun, the word "affect" relates to the display of emotion.	As a noun, effect means the result or outcome of a cause. This is effect's most common usage. Also, a person's "effects" means his/her immediate personal belongings.
Usage:	"Affect" is most commonly used in its verb form.	"Effect" is most commonly used in its noun form.
Pronunciation:	Noun: &#712;æf&#603;kt and Verb: &#601;'f&#603;kt	&#618;&#712;f&#603;kt
Example:	"My cold was affected by the weather"	"Special effects"


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Ok hollie, enough with your rhetoric, if you care to address some of the questions asked this morning I will be more than happy to discuss them with you.
> ...


bump!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You've shown nothing, except your lack of education.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit!
Humans share the most similarities with the bonobos, and then chimpanzees. Mice share many genes, but not 98%. 

It's important to remember that DNA similarities will be relatively high within the mamalian class simply because DNA is largely a recipe for protein manufacture. Since mammals all use similar proteins, they're going to be using similar DNA. It's also helpful to remember that DNA is not destiny. There are also epigenes, RNA and mDNA to consider. 

One of the stronger arguments for common descent comes from endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) that appear in exactly the same place within closely related species. ERVs are ancient deactivated viruses that made it into the germ-line and was therefore carried by all future generations. Since the insertion of an ERV in the germ line is a rare occurance and having the same ERV occur in the same place on the chromosome in different species is damn near impossible, you can calculate relatedness based on how many ancient ERVs you can find between species. 

So far, based on multiple lines of evidence (including the two cited here) common descent continues to stand up.

Can someone clarify something for me about genetic similarity and evolution? - Yahoo! Answers


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Another one reduced to rhetoric


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no you just wish it didn't!
the dogma infused pseudoscience you constantly spew is not evidence.
looking around our solar system proves you're talking out your ass.
your specious argument  fully formed plants vs unfinished planets.is based on an assumtion that on this planet and this planet alone something  other then natural processes are or were at work.. 
that's nonsense


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 your answer proves you have no clue what rhetoric is.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...





Meteor Crater in Arizona


this "Nor are there any friendly environments out there other than earth."  is conjecture not only is it specious, it's wilfully ignorant.
it's a classic slapdick dodge.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Starting with bullshit remains bullshit dummy.

The graph at the top of this post shows his results. Notice that the similarity hovers around 70% for all chromosomes except the Y chromosome. The size of the slice affects the result a bit, but really not much. In the end, this leads Dr. Tomkins to conclude:

    Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. 

Is this the last word on the subject? Most certainly not. I think it is probably the best comparison attempt made so far. Also, the fact that the Y chromosome has a remarkably low level of similarity compared to the other chromosomes is consistent with another study. In addition, the results essentially agree with Dr. Buggss analysis, which was based on a completely different strategy. At the same time, however, there is a huge discrepancy between this analysis and Dr. Woods analysis. In addition, as we learn more about genomes and how they work, we will probably find better ways to compare the genomes of different organisms.

For right now, however, it seems clear that humans and chimpanzees are not nearly as genetically similar as most evolutionists would have us believe.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion

Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range
Posted on December 31, 2010 by Denyse	

Not 98% or 99%, as every motor mouth on Hoax TV can tell you, between 9-11 hair fixes. A friend writes to say:

    In 2008 I made the prediction (based on data available from the draft chimpanzee genome) that the human and chimpanzee genomes were about 70% the same overall. This has now been confirmed for the Y chromosome in a detailed study.

The study found

    As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%)15. Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa (Supplementary Fig. 8 and Supplementary Note 3). In aggregate, the consequence of gene loss and gain in the chimpanzee and human lineages, respectively, is that the chimpanzee MSY contains only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units (Table 1). 

He cautions that the authors of the Nature paper do not think that their findings for the Y chromosome are true for the whole genome. Perhaps not, but it is nice to see sane people working on genetic similarity issues for once. The paper is: Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463, 536-539 (28 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08700
- See more at: Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range | Signs of the Times

Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range | Signs of the Times


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Compare the number of impacts,Daws you are to stupid to discuss the issues with.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Oh no orogenicman thanking daws for a post further evidence of his ignorance.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Have a good day I will return when someone takes on my earlier questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Oh and similarity does not prove ancestry. Thank you for wasting my time.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

You are quoting from Answers In Genesis, and actually expect us to have a straight face when we read it?  You do realize, of course, that Answers in Genesis does no peer reviewed science, and nothing on their web site is recognized as science by the scientific community, right?  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


so typical attemting to back up bulshit with more bullshit 
both sources are bias and  based on the same false premise 'god did it."
therefore anything, opinion results speculation is also false by definition.
 you must enjoy having your ass handed to you.
it's sunday so you're all jesused up  and got no one to blow!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no need slapdick 8 th grade science already proved your ignorance.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and similarity does not prove ancestry. Thank you for wasting my time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your lack of education is clear.
Especially when it comes to science.
Sad.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> You are quoting from Answers In Genesis, and actually expect us to have a straight face when we read it?  You do realize, of course, that Answers in Genesis does no peer reviewed science, and nothing on their web site is recognized as science by the scientific community, right?  You didn't know this?  Huh.




You ignore those posts anyways why won't you address my questions ?

ID and have peer review articles and yet you reject them so what was your point again ? They were introduced as evidence and ignored by the judge in the Dover trial.

I will ignore the rhetoric and wait for responses to my questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Then why are you reduced to rhetoric Genius ?
Sad indeed.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Because it is better than being reduced to _rhetoric dumbass_?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Pointing out your lack of education is rhetoric? LOL!







I was going to buy my kids some cotton candy.
Then I remembered your claim that the 2nd Law means more complexity 
is impossible on Earth.
I told them to be satisfied with their CO2 and H2O, sugar is impossible.


----------



## Beachboy (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How, then, is creationism&#8212;as opposed to &#8220;naturalism,&#8221; defined as &#8220;a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted&#8221;&#8212;scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define &#8220;scientific.&#8221; Too often, &#8220;science&#8221; and &#8220;naturalism&#8221; are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as &#8220;the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.&#8221; Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> 
> Is creationism scientific?



"Creationism" is based on the fiction of the _Bible_, and has no substantiation from another source.  Science requires verification of facts from more than one credible source of information.






No question about it. 
Evolution is verified scientific fact based on many respected sources.
See the movie *Inherit the Wind*, you can understand in about two hours.


The Evolution vs. Creationism argument is at the center of the Jerome  Lawrence-Robert E. Lee Broadway play *Inherit the Wind*. Lawrence and  Lee's inspiration was the 1925 "Monkey Trial," in which Tennessee  schoolteacher John Scopes was arrested for teaching Darwin's theory of  evolution in violation of state law. Scopes deliberately courted arrest  to challenge what he and his supporters saw as an unjust law, and the  trial became a national cause when _The Baltimore Sun_, represented by the  famed (and atheistic) journalist H. L. Mencken, hired attorney Clarence  Darrow to defend Scopes. The prosecuting attorney was crusading  politician William Jennings Bryan, once a serious contender for the  Presidency, now a relic of a past era. While Bryan won the case as  expected, he and his fundamentalist backers were held up to public  ridicule by the cagey Darrow. In both the play and film versions of * Inherit the Wind*, the names and places are changed, but the basic  chronology was retained, along with most of the original court  transcripts. ​


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and similarity does not prove ancestry. Thank you for wasting my time.



Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.


&#8213; Albert Einstein


----------



## eots (Aug 18, 2013)

*ITS SCIENCE BITCH !*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjpCKZ7cEoY]Mind Science Kept Hidden Documentary.WE ARE VIBRATIONAL BEINGS.Law of attraction/vibes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 18, 2013)

Funny, they get their butts handed to them ,and the person that handed them their butts ,they are gonna mock his background.

It might scare you mental midgets concerning my background in science.

Just keep on making a silent fool of yourselves.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > You are quoting from Answers In Genesis, and actually expect us to have a straight face when we read it?  You do realize, of course, that Answers in Genesis does no peer reviewed science, and nothing on their web site is recognized as science by the scientific community, right?  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> ...



I will ignore your pretentious and childish attempts to side-step and avoid the many challenges to your religious claims that you are unable to address.

Youre obviously befuddled regarding peer review. Having a gaggle of creationist edit and spell check documents written by their fellow creationist is not meeting the standards of legitimate peer review.

As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has _every right_ to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their _own standards_ religionists must give equal weight to _all claims based upon faith_ as being _just as likely true_ as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Funny, they get their butts handed to them ,and the person that handed them their butts ,they are gonna mock his background.
> 
> It might scare you mental midgets concerning my background in science.
> 
> Just keep on making a silent fool of yourselves.



I believe what is scary is your self-claimed science background that simply does not appear in any of your writing. Your lack of a meaningful science vocabulary suggests your supposed science background is fraudulent.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


like all zealots you've misinterpreted einstein use of that word ..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

eots said:


> *its science bitch !*
> 
> mind science kept hidden documentary.we are vibrational beings.law of attraction/vibes - youtube


it's pseudoscience bitch!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 18, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Funny, they get their butts handed to them ,and the person that handed them their butts ,they are gonna mock his background.
> 
> It might scare you mental midgets concerning my background in science.
> 
> Just keep on making a silent fool of yourselves.


 THIS ONE should get a prize for best disconnection from reality.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, they get their butts handed to them ,and the person that handed them their butts ,they are gonna mock his background.
> ...



Ywc is suffering from _Baghdad Bob Syndrome_

Remember Baghdad Bob? (Saddams propaganda mouthpiece who was convinced that his fantasies were more real than the US armored forces plowing through Baghdad). The Baghdad Bob syndrome is not so unusual for fundie zealots.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 18, 2013)

Hollie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Didn't Fox news hire him as O'Reilly's PR man?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 19, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I knew it, another libtard to go along with daws,and hollie.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You knew it? Actually, you know very little. The comment about your syndrome and lack of connection to a reality based worldview derives from self-contradicting / refuting argumentation and appeals to fear and ignorance.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



So, you will be defending Bagdad Bob, eh?  What are you, his bag handler (and I don't mean suitcases)?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 19, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Don't include me in your shortcomings.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're more befuddled than usual. Your choice to spend every waking moment in trembling fear of angry, hateful gawds is your own shortcoming. 

On the other hand, I'll seek knowledge and enlightenment as science explores and discovers. 
Let me guess. Because you believe the bibles have primacy over the claims of those evil,  atheist evilutionist scientists, you remain convinced the earth is really flat, right?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 19, 2013)

So why did god need 6 days? He a lazy mofo? In I Dream of Jeannie, she would just snap her fingers. Is god not as powerful as Jeannie?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


golly guys, slapdick learned a new word....!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 19, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


you forgot fluffer!
ywc is real HANDY that way!


----------



## Beachboy (Aug 19, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How, then, is creationism&#8212;as opposed to  &#8220;naturalism,&#8221; defined as &#8220;a philosophical viewpoint according to which  everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural  or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted&#8221;&#8212;scientific?  Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define &#8220;scientific.&#8221; Too  often, &#8220;science&#8221; and &#8220;naturalism&#8221; are considered one and the same,  leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires  an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as &#8220;the  observation, identification, description, experimental investigation,  and theoretical explanation of phenomena.&#8221; Nothing requires science, in  and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism,  requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by  experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test  results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any  data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly  influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable,  and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to  say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> 
> Is creationism scientific?



When I hear someone is a creationist, I know I can make them believe almost anything I want. I can sell them the Brooklyn Bridge!

"Creationism" is based on the fiction of the _Bible_, and has no  substantiation from any other source.  That's what makes it fiction.   Science requires verification of  facts from more than one credible source of information.  While believers in Creationism are usually poorly educated, I would not throw out Christianity just because of the creationism flaw.  There are some good ideas to be had in the _Bible_, starting with the Golden Rule.  Great advice as a way to live your life.

See the movie *Inherit the Wind*, you can understand the truth of science and evolution in about two hours.​ 

​


----------



## daws101 (Aug 19, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How, then, is creationismas opposed to  naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which  everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural  or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific?  Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too  often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same,  leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires  an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the  observation, identification, description, experimental investigation,  and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in  and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism,  requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by  experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test  results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any  data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly  influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable,  and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to  say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> ...


one of my favorite films.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> So why did god need 6 days? He a lazy mofo? In I Dream of Jeannie, she would just snap her fingers. Is god not as powerful as Jeannie?



Gods creation might be considered supernatural to you and I but what God created he did it through his natural ability. If you ask me God put a little thought in to his creation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How, then, is creationism&#8212;as opposed to  &#8220;naturalism,&#8221; defined as &#8220;a philosophical viewpoint according to which  everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural  or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted&#8221;&#8212;scientific?  Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define &#8220;scientific.&#8221; Too  often, &#8220;science&#8221; and &#8220;naturalism&#8221; are considered one and the same,  leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires  an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as &#8220;the  observation, identification, description, experimental investigation,  and theoretical explanation of phenomena.&#8221; Nothing requires science, in  and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism,  requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by  experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test  results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any  data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly  influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable,  and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to  say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> ...



Poorly educated ? Many Creationists have attended secular schools so do you blame the institutions ?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > So why did god need 6 days? He a lazy mofo? In I Dream of Jeannie, she would just snap her fingers. Is god not as powerful as Jeannie?
> ...



So he had to think about it?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Don't all designers think about what they are designing before it's designed ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The Greek gawds are vastly more competent designers than your mere three gawds.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Really?care to share your thoughts.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

Still waiting for someone to step up to the plate on this. Not sure why it was avoided.

would like to give you evidence that is real, and not conjecture that supports the bibles account of creation.

All groups of organisms have mutations, and all groups of organisms have genetic disorders, and theses genetic disorders gets passed to the next generations.

Unless the first life was free of genetic disorders ,that is for each species ,how could a small group survive ? Then you have to acknowledge that every new family would have to overcome these genetic disorders to survive.In smaller populations this would be destructive to that small group.

This fits that all families were created as they were, and through microadaptations and cross breeding is where we get all the diversity in a family group. But I also believe God created many different species within a family group. Each genetic disorder found in each family was due to inheritance. The very thing you claimed was an aid in macroevolution, would destroy small groups refuting the theory.

Remember the creation account is that each family started with a small group. the same would be for evolution so which theory is supported by the facts ?

If all organisms have genetic disorders and passed them on to their offspring for 2.7 billon years can you imagine the number of genetic disorders that would be found in the human gene pool ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Still waiting for someone to step up to the plate on this. Not sure why it was avoided.
> 
> would like to give you evidence that is real, and not conjecture that supports the bibles account of creation.
> 
> ...


Other than a need to defend your dogma, I can't imagine why you're asking for explanations that have been provided to you on multiple occasions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

When you get done with that then explain how each family group being small, how would they survive inbreeding unless they were near perfect with no genetic disorders ? This fits the creation model.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for someone to step up to the plate on this. Not sure why it was avoided.
> ...



Hollie you should try and be honest. I did not ask these questions before.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Still waiting for someone to step up to the plate on this. Not sure why it was avoided.
> 
> would like to give you evidence that is real, and not conjecture that supports the bibles account of creation.



There is no evidence that supports Genesis.



> All groups of organisms have mutations, and all groups of organisms have genetic disorders, and theses genetic disorders gets passed to the next generations.



Many of them don't because they are severe enough that the organism doesn't survive. But  not all mutations have negative outcomes.  Many mutations don't do anything at all.  But YWC, you have to look at entire populations, not family groups.  If even 30% of a species has a specific genetic disorder that is severe enough to cause death, that still leaves a 60% survival rate.  Most species produce more offspring than needed to replace themselves, because most will never survive.



> Unless the first life was free of genetic disorders ,that is for each species ,how could a small group survive ?



First life?  What?  What makes you think any particular species is a small group?



> Then you have to acknowledge that every new family would have to overcome these genetic disorders to survive.In smaller populations this would be destructive to that small group.



Ever hear of a concept called extinction?



> This fits that all families were created as they were, and through microadaptations and cross breeding is where we get all the diversity in a family group. But I also believe God created many different species within a family group. Each genetic disorder found in each family was due to inheritance. The very thing you claimed was an aid in macroevolution, would destroy small groups refuting the theory.



Utter Nonsense.  This is what happens when you make shit up.  Try learning how genetics works.



> Remember the creation account is that each family started with a small group. the same would be for evolution so which theory is supported by the facts ?
> 
> If all organisms have genetic disorders and passed them on to their offspring for 2.7 billon years can you imagine the number of genetic disorders that would be found in the human gene pool ?



That isn't the way it works.  You just flunked genetics 101.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for someone to step up to the plate on this. Not sure why it was avoided.
> ...



You're too funny. That is why I asked the questions you know the threat it would be to a small group. Why would I think that a completely new kind of organism would start out with a large group ?who is making shit up ? These new kinds not only had to over come genetic disorder but inbreeding in small groups.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Speaking of "kinds" (a meaningless term in science), wouldn't inbreeding have affected the population that resulted from Noah and his immediate family tasked with re-populating the planet... after the flood... which there is no evidence for?  

Why do your gawds allow such... "immoral" behavior?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > So why did god need 6 days? He a lazy mofo? In I Dream of Jeannie, she would just snap her fingers. Is god not as powerful as Jeannie?
> ...


that answer is why nobody who has thoughts asks you!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


another big fucking deal response.
like yourself THAT MINISCULE amount of creationists tossed reality out like a chamber pot in favor of a comforting fantasy.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> When you get done with that then explain how each family group being small, how would they survive inbreeding unless they were near perfect with no genetic disorders ? This fits the creation model.


since the human race did not
begin with the mythical two people you wish it did and as the creation myth is a myth. 
 you can claim anything you want 
in reality  genetic disorders are part of nature.
and the sister fucking you wish happened never did.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


yes you did. just not in the same way.
so either you're being as dishonest as you always are or you're having memory issues ?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Because you don't understand a thing about population dynamics, much less genetics.  A species with a low population count and a high mutation rate is not likely going to survive long.  But that is not the situation with most species.  It's a friggin red herring.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


not if you're laboring under the delusion that god did it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Population dynamics ? how in the world are you gonna study something you can't observe 

Do you realize how stupid what you're insinuating is. How long do you think two completely different kinds hang around each other once they diverge ? You look in the animal kingdom notice how mostly keep to themselves ? 

Where do all the genetic disorders go ? if all organisms were related every friggen genetic disorder would wind up getting passed on.do you think they just disappear ? Don't tell me what I understand and do understand when you can't even offer a rational rebuttal.

Humans alone have 6,000 genetic disorders that are inherited. You can't even come close to matching that number with beneficial mutations. If you understood mutation fixation, you would understand what a problem that is being able to point to more harmful mutations vs beneficial mutations.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > When you get done with that then explain how each family group being small, how would they survive inbreeding unless they were near perfect with no genetic disorders ? This fits the creation model.
> ...



Hey slapdick, how do you know ? after all they believe  it was so unlikely that a cell could fully form to begin with that they said all things originated from one cell but they admit ignorance on this issue as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Here you go troll!

genre
noun \&#712;zhän-r&#601;, &#712;zhä&#8319;-; &#712;zhä&#8319;r; &#712;jän-r&#601;\
1
: a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content
2
: kind, sort 

genous  
Web definitions
kind (type) (suffix).


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



oh boy  that was concerning living fossils.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Are you really this clueless? 

Your references to "kinds" as delineated in the various bibles has no definition with regard to evolutionary biology.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Erm?  Who says we can't observe populations?  Are you drunk?



> Do you realize how stupid what you're insinuating is. How long do you think two completely different kinds hang around each other once they diverge ? You look in the animal kingdom notice how mostly keep to themselves ?




You obviously have never studied coral reefs.



> Where do all the genetic disorders go ? if all organisms were related every friggen genetic disorder would wind up getting passed on.do you think they just disappear ? Don't tell me what I understand and do understand when you can't even offer a rational rebuttal.



If everyone in a population had the same genetic disorder, if it was a fatal one, that population would not long survive.  Why are you having difficulty with this?  If only 1/3 have the disorder, the ones that don't have it tend to survive to reproduce, and the disorder is mostly to entirely eliminated.  THAT is evolution.



> Humans alone have 6,000 genetic disorders that are inherited.



Yes, and most of them are not fatal.



> You can't even come close to matching that number with beneficial mutations.



The fact that humans still exist on this planet and haven't died off due to all the mutations shows that you are wrong.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


really ? that's  funny because the bible is full of events that no one observed like genesis..
btw he was not insinuating ..he said it clearly.
  n·sin·u·ate [ in sínnyoo àyt ]   
imply something: to hint at something unpleasant or suggest it indirectly and gradually
worm your way in: to introduce yourself gradually and cunningly into a position, especially a place of confidence or favor ..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


1. who they fuck is they?
2.  i know because you have no evidence at all.
3.the actual evidence proves my second sentence to be fact.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


now you're just lying .
btw you got your ass handed to you on that one also...denial in 5....4...3..2.1


----------



## Hollie (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh my. It's true that the human population has grown in the last 6,000 years...you know.... since the gods put humans on the planet. Did the gods somehow drop the ball on this mutation thing?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 20, 2013)

according to YWC nothing can be known or studied without observation.
an analogy: YWC leaves his home to spread the word and  annoy people at his local court house or home depot.
 while he's gone, his neighbor mows his lawn (not YWC'S BUT HIS OWN) and ywc wife takes the kids and leaves him, leaving the house a mess.
using ywc twisted logic does he assume that these two events did not happen or declares they were caused by some leaves no proof  supernatural event.
or does he choose to except the actual evidence.?


----------



## Beachboy (Aug 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Beachboy said:
> ...



I would probably blame the parents who spend $4,300 a year to send their children to brainwashing academies.  Doesn't really matter though, once the kids get to a real college, or into the working world, they quickly throw away the bull shit for reality or they fail.  Ever wonder why you never see an Evangelical reach VP in Fortune 500 company?  Think about it, they can't deal with reality!





​ 
I believe your line, most "creationists tossed reality out like a chamber pot in favor of comforting fantasy."


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You can't study the groups of organisms that existed in the supposed distant past. You were not there to see if they even diverged and how big the population was once they diverged. Not if man was here for a short period of time vs millions of years. But remember they have been accumulating genetic disorders for as long as they have been on this planet. By all the new genetic disorders that have come in to the population in the last hundred years, it is kinda hard to believe man has been on this planet as long as the science community claims.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That is correct, we have faith just as you do


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The science community nitwit.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You can dream.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yep,the population explosion since noah is not far off from the population size at this moment. Can you imagine how big the population would be if we actually were on the planet as long as the science community claims or how many fossils and graves would be out there.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Dude, yes we can.  There are millions of species of plants and animals living today.  We continuously study thousands upon thousands of species every day.  We have a great understanding of ecosystems, and the flora and fauna  that live in them.  We can very easily compare, for instance, what crinoids was doing 300 million years ago based on what they do today.  And fish, and crocodiles, and pretty much any animal you can name.  Furthermore, we are there, in the past, right in the middle of the fossil bone beds studying them in great detail.  

Once again, I challenge you to meet me in the field, and we can see first hand what the rocks and the fossils tell us. I am a geologist with 29 years of field experience.  What field experience do you have?  Any at all.  I'm not a mass murderer, just someone who wants to set the record straight.  I've made this offer to at least ten different creationists on different forums, and not surprisingly, none have taken me up on the challenge, because, frankly, they know that their dream world would come crumbling down in the face of reality.  Others have jumped at the chance.  So come on grasshopper.  Let me take you to the Falls of the Ohio River State Park, in Clarksville, Indiana, and show you in the field how wrong you are.  My best friend is the curator/naturalist there, so we can get the run of the place.

Falls of the Ohio State Park

If that doesn't work for you, then we could meet outside of the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky, and I can show you how the very bedrock the museum is built on refutes everything they've spent millions of dollars lying to you about.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



 That is possibly... possibly,  your most out of touch, delusional comment to date. You really are the poster child for the dangers of religious extremism.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

History of world population growth.

