# Evolution v. Creationism



## WinterBorn

There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.


My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


----------



## Stashman

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


Um, I'm pretty sure no one can debunk a theory. It's a theory!


----------



## cnm

Stashman said:


> Um, I'm pretty sure no one can debunk a theory. It's a theory!


That explains much of the US and USMB.


----------



## cnm

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


It's fundamental?


----------



## Peace

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


Because if evolution is proven one hundred percent factual then people of religious beliefs believe it will prove there is no deity or god and I say it isn’t that simple either.

Even in the Christian Bible you can see evolution being taught in the story of how their deity took it days to create everything, so even though humans might have evolved it does not mean there is no God or God’s it just mean the story could be more complex…

Does that even make sense at all?


----------



## WinterBorn

Stashman said:


> Um, I'm pretty sure no one can debunk a theory. It's a theory!



Actually, that is precisely what science tries to do.    Research to disprove every theory is always ongoing.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


What caused the big bang and all the intelligent design of it?  Random doesnt look symmetrical, but more "random"


......................................Intelligent Design..........................................................................Random.......................................


----------



## Leo123

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


God created evolution.


----------



## Peace

Leo123 said:


> God created evolution.


That could actually be argued but what created the deity?


----------



## Hollie

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?



Events that happened millions of years ago are a direct contradiction to the Bible and thus Christianity. Consider some of the central themes of the Bible. Without supernatural creation of the universe and mankind 6,000 years ago and a global flood perhaps 4,000 years ago, entire themes of the bible disappear. The known universe is somewhere around 13.8 billion years old with this planet around 4.5 billion years old. That’s utterly incompatible with a young earth. 

The ancient, physical universe utterly contradicts the Jesus fable. Without Jesus as a savior, the crucifixion and subsequent rise from the dead, you have removed all the basic elements of christianity.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Bruce_Almighty said:


> Because if evolution is proven one hundred percent factual then people of religious beliefs believe it will prove there is no deity or god and I say it isn’t that simple either.
> 
> Even in the Christian Bible you can see evolution being taught in the story of how their deity took it days to create everything, so even though humans might have evolved it does not mean there is no God or God’s it just mean the story could be more complex…
> 
> Does that even make sense at all?


What a Progressive always forgets is that Lucifer was allowed to walk the Earth and persuade people to follow him.  Here a just a couple of EVIL fucks.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals


> *Opening page - Dedication
> “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” *





> "Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky





> Hillary Clinton's *1969* Political Science Thesis ("There is Only the Fight") refers to an earlier version of Alinsky’s training manual. "In *1946*,” she wrote, "Alinsky's first book, *Reveille for Radicals*, was published."


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Hollie said:


> Events that happened millions of years ago are a direct contradiction to the Bible and thus Christianity. Consider some of the central themes of the Bible. Without supernatural creation of the universe and mankind 6,000 years ago and a global flood perhaps 4,000 years ago, entire themes of the bible disappear. The known universe is somewhere around 13.8 billion years old with this planet around 4.5 billion years old. That’s utterly incompatible with a young earth.
> 
> The ancient, physical universe utterly contradicts the Jesus fable. Without Jesus as a savior, the crucifixion and subsequent rise from the dead, you have removed all the basic elements of christianity.


What is a day to God?  Do you know?


----------



## Leo123

Bruce_Almighty said:


> That could actually be argued but what created the deity?


That was my point.  Evolutionists and atheists are just like those who believe in God.   They have some facts but can't prove how all this came to be.  They base their speculations on belief.   All we know right now is that the Universe just 'is.'   Where it came from, what was there before, where it exists, if it has any boundries and what is beyond those boundries, etc. etc.    All as yet unknown.


----------



## Peace

Leo123 said:


> Same entity that created the Universe.


Hmmm, so we don’t know then…


andaronjim said:


> What a Progressive always forgets is that Lucifer was allowed to walk the Earth and persuade people to follow him.  Here a just a couple of EVIL fucks.
> 
> Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals


My personal opinion of the deity called Lucifer is that it was created to scare children into believing that evil deeds done by humanity is the fault of a fallen being but in reality it is our own dark nature within us instead…


----------



## Hollie

andaronjim said:


> What is a day to God?  Do you know?


I don’t presume one or more gods.

The planet is very old. We have no evidence of supernaturalism. Those are material facts.


----------



## ReinyDays

As a Christian, it is my belief that it doesn't matter at all ... what matters is the "here and now" ... *today* we love each other as we love ourselves ... helping that elderly widow woman bring groceries into her home ... helping a child fix their bike ... checking my sons' girlfriends' teeth so they don't have to ... a kind word here, a kind word there ... it's kinda waste of time to even discuss this ...

You know ... Christian things ... matters of the spirit ...

I'm not a biologist ... so if biologists say that evolution is the best framework for classifying the wide variety of species in this world ... then power to them ... I like it for it's simplicity, how the organization shakes out ... anything that makes matters of the flesh easier to understand is good ...

I'm breeding dogs, so I'm destroying pups that don't make the grade ... can't do that with peoples ... so evolutionary thought has it's limits at this time ... give it another thousand years of research and maybe science will have better answers to these questions ...


----------



## Leo123

Bruce_Almighty said:


> Hmmm, so we don’t know then…
> 
> My personal opinion of the deity called Lucifer is that it was created to scare children into believing that evil deeds done by humanity is the fault of a fallen being but in reality it is our own dark nature within us instead…


Yes, the truth is that humans are capable of great good or great evil.


----------



## Leo123

ReinyDays said:


> As a Christian, it is my belief that it doesn't matter at all ... what matters is the "here and now" ... *today* we love each other as we love ourselves ... helping that elderly widow woman bring groceries into her home ... helping a child fix their bike ... checking my sons' girlfriends' teeth so they don't have to ... a kind word here, a kind word there ... it's kinda waste of time to even discuss this ...
> 
> You know ... Christian things ... matters of the spirit ...
> 
> I'm not a biologist ... so if biologists say that evolution is the best framework for classifying the wide variety of species in this world ... then power to them ... I like it for it's simplicity, how the organization shakes out ... anything that makes matters of the flesh easier to understand is good ...
> 
> I'm breeding dogs, so I'm destroying pups that don't make the grade ... can't do that with peoples ... so evolutionary thought has it's limits at this time ... give it another thousand years of research and maybe science will have better answers to these questions ...


Christianity is a moral framework for a society.   It is especially helpful because human capacity for empathy varies with each individual.   Evolution is on-going scientific research into the origins of life and should never be confused with religion which is based solely on belief.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

God is!

*****SMILE*****


----------



## WinterBorn

Hollie said:


> Events that happened millions of years ago are a direct contradiction to the Bible and thus Christianity. Consider some of the central themes of the Bible. Without supernatural creation of the universe and mankind 6,000 years ago and a global flood perhaps 4,000 years ago, entire themes of the bible disappear. The known universe is somewhere around 13.8 billion years old with this planet around 4.5 billion years old. That’s utterly incompatible with a young earth.
> 
> The ancient, physical universe utterly contradicts the Jesus fable. Without Jesus as a savior, the crucifixion and subsequent rise from the dead, you have removed all the basic elements of christianity.



Or the stories are not meant to be history, but teaching a primitive, nomadic people about their world.


----------



## Leo123

Hollie said:


> I don’t presume one or more gods.
> 
> The planet is very old. We have no evidence of supernaturalism. Those are material facts.


Religion requires no evidence.   It is based solely on belief.   In science, beliefs have to be proven, we call them hypotheses.  Many scientists have a belief in God but separate that from their real-world hypothesis, theories and experiments.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


Evolution isn't even a theory or hypothesis.  It's ALL LIES.  There is nothing that happened millions or billions of years ago.  The earth layers are based on location.  Check the names out.  They refer to location and not time.  Evolution scientists just made up the layers to refer to time.  The layers were laid down by the global flood.

I even found out the difference between the natural selection of evolution and natural selection of creation science just recently.  DNA tells us that what is defined there cannot be changed by mutation, i.e. one species cannot become an whole new species.  Let's say I have plans for a house, i.e. DNA.  These plans do not include a basement because they aren't built anymore.  No matter how many different designs are in the DNA, one cannot have a basement pop up with this DNA.  Thus, the DNA of creation science backs up all the different homes that can be designed, but none with a basement.

I've practically given up on evolutionists with the evidence for creation as science backs up creation and the Bible.  Nothing backs up evolution.


----------



## ReinyDays

Leo123 said:


> Christianity is a moral framework for a society.   It is especially helpful because human capacity for empathy varies with each individual.   Evolution is on-going scientific research into the origins of life and should never be confused with religion which is based solely on belief.



Couldn't agree more about the roll Christianity can play ... nor about being confused with religion ...

I'm not sure it's correct to say "evolution is research" ... research is conducted within the framework of evolution ... we test new drugs on rats because humans and rats are very close cousins, evolutionary-ily speaking that is ... (adverb troubles) ... 

Moral frameworks for moral questions ... scientific frameworks for science questions ... I have no problem existing in both ...


----------



## Hollie

WinterBorn said:


> Or the stories are not meant to be history, but teaching a primitive, nomadic people about their world.


Agree. A collection of allegory and fable, written by many authors over many decades and reflects a period in time when life was harsh and the ebb and flow of life was dictated by events and forces little understood at the time so various gods and demons, most of which were passed down from earlier times, were the causes of existence.


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> Events that happened millions of years ago are a direct contradiction to the Bible and thus Christianity. Consider some of the central themes of the Bible. Without supernatural creation of the universe and mankind 6,000 years ago and a global flood perhaps 4,000 years ago, entire themes of the bible disappear. The known universe is somewhere around 13.8 billion years old with this planet around 4.5 billion years old. That’s utterly incompatible with a young earth.
> 
> The ancient, physical universe utterly contradicts the Jesus fable. Without Jesus as a savior, the crucifixion and subsequent rise from the dead, you have removed all the basic elements of christianity.



Why do you think folks living in the Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BC should have believed the Earth was 4.6 billion years old? ... we didn't know the Earth was round until the 5th Century BC ...

Exact how many scientific truths should we expect from the oral tradition we received from antiquity? ... stories passed father to son for 45,000 years ... told around camp fires while the wimin folk tended the babies ...

Phaw ... a good argument can be made that the Bible is political spin ... we have evidence of Judah, but nothing of Israel ... much like Hitler invading Czechoslovakia, Putin invading The Ukraine, the United States invading Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, Panama, Grenada, Guatemala, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Guam, etc etc etc ... there's a narrative that allows for territorial conquest ... "It was ours from the beginning, the Bible says so" ...


----------



## Leo123

ReinyDays said:


> Couldn't agree more about the roll Christianity can play ... nor about being confused with religion ...
> 
> I'm not sure it's correct to say "evolution is research" ... research is conducted within the framework of evolution ... we test new drugs on rats because humans and rats are very close cousins, evolutionary-ily speaking that is ... (adverb troubles) ...
> 
> Moral frameworks for moral questions ... scientific frameworks for science questions ... I have no problem existing in both ...


Evolution is on-going research into origins.   Those who point to evolution as the answer to origins are actually trying to turn evolution into a religion, which it is not.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Bruce_Almighty said:


> Hmmm, so we don’t know then…
> 
> My personal opinion of the deity called Lucifer is that it was created to scare children into believing that evil deeds done by humanity is the fault of a fallen being but in reality it is our own dark nature within us instead…


Yet some of the progressives gave credence to Lucifer.  Are you saying the Obama and Hillary are liars?


----------



## ReinyDays

Leo123 said:


> Evolution is on-going research into origins.   Those who point to evolution as the answer to origins are actually trying to turn evolution into a religion, which it is not.



Evolution is also about the future ... and here is it's true strength in science ... it has very useful predictive powers ... a core purpose of science is predicting the future ...

Most people are uncomfortable thinking of themselves as hairless semi-evolved rodents on a diseased and dying branch of the Tree of Life ... whose only evolutionary claim to fame is a particularly disgusting taste ... unpalatable except as carrion, and the older the better ... 

We were arboreal ... [weeps openly] ... how cool would that be? ...


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


the big problem with the two theories is did it happen millions of yrs ago,,

one says no the other says yes without proof,,


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Agree. A collection of allegory and fable, written by many authors over many decades and reflects a period in time when life was harsh and the ebb and flow of life was dictated by events and forces little understood at the time so various gods and demons, most of which were passed down from earlier times, were the causes of existence.


Boy, are you WRONG and not even a shred of evidence to show us to back up your spiel.


----------



## zaangalewa

WinterBorn said:


> ... religious fundamentalists ...
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?



And? Any idea why came a complete universe with a lot of energy and spacetime out of a nothing 13.8 billion years ago, killed god on a cross of the Romans about 2000 years ago, did evolve you and makes a war in the Ukraine now?


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Evolution isn't even a theory or hypothesis.  It's ALL LIES. ...



Aha. You found out that the hand of a gorilla and your own front paw do not have any similarity - and that's why the blood of your noble dog is blue and your bible - ah sorry: blood - would be green if you came from the planet volcano.


----------



## zaangalewa

ReinyDays said:


> Evolution is also about the future ... and here is it's true strength in science ... it has very useful predictive powers ...



If butterflies would not exist no one and nothing would be able to predict the existence of future butterflies. Same with the mpftlgrmpfs which will evolve within the next 100,000 - 1 million years.


----------



## WinterBorn

For those who have trouble with reading comprehension, this thread is not about rehashing Evolution/Creationism.    There are already 15 threads in Science & Technology and Religion & Ethics forums doing that.

This is a simple question.    Why does the argument exist?   Why does it matter?


----------



## fncceo

WinterBorn said:


> Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?



I believe it's the millions of years ago part that bother them.


----------



## fncceo

ReinyDays said:


> Evolution is also about the future ... and here is it's true strength in science ... it has very useful predictive powers



I wasn't aware anyone had computer models predicting the path of future evolution ...


----------



## Hollie

ReinyDays said:


> Why do you think folks living in the Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BC should have believed the Earth was 4.6 billion years old? ... we didn't know the Earth was round until the 5th Century BC ...
> 
> Exact how many scientific truths should we expect from the oral tradition we received from antiquity? ... stories passed father to son for 45,000 years ... told around camp fires while the wimin folk tended the babies ...
> 
> Phaw ... a good argument can be made that the Bible is political spin ... we have evidence of Judah, but nothing of Israel ... much like Hitler invading Czechoslovakia, Putin invading The Ukraine, the United States invading Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, Panama, Grenada, Guatemala, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Guam, etc etc etc ... there's a narrative that allows for territorial conquest ... "It was ours from the beginning, the Bible says so" ...



I would not expect that folks living in the Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BC would have any knowledge that the Earth was 4.6 billion years old. It’s not at all surprising that they invented gods as the movers of the sun, the cause of droughts, evil spirits causing solar / lunar eclipse, etc. etc. 

I think the point can be made that science is dynamic and constantly changing, usually for the better. It is incrementally approaching truths. Hypotheses are not infallible and mistakes will inevitably be made. Science attempts to identify and correct these errors – self-correction. Newtonian mechanics was later modified by Einstein when he modified Newton’s laws as special cases in a physical reality different than earlier thought. That’s the nature of discovery.

That is not the case with creationism which has an internal bias. The “Statement of Faith” that is a prerequisite for creationer ministries is a guarantee of subjective bias.


----------



## Hollie

WinterBorn said:


> For those who have trouble with reading comprehension, this thread is not about rehashing Evolution/Creationism.    There are already 15 threads in Science & Technology and Religion & Ethics forums doing that.
> 
> This is a simple question.    Why does the argument exist?   Why does it matter?


It matters because exploration of the natural world tends to upend religious belief.


----------



## Peace

andaronjim said:


> Yet some of the progressives gave credence to Lucifer.  Are you saying the Obama and Hillary are liars?


Politician lie daily like a Preacher that tend too his flock…

Lucifer is a myth created by humanity to scare children with so they wouldn’t follow the dark path in life.

Is the story needed in life lessons?

Yes, but Lucifer is just a fairytale in my personal opinion and the real evil is in the hearts of humanity…


----------



## Peace

WinterBorn said:


> For those who have trouble with reading comprehension, this thread is not about rehashing Evolution/Creationism.    There are already 15 threads in Science & Technology and Religion & Ethics forums doing that.
> 
> This is a simple question.    Why does the argument exist?   Why does it matter?


It matter because people can not agree and both sides have to be right…

People from the evolution side ( most not all ) believe it will prove a deity did not create this Universe while people on the Religious side want to prove that a deity gave us all this and I say it can be both if you really are open minded…


----------



## abu afak

Leo123 said:


> Religion requires no evidence.   It is based solely on belief. *  In science, beliefs have to be proven, we call them hypotheses. * Many scientists have a belief in God but separate that from their real-world hypothesis, theories and experiments.


Science does not deal in "Proof," only Math does.
Science Deals in Theories affirmed over time. (that started as mere hypothesis).
Scientific theories, like Evolution and Gravity, can also be Facts.

Perhaps my 50th posting:

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense​[.....]
*1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

*In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."*

`


----------



## Hollie

Leo123 said:


> Religion requires no evidence.   It is based solely on belief.   In science, beliefs have to be proven, we call them hypotheses.  Many scientists have a belief in God but separate that from their real-world hypothesis, theories and experiments.


I don't disagree about 'belief' requiring no evidence. I will point out however that competing belief systems have caused civilizations to clash and wars waged as those belief systems have sought to "prove'" the efficacy of their respective gods.

Science does not operate on "belief". And, I'll point out that irrefutable evidence is not a part of science knowledge. It is a process of discovery that flexes as new data is confirmed and meets the rigors of the Scientific Method. 

I can't help but notice the attacks on science we see in here in so many forums are from the more excitable religious types.  They know with absolute certainty that "belief" is not an attribute for their religious views as their gods are real and extant and the reason and rationality that drives science is to be met with fear and loathing.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Boy, are you WRONG and not even a shred of evidence to show us to back up your spiel.


Speaking of fear and loathing....


----------



## Hollie

Bruce_Almighty said:


> It matter because people can not agree and both sides have to be right…
> 
> People from the evolution side ( most not all ) believe it will prove a deity did not create this Universe while people on the Religious side want to prove that a deity gave us all this and I say it can be both if you really are open minded…


I would disagree in the sense that, (per the thread topic), the difference between evolution vs. creationism is that evolution is evidence based. The evidence drives the conclusions. I see nothing in science thst seeks to disprove god or gods. On the other hand, seeking evidence of God's work undermines _faith. _If one is questioning their faith, it is sometimes considered that they are also losing their faith, not strengthening it


----------



## ReinyDays

Hollie said:


> That is not the case with creationism which has an internal bias. The “Statement of Faith” that is a prerequisite for creationer ministries is a guarantee of subjective bias.



I believe it is the Spirit of Christ that was created ... and "once is enough" as it were ... not a thing easily investigated by scientific methods ... and the dating here is of ... dubious origins ... depends on the version and (interestingly) the state of mathematical thought at the time of the translation ... the Latin version had no zero as a number ... that came with the Islamic tradition much later ... ha ha ha ...

DNA evidence gives us a genetic bottleneck around 50,000 years ago ... what's the oral tradition look like once set down on paper? ... and what is there to learn about human nature from this? ... 

We sure did like re-populating the planet ... maybe absolute monogamy was the best way to keep straight whose kids were whose ... maybe this is still the best way? ...


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."


There are _no facts of evolution_ and it would not be ToE either as they made assumption of millions and billions of years.  The evos have no explanation for the beginning of space and time nor what the Big Bang was.  Sure, there is the CMB, but it does not lead to human history.  OTOH, creationists explain with the 6 Days of Creation.  That has not been disproved and science has backed it up, along with the global flood.

However, _your_ Big Bang Theory has some _contradictions_.

"Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin


The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies;
The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of hydrogen and helium;
The observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, thought to be an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the supposed Big Bang.

    Although an expanding universe is consistent with the Big Bang, it doesn’t necessarily demand a Big Bang as its cause. One could imagine that for some reason God imposed an expansion on His created universe, perhaps to keep the universe from collapsing under its own gravity. Of course, this assumes that secular scientists’ interpretation of the redshift data is correct, which some creation scientists are starting to question.1


    The second argument isn’t as impressive as it sounds. The Big Bang model is able to account for the observed abundances of hydrogen and helium because it contains an adjustable parameter called the _baryon-to-photon_ ratio. Big Bang scientists simply choose a value for this parameter that gives them the right answer. Even so, it’s not clear that the Big Bang can account for the total number of atoms (per unit volume) in the universe. And even with this adjustable parameter, the Big Bang cannot correctly account for the observed amounts of lithium isotopes.2,3







       Figure 1. The intensity of the CMB radiation (as a function of frequency) very closely matches the intensity profile of a blackbody having a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins. Measurements were taken by NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite.

       Image credit: Public domain. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.

    However, the third argument, the existence of the CMB radiation, is a successful prediction of the Big Bang. We observe very faint but uniform electromagnetic radiation—radiation not associated with particular stars or galaxies—coming from all directions in space, and the intensity of this radiation is brightest in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Big Bang scientists interpret this to be the oldest light in the universe, light emitted when the universe became cool enough for neutral hydrogen atoms to form. As the universe expanded, the wavelengths of these traveling photons were stretched so that most of them had wavelengths corresponding to the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The intensity of this CMB radiation (as a function of wavelength or frequency) very closely matches the intensity of the radiation given off by an ideal emitter/absorber that physicists call a _blackbody_. Such a blackbody would have a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins, or about -270° Celsius (Figure 1)."









						Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?
					

Introduction  	Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin:  	 		The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies; 	 		The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of...




					www.icr.org


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> the difference between evolution vs. creationism is that evolution is evidence based. The evidence drives the conclusions.


This isn't true.  Of course, the religionists look to see how evidence backs up their beliefs.  *What is FALSE is the belief that science doesn't include the supernatural.*


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> There are _no facts of evolution_ and it would not be ToE either as they made assumption of millions and billions of years.  The evos have no explanation for the beginning of space and time nor what the Big Bang was.  Sure, there is the CMB, but it does not lead to human history.  OTOH, creationists explain with the 6 Days of Creation.  That has not been disproved and science has backed it up, along with the global flood.
> 
> However, _your_ Big Bang Theory has some _contradictions_.
> 
> "Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin
> 
> 
> The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies;
> The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of hydrogen and helium;
> The observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, thought to be an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the supposed Big Bang.
> 
> Although an expanding universe is consistent with the Big Bang, it doesn’t necessarily demand a Big Bang as its cause. One could imagine that for some reason God imposed an expansion on His created universe, perhaps to keep the universe from collapsing under its own gravity. Of course, this assumes that secular scientists’ interpretation of the redshift data is correct, which some creation scientists are starting to question.1
> 
> 
> The second argument isn’t as impressive as it sounds. The Big Bang model is able to account for the observed abundances of hydrogen and helium because it contains an adjustable parameter called the _baryon-to-photon_ ratio. Big Bang scientists simply choose a value for this parameter that gives them the right answer. Even so, it’s not clear that the Big Bang can account for the total number of atoms (per unit volume) in the universe. And even with this adjustable parameter, the Big Bang cannot correctly account for the observed amounts of lithium isotopes.2,3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Figure 1. The intensity of the CMB radiation (as a function of frequency) very closely matches the intensity profile of a blackbody having a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins. Measurements were taken by NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite.
> 
> Image credit: Public domain. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.
> 
> However, the third argument, the existence of the CMB radiation, is a successful prediction of the Big Bang. We observe very faint but uniform electromagnetic radiation—radiation not associated with particular stars or galaxies—coming from all directions in space, and the intensity of this radiation is brightest in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Big Bang scientists interpret this to be the oldest light in the universe, light emitted when the universe became cool enough for neutral hydrogen atoms to form. As the universe expanded, the wavelengths of these traveling photons were stretched so that most of them had wavelengths corresponding to the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The intensity of this CMB radiation (as a function of wavelength or frequency) very closely matches the intensity of the radiation given off by an ideal emitter/absorber that physicists call a _blackbody_. Such a blackbody would have a temperature of 2.7 Kelvins, or about -270° Celsius (Figure 1)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cosmic Microwave Background Confirm the Big Bang?
> 
> 
> Introduction  	Three main arguments are commonly used to support the Big Bang model of the universe’s origin:  	 		The apparent expansion of the universe, inferred from redshifted spectra of distant galaxies; 	 		The fact that the Big Bang can account for the observed relative abundances of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org



So no need to actually discuss the topic, just go with another thread arguing the same thing?

And BTW, the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> So no need to actually discuss the topic, just go with another thread arguing the same thing?
> 
> And BTW, the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.


Your arguments are weak sauce and you do not understand the evolution is lacking as a theory.  I wouldn't put it as hypothesis.  It's a LIE.  Moreover, you want to IGNORE how we even got to evolution by not discussing the Big Bang.  The Big Bang is a LIE, too.

Thus, there is no need to discuss further as you backed out of discussing how we got to evolution.


----------



## abu afak

james bond said:


> Your arguments are weak sauce and you do not understand the evolution is lacking as a theory.  I wouldn't put it as hypothesis.  It's a LIE.  Moreover, you want to IGNORE how we even got to evolution by not discussing the Big Bang.  The Big Bang is a LIE, too.
> 
> Thus, there is no need to discuss further as you backed out of discussing how we got to evolution.


We've all seen Genesis Ch 1, ergo you are NOT Needed here at all.
(ICR and AIG links just try to twist/shoehorn that blatantly wrong tale of Kweation and discredit Real science.)
So Sayeth logic.
`


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> Your arguments are weak sauce and you do not understand the evolution is lacking as a theory.  I wouldn't put it as hypothesis.  It's a LIE.  Moreover, you want to IGNORE how we even got to evolution by not discussing the Big Bang.  The Big Bang is a LIE, too.
> 
> Thus, there is no need to discuss further as you backed out of discussing how we got to evolution.



And why is this debate so important?    What does it really matter when it happened millions of years ago?


----------



## surada

abu afak said:


> Science does not deal in "Proof," only Math does.
> Science Deals in Theories affirmed over time. (that started as mere hypothesis).
> Scientific theories, like Evolution and Gravity, can also be Facts.
> 
> Perhaps my 50th posting:
> 
> *15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense*
> By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
> Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense​[.....]
> *1.* *Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.*
> 
> Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
> According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."_ No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
> So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.
> 
> *In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."*
> 
> `








						Adaptive evolution in Darwin's Finches
					






					scholar.harvard.edu


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> This isn't true.  Of course, the religionists look to see how evidence backs up their beliefs.  *What is FALSE is the belief that science doesn't include the supernatural.*


Ranting of a Flat Earther.


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> Ranting of a Flat Earther.


The adaptations of finches is easily understood.


----------



## surada

Adaptive evolution in Darwin's Finches
					






					scholar.harvard.edu


----------



## Hollie

ReinyDays said:


> I believe it is the Spirit of Christ that was created ... and "once is enough" as it were ... not a thing easily investigated by scientific methods ... and the dating here is of ... dubious origins ... depends on the version and (interestingly) the state of mathematical thought at the time of the translation ... the Latin version had no zero as a number ... that came with the Islamic tradition much later ... ha ha ha ...
> 
> DNA evidence gives us a genetic bottleneck around 50,000 years ago ... what's the oral tradition look like once set down on paper? ... and what is there to learn about human nature from this? ...
> 
> We sure did like re-populating the planet ... maybe absolute monogamy was the best way to keep straight whose kids were whose ... maybe this is still the best way? ...


I can’t comment on spiritual matters as I have no way of defining such things. That seems to be the ultimate divide between creationism and evolution. Evolutionary mechanisms based on discoverable data, making predictions and testing for results leads to consistent interpretations. The creationist environment has to account for a supernatural being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and the creationist is left with unsolvable dilemmas as to why the creator wouldn't directly communicate with you but used heresay testimomy written in books authored by the corruptible hand of man.


----------



## Hollie

surada said:


> The adaptations of finches is easily understood.


For most of us, yes.


----------



## james bond

abu afak said:


> We've all seen Genesis Ch 1, ergo you are NOT Needed here at all.
> (ICR and AIG links just try to twist/shoehorn that blatantly wrong tale of Kweation and discredit Real science.)
> So Sayeth logic.
> `


There is NO EVOLUTION except for natural selection by the creationists.  Darwin's natural selection falsely theorizes that something that is not in the creature's DNA occurs -- macroevolution.  It may as well be made up by Darwin because he and his family were atheists.  The proof is we do not observe macroevolution happening.

Darwin's natural selection claims that the creature can change beyond their DNA's characteristics.  This is never observed and will never be observed.  What we observe is microevolution and that is the change within the creature's DNA.

OTOH, you FINALLY admitted creation is right on and that observation backs up creation science.  Genesis tells it all and that God created Earth, the universe and life in six days.

I am NEEDED and WANTED here because I am the one who points out how the Bible backs up creation science.  Furthermore, I point out the faults of Darwinism and evolution and those who fall for it and are atheists and agnostics will be SCREAMING IN PAIN, AGONY and HURT FOREVER, i.e. Darwinism leads to atheism and agnosticism.  I point out the CORRECTION AND TRUTH and that is why you want me gone.  I make you and the evos look FOOLISH and SAF.  Let's not fall for Darwin's lies and head towards an afterlife of agony, pain and hurt beyond belief in order to be finally convinced.  If one follows Darwinism, then it will be TOO LATE!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> There is NO EVOLUTION except for natural selection by the creationists.  Darwin's natural selection falsely theorizes that something that is not in the creature's DNA occurs -- macroevolution.  It may as well be made up by Darwin because he and his family were atheists.  The proof is we do not observe macroevolution happening.
> 
> Darwin's natural selection claims that the creature can change beyond their DNA's characteristics.  This is never observed and will never be observed.  What we observe is microevolution and that is the change within the creature's DNA.
> 
> OTOH, you FINALLY admitted creation is right on and that observation backs up creation science.  Genesis tells it all and that God created Earth, the universe and life in six days.
> 
> I am NEEDED and WANTED here because I am the one who points out how the Bible backs up creation science.  Furthermore, I point out the faults of Darwinism and evolution and those who fall for it and are atheists and agnostics will be SCREAMING IN PAIN, AGONY and HURT FOREVER, i.e. Darwinism leads to atheism and agnosticism.  I point out the CORRECTION AND TRUTH and that is why you want me gone.  I make you and the evos look FOOLISH and SAF.  Let's not fall for Darwin's lies and head towards an afterlife of agony, pain and hurt beyond belief in order to be finally convinced.  If one follows Darwinism, then it will be TOO LATE!



“natural selection by the creationists”

Hilarious.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> There is NO EVOLUTION  ...




You are wrong and you know this very well when you take a look at the hand of a gorilla and your own hand and ask yourselve where this similarity could come from. And no Christian ever asked you to defend god and his creation against his children and their evolution. That's totally weird.




_We human beings are not only the beneficiaries but also the stewards of other creatures. Thanks to our bodies, God has joined us so closely to the world around us that we can feel the desertification of the soil almost as a physical ailment, and the extinction of a species as a painful disfigurement. Let us not leave in our wake a swath of destruction and death which will affect our own lives and those of future generations._
*Pope Francis*


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> I'm breeding dogs, so I'm destroying pups that don't make the grade ... can't do that with peoples ...


It did in China.  Come to think of it I guess we do it everywhere.  But China's one child policy is the best example of destroying people that don't make the grade.


----------



## ding

WinterBorn said:


> Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


It doesn't.  The Christian perception of a Creator God and biological evolution are perfectly consistent.  It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.  It's the nature of intelligence to produce intelligence.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> Why do you think folks living in the Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BC should have believed the Earth was 4.6 billion years old? ... we didn't know the Earth was round until the 5th Century BC ...
> 
> Exact how many scientific truths should we expect from the oral tradition we received from antiquity? ... stories passed father to son for 45,000 years ... told around camp fires while the wimin folk tended the babies ...
> 
> Phaw ... a good argument can be made that the Bible is political spin ... we have evidence of Judah, but nothing of Israel ... much like Hitler invading Czechoslovakia, Putin invading The Ukraine, the United States invading Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, Panama, Grenada, Guatemala, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Guam, etc etc etc ... there's a narrative that allows for territorial conquest ... "It was ours from the beginning, the Bible says so" ...


Yes an argument can be made for that.  In fact, the US did the exact same thing in the Declaration of Independence where we established our God given authority to secede from the king because we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and you Brits violated them. 

But the allegorical accounts of creation, the origin of man, the nature of man and allegorical descriptions of the historical events recorded in the first eleven chapters of Genesis were actually passed down orally for thousands of years before the need to establish a "political" authority existed.  So there is a limit to that argument.  There's also a counter argument to that argument.


----------



## ding

Bruce_Almighty said:


> It matter because people can not agree and both sides have to be right…
> 
> People from the evolution side ( most not all ) believe it will prove a deity did not create this Universe while people on the Religious side want to prove that a deity gave us all this and I say it can be both if you really are open minded…


How does evolution prove God did not create the universe?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> It doesn't.  The Christian perception of a Creator God and biological evolution are perfectly consistent.



Agreed.



ding said:


> It's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.



Actually that is backwards logic.  Everything we are and know developed to fit into the niches it currently inhabits.  The puddle does not form to fit the shape of the water.  The water conforms to the shape of the puddle.



ding said:


> It's the nature of intelligence to produce intelligence.



Do you not work with Microsoft products?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> How does evolution prove God did not create the universe?



It does not.  But that kind of "deistic evolution" is not appealing to Creationists either.  In general that's a perfectly acceptable middle ground.  There's no reason that God couldn't possibly use evolution as a means of running the "watch".

In fact it actually makes God a bit more interesting if he created a system that could self-regulate and self-evolve.

But, that being said, in any evolutionary system there is no _need_ for a God or superior intelligence.  But if one wishes to preserve both their faith in a supernatural being and an acceptance of evolution that's the exact way to go with it.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?



It isn't that important to most Christians.  Those Christians for whom the Bible is required to be perfectly literal and perfectly accurate are the primary drivers of this movement.  It's a  relatively easy matter to note the failure of Genesis to match the real world and it's a relatively easy matter to technically show how Creationism fails in light of the real world.

But that's not the point and it never will be.  For people who believe that their immortal soul's fate hangs in part on how they honor a literal Genesis/literal Bible OF COURSE they are going to fight tooth and nail against evolution.  Who wouldn't?

It would be nice, however, if they didn't feel the need to force it on everyone else.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Actually that is backwards logic. Everything we are and know developed to fit into the niches it currently inhabits. The puddle does not form to fit the shape of the water. The water conforms to the shape of the puddle.


I suspect you know less about the origin of existence than you do about the climate of the earth as your very analog points to intelligence being predestined by the laws of nature.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Do you not work with Microsoft products?


We're obsessed with making smart things.


----------



## surada

Hollie said:


> “natural selection by the creationists”
> 
> Hilarious.