World History for Us All: Key Theme One


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


So now the creationist side is using fossils in their arguments? That must be new.

But please support this statement: "Can you imagine how big the population would be if we actually were on the planet as long as the science community claims or how many fossils and graves would be out there." Ok, give me a number, and why. Or are you just blowing fartsmoke?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

I thought this ought to be said somewhere in this thread:

Brian Cox: it is not acceptable to promote bad science (or non-science as science):


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



* it is kinda hard to believe man has been on this planet as long as the science community claims*

Especially for someone who thinks the 2nd Law makes sugar impossible.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Let me say this a little differently. We know the current mutation rate in many organisms today. We have no reason to believe that was once lower. You can't study origins of each new kind and know the population size that is pure fantasy. I am not disputing studying groups that exist today. I would say and probably most would agree me,with each new kind the population was small, Small isolated groups would be at serious threat of survival with the problems mentioned.

You can see examples of living fossils today that for over supposed 3 millions years there is no change at all in the species. That 3 million years of experiencing mutations and natural selection. It just does not support the theory of evolution. You might say so what ? but every group of organisms are experiencing these mutations and natural selection and we are not seeing new kinds being developed. Are we seeing change within a family ? yes but not cross genous species being developed ,in other words macroevolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> History of world population growth.
> 
> World History for Us All: Key Theme One



The thing is your supposed evidence you just offered was only assumption and numbers for a population they had no way of knowing.

Lets give you a more scientific one.

World Population Since Creation


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 21, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The fossil record has always been used by creationists. The fossil record better fits the creation model.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> I thought this ought to be said somewhere in this thread:
> 
> Brian Cox: it is not acceptable to promote bad science (or non-science as science):
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7BTqKeP6Ks



What do you think they do by believing theories that are mostly supported by conjecture not evidence ?


----------



## Bumberclyde (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Please support your statement as mentioned above.
Don't creationists think that all the fossils were laid down by god 6000 or so years ago?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 21, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> I would probably blame the parents who spend $4,300 a year to send their children to brainwashing academies.  Doesn't really matter though, once the kids get to a real college, or into the working world, they quickly throw away the bull shit for reality or they fail.  Ever wonder why you never see an Evangelical reach VP in Fortune 500 company?  Think about it, they can't deal with reality!
> 
> 
> I believe your line, most "creationists tossed reality out like a chamber pot in favor of comforting fantasy."



Since you work at Burger King, you have no idea what executive V.P.'s believe.

I have run into extremely religious V.P. and Presidents of large companies.

You substitute your bigotry for reality, and wind up looking the fool.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are ignoring several important facts.  First, most mutations are benign.  Secondly, even in small populations, beneficial mutations confer a survival advantage.  Third, most species produce more offspring than are needed to pass on their heritage, which increases species survival rates.  Fourth, and this is where my work comes in, I've studied crinoids most of my life, and am an expert in echinoderms, having collected many fossil specimens and raised live echinoderms.  While there are no living crinoid species that can be found in, for instance, Paleozoic faunal zones, all three classes are present from the Ordovician all the way to the present.  That is 400 million years of evolution of all three classes of crinoids.  And so when you say that you can't study their evolutionary history because you can't know the population size, I say you don't understand how population surveys are conducted.  My specialty is middle Mississippian aged crinoids (late Osagean stage, to be precise).  My paper I linked to in a previous post described 66 species of crinoids representing over 20 genera from all three classes, including 8 new species.  The fossil bed where those specimens originated is nearly 80 feet thick and represents millions of crinoids.  And so the samples of specimens was truly representative of one of the largest and diverse crinoid fauna that existed 330 million years ago, that ever existed, in fact.  So yes, you certainly can know in detail the fossil population you are working with.  You can even determine the currents, the depth of the water in which they lived, the substrate on which they lived, and the entire population of the rest of the flora and fauna that made up the reef in which they lived. Also present in that fauna were sharks, trilobites, blastoids, sea urchin-like animals called echinoids, and even sponges.  From that survey, we could reconstruct nearly the entire reef habitat, and compare what we found at that site with other similar sites throughout the Midwest.  And you can compare and contrast all of that with modern crinoid reefs today.



> You can see examples of living fossils today that for over supposed 3 millions years there is no change at all in the species.



That is not quite accurate.  For instance, the coelacanth has been around for at least 300 million years.  But the coelacanth that existed back then is not the same species as the one that existed today.  There is only one species alive today and it is not represented in the fossil record.



> You might say so what ? but every group of organisms are experiencing these mutations and natural selection and we are not seeing new kinds being developed.



Yes we are.  In great abundance, and throughout the classification scheme.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 21, 2013)

Bumberclyde said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Do a search on google fossil record and check the creationist sites. A couple of problems for evolutionists are graveyards of fossils all over the planet,and fossils found in the wrong strata.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > History of world population growth.
> ...



Wow, I've got more kindling for my fireplace.  Dude, that is the most laughable piece of rubbish I've ever seen anyone post with a straight face.  The flood?  Really?  You really need to put the bottle down and come into the field with me for one day.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



In order to fit the fossil record into your creation nonsense, you have to throw out more than 99% of the fossil record.  Get real.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You defeat your own argument when you claim beneficial mutations because they are very rare, there is a reason for that.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I thought this ought to be said somewhere in this thread:
> ...



Erm, large hadron collider is not conjecture.  A sigma 5 rating is not conjecture.  Anyone who thinks it is conjecture is stupid beyond belief.  Congratulations.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



Do you realize how they put a fossil tree together ? it's like a putting a puzzle together they have all these fossils and determine their order that best fits the theory ,hardly scientific. Explain the many fossils found in the wrong strata. How do you explain the fossil graveyards ?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well, then, you won't mind joining me on a field trip and proving that statement to me in person, in the field, on some fossil beds.  Right?  Say, these, for instance?

Falls of the Ohio State Park

Come on, grasshopper.  Come out into the field with me, and put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Do a search on google fossil record and check the creationist sites. A couple of problems for evolutionists are graveyards of fossils all over the planet,and fossils found in the wrong strata.



YWC, I try to keep an open mind, I really do. But the creationist sites are absurd, at least those I've visited. Calling them "pseudo science" is overly kind. 

Sorry the crap on those sites simply cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That is not true.  If they were very rare, you wouldn't be here. If that is all you got out of my response, then you are well and truly fucked up.  You have my sympathy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Do you realize hadron collider is just under development ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Bumberclyde said:
> ...



I would be more than happy if you will make a trip to the grand canyon with our crew.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I don't believe I am here from a cell evolving. I believe I was created and given the ability to adapt not evolve biologically. You want to believe you are a mutation have at it but you don't possess evidence to support that view.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Absolutely, I do.  Obviously you don't.



> it's like a putting a puzzle together they have all these fossils and determine their order that best fits the theory ,hardly scientific. Explain the many fossils found in the wrong strata. How do you explain the fossil graveyards ?



None of that is right.  We don't fit the fossils to the theory.  That's what you people do.  We match the theory to the fossils.  If a new fossil is found that doesn't fit, we don't file the fossil down to make it fit the theory, we re-analyze all our data, and if necessary, change the theory. That is how science works.

The only fossils found in the wrong strata are found in disturbed strata, or are mistaken for some other species (which has happened on a number of occasions).  Bone beds are accumulations of plants and/or animals that have lived in the same area for generations to millions of years.  Some bone beds show evidence of disarticulation due to weathering and strong ocean currents.  Others show complete specimens deposited in low velocity currents to quiet water environments.  Often we find strata with three or more different current environments represented vertically and horizontally through time.  And many appear packed tightly together because they represent multiple generations all living on the same reef one generation after the other.  That is the dominant way reefs are constructed.  We see this pattern in Devonian aged reefs here where I live all the way to the current great barrier reef.  We find fossils in sandstone, shale, limestone, chert, and dolostone environments, which represent a variety of depositional environments both vertically and laterally through the strata and vertically and laterally through the water column (from shallow lagoons to abyssal plains), none of which indicate a massive global flood at any time in Earth's history.  We are well versed in flood deposits.  There are no global flood deposits - ANYWHERE ON EARTH.  The closest you can get is what we saw with the earthquakes and resulting tsunamis that occurred in Sumatra and Japan, and those only affected coastlines and up to 6-10 miles of the interior.  And those were among the largest earthquakes the Earth can generate. And they don't last 40 days and 40 nights.  Sorry, dude.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do you realize that the LHC had been in operation for over two years before they shut it down for upgrades a few months ago to tamp up the power?  Do you realize that last year they found the Higgs Boson with the LHC with a confidence level of sigma five (the highest level of confidence)?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I can't make that trip because I am on disability, and can't afford the trip and could not physically do it if I could afford it.  My trip is much easier and makes the point just as well.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well, believe it, because you are.



> I believe I was created and given the ability to adapt not evolve biologically. You want to believe you are a mutation have at it but you don't possess evidence to support that view.



It isn't a matter of wanting to believe.  It is what it is.  Does your index finger curve towards your middle finger when you hold your hand up with your fingers straight but together?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what is correct? slapdick? your answer is nonsense..
your own twisted logic says if you weren't there to see it then it didn't happen.
faith on the other hand assumes "IT" happened with no proof.
contradict yourself much..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 you mean the one who can back up their theories with evidence?
unlike the creationist / id / religious dogma community that can't?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you've just proven my statement correct.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Everyone knows the dinosaurs used laser weapons.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > History of world population growth.
> ...


 that's pseudoscience slapdick... his "work" is based on the same false premise you SPEW FROM..he cannot prove god created anything so this:" World Population Since Creation"is specious speculative fiction. and not science. 
there are no peer reviews ....


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > I would probably blame the parents who spend $4,300 a year to send their children to brainwashing academies.  Doesn't really matter though, once the kids get to a real college, or into the working world, they quickly throw away the bull shit for reality or they fail.  Ever wonder why you never see an Evangelical reach VP in Fortune 500 company?  Think about it, they can't deal with reality!
> ...


speaking of looking like an asshole..
can you prove you have or are you just as always engaging in douchebaggery?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


your belief in being created is not supported by any actual process or theory...as you've already proven countless times you wouldn't know evidence if it bitch slapped you ..
it has and you didn't.


----------



## Beachboy (Aug 22, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Daws101, what we have to remember is that all religions try to "get them while they are young."  Children are unable to ask the tough questions to rationally evaluate religious philosophy such as creationism.  With the help of parents and the church, (who always has their hand out for a buck), they fill the child's head full of slop.  

By the time, or if at all, the the child matures and asks the hard, logical questions about the religion, their "faith" glosses over reality.  They can not be deprogrammed, they have an answer, (unsubstantiated though it is), for everything.  They believe the bull shit too deeply. 

Now, don't take me as anti-religion here because there are some really good ideas in the _Bible_, and other holy books, but there are many other good books as well, starting with Darwin's _Theory of Evolution_ which has been substantiated by highly credible sources as well.  I have met intellectuals who believe that Evolution and the _Bible_ are not in conflict, but you really have to work to understand that.  I accept their arguments.  When you evaluate both sides, they are really not contradictory in the broad brush strokes.  Where one gets into trouble is when they take the _Bible_ literally.  Remember when the _Bible_ was written, education was a rarity, so stories were used to explain concepts such as good and evil.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 23, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well nothing really worth responding to but I will take exception to this post. Secular science teachers actually get much more time brainwashing children with their ideological theories then a child spends in church. 

Still no one gave a viable explanation to the many questions that were asked.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Secular science?  Is the only science there is, dufus.  Speaking of not answering questions, you never responded to mine:

Does your index finger curve towards your middle finger when you hold your hand up with your fingers straight but together?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Yeah, true. What a shame that schools are wasting time with "secular" science and math.

Think of all the time that could have been spent with bible study, geocentrism and those flat earth proofs.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 23, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Beachboy said:
> ...



No I played football both of my middle fingers curve away from my index finger and my index fingers are straight. Dufus ? there are disciplines of science that are not secular.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 23, 2013)

Many theories floating around are based on philosophical views. Your sides God is naturalism. Oh and about that comment that I am here because of a single cell forming, and then evolving ,can you explain how this happened ?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Right.  That is a genetic mutation.  On average, 1/3 of people in any population, have an index finger that curves towards the middle finger, 1/3 of the people have an index finger that is straight, and 1/3 have an index finger that curves outward.

What playing football has to do with anything is a mystery. (no, no, please don't tell me).

There are no scientific disciplines that aren't secular. Sorry if this bursts your bubble.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Many theories floating around are based on philosophical views. Your sides God is naturalism. Oh and about that comment that I am here because of a single cell forming, and then evolving ,can you explain how this happened ?



Scientific theories aren't the same as philosophical theories.  God is not necessary to explain nature.  What comment?  When did I make that comment?  Who are you referring to?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Many theories floating around are based on philosophical views. Your sides God is naturalism. Oh and about that comment that I am here because of a single cell forming, and then evolving ,can you explain how this happened ?



Can you explain how the 2nd Law makes sugar impossible on Earth?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 23, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/h9nE2spOw_o]The Archies - Sugar, Sugar (Original 1969 Music Video) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2013)

daws101 said:


> The Archies - Sugar, Sugar (Original 1969 Music Video) - YouTube



I have that on a 45 somewhere.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 23, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > The Archies - Sugar, Sugar (Original 1969 Music Video) - YouTube
> ...


my sister still has the one from the back of the cereal box!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 23, 2013)

Oh boy ! you said that in a earlier post, you started with, you had better get use to it. That was concerning the cell. How did that first cell form ? then how did it evolve in to other living organisms ?

When did I say the 2nd law prevents sugar ?

Yep still wasting my time here folks.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 23, 2013)

I agree.  You are wasting your time, and everyone else's.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh boy ! you said that in a earlier post, you started with, you had better get use to it. That was concerning the cell. How did that first cell form ? then how did it evolve in to other living organisms ?
> 
> When did I say the 2nd law prevents sugar ?
> 
> Yep still wasting my time here folks.



*When did I say the 2nd law prevents sugar ?*

You said the 2nd Law prevents things from getting more complex.

Isn't sugar more complex than CO2 and H2O?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 23, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Oh boy ! you said that in a earlier post, you started with, you had better get use to it. That was concerning the cell. How did that first cell form ? then how did it evolve in to other living organisms ?
> ...



How did the sugar get more complex ?

How does anything get more complex other than theory ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 23, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> I agree.  You are wasting your time, and everyone else's.



Typical, make a claim and can't back it up. Just say the science community don't know but it happened


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*How did the sugar get more complex ?*

There's this process called photosynthesis.
It proves your claim about the 2nd Law is idiotic.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > I agree.  You are wasting your time, and everyone else's.
> ...



What?  You were the one making the claim that you were wasting your time.  I simply agreed with you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 24, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Todd you keep making the same erroneous argument. Organisms don't get more complex then they already are. The seed which contains all the genetic information is what produces the organism with the use of sunlight and water. The complexity already exists in the genetic information, it just needs help to kick start the seed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 24, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Dodged the question in the process.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Dude, I have asked you at least six questions this week that you have refused to answer or else dodged, so don't give me this shit about me dodging anything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Organisms don't get more complex then they already are.*

Says the guy who claimed the 2nd Law meant things couldn't get more complex.

*The complexity already exists in the genetic information, it just needs help to kick start the seed*

When you were a fertilized egg, you were less complex.

*The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. *

This claim is as wrong as when you first made it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 24, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



 I am dodging ? provide the link to the post because I Always respond even if I don't have an answer, and while you're at IT answer the question you keep dodging.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 24, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Tell me how an organism gets more complex ? 

I have said the 2nd law shows that systems decrease in order. When systems decrease in order what is the result ? how can you get an organism to gain complexity  if it increases disorder over time ?

Give me an example of an organism getting more complex ?

If you keep posting the same nonsense, I will ignore it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 24, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Oh boy I was not me until the egg was fertilized


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 24, 2013)

Todd your side likes to use the refridgerator as an example. Yes when energy is supplied to the fridge it cools and can produce ice. But if the fridge was not designed to perform in that manner you can supply all the energy you want and it won't form that ice. If the motor was not designed correctly it wouldn't work. The refridgerators complexity came from the blue print to build it. Once built it is as complex as it will get.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 24, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I have not been on that much this week.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Todd your side likes to use the refridgerator as an example. Yes when energy is supplied to the fridge it cools and can produce ice. But if the fridge was not designed to perform in that manner you can supply all the energy you want and it won't form that ice. If the motor was not designed correctly it wouldn't work. The refridgerators complexity came from the blue print to build it. Once built it is as complex as it will get.


The above is not unlike the preposterous creationist comment questioning why mechanical parts don't self-assemble into a commercial airliner. 

Mechanical components do not have the same properties as biological organisms.

The all-knowing science texts called "bibles" somehow didn't include that revision.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Todd your side likes to use the refridgerator as an example. Yes when energy is supplied to the fridge it cools and can produce ice. But if the fridge was not designed to perform in that manner you can supply all the energy you want and it won't form that ice. If the motor was not designed correctly it wouldn't work. The refridgerators complexity came from the blue print to build it. Once built it is as complex as it will get.
> ...



False Many elements found in inanimate objects are also found in living organisms. That is correct complex inanimate and animate objects can't self assemble themselves. Everything needs help in some way to be constructed from outside forces.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So what these "many elements found in inanimate objects are also found in living organisms" of course in connection with the ability of organisms to adapt?

Have you ever understood mechanical components to adapt to a particular environment?

Identify for us what "outside forces" constructed biological organisms? Was it necessarily magic forces? And if so, what magical forces created the subordinate magical forces which created the biological organisms?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 24, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



We were discussing Thermodynamics. It's your side that use that example to explain thermodynamics.

Of course inanimate and animate objects do not increase in complexity once formed.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's better if you just admit "I'm too befuddled to address the questions", than to appear as though you're too befuddled to address the questions.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



All you are saying is that inanimate objects are - inanimate; whereas animate objects are - animate.  Congratulations, Mr. Obvious.  You are wrong, however, in your assertion that animate objects cannot assemble themselves.  They can not only do so, they can also maintain themselves.  That is part of what it means to be "animate".


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That is a meaningless and unsupported statement.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Tell me how an organism gets more complex ? *

The same way sugar is more complex than CO2 and H2O.

*I have said the 2nd law shows that systems decrease in order.*

And each time you said it, you were wrong.

I'm sure you'll ignore it, that's why you're so ignorant.
From ignoring the truth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, when the sad event occurred, the fertilized egg that was you was less complicated than the adult you which now posts silliness here.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The fertilized runs egg a natural cycle,it does not get more complex because the genetic data has already been delivered. This is a very stupid argument.

The process of fertilization involves complex interactions between egg and sperm. It includes biochemistry and binding and activation of molecular receptors on the sperm head and egg.

Fertilization Process for Human Eggs| IVF Fertilization Video


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*The fertilized runs a natural cycle,it does not get more complex *

Really? How many bones did that egg have?
How many internal organs?
The 2nd Law (your idea) says that egg should get less complex, not more.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why does that egg produce all of that ? No I have said this before the genetic data forces it's will on the matter, and eventually that egg becomes a fully formed human and eventually will face the 2nd law where it will wear out because of disorder and the level of entropy. This is why I stated if a system is gonna get more complex it has to do so early on during construction.

The blue print is produced during fertilization and then the construction is started and completed according to the blueprint.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Why does that egg produce all of that ?*

Because living things can get more complex, despite your confusion about the 2nd Law.

*This is why I stated if a system is gonna get more complex it has to do so early on during construction.*

You stated more complexity is impossible. Don't lie.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


see guys that's how you dodge!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


so human /any egg is somehow immune to
the 2nd law?
why does that make no sense?
because


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 If the genetic information was present all along and the organism is just going through the cycle,how is that getting more complex ? So an aging organism is getting more complex ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That is correct early on before the organism exists but that does not occur.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 25, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Wrong !


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*If the genetic information was present all along and the organism is just going through the cycle,how is that getting more complex ? *

How are you more complex than a fertilized egg? You really need a list?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Try that again, in English.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You have a determined outcome. getting more complex is because of new genetic information was added that made the organism even better adapted. Added a new beneficial trait.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Getting new and beneficial genetic information early on that leads to a new and beneficial trait that makes us better adapted. It rarely happens and this is a problem for the theory of evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'll ask you again, is an aging organism getting more complex ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*You have a determined outcome. getting more complex *

But you said nothing on Earth could get more complex, because it is a closed system.

Were you lying then, or are you lying now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



An 18 year old is more complex than a baby. A baby is more complex than an egg.

Do you really not understand this?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Faulty reasoning on your part. Is a senior citizen MORE COMPLEX than a 18 year old ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Not lying, there is no evidence to support your claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Oh dang it's finally sinking in.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No. What does that have to do with your faulty claim that nothing on Earth can get more complex, because the Earth is a closed system?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



My claim is that your claim was wrong. Sugar is evidence. You are evidence.

Are you done lying?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Look there are sides that argue the earth is a closed system and some that argue it's an open system. but either way you have used a faulty argument to try and show an increase in complexity. I have told you all along that complexity comes from new genetic information and there is no evidence support an increase in complexity view.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Are you gonna admit your ignorance on the subject of genetics ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Oh are you gonna answer the question. The Question is,is a senior citizen more complex than an 18 year old.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Look there are sides that argue the earth is a closed system and some that argue it's an open system.*

The only ones arguing that are really confused.

*but either way you have used a faulty argument to try and show an increase in complexity.*

Sugar isn't more complex? Please explain your "reasoning".

*I have told you all along that complexity comes from new genetic information *

You've said that's impossible, because of the 2nd Law.
So why is sugar possible but new genetic information impossible?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Post #3131.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'll admit, I know a lot more than you on the subject.
I realize, that's a very low bar you set.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Really scientists are confused ? they even made arguments to support the view the earth is a closed system that I have not seen a rebuttal to.

You brought it up explain the increase in complexity in sugar ? why did you change the subject ?

The only way you can increase complexity is by manipulating the genes that does not happen naturally got it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



They are different stages of the cycle right ? so why is an 18 year old more complex than a fertilized egg ? they are different stages of life.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are the one stuttering and falling back on your sugar argument not realizing how sugar got more complex.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Really scientists are confused ?*

No, you are confused. Not scientists. Just you.

*You brought it up explain the increase in complexity in sugar ? *

What? You said the 2nd Law makes increased complexity impossible.
Were you lying or just confused?
Sugar is more complex, has more energy, than CO2 and H2O.
Get it?

*The only way you can increase complexity is by manipulating the genes *

Plants don't need gene manipulation to make sugar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*so why is an 18 year old more complex than a fertilized egg ?*

Does an 18 year old have more bones, more internal organs?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Sugar got more complex because the plant used energy.
The same way you got more complex, though no smarter, than when you were an egg.

Despite your claim that the Earth is a closed system, therefore things cannot get more complex, because the 2nd Law told you so.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


hey slAPDICK
AN EGG CELL CHRYSALIS ET AL HAVE THE "POTENTIAL" FOR COMPLEXITY.
IF AND EGG OR ANYTHING WAS AS STRUCTURALLY COMPLEX AS IT'S MOTHER /HOST 
BIRTH WOULD LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THIS  :


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Is that a Dalek popping out of the Doctor?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


BULLSHIT...Evolutionary Genetics

First published Fri Jan 14, 2005

Evolutionary genetics is the broad field of studies that resulted from the integration of genetics and Darwinian evolution, called the modern synthesis (Huxley 1942), achieved through the theoretical works of R. A. Fisher, S. Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane and the conceptual works and influential writings of  J. Huxley, T. Dobzhansky, and H.J. Muller. This field attempts to account for evolution in terms of changes in gene and genotype frequencies within populations and the processes that convert the variation with populations into more or less permanent variation between species. In this view, four evolutionary forces (mutation, random genetic drift, natural selection, and gene flow) acting within and among populations cause micro-evolutionary change and these processes are sufficient to account for macro-evolutionary patterns, which arise in the longer term from the collective action of these forces. That is, given very long periods of time, the micro-evolutionary forces will eventually give rise to the macro-evolutionary patterns that characterize the higher taxonomic groups. Thus, the central challenge of Evolutionary Genetics is to describe how the evolutionary forces shape the patterns of biodiversity observed in nature. 

The force of mutation is the ultimate source of new genetic variation within populations. Although most mutations are neutral with no effect on fitness or harmful, some mutations have a small, positive effect on fitness and these variants are the raw materials for gradualistic adaptive evolution. Within finite populations, random genetic drift and natural selection affect the mutational variation. Natural selection is the only evolutionary force which can produce adaptation, the fit between organism and environment, or conserve genetic states over very long periods of time in the face of the dispersive forces of mutation and drift. The force of migration or gene flow has effects on genetic variation that are the opposite of those caused by random genetic drift. Migration limits the genetic divergence of populations and so impedes the process of speciation. The effect of each of these evolutionary forces on genetic variation within and among populations has been developed in great detail in the mathematical theory of population genetics founded on the seminal works of Fisher, Wright, and Haldane.

Among the evolutionary forces, natural selection has long been privileged in evolutionary studies because of its crucial role in adaptation. Ecological genetics is the study of evolutionary processes, especially adaptation by natural selection, in an ecological context in order to account for phenotypic patterns observed in nature. Where population genetics tends toward a branch of applied mathematics founded on Mendelian axioms, often with minimal contact with data, ecological genetics is grounded in the reciprocal interaction between mathematical theory and empirical observations from field and laboratory.
Evolutionary Genetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh dang it's finally sinking in.


IF by sinking in that you are talking out your ass ,then yes it is..
if you mean coming around to your fucking nonsense then no..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


exterminate!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So what's your point concerning sugar ?

 The Australian sugar industry has been suffering from low world sugar prices over the past decade, increasingly competitive world markets for sugar, and the recent strengthening of the Australian dollar. Keating, Antony, Brennan, and Wegener (2002) suggested that the industry will need to diversify into other forms of value-added products to regain former levels of profitability, since productivity gains of the order of 2-3% per year are needed just to meet the cost-price squeeze faced by Australian farmers. Although existing lines of research made sugarcane production more efficient, a step up to new levels of profitability is needed in the industryand that will depend on creating and applying new knowledge. Due to the potential for new alternative uses for cane, such as supplying high-value niche markets with a variety of products, Hildebrand (2002) also emphasized the need for further analyses into product diversification as a way of increasing industry returns.

A new Cooperative Research Center (CRC for Sugar Industry Innovation through Biotechnology) was created in July 2003. This collaborative research joint venture seeks to make sugarcane production more profitable through cane improvement and industry diversification through the application of biotechnology.

AgBioForum 6(4): Genetically Modified Sugarcane: A Case for Alternate Products


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Your argument has been destroyed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Wrong it has always been getting sun and it got more complex due to gene manipulation,Through selective breeding or biotechnology.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Is this for 8th graders lol


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Oh dang it's finally sinking in.
> ...



Are you starved for attention.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

*So what's your point concerning sugar ?*

You said the Earth is a closed system, therefore the 2nd Law proves things can't get more complex on Earth.
Clearly you were incorrect.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *So what's your point concerning sugar ?*
> 
> You said the Earth is a closed system, therefore the 2nd Law proves things can't get more complex on Earth.
> Clearly you were incorrect.



No, clearly things of complexity were created on a planet that looked similar to other planets in our solar system.

Yes the earth is a closed system so the 2nd law does not apply to just the Isolated system.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *So what's your point concerning sugar ?*
> ...



Still drinking the bong water, I see.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't do recreational drugs ! still embarrassed ?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What other planets are similar to the conditions we find on Earth?  I don't know of any, and I suspect that if there were, our astrophysicists would be jumping up and down with joy.  

But YWC, admitting that your affliction is natural (i.e., not the product of drinking bong water) may not be to your advantage.  Just sayin...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, your ignorance is embarrassing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Some people, when they sober up, stop saying stupid things.

I guess he's stuck like that for life.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 
he's not talking about cane sugar slapdick...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it has? by who?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Is he confusing complexity with productivity in that silly post?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


your childish retort certainly is ..
the material is college and grad school.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 26, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *So what's your point concerning sugar ?*
> ...



That's true. Things of complexity were created on a planet by magic. 

"Magic" has always been a convenient answer for natural events that were not understood.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Just because it has the name of Stanford attached to it


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Because earth was once without form and water,that is why this planet is unique.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Then explain to me what kind of sugar he is speaking of ? and how it gained in complexity.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What sugar are you speaking of ? how does it gain in complexity ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Appeals to magic.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So increasing productivity through genetic engineering is not increasing complexity ? if there is a new function,trait,mechanism produced your side would consider that evolution and an increase in complexity.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It does not cause you to pause that the sun and moon are conveniently located? That all the matter and ingredients needed for life once again found their way to earth ? All that water found it's way to earth. Then conveniently we have a water cycle that waters the earth.

I don't appeal to magic, your side does.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I actually think it's wonderful that men in robes wearing long, flowing beards snapped their eternal digits and magically created all of existence. 

Too bad this must have been their first try. There is so much they got horribly wrong, I'm waiting for gods more competent than yours to come along and get it right.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I take it back you appeal to imagination.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's not surprising to see you backpedaling on earlier comments.

It's your side who has invented gods in your own image. It's not at all uncommon. You can try this at home -  take a look at the historical gods invented by different cultures and civilizations. Those gods were so often a reflection of the cultures and civilizations which created them. 

Isn't it great that western portrayals of the hey-Zeus are of a very tall, Caucasian looking guy? 

Making the gods in our own image. Don't you find it convenient (and a bit more conceited),to worship a long-haired hippie in sandals vs. a chubby Buddha?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Sorry but YAHWEH has been around since mans beginning and before all other false gods that were an invention. Who said Jesus had long hair ?

Once again you do not know what you are talking about.



 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering

 Judges 16:17 

And he told her all his heart, and said to her, &#8220;A razor has never come upon my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother's womb. If my head is shaved, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak and be like any other man.&#8221;


----------



## Hollie (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



As usual, you waver, waffle and sidestep. Thumping your bibles will not help you cover your tracks. The various, unknown authors of the bibles were simply describing their cultural norms. 

Why do you think Western conceptions of the hey-Zeus depict an individual with physical features very Western-like and utterly unlike someone of midde Eastern ancestry?  

The fact is, there were many gods and many inventions of supernatural agents prior to the invention of your gods. Most of those earlier religions are now gone as many gods have been replaced by a few, one stop shopping gods of convenience. 

How interesting that had you been born in the east, you would be on this board, thumping a completely book of completely different gods.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Photosynthesis. Plants take CO2 and H2O and with the energy from sunlight, produce sugar.

Sugar is more complex than CO2 and H2O. Get it?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



This argument is worse than the one I thought you were making.

This is just part of the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle would not exist without Photosynthesis but Photosynthesis is only responsible for building part of the carbon cycle.Photosynthesis is responsible for processing oxygen as well.

Photosynthetic cells found in green plants, during the cycle of photosynthesis, these cells use C02 and the suns energy to make the sugar molecules and  02 you have went on about. These sugar molecules are used to produce molecules through a photosynthetic cell, such as glucose. 


Just one part of many in a cycle. You seem to use a natural cycle for the basis of your argument for increasing complexity which is nonsense. What produced these cells ? and started the cycle ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*You seem to use a natural cycle for the basis of your argument for increasing complexity which is nonsense.*

Yes, a natural cycle which proves your 2nd Law error.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Todd, I will add that there is nothing about  natural cycles of living organisms not being complex. Which really is a solid argument for a designer and not spontaneous generation and undirected processes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



First you have to prove what formed and programmed the cell that does this work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No I don't, I just have to point to sugar as proof that you don't understand the 2nd Law.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are so totally wrong. The Universe was totally chaotic and experiencing an increase in entropy and disorder from the beginning. some how over came the 2nd law to produce order yeah right. There is only one way that was possible but you have shown you are not interested in that view no matter what the evidence dictates.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*some how over came the 2nd law to produce order yeah right.* 

Photosynthesis creates order everyday, all it takes is light.

Get out of the dark, you'll see it too.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


dodge! but a fine display of wilful ignorance!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


is this an admission that you really didn't study genetic or even basic biology?
if you really were as edumacated as you say the "sugars" should be  easy! here's a hint: carbohydrate.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's not just energy that does this,if you do not have mechanisms in play the energy will not do anything. Leave your car out in the sun and watch what happens. Heck stay out in the sun as much as you can and see what happens. Some organisms have mechanisms to deal with the sunlight on a daily basis but most organisms do not.

The suns energy is necessary that we can agree on.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No I thought I had it right the first time or I wouldn't have asked.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The stuff you quoted is taught at a young age bonehead.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*It's not just energy that does this,if you do not have mechanisms in play the energy will not do anything. *

Great. Plant mechanisms show that you're wrong about the 2nd Law.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


ok if that's the case then considering the sheer size of the universe then like 7- 11 convenience stores   there should be a planet just like earth in the next galaxy over Andromeda, or perhaps the Magellanic Clouds. 
your slapdickery truly shines ...

none of that matters because you've already falsely concluded that there is no other life in space.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Todd, I will add that there is nothing about  natural cycles of living organisms not being complex. Which really is a solid argument for a designer and not spontaneous generation and undirected processes.


you have no evidence of a designer..so you have no argument.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


bullshit!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I have stated genetics and mechanisms force their will on matter but eventually over time it can no longer do it as well and we grow old and eventually die.

It is the programmed cycle running it's course.

You keep avoiding the key questions. How did the cells form and get programmed ? how did the mechanisms form and perform necessary functions ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I have stated genetics and mechanisms force their will on matter *

Genetics has a will?
Mechanisms have a will?

*You keep avoiding the key questions.*

I'm waiting for you to admit your error about the 2nd Law.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The chromosomes program the cell.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Of course I knew the Chromosomes program the cell, and I know the chromosomes came from our parents but before there were parents, how did the Chromosomes form so they could be translated and form a new viable cell ?

How did the first cell form to where this is possible ? got it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course,the egg gets fertilized and that begins a natural cycle and the offspring is at the mercy of the genetic information. Whether there are errors in the genes or not that get through. How else do you think the organism is formed the sun ? 

Mechanisms perform a function because they are programmed to do so. All matter involved becomes what the genetic instructions call for.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Todd, I will add that there is nothing about  natural cycles of living organisms not being complex. Which really is a solid argument for a designer and not spontaneous generation and undirected processes.
> ...



Yes I do ! I am not a brainwashed nitwit like yourself.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Exactly what do you think that program is?  Some bearded sky daddy punching out genetic code from his throne in the skies?  Or does it consist of biochemical reactions that occur in sequences determined by the molecules themselves?  Is god a molecular reaction to enzymes?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Mechanisms perform a function because they are programmed to do so.*

Mechanisms that violate the 2nd Law?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


there is no evidence for a first cell.
why would only one cell form  if the (pool) of liquid  had enough nutrients to form more ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He created everything you see so what would be your opinion of that intelligence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Mechanisms that would defy a chaotic natural world yes. I don't know of anything of order coming from disorder.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Do you have evidence to suggest more than one cell could have been produced by chance ? Do you have evidence it did it even once ?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


(cue buzzer) false declarative....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



They violate the 2nd Law?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


chance had no part in it.
all the evidence suggests that the process is and was a series of chemical reactions.
there is no evidence of a guiding intelligence guiding or overseeing the process.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


really? if true, then you deny all of existence.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Who said anything about the laws of nature being chaotic?  Oh yeah, you did.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 27, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Unsupported religious declarations is worse than non-scientific, it is delusional.  The fact is that ALL of biochemistry has shown that life consists of biochemical reactions, from the dynamics of DNA, to the pumping of the heart, to the creation and transmission of nerve impulses.  All of it.  Biochemistry.  No magic sky daddies needed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Funny thing is, those chemicals are directed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 27, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you don't know of anything of order coming from disorder either.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Non-sequitur.  The issue is very simple (for everyone but you, apparently).  Organisms are neither closed nor isolated systems because they require energy input from their environment.  If they were closed or isolated systems, they would be independent of their environment.  Without that energy, they cannot survive.  Order can be produced with an expenditure of energy, and the order associated with life on the earth is produced with the aid of energy from the sun and other energy sources.  Hence, you eat, plants convert sunlight into carbohydrates, sulfur-eating bacteria require sulfur compounds, etc.  Because they are continuously getting energy from their environment, they have low entropy.  However, as they age, entropy increases, and their bodily systems begin to breakdown, leading eventually to death.  And this happens because there is no free lunch.  Every expenditure of energy leaves a toll on the organism.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That is funny. You make these grandiose claims, totally unsupported, and make yourself a complete buffoon in doing so.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No they are not.  They are a natural result of the stoichiometry of the molecules of life.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


That intelligence is lacking.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Damn,it's not just energy the sooner you understand this the sooner you will see several things are involved for a temporary state of order. I would like to know why this is the only planet in our solar system to exhibit order.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The exact sequencing of amino acids oh and they happen to be all left handed amino acids.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU]Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cHEZRVofzE]INTELLIGENT DESIGN: CELLS - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This is not the only planet in our solar system that exhibits "order".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

Wake up.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZhzfK2Uy6c]Intelligent Design: Waking Up To Creation - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So what part of your YouTube video makes a case that " the gawds did it"?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Wake up.
> Intelligent Design: Waking Up To Creation - YouTube



Resume your coma.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, exact sequencing = stoichiometry.  Completely understood, and entirely predictable.  As for left-handed amino acids:

Creationist bullshit claim #40

"The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance."

CB040: Left-handed amino acids

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by substituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004). 


2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth. 


3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness. 


4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Care to rephrase this in something other than creationistese?  Energy is everything in living systems.  No energy = no life.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 28, 2013)

*Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?*

Why does the OP always ask selfserving questions?  Hey Sport ... If you want to debate an atheist on science why don't you ask a scientific question?

"Naturalism" isn't a science.  Creationism is as scientific as a Superman comic book.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)




----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



*
Newsflash!*

Members of the Watchtower Bible Cult seen running down the street with their hair on fire screaming something about "blasphemous lefties".....

Film at eleven.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)




----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Sounds about right (wing).


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I love it when you nitwits run off to talk origins to try and present your rebuttal with their material. The big issue is that most living organisms proteins are produced from Left handed amino acids. yes some organisms can function with right handed amino acids. But what you miss is there can be no mixture of the amino acids.

Proteins are the workhorse molecules of life, used in everything from structures like hair to enzymes, the catalysts that speed up or regulate chemical reactions. Just as the 26 letters of the alphabet are arranged in limitless combinations to make words, life uses 20 different amino acids in a huge variety of arrangements to build millions of different proteins. Amino acid molecules can be built in two ways that are mirror images of each other, like your hands. Although life based on right-handed amino acids would presumably work fine, they can't be mixed. "Synthetic proteins created using a mix of left- and right-handed amino acids just don't work," says Dr. Jason Dworkin of NASA Goddard, co-author of the study and head of the Goddard Astrobiology Analytical Laboratory, where the analysis was performed.

Since life can't function with a mix of left- and right-handed amino acids, researchers want to know how life  at least, life on Earth -- got set up with the left-handed ones. "The handedness observed in biological molecules  left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars  is a property important for molecular recognition processes and is thought to be a prerequisite for life," said Dworkin. All ordinary methods of synthetically creating amino acids result in equal mixtures of left- and right-handed amino acids. Therefore, how the nearly exclusive production of one hand of such molecules arose from what were presumably equal mixtures of left and right molecules in a prebiotic world has been an area of intensive research. 

NASA - NASA and University Researchers Find a Clue to How Life Turned Left


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You turning and twisting my words is unethical.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g



It's time to get knocked on your butt with facts not the rhetoric you post. I dare any of you to  listen to this whole video but those with a short attention span listen from the 52.00 minute mark, and prepare to have your theories crushed.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZhzfK2Uy6c]Intelligent Design: Waking Up To Creation - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> *Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?*
> 
> Why does the OP always ask selfserving questions?  Hey Sport ... If you want to debate an atheist on science why don't you ask a scientific question?
> 
> "Naturalism" isn't a science.  Creationism is as scientific as a Superman comic book.



Naturalistic explanations are not science ? but yet that is how they believe we came in to existence. I knew it was a philosophy sport. I totally agree 100%


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Erm, what?  How have I twisted or turned your words?  Your words stand or fall on their own merit.  You still haven't explained what you were trying to say,


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g
> ...



To what end?  ID is a religious doctrine subscribed to by a tiny minority of preliterate protestant religious fruitcakes.  It is not science in this or any other dimension.  Period.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Energy alone is not responsible for life am I wrong ? watch the video and learn something.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



A Response to the evidence would be nice .don't want or need your rhetoric.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Non-sequitur.  No one said energy alone was responsible for life.  You're not too bright, are you?  You've gone on and on about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  My post straightened out the matter of how it applies to life on Earth.  It should have been rather easy for you to follow.  Hell, even a 5th grader could understand how I explained it.  So what is your problem?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Evidence?  "God did it", isn't evidence of anything.  It is an argument from ignorance.  And to think there are still people in the world this dumb.  It's sad, really?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



He's dumber than a 5th grader.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Look I didn't need to rephrase and you made a false claim you're not to bright are you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Respond to the evidence or take a hike. You want to remain ignorant so be it.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your arguments got destroyed and you're still angry. How bout you, care to take on the evidence from the video ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



How were my arguments destroyed?
You claimed things couldn't get more complex on Earth, because of the 2nd Law.
Sugar is clearly more complex than CO2 and H2O. It's also on Earth.

So how is your claim supported and mine destroyed?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Son, everyone who has responded in this and other threads have clearly demonstrated you have no evidence.  Plainly and simply, ID is nothing other than creationism, and creationism is nothing more than a religious doctrine subscribed to by a tiny minority of fundamentalist Christians who believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.  Really, dude, you are embarrassing yourself and you don't even know it.  How sad is that?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

In that same video look at the evidence presented at 1 hour 20 minutes and 30 seconds.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZhzfK2Uy6c]Intelligent Design: Waking Up To Creation - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I love it when religious extremists refute their own claims by posting science articles describing completely natural mechanisms for life on this planet.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> In that same video look at the evidence presented at 1 hour 20 minutes and 30 seconds.
> 
> Intelligent Design: Waking Up To Creation - YouTube



Ahem.  Einstein - insanity- repeat, repeat.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> In that same video look at the evidence presented at 1 hour 20 minutes and 30 seconds.
> 
> Intelligent Design: Waking Up To Creation - YouTube



You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding.

Even if you're not kidding, lie to me and tell me you're kidding.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I've done no such thing.  You really should stop while you have an ounce of dignity left (assuming that is dignity that is dripping from your lips).


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > In that same video look at the evidence presented at 1 hour 20 minutes and 30 seconds.
> ...



I love that title.  They aren't even hiding the fact anymore that they are preaching creationism.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


not in the way you wish...but nice try!


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it's not slapdick..all the planets in this system are ordered and most likely every other system is also.
what do YOU think order means?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


is it just me or is there no hint of god did itness in that article?
are we to infer god did it or ywc will pull anything out of his ass to bolster his bullshit?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


when you present some evidence, you'll get a response .
what you presented is half baked conjecture..


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> In that same video look at the evidence presented at 1 hour 20 minutes and 30 seconds.
> 
> Intelligent Design: Waking Up To Creation - YouTube


same bullshit different bullshitter!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

Typical and predictable responses once hit with the facts lol. It sucks when you have no rebuttal and are just Reduced to rhetoric.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 28, 2013)

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.



Are you going to explain how sugar violates the 2nd Law?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.



Here is my response.  Creationism is not an alternative theory to the biological theory of evolution.  It isn't even a scientific theory.  It makes no predictions, is not falsifiable, presents no original data, grossly misrepresents data supporting evolution and the researchers who do the original work. All scientific theories stand or fall on their own merits.  Almost none have ever been replaced, only elaborated upon and so refined.  And that is because of the very high standard required to be called a scientific theory in the first place.  The charlatans who use creationism (which is a long refuted 19th century philosophical hypothesis twisted into 20th and 21st century religious dogma) as a pretense to introduce religion into our public schools are bigots and frauds who have no toleration for or consideration of the diversity of people in the U.S. and do a great disservice to the science and public whose interests they pretend to have at heart.  Those who preach it are willfully dishonest, and unethical and have no place in today's discourse on scientific or educational matters, particularly where our children are concerned.

If you are going to attempt to supplant ANY scientific theory, it must stand or fall on its own merits.  It isn't enough to try to disprove a theory.  You must present a theory that better explains the vast array of data supporting the existing theory.  "God did it" cannot and never will be able to do this because it is not scientific; rather, it is, at best, an argument from ignorance.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 28, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.


that'll be a long wait as what you presented is not evidence for creationism
 however it is excellent evidence for denial of fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.
> ...



It don't as long as you have instructions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.
> ...



Whoa, in evolution assumptions are made that can't be tested or observed the same as creation. Which assumptions and explanations better fit the evidence. I believe creationism better fits the evidence.

Natural processes do not just arise if so point it out to me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Awesome!
Things on Earth can get more complex.
Your 2nd Law claim was incorrect.
That only took a few thousand posts. /thread


----------



## Hollie (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So.... what are these assumptions that cannot be tested or observed in evolution but can be tested and observed in supernatural / magical creation?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



1.Macroevolution has never been observed except in the case where someone does not know the difference between microadaptations and macroevolution.

2. Where do you get the new genetic information ? we know over time organisms lose genetic information.

When reproducing you breed out genetic information you don't breed in genetic information. With all the populations and generations of flies that exp mutations whether occurring naturally or induced there has never been a new trait passed on to the group through mutations. The only way it happens is through selective breeding.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Explain to me where you get the new genetic information to increase complexity ? I still believe your argument hits a snag because the what you consider increasing in complexity is just a natural process being guided by the genetic data.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I still believe your argument hits a snag *

You just admitted that things can get more complex on Earth, despite your earlier claim.

How is that my argument hitting a snag?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




1. This is the problem you face when your knowledge comes from creation ministries. There is an abundant collection of transitional fosills . This has been explained, delineated and provided to you tediously and frequently.

2. This has also been explained, delineated and provided to you tediously and frequently. Reproduction does not exclusively "breed out" genetic information.

You should actually learn something of the science you're hoping to vilify.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you spent how much on higher education?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 selective breeding refines or adds desired traits. please present any actual genetic evidence that proves a net loss of genetic information.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well, gee, your response is to make claims and then don't support them?  Lame, dude.  Lame.  What unsupported assumptions does evolution make that cannot be tested or observed?  Be specific.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yes, and I have stated this before why has it not sank in. Purebred dog,let's use the boxer they only have the genetic data to produce the traits of a boxer I ask you why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



A lot more than you.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Boxers haven't lost any genetic information to become a boxer.  They have mutated genes, not lost genes.  And even if they had lost genes, how would that disprove evolution?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Well gee macro-evolution,did you not get it ?

How new genetic information is added to support the assumptions of mutations as a mechanism to add beneficial information.

I made myself clear the first time.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Are you completely clueless ? unless you cross breed a boxer you will only wind up with boxers. do yourself a favor and please read up on Gregor Mendel since you clearly don't understand basic genetics that most breeders understand


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


dodge !
please provide evidence that proves a net loss of genetic information.
as loss of genetic information would mean there would be less dog 
you claim to be a geneticist ..my request should be easy...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 then you or your parents  were ripped off.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2013)




----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This is a lie, and since we've addressed this issue at least a dozen times, it is clear that you know it is a lie, which means that for you to continue to promote it makes you a willful liar.