What does that mean? Creatures who adapt to environmental changes survive to reproduce.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> It does not.  But that kind of "deistic evolution" is not appealing to Creationists either.  In general that's a perfectly acceptable middle ground.  There's no reason that God couldn't possibly use evolution as a means of running the "watch".
> 
> In fact it actually makes God a bit more interesting if he created a system that could self-regulate and self-evolve.
> 
> But, that being said, in any evolutionary system there is no _need_ for a God or superior intelligence.  But if one wishes to preserve both their faith in a supernatural being and an acceptance of evolution that's the exact way to go with it.


Unless of course, mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time has always existed as the source or matrix of physical reality.  That everything is made up of mind stuff.  Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Arthur had good reason to write that and he wasn't wrong.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> I suspect you know less about the origin of existence than you do about the climate of the earth



GIven that my background is _organic geochemistry_ it stands to reason I probably have more insight into things like abiogenesis than climate.

As to the "origin of existence", well *no one knows anything about that.  *All we have is conjecture.



ding said:


> as your very analog points to intelligence being predestined by the laws of nature.



Define intelligence and tell us how it cannot arise by natural processes.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Unless of course, mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time has always existed as the source or matrix of physical reality.  That everything is made up of mind stuff.  Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Arthur had good reason to write that and he wasn't wrong.



That sounds like 100% Grade A glossolalia.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Define intelligence and tell us how it cannot arise by natural processes.


Intelligence is incorporeal; it is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and form abstract thoughts.  In the context of this discussion it would be be beings that know and create.  In other words conscious beings who were aware they were conscious.  

My point is that intelligence did arise through natural processes and was preordained to arise before space and time were created from nothing.  


PV System said:


> GIven that my background is _organic geochemistry_ it stands to reason I probably have more insight into things like abiogenesis than climate.
> 
> As to the "origin of existence", well *no one knows anything about that. *All we have is conjecture.


Logic and the laws of nature - which existed before space and time - say otherwise.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> That sounds like 100% Grade A glossolalia.


From a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

So no... it isn't 100% Grade A glossolalia.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> My point is that intelligence did arise through natural processes



Any evidence for that?




ding said:


> Logic and the laws of nature - which existed before space and time - say otherwise.



Not necessarily.  Logic and laws of nature are essentially just mathematical constructs.  Arguably, math is little more than explicit statement of tautologies.  Y=MX+B is nothing more than describing the relationship between Y and X.  IF all P = Q And all Q = X then P=X is essentially self-evident.

Our "appreciation" of these laws does not make them in any way more special than anything else around us.

I am unsure of how a universe could exist in which a thing is not what it is.  If the tautologies don't hold then nothing holds.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> From a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind.



That's not valuable information.



ding said:


> George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”
> 
> So no... it isn't 100% Grade A glossolalia.



But it isn't anything more than people musing on stuff.  Sounds like the thoughts one has after a couple of edibles.  

Don't get me wrong, one of my closest friends from high school is a philosophy prof and obviously there's a lot of such musings.  But speaking as a philosophical realist (with the full understanding that our perception of reality is filtered and processed by our brains) I lack a belief that reality is just "entirely abstract".  I think of science as an attempt to get at the truth knowing it will only ever be an approximation, but that approximation belies an actual independent reality.


----------



## Woodznutz

Bruce_Almighty said:


> Because if evolution is proven one hundred percent factual then people of religious beliefs believe it will prove there is no deity or god and I say it isn’t that simple either.
> 
> Even in the Christian Bible you can see evolution being taught in the story of how their deity took it days to create everything, so even though humans might have evolved it does not mean there is no God or God’s it just mean the story could be more complex…
> 
> Does that even make sense at all?


Interdependence requires spontaneous creation.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Any evidence for that?


You agree that life and intelligence arose naturally according to the laws of nature, do you not?  I win right there.  

Life - and thus intelligence - couldn't have arisen if any number things were slightly different.  Such as the charge of electrons being exactly opposite the charge of protons or the mass of the electron relative to the mass of the nucleus or the distance of the electron to the nucleus were different or if water acted like everything else and continued contracting as it froze.  If any number of things were slightly different the universe could have been created in exactly the same way yet the universe would be devoid of life.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Not necessarily. Logic and laws of nature are essentially just mathematical constructs. Arguably, math is little more than explicit statement of tautologies. Y=MX+B is nothing more than describing the relationship between Y and X. IF all P = Q And all Q = X then P=X is essentially self-evident.


What is mathematics if not mind stuff?  You lose again.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Our "appreciation" of these laws does not make them in any way more special than anything else around us.
> 
> I am unsure of how a universe could exist in which a thing is not what it is. If the tautologies don't hold then nothing holds.


You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You agree that life and intelligence arose naturally according to the laws of nature, do you not?  I win right there.



If that is your point then indeed I agree.  



ding said:


> Life - and thus intelligence - couldn't have arisen if any number things were slightly different.



Absolutely 100% wrong.  Life doesn't have to be life like you currently know it.  



ding said:


> or the mass of the electron relative to the mass of the nucleus or the distance of the electron to the nucleus were different or if water acted like everything else and continued contracting as it froze.  If any number of things were slightly different the universe could have been created in exactly the same way yet the universe would be devoid of life.



The flaw in this "Fine Tuned" argument is that it suffers from a certain chauvanism toward OUR understanding of what life is.  If electrons and protons' charges were different such that atoms are not stable then nothing would exist.  

This is pure unadulterated hypothetical musings.


----------



## Woodznutz

Leo123 said:


> God created evolution.


God created strong delusion. 


Hollie said:


> I don’t presume one or more gods.
> 
> The planet is very old. We have no evidence of supernaturalism. Those are material facts.


Contrasted against a barren, lifeless universe, the earth is quite super natural.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> What is mathematics if not mind stuff?  You lose again.



Do you honestly think that the proposition that "A thing is what it is and not some other thing" is a "mind stuff" thing?  It's central tenant that would be true with or without any minds being around.

If there were no intelligence in the universe a thing would still be what it is.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.



1+1=2 is real regardless of if there is a mind to perceive it or not.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> Agree. A collection of allegory and fable, written by many authors over many decades and reflects a period in time when life was harsh and the ebb and flow of life was dictated by events and forces little understood at the time so various gods and demons, most of which were passed down from earlier times, were the causes of existence.


The bible is basically the history of and prophecies concerning the nation of Israel.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> That's not valuable information.
> 
> 
> 
> But it isn't anything more than people musing on stuff.  Sounds like the thoughts one has after a couple of edibles.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, one of my closest friends from high school is a philosophy prof and obviously there's a lot of such musings.  But speaking as a philosophical realist (with the full understanding that our perception of reality is filtered and processed by our brains) I lack a belief that reality is just "entirely abstract".  I think of science as an attempt to get at the truth knowing it will only ever be an approximation, but that approximation belies an actual independent reality.


What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

So the statement, "from a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind" is extremely valuable as it was primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> 1+1=2 is real regardless of if there is a mind to perceive it or not.


What part of everything is made manifest by mind do you not understand?  It's the presence of mind which makes everything manifest.    Which is how I know mind is the source or matrix of the physical world.  That and a number of other things.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> God created strong delusion.
> 
> Contrasted against a barren, lifeless universe, the earth is quite super natural.


We don't know that the universe is lifeless. 

Claims to anything supernatural about earth would suggest you make a supportable case for supernatural creators. 

Let's see the evidence for your supernatural creators.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> The bible is basically the history of and prophecies concerning the nation of Israel.


Others make claims that conflict with yours. 

Why are their claims correct and yours are not?


----------



## Woodznutz

WinterBorn said:


> For those who have trouble with reading comprehension, this thread is not about rehashing Evolution/Creationism.    There are already 15 threads in Science & Technology and Religion & Ethics forums doing that.
> 
> This is a simple question.    Why does the argument exist?   Why does it matter?


The ToE at its root is an attack on creation, thus the creator.


ReinyDays said:


> Why do you think folks living in the Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BC should have believed the Earth was 4.6 billion years old? ... we didn't know the Earth was round until the 5th Century BC ...
> 
> Exact how many scientific truths should we expect from the oral tradition we received from antiquity? ... stories passed father to son for 45,000 years ... told around camp fires while the wimin folk tended the babies ...
> 
> Phaw ... a good argument can be made that the Bible is political spin ... we have evidence of Judah,* but nothing of Israel* ... much like Hitler invading Czechoslovakia, Putin invading The Ukraine, the United States invading Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, Panama, Grenada, Guatemala, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Guam, etc etc etc ... there's a narrative that allows for territorial conquest ... "It was ours from the beginning, the Bible says so" ...


Who do think the WASP countries are?


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> We don't know that the universe is lifeless.
> 
> Claims to anything supernatural about earth would suggest you make a supportable case for supernatural creators.
> 
> Let's see the evidence for your supernatural creators.


Does science have a theory or hypothesis about extraterrestrial life?

Someone or something had to create stuff that was created.


----------



## Woodznutz

Bruce_Almighty said:


> Politician lie daily like a Preacher that tend too his flock…
> 
> Lucifer is a myth created by humanity to scare children with so they wouldn’t follow the dark path in life.
> 
> Is the story needed in life lessons?
> 
> Yes, but Lucifer is just a fairytale in my personal opinion and the real evil is in the hearts of humanity…


The bible explains things that are otherwise unexplainable. It's called "revelation".


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Absolutely 100% wrong. Life doesn't have to be life like you currently know it.


You don't know what you are talking about.

If the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.  The universe could have been created exactly the same way but it would be devoid of life.

If there was any difference in electric charge between electrons and protons it would be enough to overwhelm the forces of gravitation that bring matter together; and so we should have no planets, no stars, no galaxies, no life and no intelligence but the universe could have been created exactly the same way but it would be devoid of life.

Do you want me to go on or you going to be making a ridiculous argument that life doesn't have to be carbon based?


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> I don't disagree about 'belief' requiring no evidence. I will point out however that competing belief systems have caused civilizations to clash and wars waged as those belief systems have sought to "prove'" the efficacy of their respective gods.
> 
> Science does not operate on "belief". And, I'll point out that irrefutable evidence is not a part of science knowledge. It is a process of discovery that flexes as new data is confirmed and meets the rigors of the Scientific Method.
> 
> I can't help but notice the attacks on science we see in here in so many forums are from the more excitable religious types.  They know with absolute certainty that "belief" is not an attribute for their religious views as their gods are real and extant and the reason and rationality that drives science is to be met with fear and loathing.


Behind the scenes evolutionists are frantically trying to fill the holes in the theory. That's why they only deal in 'macro' changes. They are scared spitless to look any deeper.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> The flaw in this "Fine Tuned" argument is that it suffers from a certain chauvanism toward OUR understanding of what life is. If electrons and protons' charges were different such that atoms are not stable then nothing would exist.
> 
> This is pure unadulterated hypothetical musings.


Life and intelligence exists precisely because the laws of nature are so finely tuned for it.  Physicists consider a life filled universe to be an unnatural universe as in it shouldn't exist.  That's how finely tuned the laws of nature are.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> I would disagree in the sense that, (per the thread topic), the difference between evolution vs. creationism is that evolution is evidence based. The evidence drives the conclusions. I see nothing in science that seeks to disprove god or gods. On the other hand, seeking evidence of God's work undermines _faith. _If one is questioning their faith, it is sometimes considered that they are also losing their faith, not strengthening it


Au contraire. Observing the creation strengthens faith. Belief in the creative power of God is intrinsic to Christian faith.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Does science have a theory or hypothesis about extraterrestrial life?
> 
> Someone or something had to create stuff that was created.


What stuff was created?


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Au contraire. Observing the creation strengthens faith.



What creation? Claims to supernaturalism mean it falls to you to make a meaningful argument for a supernatural creator capable of doing supernatural things.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Do you honestly think that the proposition that "A thing is what it is and not some other thing" is a "mind stuff" thing?  It's central tenant that would be true with or without any minds being around.
> 
> If there were no intelligence in the universe a thing would still be what it is.


Intelligence created the universe.  Everything is made manifest by mind.  How else do you believe the universe was created from nothing?


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> What stuff was created?


Everything that exists whether visible or invisible.


----------



## Woodznutz

ding said:


> It did in China.  Come to think of it I guess we do it everywhere.  But China's one child policy is the best example of destroying people that don't make the grade.


Thankfully that has changed once they realized that their whole society was in danger of disappearing because there weren't enough gals to have kids. In some cities the men outnumber the women 50 to 1.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Everything that exists whether visible or invisible.


Because you say so?


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> It would be nice, however, if they didn't feel the need to force it on everyone else.


You have it backward. Creationists are defending against the encroachment of godless evolution, which by the way is winning the day.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> Because you say so?


It's what the overwhelming evidence says. Recall the expression, "You can't get here from there"? Apply that to evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> It's what the evidence (ignored by science) says.


What would that evidence be?


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> What would that evidence be?


Read "Gray's Anatomy", then try to reconcile the ToE with what you learn.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Read "Gray's Anatomy", then try to reconcile the ToE with what you learn.


Was Gray's Anatomy authored by the gods?

I was hoping you could provide some evidence of supernatural gods and then follow with some evidence for supernatural creations created by those supernatural gods. Something of a logical, rational progression of causation. That would be nice.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> Was Gray's Anatomy authored by the gods?
> 
> I was hoping you could provide some evidence of supernatural gods and then follow with some evidence for supernatural creations created by those supernatural gods. Something of a logical, rational progression of causation. That would be nice.


Gray's Anatomy was authored by scientist(s). He/they unwittingly support creation by revealing complexities not possible through evolution.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> You have it backward. Creationists are defending against the encroachment of godless evolution, which by the way is winning the day.



Actually my point was exactly that.  Their sense of their relationship with their God is threatened by Evolution.  Which is why it isn't really all that important for most Christians.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Intelligence created the universe.



How do you know this?



ding said:


> Everything is made manifest by mind.



Do you believe there is an external reality independent of your mind?



ding said:


> How else do you believe the universe was created from nothing?



Special pleading to assume that it required "intelligence".  

I don't know how the universe was created.  And the cool thing is _you don't either_.  No one does and arguably no one ever can know.

It's like asking "what happened before time existed?"  It's a meaningless and unknowable question.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You don't know what you are talking about.



Thus sayet the Lord.



ding said:


> If the protons and neutrons were closer in mass to the electrons, whether light or heavy, then the motions of the electrons would be reflected in reciprocal motions by the others. All structures composed of such atoms would be fluid; in such a universe nothing would stay put. There could not be the fitting together of molecular shapes that permits not only crystals to form, but living organisms.  The universe could have been created exactly the same way but it would be devoid of life.



Wow, that's a lot of pseudoscientific gobbledy gook.


ding said:


> Do you want me to go on or you going to be making a ridiculous argument that life doesn't have to be carbon based?



Are you capable of having a conversation with anyone?  OR does everyone have to agree with you 100% or they are idiots?

Life doesn't have to be carbon-based.  WHY WOULD IT?

Carbon has the relatively unique (but not absolutely unique) ability to bond with itself in a variety of orbital hybridizations but that isn't anything magical.  There's about 91 other elements on the periodic table available.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Life and intelligence exists precisely because the laws of nature are so finely tuned for it.  Physicists consider a life filled universe to be an unnatural universe as in it shouldn't exist.  That's how finely tuned the laws of nature are.



"Physicists consider..."  Sounds like Trump's usual "People are saying..."  No one ever knows who those people are.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> How do you know this?


Because the laws of nature existed before space and time and because the presence of matter/energy creates its own space and time and is subject to change so matter/energy cannot be an eternal source.  So the only thing that can exist eternally (i.e. unchanging)  is no thing.  Consciousness is no thing.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Do you believe there is an external reality independent of your mind?


I believe as long as consciousness exists reality is made manifest.  

_"Physicists live with the problem of consciousness day in and day out. Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence."  George Wald_​


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Special pleading to assume that it required "intelligence".
> 
> I don't know how the universe was created. And the cool thing is _you don't either_. No one does and arguably no one ever can know.
> 
> It's like asking "what happened before time existed?" It's a meaningless and unknowable question.


We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.  If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Wow, that's a lot of pseudoscientific gobbledy gook.


Actually it's just science.  Science I got from a Nobel Laureate.



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Are you capable of having a conversation with anyone? OR does everyone have to agree with you 100% or they are idiots?


I believe that growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth.  That's what you and I are doing here.  I'm just better at it than you because I am objective and you are emotional.  So, no, not everyone must agree with me 100% of the time or at all or anything in between.  Just because you are wrong about something does not necessarily make you an idiot.  That can only be determined by what you do afterwards.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Carbon has the relatively unique (but not absolutely unique) ability to bond with itself in a variety of orbital hybridizations but that isn't anything magical. There's about 91 other elements on the periodic table available.


I'm going to let George Wald, Nobel Laureate respond....

"...Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics...."



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> "Physicists consider..."  Sounds like Trump's usual "People are saying..."  No one ever knows who those people are.


It's your lucky day because here's one.









						Naturalness and the Standard Model
					

Matt Strassler [August 27 – September 9, 2013] What is “Naturalness”? [This subject is closely related to the hierarchy problem.] What do particle physicists and string theorists …




					profmattstrassler.com


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Does science have a theory or hypothesis about extraterrestrial life?
> 
> Someone or something had to create stuff that was created.


Scientists will follow the evidence where it leads regarding extraterrestrial life. 

What evidence leads to supernatural gods?


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> It's what the overwhelming evidence says. Recall the expression, "You can't get here from there"? Apply that to evolution.


What overwhelming evidence?


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Gray's Anatomy was authored by scientist(s). He/they unwittingly support creation by revealing complexities not possible through evolution.


What complexity is not possible through evolution? What example of complexity can you present which was the result of supernatural gods?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Because the laws of nature existed before space and time and because the presence of matter/energy creates its own space and time and is subject to change so matter/energy cannot be an eternal source.  So the only thing that can exist eternally (i.e. unchanging)  is no thing.  Consciousness is no thing.



That's a word game.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Behind the scenes evolutionists are frantically trying to fill the holes in the theory. That's why they only deal in 'macro' changes. They are scared spitless to look any deeper.


I'm not aware what scenes evolutionists are behind. Can you give a few examples of frantic evolutionists behind the scenes?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.  If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.
> 
> Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.



Just because something had a beginning does not mean you know what it was.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> That's a word game.


It's a combination of science and logic.  It might help if you accepted the science that the universe was created from nothing.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.



Could you define "Mind stuff"?  It will ease the conversation.  What is it _exactly_?


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Just because something had a beginning does not mean you know what it was.





The spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Could you define "Mind stuff"?  It will ease the conversation.  What is it _exactly_?


consciousness


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> Actually my point was exactly that.  Their sense of their relationship with their God is threatened by Evolution.  Which is why it isn't really all that important for most Christians.


It gives some of us the warm fuzzies though.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> What complexity is not possible through evolution? What example of complexity can you present which was the result of supernatural gods?


The utter impossibility of that complexity via evolution. Just construct a chain of events that must occur before even the smallest evolutionary change can take place and you'll have your answer.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> The utter impossibility of that complexity via evolution. Just construct a chain of events that must occur before even the smallest evolutionary change can take place and you'll have your answer.


What chain of events are utterly impossible?


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> I'm not aware what scenes evolutionists are behind. Can you give a few examples of frantic evolutionists behind the scenes?


I can give you an overview. Scientists release various evolutionary hypotheses to the public before they have gathered enough evidence to support them. And the believing public swallows it without a second thought.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> What chain of events are utterly impossible?


Ask an evolutionary scientist about it. I think the answers will surprise you. There are more links missing from their chain of evidence than supporting ones.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> I can give you an overview. Scientists release various evolutionary hypotheses to the public before they have gathered enough evidence to support them. And the believing public swallows it without a second thought.


Example?


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Ask an evolutionary scientist about it. I think the answers will surprise you. There are more links missing from their chain of evidence than supporting ones.


I would be surprised. What missing links should I ask an evolutionary scientist about?


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> Example?


Just examine some of the things said by them that you believe without question. Such articles are replete with the statement, "Evolutionists now believe...." And many times it's a departure from what they previously believed about the subject. We can't keep up with them.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> I would be surprised. What missing links should I ask an evolutionary scientist about?


The biological steps, including at the molecular and genetic level, needed for any change to occur in an organism. Those necessary links are usually missing.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> You are wrong and you know this very well when you take a look at the hand of a gorilla and your own hand and ask yourselve where this similarity could come from. And no Christian ever asked you to defend god and his creation against his children and their evolution. That's totally weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _We human beings are not only the beneficiaries but also the stewards of other creatures. Thanks to our bodies, God has joined us so closely to the world around us that we can feel the desertification of the soil almost as a physical ailment, and the extinction of a species as a painful disfigurement. Let us not leave in our wake a swath of destruction and death which will affect our own lives and those of future generations._
> *Pope Francis*


How can I be wrong if I quote the Bible correctly in regards to creation science?  Now, you can point out my error if you know creation science, but it appears you don't have any clue.

ETA:  Can you provide what today's evolutionists have in terms of evidence?  You've never provided any science papers for your gorilla hands nor anything else in recent memory.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> I'm going to let George Wald, Nobel Laureate respond....
> 
> "...Now, to leave the elementary particles and go on to atoms, to elements. Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.
> 
> Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.
> 
> Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.
> 
> If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.
> 
> But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.
> 
> These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics...."
> 
> 
> 
> George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe



Just curious if you realized I had already spoken about the C-C bonds in my previous post.  Did you catch my comment on _orbital hybridization?_

I assume, based on your vast knowledge you are intimately familiar with sp, sp2, and sp3 hybrid orbitals that C has, right?  And their relationship to the types of bonds that take part with those orbitals?


Also:  I fundamentally disagree with Dr. Ward's characterization of the periodic table.  NO ONE expects that just because two things occur in the same group that they will be EXACTLY ALIKE.  That's absurd on it face.  What groups do in the periodic table is, as you go down the group *the chemical interactions the elements take part in are similar.  *The valence electrons are in a similar configuration, but at ever increasing energy levels as you go down the periodic table.  So if a chem prof is teaching that O and S are exactly the same that's not right.  I think Dr. Ward is extrapolating from bad teaching to make some point that isn't really all that common.

C and Si are both Group IV elements, but they don't behave the same.  Yes, Si orbitals can, indeed, hybridize the s and p, but they won't form double and triple bonds because of the size of the atom.

But the richness of C's bond ecosystem is not absolutely necessary for life  _qua life.  _There is a huge amount of overlap between non-life and life-chemistry.  In fact the earliest pre-biotic organic chemistry probably required mineral substrates. 

Carbon based life is the only life we currently know.  C is great for this.  But one should not put a stake in the ground as if C is somehow the ONLY element which "life" can use as a building block.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> The biological steps, including at the molecular and genetic level, needed for any change to occur in an organism. Those necessary links are usually missing.



Are you familiar with Zeno's Paradox?  It says that if I fire an arrow at a target it must first go half-way to the target.  Beyond that it must go half-way between that point and the target.  And so on and so forth.  By this reasoning the arrow can never reach the target.

But you and I both know that it's a matter of resolution.  The arrow is not infinitely tiny.  

Same sort of thing with "Missing links".  Creationists tend to demand "Missing links" and when shown one then demand missing links on either side of that one.  It's a fun game, but ultimately not very productive and is really nothing more than a game.

On the molecular and genetic levels there really aren't any "missing links".  But missing links for animals exist all over the place.  

You don't have to believe in evolution, but if you wish to _question _evolution then it helps to actually understand what it is and what it is not.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> It gives some of us the warm fuzzies though.



What does?


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> What does?


Believing in God.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> Believing in God.



That's fine, but as I noted earlier, evolution is NOT incompatible with belief in God.


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> Are you familiar with Zeno's Paradox?  It says that if I fire an arrow at a target it must first go half-way to the target.  Beyond that it must go half-way between that point and the target.  And so on and so forth.  By this reasoning the arrow can never reach the target.
> 
> But you and I both know that it's a matter of resolution.  The arrow is not infinitely tiny.
> 
> Same sort of thing with "Missing links".  Creationists tend to demand "Missing links" and when shown one then demand missing links on either side of that one.  It's a fun game, but ultimately not very productive and is really nothing more than a game.
> 
> On the molecular and genetic levels there really aren't any "missing links".  But missing links for animals exist all over the place.
> 
> You don't have to believe in evolution, but if you wish to _question _evolution then it helps to actually understand what it is and what it is not.


The missing links are not only in the species but more importantly in the process. In order for evolution to work these processes must appear out of thin air.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> The missing links are not only in the species but more importantly in the process. In order for evolution to work these processes must appear out of thin air.



Thank heavens missing links exist!


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Just curious if you realized I had already spoken about the C-C bonds in my previous post.  Did you catch my comment on _orbital hybridization?_
> 
> I assume, based on your vast knowledge you are intimately familiar with sp, sp2, and sp3 hybrid orbitals that C has, right?  And their relationship to the types of bonds that take part with those orbitals?
> 
> 
> Also:  I fundamentally disagree with Dr. Ward's characterization of the periodic table.  NO ONE expects that just because two things occur in the same group that they will be EXACTLY ALIKE.  That's absurd on it face.  What groups do in the periodic table is, as you go down the group *the chemical interactions the elements take part in are similar.  *The valence electrons are in a similar configuration, but at ever increasing energy levels as you go down the periodic table.  So if a chem prof is teaching that O and S are exactly the same that's not right.  I think Dr. Ward is extrapolating from bad teaching to make some point that isn't really all that common.
> 
> C and Si are both Group IV elements, but they don't behave the same.  Yes, Si orbitals can, indeed, hybridize the s and p, but they won't form double and triple bonds because of the size of the atom.
> 
> But the richness of C's bond ecosystem is not absolutely necessary for life  _qua life.  _There is a huge amount of overlap between non-life and life-chemistry.  In fact the earliest pre-biotic organic chemistry probably required mineral substrates.
> 
> Carbon based life is the only life we currently know.  C is great for this.  But one should not put a stake in the ground as if C is somehow the ONLY element which "life" can use as a building block.


His name is Wald, not Ward.  And if you believe life anywhere else in the universe would be materially different from life here on earth, THAT would make you an idiot.  But please do feel free to pontificate on how life evolved without being based upon hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C).


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> His name is Wald, not Ward.  And if you believe life looks any different anywhere else in the universe, THAT would make you an idiot.  But please do feel free to pontificate on how life evolved without being based upon hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C).



Thanks for missing the points I posted.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Thanks for missing the points I posted.


You are welcome.  I have a hard time suffering fools who believe life would be based upon anything different than hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C).


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> Thank heavens missing links exist!


Revisit post #146.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Just examine some of the things said by them that you believe without question. Such articles are replete with the statement, "Evolutionists now believe...." And many times it's a departure from what they previously believed about the subject. We can't keep up with them.


I would agree that new fossil finds, new testing methods and new evidence can require updates and revision to earlier information. That's the process of science. Would you prefer that science not have revised germ theory over the last 75 years?

Did Eve take a bite of a Red Delicious or a Granny Smith apple?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You are welcome.  I have a hard time suffering fools who believe life would be based upon anything different than hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C).



You think a lot of yourself don't you?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> Revisit post #146.



Revist Post #142.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> You think a lot of yourself don't you?


I don't see anything special about me.


----------



## ding

"...These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics..."  George Wald


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> I don't see anything special about me.



Yeah, I'm calling BS.  You think yourself a master of all things because you find one reference you flog like it owes you money.  You did the same thing with the O18 curve.  

You didn't even seem to know what a hybrid orbital was.  How can you call someone a fool about C chemistry if you don't even know how C bonds?


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> The biological steps, including at the molecular and genetic level, needed for any change to occur in an organism. Those necessary links are usually missing.


How do you know they're missing? Is there something in the religious literature you can provide that identifies the missing links? There are entire university libraries that have documentation describing cell division. Genetic data is routinely used in the medical field to diagnose disease. Rattling bones and burnig incense doesn't work as well.


----------



## ding

"...Their (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen) unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further..." George Wald


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Yeah, I'm calling BS.  You think yourself a master of all things because you find one reference you flog like it owes you money.  You did the same thing with the O18 curve.


I didn't say I didn't know things.  I said there's nothing special about me.  You could know the same things I know if you stopped being emotional and started being objective.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> You didn't even seem to know what a hybrid orbital was. How can you call someone a fool about C chemistry if you don't even know how C bonds?


Is any of that relevant to life being based on elements other than hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> "...These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics..."  George Wald



What a load of pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo!  Seriously.  This isn't science, dude, this Wald dipping his toes into philosophy and coming across as a new age nutter.

So because H is fused in stars and it occurs in organic chemicals (NOT ALL OF WHICH ARE RELATED TO LIFE, I might add) then it must be that H and C are the ONLY things that could EVER be life???

Wow.

That's seriously woo-woo sh*t.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Is any of that relevant to life being based on elements other than hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen?



Apparently so.  Wald talked about it.  The fact that you didn't see the relation just shows this is yet another science you know nothing about but you THINK you do sufficient to call others "fools" when they fail to agree with your woo-woo bs.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> What a load of pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo!  Seriously.  This isn't science, dude, this Wald dipping his toes into philosophy and coming across as a new age nutter.
> 
> So because H is fused in stars and it occurs in organic chemicals (NOT ALL OF WHICH ARE RELATED TO LIFE, I might add) then it must be that H and C are the ONLY things that could EVER be life???
> 
> Wow.
> 
> That's seriously woo-woo sh*t.


uh huh....  cool story.  









						George Wald
					

The American biochemist George Wald (born 1906) discovered the role that vitamin A plays in vision and made many contributions to the knowledge of the biochemistry of vision. He won the Nobel Prize in medicine/physiology in 1967 and was a prominent activist in the movement against the Vietnam...




					biography.yourdictionary.com


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Apparently so.  Wald talked about it.  The fact that you didn't see the relation just shows this is yet another science you know nothing about but you THINK you do sufficient to call others "fools" when they fail to agree with your woo-woo bs.


That would be showing it wasn't relevant, my dear, not showing it is relevant.  So I'll ask it another way, how is that relevant?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> uh huh....  cool story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Wald
> 
> 
> The American biochemist George Wald (born 1906) discovered the role that vitamin A plays in vision and made many contributions to the knowledge of the biochemistry of vision. He won the Nobel Prize in medicine/physiology in 1967 and was a prominent activist in the movement against the Vietnam...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biography.yourdictionary.com



Appeal to authority.  I was talking about the post you attributed to him.  That wasn't science.  That was philosophy (new age sh*t)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> That would be showing it wasn't relevant,



The fact that YOU POSTED WALD'S DISCUSSION WHICH TALKED ABOUT IT means it wasn't relevant?  WHy did you post it?



ding said:


> my dear, not showing it is relevant.  So I'll ask it another way, how is that relevant?



If you don't understand Carbon Chemistry you can't say anything meaningful on it.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Appeal to authority.  I was talking about the post you attributed to him.  That wasn't science.  That was philosophy (new age sh*t)


More like pointing out to you who you were dismissing.  And his observations were most certainly based upon science.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> The fact that YOU POSTED WALD'S DISCUSSION WHICH TALKED ABOUT IT means it wasn't relevant?  WHy did you post it?


As proof that all life in the universe is based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen as these are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.  Sounds like science to me.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> More like pointing out to you who you were dismissing.  And his observations were most certainly based upon science.



LOL.

You love you some appeal to authority.  Doesn't have to make any sense, you just have their bona fides.  LOL.

You know next to nothing about how science operates.  Go home, poser.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> If you don't understand Carbon Chemistry you can't say anything meaningful on it.


So you are saying I can't say...

... that hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> LOL.
> 
> You love you some appeal to authority.  Doesn't have to make any sense, you just have their bona fides.  LOL.
> 
> You know next to nothing about how science operates.  Go home, poser.


Again... pointing out that you - an anonymous internet poster - are dismissing the scientific beliefs of a distinguished Nobel Laureate.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> You know next to nothing about how science operates. Go home, poser.


I'm more than happy to let others decide which one of us understands how science works.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> As proof that all life in the universe is based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen as these are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases)



Honestly I wish that made any sense.  Because *every element below C can form a completed outer shell octet*.

That's what BONDING is about.  Sheesh!  Even Na creates a stable octet when it snags an e- from Cl.

What does that even MEAN???  



ding said:


> The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds,



What???  This treats all bonds as the same!  They are nothing of the sort!  What about IONIC BONDS?  LOL.  

You are talking here about COVALENT BONDS in carbon-based compounds but that isn't all bonding.  What about Boron?  It forms nice covalent bonds with O (you ever make slime with PVA glue and boric acid?). Boron is lighter than C.



ding said:


> hence the most stable molecules



That isn't even close to right.  The bond enthalpy for C-C is 347 kJ/mol while the bond enthalpy for H-F is 565kJ/mol.

What do you mean "most stable"????



ding said:


> , but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another



There's that orbital hybridization I was talking about.  You know...the stuff you said is "irrelevant"?  LOL.  Here you are talking about it again.

Yes, double bonds are usually stronger.  But that's not the only metric for life.  



ding said:


> , so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.  Sounds like science to me.



Funny thing is that all this talk about organic chemistry (and it IS very interesting chemistry) is that *organic chemistry is NOT always and exclusively related to life*.  There is literally nothing special about organic chemistry in life vs non-life.

It occurs in both settings.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> If you don't understand Carbon Chemistry you can't say anything meaningful on it.


Again... how do carbon bonds have anything to do with life being based upon something other than carbon?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Again... pointing out that you - an anonymous internet poster - are dismissing the scientific beliefs of a distinguished Nobel Laureate.



And again, pointing out that you, an anonymous internet poster, don't really know what he's talking about from a technical point of view.  Just because HE got a Nobel doesn't mean that *every word out of his mouth is ipso facto gospel truth.*  And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean YOU know anything about it.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Honestly I wish that made any sense.  Because *every element below C can form a completed outer shell octet*.
> 
> That's what BONDING is about.  Sheesh!  Even Na creates a stable octet when it snags an e- from Cl.
> 
> What does that even MEAN???
> 
> 
> 
> What???  This treats all bonds as the same!  They are nothing of the sort!  What about IONIC BONDS?  LOL.
> 
> You are talking here about COVALENT BONDS in carbon-based compounds but that isn't all bonding.  What about Boron?  It forms nice covalent bonds with O (you ever make slime with PVA glue and boric acid?). Boron is lighter than C.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't even close to right.  The bond enthalpy for C-C is 347 kJ/mol while the bond enthalpy for H-F is 565kJ/mol.
> 
> What do you mean "most stable"????
> 
> 
> 
> There's that orbital hybridization I was talking about.  You know...the stuff you said is "irrelevant"?  LOL.  Here you are talking about it again.
> 
> Yes, double bonds are usually stronger.  But that's not the only metric for life.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is that all this talk about organic chemistry (and it IS very interesting chemistry) is that *organic chemistry is NOT always and exclusively related to life*.  There is literally nothing special about organic chemistry in life vs non-life.
> 
> It occurs in both settings.


So what other elements besides hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen do you suppose life could be based upon?


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> And again, pointing out that you, an anonymous internet poster, don't really know what he's talking about from a technical point of view.  Just because HE got a Nobel doesn't mean that *every word out of his mouth is ipso facto gospel truth.*  And it CERTAINLY doesn't mean YOU know anything about it.