> 2. Where do you get the new genetic information ? We know over time organisms lose genetic information.



Ever hear of endogenous retroviruses?  7% of the human genome is composed of it, genetic material that wasn't there until at sometime somebody got exposed to a pathogen that was able to transfer its genetic material into our own.  I can guarantee that you have lots of genetic material in you that you didn't have when you were born.  Some of that has made its way into your genome, and will/was transferred to your offspring.

The fact that you are a placental mammal is due to the infection of all such mammals with an endogenous retrovirus.

Placental endogenous retrovirus (ERV): structural,... [Bioessays. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI



> When reproducing you breed out genetic information you don't breed in genetic information. With all the populations and generations of flies that exp mutations whether occurring naturally or induced there has never been a new trait passed on to the group through mutations. The only way it happens is through selective breeding.



What you are essentially saying is that there are no observed instance s of speciation.  You didn't do an very long search to come to that conclusion, did you?

Observed Instances of Speciation

This is a very long article, so I won't post it all here.  You'll have to actually read it.  I will, however, post the bibliography to show how much support the article has in the scientific community:

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 47:1696-1710.

Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.

Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.

de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.

de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.

de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.

del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.

Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.

Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.

Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.

Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.

Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.

Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.

Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.

Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.

Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.

Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.

Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.

Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109:353-358.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.

Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.

Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4:135-148.

Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.

Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.

Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.

Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.

Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.

McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:64-66.

Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45:293-306.

Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.

Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.

Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.

Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.

Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.

Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.

Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.

Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.

Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.

Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108:117-124.

Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.

Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.

Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 193:1164-1166.

Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.

Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.

Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.

Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.

Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.

Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Yea, I bet his education at Liberty University must of cost his parents a fortune.   They should ask for a refund, eh?


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


[ame=http://youtu.be/yz5T1EEo8ws]Bill Maher - Bye Jerry Falwell - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Like I said earlier someone that don't understand the difference between micro-adaptations and macro-evolution.

You get speciation through selecvtive breeding and isolation. Seciation is not macro-evolution buddy. You can't show any cross over from one kind to another. Your examples are merely different traits but within the same kind.

Please quit making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



American Boxer Club: Genetic Diseases

Boxers have a number of health conditions attributable to either inbreeding, or other genetic abnormalities.  For instance:

*Hip Dysplasia*, which is the number one cause of lameness in dogs.  Hip dysplasia is thought to be genetically determined in part, but the mode of inheritance has not been established, since multiple genes and environmental factors such as nutrition and rapid growth may play a role in its development.

While some have questioned the frequency and severity of hip dysplasia in the boxer, many owners are now testing their dogs. The OFA currently reports the boxer as 67th in incidence of dysplasia (among breeds where over 100 dogs have been tested) with 2.9% of boxers testing excellent and 11.3% dysplasitic

*Thyroid disease* in the boxer occurs primarily as hypothyroidism, or impaired thyroid gland function with low thyroid hormone levels. It often develops slowly over several months or years. The animal's body, for as yet unknown reasons, forms antibodies against its own thyroid gland resulting in partial or complete destruction of the gland and the subsequent inability to produce adequate thyroid hormone. 

Many breeds, including the boxer, seem to be genetically predisposed to hypothyroidism.
There is no evidence that this inherited disease is a result of lost genetic material.  There is evidence that there is a mutation in the genes that regulate thyroglobulin autoantibodies.

One of the most common causes of sudden/unexpected death in boxers, both young and old, is a condition thought to be inherited and characterized by abnormal heart rhythms involving the ventricles (the main blood pumping chambers) of the heart (*cardiomyopathy*).

The definitive test for this disease would be a DNA test for the abnormal gene.

One of the most common heart defects occurring in dogs, boxers in particular, is *aortic or subaortic stenosis*. In most cases the stenosis, or narrowing, is produced by a fibrous ring of tissue below the aortic valve, hence the term "subaortic." The disease is inherited but its mode of transmission is not known at this time. 

So, YWC, care to inform us of the source of your claims about boxers?

By the way, boxers are boxers because their traits have been selected for - that is, the traits they have have been selected in such a way that they are dominant traits instead of being recessive traits.  Many other dogs have the traits of boxers, but have them recessively.  The boxers have been selected for those specific traits.  No information was lost.  They still have the traits of many other dogs, and through breeding, they can be changed into some other breed, and in fact, by very carful selective breeding and a good testing program, it is believed by the American Boxer club that many of the inherited diseases boxers have can be bred out of them without loosing the traits that make them boxers.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It wasn't liberty and I bet my school has more credibility in the sciences then the one you supposedly attended.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


There is ample evidence for macro evolution. It's been presented to you on numerous occasions.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Prove a boxer can produce an earlier ancestor it took to create the boxer. Then prove it was not due to cross breeding.

The notion that mixed-breed dogs are healthier than purebreds has some basis in fact, according to research published in the June 1 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Study Shows Mutts Genetically Healthier


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


is that a dodge I smell?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



All it turned out to be was micro adaptations or speciation. You let me know when a Lion or Tiger is no longer a member of the Cat kind.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Prove a boxer can produce an earlier ancestor it took to create the boxer. *

Well, first, you need 2 boxers and second, shut the fuck up already.
Damn you're a moron.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Well, it is clear that you ignored everything I posted in my response.  That is not surprising since you've also ignored everything I posted previously about pretty much everything, including my post refuting your lies about macroevolution.  You are the one being willfully ignorant here, so don't you dare call me the fool.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yeah it sucks getting your ignorance exposed


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


really ?because Toddsterpatriot just exposed yours and you didn't even notice...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Dickweed, as has been pointed out to you on dozens of occasions, that is not what evolutions says or claims, nor is it how evolution works.  If a lion gestated something that was not a cat, that would REFUTE evolution, not support it.  You are presenting us with a false dilemma, and then daring us to refute it.  Clue - IT IS A FALSE DILEMMA!  And proof that you have no understanding of the theory.  So your malcontent with regard to macroevolution is purely and simply willful ignorance.  There is a lot of that going on in creationist circles.  Why is that?  Do you people have some abnormal gene the rest of us don't have?  It must certainly be inbred/inherited.  Congratulations/sympathies, as the case may be.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And yet, after your ignorance is exposed, you go and expose more.

I mean, shit, you've come up with what, a dozen reasons why evolution is impossible and they were all shot down. So now you're making more shit up.
What's the point? You're wrong.
Go read some science books and come back with some real info, instead of the bullshit you've got.

I mean, seriously, the 2nd Law?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...





			
				orogenicman said:
			
		

> You have made a fool out of yourself repeatedly including the first time you brought it up.
> 
> Answer this: How does down's syndrome (a doubling of chromosome 21) occur?  People with Down's Syndrome have MORE genetic information than you or I (much more in your case), and yet have serious developmental problems.  Explain why more genetic material (not less) leads to genetic disease, and not higher development.  Explain why chimpanzees have more genetic material (48 chromosomes, as opposed to our 46) than Homo Sapiens, and yet we (allegedly) are the more advanced species.



Bump.  Ahem.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

lol wow,must have hit a nerve.

That is ok boys and girls there will be a tomorrow,maybe.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> lol wow,must have hit a nerve.
> 
> That is ok boys and girls there will be a tomorrow,maybe.


wrong! you just wish you did...must be the overinflated self congratulatory gene mutation creeping back.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Let's further expose your ignorance.

The human Y chromosome has 78 genes and the chimp Y chromosome has 37.

I am gonna show up ape to human evolution is impossible through genetics.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Moving the goal post.  Answer my queries, and stop trying to by pass them.

By the way, before you can show that ape to human genetics is not possible, you have to first demonstrate that humans aren't apes to begin with.  (ahem, chuckle, chuckle), good luck with that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I just exposed your erroneous claim.

It's not up to me to prove humans are not apes, the science community made the claim. I am just gonna show why it's not possible in the first place


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 29, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

Oh it seems many creationist sites are now spreading the news of this scientific paper by nature uh oh.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

I smell a court battle coming.


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I smell a court battle coming.



A court battle for what?

Are you suggesting the courts will "do the wave", praise jeebus, announce that Jimmy Swaggert can pull his pants up and reclaim his ministry?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

Have a good day monkey boy, sorry i had to expose your ignorance but someone had to.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Have a good day monkey boy, sorry i had to expose your ignorance but someone had to.



He said, to himself......


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Have a good day monkey boy, sorry i had to expose your ignorance but someone had to.



Ah. A name-caller. That adds credibility to your conspiracy theories. 

Notice that your "Y" chromosome conspiracy theory seems like not much of a conspiracy theory at all 


Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected 

Jan. 15, 2010  Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation. By conducting the first comprehensive interspecies comparison of Y chromosomes, Whitehead Institute researchers have found considerable differences in the genetic sequences of the human and chimpanzee Ys -- an indication that these chromosomes have evolved more quickly than the rest of their respective genomes over the 6 million years since they emerged from a common ancestor. The findings are published online this week in the journal Nature. 


I have this impression that your fundamentalist religious views are so extreme that you may actually pose a danger to those around you.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Have a good day monkey boy, sorry i had to expose your ignorance but someone had to.
> ...



Speculative,no evidence, faulty assumption.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 30, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:
			
		

> Thanks for proving my point.  The reason why humans (and Neanderthals and Denisovans) only have 23 pairs is because one of our chromosomes (chromosome 2, the second largest chromosome) is actually two separate ancestral chromosomes fused together.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
> 
> ...





			
				YWC said:
			
		

> Sorry,putz, real scientific evidence.I was predicting this argument you're exposing your ignorance again.
> 
> There is no evidence of chromosome fusion in mammals.




Yeah, and vaccines cause autism.  You must be a member of that Texas six flags over Jesus church that convinced the congregation that vaccines were the devil's work, and ended up giving their fucking children the measles, the No. 1 preventable viral disease.  No evidence? Are you fucking nutz? You need to check your pants, man, because damn.

EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET HAS CHROMOSOME 2, AND IT IS A FUSED CHROMOSOME.  There is nothing unambiguous about this.  Many researchers are now working with genetic material from Chromosome 2 because it has quite a few genes on it suspected of causing disease.  And every single one of those researchers will tell you that it is a fused gene.  The fusion occurs as sperm and eggs develop, as pairs of chromosomes fold over each other and swap chunks of DNA. Sometimes two different chromosomes grab onto each other and then fail to separate.  This is heavily documented in the scientific literature.  You really shouldn't be getting your information from Casey Luskin, who is a friggin lawyer, not a scientist.  You guys have so much in common with Climate change deniers, it's incredible, because they get their information from a friggin massage therapist and a former disc jockey.  Congratulations.

The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists) : The Loom

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/chrom.surviv.html


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I tend to agree with Hollie.  I think that if you actually accepted even one ounce of truth of about the scientific method, your head would explode, so you should probably stay away from small children and salad bars, just in case a one in a million event actually happens.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 30, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



"... because I say so."

I should advise that you appear to be the intractable zealot when you hand-wave off anything that contradicts your uneducated and specious opinions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 31, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Will you stop with this wishful speculation. I am still waiting for you to show a mechanism that will produce a new gene ? it's not just one gene but 41 new genes that would have to be produced for the morphological changes that would make an ape in to a human.

Your theory is dead without this mechanism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 31, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Further ignorance if you to agree with hollie on anything. she is so blinded by her hate.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 31, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Fact ! it's pure speculation,with nothing to back up this speculation in the way of data.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Aug 31, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Rr0Ib6CfQ]Evolutionary THEORY, Refutation of Chromosome 2 Fusion 3 13 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh0BW2y7t1U]Evolutionary THEORY, Refutation of Chromosome 2 Fusion 5 13 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPzomXJ_1Fg]Evolutionary THEORY, Refutation of Chromosome 2 Fusion 6 13 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbcRmsuxA8g]Evolutionary THEORY, Refutation of Chromosome 2 Fusion 7 13 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ-lMwHU8eU]Evolutionary THEORY, Refutation of Chromosome 2 Fusion 8 13 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAKFQ0eHpNc]Evolutionary THEORY, Refutation of Chromosome 2 Fusion 9 13 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jppnxjzrNc]Evolutionary THEORY, Refutation of Chromosome 2 Fusion 10 13 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrkKE0i9Kr4]Evolutionary THEORY, Refutation of Chromosome 2 Fusion 11 13 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti7NUuubJYE]Evolutionary THEORY, Refutation of Chromosome 2 Fusion 12/13 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX7Sz8s89eI]Evolutionary THEORY, Refutation of Chromosome 2 Fusion 13/13 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I see. You need to invent a conspiracy theory in order to safeguard you preconceived notions about the gods.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Re: goofy YouTube videos



I'm sure that YouTube videos by "Monkart" will pass as authoritative for you religious types. 


Why not suggest to "Monkart" that he submit his YouTube videos to the journal Nature?


----------



## orogenicman (Aug 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Will you stop with the willful lies?  Of course you won't.   What would you need to do to change an ape into a human being?  Nothing you dumbass, because - clue - human beings ARE apes (except you, of course.  You devolved into slime a long time ago.).

As for mechanisms that will produce new genes:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835

Read it and weep.


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Aug 31, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


finally! you realised YOUR SHIT IS.. Speculative,no evidence, faulty assumption!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You have no business calling someone a dumbass  

Do you know what Pseudogenes are ?

Genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. It's impossible to add genes to any genome because you can't coordinate any new gene with existing genes. 

You post something you didn't understand which is not surprising . Your article is talking about a new trait being added to a genome through rearranging of the genetic information in an existing gene  whether it's harmful or beneficial. I am saying adding genes to go from 37 genes to 78 genes got it ?

Apes still have 37 genes and humans have 78 that is 41 new genes that had to be produced. What is this mechanism that produced 41 new genes ? apes do not have any gene generating system, apes do not have a gene insertion system.

gene duplication is not evidence that organisms can create new genes. the only organisms that can produce a new gene are bacteria.they can duplicate existing genes by mistake through gene duplication, this only occurs in single sex bacteria.

So i ask you again, what is this so called mechanism that produced 41 new genes ?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Stop being a dumbass and people won't pin the label on you.



> Do you know what Pseudogenes are ?
> 
> Genes work together in teams to form body parts during embryonic development. It's impossible to add genes to any genome because you can't coordinate any new gene with existing genes.



Says who?



> pseudogenes can regulate parental genes through siRNAs; evidence of this phenomenon has been found in both flies and mammals



As for new genes, this is what you are looking for.  From the research paper:



> *New genes can additionally originate de novo from noncoding regions of DNA. Indeed, several novel genes derived from noncoding DNA have recently been described in Drosophila (Begun et al., 2007; Levine et al., 2006). For these recently originated Drosophila genes with likely protein-coding abilities, there are no homologues in any other species (hence they are new genes). Note, however, that the de novo genes described in various species thus far include both protein-coding and noncoding genes. These new genes sometimes originate in the X chromosome, and they often have male germ-line functions. *





> You post something you didn't understand which is not surprising.



Wrong.  I posted something YOU didn't understand.



> scientists have proposed several mechanisms by which new genes are generated. These include gene duplication, transposable element protein domestication, lateral gene transfer, gene fusion, gene fission, and *de novo origination*.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You don't know genes work together to form body parts ?

You see your side knows that humans having 78 genes in the Y chromosome vs apes having 37 in their Y chromosome was a problem for their theory and it still is. Your article discussed mutations as a mechanism as well that is off topic because mutations happen with existing genes So do the mechanisms you say they put forward as a mechanism to produce new genes. They know this is devastating evidence to the theory.

Do you understand conjecture when you read it ? Do you understand the term proposed ? There is zero evidence of new genes being formed by any of these so called mechanisms and adding a new gene to any genome. They want you to believe this nonsense because if you don't your their theory is dead.

Their presuppositions are in the way of translating evidence properly. I have already told you that the only way during gene duplication a new gene can be produced is through a mistake and this mistake only happens in "EXISTING GENES" and this only happens in single sex bacteria. They are throwing shit out there hoping it sticks. You however do not have a strong enough background clearly to argue this.

You're are so desperate to come up with an answer to my question ,you throw any article out there that you think is a response to my question. Just like scientists propose mechanisms that have zero evidence doing what they propose. It's an acceptable answer until they find out they are wrong. This is their method of dodging the issue get it ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

You totally ignored this, apes do not have any gene generating system, apes do not have a gene insertion system.

This kills the rest of your so called mechanisms !


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



They do much more than form body parts.  You didn't know?  Huh.  Not only that, but not all genes form body parts.  You didn't know this?  Double Huh.



> You see your side knows that humans having 78 genes in the Y chromosome vs apes having 37 in their Y chromosome was a problem for their theory and it still is. Your article discussed mutations as a mechanism as well that is off topic because mutations happen with existing genes.



You seem to believe that a gene must be newly formed (presumably out of nothing would be my assumption, since the poof factor seems to be the way creationists tend to explain things) in order to be "new".  De novo genes are newly formed genes (though not out of nothing).  You also seem to be of the opinion that evolution can only occur if population  acquires "new" genes.  This is certainly not the case, and the theory has never made that statement.  And contrary to what you appear to believe, the fact that humans have more genes in the Y chromosome is evidence FOR evolution, not against.  Any time a gene is added or deleted, that is evidence for evolution.  They could just as easily have fewer and that would also be evidence for evolution.  If you truly want evidence against evolution, you should try to find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, because THAT would refute evolution.  Got anything like that?



> So do the mechanisms you say they put forward as a mechanism to produce new genes. They know this is devastating evidence to the theory.



It is probably a good idea if you put the bottle down before you post.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> You totally ignored this, apes do not have any gene generating system, apes do not have a gene insertion system.
> 
> This kills the rest of your so called mechanisms !



That is the most idiotic claim I've ever heard.

Here are 908,000 scholarly links that demonstrates how idiotic your claim actually is.

gene insertion system - Google Scholar

And here:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gene+insertion+in+apes&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,18&as_vis=1

You win another post on my wall of shame sig.  Congratulations.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Geez, you keep showing your ignorance on this issue. You evidently have not heard or read the explanation given by scientists where they claim apes evidently lost genes over time because they have no mechanism that will develop a completely new gene to get to the human count 

People agreeing with you are just as ignorant on the issue. I don't drink but maybe you should instead of carry on this charade.



They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has lost lots of genes that are present in humans, which suggests the human Y resembles that of the common ancestor more than does the chimp's Y. Chimpanzees only have two-thirds of the genes present in the human MSY.

Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly | Science/AAAS | News

Exposing your ignorance is not hard to do. This article is full of spin to hide the facts 

Face it, you're are gullible and your background on this issue is obvious.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > You totally ignored this, apes do not have any gene generating system, apes do not have a gene insertion system.
> ...



You don't know what you're talking about and neither does anyone who make such claims. How do you think they built this theory numbnuts ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

How many of your scholarly articles have been refuted due to new evidence ? We have learned a lot in the last 5 years and you know we are gonna find a lot more to refute even more of this fairytale.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The paper you quote makes no claim whatsoever that "apes have lost genes over time because they have no mechanism that will develop a completely new gene to get to the human count."

Making shit up doesn't help your argument.



> They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has lost lots of genes that are present in humans, which suggests the human Y resembles that of the common ancestor more than does the chimp's Y. Chimpanzees only have two-thirds of the genes present in the human MSY.
> 
> Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly | Science/AAAS | News



Did you even read the paper?  Or is English a second language for you?



> But the first comprehensive comparison of the Y chromosome in two species--specifically, humans and chimpanzees--shows that in fact, it is a hot spot of evolution.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yeah, because every geneticist on the planet can't hold a candle to your mastery of science.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How many of your scholarly articles have been refuted due to new evidence ? We have learned a lot in the last 5 years and you know we are gonna find a lot more to refute even more of this fairytale.



And everything we've learned in those five years supports evolution.  Arguing from ignorance and from the god of the gaps is not a scientific argument.  It is an argument from desperation.  You poor dear.


----------



## HUGGY (Sep 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> 
> Is creationism scientific?



*Religious people less intelligent than atheists? *


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You have better put down that glass of whatever you're drinking.


They found that the chimpanzee Y chromosome has lost lots of genes that are present in humans, which suggests the human Y resembles that of the common ancestor more than does the chimp's Y. Chimpanzees only have two-thirds of the genes present in the human MSY.

http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2010/01/y-chromosome-evolving-rapidly



Don't be pathetic.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Wrong ,brilliant men out there that just do not want to admit they are stumped. This evidence fits the model apes and humans were created uniquely apart from each other.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How many of your scholarly articles have been refuted due to new evidence ? We have learned a lot in the last 5 years and you know we are gonna find a lot more to refute even more of this fairytale.
> ...



Where do you think what I am showing you came from ? Further research after the both the human and chimp Genome was mapped.

Sorry you're a misinformed woman.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > How, then, is creationismas opposed to naturalism, defined as a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discountedscientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define scientific. Too often, science and naturalism are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.
> ...



Huggy is this all you have


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

By the way they claim the loss of genes happened over 6 million years,ridiculous. After the so called divergence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 1, 2013)

Hello Pinqy,how are you doing ?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 1, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So you believe women are misinformed, do you?  You have something in common with the Taliban.  Congratulations.  Are you one of those American Taliban?  It would not surprise me if you were.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> By the way they claim the loss of genes happened over 6 million years,ridiculous. After the so called divergence.



There "they" are again. How could the loss of genes have happened over a period of  6 million years when the planet was created only 6000 years ago?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



"They" reported the findings in the journal Nature. That means "they" are a part of the vast conspiracy of atheistic evilutionists. 

I would be interested to see the results of research performed by the ICR.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yet another conspiracy required in order for the extremist to maintain his delusions. 

Have brilliant men confided their 'stumped'ness" to you or more likely, this is about your propensity for furthering lies to maintain your delusions.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Did you read the part that references "the common ancestor"?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I am sorry I have gotten testy with you and said some of the things I have. Thought you were a man had no real reason to assume that you were woman until you called me dear.

On the contrary,I have a great deal of respect for women although Hollie is a bit much.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > By the way they claim the loss of genes happened over 6 million years,ridiculous. After the so called divergence.
> ...



How could they have been loss in 6,000 years ? It's your sides story not mine. I am just pointing out the many problems with the theory that contradicts empirical evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The science community in whole accept many theories and  hypothesis until it's confirmed or rejected by the evidence. Some are never confirmed either way but are still accepted.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I was surrounded by them.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes,what is the common ancestor ? how can they confirm that claim ?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




I don't believe that that is true.  You apparently believe it is okay to disrespect women (behind their backs) when you think you are talking to a man, but not if you think you think you are talking to a woman.  Except that you thought I was a woman and intentionally disrespected me.  Fucking hypocrite.

By the way, my cahones are still hanging, so no I am not a woman.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No, if I thought you were a woman you would have had much more respect from me. You were the one that made this personal with your childish insults.

Now let's get back on topic.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Wow, are you delusional about EVERYTHING?  You are the one who made it personal, asshole.  Speaking of getting back on topic, when you find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, let me know.  Speaking of getting back on topic, are you going to meet me in the field?  Or do you not have the cahones for it?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



With your propensity for playing fast and loose with facts, I have no reason to believe that you&#8217;re in any position to be representing the convictions of others. Your lack of a science vocabulary and utter lack of even the most basic precepts of evolution and the biological sciences puts real suspicion on your claimed academic background.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



We can begin with a site that takes an approach which includes graphs and pictures to&#8230; how shall we say&#8230; &#8220;provide a beginners narrative&#8221; to evolution.

While I understand that you reject any evidence provided by the relevant science community that even hints at an earth older than 6,000 years or the fossil record, your being in denial of reality is no reason for anyone else to accept your lurid conspiracy theories involving many of the life sciences being fabricated.

Overview of Hominin Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

All else is mere speculation of one form or another.

Millennia of &#8220;philosophers and theologians&#8221; have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done comparatively little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why &#8220;scientific facts&#8221; deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary &#8220;absolute facts&#8221; delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance. 