Says the anonymous poster who dismissed a Nobel Laureate without ever stating which other elements besides hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen that life could be based upon.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> So what other elements besides hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen do you suppose life could be based upon?



I love how you dodged every point I made.  Hilarious!

You are worse than a Creationist with their Gish Gallops.

Sheesh.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I love how you dodged every point I made.  Hilarious!
> 
> You are worse than a Creationist with their Gish Gallops.
> 
> Sheesh.


Look... you are arguing that life isn't necessarily limited to being based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen without having anything to back it up.  I at least provided expert testimony on why all life in the universe must be based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen.  

Here's another one too...









						What are the Ingredients of Life?
					

Life on Earth is usually, but not always, composed of six ingredients. Life's Little Mysteries tells you which ones, and why they are considered the building blocks of life.




					www.livescience.com
				




and another one....









						How six elements came together to form life on Earth
					

How did life begin? We will never know with certainty what the Earth was like four billion years ago, or the kinds of reactions that led to the emergence of life at that time, but there is another way to pose the question. If we ask "how can life begin?" instead of "how did life begin," that...



					blog.oup.com
				




and another one...






						2  A Sketch of the Chemistry Behind Known Carbon-based Life on Earth | The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems |The National Academies Press
					

Read chapter 2  A Sketch of the Chemistry Behind Known Carbon-based Life on Earth: The search for life in the solar system and beyond has to date been gov...



					nap.nationalacademies.org


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> How do you know they're missing? Is there something in the religious literature you can provide that identifies the missing links? There are entire university libraries that have documentation describing cell division. Genetic data is routinely used in the medical field to diagnose disease. Rattling bones and burnig incense doesn't work as well.


I'm depending on science to eventually realize that the ToE is false. No need for objection on religious grounds.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> I'm depending on science to eventually realize that the ToE is false. No need for objection on religious grounds.


The ToE is among the best supported theories in science. That's infuriating for those who reject the evidence on religious grounds.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Look... you are arguing that life isn't necessarily limited to being based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen without having anything to back it up.  I at least provided expert testimony on why all life in the universe must be based upon hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen.
> 
> Here's another one too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the Ingredients of Life?
> 
> 
> Life on Earth is usually, but not always, composed of six ingredients. Life's Little Mysteries tells you which ones, and why they are considered the building blocks of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.livescience.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and another one....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How six elements came together to form life on Earth
> 
> 
> How did life begin? We will never know with certainty what the Earth was like four billion years ago, or the kinds of reactions that led to the emergence of life at that time, but there is another way to pose the question. If we ask "how can life begin?" instead of "how did life begin," that...
> 
> 
> 
> blog.oup.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and another one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2  A Sketch of the Chemistry Behind Known Carbon-based Life on Earth | The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems |The National Academies Press
> 
> 
> Read chapter 2  A Sketch of the Chemistry Behind Known Carbon-based Life on Earth: The search for life in the solar system and beyond has to date been gov...
> 
> 
> 
> nap.nationalacademies.org



You are claiming (based on something you read by someone you heard got a Nobel so he must be super smart) that ONLY CHNOSP can be the make-up of life.  That's irrational because you would have to have a definition of life that is independent of what makes it up.

Once you generate that definition you will find that you cannot rule out the idea that maybe something other than CHNOSP can be used to make life.

Let's talk "self-replication".  Life is essentially a special case for standard adsorption.  Early organic chemicals may have "replicated" by selective adsorption onto mineral surfaces (like carbonates or phyllosilicates --clays-).  It is likely that life looks like it does *because of those mineral surfaces.*

But think about how crystals grow.  They behave VERY MUCH like how organic chemicals interact in living things.  DNA and RNA coordinate based on super-simple basic chemistry rules and hydrogen bonds.  That's pretty much the same way a crystal grows.  It relies on elements coordinating on a surface following basic super-simple chemistry rules.  

What else could life form as?  *I honestly don't know!  *But then neither do you nor does Wald.  It could be any number of things.  

Life likely REQUIRED non-C, Non-H, Non-S compounds to exist.  Why assume that ONLY these CHONSP compounds can possibly be "life"?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> I'm depending on science to eventually realize that the ToE is false. No need for objection on religious grounds.



That's literally the ONLY grounds for expecting the ToE is false.

Because right now ToE is the basis of biology and medicine and it seems to work pretty damn well.


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> The ToE is among the strongly supported theories in science. That's infuriating for those who reject the evidence on religious grounds.


I think the ToE is a very shaky "jenga" game with some very weak blocks within the stack. Eventually someone will pull them out and the whole thing will come crashing down.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> I think the ToE is a very shaky "jenga" game with some very weak blocks within the stack.



Just saying that doesn't make it true.  



Woodznutz said:


> Eventually someone will pull them out and the whole thing will come crashing down.



Probably not.  Certainly not from the religious side.


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> Because right now ToE is the basis of biology and medicine and it seems to work pretty damn well.


That can be a controversial topic by itself. Science assumes that we can only prosper if they interfere with biology. This is especially true in the area of medicine and health. They've got biology completely screwed up with gmo's and chemicals.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> You are claiming (based on something you read by someone you heard got a Nobel so he must be super smart) that ONLY CHNOSP can be the make-up of life.  That's irrational because you would have to have a definition of life that is independent of what makes it up.
> 
> Once you generate that definition you will find that you cannot rule out the idea that maybe something other than CHNOSP can be used to make life.
> 
> Let's talk "self-replication".  Life is essentially a special case for standard adsorption.  Early organic chemicals may have "replicated" by selective adsorption onto mineral surfaces (like carbonates or phyllosilicates --clays-).  It is likely that life looks like it does *because of those mineral surfaces.*
> 
> But think about how crystals grow.  They behave VERY MUCH like how organic chemicals interact in living things.  DNA and RNA coordinate based on super-simple basic chemistry rules and hydrogen bonds.  That's pretty much the same way a crystal grows.  It relies on elements coordinating on a surface following basic super-simple chemistry rules.
> 
> What else could life form as?  *I honestly don't know!  *But then neither do you nor does Wald.  It could be any number of things.
> 
> Life likely REQUIRED non-C, Non-H, Non-S compounds to exist.  Why assume that ONLY these CHONSP compounds can possibly be "life"?


Because they are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.  Now do you understand?


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> Probably not.  Certainly not from the religious side.


No need. It will self-destruct.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> I think the ToE is a very shaky "jenga" game with some very weak blocks within the stack. Eventually someone will pull them out and the whole thing will come crashing down.


Your beliefs are your own but denying science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs doesn't diminish the supported theory.

You haven't offered anything that contradicts the ToE or presented anything to challenge the Theory or the available evidence.

"The Bible says ...." is not an argument that refutes evidence.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Because they are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases)




You really DIDN'T Understand what I meant when I said a *stable "octet"* did you?????

Woah!

Fer heaven's sake, dude, GOOGLE IT!  LOLOLOLOL.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> No need. It will self-destruct.



It won't.  But since it is important to your religious faith you feel free to believe as you like.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> You really DIDN'T Understand what I meant when I said a *stable "octet"* did you?????
> 
> Woah!
> 
> Fer heaven's sake, dude, GOOGLE IT!  LOLOLOLOL.


I get that it's a red herring you are using to hide the fact that you have absolutely no evidence for life being based upon anything other than, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

Just in case you missed this... The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further. Now do you understand?


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> Your beliefs are your own but denying science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs doesn't diminish the supported theory.
> 
> You haven't offered anything that contradicts the ToE or presented anything to challenge the Theory or the available evidence.
> 
> "The Bible says ...." is not an argument that refutes evidence.


Creation is the only alternative once the evidence is honestly examined.

Did you do some reading in the anatomy book I suggested? You could go over it with a divining rod and never find a trace of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> No need. It will self-destruct.


Anything from Ken Ham's silly Ark Park you can offer to deconstruct the ToE? 

The exhibits of humans in buckskin outfits frolicking with dinosaurs is just so cute.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> Creation is the only alternative once the evidence is honestly appraised.


Show us the data confirming Amun Ra as the creator of creation. He's the leading contender for the Big Kahuna god of the gods. You knew that, right?


----------



## Woodznutz

Hollie said:


> Show us the data confirming Amun Ra as the creator of creation. He's the leading contender for the Big Kahuna god of the gods. You knew that, right?


The only God that has revealed him/itself to me is the God of the Bible.


----------



## Hollie

Woodznutz said:


> The only God that has revealed him/itself to me is the God of the Bible.


That's fine. Competing gods seem to reveal themselves to others based largely on geographic place of birth. The gods seem to have staked out turf they control.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> I get that it's a red herring you are using to hide the fact that you have absolutely no evidence for life being based upon anything other than, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.



Look at the periodic table.  See C?  Yeah, there are several elements lighter than it.

*MOST OF THEM MAKE BONDS THAT "MIMIC" A NOBLE GAS...THAT'S WHAT AN OCTET IS*.




ding said:


> Just in case you missed this... The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further. Now do you understand?



That literally MEANS NOTHING!  LOL.

What do you mean "saturating all their tendencies"????


I work as a chemist.  Please stop.  You're killing me.  LOL.


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> It did in China.  Come to think of it I guess we do it everywhere.  But China's one child policy is the best example of destroying people that don't make the grade.



My mistake ... this is something we shouldn't do ... not sure the China example fits ... the extra children weren't killed, just the parents fined and/or imprisoned ... and the Catholic Church is heavily suppressed there, so vasectomy/tubal ligation and all manner of birth control ... 

China is more like a puppy mill than an honest breeder ... and so they had to stop ... or they'd be like India today ...


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Look at the periodic table.  See C?  Yeah, there are several elements lighter than it.
> 
> *MOST OF THEM MAKE BONDS THAT "MIMIC" A NOBLE GAS...THAT'S WHAT AN OCTET IS*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That literally MEANS NOTHING!  LOL.
> 
> What do you mean "saturating all their tendencies"????
> 
> 
> I work as a chemist.  Please stop.  You're killing me.  LOL.


First you were a geologist now you are a chemist who doesn't understand the importance of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon being the only elements which regularly form double and triple bonds with one another?

So as a world renowned chemist what other elements besides  oxygen, carbon and nitrogen can life be based upon.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> My mistake ... this is something we shouldn't do ... not sure the China example fits ... the extra children weren't killed, just the parents fined and/or imprisoned ... and the Catholic Church is heavily suppressed there, so vasectomy/tubal ligation and all manner of birth control ...
> 
> China is more like a puppy mill than an honest breeder ... and so they had to stop ... or they'd be like India today ...


The parents would abort the girls because boys were more valuable to them.  Apparently girls didn't make the grade.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> First you were a geologist now you are a chemist



How many times did I tell you I was an ORGANIC GEOCHEMIST???

Wow.



ding said:


> who doesn't understand the importance of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon being the only elements which regularly form double and triple bonds with one another?



Well, O doesn't form triple bonds.

But again, *I already discussed sp hybridization in Carbon.  So clearly I know all about this*.  (The fact that you don't understand what sp hybridization is is telling).

_*Do you REALLY define life based on triple and double bonds????   That's novel.  Never heard of that.*_

You DO realize that there are a LOT OF REALLY STABLE THINGS on earth that don't contain any double or triple bonds, right?


----------



## ding

Damn unintended consequences <shaking fist>


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> How many times did I tell you I was an ORGANIC GEOCHEMIST???
> 
> Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, O doesn't form triple bonds.
> 
> But again, *I already discussed sp hybridization in Carbon.  So clearly I know all about this*.  (The fact that you don't understand what sp hybridization is is telling).
> 
> _*Do you REALLY define life based on triple and double bonds????   That's novel.  Never heard of that.*_
> 
> You DO realize that there are a LOT OF REALLY STABLE THINGS on earth that don't contain any double or triple bonds, right?


How long are you going to argue with George Wald?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> How long are you going to argue with George Wald?



I'm not arguing with Wald.  You aren't Wald.

If you don't understand what an _octet_ is then you don't even understand what Wald did to get his Nobel.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the following questions:

1. What is "Mind stuff" you keep talking about?
2. Define "life" so we might actually discuss this.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ReinyDays said:


> the extra children weren't killed,



You are wrong there.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Stashman said:


> Um, I'm pretty sure no one can debunk a theory. It's a theory!


Then you have no idea what a scientific theory is. You should probably stop commenting until you read up a bit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> A collection of allegory and fable


The Bible is neither of these things. Allegory and fable do not purport themselves to be true or literal.

The Bible is mythology. NOT fable or allegory.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Interdependence requires spontaneous creation.


Now, write out your argument.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Stashman said:


> Um, I'm pretty sure no one can debunk a theory. It's a theory!



You can ALWAYS debunk a theory.  But it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY you would be able to do so.  It became a theory precisely because it proved to be so accurate and its findings so repeatably found that it made it to the "theory" level.

But everything can be debunked.  Just not likely to be for this.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Bible is neither of these things. Allegory and fable do not purport themselves to be true or literal.
> 
> The Bible is mythology. NOT fable or allegory.



Not everything in the Bible claims itself to be literal truth.  And indeed many of the stories are allegorical.  

The supernatural claims of the Bible can be accurately characterized as mythology but the Bible can and does contain some incredibly beautiful allegory and metaphor.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> The ToE at its root is an attack on creation, thus the creator.


Utter nonsense. It doesn't concern itself with iron age mythology anymore than any other field of science.

You have the same choice with evolution as you do any other robust, true scientific theory:

You can embarrass yourself and deny it, or you can point at it and say "God did that!"

Just like you do with electromagnetic theory, or star formation.

The problem here is yours.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PV System said:


> Not everything in the Bible claims itself to be literal truth.


Of course it does. 100%, every word. The Bible makes that very clear. More than once.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

*2 Peter 1:20-21* - Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation

For example...


----------



## ReinyDays

ding said:


> The parents would abort the girls because boys were more valuable to them.  Apparently girls didn't make the grade.



That's the old Chinese pension system ... boys don't even move out of their father's house ... ever ... if a couple has a girl, she'll have to move in with her in-laws and help her husband ... currently 117.7 boys per 100 girls ... sadly, the old pension system is still in collapse ... sucks to be there ...

But what do you expect from a godless society? ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> That's the old Chinese pension system ... boys don't even move out of their father's house ... ever ... if a couple has a girl, she'll have to move in with her in-laws and help her husband ... currently 117.7 boys per 100 girls ... sadly, the old pension system is still in collapse ... sucks to be there ...
> 
> But what do you expect from a godless society? ...


Suicide bombers, persecution of gays, denial of robust scientific theories, sectarian violence, child marriage...

Oh wait, those are godFUL societies. Nevermind.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I'm not arguing with Wald.  You aren't Wald.
> 
> If you don't understand what an _octet_ is then you don't even understand what Wald did to get his Nobel.


I believe he won the Nobel prize in medicine.  You absolutely are arguing with Wald.  That's where I got my belief from that life throughout the universe is based on hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.  You even read it.  

That you can't understand why double and triple bonds are important for living things is beyond me.  Strong bonds equals stable bonds.  It's kind of a requirement for living things.


----------



## ding

ReinyDays said:


> That's the old Chinese pension system ... boys don't even move out of their father's house ... ever ... if a couple has a girl, she'll have to move in with her in-laws and help her husband ... currently 117.7 boys per 100 girls ... sadly, the old pension system is still in collapse ... sucks to be there ...
> 
> But what do you expect from a godless society? ...


Is that the ratio for ages under 25?  Or the whole population?


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> What is "Mind stuff" you keep talking about?


What is it that you didn't understand from my statement that  "rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time mind has always existed as the source or matrix of physical reality?"


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> That you can't understand why double and triple bonds are important for living things is beyond me.  Strong bonds equals stable bonds.  It's kind of a requirement for living things.



Why does it need to be particularly strong?  *Not all bonds in your body are double or triple.  Most of them are single C-C and C-H bonds.*  If it were a matter of bond strength you'd get more mileage out of a Si-O bond.  The enthalpy of that one is higher than C-C.

I will repeat again:  *most of the bonds in your body are SINGLE BONDS and...this is going to freak you out...your DNA makes EXTENSIVE USE OF hydrogen bonds!  In fact it is kind of how DNA works.  Hydrogen bonds are not the strongest bonds on the earth.  In fact they are MANY TIMES SMALLER than even a C-C single bond.*

So let's drop this cannard of "stable multiple bonds" as a definition of life.  In fact it is arguable that most of life DOESN'T make use of those as much as they do the less strong bonds.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> What is it that you didn't understand from my statement that  "rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time mind has always existed as the source or matrix of physical reality?"



Yeah, New Age word salad.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ReinyDays said:


> But what do you expect from a godless society? ...



So if China were not "godless" they wouldn't do stupid things to control their wildly giant population?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ReinyDays said:


> But what do you expect from a godless society?





PV System said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is backwards logic.  Everything we are and know developed to fit into the niches it currently inhabits.  The puddle does not form to fit the shape of the water.  The water conforms to the shape of the puddle.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not work with Microsoft products?


Yes. Life is fine tuned to the universe, not the other way around. Life is defined by function, not by form or content. The same functions could and would be performed in different universes by life.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Define "life" so we might actually discuss this.


You don't know how to define life?

Maybe you will be able to understand it after watching this.  Please let me know if you have trouble understanding this.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You don't know how to define life?



I am trying to figure out how YOU define life so that we might come to a common frame in order to discuss this.



ding said:


> Maybe you will be able to understand it after watching this.  Please let me know if you have trouble understanding this.



I don't watch other people's videos unless they're funny.  Mainly because if you can't summarize it sufficiently then I don't care since it wasn't important to you.

Just tell me what your favorite video says.  Thanks.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Why does it need to be particularly strong?  *Not all bonds in your body are double or triple.  Most of them are single C-C and C-H bonds.*  If it were a matter of bond strength you'd get more mileage out of a Si-O bond.  The enthalpy of that one is higher than C-C.
> 
> I will repeat again:  *most of the bonds in your body are SINGLE BONDS and...this is going to freak you out...your DNA makes EXTENSIVE USE OF hydrogen bonds!  In fact it is kind of how DNA works.  Hydrogen bonds are not the strongest bonds on the earth.  In fact they are MANY TIMES SMALLER than even a C-C single bond.*
> 
> So let's drop this cannard of "stable multiple bonds" as a definition of life.  In fact it is arguable that most of life DOESN'T make use of those as much as they do the less strong bonds.


You have to be kidding.  I'm at a loss for words that you cannot understand why chemical stability is a requirement of life.  Do you even O2?  Apparently in your world life could be made up from any element.  But that isn't what we see, right?


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I am trying to figure out how YOU define life so that we might come to a common frame in order to discuss this.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch other people's videos unless they're funny.  Mainly because if you can't summarize it sufficiently then I don't care since it wasn't important to you.
> 
> Just tell me what your favorite video says.  Thanks.


Well... if you won't watch the video then you'll never know.

Here's another video for you.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Yeah, New Age word salad.


You are arguing with George Wald again.  



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You have to be kidding.  I'm at a loss for words that you cannot understand why chemical stability is a requirement of life.



At what point did I say it wasn't?  *But again most of the chemical bonds in your body are NOT C=C or C=C bonds.*



ding said:


> Apparently in your world life could be made up from any element.  But that isn't what we see, right?



Your insistence on maximum stability as a definition of a prerequisite for life has now been shown to be flawed.

As I noted your DNA utilizes INTEGRALLY hydrogen bonds.  It has a bond enthalpy about 10X smaller than a C-C bond.

(At this point I am beginning to understand what your game is.)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Well... if you won't watch the video then you'll never know.
> 
> Here's another video for you.



If you don't understand it why do you need me to watch it? So someone can explain it to you?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You are arguing with George Wald again.
> 
> 
> 
> George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe



It's new age word salad.  It has no scientific meaning.

Sorry to break it to you.  Even scientists say some batsh*t silly things from time to time.  No matter how good they are at medicine.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> So let's drop this cannard of "stable multiple bonds" as a definition of life.


No one said that, dummy.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> If you don't understand it why do you need me to watch it? So someone can explain it to you?


I do understand it.  You asked for how I define life and I provided a youtube video that answered the question.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> I think the ToE is a very shaky "jenga" game with some very weak blocks within the stack. Eventually someone will pull them out and the whole thing will come crashing down.


You expose your own intellectual fraud.

You say that someday, somehow,, somebody (else) will provide the reason or evidence for a belief you already adopted and insist is true.

See if you can spot the intellectual fraud...


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> No one said that, dummy.



You don't even know what you are talking about.  

You blabber on about "stability" of the bonds but you don't even know what a bond enthalpy is. (hint: it's a measure of the strength of the bond).  You blabber on about making bonds that "mimic noble gases" but you don't even know what an Octet is (hint:  that's what the phrase means).

You act like life is somehow predicated on MAXIMUM STABILITY of the bonds which has now been shown to include some really weak individual bonds.

You are so out of your depth it's not funny.  And I KNOW you are enjoying driving me batty with your insipid ignorance, you know you don't understand most of what is being said, but you are doing what you do.  It's getting to be less fun the more you do it.  At one point I actually thought you might actually care about science.  Now I know you don't know anything about any of it but you grab rando things and act like you are a real scientist just to hassle people who actually tried to read your stuff.)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> I do understand it.  You asked for how I define life and I provided a youtube video that answered the question.



Got it.  You don't understand it.  You need someone to explain it to you.  I don't do videos like some high school dropout.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> No one said that, dummy.



Liar.


ding said:


> *That you can't understand why double and triple bonds are important for living things is beyond me.  Strong bonds equals stable bonds.  It's kind of a requirement for living things.*


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> It's new age word salad.  It has no scientific meaning.
> 
> Sorry to break it to you.  Even scientists say some batsh*t silly things from time to time.  No matter how good they are at medicine.


Incorrect.  From a scientific view everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

So yes... it does have scientific meaning.

You have no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? Matter from mind is the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

.What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

The universe was created from nothing.  Consciousness without form is no thing.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Got it.  You don't understand it.  You need someone to explain it to you.  I don't do videos like some high school dropout.


Then you will have to go through life being ignorant on what defines living things.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Liar.


That would be you, dear.  But please feel free to quote my post if you believe I did.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Still trying to figure out which "strong bonds" ding is blathering about. C-H bonds are relatively weak -- as are C-C bonds in organic molecules -- both of which make up the vast majority of bonds in life, not counting water.

Give me a "strong bond" found in life, and I will show you a stronger one in "not life". Every single time.

So the idea that "strong bonds are important to life" is not only meaningless pap, it seems to be embarrassingly backwards as well.

Somebody watched 90 seconds of a quack YouTube video and thought he earned a PhD...


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> You don't even know what you are talking about.
> 
> You blabber on about "stability" of the bonds but you don't even know what a bond enthalpy is. (hint: it's a measure of the strength of the bond).  You blabber on about making bonds that "mimic noble gases" but you don't even know what an Octet is (hint:  that's what the phrase means).
> 
> You act like life is somehow predicated on MAXIMUM STABILITY of the bonds which has now been shown to include some really weak individual bonds.
> 
> You are so out of your depth it's not funny.  And I KNOW you are enjoying driving me batty with your insipid ignorance, you know you don't understand most of what is being said, but you are doing what you do.  It's getting to be less fun the more you do it.  At one point I actually thought you might actually care about science.  Now I know you don't know anything about any of it but you grab rando things and act like you are a real scientist just to hassle people who actually tried to read your stuff.)


Says the girl who believes life can form without hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> That would be you, dear.  But please feel free to quote my post if you believe I did.



I did, you moron. Can't you read????


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Still trying to figure out which "strong bonds" ding is blathering about. C-H bonds are relatively weak -- as are C-C bonds in organic molecules -- both of which make up the vast majority of bonds in life, not counting water.
> 
> Give me a "strong bond" found in life, and I will show you a stronger one in "not life". Every single time.
> 
> So the idea that "strong bonds are important to life" is not only meaningless pap, it seems to be embarrassingly backwards as well.
> 
> Somebody watched 90 seconds of a quack YouTube video and thought he earned a PhD...


She's arguing that life need not be based upon hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.  She is taking exception to what George Wald wrote.



> Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I did, you moron. Can't you read????


No, you didn't.   I read what you said I wrote.  I didn't read what I wrote.  Link to my post, dummy.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Says the girl who believes life can form without hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> She's arguing that life need not be based upon hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.  She is taking exception to what George Wald wrote.



Hey Fort Fun Indiana, ding doesn't know any real chemistry.  Try talking to it about chemistry.  It's HILARIOUS.


Seriously, ask it about  bond enthalpies.  Oh, yeah, and get it to hold forth on how bonds work.  It's pure gold.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> No, you didn't.   I read what you said I wrote.  I didn't read what I wrote.  Link to my post, dummy.



your words. 

Trollytrolltroll.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


>


It would be super awesome if you actually made an argument for other elements being capable of forming living organisms.  But you can't.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> your words.
> 
> Trollytrolltroll.


Nope.  Your words.  If I had actually written them you would have linked to the post where I wrote them.  But you didn't.  Because you can't.  Because it doesn't exist.  Because you made it up.


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Still trying to figure out which "strong bonds" ding is blathering about. C-H bonds are relatively weak -- as are C-C bonds in organic molecules -- both of which make up the vast majority of bonds in life, not counting water.
> 
> Give me a "strong bond" found in life, and I will show you a stronger one in "not life". Every single time.
> 
> So the idea that "strong bonds are important to life" is not only meaningless pap, it seems to be embarrassingly backwards as well.
> 
> Somebody watched 90 seconds of a quack YouTube video and thought he earned a PhD...


Are you going to argue with George Wald too?  



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe
		


Go ahead.  Be my guest.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> It would be super awesome if you actually made an argument for other elements being capable of forming living organisms.  But you can't.



You are what you are.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Nope.  Your words.  If I had actually written them you would have linked to the post where I wrote them.  But you didn't.  Because you can't.  Because it doesn't exist.  Because you made it up.



LOLOL.  This is surreal.

Is this what things are like in TrollTown?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PV System said:


> Hey Fort Fun Indiana, ding doesn't know any real chemistry.  Try talking to it about chemistry.  It's HILARIOUS.
> 
> 
> Seriously, ask it about  bond enthalpies.  Oh, yeah, and get it to hold forth on how bonds work.  It's pure gold.


I see that. I started as a Chem major and still remember some of this stuff. Took 2 semesters of organic chemistry.

Ding does not realize how strenuously (though clumsily) he is arguing that life is fine tuned to the universe, not the other way around. That's what faith does to a person's brain.

This all goes on the same shelf with Hoyle's fallacy. You touched on this with Zeno's paradox of motion.

They think they are arguing about the existence of life, but they are actually arguing about life "exactly as we find it on earth". We have no good reason to think different life isn't elsewhere in the universe -- or even in other universes with different physical laws -- preforming the same functions with different physical laws and chemistry.

It's like trying  to say the Arctic circle is fine tuned to polar bears or white fur.

Uh, no, polar bears are fine tuned to the environment above the arctic circle.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Are you going to argue with George Wald too?
> 
> 
> 
> George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead.  Be my guest.



Hey Fort Fun Indiana , make sure to follow this!  It's hilarious!!!

Wald is playing new age guru and ding thinks it's science!  It's HILARIOUS.

It's like reading Alan Watts!

("Mind Stuff".  Woo woo wooo wooooooooo.)

LOLOLOL.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ding said:


> Are you going to argue with George Wald too?
> 
> 
> 
> George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead.  Be my guest.


Sorry ding, your cheap parlor tricks don't work on me. You know this.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woo woo is right


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry ding, your cheap parlor tricks don't work on me. You know this.


What parlor tricks?

Go ahead and correct George Wald.

Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). *That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe*, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.

Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.

Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.

If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.

But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.

These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics.



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> You are what you are.


So that's a no?  You can't make an argument for other elements as building blocks of life?


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I see that. I stated as a Chem major and still remember some of this stuff. Took 2 semesters of organic chemistry.
> 
> Ding does not realize how strenuously (though clumsily) he is arguing that life is fine tuned to the universe, not the other way around. That's what faith does to a person's brain.
> 
> This all goes on the same shelf with Hoyle's fallacy. You touched on this with Zeno's paradox of motion.
> 
> They think they are arguing about the existence of life, but they are actually arguing about life "exactly as we find it on earth". We have no good reason to think different life isn't elsewhere in the universe -- or even in other universes with different physical laws -- preforming the same functions with different physical laws and chemistry.
> 
> It's like trying  to say the Arctic circle is fine tuned to polar bears or white fur.
> 
> Uh, no, polar bears are fine tuned to the environment above the arctic circle.


Life is finely tuned to the universe.  More specifically the laws of nature which govern the behavior of the universe.  

Why would you expect life elsewhere in the universe to be materially different than life here?  I wouldn't.  The same laws of nature that fined tuned life here would be at work everywhere.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Hey Fort Fun Indiana , make sure to follow this!  It's hilarious!!!
> 
> Wald is playing new age guru and ding thinks it's science!  It's HILARIOUS.
> 
> It's like reading Alan Watts!
> 
> ("Mind Stuff".  Woo woo wooo wooooooooo.)
> 
> LOLOLOL.


It's hilarious watching biases at work in people who supposedly value science but shit all over it when science doesn't suit their purpose.  The only good thing I can say about that is that normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> LOLOL.  This is surreal.
> 
> Is this what things are like in TrollTown?


You accusing me of what you do is indeed surreal.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> It's hilarious watching biases at work in people who supposedly value science but shit all over it when science doesn't suit their purpose.  The only good thing I can say about that is that normalization of deviance eventually leads to predictable surprises.



Oh god,  it goes on and on and on.  How dreadfully boring it is.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You accusing me of what you do is indeed surreal.



And it's STILL POSTING!  Wild!  If only it knew any chemistry.  Tsk tsk tsk.

But it knows how to google "Nobel laureates" so I'm sure that it has SOME skill in SOMETHING.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Oh god,  it goes on and on and on.  How dreadfully boring it is.







Nice dress.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> View attachment 632565
> 
> Nice dress.



Thanks.  I like photoshop.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> And it's STILL POSTING!  Wild!  If only it knew any chemistry.  Tsk tsk tsk.
> 
> But it knows how to google "Nobel laureates" so I'm sure that it has SOME skill in SOMETHING.


If you had truth on your side you would argue facts.  If you had reason on your side you would argue logic.  But you have neither so this is what you post.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Thanks.  I like photoshop.


What ever floats your boat, Cinderella.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> If you had truth on your side you would argue facts.



I did that.  That's how I showed you don't understand basic chemistry.  LOL.



ding said:


> If you had reason on your side you would argue logic.  But you have neither so this is what you post.



LOL.  I love how easily LYING comes to you.

You KNOW damn well that I have posted a TON of science.

You lying sack of excrement.

Lies, lies, lies.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> What ever floats your boat, Cinderella.



At least I'm not a lying JACKASS.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> How can I be wrong if I quote the Bible correctly in regards to creation science?



Because it exists nothing what is called "creation science". If you like to study natural science then study natural science. If you like to know more about evolution then study what biology tells you about evolution for example.




james bond said:


> Now, you can point out my error if you know creation science, but it appears you don't have any clue.



I also don't have any clue about molehill science. But I guess a molehill throwing competition could be a nice Olympic discipline.



james bond said:


> ETA:  Can you provide what today's evolutionists have in terms of evidence?  You've never provided any science papers for your gorilla hands nor anything else in recent memory.



Take a look at the hand of an intelligent gorilla - and take a look at your own stupid front paw - and the similarity between both biological structures will enlighten you.  If not so then you have a very serios idiotlogical brainwash problem.

And do not forget this: *No Christian ever asked you to defend god and his creation against his children and their evolution. That's totally weird.*


----------



## Feeding Crows

PV System said:


> At least I'm not a lying JACKASS.


It's easy dude, you'll never win! Just ignore him like I do. But I do love imagining what the fukker said!


----------



## Feeding Crows

zaangalewa said:


> Because it exists nothing what is called "creation science". If you like to study natural science then study natural science. If you like to know more about evolution then study what biology tells you about evolution for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also don't have any clue about molehill science. But I guess a molehill throwing competition could be a nice Olympic discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> Take a look at the hand of an intelligent gorilla - and take a look at your own stupid front paw - and the similarity between both biological structures will enlighten you.  If not so then you have a very serios idiotlogical brainwash problem.
> 
> And do not forget this: *No Christian ever asked you to defend god and his creation against his children and their evolution. That's totally weird.*


He's going to bring up Humans walking with Dinosaurs. That's his favorite topic! Because the Universe is only 6000 years old! And he refuses to say that dinosaur fossils were put there by Satan to fool us.

The Bible says it his way, according to him, and therefore it is true and undeniable.


----------



## Feeding Crows

Bond probably believes in a flat earth too, though he won't admit it. He does believe the origin of life is like the Flintstones.


----------



## westwall

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?





Because you are threatening their faith.  Just like attacking evolution gets militant atheists all worked up.  It's the same for them too.


----------



## westwall

PV System said:


> At least I'm not a lying JACKASS.





You're half right.


----------



## Feeding Crows

westwall said:


> Because you are threatening their faith.  Just like attacking evolution gets militant atheists all worked up.  It's the same for them too.


As I've tried to argue before, faith and religion are two separate things. I may be an atheist and defend evolutionary theory, but I also have faith in something important. Religion just says we're all wrong, and is done with it... We all go to hell if we don't agree...


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Because it exists nothing what is called "creation science". If you like to study natural science then study natural science. If you like to know more about evolution then study what biology tells you about evolution for example.


Of course creation science exists because the creationists have hard evidence that science backs it up.  In fact, I'm the one here providing hard evidence while the evolutionists and atheists have none.  You have been _tricked and lied to_, but more and more people start to believe it along with_ long time_. If long time was true, then you'd have history of people from millions of years ago, but evolutionists have no history. It can't explain how the sexes came to be. Furthermore, there are no transitional fossils or evidence. There was no ape-human. We also have the creatures from millions of years ago alive today with no transition.


----------



## james bond

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> He's going to bring up Humans walking with Dinosaurs. That's his favorite topic! Because the Universe is only 6000 years old! And he refuses to say that dinosaur fossils were put there by Satan to fool us.
> 
> The Bible says it his way, according to him, and therefore it is true and undeniable.
> 
> View attachment 632795


You have a SAF avatar and the stuff you say is just as ridiculous .


----------



## westwall

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> As I've tried to argue before, faith and religion are two separate things. I may be an atheist and defend evolutionary theory, but I also have faith in something important. Religion just says we're all wrong, and is done with it... We all go to hell if we don't agree...





Maybe.  I think faith in and of itself is a religion.   Or at least it has a religious aspect.  It is the belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Religion requires faith because face it, there ain't no evidence for a God.  The modern theory of the creation of the Universe requires faith as well.