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching &#8220;absolute&#8221; truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of religious dogma. 

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress. I will nominate you as the poster child for "lack of progress".

&#8220;Scientific&#8221; facts may be conceptually inferior to &#8220;absolute&#8221; facts. But since there really are no such things as &#8220;absolute&#8221; facts, that would be the equivalent of claiming that horses are inferior to unicorns.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 2, 2013)

But, the Bible says that pi is 3 to 3&1/7.    That's science.


----------



## LittleNipper (Sep 2, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> But, the Bible says that pi is 3 to 3&1/7.    That's science.



The science is in the fact that the bowl being described also has thickness that is being revealed. But the person who thinks he knows it all missing that blessed revelation.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 2, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Whatever nitwit.

I can't wait to hear this .why do I need to find a bunny in Cambrian ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 2, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I will ask you again what is the nearest ancestor ? how can they make such a claim without mapping the genome of this nearest ancestor ?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Neanderthal genomics and the evolution of modern humans

A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 2, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Because THAT would refute evolution.  Well?  Get on with it, bricks for brains.


----------



## LittleNipper (Sep 2, 2013)

Please see the following: http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev2.pdf


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 3, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> Please see the following: http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev2.pdf



Well, absolutely none of that is correct.  What's worse, Douglas B. Sharp, the author, has taught the creation-evolution subject for over 15 years at Mount Hope Bible Training Institute. He is not a geologist,  nor a scientist, has no academic background in science, and has published no scholarly work.  Thirdly, when your paper quotes the bible and uses the bible as a scientific reference, you know the author has lost his friggin mind.  Fourth, neither this paper, nor any of the other papers written by the various creationists on that site have been submitted for peer review in any scientific publication.

So this begs the question, why, exactly, should we be reading it?

And finally, I have been trying for at least four years to get creationists to go into the field with me so we can examine the geologic evidence first hand.  To date, none have ever taken me up on the offer.  Gee, I wonder why?

But if you want to see how some of his arguments fare in the scientific community, I give you this as an example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/armor.html


----------



## Kat3eWhit (Sep 3, 2013)

Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 3, 2013)

Kat3eWhit said:


> Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.



Why?  Because so many people are delusional?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I will direct you once again to the linked article that addresses your wall of denial / self-imposed ignorance regarding our human ancestry.

Science technology does not currently allow the gene mapping of 4 million year old remains. It's possible that there may never be a method to do so.   However, as you are convinced as to a 6,000 year old earth, even if "they" do discover a method of gene mapping such ancient remains, you would be forced to invent even more bizarre conspiracy theories.   

With a historical perspectivs, (in the religious extremist case, a hysterical perspective), "they", (scientists), have managed to shine the glaring light of facts and truth into the dark recesses of the creationist mindset promoting fear and ignorance. All of the data presented to you offers rational explanations to what your extremist position insists is magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And you wonder why your time spent at the Harun Yahya madrassah is met with ridicule?

Come on, scour the "Living fossils" site for more of your silliness.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



 you think this answers the questions ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Sorry, if you have not been paying attention I have already done that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Please see the following: http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev2.pdf
> ...



Sites like this should be avoided this why you get your ass handed to you.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Sure you have.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

Kat3eWhit said:


> Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.



With that kind of thinking you should go to vegas.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Yes, I am quite certain that you creationists avoid it like the plague.  Poor things.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You think it doesn't?  Have at it, bubba.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Then your theory is not scientific and is pretty much screwed. Your theory is built on  vivid imaginations not science most importantly faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Come up with a mechanism to add a completely new gene to the genome in primates ?

So apes were once human and just were suffering devolution


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No, I have been refuting his material for many years.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



So you are suggesting neanderthals are the nearest ancestor ?

Here let me help you out,neanderthals are human are you suggesting they bred with apes ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I remember, the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible, right?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It answers the question much better than your screeching out "the gods did it", 


You can't even define _which_ gods.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Other than your usual drop-ten-and-punt by way of defining most of science as a conspiracy, what part of the fossil record is built on vivid imagination?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What a silly claim. You have spent a significant amount of time cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya. I've pointed that out in previous posts. 

Do you find it at all.... odd, that an extremist Christian would spend as much time as you do, quote-mining from an Islamic apologist?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



He can't say because he has no experience with it, and refuses to learn from an expert.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Answered !

Oh wait let's change the subject


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



How many genes were found in the Y chromosome of the neanderthals ?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



This may help.


Phys.Org Mobile: Complete Neanderthal genome yields insights into human evolution and evidence of interbreeding


We're to understand however that a 6,000  year old earth refutes any possibility for Neanderthals existing 40,000 years ago.


I'll need you to start a list of those atheistic evilutionist scientists promoting the Neanderthal myth.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


as always  no mention of "god did It"...and it uses the e word.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Once again no answer to my question, do you actually read what you post ?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > By the way they claim the loss of genes happened over 6 million years,ridiculous. After the so called divergence.
> ...


(standing ovation!)bump


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It is inferring apes and humans were created distinct from each other by the same creator.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Are you people just not bright enough to see what I am showing


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no slapdick it was not ....your wilful ignorance is working overtime...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


it's just the reverse us people are far brighter than all creationists put  together.
as to you, you're  not near as bright as you egotism and hubris would suggest.
the fact is you're a racist redneck bible thumper with a messiah complex.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

If you don't have anything to add to the thread other than your hateful rhetoric take it where people don't mind your stupidity or remain silent.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your "Y chromosome" conspiracy is just another blatant attempt by you to side-step a rather glaring flaw in the 6,000 year old earth nonsense.

How could Neanderthals have existed before the magical / supernatural "creation" of the planet?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> If you don't have anything to add to the thread other than your hateful rhetoric take it where people don't mind your stupidity or remain silent.


good advice, why do you never heed it?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no such inference. 

You have a desperate and insensate need to conjure such an inference because your fears and superstitious are sheltered by ignorance.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


 also odd is his allegation that all dating techniques are extremely flawed.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well, dude, the entire sequence is available right here:

Index of /neandertal/altai/bam

Plow through it and tell us what you find.  The Y Chromosome sequence is at the bottom (and has the smallest file size).


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

My mother was not a Neanderthal

Another finding of the Genographic Project was that they saw no evidence that Neanderthals were our "recent" ancestors. This is important because we don't know what happened to these guys.

For hundreds of thousands of years, Neanderthals ruled Europe. Then our ancestors moved in and pretty quickly, the Neanderthals were gone.

Some scientists think we killed them off. Some think we were just better and so they died out. And some others think that they had babies together and we all have a little Neanderthal in us.

To figure out which idea is correct, scientists have compared our mtDNA to that of the Neanderthal's. Why did they want to look at mtDNA? Because they could.

There is a whole lot of it in a cell making it relatively easy to get. Instead of just two copies per cell like our chromosomes, our cells have thousands of copies of mtDNA.

Because there is so much of this DNA, we are able to get some from unlikely sources. Like hair or mammoths. Or Neanderthals.

The Genographic Project provides a great resource for answering the question of whether there was any monkey business between humans and Neanderthals. The scientists found no evidence of any.

As you can imagine, getting DNA from a 30,000 or 40,000 year old fossil is not a simple thing. But scientists have managed in six cases to get a chunk of 300 bases of mtDNA from Neanderthals that looks very good.

Studying these six samples showed five DNA differences that Neanderthals had that we do not. Previously scientists looked at all of the human mtDNA so far collected and did not find any that had all 5 changes. But the number of human samples was relatively small.

The folks at the Genographic Project could look at many more samples. And none of the 78,500 or so samples had more than one of these DNA differences. This suggests that there isn't any Neanderthal DNA in modern human mtDNA.

They also just looked at the whole 300 bases and compared them to the human samples. None of the human samples was as different as the Neanderthal ones. So they found no evidence that our "recent" ancestors were Neanderthals.

This is more evidence that Neanderthals simply died out and that we did not interbreed. Recently scientists have begun to look at more than mtDNA. This will either confirm these findings or tell us that we may have Neanderthals in our family tree. We'll just have to wait and see.

Ancestry, Neanderthals and Mitochondrial DNA | Understanding Genetics


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You admitted your original claim was wrong?

Or will you change the subject?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'll take change the subject for $1000 alex!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No doubt.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



This is an important aspect of your argument and you brought up neanderthals. Why don't you produce the evidence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I changed mind after that admission and gave you the reason why.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

Yes,you people are uncomfortable with the current topic.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Yes,you people are uncomfortable with the current topic.


the current topic? it's all the same topic... you post pseudoscience bullshit and intentionally misinterpreted biblical sound bites..and we correct them..been that way since you started posting on this site.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yet another conspiracy theory in the making.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


see post #3442


----------



## dblack (Sep 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> see post #3442



hmmm... a quote like this might be telling us something.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > see post #3442
> ...


who's we?


----------



## dblack (Sep 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Humanity 

Also, dead horses, beating them, etc...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I think this is one of those situations like switching the channel when you don't like the program, instead of bitching about it.


----------



## dblack (Sep 3, 2013)

daws101 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



ahh.. no worries. I'm not bitching. I was just a little surprised by the number of posts.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


not say you were didn't mean to give that impression.. 
if you like long threads check out creationists...it's like reading moby dick and war and peace.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You were wrong about the 2nd Law?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're free to believe as you wish.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 3, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


 Hollow the age of the earth has nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Name-caller, the age of the earth is but one contradiction to your various, invented conspiracy theories.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Do you believe you were wrong about the 2nd Law?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No, I didn't mean hollow that was from my phone and it has a mind of it's own. The age of the earth scientists would like to think they have the ability to determine it's age.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No not by your premise concerning the earth ,this planet did not have life for 2 billion years I don't see order being produced when the universe was experiencing an increase in disorder for that long. The universe was exp an increase in disorder for to long concerning your theory.

Then to think all of a sudden non life could produce life without being directed a bit much for me to accept.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 4, 2013)

Definitely not scientific views based on empirical evidence.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You still believe that things can't get more complex on Earth, because of the 2nd Law?

That was your original claim.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes the 2nd law was in play for to long before life.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


it has everything to do with it slapdick...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


so scientific dating methods are a conspiracy too?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Definitely not scientific views based on empirical evidence.


that's true none of the shit you post is.
thanks for owning up to that!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Once life was here, you claimed the 2nd Law prevents increased complexity.
Still sticking by your second misinterpretation of the 2nd Law?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


And of course, you know better. 

It really is remarkable how you are forced to invent conspiracy theories as the means to support your extremist ideology or you launch into fits of abject denial. 

There are many different dating methods employed by science. They have been presented to you on more than a couple of occasions. These methods are widely accepted by the relevant science community as reliable and accurate given geologic timescales.

Using the phrase "relevant science community" obviously excludes ID'iot creationists. 

It should be a simple matter for ID'iot creationists to refute those atheistic evilutionist in connection with dating methods. Why don't the ID'iots provide their research papers for peer review?   They can simultaneously refute the evilutionist nonsense of a 4.5 billion year old planet while disproving the fosill record.


----------



## LittleNipper (Sep 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The proof of a conspiracy is in the assumptions Uniformitarians make and contradictions that they hide. Please see the following: NephiCode: So How Old Are the Rocks, Anyway? ? Part II ? The Assumptions


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 4, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It starts of immediately stupid.

"No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotope"

Thankfully, science can figure out so many things without having to actually be there.  It is amazing.  It must be like magic, to you.  You should just think of it as magic.  To you, us scientists and engineers are the harnessers of magic.  

We are your GODS.  You should pray to us.... and send money.


----------



## LittleNipper (Sep 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


"Science" cannot figure out anything. "Science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" is a systematic study that is used to build and organize knowledge in the form of *testable* explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and* reliably applied*. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist. The vast problem is that much of what is dished out by individuals  who call themselves "scientists" is neither testable nor reliable --- but influenced assumption based on one's personal view of NATURE.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 4, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


I am certain that one can find any opinion they want by sesrching personal blogs. 


Here's a radical idea: email your blogger pal and ask him to submit his research documentation for peer review.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 4, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Just  going out on a limb here,  but I'm guessing you don't have (and haven't had), a great deal of interaction with scientists or the science community.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 4, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Explain weasel ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 4, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Nope, it's just foolishness to think their dating methods are accurate when many times they have been shown to be unreliable and they are based off faulty assumptions.

If you want to know the faulty assumptions look them up yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Observation is very important in science no ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 4, 2013)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You have had zero what is your point ?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


ATTENTION......! THE EXTREME BULLSHIT ALERT HAS SOUNDED....


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Weasels /&#712;wi&#720;z&#601;l/ are mammals forming the genus Mustela of the Mustelidae family. The genus includes the weasels, European polecats, stoats, ferrets and European minks. They are small, active predators, long and slender with short legs. The Mustelidae family (which also includes skunks, badgers, otters and wolverines) is often referred to as the weasel family. In the UK, the term "weasel" usually refers to the smallest species Mustela nivalis (also known as the least weasel).[1]
Weasels vary in length from 173 to 217 mm (6.8 to 8.5 in),[2] females being smaller than the males, and usually have red or brown upper coats and white bellies; some populations of some species moult to a wholly white coat in winter. They have long, slender bodies, which enable them to follow their prey into burrows. Their tails may be from 34 to 52 mm (1.3 to 2.0 in) long.[2] Weasels have a reputation for cleverness, quickness and guile.
Weasels feed on small mammals, and have from time to time been considered vermin, since some species took poultry from farms, or rabbits from commercial warrens. They can be found all across the world except for Antarctica, Australia, and neighbouring islands.


AM I going to fast for you?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


everytime I search faulty assumptions ...I get creationist sites....
search engine companies must be part of the conspiracy too!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


objective  informed observation is...
the shit you claim to be observation is not.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 4, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No surprise here. The typical groundless claims.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 5, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



I am going to make the same challenge to you as I do to every creationist I come across on the internet.  I challenge you to meet me in the field where were can both examine the geologic evidence first hand.  I am a geologist who lives in Kentucky, unfortunately on a fixed income, so any place we meet must be within 50 miles of my home.  Sorry, that's the best I can do, but I promise you that if you agree to meet, you will find out how little you actually understand about geology.  What say you?  Put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I did produce the evidence.  It is at the link I provided:

Index of /neandertal/altai/bam


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Meet me in the field, and I can show you how it is done.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 5, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



1) If they were so fraught with error, do you honestly believe that thousands of scientists at hundreds of laboratories across the planet would even waste their time using those methods?

2) If you are so comfortable in your young earth belief, you won't have any problem going into the field with me and seeing the evidence first hand.  What say you?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Radiometric dating is based on the exact same physics that gave us the atomic bomb and nuclear energy.  In order to refute radiometric dating, you have to first refute Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Fukushima.  Got anything like that?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Right, which is why I keep inviting you to go into the field with me and see the evidence first hand.  What's the matter, grasshopper?  Are you afraid of doing some observing?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


The point is thumpie, you're wrong, as usual.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



This is more of the nonsense that creationist are forced to retreat to. As usual, ywc is left with nothing but unfounded, unverified and baseless claims aimed at "they" who he claims are using "faulty assumptions".  A glance through what the charlatans at the ICR try to pass off to the religious extremists tells us exactly where the gullible find such ID'iosy. 

There's no indication and no specifics regarding who "they" are or what those "faulty assumptions" are. It's just more of the defensive posturing that ID'iot creationist fall back on when their false claims and attacks on science are refuted.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 5, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



That is what I thought.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I never claimed to be a Geologist but I can quickly learn how to interpret geological evidence. Like Fossil graveyards all over the world showing fossils in the wrong strata. We know strata can be formed in a short period and does not need millions of years that are claimed.

What do you think you can show me that will change my mind on empirical evidence ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



What was your point ? When I said nearest ancestor I really meant the common ancestor. You still need to show how new genes are added to the genome not a new trait and or function from a previous existing gene.

You can't turn an ape with 37 genes in the Y chromosome in to a human with 78 genes in the same chromosome.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 5, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have seen enough concerning dating methods to know they are unreliable.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


"Fosills in the wrong strata" is a stereotypical creationist claim that derives from ignorance of geology and earth history. 

Less Henry Morris and more education in the physical sciences makes the extremist a better student.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Actually, no. Your previous denials and conspiracy theories indicate you reject dating methods because they confound your 6,000 year old fantasy.


You rail against the fosill record and dating methods in particular because they are the most visible of the contradictions to biblical timelines.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 5, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



The age of the earth is not a problem for creationists whether the earth is four and half billion years old or only 6,000 it does not matter to me. I do however find it entertaining that creationists purposely sent objects to be dated to labs and these objects had a known age. They did not just use one lab but several for the same evidence. It was funny how diverse the ages were.

I am concerned with origins. How it was possible life could come from non-life. How complex organisms could have formed without direction. How complicated cycles could have arisen naturally. How one cell could have organized itself and to continue to evolve in to all organisms that have ever existed. How all the molecular machines in the cell just evolved themselves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You don't even understand that the Earth is not an isolated system, how could you understand any of those other things?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What is clear is that none of that is true.  If it was, it would have made headlines all over the world, instead of only in the tiny heads of you and your pathetic creationist buddies.  Dude, in order to refute radiometric dating, you have to refute the physics that made possible the atomic bomb and nuclear energy.  Got anything like that?  Of course you don't.

By the way, if you don't care how old the Earth is, why did you try to refute it with that not so white lie you told?

Nearly all of the precursor molecules of life have already been shown to have the ability to form outside of life in the natural world.  Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that it doesn't take a leap of faith to go one or more steps further?  That is where the data is leading us.  How will you react when that final gap in our knowledge is filled, only to find that god wasn't necessary to explain it?  Aren't you going to feel a bit foolish?  Yeah, you're right, probably not.  Denial, I know, it's a bitch.

Oh, and if the ultimate origin of life is your quest, why are you so dumbstruck about the theory of evolution, which isn't about the ultimate origin of life?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Why don't you just admit that you don't know anything about dating?  It is clear to everyone that you don't.

If they were unreliable, there wouldn't be a scientist on the planet who would use them.  Contrary to what you may have heard, we aren't stupid.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



For starters I can prove to you that the fossils aren't in the wrong strata, that the people who make that kind of claim are lying to you.  Contrary to what you apparently believe, geologists have a deep and abiding understanding of how to analyze strata and the fossils  contained in them.  Strata can form fairly rapidly.  Stream sediments are formed fairly rapidly all the time.  Marine carbonate strata, not rapidly at all.  You are forgetting that we can and have studied modern strata all over the world and compared them with ancient strata from all over the world.  How they form is very well understood.  But then, you aren't trying to prove a young Earth, are you?  So why does it matter to you how long it takes for strata to form?

If you can quickly learn how to interpret geological evidence, then you would have no problem doing so on a field trip with me.  Come on, grasshopper.  What are you afraid of?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


really?, then why did you ask for a description of weasels?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 5, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...






a quick search revealed that all claims of fossils being in the wrong strata are made by creationists not by credible  geologists or paleontologists.....wonder why that is.  ?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 5, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Yeah, like god created man in his image, that DNA is God's created instructions, and that the second law of thermo forbids the existance of life.... like that bs.....

You are absolutely right, Creationists passing themselves as scientists is complete bs.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I never said the earth is an isolated system, if I did it was a mistake. I stated to many times That I believe it is a closed system.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Really ? you have visited all the fossil graveyards in the world ?

Evidence for a Global Flood


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

Well Not much to respond to. Dang nobody wants to talk genetics nor molecular biology anymore. Well can't really blame you.

Genetics: No Friend of Evolution - Answers in Genesis

Uh oh time is a problem for evolutionists as well.

Time?no friend of evolution


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

Well let's just ignore the facts.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It isn't a closed system, either.  Try again.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I have studied the literature on most of them, and have visited most of the important sites in the states.  Global flood?  You've lost your mind.  You might as well say that you believe in a hollow Earth or a flat Earth, that's how crazy that is.  Field trip?  Yes or no?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Well Not much to respond to. Dang nobody wants to talk genetics nor molecular biology anymore. Well can't really blame you.
> 
> Genetics: No Friend of Evolution - Answers in Genesis
> 
> ...



Answers in Genesis = no friend of science.  No doubt, you also believe that the Flintstones is a documentary.  Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Well let's just ignore the facts.



You're good at doing just that.  Field trip?  Yes or no?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Well Not much to respond to. Dang nobody wants to talk genetics nor molecular biology anymore. Well can't really blame you.
> ...



Ywc subscribes to the Ken "_Creation Museum_" Ham school of earth history where humans in buckskin outfits frolicked with dinosaurs. 

And how cool is this - he and his ilk would like to force Christian based ID'iot creationism into the public school system.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Well Not much to respond to. Dang nobody wants to talk genetics nor molecular biology anymore. Well can't really blame you.
> 
> Genetics: No Friend of Evolution - Answers in Genesis
> 
> ...



You fail to understand that when you link to such mindless prattle as promoted by the Flat Earth types above, it suggests your knowledge of biology is similarly meaningless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If it's a closed system, if can receive energy and entropy can be reduced.
So your claim about complexity was wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Some say it is a closed and I posted the reasons why it is a closed system.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No I have not lost my mind .I am no different than you. I can be affected by my presuppositions anyone who say's they are not is not being honest.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Well Not much to respond to. Dang nobody wants to talk genetics nor molecular biology anymore. Well can't really blame you.
> ...



Evidence is no friend of pseudoscience. That is why it is easy to poke big gaping holes in  pseudoscience theories.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Well let's just ignore the facts.
> ...



Are you paying ?

What do you hope to convince me of ? and why can't you provide this evidence here ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Well Not much to respond to. Dang nobody wants to talk genetics nor molecular biology anymore. Well can't really blame you.
> ...



Then you should be able to deal with the questions raised.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Energy is only one source that supports life.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So your claim about complexity was wrong.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You posted a link to an article discussing the closed nature of plate tectonics, which is not the same as the thermodynamics of the Earth as a whole, particularly as it pertains to the biosphere.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, sir you are completely different.  You have lost your mind if you believe that the last vestige of 19th century catastrophism (the so-called global flood) has any validity today.  I can't be kind about this because it is clear that you DO believe that the Flintstones is a documentary, and that is insane.

FIELD TRIP?  YES OR NO?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


What questions were raised?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are deluded if you think that Ken Ham's monstrosity is anything other than a serious attempt to rip off gullible and, frankly, stupid people such as yourself.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Am I paying for you to go on a field trip with me?  Erm, no, that would mean that you are a cheap bastard who believes that education is free and teachers should not get paid for their considerable efforts.  You aren't a cheap bastard, are you?  Look, I've offered to lend my considerable knowledge and experience to show you in the field how geology actually works, and I've offered this free of charge.  How many other Earth scientists have made you this offer?  You cannot get hands on experience from a book or a web site.  You have to go into the field and see it, touch it, smell it, do the field work.  There is no other way.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


i·so·lat·ed [ &#63307;ss&#601; làyt&#601;d ]   
remote: far away from other inhabited areas or buildings
alone or lonely: not having enough social contact, friends, or support
rare: happening rarely or only once and unlikely to prove a continuing problem
Synonyms: remote, cut off, inaccessible, lonely, out-of-the-way, secluded, insulated, quarantined, sequestered

closed (kl zd) adj. 1. Having boundaries; enclosed: a closed corridor between the two buildings. 2. Blocked or barred to passage or entry: a closed port.
once again YWC cannot or will not see that both words describe the same thing and in this case ,it's an erroneous description.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


biased content based on a false premise
the False Premise, though more often than not used in the context of a logical argument, and therefore as a component of specious reasoning.

Simply put, the false premise is a statement, claim, fact or assertion that is simply not true, and which thus renders any argument using it automatically invalid unsound or non-cogent.

A false premise can range from a simple myth or misconception that is held out of ignorance, willful or otherwise, to a claim or statement of belief resulting from a delusion, to a blatant, intentional prevarication, and this form of argument is often a common rhetorical tactic by pseudoscientists.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong you posted specious speculation you wish was fact..


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


cheap is being kind..ywc yammers on constantly about how he hit it big at his gold mine...
but then again he say he has 8 children....
he's either a miserly fuck and a liar or just a liar !


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 6, 2013)

YWC, how geologic strata are dated using the radiometric method, and what those age/dates can tell us aside from the age of strata:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~earthsci/People/meyerNEGSA05.pdf


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No I posted several. Is the earth experiencing entropy or no ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



A field trip will not show many anything I have not read about. There is no point my mind is made up.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



It don't matter what creationist it is you people are whacked when it comes to their views even though they fit the evidence better.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I was joking, I can afford my own way there.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Why do you waste your time daws ? you are not willing to learn.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Anything is considered specious that does not fit your philosophy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

daws101 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes I have 8 children ,and have been successful financially, and I don't lie. That is why I live on a mountain top overlooking beautiful Prescott Az.

It's also why I have so much time to try and educate some fools.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 6, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> YWC, how geologic strata are dated using the radiometric method, and what those age/dates can tell us aside from the age of strata:
> 
> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~earthsci/People/meyerNEGSA05.pdf



It has been shown that Radioisotope Dating is not a reliable method. It has also been shown strata can be formed over a short time span does not need the assumption it takes millions of years. It also has been shown that fossils can also form in a short time span.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


not for the reasons you wish it was...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 comedy is never a waste of time.
learn what? you've nothing to teach.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


no that would be your philosophy ...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 you lie constantly they may not be your own lies, but they are lies just the same..
which make you worse than a liar...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > YWC, how geologic strata are dated using the radiometric method, and what those age/dates can tell us aside from the age of strata:
> ...


bullshit 
creationist jack offs spewing misinformation is not "showing" jack shit..
lets see their test data proving that it's not reliable...
that's right you have none ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Fool, educate thyself.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 6, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


the arrogance of the ignorant!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



How do humans  have 41 completely new genes in the Y chromosome if we are apes ? apes have no mechanism to completely build a new gene.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Look you are a bitter mental midget, move along.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You are one to speak.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Fair enough, when I have time I will provide that evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 7, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Bingo ! you have accurately described yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, when I see your poor understanding of physics, I am one to speak.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > YWC, how geologic strata are dated using the radiometric method, and what those age/dates can tell us aside from the age of strata:
> ...



No, YWC it is has not been shown to be unreliable at all.  Again, thousands of scientists and hundreds of laboratories across the entire planet (in nearly every country) use these methods with great success, and have for decades.  The only ones who don't believe they work are YECs, and they aren't scientists, and no one actually cares what they think on the matter. For you to believe that the world's scientists would use these methods on a daily basis despite them allegedly being unreliable tells me that you think that scientists are stupid whereas you people with no scientific training and experience whatsoever are not.  And I find that to be incredulous, to say the least.  Particularly since you refuse to get off your ass and get into the field to see what the facts actually are.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Great.  When?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 7, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The number of genes in a Y chromosome does not an ape make.  In other words, it matters not how many genes are in a Y chromosome.  That is not what determines whether a species is or is not an ape.  And why are you repeating the same answered question over and over again?  Do you know what Einstein said about people who do that?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Listen, let's get something straight. The dating methods have been tested with objects with known ages. Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested. It is an assumption they are accurate that is all it is. No one was there to know so you're assuming they are accurate. Ignoring evidence that contradicts the methods used.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You would be wasting both of our time because I have laid out the reasons I don't and won't trust them. I have empirical evidence I would have to ignore for an assumption. Seriously,the age of the earth does not really matter even though I believe the earth is not as old as claimed. No one can prove the age of the earth or the universe, once again these views are based on presuppositions and assumptions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 9, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You do not understand the importance of the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome helps determine ancestry. You say it doesn't make an ape in a way it does, mostly the Y chromosome determines ancestry. You still need to show how a completely new gene can be added  to the Y chromosome.

"Why is the Y chromosome important?

    Because the Y chromosome cannot easily swap information with the X chromosome, the Y chromosome in a man's sperm will be an almost exact copy of the Y chromosome in his body's cells. Therefore, any sons the man fathers will also carry this same Y chromosome.

    Polymorphisms in a man's Y chromosome are also passed directly on to his sons, and then on to their sons and so on. These polymorphisms mark a man's Y chromosome and distinguish it from those of other men. As scientists know approximately how often certain kinds of mutations occur they can look for these and determine how closely related any two men are. The more Y chromosome polymorphisms two men share, the more recently they had a common ancestor. Y chromosomes in men living today thus retain a record of the chromosome's passage through time. They can reveal paternal ancestry and show relationships between different groups of men.

Genetics and Identity

But there is more on this myth of 2% difference in Dna similarity between chimps and humans that is a lie.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 9, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So is the earth considered orderly or chaotic and experiencing an increase in disorder ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested. *

Sounds like a fairy tale.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you understood physics, you should understand that you can have areas of decreasing entropy, even though the entropy of the Universe is increasing.

But you don't, obviously.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Let's be clear and completely frank about this.  The eleven different radiometric and radiation dating methods have been used by thousands of scientists in hundreds of labs all over the world for over 50 years with great success, and high precision.  There is nothing unambiguous about the science, which is based on the exact same physics as the atomic bomb and nuclear energy.  You'd have to be a complete idiot to argue against the precision of these methods.  Your "no one was there" argument is the dumbest one you people ever make.  You really need a new line, because, damn!

Field trip?  Yes or no?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You offer no source for your claims. That's not surprising as your earlier refutation of dating methods amounted to a cut and paste article from the ICR.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And this is why you have no credibility whatsoever.  You don't have the education, nor the experience, and yet make claims which you not only cannot support, you ignore all efforts to enlighten you; and when someone freely offers you the requisite field experience (which you absolutely must have if you are to have any understanding of geology - I would bet good money that I could hand you 10 common rocks, and you would only be able to identify, at most, three of them, and even fewer of the minerals that they contain), you turn it down purely out of ignorance and fear.  You might as well keep your head stuck in the sand because coming up for air isn't doing you any good.  You have my sympathy.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Dr. Jay?  Really?  OMG!  Did you know that, by his own admission, he is an Arminianist?

Arminianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I read his PhD dissertation, and I must say that I am completely unimpressed.  What's more, the man hasn't published any original peer reviewed work since, but has instead written creationist homeschool text books because that is apparently the only work he can get.

Here is what one parent has said about his textbooks:

Homeschooling and evolution « Why Evolution Is True

Homeschooling and evolution


One of the best things about having written WEIT is that I hear from various people with whom Id normally not have any contact.  Im not referring to creationists, but to thoughtful people who write with their concerns about evolution.  One of them emailed me about her difficulties teaching evolution to a homeschooled child:




> Dear Dr. Coyne,
> 
> I am writing in light of your recent book, Why Evolution is True which my daughter and I are preparing to read. I have homeschooled my very science oriented daughter, who is now xxxx, since she was very young because the schools could not deal with or understand her dual exceptionality of profound giftedness and dyslexia.  The greatest challenges we have faced in homeschooling is that all of the truly parent friendly materials for teaching science for homeschoolers take a Creationist stance. I thought you should be made aware of a growing problem in homeschooling, if you are not already.
> 
> ...


I have looked over the Apologia website, and I am absolutely appalled.  First of all, the organizations formal name is  Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., with the motto Live, Learn, and Defend the Faith.  Of course that sets off alarm bells.  The alarms get louder when you look at what they offer.

First, check out the store, with its suggested science curriculum.  Here are the supplementary readings for science oriented students. Note that they are all about either evolution or Christianity:


These OPTIONAL supplemental readings for science-oriented students do not replace the main courses listed. They merely give your student additional science material to learn if your student is interested. Here are some suggestions:
 Supplement I 
&#9726; Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!,  Dr. Duane T. Gish, Master Books paperback ISBN 0890511128
&#9726; Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity,  Dr. Jay L. Wile, Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., Paperback ISBN 0965629406

 Supplement II 
&#9726; What is Creation Science,  Dr. Henry M. Morris and Dr. Gary E. Parker, Master Books, Paperback ISBN 0890510814

 Supplement III 
&#9726; Evolution: A Theory In Crisis,  Michael Denton, Adler & Adler, Paperback ISBN 091756152X
&#9726; Darwins Black Box,  Michael Behe, Touchstone Books, Hardcover ISBN 0684827549, Paperback ISBN 0684834936

 Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?  Dixy Lee Ray, Regnery Gateway, Hardcover ISBN 0895265125, Paperback ISBN 0060975

The table of contents of the Evolution Module tells you that the kids are not in for good instruction in evolutionary biology:


MODULE #9: Evolution: Part Scientific Theory, Part Unconfirmed Hypothesis . 261
 Introduction .261
 Charles Darwin262
 Darwins Theory .264
 Microevolution and Macroevolution..267
 Inconclusive Evidence: The Geological Column270
 The Details of the Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macroevolution..273
 The Cambrian Explosion.280
 Structural Homology: Formerly Evidence for Macroevolution, Now Evidence against It..282
 Molecular Biology: The Nail in Macroevolutions Coffin..285
 Macroevolution Today .289
 Why Do So Many Scientists Believe in Macroevolution?..293

This could easily have been taken straight out of Jon Wells attacks on evolution.  Finally, if you look at some sample pages of their book, you see them reverting to the insane pastime of baraminology, in which creationists desperately (and fruitlessly) try to figure out which animals and plants correpond to the created kinds of Genesis.  At least they recognize that this field is going nowhere:


As you will learn when we study the hypothesis of evolution in depth, there is precious little evidence for such an idea and quite a bit of evidence against it. As a result, it does not make sense to us to base a classification system on such a tenuous hypothesis. Instead, it makes more sense to base our classification system on the observable similarities among organisms. This is the essence of what Carrolus Linnaeus developed in the 1700s, and it has served biology well since that time. Since we have touched on a classification system that has been inspired by the hypothesis of evolution, we should at least mention a classification system that has been proposed by those who believe that the earth and the life on it were specially created out of nothing by God. This classification system, usually called baraminology (bear uh min ol uh jee), attempts to determine the kinds of creatures that God specifically created on earth. Indeed, the word baraminology comes from two Hebrew words used in Genesis: bara, which means create, and min, which means kind. Thus, baraminology is the study of created kinds.

Those who work with baraminology think that God created specific kinds of creatures and that He created them with the ability to adapt to their changing environment. As time went on, then, these created kinds did change within strict limits that we will discuss later on in the course. This led to a greater diversity of life on the planet than what existed right after creation. As a result, baraminologists think that all organisms we see on the planet today came from one of the many kinds of creatures that God created during the creation period discussed in the first chapter of Genesis. Baraminologists, then, try to define groupings called baramins. Any organisms that exist within a baramin came from the same originally-created organism. For example, some baraminologists place domesticated dogs, wild dogs, and wolves into the same baramin because they believe that God created a basic kind of creature called a dog, and the various forms of dogs and wolves that we see today are simply the result of that basic kind of creature adapting to a changing environment. Although we think that there is a lot of evidence in favor of this new classification scheme, we still do not think that it should be used in this course. It is still relatively new and not fully developed. We doubt that it will be fully developed for many, many years to come. As a result, we think that the five-kingdom system still provides the best overall means by which to classify the organisms of Gods creation, and we will limit ourselves to that system. Nevertheless, we will mention the other systems (the three-domain system and baraminology) from time to time, so it is important that you understand the basics of each.

It is ineffably sad that children, eager to learn, are having this nonsense stuffed down their throats, and that there seem to be few viable alternatives if you want to homeschool your child.  Ive given my correspondent some hints about what materials might be useful, but if any of you know of other ways to do this, or have experience homeschooling your children in genuine evolutionary biology, let me know.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> You would be wasting both of our time because I have laid out the reasons I don't and won't trust them. I have empirical evidence I would have to ignore for an assumption. Seriously,the age of the earth does not really matter even though I believe the earth is not as old as claimed. No one can prove the age of the earth or the universe, once again these views are based on presuppositions and assumptions.



Yeah... your lack on knowledge doesn't equate to others lacking knowledge.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 awwww did the truth bruise your ego!?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 9, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


The few reviews of books and films that I've posted here have been generally raves, largely because I tend to know in advance what I'm likely to enjoy, and secondly because the stuff I that bores me usually isn't worth a comment.

This time it's different. 

Exploring Creation with General Science by Dr. Jay L. Wile is execrable, but requires more than a few comments. Part of a whole "Exploring Creation" series of Creationist home-schooling "science" textbooks by Jay Wile, this text displays a mixture of (apparent) ignorance of many scientific fields, along with the usual Creationist mix of crooked rhetorical fallacies, open-pit quote-mining, demonization of scientists, pious fraud apologetics, and dirty filthy damned lies. What I personally find most infuriating about this book is that it's supposed to be an introduction to science for kids. 

There ought to be an specially hot circle of Hell for people like Wile who lie to children to keep them faithfully ignorant.

I have this book because my daughter deals in used books, buying cheap and reselling on eBay. One horrible book she couldn't bear to see going to some poor Christian homeschooler, so she gave it as a curiosity to her atheist daddy, instead. I brought Exploring Creation with General Science with me when I moved to the Philippines last year, along with most of my personal library, and finally ran out of good books and got around to reading it. My edition is the seventh printing, copyright 2006.

It's only fair to state up front that I am not in any serious manner a scientist. My comments are those of a fairly informed layman who has followed science for more than fifty years. I have read many popular science books and quite a few textbooks in my time. Exploring Creation with General Science should not be confused with either of those kinds of books. It's intellectual child abuse.

Please permit me first to go ad hom on Dr. Jay L. Wile. Well, this isn't really ad hominem, because sometimes it really is important to point out the habitual dishonesty of someone as one reason his statements should be viewed with special skepticism.

Wile holds a PhD in Nuclear Chemistry, but does no scientific research. Instead, he "writes home school curriculum and Christian apologetics material." He's a Global Warming denier (PDF file). Wile appears to be the owner of Apologia Online Ministries, Inc. Wile is also Andy Schlafly's go-to psuedoscientist for Conservapedia. Per Wikipedia:
In an analysis in early 2007, science writer Carl Zimmer found evidence that much of what appeared to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory could be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Dr. Jay L. Wile.
Simply put, Wile has a penchant for lies and distortion, and seems to make good money doing it.

Wile's biases in writing are Young Earth Creationism, anti-Big Bang, Catastrophism (featuring the Noah's Flood myth) over Uniformitarianism, distrust of scientists ("... because the majority of scientists today are not Christian), and dismissal of radiometric dating ("... usually very unreliable"). His Index has 28 references to "God" and two to "Darwin" (one to "Charles Darwin" and the other to "Charles R. Darwin"). You will probably have noted that Wiles' denigration of radiometric dating is an odd thing to come from someone with a doctorate in nuclear chemistry. It is odd, unless that nuclear chemist is more interested in serving his god through pious fraud and/or selling Bronze Age mythology posing as modern "science" texts for kids, than in telling the truth as he knows it.

Here are some of Wile's statements:

On pages 17 and 18, Wile alleges that not only were all the scientific figures of the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance Christians, but he boldly states that it was their very Christianity that made them great scientists.
Notice that each of the great scientists of this era were devout Christians. In fact, they were all clergy (priests, bishops, etc.) of the Roman Catholic church. As you read through the rest of this module, you will notice that, with a few notable exceptions, most of the great scientists from the Dark Ages to modern times were devoted Christians. One again, that is because the Christian worldview is a perfect fit with science. Science is based upon the notion that the world works according to rational laws that do not change. Since Christians believe in a rational Creator whose laws do not change, science and Christianity work very well together.

That last statement surprises some people. Some people actually believe that science and Christianity are at odds with one another. Unfortunately, that myth has developed recently, mostly because the majority of scientists today are not Christian. However, even a quick look at science history tells us that without Christianity, science would never have gotten out of the Dark Ages. The Christian worldview was essential in turning trial-and-error observations into real science. The more you learn about the history of science, the more you will see that this is the case!
Many, many pages of this "science textbook" are devoted to direct Biblical quotations and discussions of those by Wile that try to paint the Bible as an ultimate "scientific" authority.

Wile often pretends to be equitably presenting rival "scientific theories," as when he compares Creationism to evolution, Catastrophism to Uniformitarianism, "let there be light" to the Big Bang. But he always takes care to set up straw-man versions of accepted scientific theories. He unjustifiably promotes his favored conjectures to "theory" status while vastly exaggerating the number of scientists who subscribe to these myths and pseudoscience concoctions.

Haughtily wrapping himself in a false flag of scientific skepticism, Wile warns his students (page 32) against reliance on authorities with this example of a student exercise, along with the "right" answer:
ON YOUR OWN

1.4 Dr. Steven Hawking is one of the most brilliant scientists of the decade. He believes in a theory called "the big bang." This theory tries to describe how the universe was formed. If your friend tells you that you should believe in the big bang because Dr. Hawking is so smart and he believes in it, what famous example from the history of science should you tell your friend?

. . .

1.4 Despite the fact that Dr. Hawking is brilliant, he can be wrong, just like many brilliant scientists. The story of spontaneous generation tells how Aristotle was wrong, despite the fact that he was the greatest thinker of his time. The story of the Ptolemaic system also tells how a great thinker turned out wrong. Either story should illustrate that we should not make scientific decisions based on people. Instead, we should make them based on data.
All quite true, but somehow less convincing when stated by a religious apologist who consistently ignores scientific data in favor of the unquestionable authority of the ancient myths of people.

Page 176:
3. Many of the fossils we find are of plants and animals which are still alive today. Some of the fossils we find are of plants and animals which are now extinct.

[Emphasis added.]
Notice Wile's sly use of the words, "many" and "some." In point of fact, living species represented in the fossil record are far better described as "few," while extinct species found there are "many." Wikipedia states:
Most extinctions occur naturally, without human intervention: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.
Surely, Wile knew better than to write what he did.

Page 197:
Of course, you have to remember that the geological column itself is simply a theoretical construct. It doesn't actually exist anywhere. It is based on certain assumptions and a particular way of looking at the geological record. If the assumptions upon which it is based are not true, then the Theory of Evolution is not true, either.

[Emphasis added.]
False dichotomy, or in stage magic, a "forced card." If the concept of a geological column were false, then the geological column itself would not support (or contradict) evolution. Evolution would have to stand upon the hundreds of other pillars of knowledge that help make it such a firm scientific theory. (And, of course, if evolution itself were falsified, that would hardly prove that Yahweh magically poofed life into existence a few thousand years ago!)

Page 212:
Look at the sketch of what Archeopteryx may have looked like. If you saw something like that today, what would you call it? You'd call it a bird. That's what Archeopteryx seems to be. It seems to be a bird with certain special features that no living bird today has.
That's pretty much in line with the Old Testament's listing of bats as birds. They also seem to be birds.

Page 231:
Overall, reproduction is God's way of ensuring that a type of living organism will not die out.
Page 356:
Dr. Michael Behe, one of the most respected scientists in the world. . .
Enough!

If all this crap weren't being force-fed to trusting and credulous children, I'd be laughing my ass off. As things stand, I'd rather be kicking Wile's lying ass.
I belive in the Separation of Church and Planet. Eric Idle

Skeptic Friends Network: A Creationist's "science" brainwashing textbook


----------



## LittleNipper (Sep 9, 2013)

The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact?

Posted on March 23, 2013

Geologic TimescaleWritten by: Paul Taylor


It is a fact that the geologic column shows all the layers of rock, in the order that they were formed over millions of years, thus proving the Bible to be wrong. Isn&#8217;t it?

No, it isn&#8217;t. In fact, the geologic column is a construct&#8212;a composite picture compiled from data from lots of different places. If you examine rock structures found anywhere in the world, you will not find all the layers mentioned in the geologic column anywhere. There are a handful of places in the world where there seem to be representative portions from all the systems mentioned in the traditional geologic column, but even in these places, many actual layers are completely missing from the picture. In that sense, it is correct to say that the only place in the world where the complete geologic column can actually be found is in geology textbooks.


Well, it&#8217;s a fact that the rocks in the geologic column are arranged in order of age, so the composite picture must be true. Isn&#8217;t it?

No, it isn&#8217;t. If you look at an individual rocky outcrop, it is certainly usually the case that the higher-up rock is likely to be younger than the lower rock. However, this says nothing about the supposed timescale of the geologic column. For example, it is quite common to find fault lines where lots of layers of rock are bent and curved together. Yet these layers supposedly represent millions of years. But, in order for the folding and curving to occur across these layers, they must all have been still plastic when the folding occurred. Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old, and the age difference between higher and lower rocks in these structures can only be days, rather than millions of years

Read more at The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact? - Creation RevolutionCreation Revolution


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact?
> 
> Posted on March 23, 2013
> 
> ...



*many actual layers are completely missing from the picture*

Yes, erosion can do that.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 9, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact?
> 
> Posted on March 23, 2013
> 
> ...


STATEMENT OF FAITH
The Scriptures
We believe that the 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout, in that holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the very words of Scripture. It is without error (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself, and that Scripture is our final authority. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture.
The Trinity
We believe in the one true and living God: one God, three PersonsGod the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. He is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable.
God the Father: God, as Father, reigns over all of His universe with providential care and is all powerful, all loving, all knowing, and all wise. (Gen 1:1; 1 Chr 29:10; Jer 10:10; Matt 6:9; Acts 1:7; Rom 8:14-15; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 4:6)
God the Son: We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man without ceasing to be God, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, in order that He might reveal God and redeem sinful man. He accomplished this redemption by voluntarily giving Himself as a sinless, substitutionary sacrifice on the cross, thereby satisfying Gods righteous judgment against sin. After substantiating the accomplishment of that redemption and justification by His bodily resurrection from the grave, He ascended to the right hand of His Father, where He intercedes on behalf of those who trust Him. (Luke 1:34-35; John 1:1, 2, 14, 18; Rom 3:24-26; 8:3)
God the Holy Spirit: We believe that the Holy Spirit is the Divine Person who convicts the world of sin; that He alone brings new life to those who are spiritually dead; that He baptizes, indwells, seals, bestows spiritual gifts, and fills those who are yielding to Him. Every believer is called to live in the power of the Holy Spirit so that he will not fulfill the lust of the flesh but will bear fruit to the glory of God. (John 3:3-8; 14:16-17; 16:7-11; 2 Cor 12:7-11, 13; Eph 4:30; 5:18)
Creation
We believe that man was created directly by God and in His image. We believe that God created the heavens and the earth, including all life, by direct act in six literal 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago (Gen 1:1; John 1:3; Col 1:16-17).
The simple but factual account of origins as presented in Genesis provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential with the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The Flood
We believe that the great Flood in the days of Noah was a literal worldwide flood exactly as recorded in Genesis 6-8.
Man
Although the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve, were created in the image of God, their fall into sin is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind. Death, both physical and spiritual, entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of mans sin. This is true of all men; and all men are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually by choice and are therefore subject to Gods wrath and condemnation. Except a man be born again by the Holy Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (Gen 1:26-27; John 3:3; Rom 3:10, 23)
The Devil  Satan
We believe that Satan is a person, the author of sin, a liar and the father of lies, and the reason for the fall of man, and is destined to the judgment of an eternal punishment in the lake of fire. He is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man. (Matt 4:1-3; Acts 5:3; 2 Cor 4:4; John 8:44; Rev 20:10)
Atonement for Sin
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures as a substitutionary sacrifice and that all who believe in Him are redeemed by His shed blood. We believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord Jesus Christ and in His ascension into heaven; He is our High Priest and Advocate. (John 1:1-3, 14; 3:1-7; Heb 10:4-14; 1 John 2:2)
Salvation
We believe that salvation is the gift of Gods grace alone and is expressed in the individuals repentance, recognition of Christs death as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as as Savior. Salvation cannot be gained or made more secure by meritorious works, but is freely bestowed upon all who put their faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary. All who so trust the Savior are forgiven of their sins and born into the family of God by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through Christs sacrificial death, His shed blood, and His complete and bodily resurrection from the dead. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting punishment. Believers enjoy eternal life with God. (John 1:12; Acts 16:30-33; Rom 10:9-10; Eph 1:7; 2:8-9)
The Christian Walk
We believe that we have a holy calling to walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit, and so to live in the power of the Spirit in order that we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. The flesh is never eradicated in this life. Individuals must choose to keep the flesh in subjection to Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, or the flesh will surely manifest its presence in life and dishonor our Lord. (Rom 6:11-13; 8:2, 4, 12-13; Gal 5:16-23; Eph 4:22-24; Col 2:1-10; 1 Pet 1:14-16; 1 John 1:4-7; 3:5-9)
The Great Commission
Until the return of Christ, it is the Christians duty and privilege to seek the fulfillment of Christs Great Commission and to minister in His name to a needy world. We are to be instruments of Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit ministers redemption and reconciliation in the world. (Matt 25:31-46; 28:18-20)
Secondary Doctrinal Issues
As parachurch ministry, we realize that we cannot take a stand on every issue. We also recognize that there are secondary doctrinal issues, on which a parachurch ministry like ours cannot take a position. The reason for this is that there are Bible-believing Christians, whose authority on the subject of creation comes only from the Bible, who, nevertheless, differ on some of these secondary doctrinal issues. View our full statement.
Creation Today
Policies
Contact Us

the above self refutes any claim of scientific validity...