There actually is evidence to support the theory of evolution.  It is limited, but it is there.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> Of course creation science exists because the creationists have hard evidence that science backs it up.  In fact, I'm the one here providing hard evidence while the evolutionists and atheists have none.  You have been _tricked and lied to_, but more and more people start to believe it along with_ long time_. If long time was true, then you'd have history of people from millions of years ago, but evolutionists have no history. It can't explain how the sexes came to be. Furthermore, there are no transitional fossils or evidence. There was no ape-human. We also have the creatures from millions of years ago alive today with no transition.






You only get evolution if there is a reason for a critter to evolve.  If a critter is successful, it continues on.  Horses evolved 55 million years ago, and were the size of cats.  Now they weigh hundreds of pounds.  

The problem that you creationists have is you truly don't understand just how rare fossils are.

Anti Jesus people have the same problem.  They don't understand just how rare literacy was in Jesus's time, so they can't wrap their heads around the fact that there is so little to be found written about him when he was alive.

Both sides have fundamental levels of ignorance.  I enjoy speaking with my religious friends about their faith, and philosophy,  they enjoy learning about science from me.

It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship, but many decide to make it so.

Sanctimonious behavior, no matter who is engaging in it, is never helpful.  Both sides need to figure that out.


----------



## surada

The Leakey Foundation
					

The Leakey Foundation’s mission is to increase scientific knowledge, education, and public understanding of human origins, evolution, behavior and survival.



					leakeyfoundation.org


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I did that.  That's how I showed you don't understand basic chemistry.  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  I love how easily LYING comes to you.
> 
> You KNOW damn well that I have posted a TON of science.
> 
> You lying sack of excrement.
> 
> Lies, lies, lies.


That's how you need to see it for your world to make sense to you.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> At least I'm not a lying JACKASS.


Neither am I.  I'm a smart ass.


----------



## ding

Men lead.  Women follow.


----------



## Woodznutz

ding said:


> The parents would abort the girls because boys were more valuable to them.  Apparently girls didn't make the grade.


 It was the largest act of genocide in history.


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Now, write out your argument.


I just did.


----------



## Blues Man

westwall said:


> You only get evolution if there is a reason for a critter to evolve.  If a critter is successful, it continues on.  Horses evolved 55 million years ago, and were the size of cats.  Now they weigh hundreds of pounds.
> 
> The problem that you creationists have is you truly don't understand just how rare fossils are.
> 
> Anti Jesus people have the same problem.  They don't understand just how rare literacy was in Jesus's time, so they can't wrap their heads around the fact that there is so little to be found written about him when he was alive.
> 
> Both sides have fundamental levels of ignorance.  I enjoy speaking with my religious friends about their faith, and philosophy,  they enjoy learning about science from me.
> 
> It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship, but many decide to make it so.
> 
> Sanctimonious behavior, no matter who is engaging in it, is never helpful.  Both sides need to figure that out.


Don't ignore the impact of selective breeding by humans and don't confuse that with evolution.


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Utter nonsense. It doesn't concern itself with iron age mythology anymore than any other field of science.
> 
> You have the same choice with evolution as you do any other robust, true scientific theory:
> 
> You can embarrass yourself and deny it, or you can point at it and say "God did that!"
> 
> Just like you do with electromagnetic theory, or star formation.
> 
> The problem here is yours.


Unintended consequences are still consequences.


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You expose your own intellectual fraud.
> 
> You say that someday, somehow,, somebody (else) will provide the reason or evidence for a belief you already adopted and insist is true.
> 
> See if you can spot the intellectual fraud...


I think the weakest block is the 'first life form' upon which all of evolution is based. Science is still puzzling over that, yet went ahead and used it as the basis for the evolution of all life. A shaky foundation wouldn't you agree?


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Of course creation science exists



No. Creation is a singular individual process without parallels or any form of other systematics. About such single singular events exists not any form of systematic science because it exists no system.



james bond said:


> because the creationists have hard evidence that science backs it up.  In fact, I'm the one here providing hard evidence while the evolutionists and atheists have none.



You do not speak in the name of spiritual people (="believers"). Very most of them do not agree with people like you and their weird political nonsense which they like to sell under the wrong label "Christian religion".



james bond said:


> You have been _tricked and lied to_, but more and more people start to believe it along with_ long time_.



Nonsense feeds nonsense.



james bond said:


> If long time was true, then you'd have history of people from millions of years ago, but evolutionists have no history.



Again: Nonsense feeds nonsense.




james bond said:


> It can't explain how the sexes came to be.



You explain never anything. You agitate.



james bond said:


> Furthermore, there are no transitional fossils or evidence. There was no ape-human.



Every living biological structure on planet Earth has in the past a common biological structure (="ancestor") together with any other biological structure. Or with other words: the biological structure behind the avatar "James Bond" has very concrete together with "Mary Poppin's tree" - a real concrete tree somewhere in England - a common ancestor. Saint Francis would say you and "Mary Poppins's tree" are sisters and brothers. And the scientific evidence for this sentence of Saint Francis' way to feel and to interpret the world is today called "theory of evolution".



james bond said:


> We also have the creatures from millions of years ago alive today with no transition.



I know. With nearly no transitions exist for example the species "crocodiles" since about 300 million years. Another species exists even since 400 millions years. Not so the biological species "homo sapiens sapiens".

And by the way: We learned "selective breeding" from "natural breeding" -  and Charles Darwin is not half as intellligent as the most city dwellers seem to think. For a normal farmer or shepard is since thousands of years the "practice of evolution" not very astonishing. Since Christians exist - and longer -  we live with the facts around biological evolution.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> That's how you need to see it for your world to make sense to you.



Thanks for your opinion!  It is much appreciated.  I think the most interesting aspect of the chemistry you are talking about in your previous posts is the Nilbog Effect.  I assume you are familiar with it, I believe the bond energies will be surprising to you.  Here's a summary from some Nobel Laureates.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Men lead.  Women follow.



Spoken like a real man.  I suspect you are a manly leader IRL.  You have that cut to you.  Your posts on biochemistry are actually pretty impressive when I look back on them now.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Neither am I.  I'm a smart ass.



LOL.  I have to admit I laughed at that. I'm a sucker for witty reparte.  As you are, clearly.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Thanks for your opinion!  It is much appreciated.  I think the most interesting aspect of the chemistry you are talking about in your previous posts is the Nilbog Effect.  I assume you are familiar with it, I believe the bond energies will be surprising to you.  Here's a summary from some Nobel Laureates.


Never heard of it.  But all you really need to do to win this debate is show how life can form from elements that aren't hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.

"...Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe, for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.​​Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons. Gaining electrons, in the sense of sharing them with other atoms, is the mechanism of forming chemical bonds, hence molecules. The lightest elements make not only the tightest bonds, hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.​​Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.​​If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2). Well, in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon.​​But silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen.​​These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe. They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet, and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star. Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight, as they must if life is to persist. So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics.​​

			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Spoken like a real man.  I suspect you are a manly leader IRL.  You have that cut to you.  Your posts on biochemistry are actually pretty impressive when I look back on them now.


Yep.  It's true.  Men lead and women respond.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> LOL.  I have to admit I laughed at that. I'm a sucker for witty reparte.  As you are, clearly.


Sometimes


----------



## Woodznutz

ding said:


> Yep.  It's true.  Men lead and women respond.


It's in their genes.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Never heard of it.  But all you really need to do to win this debate is show how life can form from elements that aren't hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.
> 
> ​


 Never heard of it???  That's surprising, given your advanced knowledge of Gibbs.  Perhaps the description wasn't clear enough.

Needless to say ALL scientists know about it.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Never heard of it???  That's surprising, given your advanced knowledge of Gibbs.  Perhaps the description wasn't clear enough.
> 
> Needless to say ALL scientists know about it.


See.  I told you there was nothing special about me.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Yep.  It's true.  Men lead and women respond.



Like I said, you seem to be one of those "leaders of men" types.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Like I said, you seem to be one of those "leaders of men" types.


Your feelings are hurt.  I get it.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> It's in their genes.



Hey!  Don't feel bad!  You guys still have an outlet.









						Despite crackdown on incels, their discussion forums are still online  | Globalnews.ca
					

Internet discussion groups for incels are a swamp of self-pity, conspiracy theory and outright justification of violence.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## ding

^^^ she mad.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Your feelings are hurt.  I get it.



Not at all.  But I understand it is important to the "big man" to be able to tell other people about their emotional state.

Hey, speaking of science, were you in this study?



			https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334306160_Online_hatred_of_women_in_the_Incelsme_Forum_Linguistic_analysis_and_automatic_detection


----------



## ding

"...Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). *That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe,* *for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.*

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Not at all.


Your behaviors say otherwise.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Their unique position in chemistry can be stated in a sentence: They -- in the order given -- are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations (i.e., those mimicking the inert gases) by gaining respectively one, two, three, and four electrons.​



This is incorrect.  All the elements below C can and do form stable octets.




ding said:


> , hence the most stable molecules, but introduce a unique property crucial for life: of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further.​



Why is this "crucial for life"?  



ding said:


> ​Now, professors sometimes tell their students foolish things, which the students carefully learn and reproduce on exams and eventually teach the next generation. When chemistry professors teach the periodic system of elements, one has those horizontal periods of the elements and the professors say, “If you go down vertically, the elements repeat their same properties.” That is utter nonsense, as any kid with a chemistry set would know. For under oxygen comes sulfur. Try breathing sulfur somethime. Under nitrogen comes phosphorus. There is not any phosphorus in that kid’s chemistry set. It is too dangerous; it bursts into flame spontaneously on exposure to air. And under carbon comes silicon.​



Literally NO ONE is taught that S is exactly like O.  They share a common valence shell configuration and will interact with other elements in a similar way.  Not the same always but there is a commonality.  




ding said:


> ​If that chemistry professor were talking sense, there are two molecules that should have very similar properties: carbon dioxide (CO2) and silicon dioxide (SiO2).​



No one thinks that.  As noted earlier Si can hybridize its orbitals like C (but the energetics are probably somewhat different since it is in a different period) but it does not form double bonds due to the size of the atom.  And pretty much anyone whose been in a mineralogy class knows that SiO2 is NOT O=Si=O but rather a mineralogical/inorganic designation for a network of Si-O-Si-O-Si  in 3-dimensions (it is a "tectosilicate").



ding said:


> These four elements, Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, also provide an example of the astonishing togetherness of our universe.​



Here's where we get into  the speculative New Age Woo Woo.



ding said:


> They make up the “organic” molecules that constitute living organisms on a planet,​



They also make up *NON-Living things all over the planet.*  Even organic molecules are not all from living things.



ding said:


> and the nuclei of these same elements interact to generate the light of its star.​



Not all stars fuse carbon.



ding said:


> Then the organisms on the planet come to depend wholly on that starlight​



Actually the first life on earth DIDN'T photosynthesize so that's wrong.  Yeah it's important now, but it wasn't the starting point of life.



ding said:


> , as they must if life is to persist.​



Tell that to the extremophiles.  Wald is wrong, YET AGAIN!  He needs to stay away from the New Age Woo WOo



ding said:


> So it is that all life on the Earth runs on sunlight. I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe -- that is just good physics.​​



One with the universe.  New Age Woo Woo.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Your behaviors say otherwise.



Well, your behavior says a lot about you too!


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> This is incorrect. All the elements below C can and do form stable octets.


You should publish a paper on it.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Well, your behavior says a lot about you too!


That's nice.


----------



## ding

Parsing is the currency of critical theory.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You should publish a paper on it.



I don't have to.  They already have an ELEMENTARY INTRODUCTION TO CHEMISTRY textbook out.

Do you honestly not know about BeO?  How about  Na₂[B₄O₅(OH)₄]·8H₂O?  Ring any bells? 

(You DO know what the Periodic Table, is, right?)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Parsing is the currency of critical theory.



The fun thing is, I actually went out of my way to address the individual points of you fave Dr. Wald *and you can't even respond to one single point.*

That's because you are what you are.

Now begone.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I don't have to.  They already have an ELEMENTARY INTRODUCTION TO CHEMISTRY textbook out.
> 
> Do you honestly not know about BeO?  How about  Na₂[B₄O₅(OH)₄]·8H₂O?  Ring any bells?
> 
> (You DO know what the Periodic Table, is, right?)


Dear, you are literally arguing why the building blocks of life shouldn't be the building blocks of life.  You are making fringe arguments that serve no other purpose but to detract from the fact that there is no scenario where any other elements can create the rich tapestry of life that hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen do.  You are literally pissing in the wind and trying to convince me that it's rain.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> The fun thing is, I actually went out of my way to address the individual points of you fave Dr. Wald *and you can't even respond to one single point.*
> 
> That's because you are what you are.
> 
> Now begone.


Because you are making fringe arguments.  Clearly there is a logical reason why oxygen, carbon and nitrogen are fundamental to living organisms and you are literally arguing that there isn't.  George Wald pointed to chemical bonds in more detail than anyone else I have read and you are criticizing him for providing too much of an explanation for something you know has a logical reason for being because 99% of all living beings is made up of HOCN.


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> Hey!  Don't feel bad!  You guys still have an outlet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite crackdown on incels, their discussion forums are still online  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Internet discussion groups for incels are a swamp of self-pity, conspiracy theory and outright justification of violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


"Incel". That's a new one.

These days I just lead myself.


----------



## ding

...in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon....

...silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen...."



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> You only get evolution if there is a reason for a critter to evolve.  If a critter is successful, it continues on.  Horses evolved 55 million years ago, and were the size of cats.  Now they weigh hundreds of pounds.
> 
> The problem that you creationists have is you truly don't understand just how rare fossils are.
> 
> Anti Jesus people have the same problem.  They don't understand just how rare literacy was in Jesus's time, so they can't wrap their heads around the fact that there is so little to be found written about him when he was alive.
> 
> Both sides have fundamental levels of ignorance.  I enjoy speaking with my religious friends about their faith, and philosophy,  they enjoy learning about science from me.
> 
> It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship, but many decide to make it so.
> 
> Sanctimonious behavior, no matter who is engaging in it, is never helpful.  Both sides need to figure that out.


Horses the size of cats?  Where's the evidence?

Yes, fossils are rare and it seems they favor the creation scientists.

People during that time, many were literate just as Jesus was.  It's the evos who believe they weren't.

"The first factor to consider is how prevalent literacy was in Jesus’ time. Full literacy means being able to read and write proficiently, but degrees of literacy vary; people who can read, for example, may not be able to write. A common view is that of W.H. Kelber, who claims that, in first-century A.D. Palestine, “writing was in the hands of an élite of trained specialists, and reading required an advanced education available only to a few.” It is often asserted that writing was restricted to government and religious circles and would have had no place among the peasantry of Galilee, where Jesus did much of his teaching. If this statement were true, there would be more validity to the widely-held opinion that knowledge of Jesus’ words and deeds depended on oral tradition—people passed on what they saw and heard by word of mouth—until about 70 A.D., when the earliest of the Gospels, the Gospel of Mark, was composed.

However, the evidence showing that reading and writing were widely practiced in Jesus’ age grows with every discovery of a new inscription. Much of this evidence comes from religious and governmental circles, but a great deal of it does not.

The library of Qumran—otherwise known as the Dead Sea Scrolls—includes mostly religious texts, to be sure, but significantly, these represent both the continued copying of the sacred scripture and other religious books, and the creation of new ones. Members of the Jewish sect based at Qumran—commonly thought to be Essenes—must have been expected to read the Law regularly, since they produced so many copies of religious texts."





__





						Literacy in the Time of Jesus -  Could His Words Have Been Recorded in His Lifetime?
					






					freerepublic.com
				




If fossils weren't rare, then it would be easy to show humans lived with dinosaurs and this silly argument would be over.  Yet, evolution is over when you consider the dinosaur fossis still have C-14 radiocarbons remaining.  They aren't fossils as they still have soft tissue inside.  However, I found Dawkins knew what he was talking about.  The dinosaur fossils have not been found with human fossils and that's because fossils are rare.


----------



## ding

There you have it folks...HOCN are the ONLY elements which naturally bond together to form strong and stable bonds that can create a rich tapestry of life.


----------



## westwall

Blues Man said:


> Don't ignore the impact of selective breeding by humans and don't confuse that with evolution.





I'm not.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Dear, you are literally arguing why the building blocks of life shouldn't be the building blocks of life.



You are 100% WRONG.  WRONG WRONG WRONG.

I never said they SHOULDN'T be.  I said they don't necessarily HAVE to be.

Why do you lie so much?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> "Incel". That's a new one.



You've never heard that one?  That's weird.  You seem to fit the bill.  Well, now you have a community!  Congrats.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> George Wald pointed to chemical bonds in more detail than anyone else I have read



LOL.  Yeah, you don't even know what he's talking about.



ding said:


> and you are criticizing him for providing too much of an explanation



Nope.  But you can be forgiven for not understanding what I said.  



ding said:


> for something you know has a logical reason for being because 99% of all living beings is made up of HOCN.



Have you ever heard of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_?

I didn't think so.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> You are 100% WRONG.  WRONG WRONG WRONG.
> 
> I never said they SHOULDN'T be.  I said they don't necessarily HAVE to be.
> 
> Why do you lie so much?


You are making fringe arguments that serve no other purpose but to detract from the fact that there is no scenario where any other elements can create the rich tapestry of life that hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen do. You are literally pissing in the wind and trying to convince me that it's rain.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> LOL.  Yeah, you don't even know what he's talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  But you can be forgiven for not understanding what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_?
> 
> I didn't think so.


Clearly there is a logical reason why oxygen, carbon and nitrogen are fundamental to living organisms and you are literally arguing that there isn't. George Wald pointed to chemical bonds in more detail than anyone else I have read and you are criticizing him for providing too much of an explanation for something you know has a logical reason for being because 99% of all living beings is made up of HOCN.

For example:  
​...in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon....​​...silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen...."​​George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe​


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You are making fringe arguments that serve no other purpose but to detract from the fact that there is no scenario where any other elements can create the rich tapestry of life that hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen do. You are literally pissing in the wind and trying to convince me that it's rain.



Oh my.  It is telling me all sorts of things about chemistry.  Yet it doesn't even know what a stable octet is.

Funny funny.

I wonder if it is going to hold forth on any other big topics it clearly knows NOTHING  about.

TBD!


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> You've never heard that one?  That's weird.  You seem to fit the bill.  Well, now you have a community!  Congrats.


You are reading a lot from very little.  I love the gals but I'm too old to get serious with any of them.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Clearly there is a logical reason why oxygen, carbon and nitrogen are fundamental to living organisms and you are literally arguing that there isn't.



I wonder what it is like to post ONLY lies as you do.


Are you able to actually post truth at some point? Or does it make your fingers burn?


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Oh my.  It is telling me all sorts of things about chemistry.  Yet it doesn't even know what a stable octet is.
> 
> Funny funny.
> 
> I wonder if it is going to hold forth on any other big topics it clearly knows NOTHING  about.
> 
> TBD!


HOCN are the ONLY elements which naturally bond together to form strong and stable bonds that can create a rich tapestry of life.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I wonder what it is like to post ONLY lies as you do.
> 
> 
> Are you able to actually post truth at some point? Or does it make your fingers burn?


HOCN are the ONLY elements which naturally bond together to form strong and stable bonds that can create a rich tapestry of life.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> You are reading a lot from very little.



Don't put yourself down.  You'll find the average length isn't all that amazing.




Woodznutz said:


> but I don't want to get serious with any of them



Oh, sorry.  My apologies.  I didn't realize you were gay.  That's cool.  I retract my comments.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> HOCN are the ONLY elements which naturally bond together to form strong and stable bonds that can create a rich tapestry of life.



Why?


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Why?


...in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon....

...silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> Don't put yourself down.  You'll find the average length isn't all that amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sorry.  My apologies.  I didn't realize you were gay.  That's cool.  I retract my comments.


I'm old, not gay.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> HOCN are the ONLY elements which naturally bond together to form strong and stable bonds that can create a rich tapestry of life.











						Silicon-based life may be more than just science fiction
					

Scientists are showing that nature can evolve to incorporate silicon into carbon-based molecules — the building blocks of life on Earth.




					www.nbcnews.com


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> ...in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon....
> 
> ...silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen...."
> 
> George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe



No, I mean *in your own words.  You clearly don't understand a THING Wald is saying, so tell us in your own words.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> I'm old, not gay.



I'm old too and I am able to have relationships with women.  Maybe I'm just more "mature".


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> I'm old too and I am able to have relationships with women.  Maybe I'm just more "mature".


54 isn't old. 82 is (although I am still able to stand up to the most rigorous test of potency).


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> 54 isn't old. 82 is (although I am still able to stand up to the most rigorous test of potency).



Uh huh.  Good for you!


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> No. Creation is a singular individual process without parallels or any form of other systematics. About such single singular events exists not any form of systematic science because it exists no system.
> 
> 
> 
> You do not speak in the name of spiritual people (="believers"). Very most of them do not agree with people like you and their weird political nonsense which they like to sell under the wrong label "Christian religion".
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense feeds nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Again: Nonsense feeds nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You explain never anything. You agitate.
> 
> 
> 
> Every living biological structure on planet Earth has in the past a common biological structure (="ancestor") together with any other biological structure. Or with other words: the biological structure behind the avatar "James Bond" has very concrete together with "Mary Poppin's tree" - a real concrete tree somewhere in England - a common ancestor. Saint Francis would say you and "Mary Poppins's tree" are sisters and brothers. And the scientific evidence for this sentence of Saint Francis' way to feel and to interpret the world is today called "theory of evolution".
> 
> 
> 
> I know. With nearly no transitions exist for example the species "crocodiles" since about 300 million years. Another species exists even since 400 millions years. Not so the biological species "homo sapiens sapiens".
> 
> And by the way: We learned "selective breeding" from "natural breeding" -  and Charles Darwin is not half as intellligent as the most city dwellers seem to think. For a normal farmer or shepard is since thousands of years the "practice of evolution" not very astonishing. Since Christians exist - and longer -  we live with the facts around biological evolution.


I keep winning my arguments in the science forum.  Recently, westwall claimed horses were the size of cats, but had no evidence.  I don't think you know much science as you're a human ball of confusion.  Otherwise, you would've showed us the PROOF of what you claim.  Farmers are farmers.  They didn't believe in evolution and don't have to today -- I know Marge doesn’t believe in evolution.  You don't have anything to back up what you said  about a normal farmer or shepherd lol.  What an embarrassment you are.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> No, I mean *in your own words.  You clearly don't understand a THING Wald is saying, so tell us in your own words.*


Dear, it's not about me.  It's about the truth.  HOCN's unique position in chemistry is that they are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations.  Of all the natural elements, only oxygen, nitrogen and carbon regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further which makes those molecules stable.  

*So again... HOCN are the ONLY elements which naturally bond together to form strong and stable bonds that can create a rich tapestry of life.  *


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Silicon-based life may be more than just science fiction
> 
> 
> Scientists are showing that nature can evolve to incorporate silicon into carbon-based molecules — the building blocks of life on Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com


Silicon isn't creating a rich tapestry of life for the following reason which I have repeatedly shared with you.

...in carbon dioxide the central carbon is tied to both of the oxygen atoms by double bonds O=C=O. Those double bonds completely saturate the combining tendencies of all three atoms, hence CO2 is a happy, independent molecule. It goes off in the air as a gas, and dissolves in all the waters of the Earth, and those are the places from which living organisms extract their carbon....

...silicon cannot form a double bond, hence in silicon dioxide the central silicon is tied to the two oxygens only by single bonds, leaving four half‑formed bonds -- four unpaired electrons -- two on the silicon and one on each oxygen, ready to pair with any other available lone electrons. But where can one find them? Obviously on neighboring silicone dioxide molecules, so each molecule binds to the next, and that to the next, and on and on until you end up with a rock -- for example quartz, which is just silicone dioxide molecules bound to one another to form a great super-molecule. The reason quartz is so hard is that to break it one must break numerous chemical bonds. And that is why, though silicon is 135 times as plentiful as carbon in the Earth’s surface, it makes rocks, and to make living organisms one must turn to carbon. I could make a parallel argument for oxygen and nitrogen...."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## ding

"...Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). *That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe,* *for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends.*

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## Woodznutz

PV System said:


> I'm old too and I am able to have relationships with women.  Maybe I'm just more "mature".


I thought you were a woman (based on your avatar).

I can't fit a relationship in right now, maybe when I retire.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Dear, it's not about me.



Can I ask why you simply ignore my point-by-point addressing of Wald's comments?

*Is it because you don't understand any of this?*



ding said:


> It's about the truth.



Says the poster who mostly lies.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Can I ask why you simply ignore my point-by-point addressing of Wald's comments?
> 
> *Is it because you don't understand any of this?*
> 
> 
> 
> Says the poster who mostly lies.


Dear, you are literally arguing why the building blocks of life shouldn't be the building blocks of life. You are making fringe arguments that serve no other purpose but to detract from the fact that there is no scenario where any other elements can create the rich tapestry of life that hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen do.

*Clearly there is a logical reason why oxygen, carbon and nitrogen are fundamental to living organisms* because 99% of all living beings is made up of HOCN.  If the logical reason isn't because HOCN's unique position in chemistry is that OCN are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations and are the only natural elements that regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further which makes those molecules stable, then *what is it?*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Woodznutz said:


> I thought you were a woman (based on your avatar).



Wow.  So a Photoshop goofiness is all it takes to make you folks draw all manner of conclusions???  I'm not surprised, but wow.

I didn't ONCE think you were an actual wolf.  

LOL.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Dear, you are literally arguing why the building blocks of life shouldn't be the building blocks of life.



LIE.  LIE LIE LIE LIE.  You are LYING.



ding said:


> Clearly there is a logical reason why oxygen, carbon and nitrogen are fundamental to living organisms because 99% of all living beings is made up of HOCN.  If the logical reason isn't because HOCN's unique position in chemistry is that OCN are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations and are the only natural elements that regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further which makes those molecules stable, then what is it?



*STOP.  I took time to address it point by point.  You simply chose to ignore it because you are a giant troll.

You aren't interested in talking science.

STOP WITH THE LIES.*


----------



## ding

Woodznutz said:


> I thought you were a woman (based on your avatar).
> 
> I can't fit a relationship in right now, maybe when I retire.


She is.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> LIE.  LIE LIE LIE LIE.  You are LYING.
> 
> 
> 
> *STOP.  I took time to address it point by point.  You simply chose to ignore it because you are a giant troll.
> 
> You aren't interested in talking science.
> 
> STOP WITH THE LIES.*


Again... You are making fringe arguments that serve no other purpose but to detract from the fact that there is no scenario where any other elements can create the rich tapestry of life that hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen do.

I can do this all day.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> She is.



LOL.  

I love how sure you are of something you know nothing about.  And you based it all on a CARTOON I MADE IN PHOTOSHOP.

HILARIOUS!

You are so easily mislead because you aren't the intellect you THINK you are.

Moron.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Again... You are making fringe arguments that serve no other purpose but to detract from the fact that there is no scenario where any other elements can create the rich tapestry of life that hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen do.
> 
> I can do this all day.



I know.  You're a troll.

That's why.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> LOL.
> 
> I love how sure you are of something you know nothing about.  And you based it all on a CARTOON I MADE IN PHOTOSHOP.
> 
> HILARIOUS!
> 
> You are so easily mislead because you aren't the intellect you THINK you are.
> 
> Moron.


Actually I didn't notice that until after I determined you were female.  You are irrational and overly emotional.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I know.  You're a troll.
> 
> That's why.


HOCN are the ONLY elements which naturally bond together to form strong and stable bonds that can create a rich tapestry of life.

*Clearly there is a logical reason why oxygen, carbon and nitrogen are fundamental to living organisms* because 99% of all living beings is made up of HOCN. If the logical reason isn't because HOCN's unique position in chemistry is that OCN are the lightest elements that achieve stable electronic configurations and are the only natural elements that regularly form double and triple bonds with one another, so saturating all their tendencies to combine further which makes those molecules stable, then *what is it?*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Actually I didn't notice that until after I determined you were female.  You are irrational and overly emotional.



See, this is how I know you are an incel.  

You disgust me at all levels.  A liar, a troll and an incel.

Ewww.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> HOCN are the ONLY elements which naturally bond together to form strong and stable bonds that can create a rich tapestry of life.











						Hypothetical types of biochemistry - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> See, this is how I know you are an incel.
> 
> You disgust me at all levels.  A liar, a troll and an incel.
> 
> Ewww.


A troll would be someone who can only argue what something isn't.  A troll can't argue what something is.  Which is why PV System can't name any elements besides HOCN that can create a rich tapestry of life like HOCN because the universe is so finely tuned to produce life and intelligence there aren't any other elements capable of producing a rich tapestry of life like HOCN.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Hypothetical types of biochemistry - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


The universe is so finely tuned to produce life and intelligence there aren't any other elements capable of producing a rich tapestry of life like HOCN. 

If the universe wasn't finely tuned to produce life and intelligence then any old element could do the job but there aren't any besides HOCN.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> A troll would be someone who can only argue what something isn't.



Which is what you are doing.  You are saying life CAN'T be anything but CHNOSP.



ding said:


> A troll can't argue what something is.  Which is why PV System can't name any elements besides HOCN that can create a rich tapestry of life



Done and done.  See post #358.

Or just ignore it like you ignore everything and then LIE ABOUT IT.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> The universe is so finely tuned to produce life and intelligence there aren't any other elements capable of producing a rich tapestry of life like HOCN.
> 
> If the universe wasn't finely tuned to produce life and intelligence then any old element could do the job but there aren't any besides HOCN.



That's the stuff:  ignore it.

Trolls gonna troll.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Which is what you are doing. You are saying life CAN'T be anything but CHNOSP.


No, dummy.  I explained why.



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Done and done. See post #358.
> 
> Or just ignore it like you ignore everything and then LIE ABOUT IT.


Incorrect.  You can't explain why HOCN is the building block of life and you can't name anything that would create the rich tapestry of life that HOCN produces.  You lose again.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> That's the stuff: ignore it.
> 
> Trolls gonna troll.


Apparently you don't understand what finely tuned means.  The universe is so finely tuned to produce life and intelligence there aren't any other elements capable of producing a rich tapestry of life like HOCN.  If the universe wasn't finely tuned to produce life and intelligence then any old element could do the job but there aren't any besides HOCN.


----------



## ding

Women are so irrational and emotional which is why they aren't very good at science.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Apparently you don't understand what finely tuned means.



I know it's mostly BS.  "Finely tuned" is impossible to falsify when it comes to the universe.

This is why you Intelligent Design-Creationist types fail to get your crap pushed into schools.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Women are so irrational and emotional which is why they aren't very good at science.



I assumed you were a dude.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> No, dummy.  I explained why.
> 
> 
> 
> George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe



Are YOU George Wald???

Wow.  

The liar can't stop lying!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> Because you are threatening their faith.  Just like attacking evolution gets militant atheists all worked up.  It's the same for them too.


"Militant"

Someone is getting a dictionary for Christmas.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PV System said:


> Are YOU George Wald???
> 
> Wow.
> 
> The liar can't stop lying!


Ding thinks argument to authority is not only valid, but the very best argument.

All you have to do is find a scientist who says something g different, and ding's entire contribution to this topic is nullified.

That's what people like him don't understand.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> You only get evolution if there is a reason for a critter to evolve.


. Even creatures that may appear to the human eye not to have changed very much have evolved through the various mechanisms of evolution and will demonstrate different genotypes then their ancestors.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Unintended consequences are still consequences.


You spoke to intent. If you are going to post in this thread, please pay attention, especially to your own posts. It gets tiring  having to remind other posters what they, themselves, said. .

You said it was an attack on creationism. Wrong on every level. Evolution doesn't contradict creationism. It only contradicts the Bible mythology surrounding creation. So let's allso be clear about that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> I just did.


No, you didnt.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> I keep winning my arguments in the science forum.  Recently, westwall claimed horses were the size of cats, but had no evidence.  I don't think you know much science as you're a human ball of confusion.  Otherwise, you would've showed us the PROOF of what you claim.  Farmers are farmers.  They didn't believe in evolution and don't have to today -- I know Marge doesn’t believe in evolution.  You don't have anything to back up what you said  about a normal farmer or shepherd lol.  What an embarrassment you are.










What are you winning?  You choose to ignore real evidence that is presented.  You are one of the sanctimonious morons I was referring to.  

Other than the horse crap about the PETM being caused by CO2 (there is ZERO evidence to support that crap) the rest of this is accurate.



Ancient Warming Shrunk Horses to Housecat Size​













						Ancient Warming Shrunk Horses to Housecat Size
					

Ancient global warming during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum shrunk already-tiny horses to the size of small cats.




					www.livescience.com


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> What are you winning?  You choose to ignore real evidence that is presented.  You are one of the sanctimonious morons I was referring to.
> 
> Other than the horse crap about the PETM being caused by CO2 (there is ZERO evidence to support that crap) the rest of this is accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Ancient Warming Shrunk Horses to Housecat Size​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ancient Warming Shrunk Horses to Housecat Size
> 
> 
> Ancient global warming during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum shrunk already-tiny horses to the size of small cats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.livescience.com


I am winning most of my arguments for creation science over the atheists and their evolution arguments.

What you provided is an illustration.  This is just an extremist paper, i.e. no hard evidence, so we would have to see more if global warming leads to horses shrinking.  I believe in global warming, but an illustration is NOT hard evidence.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> I am winning most of my arguments for creation science over the atheists and their evolution arguments.
> 
> What you provided is an illustration.  This is just an extremist paper, i.e. no hard evidence, so we would have to see more if global warming leads to horses shrinking.  I believe in global warming, but an illustration is NOT hard evidence.






No, you aren't.  You are stroking your ego while ignoring actual real evidence.  You are the worst type of person to talk with because no matter what evidence is presented you will ignore it.  You are an extremist.  Extremists are a huge waste of time.

So

Bye.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I know it's mostly BS.  "Finely tuned" is impossible to falsify when it comes to the universe.
> 
> This is why you Intelligent Design-Creationist types fail to get your crap pushed into schools.


If the universe wasn't finely tuned for life then anything could produce life.  Then life wouldn't have a narrow set of requirements.  Anything could be living.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I assumed you were a dude.


You assumed correctly.  Congratulations.  I'm not ashamed of my gender like some are.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> You assumed correctly.  Congratulations.  I'm not ashamed of my gender like some are.



I'm ashamed of your gender.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> If the universe wasn't finely tuned for life then anything could produce life.  Then life wouldn't have a narrow set of requirements.  Anything could be living.



Your reasoning is backwards, Jethro.

The universe isn't finely tuned for ANYTHING.  Just that the things which exist in this universe, arose to fit into this universe.

It appears that along with everything else you also DIDN'T take a philosophy class.

Figures.  Uneducated doof.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Are YOU George Wald???
> 
> Wow.
> 
> The liar can't stop lying!


No.  I'm ding.  I think George might be dead.  But here an excerpt from one of his last major lectures that he gave throughout the 1980's. 

"...Of the 92 natural elements, ninety-nine percent of the living matter we know is composed of just four: hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), and carbon (C). *That is bound to be true wherever life exists in the universe,* *for only those four elements possess the unique properties upon which life depends."*


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I'm ashamed of your gender.