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 9, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact?
> 
> Posted on March 23, 2013
> 
> ...



That was apparently written by a guy who flunked rocks for jocks (geology 101), except that there is no evidence that he ever took a geology class.  Paul Taylor is the Director of Ministry Development with Creation Today.  He is not a geologist, nor a scientist, and apparently never took a geology class in his life.  If he had, he would have discovered that no one has ever said that the geologic column is anything other than a reconstruction of geologic time BASED ON OVER 200 YEARS 0F GEOLOGIC FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND LABORATORY ANALYSES.  As I have repeatedly said, if you want to criticize the work, you have to do the work.  If you aren't willing to go into the field and see how it is done, or even take a geology class, then I'm sorry but your credibility is non-existent.  I might also add that if you look at ANY geologic map of any location on Earth, you won't find a single one that was drawn up by or else has original data collected, analyzed, and published by a creationist.  Gee, I wonder why that is?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 9, 2013)

Hey, did any of you creationists ever find that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian?

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That is exactly what many so called scientific theories are.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Not a physics major and never claimed to be. Give me an example and let's see how rational your thinking is.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Your supposed accuracy is based on assumption.don't you get it ? They are assuming the dating methods are accurate and have no way of proving their accuracy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Listen don't speak about something you know little about. It's a fact that the Y chromosome is important in proving ancestry.

Three Basic Types of DNA Testing:

    Y-Chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) reveals a man&#8217;s father&#8217;s father&#8217;s line. Y-DNA is conveyed virtually unchanged from father to son in the Y (male) chromosome without any maternal contribution. Only men have Y-DNA, so only men may contribute cells for Y-DNA testing. Female genealogists often persuade male relatives to contribute DNA in their behalf. Y-DNA results must be compared to another person&#8217;s Y-DNA results to help establish kinship. Quite logically, the closer are two people&#8217;s Y-DNA results, the closer is their relationship. The average mutation rate of individual Y-DNA markers is once every 500 years &#8211; or every 20 generations. This makes Y-DNA useful for many European and American genealogists, since the earliest use of surnames in Europe dates to between 500 and 800 years ago. Consequently, Y-DNA is the most genealogically useful DNA test. Several large, free, online Y-DNA databases already exist and are searchable for purposes of comparing your Y-DNA results to others&#8217;. Matches that are identical or differ by one or two marker values are considered relevant for genealogical comparisons. 

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wircgs/genetic_genealogy.html

I will ask you again. how did humans get so many more genes in the Y chromosome if they are related to apes ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > You would be wasting both of our time because I have laid out the reasons I don't and won't trust them. I have empirical evidence I would have to ignore for an assumption. Seriously,the age of the earth does not really matter even though I believe the earth is not as old as claimed. No one can prove the age of the earth or the universe, once again these views are based on presuppositions and assumptions.
> ...



If you want to call it that, have at it.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



According to your logic, the atomic bomb was based on assumptions, and not scientific observations.  Sonny, you should tell that to the Japanese.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



For the fiftieth time, you are asking the wrong question,  and that is because you don't understand anthropoid ape evolution.  Human beings didn't evolve from chimpanzees.  Humans and chimpanzees evolved from an earlier anthropoid ape.  The question you should be asking is why chimpanzees have fewer genes in their y chromosomes than humans.  And again, it doesn't matter whether humans have more or less genes in their chromosomes than other apes.  It still doesn't refute the fact that ALL are apes.  By the way, have you completed your analysis of the Neanderthal DNA from the pure data I provided to you?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Hey, did any of you creationists ever find that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian?
> 
> Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yccI3YXMYcc



If I were you, I would not use the fossil record as evidence for your Ideological belief. The fossil record is a mess in defending your theory.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMUdHnGf0ZI]The Truth About The Fossil Record Living Fossils Interview with Dr. Carl Werner - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Let's not confuse the process of making a nuclear bomb with the assumptions that our knowledge of atoms helps us determine the age of an object.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No there is no mechanism to add a completely new gene to the Y chromosome. Here again you're relying on faith it magically happened because you don't have a mechanism.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgbO18l5gZk]Radio Metric Dating and How it Works - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0h2sXzHls]Changes in Radioactive Decay Startles Physicists - Space News - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, did any of you creationists ever find that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian?
> ...



If I were you, I would not rely on what evangelical loose screws have to say about anything, much less what they have to say about the fossil record, of which they know less than nothing.

Evolution: What the Fossils ACTUALLY Say and Why It Matters


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



There is no confusion.  The physical processes that make the atomic bomb possible are the same physical processes that allow for the age determination in rocks and minerals.  Every scientist on the planet worth his or her credentials understands this.  The only ones who don't are religious idjuts such as yourself.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, did any of you creationists ever find that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian?
> ...


Even by your standards of stupidity, that conspiracy theory riddled bit of trash brought you to new levels of idiosy.


----------



## LittleNipper (Sep 10, 2013)

The naturalists still insist on a "Flood layer." What they fall to comprehend is that all the Fossils layers most likely represent the "Flood layer." And they need to consider the ramifications from there. And NO ONE except GOD knows the radiation levels that existed in the rocks, gravel, sand, and soil at the point of origin in God's creation. And this is what Creationist and Believers have always understood.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 10, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> The naturalists still insist on a "Flood layer." What they fall to comprehend is that all the Fossils layers most likely represent the "Flood layer." And they need to consider the ramifications from there. And NO ONE except GOD knows the radiation levels that existed in the rocks, gravel, sand, and soil at the point of origin in God's creation. And this is what Creationist and Believers have always understood.



What naturalists insist on a "Flood layer?


You write authoritatively on what the gods know/knew: NO ONE except GOD knows ...."

How do you know that?  Do you hear voices?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> The naturalists still insist on a "Flood layer." What they fall to comprehend is that all the Fossils layers most likely represent the "Flood layer." And they need to consider the ramifications from there. And NO ONE except GOD knows the radiation levels that existed in the rocks, gravel, sand, and soil at the point of origin in God's creation. And this is what Creationist and Believers have always understood.



What I understand rather well is that five minutes with me in the field will dispel any notion that any of that is true.  Then again, I've yet to get a single creationist to agree to go into the field with me.  Gee, I wonder why?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

NOVA | Evolution


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The entropy of the Sun is increasing.
The Sun's energy allows a plant to turn CO2 and H2O into sugar and cellulose.
See, decreasing entropy in a localized area without violating the 2nd Law.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You offer a video with artist renditions of your argument and the creationist use real fossils and you call the creationist loose screws


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > The naturalists still insist on a "Flood layer." What they fall to comprehend is that all the Fossils layers most likely represent the "Flood layer." And they need to consider the ramifications from there. And NO ONE except GOD knows the radiation levels that existed in the rocks, gravel, sand, and soil at the point of origin in God's creation. And this is what Creationist and Believers have always understood.
> ...



Stop with the baloney please,Geez.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Are you a scientist ?


----------



## Dante (Sep 10, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



A natural process by design and the sun is increasing in entropy,it's not just the sun increasing in entropy. Natural processes continue doing what they were designed to do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Not sure what you just said there.
Decreasing entropy in a localized area without violating the 2nd Law.
Do you understand?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



A natural process of supernatural "design"?

There's an inherent contradiction in a natural process requiring supermagical gawds. 

Were you thumped over the head at an early age?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Let me guess - you came to that conclusion based on viewing the thumbnail image of that video, and not by actually watching the video itself.  How fucking stupid is that?  When you actually watch the video and have valid questions, come back and we'll talk about it.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



You are living proof that what I've claimed there is true.  Want to refute it?  Go in the field with me.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes I am.  As I've said, I am a geologist with over 20 years of field experience, and am published?  You?  Of course you are not.  Next.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> NOVA | Evolution



Bump.

I highly recommend that everyone interested in evolution watch this program.  Yes, it is very long (nearly 2 hours), but IMHO, it is the best overall film discussing modern evolutionary theory that is available anywhere.  It addresses every issue that has been brought up in this thread and in fact, goes far beyond what has been discussed.  YWC, if you don't watch this film, then you have nothing to add to the dialogue, and should probably just run away.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 10, 2013)

"The Pocket Mouse is the Snickers Bar of the desert."

Best Quote.....


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > NOVA | Evolution
> ...



And, to make it just a bit more complicated;

NOVA | Epigenetics


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Don't you think the plant is actually the one that can take the suns energy not to much just enough and convert CO2 and H20 into sugar and cellulose ? The suns energy is used by the plant not the other way around. This is not decreasing entropy,this is a natural process that is Programmed in to the plant. Once again you ignore the genetic programming.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You think this video is a response to the questions raised in my video  ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



There is nothing you can show me that I have not read about. You can simply put it here, what you think you can show me to cause me to reject what I have already seen and believe.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > NOVA | Evolution
> ...



I have not seen you yet put up a convincing argument. You still have not shown me this ape to human evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Because it's on pbs it must be credible,I see.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*Don't you think the plant is actually the one that can take the suns energy not to much just enough and convert CO2 and H20 into sugar and cellulose ?*

Yes, I think plants can use the Sun's energy to turn CO2 and H2O into sugar and cellulose.

*The suns energy is used by the plant not the other way around.*

Right, the Sun does not use the energy of the plant.

*this is a natural process *

A natural process that decreases local entropy and does not violate the 2nd Law.

*This is not decreasing entropy*

The sugar and cellulose has more order and more energy than the H2O and CO2. That is decreasing entropy. Still don't understand?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It answers every question you ever raised in this thread, and likely many you never even thought of.  I didn't watch your video because the first 30 seconds told me it was a waste of time.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That is where you are wrong.  But you'll never know because you refuse to gain real life experience.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Humans ARE apes.  For you to deny this widely accepted and easily demonstrated fact only shows the rest of us that how friggin ignorant you are.  Watch the movie.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Because it presents the latest findings by REPUTABLE, well known and respected scientists (REAL SCIENTISTS).

You really should get out of your basement more.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


you're right, all pseudoscience theories  based on scripture (aka so called) are fairy tales..!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


 odd that you presume you have the skill set to judge who and what are rational when a quick check of your posts screams otherwise.
your hubris is showing...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, did any of you creationists ever find that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian?
> ...


[ame=http://creation.com/carl-werner]Carl Werner[/ame]


biased ..no credibility.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


more non evidence...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> NOVA | Evolution


good luck getting ywc to read or watch that, I posted it many times on the creationist thread and slapdick flat refused to watch any part of it....real science makes him shit his boxers.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 10, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dribbled like a basketball is more accurate....


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1f_VINHN_0]The Fail of Dr Carl Werner's method of Investigation, in the name of Creation Science. - YouTube[/ame]



> One of the books he wrote is "Evolution: The Grand Experiment".
> Link to an article about that book, in which he is debunked numerous times:
> 
> http://cafewitteveen.wordpress.com/...the-grand-experiment-a-book-review/#more-4342
> ...


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 10, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5kckGxwJr4]Flintstones Archaeology - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Look, whatever convinces you of ape to human evolution does not convince me. The Y chromosome is evidence I have repeatedly asked you about that you don't have an answer for. You attempted once to answer but the evidence did not address the question because you didn't understand what the evidence was you presented.

I took all the classes necessary to gain a degree in science and passed all those classes needed. Your videos is just more of the same ol arguments that I believe are baseless that is why I am now a creationist. The problem with most of you is that you don't know the difference between conjecture and actual empirical evidence or you don't realize the argument lacks empirical evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If you wish to believe this is decreasing entropy in a small area go ahead . No harm,no foul,The planet and universe is much larger, that is increasing entropy. We are just gonna have to agree to disagree concerning natural processes.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




Really ? over 11 years working in a lab is not a real life experience ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



We don't need an hour and half or more to convince you are wrong concerning darwinian evolution, It's pretty simple really.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHeSaUq-Hl8]David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

This was myself one day.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS5j3XccmUM]Atheist professor destroys evolution - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

Evolutionist pleading to their beloved theory.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDKO6XYXioc]Boyz II Men - End Of The Road - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Hollie (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Ah yes. Berlinski. Another creationist hack dragged out by Christian extremists peddling their ID'iosy.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for berlinski

As usual, religious extremists are forced to trot-out blowhards such as Berlinski who have no training in the biological sciences.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



BS.  Where, Liberty University?  Clue - ask for a refund, because, damn.



> Your videos is just more of the same ol arguments that I believe are baseless that is why I am now a creationist. The problem with most of you is that you don't know the difference between conjecture and actual empirical evidence or you don't realize the argument lacks empirical evidence.




You are a creationist because you are too stupid to be anything else.  I would sympathize with your plight except for the fact that you are apparently a self-made man.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> This was myself one day.
> 
> Atheist professor destroys evolution - YouTube



I'D'iots delight. 

There's a reason why creationist hacks tend to converge at organizations such as the Disco'tute where they become laughable caricatures. Can you guess why that is?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What lab where?  Being a janitor (or even a lab techy) doesn't qualify as "life experience" as a scientist working in the field of geology, biology, chemistry, or physics.  It certainly doesn't qualify you as a paleontologist or a field geologist.  Not even close.  And I can promise you that had you brought your god of the gaps belief in such nonsense into my lab, you'd have been canned, because, As Neil deGrasse Tyson said, you are "useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world".  Congratulations:


----------



## Hollie (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yet, you never fail to fail when required to demonstrate the supernatural processes you insist are extant.

What about existence is attributable to un-natural or supernatural processes you rattle on about?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



University of Arizona not Liberty,now what ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Working in gene and mutation research. oh my someone can't deal with the issues and goes on the attack with pointless insults.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Evolutionist pleading to their beloved theory.
> 
> Boyz II Men - End Of The Road - YouTube



On the other hand, we have the reality of extremists pleading their beloved appeals to fear and ignorance.

The result: Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

How's that working out for you?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Really?  Your evidence comes from Ann Coulter's "tutor"?  Really?  EPIC FAIL!

There is no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science.  None whatsoever.  Pathetic.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Swabbing out petri dishes hardly qualifies as "research".


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Evolutionist pleading to their beloved theory.
> ...



We were warned these things would happen for while after all this is satans world at this time. He is on borrowed and that time can run out at anytime now.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You fail miserably at rebuttals.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

I'm not sure why I give you Idiots any time at all,it must be the laughs.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I'm sure Marshall Applewhite warned you of many things. 

Your Death Cult fantasies suggest you may actually be suffering from a pathology.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I'm not sure why I give you Idiots any time at all,it must be the laughs.



Are you at all aware of the really creepy paranoid delusions you spew?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*If you wish to believe this is decreasing entropy in a small area go ahead . *

You believe it isn't?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



According to the tales and fables, it was your gawds who "created" Satan... and then your  gawds lied to Adam and Eve. 

Maybe you need new gawds?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> This was myself one day.
> 
> Atheist professor destroys evolution - YouTube



Really? A dead guy who embarrassed himself and his entire staff before he was forced to take early retirement?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



What degree?  What papers have you published?  What are your professional associations?  How did your course material relate in any way to geology?  What rocks and minerals/fossils have you personally collected and analyzed, and what is the disposition of those specimens?  What field methods courses have you taken?  What field work have you conducted?  Where are your results published?  

Oh right, you've already told us that you are not a scientist.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



OMG!  Did you know that satan has a fossil factory where he makes all those fossils and then places them all over the world to confuse us silly scientists?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Want rebuttals?  Field trip...


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I have my masters degree in molecular genetics. No papers published. No professional associations. I left the field many years ago and started a business in mining precious metals. Never said my studies are related to geology. I have observed many fossils from the Grand canyon with a friend that is a geologist.

Now you answer the same questions.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > This was myself one day.
> ...



Another insult directed at someone who is clearly educated above your pay grade because he disagrees with you and all the other nut jobs.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Like I said before you must be an ignorant child if you are gonna try and make an argument out of the fossil record.

Your ignorance is glaring.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I think you are talking out your ass to be honest.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Field observation is about much more than "observing fossils".  Anyone can observe fossils.  If that is all there was to it, anyone could do it.  Did you know that geology is actually one of the most difficult scientific disciplines?  It is true.  Geology encompasses all of the natural sciences, and engineering and even astronomy.  It is truly multidisciplinary.  You could live your entire professional life as a physicist and never have to touch a rock.  You could live your entire professional life as a biologist and never have to draw a map.  You could live your entire professional life as a chemist and never walk twelve miles plotting strikes and dips.  But you cannot conduct geology without intimate knowledge of all of the natural sciences.

For instance, and since you claim to be in the mining business, can you tell me what this is, and the rocks in which this is occurring?






Or this?






Or this?






Or this (this occurs in your state so you should be able to identify it)?






Or this?






Or this?






Or this?  What kind of rock is this and why is it important in the mining industry?






Finally, and you should know this structure if you are, as you say, in the mining business:


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That would be rather easy for you to prove.  Field trip?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Having a PhD in an unrelated field is - having a degree in an unrelated field.  The man taught electron microscopy, a noble profession, to be sure, and was an administrator.  But you don't need to have working knowledge of the theory of evolution to do either.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And you would have to be a blind cultist to ignore 400 years of scientific achievement, particularly the past 100 years, for the sole purpose of lying for Jesus.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCNM_WW_-U]The Fossil Record Speaks - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I guess that's easier than saying no, over and over.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I asked you specific questions related to geology and mining since you claim to be in the mining business, and this is your response?  Wow, that just takes my breath away.  You could have simply said "I don't know".  By the way, it is okay to admit that you don't know.  Just don't claim you do know when it is obvious that you don't.  Because that would be dishonest.  You do understand the concept of honesty, right?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


>



I would say that this is the fossilized hand of a Preditor, the alien creature revealied in the film "Preditor".  

You can clearly see the bones and joints of the fingers, even the wrist.

It is proof that the Pyramids of Egypt were built with the help of aliens from outerspace when they introduced Aliens to the planet earth as game for hunting as revealed in the film "Preditor vs. Alien".

Yep!!!  God speaks to us through movies now.  What, you don't think he's still be doing the writing thing, now that he had mass media and George Lucas, do you?  And that fossilized hand is all the proof we need.....


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Hehehe.  I'll wait for a proper response from our resident cultist to see if he can answer my questions, then I will post the answers.  YWC.  You have until midnight.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I have no clue what you want from me and what this has to do with mining. We have an open pit mine ever heard of the concept ?

You want to think you are brilliant have at it but I assure you geology is not a discipline of science that I would rate as being a hard science.

You're even dumber than I thought after that comment.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I have answered yours, now provide an answer to the question to ape to human evolution i have been asking a while now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



*I have no clue *

No kidding. Still think CO2 & H2O being turned into sugar and cellulose isn't a decrease in entropy?

I'd write a nasty letter to U of A, they really did you a disservice when they allowed you to graduate with no scientific knowledge at all.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



I suppose for extremists such as ywc, hard sciences are defined by winged horses pulling chariots through the clouds, fat, naked babies playing harps, Arks, and dead men not staying dead.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You are right, you have no clue.  You must waste an awful lot of time, effort, and money, digging about nilly willy.  What a stupid way to mine.  You must be the dumbest miner that ever lived.

The first image is of a thrust fault with typical Fault-propagation folding.  Faults are important pathways for mineralizing hydrothermal fluids and often contain valuable minerals and metals.  They can also emplace cap rock onto petroleum reservoirs, and so knowing the structural geometry of fault zones is critical for locating mineral and petroleum resources.  You didn't know this?  Huh.

The second image is a Mississippian-aged crinoid called _Adenocrinus Nodosus_.  It is very rare, only a handful known to exist, in fact.  Fossils can be used to determine stratigraphic position, which is vital if one is looking for specific mineral zones/reservoirs.

The third image is of a massive orthoclase crystal containing large tourmalines (one of your precious minerals).  Note the size of the mallet in the image for scale next to the black tourmaline crystals.

The fourth image is red lead, otherwise known as crocoite, which is found in several mines in Arizona.  That specimen, in fact, came from Arizona.  You didn't know this?  And you claim to be mining precious minerals in Arizona?  I don't believe you.

The fifth image is of a specimen of simple calcite, the first mineral every geology student learns to recognize.  Gawds, you are lame.

The sixth image is of sectional zoning in fluorite, another mineral found in your state, but is much more common where I live.

The seventh image is of a block of breccia.  Breccias are very common mineral zones, and in fact, are often the pathways of mineralizing hydrothermal fluids, and very often contain valuable minerals.  The breccia in the image contains gold.  You didn't know this?  Huh.

The eighth and final image is a small plunging anticline, a structural feature found in many metamorphic zones, which are important regions where valuable minerals are often found.

YWC  It is clear that you don't know the first thing about the subject.  Care to retract your bullshite statement that you mine precious minerals?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



We do Exploration drilling to know the contents of ore deposits. These samples go to a geologist to run a few tests and break down the contents of the ore. They crush it and run a few tests and we usually get an answer within a week depending how busy they are. Listen I have been in this business now for 15 years . Why don't you retract your lie of being a scientist.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



You didn't answer my questions.  You did finally admit that you didn't know the answers, which, if you really were mining precious minerals, you would have known.  But that just proved to everyone that you are a clueless liar.  You should stop now.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No I think it is a reach on your part or just poor reasoning.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



In other words, someone else does the real work, because you don't know anything about it, and you sit in your office posting bullshite right here.  Dumbass, before you can drill the first foot of borehole, you have to know where to drill, otherwise you are wasting valuable time and money punching dry holes. You can't know where to drill unless you have the expertize to know the geology of the area under consideration.  And you can't know the geology of the area under  consideration if you don't know the first thing about geology.  You really are the dumbest miner on the planet.  How sad for your employer.  How many times must I hand you your hat?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes I did, if I had the time I probably could have googled the picture to get an answer. Do you have a point ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes, that is one of the privileges of being a business partner. When I was a Lab tech I did the work for the people paying me to do that work, see how that works ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



That is what I thought you tried to pass it off as your work. Where were the pictures taken ?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

YWC, I find it interesting that you trust a geologist to use the very science that you so oppose in order to line your own pockets.  What other dishonest activities are you involved in?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Anyone can Google.  Few people can actually do real geology.  My point is that you are a fraud and a liar, but then, we knew that about you already.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That's the problem.  You don't think (for yourself, that is).  The second through sixth images were taken by me of specimens in my collection that I personal collected, prepared and photographed.  The others I rounded up on Google to use as examples.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes, I do see how that works.  You hire geologists and other specialists to do work that you openly oppose on the internet all the while badmouthing them and their work behind their backs and yet profiting from their blood, sweat, and tears.  You, YWC, are not a moral man.  But then, you knew that.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> YWC, I find it interesting that you trust a geologist to use the very science that you so oppose in order to line your own pockets.  What other dishonest activities are you involved in?