That's probably because you are overly emotional and incapable of being objective.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> That's probably because you are overly emotional and incapable of being objective.



LOL.  Sockpuppet.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> No.  I'm ding.



And maybe at least one other poster!


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Your reasoning is backwards, Jethro.
> 
> The universe isn't finely tuned for ANYTHING.  Just that the things which exist in this universe, arose to fit into this universe.
> 
> It appears that along with everything else you also DIDN'T take a philosophy class.
> 
> Figures.  Uneducated doof.


George Wald disagrees...

"There is good reason to believe that we are in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. How many such places are there? Arthur Eddington, the great British physicist, gave us a formula: one hundred billion stars make a galaxy, and one hundred billion galaxies make a universe. The lowest estimate I have ever seen of the fraction of them that might possess a planet that could support life is one percent. That means one billion such places in our home galaxy, the Milky Way; and with about one billion such galaxies within reach of our telescopes, the already observed universe should contain at least one billion billion -- 1018 -- places that can support life

So we can take this to be a universe that breeds life; and *yet, were any one of a considerable number of physical properties of our universe other than it is -- some of those properties basic, others seeming trivial, almost accidental -- that life, that now appears to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere..."*



			George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> George Wald disagrees...
> 
> "There is good reason to believe that we are in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. How many such places are there? Arthur Eddington, the great British physicist, gave us a formula: one hundred billion stars make a galaxy, and one hundred billion galaxies make a universe. The lowest estimate I have ever seen of the fraction of them that might possess a planet that could support life is one percent. That means one billion such places in our home galaxy, the Milky Way; and with about one billion such galaxies within reach of our telescopes, the already observed universe should contain at least one billion billion -- 1018 -- places that can support life
> 
> So we can take this to be a universe that breeds life; and *yet, were any one of a considerable number of physical properties of our universe other than it is -- some of those properties basic, others seeming trivial, almost accidental -- that life, that now appears to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere..."*
> 
> 
> 
> George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe



What's with spamming the board?


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> LOL.  Sockpuppet.


Wald was a highly regarded teacher at Harvard University for forty-three years, retiring in 1977 as Higgins Professor of Biology. He taught biochemistry, photobiology, and an introductory biology course that earned him a 1966 citation in Time magazine as “one of the ten best teachers in the country” (unsigned article, 6 May 1966). A scientist of broad intellectual interests, Wald wrote and taught on topics ranging from the origin of life to the evolution of consciousness. From the mid-1960s until the time of his death, Wald devoted much of his time to social activism. He traveled widely and spoke out eloquently against the U.S. war in Vietnam, nuclear power and weaponry, and violations of human rights.


----------



## westwall

PV System said:


> LOL.  Sockpuppet.






Yes, we know that is what you are.  The question is who's?


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> And maybe at least one other poster!


Wald was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1950 and to the American Philosophical Society in 1958. In 1967 Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in Stockholm, sharing the prize with two other vision researchers, Ragnar Granit and Keffer Hartline.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> What's with spamming the board?


Wald’s life changed dramatically after he delivered a speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology called “A Generation in Search of a Future” (Wald, 1969). This speech, which criticized the U.S. war in Vietnam and the nation’s buildup of nuclear weapons, was published in periodicals around the world, and it propelled Wald into the limelight of social activism. Over the next twenty-five years he traveled extensively, using his great skill as a teacher to speak out on these issues as well as on human rights and the misuse of genetic engineering. Wald continued to teach his highly regarded introductory biology course, Natura Sciences 5: The Nature of Living Things, at Harvard until his retirement in 1977.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Wald was a highly regarded teacher at Harvard University for forty-three years, retiring in 1977 as Higgins Professor of Biology.



I don't care.  I am not a slave to "appeal to authority".

I dealt with the content you posted by him.  



ding said:


> He taught biochemistry, photobiology, and an introductory biology course that earned him a 1966 citation in Time magazine as “one of the ten best teachers in the country” (unsigned article, 6 May 1966). A scientist of broad intellectual interests, Wald wrote and taught on topics ranging from the origin of life to the evolution of consciousness. From the mid-1960s until the time of his death, Wald devoted much of his time to social activism. He traveled widely and spoke out eloquently against the U.S. war in Vietnam, nuclear power and weaponry, and violations of human rights.



Yeah, we get it.  He's about 1x10^55 times as smart as you are.  No prob.

But not every single thing he said was perfected knowledge.  

This is why high school dropouts like you fail when discussing technical topics.  You never learned the logic fallacies.  Which is why you are trying to nail all of them.


----------



## ding

Pro Tip: when a troll tries to derail the discussion use his posts against him by continuing to make your points.  The troll will be driven mad by anger and eventually go away.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Wald was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1950 and to the American Philosophical Society in 1958. In 1967 Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in Stockholm, sharing the prize with two other vision researchers, Ragnar Granit and Keffer Hartline.



OHMYGOSH!  He sounds so wonderful.

Appeal to Authority.  


Nakedly so.  It's like you are SO uneducated you can't get enough of your logic fallacy.

LOLOL.

Moron.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ding said:


> Pro Tip: when a troll tries to derail the discussion use his posts against him by continuing to make your points.  The troll will be driven mad by anger and eventually go away.



Stop talking to your buddies.  I know you NEED validation and only the least educated will do.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I don't care.  I am not a slave to "appeal to authority".
> 
> I dealt with the content you posted by him.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we get it.  He's about 1x10^55 times as smart as you are.  No prob.
> 
> But not every single thing he said was perfected knowledge.
> 
> This is why high school dropouts like you fail when discussing technical topics.  You never learned the logic fallacies.  Which is why you are trying to nail all of them.


In 1950 Wald was elected to the National Academy of Science and in 1958 to the American Philosophical Society. He was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Boston and of the Optical Society of America. As a Guggenheim fellow, he spent a year in 1963-1964 at Cambridge University in England, where he was elected an Overseas fellow of Churchill College. He became an honorary member of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (1969).

Wald received many awards, including the Eli Lilly Award from the American Chemical Society (1939), the Lasker Award of the American Public Health Association (1953), the Proctor Medal of the Association for Research in Ophthalmology (1955), the Rumford Medal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1959), the Ives Medal of the Optical Society of America (1966); and, with Hubbard, the Paul Karrer Medal of the University of Zurich (1967).

In December 1967 Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology/medicine, sharing the prize with Haldan Keffer Hartline and Ragnar Granit. Dowling noted: "No one has contributed more to our understanding of the visual pigments and their relation to vision than George Wald."


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

westwall said:


> Yes, we know that is what you are.  The question is who's?



You should have seen what happened on another thread.  I responded to a flame by ding and another poster responded as if he was responding personally.  Then he IMMEDIATELY changed it so it would look like he wasn't a sock.

It's hilarious!


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Stop talking to your buddies.  I know you NEED validation and only the least educated will do.


You are upset.  That's understandable.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> You should have seen what happened on another thread.  I responded to a flame by ding and another poster responded as if he was responding personally.  Then he IMMEDIATELY changed it so it would look like he wasn't a sock.
> 
> It's hilarious!


I'm not Miketx, dummy.  I'm ding.  Miketx probably dislikes me more than you do.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> You should have seen what happened on another thread.  I responded to a flame by ding and another poster responded as if he was responding personally.  Then he IMMEDIATELY changed it so it would look like he wasn't a sock.
> 
> It's hilarious!


Hey let's link to that thread, shall we.  You bit the bait hard.  It's hilarious.  



			https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/people-i-made-mad-today.834542/post-29370137


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> Got it.  That would be the _best_ cover.  Maybe you are a bit more clever than your usual trash-posts.


I couldn't believe you took that bait.



			https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/people-i-made-mad-today.834542/post-29370137


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You spoke to intent. If you are going to post in this thread, please pay attention, especially to your own posts. It gets tiring  having to remind other posters what they, themselves, said. .
> 
> You said it was an attack on creationism. Wrong on every level. Evolution doesn't contradict creationism. It only contradicts the Bible mythology surrounding creation. So let's allso be clear about that.


Lots of outright attacks on these boards.


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, you didnt.


The statement is self-evident.


----------



## westwall

PV System said:


> I don't care.  I am not a slave to "appeal to authority".
> 
> I dealt with the content you posted by him.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we get it.  He's about 1x10^55 times as smart as you are.  No prob.
> 
> But not every single thing he said was perfected knowledge.
> 
> This is why high school dropouts like you fail when discussing technical topics.  You never learned the logic fallacies.  Which is why you are trying to nail all of them.






Ummm, every argument you make is an Appeal to Authority.

Troll boi.


----------



## westwall

ding said:


> I couldn't believe you took that bait.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/people-i-made-mad-today.834542/post-29370137





He's not a very smart troll.


----------



## ding

PV System said:


> I am not a slave to "appeal to authority".


Except of course when it comes to AGW.  Then you swallow it down.  Because you certainly don't know the first thing about the earth's climate.


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> No, you aren't.  You are stroking your ego while ignoring actual real evidence.  You are the worst type of person to talk with because no matter what evidence is presented you will ignore it.  You are an extremist.  Extremists are a huge waste of time.
> 
> So
> 
> Bye.


Lol, an illustration is REAL evidence to you.  Not to me.  You're another who doesn't have much evidence for your arguments and in regards to global warming I am on the same side.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> Lol, an illustration is REAL evidence to you.  Not to me.  You're another who doesn't have much evidence for your arguments and in regards to global warming I am on the same side.




No, you moron.  The STUDY that I linked to, and describes the fossils in detail.  The illustration was included because you are clearly too fucking stupid to know how to read a scientific study.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Lots of outright attacks on these boards.


Irrelevant. The theory of evolution is not an attack on creationism. Both can be true.

"God did that!"

See how easy? Now you say it. Try it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Woodznutz said:


> Lots of outright attacks on these boards.


Irrelevant. The theory of evolution is not an attac on creationism. Both can be true.
An
"God did that!"

See how easy? Now you say it. 


westwall said:


> Ummm, every argument you make is an Appeal to Authority.
> 
> Troll boi.


Anyone can read the thread and see that isn't true. Just another random outburst from you.


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> No, you moron.  The STUDY that I linked to, and describes the fossils in detail.  The illustration was included because you are clearly too fucking stupid to know how to read a scientific study.


Obviously, you ARE the ONE who is SAF as you can't convince anybody YOUR so-called science.  Hard evidence would be DNA and the traits for each animal besides fossil evidence.  You don't even show skeletal evidence nor why you associate them.  Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt for your atheistic and evolutionary beliefs.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> Obviously, you ARE the ONE who is SAF as you can't convince anybody YOUR so-called science.  Hard evidence would be DNA and the traits for each animal besides fossil evidence.  You don't even show skeletal evidence nor why you associate them.  Anyway, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt for your atheistic and evolutionary beliefs.





I'm not an atheist.  Moron.


----------



## ding

westwall said:


> I'm not an atheist.  Moron.


You are one of the few true agnostics on the board.  Many claim to be but few behave like it.  You do.

I'm like Thomas Jefferson when it comes to other people's religion or lack of religion... whatever works for them is alright by me.

Of course that doesn't mean when they attack mine, I'm going to sit idly by.


----------



## james bond

westwall said:


> I'm not an atheist.  Moron.


I can't discuss differences with you nor creation science.  It doesn't matter what you are anymore.  I've put you on ignore because of your nasty and angry attitude.


----------



## westwall

ding said:


> You are one of the few true agnostics on the board.  Many claim to be but few behave like it.  You do.
> 
> I'm like Thomas Jefferson when it comes to other people's religion or lack of religion... whatever works for them is alright by me.
> 
> Of course that doesn't mean when they attack mine, I'm going to sit idly by.





Yup.  I respect all viewpoints.  All are valid.  JB is an example of an extremist jackass though.  Just like apoo, and Crick, and the rest of the warmist faithful.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> I can't discuss differences with you nor creation science.  It doesn't matter what you are anymore.  I've put you on ignore because of your nasty and angry attitude.





Yaaaaay me!🙂


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> I keep winning my arguments in the science forum.



Because you suffer a loss of the relation to the reality all around or because you nerve everyone to death with always the same neverending nonsense?



james bond said:


> Recently, westwall claimed horses were the size of cats, but had no evidence.



55 million years ago the ancestors of horses had the size of a cat or fox and looked like a kind of antilope without horns. They had three toes in the front legs and four toes in the back legs. In 1840 was found the first of this fossils near London and had been classified "Hyracotherium". In Northamerica such fossils also had been discovered (although horses had died out there and the seddlers brought them back). Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899) gave them the name "Eohippus" - a short form which means something like "horse of the early sunrise".



james bond said:


> I don't think you know much science as you're a human ball of confusion.



I know indeed a lot about theory of tests, how to make experiments and emipirical studies in general. I know also a lot about evolutionary epistemology - but a lot of this knowledge needs to be reorganized meanwhile. Specially it needs to be integrated some genetical structures which are able "to learn" (better perhaps to say: 'individually to be activated') from the life of near ancestors.



james bond said:


> Otherwise, you would've showed us the PROOF of what you claim.  Farmers are farmers.



I know. And a farmer like my grandpa was continously working and the same time never in hurry - also not when he had worked in his fields in the age of 97.



james bond said:


> They didn't believe in evolution and don't have to today



What a nonsense. Every shepard and farmer likes to have good food (plants) and wonderful animals - and they know what to do to realize this since thousands of years.



james bond said:


> -- I know Marge doesn’t believe in evolution.



And believes also not in stones, the sea or the Roman empire?



james bond said:


> You don't have anything to back up what you said  about a normal farmer or shepherd lol.  What an embarrassment you are.



Hmm .... strange  ... in my own language no one would use the word "embarassement" like a spearword against a person. It would describe only a situation. It is by the way an intention from me to use the word "spearword" here instead of the original English word "swearword". I correct in this way a mutation of this word so it feels better because it better fits.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> Women are so irrational and emotional which is why they aren't very good at science.



What's an irrational and emotional nonsense sentence full of prejudices. "The truth" is much more simple: "Behind every great man stands a geat woman" - independent whether the great man in the front is a woman or the great woman in the front is a man.

By the way: I find one of the most interesting partnerships in this context the marriage between Sokrates and Xanthippe. As far as I know he never spoke any bad word about her - but others did - perhaps only on reason because she had been a very sharp thinker - same as Sokrates had been.

Emotions are by the way not "irrational". That's also a prejudice. Who learns needs emotions. Wo learns a lot needs more emotions.


----------



## Woodznutz

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Irrelevant. The theory of evolution is not an attack on creationism. Both can be true.


Er, no.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> What's an irrational and emotional nonsense sentence full of prejudices. "The truth" is much more simple: "Behind every great man stands a geat woman" - independent whether the great man in the front is a woman or the great woman in the front is a man.
> 
> By the way: I find one of the most interesting partnerships in this context the marriage between Sokrates and Xanthippe. As far as I know he never spoke any bad word about her - but others did - perhaps only on reason because she had been a very sharp thinker - same as Sokrates had been.
> 
> Emotions are by the way not "irrational". That's also a prejudice. Who learns needs emotions. Wo learns a lot needs more emotions.


Relax.  I was just fucking with her.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

westwall said:


> JB is an example of an extremist jackass though. Just like apoo, and Crick, and the rest of the warmist faithful.


I.E., pretty much the entire global scientific community. Your ignorant and misguided opinion just doesn't really matter to them or to the science.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Because you suffer a loss of the relation to the reality all around or because you nerve everyone to death with always the same neverending nonsense?


As usual, I am open to any science that you may want to present.  That's the point.  Despite my requests, I continue *WINNING.  BELIEVE ME, IT'S A GREAT FEELING.*  OTOH, I get the feeling of complaint from you.  If you were right, then I should get the opposite feeling and I would respond from a conceding position than a position of strength.

There is lack of evidence on the evolution side.  Recently, I asked for a photo instead of an illustration for an "evolved" animal and the poster went bonkers.  He became so angry and unsociable that I had to put him on ignore.



zaangalewa said:


> 55 million years ago the ancestors of horses had the size of a cat or fox and looked like a kind of antilope without horns. They had three toes in the front legs and four toes in the back legs. In 1840 was found the first of this fossils near London and had been classified "Hyracotherium". In Northamerica such fossils also had been discovered (although horses had died out there and the seddlers brought them back). Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899) gave them the name "Eohippus" - a short form which means something like "horse of the early sunrise".


Much of this is what I discussed with atheist scientists papers to get funding.  That said, the ancestry of horses is prolly the best showcase and argument for evolution.  However, it is wrong and a better argument for creation.  Creation scientists think "the horse series probably comprise three different created kinds, not including all animals that have been labeled _Hyracotherium_. _Hyracotherium_ itself appears to contain several different created kinds such as animals similar to tapirs."


zaangalewa said:


> I know indeed a lot about theory of tests, how to make experiments and emipirical studies in general. I know also a lot about evolutionary epistemology - but a lot of this knowledge needs to be reorganized meanwhile. Specially it needs to be integrated some genetical structures which are able "to learn" (better perhaps to say: 'individually to be activated') from the life of near ancestors.


Okay, now we're getting someplace.  If you'd show more links to these experiments that others have done.  If it's yours alone, then maybe we can see a youtube?



zaangalewa said:


> I know. And a farmer like my grandpa was continously working and the same time never in hurry - also not when he had worked in his fields in the age of 97.


My family in the old country were farmers, too.  I've been on their farms when I was small.  It's not easy work like that we see on tv.  Once they were up, they put on their farming clothes and ate breakfast in them and returned to eat lunch in them.  I helped them at times in my own way and you could tell the crops I planted because they didn't grow up straight.


zaangalewa said:


> And believes also not in stones, the sea or the Roman empire?


Jeez, COVID-19 shows creation science instead of evolution.  What did it evolve from?  It was your chance to EXPOUND, but you couldn't.



zaangalewa said:


> Hmm .... strange ... in my own language no one would use the word "embarassement" like a spearword against a person. It would describe only a situation. It is by the way an intention from me to use the word "spearword" here instead of the original English word "swearword". I correct in this way a mutation of this word so it feels better because it better fits.


Again, where is your evidence?

Here's mine with COVID-19 against evolution -- http://scienceagainstevolution.org/vol25-8.pdf.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I.E., pretty much the entire global scientific community. Your ignorant and misguided opinion just doesn't really matter to them or to the science.


If it wasn't SO ignorant or misguided, then it would have to be taken seriously.  The SAF presents an illustration as _hard_ evidence.  Thus, how can I address a made up animal painting?  Obviously, we have regular horses and miniature breeds.







We have a wide variety of breeds with horse.  Even regular and *miniature* ones.

See, I can present an actual photo disproving his sorry arse.  People here should be laughing their horses off right now at westwall.  Maybe I should unignore him for use as my comedy relief.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> If it wasn't SO ignorant or misguided, then it would have to taken seriously.  But how can I address a made up animal painting?  Obviously, we have regular horses and miniature breeds.


No idea what you are crybabying about, sorry.

You have explicitly said no evidence or argument can convince you.

So you are just a dickhead sockpuppet troll who stays on ignore.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No idea what you are crybabying about, sorry.
> 
> You have explicitly said no evidence or argument can convince you.
> 
> So you are just a dickhead sockpuppet troll who stays on ignore.


Oops, you didn't know about miniature horses as a separate breed.

No crybabying like westwall.  I even have the studies to back me up as science backs up creation science -- The evolution of the horse - creation.com.

To the contrary, this makes you the "dickhead sockpuppet troll..."


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Oops, you didn't know about miniature horses as a separate breed.
> 
> No crybabying like westwall.  I even have the studies to back me up as science backs up creation science -- The evolution of the horse - creation.com.
> 
> To the contrary, this makes you the "dickhead sockpuppet troll..."


Flat Earthers at creation.com?

Now that's pretty darn funny.


----------



## westwall

james bond said:


> Oops, you didn't know about miniature horses as a separate breed.
> 
> No crybabying like westwall.  I even have the studies to back me up as science backs up creation science -- The evolution of the horse - creation.com.
> 
> To the contrary, this makes you the "dickhead sockpuppet troll..."







Buuuuut you are the whiner that put me on ignore.  Remember that, Crybaby?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Flat Earthers at creation.com?
> 
> Now that's pretty darn funny.


Science backs it up as well as the AIG and ICR.  Science doesn't back up your evolution.  Do you even have a website?

For example, show me where in your website about the horse shrinking due to global warming?


----------



## james bond

Hey Hollie 

I found people like you  -- The Flat Earth Society - Index


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> Relax.  I was just fucking with her.


Sorry - but you said in German: "Entspanne dich. Ich war gerade dabei mit ihr Beischlaf zu verüben". So you have an orgasmic feeling when you speak unchivalrousy with a lady and you do not share her opinion? Exists any ICD-10 Code for this form of sickness?


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> Sorry - but you said in German: "Entspanne dich. Ich war gerade dabei mit ihr Beischlaf zu verüben". So you have an orgasmic feeling when you speak unchivalrousy with a lady and you do not share her opinion? Exists any ICD-10 Code for this form of sickness?


Not exactly.

You seem to be over reacting.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WinterBorn said:


> Evolution v. Creationism


Fact v. fiction.

Science v. religion.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> You seem to be over reacting.



You are not shy to threaten "to fuck" a lady in public and others over react? In the Middle Ages you had to be happy about that your head is still on your shoulders.


----------



## zaangalewa

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Fact v. fiction.
> 
> Science v. religion.



Idiotic statement. Creation and evolution are totally different things. No evolution without creation. And natural science is in general not "a belief" - also not the belief in atheism. You could perhaps compare the paradigmas of science (including philosophy and mathematics)  with the dogmas of religions and the constitutions or ideologies of human societies for example.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Science backs it up as well as the AIG and ICR.  Science doesn't back up your evolution.  Do you even have a website?
> 
> For example, show me where in your website about the horse shrinking due to global warming?


Science doesn't ''back up'' your silly creationer ministries. The planet is not flat. Pass that on at your next Flat Earth Society meeting.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

zaangalewa said:


> No evolution without creation.


Idiotic statement. You could not possibly know the truth of this.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> You are not shy to threaten "to fuck" a lady in public and others over react? In the Middle Ages you had to be happy about that your head is still on your shoulders.


You need to work on your English.  You are off base.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> If it wasn't SO ignorant or misguided, then it would have to be taken seriously.  The SAF presents an illustration as _hard_ evidence.  Thus, how can I address a made up animal painting?  Obviously, we have regular horses and miniature breeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have a wide variety of breeds with horse.  Even regular and *miniature* ones.
> 
> See, I can present an actual photo disproving his sorry arse.  People here should be laughing their horses off right now at westwall.  Maybe I should unignore him for use as my comedy relief.


Representative of what strolled off the Ark, which, you know, sailed around in circles so as not to fall off your Flat Earth?


----------



## james bond

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Fact v. fiction.
> 
> Science v. religion.


It's evolution that is _fiction_ as science backs up the Bible and creation.

Let's face it.  Evolution  has led to atheism today and that is religion.


----------



## zaangalewa

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Idiotic statement. You could not possibly know the truth of this.



You think the world, the universe existed since ever? What evolves needs an own substance and a separation from other things wherin it is able to fit. All this processes need energy, space and time. Once was no time, no space, no energy and so on and so on ... all this had to exist first before the natural law "biological evolution" had been able to freeze out.


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> Science doesn't ''back up'' your silly creationer ministries. The planet is not flat.
> Pass that on at your next Flat Earth Society meeting.


"Flat earthers" are by the way the people today who call other people of former times "flat earthers", because they believe others believed in a nonsense which never anyone believed since Christians exist and longer. The very strange thing: In a kind of self fulfilling stupidity exist today really some people who say they believe in a flat Earth - what never anyone did do in history. An absurde reaction on a wrong reaction on not any action at all.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> You need to work on your English.  You are off base.


That's the differnce between us. I do not need to work on my English - but looks like you need "to fuck" everyone.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Flat Earthers at creation.com?
> 
> Now that's pretty darn funny.









You are the POSTER GIRL for the Flat Earth Society lol.





Even Elon Musk has taken you up on it.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> It's evolution that is _fiction_ as science backs up the Bible and creation.
> 
> Let's face it.  Evolution  has led to atheism today and that is religion.



by the way. Paradise is the situation where everything was fitting - directly and/or indirectly - to everything else. Would you agree? Then evolution started when we left the paradise and we started to re-search the paradise, isn't it? So we could perhaps say the fulfillment of the evolution is the paradise. Weird enough for you to say so?


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> That's the differnce between us. I do not need to work on my English - but looks like you need "to fuck" everyone.


The error is yours and it's due to your lack of understanding English.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You are the POSTER GIRL for the Flat Earth Society lol.
> 
> View attachment 633949
> 
> Even Elon Musk has taken you up on it.




Your biblical flat earth with a ''firmament' above.

You Flat Earthers are a laugh a minute.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> The error is yours and it's due to your lack of understanding English.



"to fuck" = a man and a woman create together a baby - what's a most beautiful moment of life between two lovers

And what you thought about when you used the word "fuck" should perhaps better stay to be a secret between you and your strange universe.


----------



## zaangalewa

Hollie said:


> Your biblical flat earth with a ''firmament' above.
> 
> You Flat Earthers are a laugh a minute.



Again: People who call others "flat earthers" are "flat earthers". They believe in something about others what's totally wrong.

-----





Picture from a 1550 edition of _On the Sphere of the world_  the most influential astronomy textbook of 13th-century Europe.

Source: Flat Earth - Wikipedia
-----

The flat earthers today are by the way not an historical movement - they are a kind of "self fulfilling prophecy" of all the stupid believers in science (a believer in science is not a scientist!) who attack since about 200 years Christians with the stupid 'argument': _"We are scientists - you are not!_". = _"You believe in a flat Earth - while we know it is  a sphere."_

By the way: The surface of a sphere is two-dimensional and nearly flat in case of the Earth - that's why it is easy to make cards of near fields - but difficult to make cards for big distances. Flat means a triangle has 180°. Astonishingly indeed our world - our universe - is flat*!!!* A triangle in the titanic size of some billion lightyears has 180°.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> "to fuck" = a man and a women create together a baby - what's a most beautiful moment of life between two lovers
> 
> And what you thought about when you used the word "fuck" should perhaps better stay to be a secret between you and your strange universe.


You are a hammer looking for a nail but the nail you are looking for does not exist.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> You are a hammer looking for a nail but the nail you are looking for does not exist.



Currently I don't need nails. Thanks for the not existing offer.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> Currently I don't need nails. Thanks for the not existing offer.


Clearly there is a communication gap between us.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> by the way. Paradise is the situation where everything was fitting - directly and/or indirectly - to everything else. Would you agree? Then evolution started when we left the paradise and we started to re-search the paradise, isn't it? So we could perhaps say the fulfillment of the evolution is the paradise. Weird enough for you to say so?


We had "paradise" as the Garden of Eden and ended up with what we have due to Adam and Eve's sin -- war, famine, pestilence, death, climate changes and worse.  I don't know how the garden was and what it would be today if there was no sin.  What I do know is there will be a separation of the believers and unbelievers after death and the believers will go to a _new heaven_. It will be glorious, have the Garden of Eden, but I can't use science to describe it.

"Heaven is a real place described in the Bible. The word “heaven” is found 276 times in the New Testament alone. Scripture refers to three heavens. The apostle Paul was “caught up to the third heaven,” but he was prohibited from revealing what he experienced there (2 Corinthians 12:1-9).

If a third heaven exists, there must also be two other heavens. The first is most frequently referred to in the Old Testament as the “sky” or the “firmament.” This is the heaven that contains clouds, the area that birds fly through. The second heaven is interstellar/outer space, which is the abode of the stars, planets, and other celestial objects (Genesis 1:14-18).

The third heaven, the location of which is not revealed, is the dwelling place of God. Jesus promised to prepare a place for true Christians in heaven (John 14:2). Heaven is also the destination of Old Testament saints who died trusting God’s promise of the Redeemer (Ephesians 4:8). Whoever believes in Christ shall never perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).

The apostle John was privileged to see and report on the heavenly city (Revelation 21:10-27). John witnessed that heaven (the new earth) possesses the “glory of God” (Revelation 21:11), the very presence of God. Because heaven has no night and the Lord Himself is the light, the sun and moon are no longer needed (Revelation 22:5).

_The city is filled with the brilliance of costly stones and crystal clear jasper. Heaven has twelve gates (Revelation 21:12) and twelve foundations (Revelation 21:14). The paradise of the Garden of Eden is restored: the river of the water of life flows freely and the tree of life is available once again, yielding fruit monthly with leaves that “heal the nations” (Revelation 22:1-2). However eloquent John was in his description of heaven, the reality of heaven is beyond the ability of finite man to describe (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Heaven is a place of “no mores.” There will be no more tears, no more pain, and no more sorrow (Revelation 21:4). There will be no more separation, because death will be conquered (Revelation 20:6). The best thing about heaven is the presence of our Lord and Savior (1 John 3:2). We will be face to face with the Lamb of God who loved us and sacrificed Himself so that we can enjoy His presence in heaven for eternity._"









						What is Heaven like? | GotQuestions.org
					

What is Heaven like? What will heaven be like? What does Heaven look like?



					www.gotquestions.org


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> Clearly there is a communication gap between us.


What "the fuck" is a communication gap? A not born baby?


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> We had "paradise" as the Garden of Eden and ended up with what we have due to Adam and Eve's sin -- war, famine, pestilence, death, climate changes and worse.  I don't know how the garden was and what it would be today if there was no sin.  What I do know is there will be a separation of the believers and unbelievers after death and the believers will go to a _new heaven_. It will be glorious, have the Garden of Eden, but I can't use science to describe it.
> 
> "Heaven is a real place described in the Bible. The word “heaven” is found 276 times in the New Testament alone. Scripture refers to three heavens. The apostle Paul was “caught up to the third heaven,” but he was prohibited from revealing what he experienced there (2 Corinthians 12:1-9).
> 
> If a third heaven exists, there must also be two other heavens. The first is most frequently referred to in the Old Testament as the “sky” or the “firmament.” This is the heaven that contains clouds, the area that birds fly through. The second heaven is interstellar/outer space, which is the abode of the stars, planets, and other celestial objects (Genesis 1:14-18).
> 
> The third heaven, the location of which is not revealed, is the dwelling place of God. Jesus promised to prepare a place for true Christians in heaven (John 14:2). Heaven is also the destination of Old Testament saints who died trusting God’s promise of the Redeemer (Ephesians 4:8). Whoever believes in Christ shall never perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).
> 
> The apostle John was privileged to see and report on the heavenly city (Revelation 21:10-27). John witnessed that heaven (the new earth) possesses the “glory of God” (Revelation 21:11), the very presence of God. Because heaven has no night and the Lord Himself is the light, the sun and moon are no longer needed (Revelation 22:5).
> 
> _The city is filled with the brilliance of costly stones and crystal clear jasper. Heaven has twelve gates (Revelation 21:12) and twelve foundations (Revelation 21:14). The paradise of the Garden of Eden is restored: the river of the water of life flows freely and the tree of life is available once again, yielding fruit monthly with leaves that “heal the nations” (Revelation 22:1-2). However eloquent John was in his description of heaven, the reality of heaven is beyond the ability of finite man to describe (1 Corinthians 2:9).
> 
> Heaven is a place of “no mores.” There will be no more tears, no more pain, and no more sorrow (Revelation 21:4). There will be no more separation, because death will be conquered (Revelation 20:6). The best thing about heaven is the presence of our Lord and Savior (1 John 3:2). We will be face to face with the Lamb of God who loved us and sacrificed Himself so that we can enjoy His presence in heaven for eternity._"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is Heaven like? | GotQuestions.org
> 
> 
> What is Heaven like? What will heaven be like? What does Heaven look like?
> 
> 
> 
> www.gotquestions.org



Chinese dragons are very windy winding.



_... [what sleeps since ancient time] ... is brought back to life through war and murder.  Every injustice, every outrage, every drop of blood brings him back to life ... the dragon ... and so it comes to the oldest battle of mankind: the eternal battle of good against evil._


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> What "the fuck" is a communication gap? A not born baby?


You'll figure it out.


----------



## zaangalewa

ding said:


> You'll figure it out.


Idiot.


----------



## Grumblenuts

zaangalewa said:


> By the way: The surface of a sphere is two-dimensional


 
x, y, z?
r, Θ, φ?


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Chinese dragons are very windy winding.
> 
> 
> 
> _... [what sleeps since ancient time] ... is brought back to life through war and murder.  Every injustice, every outrage, every drop of blood brings him back to life ... the dragon ... and so it comes to the oldest battle of mankind: the eternal battle of good against evil._


You didn't get it.  Faith has to start with you first.


----------



## ding

zaangalewa said:


> Idiot.


No, but keep trying.


----------



## zaangalewa

Grumblenuts said:


> x, y, z?
> r, Θ, φ?



No idea about mathematics? The surface of a three dimensional object has two dimensions. A sum of the three angles in a triangle (="three-angles") in this two dimensional object is able to have less, equal xor (=either/or) more than 180°. "Flat" is this two dimensional object if this sum is 180°. In case of the surface of a sphere the sum of a tri-angle is always greater than 180°. Physicists found out that a triangle in the highest measurable size in the universe has 180° (with a little measurement inaccuracy which is acceptable in physics). So the universe is flat (= follows the "normal" Euclidian geometry which everyone learns in school since a very long time).


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> You didn't get it.  Faith has to start with you first.


You are not able to give a clear answer to concrete questions. You hide yourselve behind the bible, which you seem not to understand the same time.


----------



## Feeding Crows

westwall said:


> Maybe.  I think faith in and of itself is a religion.   Or at least it has a religious aspect.  It is the belief in something for which there is no evidence.
> 
> Religion requires faith because face it, there ain't no evidence for a God.  The modern theory of the creation of the Universe requires faith as well.
> 
> There actually is evidence to support the theory of evolution.  It is limited, but it is there.


I totally understand and agree. When I say "faith", it means I want people to be good, regardless of their "gods". And not kill each other over their false gods. Just do the right things, we all know what they are, and that's faith. It doesn't require a god or religion. It's part of evolution. We're the only species that destroys itself, and that's because of religion. If people had faith, they would never have committed the atrocities that religion demanded upon them.


----------



## Feeding Crows

PV System said:


> You are 100% WRONG.  WRONG WRONG WRONG.
> 
> I never said they SHOULDN'T be.  I said they don't necessarily HAVE to be.
> 
> Why do you lie so much?


Dude, just sayin, that's ding... I have him on ignore. I can only imagine what bs he's saying. It's not worth the effort. And he'll get his posse of ankle-biters and socks on you everywhere you go.


----------



## Feeding Crows

james bond said:


> I keep winning my arguments in the science forum.  Recently, westwall claimed horses were the size of cats, but had no evidence.  I don't think you know much science as you're a human ball of confusion.  Otherwise, you would've showed us the PROOF of what you claim.  Farmers are farmers.  They didn't believe in evolution and don't have to today -- I know Marge doesn’t believe in evolution.  You don't have anything to back up what you said  about a normal farmer or shepherd lol.  What an embarrassment you are.


Yes they were once about that small based on fossil evidence. Large horses did not just appear out of thin air.

So since you believe humans and dinosaurs lived together, why aren't there any dinosaurs left besides birds? Did we eat them all?


----------



## Feeding Crows

PV System said:


> You should have seen what happened on another thread.  I responded to a flame by ding and another poster responded as if he was responding personally.  Then he IMMEDIATELY changed it so it would look like he wasn't a sock.
> 
> It's hilarious!


told ya, see my previous reply. I call them the ankle-biters, but some of them aren't socks, which is skerry....


----------



## Feeding Crows

westwall said:


> He's not a very smart troll.


ankle biter


----------



## Feeding Crows

Hollie said:


> Flat Earthers at creation.com?
> 
> Now that's pretty darn funny.


He's going to say that he's not a flat earther. But if you press him, he's a 6000-yr earther. Meaning the universe, according to him and his crazy brethren, was created a mere 6000 years ago. And humans and dinosaurs lived together. Try him on it.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> You didn't get it.  Faith has to start with you first.



¿Says a faithless man who is much too lazy and likes to make others much too fearful to accept the reality all around within the very concrete world here all around, because he thinks god made wrong the "opus dei" and should listen to his own totally wrong and absurde ideas? Very most Christians have absolutelly not any problem with the real scientific theory of biological evolution. This doesn't mean to agree with any form of racist Darwinism or other murderous ideologies.


----------



## Feeding Crows

zaangalewa said:


> ¿Says a faithless man who is much too lazy and likes to make others much too fearful to accept the reality all around within the very concrete world here all around, because he thinks god made wrong the "opus dei" and should listen to his own totally wrong and absurde ideas? Very most Christians have absolutelly not any problem with the real scientific theory of biological evolution. This doesn't mean to agree with any form of racist Darwinism or other murderous ideologies.


He's just a jerk, and has no faith. He actually does not believe what he spews. He's just in it for the fun of messing with us.


----------



## zaangalewa

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> He's just a jerk, and has no faith. He actually does not believe what he spews. He's just in it for the fun of messing with us.



Hmmm ... It's easy to convince someone from lies - and it's nearly impossible to correct the belief in such lies.


----------



## Feeding Crows

He's just been having fun with your responses. He can't actually believe that shit, and still hold a job...

Can you imagine his conversations at work?!?


----------



## Feeding Crows




----------



## Feeding Crows

yeah bond has serious HR issues... could you imagine working with him?!?

He's full of shit, in and out.

And he's going to explode his shit because he's so full of it. So put some masks on. Eye goggles too... because here comes the shit explosion from bond!!!!


----------



## james bond

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> Yes they were once about that small based on fossil evidence. Large horses did not just appear out of thin air.
> 
> So since you believe humans and dinosaurs lived together, why aren't there any dinosaurs left besides birds? Did we eat them all?
> 
> View attachment 634926


You are SAF and shows your limited POS capacity like many atheists and ags here.  All you have are paper cut outs.

What I have here demonstrates creation science and so I KNOW that your kind will get theirs in the 21st century.  All you have to do is die lol.


We know T-Rex's aren't as old as claimed.  Here's the ICR museum -- Things to Do.

Your paper cutouts show your capacity Freedom Crows Nest .


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> You are SAF and shows your limited POS capacity like many atheists and ags here.  All you have are paper cut outs.
> 
> What I have here demonstrates creation science and so I KNOW that your kind will get theirs in the 21st century.  All you have to do is die lol.
> 
> 
> We know T-Rex's aren't as old as claimed.


Christians are not required to reject science and education.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


  Legalistic religious folks cannot accept evolution, because it goes directly against what they think the Bible says.
Even though, it doesn't specifically. I don't think there is another book in the world that is more vague and full of holes as the Bible. Because of that vagueness, the book can be interpreted 1000 different ways. 
And is.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You are SAF and shows your limited POS capacity like many atheists and ags here.  All you have are paper cut outs.
> 
> What I have here demonstrates creation science and so I KNOW that your kind will get theirs in the 21st century.  All you have to do is die lol.
> 
> 
> We know T-Rex's aren't as old as claimed.  Here's the ICR museum -- Things to Do.
> 
> Your paper cutouts show your capacity Freedom Crows Nest .



ICR. For the weak and infirm.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> ¿Says a faithless man who is much too lazy and likes to make others much too fearful to accept the reality all around within the very concrete world here all around, because he thinks god made wrong the "opus dei" and should listen to his own totally wrong and absurde ideas? Very most Christians have absolutelly not any problem with the real scientific theory of biological evolution. This doesn't mean to agree with any form of racist Darwinism or other murderous ideologies.


Huh?  English gets difficult when reality hits you?  

First and foremost, I explained to the non-believers how to get to where the believers and I are at.

Basically, you're not listening to the Bible as it was there way before evolution came along.  The facts are evolution was not founded by the creation scientists who were and still are the GREATEST SCIENTISTS ON EARTH AND HISTORY.  Thus, there is no reason for me to subscribe and spout totally wrong and absurd ideas regarding science, much less accept them.

If you want to believe false science, then it doesn't matter nor bother me.  From the very beginning, Christianity taught non-believers will go to the other place.  I won't even know what happened to you so may as well say adios right now.  However, you'll be able to witness what happens to the believers.  That's the wisdom of God and not the wrath of God.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ICR. For the weak and infirm.


When you're weak and infirm, all you have to do is die and then you'll know what I know and that I was right.  However, it will be too late.

Is learning too late or experiencing God's wrath science?  I don't think so.  It's the consequences for believing in evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

iamwhatiseem said:


> Legalistic religious folks cannot accept evolution, because it goes directly against what they think the Bible says.
> Even though, it doesn't specifically. I don't think there is another book in the world that is more vague and full of holes as the Bible. Because of that vagueness, the book can be interpreted 1000 different ways.
> And is.


Evolution does a fantastic job of examining why things that may appear to be designed, aren't. And it shows humans are animals who vary from other animals more in degree than in kind.

When one believes a designer created the entire universe just for the very special little humans, these ideas are not acceptable.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> When you're weak and infirm, all you have to do is die and then you'll know what I know and that I was right.  However, it will be too late.
> 
> Is learning too late or experiencing God's wrath science?  I don't think so.  It's the consequences for believing in evolution.



You know nothing but self-hate. It's the consequence of hyper-religious extremism.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You know nothing but self-hate. It's the consequence of hyper-religious extremism.


Satan has fooled many and is _prophecized_ to gain the majority.  

You know how he tricked Adam and Eve.  He's going to do it again to non-believers and believers alike.  It will be too late for one of the atheists/ags here in June and another in 2023.  I'll miss the one for June, but won't miss the one in 2023.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Satan has fooled many and is _prophecized_ to gain the majority.
> 
> You know how he tricked Adam and Eve.  He's going to do it again to non-believers and believers alike.  It will be too late for one of the atheists/ags here in June and another in 2023.  I'll miss the one for June, but won't miss the one in 2023.





Freedom Crows Nest said:


> He's just been having fun with your responses. He can't actually believe that shit, and still hold a job...
> 
> Can you imagine his conversations at work?!?



Looks like you are right. What he says sounds like ¿self?-organized stupidity. In the USA lots of people seem to have a very big wrongly understood  Zoroastrian element in their belief which seems to maximize the fear in evil and minimizes the trust in god. They seem to see in the Satan (="the challenger") a kind of evil god - but only god is god. And they ignore the same time that Satana is creation - not creator. A mutation in the genome for example is in very most cases a bad thing - but sometimes happens a wonder and a mutation has a positive side effect. But for "the evolution" - what is also not god but only a natural law - it's totally unimportant what happens. Evolution has no intention nor plans. Same with natural catastrophes. But not so wars or man made slow speed catastrophes like the climate change or the destruction of the biosphere. Such evils do we cause on our own - but we are the same time also the hope, if we decide to accept to be His real children and to take care for each other including the unborn and the whole living creation of god.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Looks like you are right. What he says sounds like ¿self?-organized stupidity. In the USA lots of people seem to have a very big wrongly understood  Zoroastrian element in their belief which seems to maximize the fear in evil and minimizes the trust in god. They seem to see in the Satan (="the challenger") a kind of evil god - but only god is god. And they ignore the same time that Satana is creation - not creator. A mutation in the genome for example is in very most cases a bad thing - but sometimes happens a wonder and a mutation has a positive side effect. But for "the evolution" - what is also not god but only a natural law - it's totally unimportant what happens. Evolution has no intention nor plans. Same with natural catastrophes. But not so wars or man made slow speed catastrophes like the climate change or the destruction of the biosphere. Such evils do we cause on our own - but we are the same time also the hope, if we decide to accept to be His real children and to take care for each other including the unborn and the whole living creation of god.


Sure.  Good company can't always avoid bad company, so it's best I take my leave of your posts.


"Company, always on the run
Destiny is the rising sun
Oh, I was born 6-gun in my hand
Behind the gun I'll make my final stand
That's why they call me

Bad company
And I can't deny
Bad company
'Til the day I die
Oh, 'til the day I die
'Til the day I die

Rebel souls, deserters we are called
*Chose a gun and threw away the Son*
Now these towns, they all know our name
6-gun sound is our claim to fame
I can hear them say

Bad company
And I won't deny
Bad, bad company
'Til the day I die, oh, yeah
'Til the day I die,

Hey

Bad company
I can't deny
Bad company
'Til the day I die

And I say it's bad company, oh yeah yeah
Bad company
'Til the day I die

Tell me that you are not a thief
Oh but I am bad company
It's the way I play dirty for dirty
Oh, somebody double-crossed me
Double-cross, double-cross"





__





						Bad Company - Bad Company Lyrics | AZLyrics.com
					

Bad Company "Bad Company": Company, always on the run Destiny is the rising sun Oh, I was born 6-gun in my hand Behind the gun...



					www.azlyrics.com


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Sure.  Good company can't always avoid bad company.



Then leave yourselve and look for good company.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> ... Oh, I was born 6-gun in my hand ...



What an unbelievable idiot.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> Then leave yourselve and look for good company.


Sounds like you still don't get it.  This is why the wrath of God is prophecized to wipe you and your kind off the face of the Earth.

Even I didn't get it.  It gives ANTD a new meaning (nervous lol).


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> What an unbelievable idiot.


The irony lmao.

Just because you didn't know what "bad company" you'll be hangin' with.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Satan has fooled many and is _prophecized_ to gain the majority.
> 
> You know how he tricked Adam and Eve.  He's going to do it again to non-believers and believers alike.  It will be too late for one of the atheists/ags here in June and another in 2023.  I'll miss the one for June, but won't miss the one in 2023.


A child who never lets go of his juvenile fears and superstitions is said to have never grown up.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Sounds like you still don't get it.  This is why the wrath of God is prophecized to wipe you and your kind off the face of the Earth. ...



You plan a genocide, godless Nazi?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> A child who never lets go of his juvenile fears and superstitions is said to have never grown up.


Satan loves to hide, so it's not he that which we'll face in real life.  I may face a gang of heathens ready to burn down a church.  You may face a bunch of creationists set to make an example on a burning cross.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> You plan a genocide, godless Nazi?


No need.

We've had a mini fire in the sky already with Sodom and Gomorrah.

'We all know the biblical story of how the sinners of the decadent cities of Sodom and Gomorrah why destroyed by a Godly rain of “fire and brimstone” from on high. Archeologists may have recently discovered proof of this cleansing of biblical proportions.

A group of archeologists and other scientists say they have discovered strong evidence that the region of the “Middle Ghor,” where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are believed to have existed, were in fact destroyed by a meteor that exploded in the sky above, raining down superheated matter and raising temperatures to thousands of degrees — a theory that matches the account of the cities’ fiery destruction as described in the Book of Genesis.


According to the theory, the meteor exploded at low altitude with the force of a ten megaton atomic bomb at an altitude of about one kilometer over the northeast corner of the Dead Sea, and obliterated all of civilization in the 25-kilometer-wide circular plain that constitutes the “Middle Ghor.”

The researchers presented preliminary findings on the subject at last year’s annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research in November, and have been developing the theory since at least 2015. They state that the evidence from radiocarbon dating indicates that a group of civilizations flourished in the area for over two millennia, until approximately 1700 BC, when the mud-brick walls of the buildings in the region simultaneously disappeared and only the stone foundations remained.

Further evidence is that the scientists described the discovery of, “pottery in the settlements that had been super-heated into glass in the space of milliseconds.” The explosion also rained down platinum as well as molten lava on the region, according to two of the archeologists, and this further confirms that a meteor was the source, given that platinum is found in higher concentrations in meteors than on earth.

The settlements that were annihilated in the event include the principal excavation site, “Tall el-Hammam,” which the archeologists believe is the city of Sodom, whose destruction is recounted in the Book of Genesis, chapter 19. The approximate date of the annihilation also matches the time period corresponding to the event in Genesis, according to archeologists.


Two archeologists involved in the Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project, Steven Collins and Phillip Silvia, wrote in a 2015 conference paper that “the physical evidence from Tall el-Hammam and neighboring sites exhibit signs of a highly destructive concussive and thermal event that one might expect from what is described in Genesis 19.”

According to the nineteenth chapter of the Book of Genesis, verse 24, “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven,” a statement that matches well the high temperatures and superheated stones that would have rained from the sky in such an event.

Genesis 19 also seems to describe the general devastation in the region, including the loss of plant life discovered by the archeologists, stating in verse 25, “And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth.”'









						Scientists Say That Sodom and Gomorrah Were Actually Destroyed by “Fire From the Sky!” - PULSE Daily News
					

We all know the biblical story of how the sinners of the decadent cities of Sodom and Gomorrah why destroyed by a Godly rain of “fire and brimstone” from on high. Archeologists may have recently discovered proof of this cleansing of biblical proportions. A group of archeologists and other...




					pulsedailynews.com
				




What will be the FINAL fire in the sky?  Jesus?  Check out #19.









						20 Ways the World Could End
					

Are we in danger of being erased from the universe? Here we look at the factors that could doom humanity: natural disasters, human-triggered cataclysms, willful self-destruction, and greater forces directed against us.




					www.discovermagazine.com


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Satan loves to hide, so it's not he that which we'll face in real life.  I may face a gang of heathens ready to burn down a church.  You may face a bunch of creationists set to make an example on a burning cross.


You need medical attention.


----------



## james bond

I have an observation to make.  It's when we get close to the nitty gritty of discussing the truth or _the end of the world_, the non-believers go off their rockers.  It's like they didn't know of the possibilities.  Just observe zaangalewa lol.



Hollie said:


> You need medical attention.


You should discuss the possibility of the end of the world with someone you trust.  Obviously, I would say you get the short end of the fiery stick.  Maybe a psychiatrist would be most appropriate for you.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> I have an observation to make.  It's when we get close to the nitty gritty of discussing the truth or _the end of the world_, the non-believers go off their rockers.  It's like they didn't know of the possibilities.



Many of us grew up with the stories of the world's imminent demise.  My grandma died in 1994 at the age of 94 and the entire time I knew her (30 years at that point) she had believed that the end was nigh.  (Of course the Beatles were partially resonsible).

Don't get me wrong, I loved my grandma.  She was the greatest.  But her faith had, as a constant reminder, that the end was coming soon.

Is it healthy to live like that?  I dunno.  Everyone seems to think of their own Armageddon.  Even secular folks.  Maybe it's part of being human.  We ourselves have limited time on the earth and we know that.  Perhaps we are projecting our own egotism on the rest of the world.  When we are gone everything will be gone.




james bond said:


> You should discuss the possibility of the end of the world with someone you trust.  Obviously, I would say you get the short end of the fiery stick.  Maybe a psychiatrist would be most appropriate for you.



That almost reads like the standard issue "schadenfreude" of the pious fantasizing about the horrors those who didn't believe as they do are about to experience.

It's definitely NOT the most appealing aspect to Christianity.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> It's definitely NOT the most appealing aspect to Christianity.


It was Adam and Eve's sin that isn't the most appealing, but it could not be helped or else we wouldn't have FREE WILL.  Now that we do, I think most Christians think the EOW is the MOST APPEALING ASPECT!!!  Obviously, we look forward to it!!!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> It was Adam and Eve's sin that isn't the most appealing,



Actually the "Fall" is a wonderful metaphor for "growing up".  It is a point in our lives when we can no longer claim "innocence" and we are required to take responsibility for our own deeds.  We know what is good and what is evil and it's up to us to figure out which we really want to do.



james bond said:


> but it could not be helped or else we wouldn't have FREE WILL.



Agreed!



james bond said:


> Now that we do, I think most Christians think the EOW is the MOST APPEALING ASPECT!!!



I think there are a lot of Christians who look forward to the end a bit too much.  But it's also understandable.  The possibility of catching a flight out of a disaster before the s**** hits the fan is appealing.  And then getting a whole pile of "presents" from their favorite God forever is probably a big draw as well.  



james bond said:


> Obviously, we look forward to it!!!



And if one talks about it enough it allows them to not take part in making this world a little better instead.  It is kind of tapping out of the game.  But still being a part of the game.  Just an obstacle to changes that need to be made.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I have an observation to make.  It's when we get close to the nitty gritty of discussing the truth or _the end of the world_, the non-believers go off their rockers.  It's like they didn't know of the possibilities.  Just observe zaangalewa lol.
> 
> 
> You should discuss the possibility of the end of the world with someone you trust.  Obviously, I would say you get the short end of the fiery stick.  Maybe a psychiatrist would be most appropriate for you.


You should discuss your fears and superstitions with a competent psychiatrist.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> Actually the "Fall" is a wonderful metaphor for "growing up".  It is a point in our lives when we can no longer claim "innocence" and we are required to take responsibility for our own deeds.  We know what is good and what is evil and it's up to us to figure out which we really want to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed!
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are a lot of Christians who look forward to the end a bit too much.  But it's also understandable.  The possibility of catching a flight out of a disaster before the s**** hits the fan is appealing.  And then getting a whole pile of "presents" from their favorite God forever is probably a big draw as well.
> 
> 
> 
> And if one talks about it enough it allows them to not take part in making this world a little better instead.  It is kind of tapping out of the game.  But still being a part of the game.  Just an obstacle to changes that need to be made.


What I do here is expose evolution is a LIE; It truly has become EVIL-ution as more and more innocent people end up believing the LIE.  Instead, the creationists have found science backs up the Bible and can use that as a weapon to counter the LIE of evolution.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You should discuss your fears and superstitions with a competent psychiatrist.


I knew you needed a psychiatrist, but couldn't get any help from one.  Anyone who thinks _evolution is science_ is crazy.  You are too far gone lol.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> No need. ...



So you think the bible which you are not able to understand and the god which you hate and whom you try to make to your personal kind of anti-god is doing for you the genocide which you wish to be done - so you are able to stay for an eternity in your lazy stupidity and brutal anti-gnorance? Satana - you are really very satanic ... but how do you make it to let people believe the hell which they are will become their paradise?



_It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man_
*Albert Einstein*


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I knew you needed a psychiatrist, but couldn't get any help from one.  Anyone who thinks _evolution is science_ is crazy.  You are too far gone lol.


But you believe a Flat Earth is a rational position.


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> So you think the bible which you are not able to understand and the god which you hate and whom you try to make to your personal kind of anti-god is doing for you the genocide which you wish to be done - so you are able to stay for an eternity in your lazy stupidity and brutal anti-gnorance? Satana - you are really very satanic ... but how do you make it to let people believe the hell which they are will become their paradise?



ZOMG, you're another who goes bonkers when evolution is disproven and science backs up creation.  Of course, you'll have to pay for this indiscretion and pay dearly.  It's what written in the Bible about it.  Do you want the quotes to see if science backs it up?

Let's look at how long it took for creation versus how long it took for evolution.  No one can observe a billion nor millions of years.  Thus, what is observable to back this up?

Let's see if you know what your atheist scientists wrote to gain funding, you miserable worm?


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


Nothing.  There were no millions of years ago and you can't prove that.  It's your claim of the universe and Earth being billions and millions of years ago.  Answer my question above?

>>Let's look at how long it took for creation versus how long it took for evolution. No one can observe a billion nor millions of years. Thus, what is observable to back this up?<<

OTOH, God's reply to snakes and their backers was crystal clear:

"Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?" Matthew 23:33

Instead of more Biblical quotes, why not something observable?

'What they found is a world of extremes.


The planet is tidal-locked, meaning one face is permanently pointing toward the star.
This face is a sea of molten lava, with a surface temperature of 2,400 degrees C (4,352 F).
The “dark side” is barely better.
It’s solid — but simmering at 1,100 C (2,012 F).
All this is odd: It shouldn’t be that hot, astronomers say, even though it does sit relatively close to its star.

They also found an out-of-place “hot spot.”'









						Science has discovered hell
					

Hell has an address: 55 Cancri-e is the first alien planet to have some of its surface features directly observed. And it’s no tropical paradise. For some time 55 Cancri-e has been considered &#822…




					nypost.com


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> ZOMG, you're another who goes bonkers when evolution is disproven and science backs up creation.  Of course, you'll have to pay for this indiscretion and pay dearly.  It's what written in the Bible about it.  Do you want the quotes to see if science backs it up?
> 
> Let's look at how long it took for creation versus how long it took for evolution.  No one can observe a billion nor millions of years.  Thus, what is observable to back this up?
> 
> Let's see if you know what your atheist scientists wrote to gain funding, you miserable worm?


Lol 🤣🤣🤣 you've never disproven evolution.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Nothing.  There were no millions of years ago and you can't prove that.  It's your claim of the universe and Earth being billions and millions of years ago.  Answer my question above?
> 
> >>Let's look at how long it took for creation versus how long it took for evolution. No one can observe a billion nor millions of years. Thus, what is observable to back this up?<<
> 
> OTOH, God's reply to snakes and their backers was crystal clear:
> 
> "Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?" Matthew 23:33
> 
> Instead of more Biblical quotes, why not something observable?
> 
> 'What they found is a world of extremes.
> 
> 
> The planet is tidal-locked, meaning one face is permanently pointing toward the star.
> This face is a sea of molten lava, with a surface temperature of 2,400 degrees C (4,352 F).
> The “dark side” is barely better.
> It’s solid — but simmering at 1,100 C (2,012 F).
> All this is odd: It shouldn’t be that hot, astronomers say, even though it does sit relatively close to its star.
> 
> They also found an out-of-place “hot spot.”'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has discovered hell
> 
> 
> Hell has an address: 55 Cancri-e is the first alien planet to have some of its surface features directly observed. And it’s no tropical paradise. For some time 55 Cancri-e has been considered &#822…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com


That's about the Edomites who were forcibly converted to Judaism.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

My current working theory is that evolution simply hasn't gotten around to affecting a good percentage of the posters here at USMB. 

I hope that helps.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Hollie said:


> You know nothing but self-hate. It's the consequence of hyper-religious extremism.


I see it more in terms of the need for a sense of security, myself.

 The more fixed and finite one's world, the easier it is to navigate.  People who fear ambiguity and complexity reduce their word down to the simplest terms possible in order to feel safer. 

 I would rather understand WHY anything is the way it is, myself, but many people are so busy looking for answers that they never ask questions.  True believers abound, but the tendency towards belief without questioning sure isn't limited to just the religious.  Looking around this form, I would say that political fundamentalism is every bit as strong as religious.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> What I do here is expose evolution is a LIE;



In your imagination.  That's it.  No offense but you are exposing nothing of the sort.  But if it makes you feel like you have a holy crusade then have at it.



james bond said:


> It truly has become EVIL-ution as more and more innocent people end up believing the LIE.



And that "evil" is also responsible for the massive flourishing of biology, genetics and medicine which all lead to longer and healthier lives.  I can see why it's "evil".



james bond said:


> Instead, the creationists have found science backs up the Bible



Not even close.  Sorry to break it to you.  



james bond said:


> and can use that as a weapon to counter the LIE of evolution.



Not really.

But this is your faith.  Your religion.  So you can believe whatever you like.   But maybe stick to your lane?  Stick to the things you actually DO know and leave science out of it.  No one begrudges you whatever belief you have, but when going up against science it is probably best to actually have some scientific background rather than an intense dislike of the science for religious reasons.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> But you believe a Flat Earth is a rational position.


Flattie Hollie, you should know better than anyone else not to believe in a flat Earth lol, but you just can't help it.  It's your flattie nature.

Who else have I communicated with more than you?  LMAO.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> In your imagination.  That's it.  No offense but you are exposing nothing of the sort.  But if it makes you feel like you have a holy crusade then have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> And that "evil" is also responsible for the massive flourishing of biology, genetics and medicine which all lead to longer and healthier lives.  I can see why it's "evil".
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close.  Sorry to break it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> But this is your faith.  Your religion.  So you can believe whatever you like.   But maybe stick to your lane?  Stick to the things you actually DO know and leave science out of it.  No one begrudges you whatever belief you have, but when going up against science it is probably best to actually have some scientific background rather than an intense dislike of the science for religious reasons.


It's not MY imagination.  It's the evolutionists.  There is not one single evidence for evolution, but I have plenty for the global flood as it caused the Earth layers and mountainous surfaces.  All of it is covered by marine fossils.  Even on top of Mt. Everest.  With that, you can crawl back into your evolution hole.  Evolutionists are prolly the most despicable kind of fake science people and scientists.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Lol 🤣🤣🤣 you've never disproven evolution.


LMAO.  With that comment, you are with the LOWEST of the LOW.  Just the evidence for the global flood disproves it.  Just the evidence for a young Earth disproves it.  The evolutionists believe in long time based on wrong processing and thinking from 1956 on space rocks.


----------



## james bond

Dogmaphobe said:


> My current working theory is that evolution simply hasn't gotten around to affecting a good percentage of the posters here at USMB.
> 
> I hope that helps.


Give me one simple evidence for macroevolution.  There isn't any evidence for microevolution, either.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> LMAO.  With that comment, you are with the LOWEST of the LOW.  Just the evidence for the global flood disproves it.  Just the evidence for a young Earth disproves it.  The evolutionists believe in long time based on wrong processing and thinking from 1956 on space rocks.


There is NO evidence for a global flood. Even the Bible uses the word Erets.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> There is not one single evidence for evolution,



You must know this is not true.



james bond said:


> but I have plenty for the global flood



Not really.  I say that because geologists know what a "flood deposit" would look like and no such thing is found globally.  Yes there are local floods all over the place.  No global flood.  The Genesis story of Noah doesn't even marginally pass the rational thought test.  There's no major die-off like that within human history and there's no marker for it in the genetics of the animals we see today.

The Noachian Flood is a myth.  Perhaps a local event but no global flood.



james bond said:


> as it caused the Earth layers and mountainous surfaces.



No the earth layers all have radically different ages and a lot of technical details which can't be explained by a global flood.  This is just mushy thinking and ignores the entire field of geology.

For instance the Flood wouldn't make something like this:










james bond said:


> All of it is covered by marine fossils.  Even on top of Mt. Everest.



Even Steno knew this was problematic.  



james bond said:


> With that, you can crawl back into your evolution hole.  Evolutionists are prolly the most despicable kind of fake science people and scientists.



How do YOU come to sit in judgement?  Are you not arguing on behalf of God himself?  *What makes you think God would be OK with YOU passing judgement on others in a field you know nothing about?*

Do you not read your bible????

Judge not lest ye be judged.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> There is NO evidence for a global flood. Even the Bible uses the word Erets.


LMAO, you need to fail yourself outta of the science section.  3/4 of the planet is covered by sea water.  There are marine fossils everywhere.  They're on every elevation.  We have underwater civilizations around the world.  You're better off being hypocritical in the religion section.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> LMAO, you need to fail yourself outta of the science section.  3/4 of the planet is covered by sea water.  There are marine fossils everywhere.  They're on every elevation.  We have underwater civilizations around the world.  You're better off being hypocritical in the religion section.


Lol 😂😂😂  Have you ever heard of plate tectonics? Even a baby geologist knows how marine fossils came to be on mountain tops 35 million years ago.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> LMAO, you need to fail yourself outta of the science section.  3/4 of the planet is covered by sea water.  There are marine fossils everywhere.






james bond said:


> They're on every elevation.  We have underwater civilizations around the world.  You're better off being hypocritical in the religion section.



The best part of reading these posts of yours about fossils is knowing you have never been in a paleontology class.  Your understanding of geology and paleontology is a cartoon.  

Be honest:  *do you know ANYTHING technically about geology or paleontology from an actual geology class?  *Or is all your knowledge from Ken Ham and others of his ilk.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

surada said:


> Lol 😂😂😂  Have you ever heard of plate tectonics? Even a baby geologist knows how marine fossils came to be on mountain tops 35 million years ago.



Yeah, it's abundantly clear that james bond has NEVER even darkened the door of an intro geology class.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> You must know this is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  I say that because geologists know what a "flood deposit" would look like and no such thing is found globally.  Yes there are local floods all over the place.  No global flood.  The Genesis story of Noah doesn't even marginally pass the rational thought test.  There's no major die-off like that within human history and there's no marker for it in the genetics of the animals we see today.
> 
> The Noachian Flood is a myth.  Perhaps a local event but no global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> No the earth layers all have radically different ages and a lot of technical details which can't be explained by a global flood.  This is just mushy thinking and ignores the entire field of geology.
> 
> For instance the Flood wouldn't make something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Steno knew this was problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> How do YOU come to sit in judgement?  Are you not arguing on behalf of God himself?  *What makes you think God would be OK with YOU passing judgement on others in a field you know nothing about?*
> 
> Do you not read your bible????
> 
> Judge not lest ye be judged.


Dang, I am speaking with another SAF.  Your photo is a monument to the global flood.  It curves like that and is comprised of marine fossils due to the fountains of the deep as explained in the Bible.  We know from creation scientist Alfred Wegener about plate tectonics, but he was wrong about continental drift.  The one or two large land masses were broken up by the global flood.  I just explained how our continents were formed, 3/4 of Earth is covered by sea water, how we have oceans of water below the seafloor and more while you gave me sh*t for brainz.


----------



## surada

PV System said:


> Yeah, it's abundantly clear that james bond has NEVER even darkened the door of an intro geology class.


I agree. He's a joke.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> Yeah, it's abundantly clear that james bond has NEVER even darkened the door of an intro geology class.


I'm positive I have earned better degree than you.  In fact, I was the one who provided the evos with the definitive evolution website (a lie) from my alma mater -- Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> I agree. He's a joke.


As usual, you don't have any evidence.  That's the joke on you.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Dang, I am speaking with another SAF.  Your photo is a monument to the global flood.  It curves like that and is comprised of marine fossils due to the fountains of the deep as explained in the Bible.  We know from creation scientist Alfred Wegener about plate tectonics, but he was wrong about continental drift.  The one or two large land masses were broken up by the global flood.  I just explained how our continents were formed, 3/4 of Earth is covered by sea water, how we have oceans of water below the seafloor and more while you gave me sh*t for brainz.


😂 You're incapable of learning. We have fossil water aquifers but no underground oceans. It rarely rains in Dilmun (Bahrain). Do you know why they have so many fresh water springs even in the surrounding Persian Gulf? Do you understand the geology?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> I'm positive I have earned better degree than you.



You would be wrong.



james bond said:


> In fact, I was the one who provided the evos with the definitive evolution website (a lie) from my alma mater -- Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution.



You went to Berkeley?  What did you major in?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> , but he was wrong about continental drift.  The one or two large land masses were broken up by the global flood.  I just explained how our continents were formed, 3/4 of Earth is covered by sea water, how we have oceans of water below the seafloor and more while you gave me sh*t for brainz.



You kiss your lord Jesus with that mouth?


----------



## surada

PV System said:


> You kiss your lord Jesus with that mouth?


He thinks Pangea broke up in the past 6 thousand years.


----------



## james bond

With the following, I kick gigantic arse on the evos once again and @P V System:

'Earle E. Spamer said of the problem: ‘The greatest of Grand Canyon’ enigmas is the problem of how it was made. ... Grand Canyon has held tight to her secrets of origin and age.’1

Yet the canyon’ rock strata can be interpreted well from a creationist and catastrophist view.

Creationist geologist Dr Steven Austin says:

‘The crystalline-basement rocks exposed deep within the Canyon (schist, granite, and gneiss) represent some of earth’ oldest rocks, probably from early in Creation Week. Tilted, deeply buried strata (the "Grand Canyon Supergroup") show evidence of catastrophic-marine sedimentation and tectonics associated with the formation of an ocean basin midway through Creation Week, and may include ocean deposits from the post-Creation, but pre-Flood world. The Canyon’ characteristic horizontally stratified layers (the "Paleozoic Strata") are up to 4,000 feet thick [1,200 metres] and are understood to be broad sedimentary deposits in northern Arizona dating from the early part of Noah’ Flood. Remnants of strata overlying the rim of Grand Canyon (the "Mesozoic Strata") are associated with a widespread erosion surface.’2

Dr Austin says that these features suggest tectonics, sedimentation, and erosion during the last half of the Flood year as the Colorado Plateau was lifted more than a mile above sea level.

‘The catastrophic erosion of Grand Canyon (probably a result of drainage of lakes) was associated with river-terrace gravels, lake sediments, landslide deposits, and lava flows of the post-Flood period,’ he says.3

Rather than being easily explained by evolutionists, the formation of the Grand Canyon is a problem for evolutionists, but fits well into the framework of the Bible.'









						Grand Canyon - creation.com
					

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.




					creation.com


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> You kiss your lord Jesus with that mouth?


No way I can sugar coat your thinking.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> You would be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You went to Berkeley?  What did you major in?


Math and computer science and later earned an MBA.  Where did you go and what was your major?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Math and computer science and later earned an MBA.  Where did you go and what was your major?


No geology. The Grand canyon isn't about evolution. It's about plate tectonics.
.








						Grand Canyon Video: The Fluid Fingers of Formation | Good Nature Travel Blog
					

How was the Grand Canyon formed? Continental drift and the fluid fingers of an artistic river produced the exquisite results we have today. Watch!




					www.nathab.com


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> With the following, I kick gigantic arse on the evos once again and @P V System:



What an interesting Christian.  It's all about kickin' arse, isn't it?  That's Jesus' message:  "Lo I say unto you go forth and kick some serious a**!"


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> Math and computer science and later earned an MBA.



So not a thing related to geology.  OK.



james bond said:


> Where did you go and what was your major?



Geochemistry.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> No way I can sugar coat your thinking.



Your "witness" is showing....


----------



## surada

PV System said:


> What an interesting Christian.  It's all about kickin' arse, isn't it?  That's Jesus' message:  "Lo I say unto you go forth and kick some serious a**!"


He's an idiot. The Colorado River is about plate tectonics not evolution.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> No geology. The Grand canyon isn't about evolution. It's about plate tectonics.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grand Canyon Video: The Fluid Fingers of Formation | Good Nature Travel Blog
> 
> 
> How was the Grand Canyon formed? Continental drift and the fluid fingers of an artistic river produced the exquisite results we have today. Watch!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nathab.com


You sound like you don't have much of an education.  Does Hollie beat you like a drum in that regards?