Do you realize that many of the bigger mining outfits have on staff their own geologists. I am about the profits do not need to concern myself with such matters. Other people make a living making decisions on behalf of myself and my business partners.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Ok I linked one of yours can you tell me where you took these pictures ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I am not asking them to put an age on it


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

I know whose work this is and what university he attended. Plagiarism is a very ugly thing you fake.

Yep you're busted.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > YWC, I find it interesting that you trust a geologist to use the very science that you so oppose in order to line your own pockets.  What other dishonest activities are you involved in?
> ...



Which is exactly my point.  You line your pockets with the sweat of people who you badmouth behind their backs, and whose work you loath and condemn, but have no problem profiting from.  As I've said, you are an immoral man (and a coward).


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You linked one of my, what?  The second image was taken in my home, the third at an abandoned mine site in the Black Hills of South Dakota, when I was there ten years ago, the fourth was taken in my home, as well the fifth and sixth.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You don't need to ask them.  But if you do ask them, I can guarantee that they will tell you that they do know the age, and need to know what part of the geologic column in which they are working.  For example, it is kind of pointless to be drilling in Jurassic-aged sandstone when the minerals are located in Cretaceous-aged basalt.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I know whose work this is and what university he attended. Plagiarism is a very ugly thing you fake.
> 
> Yep you're busted.



What are you talking about?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Wrong,one you claim is yours was taken in the Andes by a German geologist time for you to stop.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Oh we have a bleeding heart liberal that thinks it is wrong to make money and create jobs. How is that working for Obama ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 11, 2013)

I will no longer respond to you but will discuss things with honest people in the thread.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



The only one there taken in South America was taken in Patagonia by Dr. Johannes Koch, of the University of Manitoba.  I never said I took that photo.  No.s two through six were all taken by me.  The rest were not, and I said so.  Don't believe me?

See for yourself- for instance - Number 2?  That would be this one, which I just hastily photographed:






*Do you want me to continue?  I can re-photograph them all using "dumbass" as a background phrase, if that's what you need.*


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That isn't the issue here.  The issue here is that you claim that evolution is fake, that geology is not a science, and yet you hire geologists to do the work that you say is fake in order to make money.  That makes you a hypocrite.  The point is that if none of this science is true, you wouldn't be making any money off your mine.  But not to worry, I don't believe for a moment that you know or have any connection to the mining industry.  Anyone as clueless as you has no business in the mining industry.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I will no longer respond to you but will discuss things with honest people in the thread.



You've likely lied so long that I doubt that you even know what it looks like anymore.  See, I told you that if you don't understand these things, you should must run along because you are only making yourself look the fool (as if there was any doubt).


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...





in the thousands of posts you've  "presented" not once have you provided ANY EMPIRICAL QUANTIFIABLE evidence of any sort... to say you have is a lie .....slapdick!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


wrong ! you get insulted because your ISSUES are moot...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


dodge, projection, and fantasy ! you just won the trifecta of willful ignorance!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


do you not read your own thread? he has answered at least three times...you must have short term memory issues..


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


Walter Veith
Walter Veith
nelipotperspective.wordpress.com
Walter Julius Veith is a Seventh-day Adventist author and speaker known for his work in nutrition, creationism and Biblical exegesis He studied zoology at the University of Stellenbosch and obtained his doctorate in zoology from the University of Cape Town in 1979. He was professor and chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Western Cape, South Africa. His research field is nutritional physiology and his research concentrates on the effect of modern animal husbandry on the incidence of disease transferral to man, as well as degenerative diseases caused by incorrect nutrition and particularly diseases such as osteoporosis, arthritis and cancer. He is also concerned about antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which are causing food poisoning epidemics around the world. He was honored with the Royal Society London Grant for the Reconstruction and Development Program to establish a research climate in post-apartheid South Africa. Veith is now a firm believer in creationism and 
Freebase


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


guys parting the reed sea, stuffing all land animals in a boat, knocking down ten foot thick stone walls with trumpets..virgin birth.....etc


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > YWC, I find it interesting that you trust a geologist to use the very science that you so oppose in order to line your own pockets.  What other dishonest activities are you involved in?
> ...


I must be psychic...
from the first time I read your shit ...I knew you were a fraud .


----------



## daws101 (Sep 11, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I know whose work this is and what university he attended. Plagiarism is a very ugly thing you fake.
> ...


it's a classic ywc tactic.. he'll make false claims about you or your education and convince himself he's right especially when he's getting his ass handed to him, like now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



CO2 and H2O being turned into sugar and celluloe is a reach? Poor reasoning?

Please, explain how that is not a reduction in entropy.
How it is not an increase in energy and complexity.
If you could use your own words and not link to a stupid video or post a wall of text,
that would be awesome. 
Thanks in advance!!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You are a liar and a fraud. I checked those pictures 2 through 6 you claimed that was your work.

This picture in your home does not convince me of anything  other than you trying to cover up you being a fake.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



I never said geology or any discipline of science is not science. I believe some of their hypothesis are wrong and don't do as claimed. If you have such a problem comprehending what I actually say why would I believe the B.S. you spew.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I will no longer respond to you but will discuss things with honest people in the thread.
> ...



I don't lie and I will not deal with a liar.this is my last response to you.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes I have and the latest piece still goes ignored.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes Walter Veith,one of many that destroys your religion.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Daws no one takes you serious and I said I will only respond to people that seem to be honest and try to discuss the issues So you to I will ignore.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't believe any natural process that is the result of genetic programing is a reduction in entropy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

Todd how many times must I give you the same answer and yet you still ask the same question ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So if I used solar energy in the lab to turn CO2 and H2O into sugar, that would be a reduction in entropy?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Let me guess, someone dropped you on your head when you were two years old and you've not been the same since.  That explains everything about you.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



That's just another lie.  Oh, and yes you will.  You can't resist.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So, you are a member of a sect who's aim is to destroy religions (except your own, of course).  What are you, an American Taliban?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Pretty soon, you won't have anyone but yourself to talk to, and once you realize how dishonest you are, you'll just sit quietly in your padded cell slurping on your straw.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


see post #3698


----------



## daws101 (Sep 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


that would be a miracle
since I have no religion ...provING once agaIN YOU LIE ALL THE TIME.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 12, 2013)

Pathological.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 12, 2013)

Indeed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Explain to me how this is a reduction in entropy ? If the arguments you're presenting is the best evidence of a reduction in entropy then you don't have much of an argument.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

I don't play with liars and fakes.

I linked pictures that someone claimed was his work only to find out it couldn't be the man on disibility or unless he travels to the Andes in South America or he is part of the organization that took those pictures. Unless he is the German geologist that attended a German University that took those pictures.

Let's defend a liar and a fake he takes one picture and oh he must be what he claims lol


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 12, 2013)

Oh and orogenicman would you like to speak to the man that took those pictures ? I have his website. Something else that is funny you were asking for a field trip out close to where you live.Where you claimed to live is no where near South America. This man also does field trips and he is based there in South America.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Explain to me how this is a reduction in entropy ?

LOL!

What is your definition of entropy?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> I don't play with liars and fakes.
> 
> I linked pictures that someone claimed was his work only to find out it couldn't be the man on disibility or unless he travels to the Andes in South America or he is part of the organization that took those pictures. Unless he is the German geologist that attended a German University that took those pictures.
> 
> Let's defend a liar and a fake he takes one picture and oh he must be what he claims lol



Everyone here understands why you are doing this.  It is because you didn't know the answers to my questions and you are trying to deflect attention from the fact that you the dumbest person on the planet.

The first, seventh, and eighth pictures were taken off the internet and used as examples.  I said this from the beginning.  I never claimed that they were mine.  The others, however, the images of the minerals and the fossil, those are mine, and are of items in my collection, the photos coming from my photo bucket account.  I even re-posted a new image (with a piece of paper in the background calling you a dumbass)  of the calcite crystal as proof.

Here is a new image of the same crocoite specimen (which was originally taken using a macro lens for close up work):






Now, be a man and admit that you were wrong, and offer to me your most sincere apologies like any real man would.  If you don't, you will prove to everyone here that you have the emotional capacity of a herring.

You choose.

Man?






Or herring?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Oh and orogenicman would you like to speak to the man that took those pictures ? I have his website. Something else that is funny you were asking for a field trip out close to where you live.Where you claimed to live is no where near South America. This man also does field trips and he is based there in South America.



First, you said you weren't going to "play with liars".  I guess you decided I wasn't a liar, eh?  

Secondly, only ONE image was taken in South America, and it was taken by a German associate professor who teaches as at the University of Manitoba.  I too have his web site.    Who took the picture and where was and is irrelevant to the question that was asked - it isn't even relevant to the fact that you could not answer the question.  You are right, though (the first time you've been right since you started the thread), where I live is nowhere near South America.  Where I do live is close to the Falls of the Ohio River State Park (within 20 miles), which was where I first offered to take you on a field trip.

Now, be a man and admit that you were wrong, irrelevant, and apologize to me and everyone here for being so stupid.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What is yours ? Its your opinion being expressed.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > I don't play with liars and fakes.
> ...



Silly posts ,still trying to hide your dishonesty. At this point I don't care what you have to say. You put on this charade to avoid the question concerning ape to human evolution. The only dumbass is yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and orogenicman would you like to speak to the man that took those pictures ? I have his website. Something else that is funny you were asking for a field trip out close to where you live.Where you claimed to live is no where near South America. This man also does field trips and he is based there in South America.
> ...



Oh no you are a liar. I know it and you know it.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



So, you choose the herring approach.  I win.  Enjoy:


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...








Eat up, coward.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Yes enjoy the embarrassment you created for yourself.

Here is the mans site.

Fieldtrips


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Yes that is his site.  Good for you, Mr. Obvious.  What do you believe you have proven?  

Now, the real question is:

Pickled:






Or paksiw style?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



You want to clear this up where do say you are from ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Entropy isn't an opinion.

This is why you should get a refund from your college.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

Also name  the scholarly article the person responsible for some of these pictures produced ?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Simple, provide the definition this is your story got it ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You're the one who said the 2nd Law means things can't get more complex on Earth.

It's your idiotic claim, got it?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're the one claiming your examples shows a reduction in Entropy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



And only an idiot would deny it.

There you are!


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

If the guy claims to be responsible for these pictures should be able to easily answer the question concerning the scholarly article that this person was responsible for.

I think this guy stumbled on to this guys photos and claimed it was his work. Hell the pictures posted by him recently are from a different location lol.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Or only a loon thinks like you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



It's not only loons that think you're an idiot.
But I'm sure they'd agree as well, when they see your 2nd Law idiocy.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I am giving you the chance to explain because you say so don't work got it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Sugar is more complex than CO2 and H2O, right?

Cellulose is more ordered than CO2 and H2O, right?

Despite your claims, both of those compounds were formed here on Earth.

You still want to claim their formation is impossible and somehow violates the 2nd Law?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Agreed to a point But what you fail to recognize is your examples are natural processes  through genetic program or an intelligent agent producing the change. These are not a natural means of reducing entropy as you claim happens.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

So in a nutshell we have God forcing his will on matter,an intelligent agent other than God can force their will on matter,genetic programing can force it's will on matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Your argument has evolved from, "evolution is impossible because increased complexity violates the 2nd Law because of entropy" 
to "only living things can get more complex".


----------



## Hollie (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> So in a nutshell we have God forcing his will on matter,an intelligent agent other than God can force their will on matter,genetic programing can force it's will on matter.



"In a nutshell". 

Coming from you, that somehow seems such an appropriate description. 

There is no reason to accept your baseless claim that an intelligent agent; Zeus, is forcing his will on anyone or any thing. 

Genetic programming is not a directed, concious entity. Genetic programming has no "will" or intent to force anything on matter. 

You really should make an attempt to understand science. These notions you have of gawds and entities with conscious "wills" makes you appear to be quite the bumpkin ... or intractable religious zealot. 

Which attribute would you choose?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No I don't believe things get more complex with out the aid of an outside agent not through naturalism which has been my argument since the beginning of this thread.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 13, 2013)

Hollie said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > So in a nutshell we have God forcing his will on matter,an intelligent agent other than God can force their will on matter,genetic programing can force it's will on matter.
> ...



Where did the genetic programming come from ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



You've gone from "science is on my side, the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible"
to "things get more complicated, because God"
That's why your argument isn't science.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...




Where did your gawds come from?

And in particular, the partisan gawds that are a part of your cultural and familial heritage. 

Did I just answer the question for you?

It's entirely a matter of happenstance (your cultural / familial chauvinism), that brings you to your religious extremism.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Also name  the scholarly article the person responsible for some of these pictures produced ?



WTF are you babbling about?  Look, even a six year old should be able to understand this.  I presented you with very basic, general questions about geology using photographs for illustration, some of which were my own and some I found by doing a Google image search.  Most of the photos were mine. ALL OF THE QUESTIONS WERE MINE., none of which you were capable of answering.  Put the crack pipe down now before you totally destroy the last brain cell you have.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 13, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> So in a nutshell we have God forcing his will on matter,an intelligent agent other than God can force their will on matter,genetic programing can force it's will on matter.


----------



## Newby (Sep 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Says the fool who's part of a crowd that's spent 200+ pages trying to prove him wrong when there isn't any proof on the origin of life, either naturally or super naturally.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 13, 2013)

Newby said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



Education is never foolish, and he isn't the only one posting here.  As for proof that life originated either naturally or supernaturally, it is clear that those are the two running concepts, aren't they?  And while there is plenty of evidence that it occurred naturally, there isn't even any evidence of any thing that is "supernatural", much less that life originated by that mythical means.  The word supernatural was manufactured in the 15th century by people who couldn't explain anything any other way, but used in popular literature starting in the 19th century. It harkens of séances, and a whole host of nonsense sold to the public like so much spirit candy.  It is a meaningless word promoted by snake oil salesmen.


----------



## LittleNipper (Sep 13, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



There is no natural evidence for origin. It just is what it is. And there are plenty of things that have happened that totally appear to be beyond belief. Sometimes it is just a still small voice..... Please see:


----------



## LittleNipper (Sep 13, 2013)

You might like this one as well: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUrNbfl-Gt4]One Step Beyond - "The Day The World Wept: The Lincoln Story" - FULL EPISODE - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 13, 2013)

.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 13, 2013)




----------



## daws101 (Sep 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


same dodge you use every time you get your ass handed to you.
at one time or another you've falsely accused everyone who's caught you bullshiting of dishonesty and you've always been proven wrong...


----------



## daws101 (Sep 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


what you believe is not evident in the evidence...
also naturalism is a description of actions and event not a cause..
slapdick!


----------



## daws101 (Sep 15, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


you do realize that the show in that clip was scify and fantasy.it was produced to compete with the twilight zone...and you bought it.....


----------



## Big_D2 (Sep 15, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you accept that microevolution then what is stopping you from believing in Macroevolution, which has been observed?


----------



## LittleNipper (Sep 16, 2013)

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No, these were stories that were reputed to be factual events. The Twilight Zone was fiction as was the later The Outer Limits.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 16, 2013)

It is a perfect example of the kind of nonsense that has been sold to the public as so much spirit candy.  It's bs, nothing more.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



What happens to people that caused them to become so detached from reality?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 16, 2013)

LittleNipper said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


lololbahahahahahahahahaha! you bought that bullshit too....
does the word sucker mean anything to you?


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 20, 2013)

Big_D2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Because Microevolution or the term I prefer is Microadaptations, have limits to the change observed and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 20, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> It is a perfect example of the kind of nonsense that has been sold to the public as so much spirit candy.  It's bs, nothing more.



You can't prove or disprove either origins belief awfully arrogant and ignorant of you thinking that has occurred


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 20, 2013)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Speak for yourself ol wise one.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 20, 2013)

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You seem to grasp the term.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > It is a perfect example of the kind of nonsense that has been sold to the public as so much spirit candy.  It's bs, nothing more.
> ...



God of the gaps argument.  Try again.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 20, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


yes I do ,it's obvious you don't.. being the sucker that you are.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 21, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Don't need to. what do you think the theory of evolution is ?the only difference is your god of the gaps is naturalism which is not built on solid ground according to the evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated (Sep 21, 2013)

daws101 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Think what you like junior the only sucker here is someone who thinks he has all the answers.


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



One thing the theory of biological evolution is *not* is an argument from the god from the gaps.  Perhaps you are confused as to what that actually means.  Field trip?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 21, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



No scientist I am aware of claims to have all the answers.  If we did, we wouldn't be having this argument.  If we did, there would be no need to conduct basic research.  What research have creationists conducted lately?  Or is it your belief that "god did it" all that is required?


----------



## orogenicman (Sep 21, 2013)




----------



## daws101 (Sep 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...


and that would be you and don't call me junior.. i'm not your son, if I were, I'd have had you institutionalised long ago.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 23, 2013)

253 pages and still no answer to the meaning of life?


----------



## daws101 (Sep 23, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> 253 pages and still no answer to the meaning of life?


[ame=http://youtu.be/IivaDS3eWrE]Monty Python The Meaning of Life - "Christmas Time" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Big_D2 (Sep 23, 2013)

Youwerecreated said:


> Big_D2 said:
> 
> 
> > Youwerecreated said:
> ...



If you agree that species can change then why can't more changes occur?  Where is the stopping point?  What is your definition of the stoppage of change among taxonomic categories.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

The biggest danger and travesty of the God Delusion is the belief that life can be created with a wave of some god's magic wand and the failure to recognize the truly remarkable and unique event that it is.   There are a handful of things that are damaged quickly and for which recovery is difficult if not impossible, they are; the climate, life, human societies, and a fully functioning economy.  These are all quite related, and in this century, now intimately so as our global economy is so deeply intertwined with the global climate.

If anything is a real shame in the God Delusion it is the belief that somehow life was magically created and there for magically protected by a mythical creature.

Frankly, if YWC is so sure, perhaps it would try jumping of a ten story building and praying on the way down.  If he is all that important, God will save him.


----------



## Newby (Sep 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> The biggest danger and travesty of the God Delusion is the belief that life can be created with a wave of some god's magic wand and the failure to recognize the truly remarkable and unique event that it is.   There are a handful of things that are damaged quickly and for which recovery is difficult if not impossible, they are; the climate, life, human societies, and a fully functioning economy.  These are all quite related, and in this century, now intimately so as our global economy is so deeply intertwined with the global climate.
> 
> If anything is a real shame in the God Delusion *it is the belief that somehow life was magically created and there for magically protected by a mythical creature*.
> 
> Frankly, if YWC is so sure, perhaps it would try jumping of a ten story building and praying on the way down.  If he is all that important, God will save him.



No one of faith that I know believes that, you're sadly misinformed or perhaps delusional?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

Newby said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest danger and travesty of the God Delusion is the belief that life can be created with a wave of some god's magic wand and the failure to recognize the truly remarkable and unique event that it is.   There are a handful of things that are damaged quickly and for which recovery is difficult if not impossible, they are; the climate, life, human societies, and a fully functioning economy.  These are all quite related, and in this century, now intimately so as our global economy is so deeply intertwined with the global climate.
> ...



Then you are isolated.


----------



## Newby (Sep 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Not hardly, I'd say you're the isolated one..


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

Newby said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Oh wow, what a great comeback.  You sure schooled me.   I'll return my two college degrees immediately.

Wow......


----------



## daws101 (Sep 24, 2013)

Newby said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest danger and travesty of the God Delusion is the belief that life can be created with a wave of some god's magic wand and the failure to recognize the truly remarkable and unique event that it is.   There are a handful of things that are damaged quickly and for which recovery is difficult if not impossible, they are; the climate, life, human societies, and a fully functioning economy.  These are all quite related, and in this century, now intimately so as our global economy is so deeply intertwined with the global climate.
> ...


really? then present gods working drafts, parts lists and proof of concept.
btw christianity is based on miracles ,more precisely faith in them.


----------



## Newby (Sep 24, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Yeah, about as much as  you 'schooled' me or anyone else on this board with your delusional opinions.  It's obvious by reading your so called observations regarding those of faith that you apparently don't spend much time with them.  Tell me what christian doctrine supposedly teaches that once a christian you will be 'protected', whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anyway. 


a word of advice, anyone who has to brag about his/her degrees on an anonymous message board is looking pretty desparate and lacking in maturity.


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 24, 2013)

Newby said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yep, you sure schooled me again.

Oh oy.

But then, I never said anything about a " christian doctrine supposedly teaches".

On the other hand, I do know that you, personally, have a complete disregard and disrespect for life and other people.

Your reaching with your "has to brag" and "lacking in maturity".....  You posted with a mindless disregard for my perception and educated opinion.  So I responded.  If you don't like being called a mindless asshole, don't post.

But, whatever makes you feel better...


----------



## Newby (Sep 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



My my... someone is certainly a legend in his own mind.. 

Okay, let's start this again since you now seem to be dodging your own words.. and in fact, you're partially right, you didn't say anything about 'christian doctrine', you said 'belief', so where exactly do you think that 'belief' comes from?  I've pasted your original comment below, and bolded the relevent part.  Care to share what backs up that comment?



itfitzme said:


> The biggest danger and travesty of the God Delusion is the belief that life can be created with a wave of some god's magic wand and the failure to recognize the truly remarkable and unique event that it is.   There are a handful of things that are damaged quickly and for which recovery is difficult if not impossible, they are; the climate, life, human societies, and a fully functioning economy.  These are all quite related, and in this century, now intimately so as our global economy is so deeply intertwined with the global climate.
> 
> *If anything is a real shame in the God Delusion it is the belief that somehow life was magically created and there for magically protected by a mythical creature.*
> 
> Frankly, if YWC is so sure, perhaps it would try jumping of a ten story building and praying on the way down.  If he is all that important, God will save him.





> On the other hand, I do know that you, personally, have a complete disregard and disrespect for life and other people.



You know me personally?    Please, do tell, where have I shown a 'complete disregards and disrespect for life'? 

*You posted with a mindless disregard for my perception and educated opinion*

Trust me, it wasn't mindless..


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Yes, I've gotten very good at judging personalities.  They aren't that diverse and are relatively easily measured.  And, yes, it was mindless.  You wouldn't know because you have no mindful frame of reference with which to assess it.


----------



## Newby (Sep 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



And here you said you didn't believe in fairy tales, yet now you claim to be clairvoyant... make up your damn mind already...


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I didn't say I was clairvoyant.  I said I have gotten very good at judging personalities.  That is obvious and clear. You turn " very good at judging personalities" into "clairvoyant". Your habit of skewing your own perception of reality is obvious.


----------



## daws101 (Sep 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


god makes him /her do that.


----------



## Newby (Sep 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Gee, the only problem with that is... you don't know me...


----------



## Newby (Sep 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Are you going to answer the question about where you think those 'beliefs' come from, if not doctrine, or are you going to continue to avoid the topic with inane insults and accusations?

Your words... back them up...

*If anything is a real shame in the God Delusion it is the belief that somehow life was magically created and there for magically protected by a mythical creature.*

Where do  you get the idea that christians think they're 'magically protected'?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



That's odd, I am sure you've been posting.  That is you, isn't it?  Or is someone else posting using your screen name?


----------



## itfitzme (Sep 25, 2013)

Newby said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Why?


----------



## Newby (Sep 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Your credibility is on the line.


----------



## Newby (Sep 25, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Oh, so you 'know me' from your limited interaction with me here over a handful of posts?  Okay, dude, whatever... 

I guess that means that I 'know' you too...  so far I'm not impressed.


----------