And you are SAF as you do not read in terms of _listening to me_, DA WINNER, in regards to the science forum. Plate tectonics was founded by another creationist (but he was wrong about continental drift which happened fast). Not a SAF/POS atheist scientist.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> And you are SAF as you do not read in terms of _listening to me_, DA WINNER, in regards to the science forum. Plate tectonics was founded by another creationist (but he was wrong about continental drift which happened fast). Not a SAF/POS atheist scientist.



What is a "SAF"?


----------



## surada

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> You sound like you don't have much of an education.  Does Hollie beat you like a drum in that regards?
> 
> And you are SAF as you do not read in terms of _listening to me_, DA WINNER, in regards to the science forum. Plate tectonics was founded by another creationist (but he was wrong about continental drift which happened fast). Not a SAF/POS atheist scientist.


You should stick with computers.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> With the following, I kick gigantic arse on the evos once again and @P V System:
> 
> 'Earle E. Spamer said of the problem: ‘The greatest of Grand Canyon’ enigmas is the problem of how it was made. ... Grand Canyon has held tight to her secrets of origin and age.’1
> 
> Yet the canyon’ rock strata can be interpreted well from a creationist and catastrophist view.
> 
> Creationist geologist Dr Steven Austin says:
> 
> ‘The crystalline-basement rocks exposed deep within the Canyon (schist, granite, and gneiss) represent some of earth’ oldest rocks, probably from early in Creation Week. Tilted, deeply buried strata (the "Grand Canyon Supergroup") show evidence of catastrophic-marine sedimentation and tectonics associated with the formation of an ocean basin midway through Creation Week, and may include ocean deposits from the post-Creation, but pre-Flood world. The Canyon’ characteristic horizontally stratified layers (the "Paleozoic Strata") are up to 4,000 feet thick [1,200 metres] and are understood to be broad sedimentary deposits in northern Arizona dating from the early part of Noah’ Flood. Remnants of strata overlying the rim of Grand Canyon (the "Mesozoic Strata") are associated with a widespread erosion surface.’2
> 
> Dr Austin says that these features suggest tectonics, sedimentation, and erosion during the last half of the Flood year as the Colorado Plateau was lifted more than a mile above sea level.
> 
> ‘The catastrophic erosion of Grand Canyon (probably a result of drainage of lakes) was associated with river-terrace gravels, lake sediments, landslide deposits, and lava flows of the post-Flood period,’ he says.3
> 
> Rather than being easily explained by evolutionists, the formation of the Grand Canyon is a problem for evolutionists, but fits well into the framework of the Bible.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grand Canyon - creation.com
> 
> 
> Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> creation.com



You mean this Steve Austin?





__





						#459: Steve Austin
					

Plenty of people sharing the name, but the Steve Austin we have in mind is chair of the geology department at the Insti...




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Plenty of people sharing the name, but the Steve Austin we have in mind is chair of the geology department at the Institute for Creation Research, which describes itself as the “leader in scientific research from a biblical perspective, conducting innovative laboratory and field research in the major disciplines of science,” a.k.a. “Jesus geology” (“Innovative” means that they count the Bible as evidence and, apparently, little else, which is, come to think of it, not particularly innovative). Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's Flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon, and has presented various posters in various venues, including the Geological Society of America in 2012.

As a creationist, Austin is no stranger to subterfuge, as illustrated by the attempt to score points by him and fellow creationists (Marcus Ross, Tim Clarey, John Whitmore, and Bill Hoesch) at this 2011 Geological Society of America arrangement; Austin introduced himself as a geologic consultant, without a word on his background. And that’s not his only attempt at this kind of deceptive ploy, as shown by this one. Indeed, even his “research” is permeated by claims that must be judged incredibly and obviously dishonest rather than just erroneous, as pointed out here.


Diagnosis: Austin’s affinity for reinterpreting honesty could even suggest a fraud, but his aptitude for cognitive dissonance is hardly in doubt either, so the verdict is “addle-brained nincompoop”.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> What is a "SAF"?


You gave yourself away.

Maybe get one to remind you every day -- Urban Dictionary Store - Mug.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You should stick with computers.


I see.  Hollie beats you like a drum daily.  What do you think I am using ferchrissakes?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I see.  Hollie beats you like a drum daily.  What do you think I am using ferchrissakes?


Hollie has never said an unkind word to me.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> You gave yourself away.
> 
> Maybe get one to remind you every day -- Urban Dictionary Store - Mug.



You seem like a relatively nasty person.  Is that how Jesus wants you to present yourself on his behalf as you defend your faith?

(You DO believe Jesus is real, right?)


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> So not a thing related to geology.  OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Geochemistry.


Why not criticize Hollie.  She's the one stuck on Flat Earth.

Nope, but I read the evolution website and compared it to creation science since 2012.  Guess which one science backs up?  Nothing backs up evolution.  Even microevolution.  Atheist scientists think a species can change through mutation.  No amount of mutation can change DNA for which the characteristics are not there.  What do you have to contribute regarding geochemistry?  I think that would be INTERESTING AND SOMETHING NEW here.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> You seem like a relatively nasty person.  Is that how Jesus wants you to present yourself on his behalf as you defend your faith?
> 
> (You DO believe Jesus is real, right?)


You should ask yourself if Jesus is REAL and whether you BELIEVE He is our Savior.  I can take care of myself since 2012.

Thank you.  I have become NASTY to evolutionists because they believe in lies and nothing can convince them otherwise.  They have no science to back them up.

OTOH, science backs up the Bible and creation.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> You should ask yourself if Jesus is REAL and whether you BELIEVE He is our Savior.  I can take care of myself since 2012.



I don't necessarily know if Jesus was a real person.  I fail to have reason to believe He was homoiousios with God.

I ask you because you act in all ways like someone who clearly doesn't think he will have to answer to Jesus or God at any point for your actions.  So, that's why.



james bond said:


> Thank you.  I have become NASTY to evolutionists because they believe in lies and nothing can convince them otherwise.  They have no science to back them up.



Then you might find some comfort in the BIBLE.  Here's what your buddy Jesus suggested in Matthew 5:36  *"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."*

(It's handy to have some nodding acquaintance with what Jesus said if you want people to think you care.)


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> I don't necessarily know if Jesus was a real person.  I fail to have reason to believe He was homoiousios with God.
> 
> I ask you because you act in all ways like someone who clearly doesn't think he will have to answer to Jesus or God at any point for your actions.  So, that's why.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you might find some comfort in the BIBLE.  Here's what your buddy Jesus suggested in Matthew 5:36  *"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."*
> 
> (It's handy to have some nodding acquaintance with what Jesus said if you want people to think you care.)


I don't doubt that I'll be a popular one at an evolution party .  Basically, I am saying to all you SAF/POS persons. who believe in the fake science of evolution (dropped by Satan) over Jesus and creation science, that you all WILL GO TO HELL AND BURN FOREVER!!!

This is "your" nice sign.






The proof is that science backs up the Bible.

So you can say all the Bible stuff that you think you know (but don't).  However, I WILL KNOW YOU'LL BE IN PAIN AND BURNING FOREVER!!!  It's too bad that I won't be able to witness any of it, but you can watch the believers and I in heaven.  God's great wisdom made it that way.


----------



## james bond

Anyway, I had to look what evolution and denying Jesus or God meant.  As comparison, homosexuality is an ABOMINABLE sin in the eyes of God.  Thus, is  that which is "often used in association with things like idolatry and false gods" such as evolution become an abominable sin?  I think it is because people associate evolution with long time and atheism.  Is atheism an abomination in the eyes of God?  I would think it fits the definition of believing in a false "NO GOD."

That said, am I POSITIVE that it is an abomination like homosexuality?  No, I'm not certain but think it falls under abomination as "idolatry and false gods" like evolution.  Evolution makes people believe in atheism.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Why not criticize Hollie.  She's the one stuck on Flat Earth.
> 
> Nope, but I read the evolution website and compared it to creation science since 2012.  Guess which one science backs up?  Nothing backs up evolution.  Even microevolution.  Atheist scientists think a species can change through mutation.  No amount of mutation can change DNA for which the characteristics are not there.  What do you have to contribute regarding geochemistry?  I think that would be INTERESTING AND SOMETHING NEW here.


I think it’s comical you presume 100% certainty with 0% facts.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> You should ask yourself if Jesus is REAL and whether you BELIEVE He is our Savior.  I can take care of myself since 2012.
> 
> Thank you.  I have become NASTY to evolutionists because they believe in lies and nothing can convince them otherwise.  They have no science to back them up.
> 
> OTOH, science backs up the Bible and creation.


Nothing in science ‘backs up’ supernatural creationism.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> I don't doubt that I'll be a popular one at an evolution party .  Basically, I am saying to all you SAF/POS persons. who believe in the fake science of evolution (dropped by Satan) over Jesus and creation science, that you all WILL GO TO HELL AND BURN FOREVER!!!
> 
> This is "your" nice sign.
> 
> View attachment 636230
> 
> The proof is that science backs up the Bible.
> 
> So you can say all the Bible stuff that you think you know (but don't).  However, I WILL KNOW YOU'LL BE IN PAIN AND BURNING FOREVER!!!  It's too bad that I won't be able to witness any of it, but you can watch the believers and I in heaven.  God's great wisdom made it that way.



I believe in other circles this is called a "Poe".


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> I believe in other circles this is called a "Poe".


This is science.  You can believe what you want as long as science backs it up.

What is Poe?  Also, what did geochemistry have to do with E vs. C, if anything?

Here's how science backs up the Bible (a different version):


Anyway, for those who know me and my warning that ANTD (atheists need to die, i.e. the only way they believe in God the Father (Christian)), I have a premonition.  One will be gone in June of this year.  I wish he didn't as he's one I like.  However, there will be another to go in 2023 whom would be a good subject.


----------



## Feeding Crows

james bond said:


> Satan loves to hide, so it's not he that which we'll face in real life.  I may face a gang of heathens ready to burn down a church.  You may face a bunch of creationists set to make an example on a burning cross.


I think evil (not Satan) hides in you.


----------



## Feeding Crows

james bond said:


> This is science.  You can believe what you want as long as science backs it up.
> 
> What is Poe?  Also, what did geochemistry have to do with E vs. C, if anything?
> 
> Here's how science backs up the Bible (a different version):
> 
> 
> Anyway, for those who know me and my warning that ANTD (atheists need to die, i.e. the only way they believe in God the Father (Christian)), I have a premonition.  One will be gone in June of this year.  I wish he didn't as he's one I like.  However, there will be another to go in 2023 whom would be a good subject.


ANTD??? Really???

You're an evil mofo.

Good luck in heaven! If they accept assholes like you, then you're actually going to be in hell. Idiot.


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> ZOMG, you're another who goes bonkers when evolution is disproven and science backs up creation.  Of course, you'll have to pay for this indiscretion and pay dearly.  It's what written in the Bible about it.  Do you want the quotes to see if science backs it up?
> 
> Let's look at how long it took for creation versus how long it took for evolution.  No one can observe a billion nor millions of years.  Thus, what is observable to back this up?
> 
> Let's see if you know what your atheist scientists wrote to gain funding, you miserable worm?



no comment


----------



## zaangalewa

james bond said:


> Give me one simple evidence for macroevolution.  There isn't any evidence for microevolution, either.



It's a totally stupid nonsense to say so. Fossils exist - DNA exists. Both show laws of evolution.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> This is science.  You can believe what you want as long as science backs it up.
> 
> What is Poe?  Also, what did geochemistry have to do with E vs. C, if anything?
> 
> Here's how science backs up the Bible (a different version):
> 
> 
> Anyway, for those who know me and my warning that ANTD (atheists need to die, i.e. the only way they believe in God the Father (Christian)), I have a premonition.  One will be gone in June of this year.  I wish he didn't as he's one I like.  However, there will be another to go in 2023 whom would be a good subject.


''Warnings'' from a religious zealot who thinks he's an enforcer for the gods.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Anyway, I had to look what evolution and denying Jesus or God meant.  As comparison, homosexuality is an ABOMINABLE sin in the eyes of God.  Thus, is  that which is "often used in association with things like idolatry and false gods" such as evolution become an abominable sin?  I think it is because people associate evolution with long time and atheism.  Is atheism an abomination in the eyes of God?  I would think it fits the definition of believing in a false "NO GOD."
> 
> That said, am I POSITIVE that it is an abomination like homosexuality?  No, I'm not certain but think it falls under abomination as "idolatry and false gods" like evolution.  Evolution makes people believe in atheism.


Homosexuality is no more a sin than eating shellfish or sassing your parents or wearing two fabrics.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> This is science.  You can believe what you want as long as science backs it up.
> 
> What is Poe?  Also, what did geochemistry have to do with E vs. C, if anything?
> 
> Here's how science backs up the Bible (a different version):
> 
> 
> Anyway, for those who know me and my warning that ANTD (atheists need to die, i.e. the only way they believe in God the Father (Christian)), I have a premonition.  One will be gone in June of this year.  I wish he didn't as he's one I like.  However, there will be another to go in 2023 whom would be a good subject.


Do you think Jesus would have rejected science and education?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> This is science.  You can believe what you want as long as science backs it up.
> 
> What is Poe?  Also, what did geochemistry have to do with E vs. C, if anything?
> 
> Here's how science backs up the Bible (a different version):
> 
> 
> Anyway, for those who know me and my warning that ANTD (atheists need to die, i.e. the only way they believe in God the Father (Christian)), I have a premonition.  One will be gone in June of this year.  I wish he didn't as he's one I like.  However, there will be another to go in 2023 whom would be a good subject.



Google "Poe's Law".


----------



## RoccoR

_RE:  Evolution 'vs' Creationism_
_*SUBTOPIC*: Separate Concepts
⁜→ surada, et al,_

*(OPENING)*   Evolution is a continuing and developing theory.  Whereas, creationism is a faith-based concept.



surada said:


> Do you think Jesus would have rejected science and education?


*(COMMENT)*
.
"Evolution" (_a study in science • subject to practical scientific methodology_) does not preclude the belief in a Supreme Being or a Supernatural Creator (_Metaphysics • Reality - Logical and Philosophical line of study_).  

This whole line of questioning is fundamentally flawed.

*◈   False dilemma* (_false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy_) – whereas one line of thought (science-based) is faced with an unrelated alternative statement - presented as if it is the only possible option.​“Fallacy – False Dilemma”. Nizkor. The Nizkor Project. Retrieved 2011-02-01.​Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 2ed © Cambridge University Press 1995, 1999​.​





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> ANTD??? Really???
> 
> You're an evil mofo.
> 
> Good luck in heaven! If they accept assholes like you, then you're actually going to be in hell. Idiot.



I'm an atheist and even_ I _find james bond 's rhetoric puts an unfairly bad face on Christianity.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> I'm an atheist and even_ I _find james bond 's rhetoric puts an unfairly bad face on Christianity.


It's not nice to _troll_ God. That's how the other atheist ended up "disappearing." The atheist whom I like has gotten a reprieve. We'll see what happens in June lol.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> It's not nice to _troll_ God. That's how the other atheist ended up "disappearing." The atheist whom I like has gotten a reprieve. We'll see what happens in June lol.











						How Are Canyons Formed?
					

A canyon is a deep cleft between escarpments or cliffs, often formed by rivers, weathering, erosion or tectonic activity.




					www.worldatlas.com


----------



## james bond

zaangalewa said:


> It's a totally stupid nonsense to say so. Fossils exist - DNA exists. Both show laws of evolution.


Do you actually say those things in front of a mirror lmao?


----------



## james bond

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> ANTD??? Really???
> 
> You're an evil mofo.
> 
> Good luck in heaven! If they accept assholes like you, then you're actually going to be in hell. Idiot.


ANTD to finally get it and you will.  It's the ultimate proof and you get to watch me.

"The Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that hell is a real place to which the wicked/unbelieving are sent after death."









						Is hell real? Is hell eternal? | GotQuestions.org
					

Is hell real? Is hell eternal? Will unbelievers truly suffer in hell forever?



					www.gotquestions.org


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> ANTD to finally get it and you will.  It's the ultimate proof and you get to watch me.











						How Are Canyons Formed?
					

A canyon is a deep cleft between escarpments or cliffs, often formed by rivers, weathering, erosion or tectonic activity.




					www.worldatlas.com


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> It's not nice to _troll_ God.



Guessin' you'll find out.



james bond said:


> That's how the other atheist ended up "disappearing."



Nice threat there, Christian.



james bond said:


> The atheist whom I like has gotten a reprieve.



Oh my!  You have ascended unto heaven and you came to sit at the right hand of the Father!  Now YOU judge the quick and the dead!



james bond said:


> We'll see what happens in June lol.



What happens then?  Will you return in great glory to the earth and smite those who fail to see your holiness?


----------



## james bond

Science does not back up evolution.  Satan does, but that's between you and your maker.

"Evolutionary belief is a remarkable and largely unexplained phenomenon. It is a belief held by most intellectuals all over the world, despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all. Evolutionists allege that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multitude of scientific proofs, but they are unable to document even _one_ of these supposed proofs! This curious situation is illustrated below in quotations from several leading evolutionary scientists.


*THE ALTOGETHER MISSING EVIDENCE*


_*No Evolution at Present*_


The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.




> Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.1 "











						The Vanishing Case for Evolution
					

Dr. Henry M. Morris, father of the modern creation science movement, devoted his life to upholding the accuracy and authority of God’s Word. Combining scientific knowledge with a thorough understanding of Scripture, he clearly and succinctly combated the errors of evolution. In the article...




					www.icr.org


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Science does not back up evolution.  Satan does, but that's between you and your maker.
> 
> "Evolutionary belief is a remarkable and largely unexplained phenomenon. It is a belief held by most intellectuals all over the world, despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all. Evolutionists allege that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multitude of scientific proofs, but they are unable to document even _one_ of these supposed proofs! This curious situation is illustrated below in quotations from several leading evolutionary scientists.
> 
> 
> *THE ALTOGETHER MISSING EVIDENCE*
> 
> 
> _*No Evolution at Present*_
> 
> 
> The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Vanishing Case for Evolution
> 
> 
> Dr. Henry M. Morris, father of the modern creation science movement, devoted his life to upholding the accuracy and authority of God’s Word. Combining scientific knowledge with a thorough understanding of Scripture, he clearly and succinctly combated the errors of evolution. In the article...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org


You should take a entry level course in geology.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> ''Warnings'' from a religious zealot who thinks he's an enforcer for the gods.


I'm not any "enforcer."  At least, you admit they are "warnings" and not threats.  Basically, I'm here to demonstrate creation science.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I'm not any "enforcer."  At least, you admit they are "warnings" and not threats.  Basically, I'm here to demonstrate creation science.


Did you read how canyons are formed? There's no excuse for you to be mentally in the bronze age. Jesus said nothing about rejecting science and education.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Did you read how canyons are formed? There's no excuse for you to be mentally in the bronze age. Jesus said nothing about rejecting science and education.


The canyons were formed by the global flood as I said before.  I've read the atheist scientists explanation, but it's not right.  They disregard creation science and it's why they're atheist and atheist scientists.  They make the no God assumption without batting an eye.  Psst.  Who else but Satan could do such a thing?

ETA:  Instead of just the secular, why don't you read the creationists one and compare?










						Grand Canyon Carved by Flood Runoff
					

Secular science has long struggled to explain the timing and origin of Grand Canyon. The majority of secular scientists assumes it was carved by a large river in less than six million years.1 Why did it form where it did? In particular, how did the river “hurdle” the massive Kaibab uplift?  	One...




					www.icr.org


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> Guessin' you'll find out.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice threat there, Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my!  You have ascended unto heaven and you came to sit at the right hand of the Father!  Now YOU judge the quick and the dead!
> 
> 
> 
> What happens then?  Will you return in great glory to the earth and smite those who fail to see your holiness?


Here's the weird part.  You'll be all alone.  Even I won't be there to witness.  There's Hollie who likes to beotch about me and is there when I'm here, but she wasn't there when it happened.  I don't think she even took interest just like now.  I think I was somewhere else at the time.  Maybe surada.  I dunno.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> The canyons were formed by the global flood as I said before.  I've read the atheist scientists explanation, but it's not right.  They disregard creation science and it's why they're atheist and atheist scientists.  They make the no God assumption without batting an eye.  Psst.  Who else but Satan could do such a thing?
> 
> ETA:  Instead of just the secular, why don't you read the creationists one and compare?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grand Canyon Carved by Flood Runoff
> 
> 
> Secular science has long struggled to explain the timing and origin of Grand Canyon. The majority of secular scientists assumes it was carved by a large river in less than six million years.1 Why did it form where it did? In particular, how did the river “hurdle” the massive Kaibab uplift?  	One...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.icr.org


I see your problem. You're afraid of education.               How Are Canyons Formed?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> Here's the weird part.  You'll be all alone.  Even I won't be there to witness.



But that's the great thing for you.  You'll be up in heaven rubbin' one out over the thought of all the ebil atheists writhing in eternal torment!  Win-Win!


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> I see your problem. You're afraid of education.               How Are Canyons Formed?


Yes, I read both explanations and compared with the Grand Canyon as well as the mountains and other elevations.  Nothing but a global flood could've done all at the same time nor have left marine fossils.

Your problem is you picked the wrong side if you actually compared both explanations.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> But that's the great thing for you.  You'll be up in heaven rubbin' one out over the thought of all the ebil atheists writhing in eternal torment!  Win-Win!


That's the spirit.  At least, you'll know what to do in case I'm right.  BTW, I HAD to give you the warning that you'll be alone .


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Yes, I read both explanations and compared with the Grand Canyon as well as the mountains and other elevations.  Nothing but a global flood could've done all at the same time nor have left marine fossils.
> 
> Your problem is you picked the wrong side if you actually compared both explanations.


There's no way for a global flood. Have you ever seen a core sample?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> There's no way for a global flood. Have you ever seen a core sample?


I've read of it.  Here's what I found as the differences are based on what was there _before_ the global flood.

"the annual  layers in the middle and lower portions of the GISP2 core as subannual  layers, based on a Flood–Ice Age model, incorporating warm oceans,  cooling continents and high levels of atmospheric particulates from volcanic  activity."









						Ice Cores vs the Flood
					

Show that ice core dating methods are not independent and open to significant reinterpretation. The root of the problem is the uncritical acceptance of the uniformitarian paradigm.




					answersingenesis.org
				




What do you have?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You should take a entry level course in geology.


Lol, you keep revealing your ignorance.

How did the creation vs. evolution argument start?  It started with James Hutton, a Scottish atheist farmer, who immensely disliked creationists and their Christianity religion.  I suppose he disliked Christianity the most as it had spread throughout the land and became the most popular.  He influenced his pupil Charles Lyell and they came up with something called uniformitarianism (or how layers of the Earth were formed by long time of millions of years) around 1795 to use against catastrophism (dominant study at the time), the creation story and Christianity.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Lol, you keep revealing your ignorance.
> 
> How did the creation vs. evolution argument start?  It started with James Hutton, a Scottish atheist farmer, who immensely disliked creationists and their Christianity religion.  I suppose he disliked Christianity the most as it had spread throughout the land and became the most popular.  He influenced his pupil Charles Lyell and they came up with something called uniformitarianism (or how layers of the Earth were formed by long time of millions of years) around 1795 to use against catastrophism (dominant study at the time), the creation story and Christianity.


Lol this isn't 1795.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> That's the spirit.  At least, you'll know what to do in case I'm right.  BTW, I HAD to give you the warning that you'll be alone .



Fap fap fap fap.....


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Lol this isn't 1795.


Lol, you don't get it.

Their lie somehow took over since that time.  Hutton's and Lyell's main pupil was Charles Darwin.  FWIW, Darwin's evolution took uniformitarianism and expanded it to today to counter the dominant science of creationism with Darwin's evolution.  Anyway, the creation religion has what God wrote in the Bible that evolution will take over and that will lead to the end of the world.  I'd love to see you get smashed to bits by huge boulders, but I won't have time to watch.  Will have better things to do.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> Lol, you keep revealing your ignorance.
> 
> How did the creation vs. evolution argument start?  It started with James Hutton, a Scottish atheist farmer, who immensely disliked creationists and their Christianity religion.



LOL.  Hutton saw THIS:






And unlike YOU he actually realized it can't be explained by "flood geology".  

Ultimately geology could ONLY develop as a science after the young earth concept was left behind.

But you don't care....you just enjoy the BENEFITS of that science without believing in it.  Good for you.



james bond said:


> I suppose he disliked Christianity



Hutton wasn't an atheist.  He just wasn't a literalist.

Why do you guys like to bear false witness so much.  Is it because you don't REALLY believe in God?  You think God and his commandments are one big joke?


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> Fap fap fap fap.....


I think I would do that if I got to see surada go.  At least, with Hollie, there was no slap to the forehead and crying out, "Oy vey."  It's like trying to discuss science with zaangalewa with surada.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> Hutton wasn't an atheist. He just wasn't a literalist.


He was a hurrible writer and SAF and POS, i.e. atheist.  He wanted long time to counter the 6,000 young Earth.

"Hutton had long before concluded that these unconformities proved the great age of the earth, much older than a mere 6,000 years and set out to write and eventually publish his _Theory of the Earth_ but Siccar Point was a great visual aid. Hutton needed all the help he could get explaining his theory because his poor writing style prevented the wider dissemination of his ideas."









						A History Short: James Hutton: His Rejection of Creationism and Creationism’s Unwillingness to Die
					

By: Sandra Buso   More than one hundred years after James Hutton proposed his radical theory of geologic time; many people in the world today still believe in the biblical timeline that the Ea…




					sandrabuso.wordpress.com


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> LOL. Hutton saw THIS:


This is where we disagreed.  You say tomato and I say the global flood tomahto.

Believe me.  Like you, Hutton saw what he wanted to see.  OTOH, I see evidence of the global flood and Hutton, Lyell and Darwin all...


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> This is where we disagreed.  You say tomato and I say the global flood tomahto.
> 
> Believe me.  Like you, Hutton saw what he wanted to see.  OTOH, I see evidence of the global flood and Hutton, Lyell and Darwin all...



What is your malfunction?  Seriously what is wrong with you?


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> What is your malfunction?  Seriously what is wrong with you?


It's evolution that is the malfunction.  I admit that Satan is too clever and devious and will take many people's souls like yours due to evolution.  Satan wanting souls was taught to us centuries before evolution.  It was the earliest teaching.

In regards to science, I know science backs up the Bible and that creation science is right and evolution is a lie.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> It's evolution that is the malfunction.  I admit that Satan is too clever and devious and will take many people's souls like yours due to evolution.  Satan wanting souls was taught way before evolution.



I wonder if Satan approves of Christians coming on public forums and acting like a total tool denigrating Christianity and mocking God's commandments.  I bet he really likes that kind of stuff.

(But you and I both know none of it is real, right?  LOL.  Still, it's kind of a dickish move to mock Christianity posing as a "Christian".)


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> I wonder if Satan approves of Christians coming on public forums and acting like a total tool denigrating Christianity and mocking God's commandments.  I bet he really likes that kind of stuff.
> 
> (But you and I both know none of it is real, right?  LOL.  Still, it's kind of a dickish move to mock Christianity posing as a "Christian".)


That's your take, but discussing creation vs. evolution with you makes me realize Satan's power.  Early on, we were taught he wants your soul.  It really is something to realize how devious and powerful he is, but his main trait is to hide.  He wants to hide.  Thus, we have evolutionists like you who do all the talking for him.

Just listen to what you are saying.  It has nothing to do with evolution and science anymore.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Lol, you don't get it.
> 
> Their lie somehow took over since that time.  Hutton's and Lyell's main pupil was Charles Darwin.  FWIW, Darwin's evolution took uniformitarianism and expanded it to today to counter the dominant science of creationism with Darwin's evolution.  Anyway, the creation religion has what God wrote in the Bible that evolution will take over and that will lead to the end of the world.  I'd love to see you get smashed to bits by huge boulders, but I won't have time to watch.  Will have better things to do.


Post the scripture where God spoke of evolution. The world isn't going to end. 70 AD was the end of an age.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Post the scripture where God spoke of evolution. The world isn't going to end. 70 AD was the end of an age.


Lol, this is the science section, but God denies evolution (just click the link to see what God says).

For example:
"All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3





__





						What Does the Bible Say About Evolution?
					

Bible verses about Evolution




					www.openbible.info


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Nothing in science ‘backs up’ supernatural creationism.


C'mon, I've provided plenty of science to prove creation.  Nothing will make you BELIEVE unless you have FAITH FIRST.  Then, you'll see the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  All you have been seeing are the LIES.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> I wonder if Satan approves of Christians coming on public forums and acting like a total tool denigrating Christianity and mocking God's commandments.  I bet he really likes that kind of stuff.
> 
> (But you and I both know none of it is real, right?  LOL.  Still, it's kind of a dickish move to mock Christianity posing as a "Christian".)


I got an idea.  Maybe we can have others watch you to see if you disappear or not in June.  There is thread here for dark matters.  I doubt it's God getting you, but who knows.  Here's the guy who disappeared from the creation forums.  His last post was Feb 1 2022 -- https://www.usmessageboard.com/search/731718/

Are you game?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> I got an idea.  Maybe we can have others watch you to see if you disappear or not in June.


_
"Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning_"


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> _"Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning_"


Is that a yes?  You're okay with being watched in June?  I forgot where I got the June thread lol.  Regardless, others here will know about the guy who disappeared and now you being in the same boat.  It's like insurance, but maybe you enjoy being sarcastic of me.  You can still be sarcastic and have insurance.

Think about what happened to the other guy?  He just decided to quit the forum?  The context wasn't right for that.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> C'mon, I've provided plenty of science to prove creation.  Nothing will make you BELIEVE unless you have FAITH FIRST.  Then, you'll see the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  All you have been seeing are the LIES.


You provided no science. Silly youtube videos made by creationer charlatans has no connection to science. 

The planet is not flat. Say that out loud.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> You provided no science. Silly youtube videos made by creationer charlatans has no connection to science.
> 
> The planet is not flat. Say that out loud.


We even have God making someone disappear for calling him a troll.  That's pretty good evidence.  Now, I may have to owe it the second non-believer saying that and help him.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> We even have God making someone disappear for calling him a troll.  That's pretty good evidence.  Now, I may have to owe it the second non-believer saying that and help him.


That makes no sense.


----------



## surada

PV System said:


> _
> "Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning_"


It's much worse than I thought. He's nuts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

surada said:


> It's much worse than I thought. He's nuts.


No, he is a sock puppet saying whatever it takes to derail every science thread and to get attention.

Works great, apparently.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, he is a sock puppet saying whatever it takes to derail every science thread and to get attention.
> 
> Works great, apparently.


It's really strange you popped up in this thread . You may have been the one who was replaced for June. If it does happen, then I'm satisfied for the one in 2023.


----------



## Feeding Crows

james bond said:


> ANTD to finally get it and you will.  It's the ultimate proof and you get to watch me.
> 
> "The Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that hell is a real place to which the wicked/unbelieving are sent after death."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is hell real? Is hell eternal? | GotQuestions.org
> 
> 
> Is hell real? Is hell eternal? Will unbelievers truly suffer in hell forever?
> 
> 
> 
> www.gotquestions.org


I dunno about that... you are the wicked one that wants to kill peeps...


----------



## Feeding Crows

james bond said:


> Lol, you don't get it.
> 
> Their lie somehow took over since that time.  Hutton's and Lyell's main pupil was Charles Darwin.  FWIW, Darwin's evolution took uniformitarianism and expanded it to today to counter the dominant science of creationism with Darwin's evolution.  Anyway, the creation religion has what God wrote in the Bible that evolution will take over and that will lead to the end of the world.  I'd love to see you get smashed to bits by huge boulders, but I won't have time to watch.  Will have better things to do.


You believe in a 6000 yr-old earth/universe. That's it. Nuttin else needs to be said.


----------



## james bond

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> You believe in a 6000 yr-old earth/universe. That's it. Nuttin else needs to be said.


For some reason, I can't take you seriously because of your avatar.  You're the stupidest looking SAF and POS I've ever seen . Besides, one can quickly see that you don't know any science.

Anyway, the Bible does not discuss the age of the Earth.  The 6K Earth and universe was used to counter the billions of years universe and Earth calculated by an atheist scientist in 1956.  However, this scientist's name was quickly forgotten as he made errors in his calculation.

The 6K universe and Earth came about by adding the histories of the families in the Bible to counter the wrong billions of year old universe and Earth.  OTOH, don't you find it strange that you can't add up any histories?  Your side has no history!!!  This forgotten atheist scientist came up with using radiometric dating in 1956, but made errors doing it on space rocks.  For whatever reason, the atheist scientists use his calculations to this day.

Creation scientists also found soft tissue and carbon-14 remaining inside dinosaur fossils.  That's proof that dinosaur fossils are less than 10,000 years old as C-14 would not last past 10 K years.  I'm not going to continue as you're too  SAF and POS to understand REAL SCIENCE.  Go eat a banana.


----------



## Feeding Crows

You can't take me seriously because of my avatar? And you're James Bond? 

You're an absolute jerk dude. You make some of the funniest posts I've ever read. Which of your ancestors had a pet dinosaur?


----------



## Feeding Crows

If the earth is flat, why doesn't the water drain out?


----------



## james bond

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> You can't take me seriously because of my avatar? And you're James Bond?
> 
> You're an absolute jerk dude. You make some of the funniest posts I've ever read. Which of your ancestors had a pet dinosaur?
> 
> View attachment 636938


We've had this conversation before.  You are a troll!  I am wasting my time with the likes of you and putting you on ignore because of your science acumen.  Why don't you go bash your face in you abominable?


----------



## Feeding Crows

Cool! Go hide your head in the sand. That's where it belongs, you friggin religious zealot.


----------



## james bond

My apologies.  I shoulda recognized him from before, but didn't know he was A TROLL.

Maybe he can serve as the "replacement" for June  .


----------



## LuckyDuck

Stashman said:


> Um, I'm pretty sure no one can debunk a theory. It's a theory!


Technically, between advances in science and DNA, evolutionary scientists have concluded that evolution is an inescapable fact.  The only thing that remains a theory, is how the mechanism of change takes place.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> For some reason, I can't take you seriously because of your avatar.  You're the stupidest looking SAF and POS I've ever seen . Besides, one can quickly see that you don't know any science.
> 
> Anyway, the Bible does not discuss the age of the Earth.  The 6K Earth and universe was used to counter the billions of years universe and Earth calculated by an atheist scientist in 1956.  However, this scientist's name was quickly forgotten as he made errors in his calculation.
> 
> The 6K universe and Earth came about by adding the histories of the families in the Bible to counter the wrong billions of year old universe and Earth.  OTOH, don't you find it strange that you can't add up any histories?  Your side has no history!!!  This forgotten atheist scientist came up with using radiometric dating in 1956, but made errors doing it on space rocks.  For whatever reason, the atheist scientists use his calculations to this day.
> 
> Creation scientists also found soft tissue and carbon-14 remaining inside dinosaur fossils.  That's proof that dinosaur fossils are less than 10,000 years old as C-14 would not last past 10 K years.  I'm not going to continue as you're too  SAF and POS to understand REAL SCIENCE.  Go eat a banana.


How old are you, James?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> How old are you, James?


Old enough to know better -- to know that evolution is a lie and the work of you know who.  Young enough to still have fun.

How old are you?  It doesn't matter how old you are if you believe in evolution.  Atheists have to be responsible for what happens with their beliefs.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> It's much worse than I thought. He's nuts.


It's just a _premonition_ like I had with Wuwei.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> It's just a _premonition_ like I had with Wuwei.


How old are you? You seem very young and immature.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> How old are you? You seem very young and immature.


If I was concerned about a premonition, then I'd just leave USMB the first week in June and return afterward.  That would mean you left on your free will and that was it.

What am I supposed to do?  Just ignore it and watch on my own?  I even said what I'd do if I was right like with Wuwei; He disappeared on his own.

If I ever have one of you, then I won't say anything.  Just watch in June 2023.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> If I was concerned about a premonition, then I'd just leave USMB the first week in June and return afterward.  That would mean you left on your free will and that was it.
> 
> What am I supposed to do?  Just ignore it and watch on my own?  I even said what I'd do if I was right like with Wuwei; He disappeared on his own.
> 
> If I ever have one of you, then I won't say anything.  Just watch in June 2023.


What premonition? You sound like a mental case.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> What premonition? You sound like a mental case.


Not, I.  Just look at who started this thread lol.

Anyway, what do you need to talk with me about?

ETA:  The Bible does talk about early death.  With creation science, we try to fight it.

"*Bible verses about early death*

It is God’s will to allow some people to die early. Even though you might not know, God knows what He is doing. I’ve noticed that sometimes one death saves the lives of many just like the story of Benji Wilson. 


One of the effects of sin in the world is death and it happens. Some people die early because of their own sins. God’s Word is to protect us, but many people disobey it. God tells us to be set apart from the world, but on the news I’ve seen many people get shot and die from one night of clubbing.


If they would have listened to God it would not have happened. Sometimes people die early because of their smoking sin. Sometimes teens die because of underage drinking. Sometimes people catch diseases because of sexual immorality. Remember God doesn’t cause sin, but He allows it. When we see people die at a young age it is a constant reminder that life is short and you never know when you will go."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LuckyDuck said:


> Technically, between advances in science and DNA, evolutionary scientists have concluded that evolution is an inescapable fact.  The only thing that remains a theory, is how the mechanism of change takes place.


Well said.


----------



## Feeding Crows

I think we should stop beating on the fanatic. He's definitely going overboard. 

So in the meantime, let's talk about cartoons!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well said.


Only because they DISREGARDED creation and ASSUMED there was no God.  And what happens when one ASSUMES?  Yep, that's right.

I even said it from the very beginning that this is about creation and the global flood vs. the atheist science of evolution, but evolution has NO EVIDENCE and just a bunch of papers that LIBERALS FUNDED.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> What premonition? You sound like a mental case.


As I said already, I am going to watch what happens during the first ten days of June 2022 as well as the first ten days of June 2023.  If something or even nothing happens, then I'll let you know if you're still around .  I could be WRONG.  The only facts I have is you know who's disappearance in February.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> As I said already, I am going to watch what happens during the first ten days of June 2022 as well as the first ten days of June 2023.



Hedging bets?  Good choice.




james bond said:


> then I'll let you know if you're still around .  I could be WRONG.



But do you WANT to be wrong?



james bond said:


> The only facts I have is you know who's disappearance in February.



Ooooh, who disappeared in February?  Were they raptured?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Not, I.  Just look at who started this thread lol.
> 
> Anyway, what do you need to talk with me about?
> 
> ETA:  The Bible does talk about early death.  With creation science, we try to fight it.
> 
> "*Bible verses about early death*
> 
> It is God’s will to allow some people to die early. Even though you might not know, God knows what He is doing. I’ve noticed that sometimes one death saves the lives of many just like the story of Benji Wilson.
> 
> 
> One of the effects of sin in the world is death and it happens. Some people die early because of their own sins. God’s Word is to protect us, but many people disobey it. God tells us to be set apart from the world, but on the news I’ve seen many people get shot and die from one night of clubbing.
> 
> 
> If they would have listened to God it would not have happened. Sometimes people die early because of their smoking sin. Sometimes teens die because of underage drinking. Sometimes people catch diseases because of sexual immorality. Remember God doesn’t cause sin, but He allows it. When we see people die at a young age it is a constant reminder that life is short and you never know when you will go."


You've seen people get shot and die clubbing? I never went clubbing.


----------



## surada

PV System said:


> Hedging bets?  Good choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But do you WANT to be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooh, who disappeared in February?  Were they raptured?


Lol 😂😂😂😂 evidently.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> Hedging bets? Good choice.


Again, it's just my premonition, but you're a replacement for the top candidate this coming June.  Maybe you just took the lead.



PV System said:


> But do you WANT to be wrong?


Supposedly, I was right once already, so no.



PV System said:


> Ooooh, who disappeared in February? Were they raptured?



Just read my previous thread.  It has a link.  He was an atheist, so doubtful.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Again, it's just my premonition, but you're a replacement for the top candidate this coming June.  Maybe you just took the lead.
> 
> 
> Supposedly, I was right once already, so no.
> 
> 
> 
> Just read my previous thread.  It has a link.  He was an atheist, so doubtful.


Who disappeared?


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> You've seen people get shot and die clubbing? I never went clubbing.


I've seen them get shot or stabbed, but don't know if they died.  Maybe one was dead.  The lights came on immediately afterward and soon we all had to leave.  He wasn't moving and didn't look like he was breathing so likely he was gone.  The police came fast and we all shuffled out staring at the victim.


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> I've seen them get shot or stabbed, but don't know if they died.  Maybe one was dead.  The lights came on immediately afterward and soon we all had to leave.  He wasn't moving and didn't look like he was breathing so likely he was gone.  The police came fast and we all shuffled out staring at the victim.


You must be very young.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Who disappeared?


Gawd.  You can still read his posts -- https://www.usmessageboard.com/search/733774/


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> Gawd.  You can still read his posts -- https://www.usmessageboard.com/search/733774/


Nothing there.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> Nothing there.


In retrospect, he was one of the atheists with a nice knowledge of science.  Who's the best now?  FFI?  Dagosa?


----------



## surada

james bond said:


> In retrospect, he was one of the atheists with a nice knowledge of science.  Who's the best now?  FFI?  Dagosa?


Dagosa was online here yesterday at 8 PM.


----------



## Robert Urbanek

One might make a case for post-Matrix creationism. We are all living in a simulation and even evidence of evolution is just data created by an almighty programmer to keep us in the dark about our true condition.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> Again, it's just my premonition, but you're a replacement for the top candidate this coming June.  Maybe you just took the lead.



I don't know what you are talking about but this reads like a *threat.  *



james bond said:


> Just read my previous thread.  It has a link.  He was an atheist, so doubtful.



Nah, I'm not trawling through your trashpile.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Robert Urbanek said:


> One might make a case for post-Matrix creationism. We are all living in a simulation and even evidence of evolution is just data created by an almighty programmer to keep us in the dark about our true condition.



Personally I think we are living in a fictional simulation described in a work of science fiction in some larger universe that is, itself, the REAL simulation.


----------



## james bond

PV System said:


> I don't know what you are talking about but this reads like a *threat. *


Sounds like you're scared.  As I said, I would woo hoo the observation, but there's no way I can do anything physical.  Maybe it's osmosis or power of suggestion.  Whatever I observe, I'll just keep it to myself because my intent is just sayin' (will put you on ignore so won't see anything you post; I recommend the same of you to me).


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> Sounds like you're scared.



People who threaten others, even online, is scary stuff.  I hope some police or something is coming to help you with your problems.


----------



## surada

PV System said:


> People who threaten others, even online, is scary stuff.  I hope some police or something is coming to help you with your problems.


He may be a juvenile.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

surada said:


> He may be a juvenile.


Yeah he reads more like a poorly done "Poe" (Poe's Law) with his over-the-top stuff.  I assume he's not serious, just pleasuring himself with whatever these posts are.


----------



## james bond

surada said:


> He may be a juvenile.


No, premonitions are scientific.  You don't have to buy it.









						The Science of Premonitions - Guideposts
					

We talk to Dr. Larry Dossey, author, scientist and renowned expert on premonitions.




					www.guideposts.org
				




Now, this one's pretty far out so I understand.  I just had to get it off my chest as one has disappeared.  Otherwise, I would've kept it to myself.  Just ignore me and I'll keep it to myself.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:   Evolution 'vs' Creation​SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
⁜→ James Bond, et al,
​The mission of the Institute of​*Noetic Sciences*​is to reveal the interconnected nature of reality through​scientific exploration and personal discovery.​
Article by:  Dr Cassandra Vieten, Consciousness Matters, *Psychology Today Posted May 10, 2011* |  Reviewed by Ekua Hagan



james bond said:


> No, premonitions are scientific.  You don't have to buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Science of Premonitions - Guideposts
> 
> 
> We talk to Dr. Larry Dossey, author, scientist and renowned expert on premonitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guideposts.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, this one's pretty far out so I understand.  I just had to get it off my chest as one has disappeared.  Otherwise, I would've kept it to myself.  Just ignore me and I'll keep it to myself.


*(COMMENT)*

"*What can science do to help us understand more about these phenomena?*
I would simply say to a skeptical scientist, one way to resolve the debate is simply to do good science. Don’t filter it, don’t obstruct it, be open to wherever it leads."
The Science of Premonitions​We talk to Dr. Larry Dossey, author, scientist and renowned expert on premonitions.
by *Adam Hunter*From 

Posted in *Miracles*, Jul 29, 2014

I may have mentioned this before.  This is under the umbrella of Metaphysics (_*the study of ultimate reality*_).






_Most Respectfully,_
R
.


----------



## james bond

RoccoR said:


> RE:   Evolution 'vs' Creation​SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
> ⁜→ James Bond, et al,
> ​The mission of the Institute of​*Noetic Sciences*​is to reveal the interconnected nature of reality through​scientific exploration and personal discovery.​
> Article by:  Dr Cassandra Vieten, Consciousness Matters, *Psychology Today Posted May 10, 2011* |  Reviewed by Ekua Hagan
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "*What can science do to help us understand more about these phenomena?*
> I would simply say to a skeptical scientist, one way to resolve the debate is simply to do good science. Don’t filter it, don’t obstruct it, be open to wherever it leads."
> The Science of Premonitions​We talk to Dr. Larry Dossey, author, scientist and renowned expert on premonitions.
> by *Adam Hunter*From
> 
> Posted in *Miracles*, Jul 29, 2014
> 
> I may have mentioned this before.  This is under the umbrella of Metaphysics (_*the study of ultimate reality*_).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R
> .


I wouldn't put premonitions under science either and I'll keep it to myself in the future as atheists disappear.  It's just  SUCH A STRONG feeling with me and I could be WRONG.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Evolution 'vs' Creation​SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
⁜→ James Bond, et al,
.
*INTRODUCTION*:  When we talking about "knowledge" → are we talking about something we can hold  in your hand?  (_*RHETORICAL*_)  When we talk about "reality," are we talking about something in a box? (_*RHETORICAL*_). If I had up a glass of knowledge, would  you recognize it?  (*RHETORICAL)*
.


james bond said:


> I wouldn't put premonitions under science either and I'll keep it to myself in the future as atheists disappear.


*(COMMENT)*
.
A great amount of human activity revolves around a construct of that which you can hold in you hand, or place in a box, or even see in a glass.  These are a part of reality.  These are thing subject to power understand of basic chemical-physics.  Element (assembled by stellar activity) into molecules, molecules into materials, and materials into constructs,  We normally think of it as some sort of holism; but we recognise them construct by name (house, car, plane, motors, etc).  Chemical-physics deconstruction is in the opposite direction.  Molecules, molecules into elements, protons and neutrons made from arranges of quarks, leptons guage-bosons and Higgs boson.  This is a kind of reductions into actual particles of physics.  

 Animal Lifeforms, as far as we know, are made from all the same components just assembled in different arrangements quantities and fashioned together in accordance with the instructions of genetic codes.  A scientist can mix all this properties in a beaker, in the right proportions, and still not create a lifeforms.  In a manner of speaking, a life-force is not something a scientist can creatively achieve.
  The magic of a life-force, necessary to make a lifeforms, Is not something we can synthesize.

This is just one example of the Metaphysics, the study beyond the a level of reality.  In a way, what we have touched upon here is a "Supernatural Process" - meaning a process beyond the understanding of human scientific processes and the laws of nature.
.


james bond said:


> It's just  SUCH A STRONG feeling with me and I could be WRONG.


*(COMMENT)*
.



			
				Arthur C Clark said:
			
		

> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> "The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible."



My thought is that you are not entirely wrong (not entirely wrong at all).

The singular honour of being the key equation of existence goes to Euler’s Formula, also called the Euler identity, dating back to the 1740s:




.The God Equation by Mike Hockney Published by Hyperreality Books Copyright © Mike Hockney 2012​




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## james bond

RoccoR said:


> RE: Evolution 'vs' Creation​SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
> ⁜→ James Bond, et al,
> .
> *INTRODUCTION*:  When we talking about "knowledge" → are we talking about something we can hold  in your hand?  (_*RHETORICAL*_)  When we talk about "reality," are we talking about something in a box? (_*RHETORICAL*_). If I had up a glass of knowledge, would  you recognize it?  (*RHETORICAL)*
> .
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> A great amount of human activity revolves around a construct of that which you can hold in you hand, or place in a box, or even see in a glass.  These are a part of reality.  These are thing subject to power understand of basic chemical-physics.  Element (assembled by stellar activity) into molecules, molecules into materials, and materials into constructs,  We normally think of it as some sort of holism; but we recognise them construct by name (house, car, plane, motors, etc).  Chemical-physics deconstruction is in the opposite direction.  Molecules, molecules into elements, protons and neutrons made from arranges of quarks, leptons guage-bosons and Higgs boson.  This is a kind of reductions into actual particles of physics.
> 
> Animal Lifeforms, as far as we know, are made from all the same components just assembled in different arrangements quantities and fashioned together in accordance with the instructions of genetic codes.  A scientist can mix all this properties in a beaker, in the right proportions, and still not create a lifeforms.  In a manner of speaking, a life-force is not something a scientist can creatively achieve.
> The magic of a life-force, necessary to make a lifeforms, Is not something we can synthesize.
> 
> This is just one example of the Metaphysics, the study beyond the a level of reality.  In a way, what we have touched upon here is a "Supernatural Process" - meaning a process beyond the understanding of human scientific processes and the laws of nature.
> .
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> 
> My thought is that you are not entirely wrong (not entirely wrong at all).
> 
> The singular honour of being the key equation of existence goes to Euler’s Formula, also called the Euler identity, dating back to the 1740s:
> 
> View attachment 638558
> .The God Equation by Mike Hockney Published by Hyperreality Books Copyright © Mike Hockney 2012​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Thanks, RoccoR .  This one is such a NEGATIVE ONE, so I hesitate and will keep this premonition and any future ones to myself.  What's weird is if it happens, then I have no guilt and would be happy in a sense.  Is that because of being right?  Or feeling that some kind of justice was done?  I think atheists have to take responsibility for their religious beliefs.  We have a history of wars and religious people dying for their beliefs.  Why should atheism be any different?


----------



## james bond

I'll also do this.  I'll check to see about these people who are gone already -- 8 Atheist and Agnostic Scientists Who Changed the World.  Maybe they did pay for their atheism.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  Evolution 'vs' Creationism (Science "vs" Faith-Based)
SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
⁜→ James Bond, et al,

Science and Faith-Based Concepts are never at odds with one another; unless some antagonistic force pushes them into a collision.



​The symbol is a "Sigil."  You should keep it.  It is a sign that implies:  *Negative Thought Evaporate from my Mind*.  Put in a more traditional way:  →  It is the equivalent of saying:  " think positive and not negatively."



			
				RoccoR said:
			
		

> This is just one example of the Metaphysics, the study beyond the a level of reality. In a way, what we have touched upon here is a "Supernatural Process" - meaning a process beyond the understanding of human scientific processes and the laws of nature.





			
				James Bond said:
			
		

> This one is such a NEGATIVE ONE, so I hesitate and will keep this premonition and any future ones to myself. What's weird is if it happens, then I have no guilt and would be happy in a sense. Is that because of being right?


*(REFERENCE)*

Parapsychology:
Branch of psychology that deals with extranormal events and behavioural phenomena that are not accounted for or explained by the tenets and laws of present-day conventional science.​◈  Examples include (but not limited to):​
Clairvoyance may (depending on the form of study) divided into several associated forms: classes:

[*]retrocognition 
[*]premonition; perceiving past and future events; and perception of contemporary events happening at
may include psychometry, second sight, crystal gazing and prophecy
[*]precognition,
[*]​
telepathy, 
psychokinesis.
CHANCE or COINCIDENTAL:​​Precognition ( occult). The occult belief that one can possess the power to peer into the future.​Premonition Visions • past and • future respectively.​
*(COMMENT)*
.
All the descriptions (_good, evil, dark, white, angelic, demonized, etc__..._) are all subjective labels.  They are mental suggestions, depending on the personality having the mental event.  If you have what is considered an apparition or premonition/precognitive event, you can change that image.  The image at the opening is a good visual sigil (_*Courtesy of Daily Sigil)*_ to focus on to change.

It is my opinion that you should dump any mentally harmful images as soon as possible.  .





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Evolution 'vs' Creationism (Science "vs" Faith-Based)
SUBTOPIC: Keeping it in "Good Science"
⁜→ James Bond, et al,

*(AS A SIDE ISSUE)*

All the Abrahamic Religions, though they don't like to admit it, have an element of the supernatural embedded in their rituals.

So, believing in an alternative faith is not any different.  Or, not believing in Supreme Being is no different.  It is a cultural adaptation.  Metaphysics does not necessarily promote change.  It investigates events and happenings. It looks to detect footprints of some source of power.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## james bond

Here's what I found about the 8 atheist scientists.  Their lives and accomplishments were remarkable, but James Watson and Francis Crick have controversy.  I have to question their accomplishments and came away loathing them.  The only death that was notable and strange was Alan Turing.

Thus, life is what you make of it and what people remember you for.  Afterward, the atheists and ags and their beliefs are on their own.

********

Stephen Hawking lived a full life - died of ALS at 76, beat early death at 21.

His first wife, Jane Hawking was a Christian and said, "When I think that it has been 52 years since Stephen was first diagnosed, that to me is a miracle. OK, it may be a miracle of modern medicine and Stephen's own courage and perseverance but it is also quite simply a miracle."

Alan Turing - Considered the father of computer science who played pivotal role in breaking the WW II Enigma code.  He was a WW II hero, but also socially banished for his homosexuality.

"How did Alan Turing die?

Turing pleaded guilty to the gross indecency charge and opted for chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones.

The pioneering mathematician was rendered impotent and his security clearance was removed - barring him for continuing his work with GCHQ.

He died two years later from cyanide poisoning in an apparent suicide - though there have been suggestions his death was an accident."

Alfred Kinsey - Pneumonia and heart ailment.  Brought up in strict Christian home, was an Eagle Boy Scout, loved the YMCA, outdoors and camping.  He became well known in entomology, but became most famous for the Kinsey Reports in sexology.  Became a bisexual.

Neil deGrasse Tyson - Still alive.  Killed by internet death hoax.  Thinks he is agnostic, but may as well be an atheist.

Rosalind Franklin - Watson and Crick are known for their discovery of the DNA double helix structure, but they used her data without her knowledge and giving her due credit.  Watson and Crick seem like they should be destined for hell and a hurrible death.  I think today, Franklin gets more credit on wikipedia and more historical DNA articles and literature.

James Watson - still alive.  

From wikipedia:  "Interactions with Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling

Watson and Crick's use of DNA X-ray diffraction data collected by Rosalind Franklin and her student Raymond Gosling was unauthorized. Franklin's high-quality X-ray diffraction patterns of DNA were privileged unpublished information taken without permission from a scientist working on the same subject in another laboratory.[12] Watson and Crick used some of Franklin's unpublished data—without her consent—in their construction of the double helix model of DNA.[38][45] Franklin's results provided estimates of the water content of DNA crystals and these results were consistent with the two sugar-phosphate backbones being on the outside of the molecule. Franklin told Crick and Watson that the backbones had to be on the outside; before then, Linus Pauling and Watson and Crick had erroneous models with the chains inside and the bases pointing outwards.[24] Her identification of the space group for DNA crystals revealed to Crick that the two DNA strands were antiparallel.

The X-ray diffraction images collected by Gosling and Franklin provided the best evidence for the helical nature of DNA. Watson and Crick had three sources for Franklin's unpublished data:

    Her 1951 seminar, attended by Watson,[46]
    Discussions with Wilkins,[47] who worked in the same laboratory with Franklin,
    A research progress report that was intended to promote coordination of Medical Research Council-supported laboratories.[48] Watson, Crick, Wilkins and Franklin all worked in MRC laboratories.

In recent years, Watson has garnered controversy in the popular and scientific press for his "misogynistic treatment" of Franklin and his failure to properly attribute her work on DNA.[11] In The Double Helix, Watson later admitted that "Rosy, of course, did not directly give us her data. For that matter, no one at King's realized they were in our hands." According to one critic, Watson's portrayal of Franklin in The Double Helix was negative, giving the impression that she was Wilkins' assistant and was unable to interpret her own DNA data.[49] Watson's accusation was indefensible since Franklin told Crick and Watson that the helix backbones had to be on the outside.[24] From a 2003 piece in Nature:[11]

    Other comments dismissive of “Rosy” in Watson's book caught the attention of the emerging women's movement in the late 1960s. “Clearly Rosy had to go or be put in her place [...] Unfortunately Maurice could not see any decent way to give Rosy the boot”. And, “Certainly a bad way to go out into the foulness of a [...] November night was to be told by a woman to refrain from venturing an opinion about a subject for which you were not trained.”

A review of the correspondence from Franklin to Watson, in the archives at CSHL, revealed that the two scientists later exchanged constructive scientific correspondence. Franklin consulted with Watson on her tobacco mosaic virus RNA research. Franklin's letters were framed with the normal and unremarkable forms of address, beginning with "Dear Jim", and concluding with "Best Wishes, Yours, Rosalind". Each of the scientists published their own unique contributions to the discovery of the structure of DNA in separate articles, and all of the contributors published their findings in the same volume of Nature. These classic molecular biology papers are identified as: Watson J.D. and Crick F.H.C. "A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" Nature 171, 737–738 (1953);[40] Wilkins M.H.F., Stokes A.R. & Wilson, H.R. "Molecular Structure of Deoxypentose Nucleic Acids" Nature 171, 738–740 (1953);[50] Franklin R. and Gosling R.G. "Molecular Configuration in Sodium Thymonucleate" Nature 171, 740–741 (1953).[51]"

Francis Crick - Died of colon cancer at 88.  One of discovers of the DNA double helix structure.  He's another with controversy.  Believed in Eugenics and was involved in sexual harassment.

Eugenie Scott - Specifically, she kicks the asses and takes the names of people who are trying to teach religious creationism in the public schools. An anthropologist by training and trade, since 1987 she has been executive director of the National Center for Science Education -- the leading organization working to keep evolution and climate science in public school science education, and working to keep creationism and climate change denial out of it. If you have kids in the public schools, she has dedicated her life to ensuring they get an actual, evidence-based science education -- and to ensuring that their religious training is left up to you, and isn't in the hands of the government. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson Eugenie Scott doesn't call herself an atheist. Instead, she calls herself a non-theist and humanist, and has said, "I believe there is nothing beyond matter and energy." That's plenty good enough for this list. Another non-believer who works like crazy to make this world a better place -- and who can inspire anyone to do the same.

Still alive.  Obviously, no tears will be shed by creationists with her loss.

Andrei Sakharov - heart attack

Thomas Edison - diabetes

There's nothing really horrible in terms of atheists/ags scientists demise except for Alan Turing.  They're like other people.  No surprise there.  What's remarkable is if they beat death and lived longer than expected.  What do they if they are ill?  Do they deliberately avoid prayer?  Stephen Hawking may best represent the perseverance, courage and resolve in trying to stay alive and surviving.  I have to give him much credit.  Also, we have to give them much credit for their remarkable contributions to society.  

On the flip side, the worst controversial personal views were from James Watson and Francis Crick.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Another weak link in evolutionary theory
					

Today, however, discoveries in molecular biology have complicated that conclusion In fact, a new paper poses one of the strongest challenges yet to the idea that all life shares common chemistry




					www.christianpost.com
				




ANOTHER weak link in evolutionary THEORY. it's a theory forcryinoutloud.

*The authors, including theoretician Sara Walker and bioinformatics analyst Dylan Gagler from Arizona State University, looked at enzyme functions across all the major groupings of life. They tallied the different functions, then plotted these against the total number of classified enzymes. They found that “as the enzyme space grows … so do the number of functions.” In other words, there are very few “specific molecules and reactions” common to all living things.  

If your head just exploded, Nelson offers a helpful analogy borrowed from one of the paper’s co-authors, Chris Kempes. The English language contains many words, or synonyms, that can mean approximately the same thing. If the sky is darkened, we could just say it was “darkened.” Or, we could say that it became “murky,” “shaded,” “shadowed,” dimmed,” or “obscured.” All these words mean, more or less, the same thing but with very different spellings and histories. According to Nelson, “a strikingly similar pattern” occurs among the chemicals that make life possible. 

The authors of the paper agree, writing that “[biochemical] universality cannot simply be explained due to phylogenetic relatedness.” Or, stated more simply, living things don’t look like they evolved from a common ancestor using the same basic components on a molecular level. Instead, many different enzymes are used to accomplish similar purposes. This is precisely the opposite of what Darwinism predicts. *


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Calypso Jones said:


> Another weak link in evolutionary theory
> 
> 
> Today, however, discoveries in molecular biology have complicated that conclusion In fact, a new paper poses one of the strongest challenges yet to the idea that all life shares common chemistry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.christianpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANOTHER weak link in evolutionary THEORY. it's a theory forcryinoutloud.


Wow, you still don't know what the word "theory" means in science, despite having this info spoonfed to you multiple times.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Ya don't get to go round changin' the definition of things just so you can go, 'nyah nyah nyah'.  Science doesn't work like that although democrapolitics does. 

*Theory: *a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b*: *an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase _in theory

NOT evidence, i know you see 'hypothetical set of facts.....but you gotta go look up hypothetical..   get someone to help you.     _


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Calypso Jones said:


> Ya don't get to go round changin' the definition of things just so you can go, 'nyah nyah nyah'.  Science doesn't work like that although democrapolitics does.
> 
> *Theory: *a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of actionher method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
> b*: *an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase _in theory
> 
> NOT evidence, i know you see 'hypothetical set of facts.....but you gotta go look up hypothetical..   get someone to help you.     _


That's not the definition in science, sorry. Again, this has been spoonfed to you multiple times. You aren't making a good point. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Calypso Jones

I said.    you don't get to change the definition to suit makin' you look good.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Calypso Jones said:


> I said.    you don't get to change the definition to suit makin' you look good.


I didn't. A scientific theory is a well defined concept. I didn't define it. You embarrass yourself.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Post the definition. Let's take a look at it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Calypso Jones said:


> Post the definition. Let's take a look at it.


No troll. This has been spoonfed to you already. Go waste a 7th grade teacher's time.


----------



## Calypso Jones

haven't seen it.  You made the claim.  post it.  Otherwise you are full of primordial much.  All you gotta do is quote the post number.  I'm waaaaaitin'.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Calypso Jones said:


> haven't seen it.  You made the claim.  post it.


Nope, sorry troll. If you don't care to lift a finger to understand the material, then sit there in your own poo and squeal all by yourself.


----------



## Calypso Jones

Then you got nothing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Calypso Jones said:


> Then you got nothing.


Spot on, professor! Me and the global scientific community. We got nothing at all.

While you sit there and diddle yourself in front of a device that relies on quantum mechanical theory, relativity theory, electromagnetic theory....

I am embarrassed for you right now.


----------



## Feeding Crows

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I didn't. A scientific theory is a well defined concept. I didn't define it. You embarrass yourself.


You believe what a 6000-yr earther believes, and are calling it science....

Sorry, you're mistaken. This is what Bond thinks he does on Sundays... But it's actually a dog and he believes it's a dinosaur.


----------



## Feeding Crows

He calls him "Rex" but it's actually something like this: a tiny yapper dog like him that annoys everyone around him...




Something that should be extinct if i had my way...


----------



## Feeding Crows

Yapper owners are suburban terrorists. They don't give a flying fuck about their neighbors.


----------



## Feeding Crows

They just want to put them outside and let them bark and drive their neighbors crazy! Because they don't want them inside driving themselves crazy. 

So why get the fucking terrorist dogs in the first place? Unless you're a terrorist neighbor and want to be an asshole in your community. Piss everyone off... 

People who own yappers are assholes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Freedom Crows Nest said:


> You believe what a 6000-yr earther believes, and are calling it science....


Uh....what? Confused


----------



## Hollie

Calypso Jones said:


> Another weak link in evolutionary theory
> 
> 
> Today, however, discoveries in molecular biology have complicated that conclusion In fact, a new paper poses one of the strongest challenges yet to the idea that all life shares common chemistry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.christianpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANOTHER weak link in evolutionary THEORY. it's a theory forcryinoutloud.
> 
> *The authors, including theoretician Sara Walker and bioinformatics analyst Dylan Gagler from Arizona State University, looked at enzyme functions across all the major groupings of life. They tallied the different functions, then plotted these against the total number of classified enzymes. They found that “as the enzyme space grows … so do the number of functions.” In other words, there are very few “specific molecules and reactions” common to all living things.
> 
> If your head just exploded, Nelson offers a helpful analogy borrowed from one of the paper’s co-authors, Chris Kempes. The English language contains many words, or synonyms, that can mean approximately the same thing. If the sky is darkened, we could just say it was “darkened.” Or, we could say that it became “murky,” “shaded,” “shadowed,” dimmed,” or “obscured.” All these words mean, more or less, the same thing but with very different spellings and histories. According to Nelson, “a strikingly similar pattern” occurs among the chemicals that make life possible.
> 
> The authors of the paper agree, writing that “[biochemical] universality cannot simply be explained due to phylogenetic relatedness.” Or, stated more simply, living things don’t look like they evolved from a common ancestor using the same basic components on a molecular level. Instead, many different enzymes are used to accomplish similar purposes. This is precisely the opposite of what Darwinism predicts. *



There's a great deal about the above which is cause for real skepticism. Firstly, when dealing with biological matters, I'd prefer to have data from chemists / biologists as opposed to a theoretician and a bioinformatics analyst. There's scant information about what enzyme data they studied and how that applies to the complex interactions that involve biological life. Secondly, when ''evolution news'' and charlatans from the Disco'tute are involved, things get very predictable. 

For example, Paul Nelson being anywhere near science matters is a red flag.






						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Paul Nelson is a philosopher of science (apologist), young earth creationist and intelligent design advocate. He is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. He is admittedly known for some strokes of insight. In an interview in Touchstone Magazine he admitted that there is no scientific theory of intelligent design at the moment, thus directly contradicting the official Discovery Institute stance. He also admitted – in an article co-written with fellow young earth creationist John Mark Reynolds (in J.P. Moreland’s “Three Views on Creation and Evolution”) – that “[n]atural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old cosmos. Though creationist scientists have suggested some evidence for a recent cosmos, none are widely accepted as true. It is safe to say that most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns.” (That does not mean that Nelson is opposed to the wedge strategy; just that he may not be completely aware that he is contradicting it).

He is not always that honest (though one sometimes suspects non-malicious intent), and has been caught accusing “evolutionists” of breaking down over … Paley’s design argument (follow-up here). Seriously. Anyone appealing to Paley’s argument has, by definition, no clue about how evolution is supposed to work. Strawmen are expected, though, given the combination of cluelessness and confirmation bias.

Nelson was also involved in concocting “Explore Evolution”, the Discovery Institute’s new “science” textbook for highschools. He has produced no scientific findings.

*Diagnosis: Mild-mannered but thoroughly confused ignoramus – the kind of guy who can sit through the most careful explanation of a phenomenon attentively, and still interpret it completely randomly as being evidence for whatever he wants to believe.*



Did you know that the term ''Darwinism'' is a favorite slur from the fundamentalist ministries attempting to denigrate science? It's all pretty repetitive.

I would also note that when Nelson attempts to make some silly analogy connecting language and biology, it's time to put the brakes on this runaway train of ID'iot creationerism. What Paul Nelson and charlatans at the Disco'tute fail to understand is that ID’iot creationism is not falsifiable and it creates many unresolved levels of contradiction. It is fact that biological organisms evolve over time subject to genetic drift and environmental pressures. The progression of simple to more complex life forms is undeniable except to certain religious types. The evidence is overwhelming in spite of the denials from religionists.

The linked article contains the statement: ''living things don’t look like they evolved from a common ancestor using the same basic components on a molecular level.'' 

I'm curious if someone from the Disco'tute could offer an explanation, something resembling a kinda', sorta' connection to a science vocabulary as to why ''looking like'' is an objective description of biology.


----------



## Calypso Jones

uh huh so what is so inappropriate for kids to learn about 'alternative' beliefs as opposed to theory?

Would that be introducing kids to all concepts and then LETTING THEM CHOOSe.....or is that freedom to choose part of the problem?


----------



## Feeding Crows

But the whole argument now is to not allow kids to learn science, so that they don't contradict the bible. Which way do you want it? Teach the bible and no science? Or teach science and no bible? 

Bible study should be done on Wednesdays, after school, like I did. It's not a part of regular school. People who don't believe in it shouldn't be subjected to it just because parents are lazy and drunk and expect school to teach them the bible, instead of doing it themselves. 

It's redneck religion. 

Schools should teach Science, Math, History (real factual history), English, other languages, sex, and baseball.


----------



## Hollie

Calypso Jones said:


> uh huh so what is so inappropriate for kids to learn about 'alternative' beliefs as opposed to theory?
> 
> Would that be introducing kids to all concepts and then LETTING THEM CHOOSe.....or is that freedom to choose part of the problem?


Probably a good idea. Gravity is just a theory. The "alternate belief" should be taught. What's the alternate to Germ Theory? Prayer beads, perhaps?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
SUBTOPIC:  Focal points of Education
※→Hollie, Calypso Jones,  _et al_,



Calypso Jones said:


> uh huh so what is so inappropriate for kids to learn about 'alternative' beliefs as opposed to theory?


*(COMMENT)*

There is a conflict here that needs clarified.  You cannot accurately compare a scientific theory with that of a religious belief.  (You are mixing apples and oranges.)

◈.  A theory is generally a set of accepted principles or statements, which have many interlocking facts, that yet have NOT been absolutely proven. Theories have been tested many, many times, and have not been disproven (even once).​​◈.  A religious belief is is beyond the reach of scientific test and measurement, but taken on faith that the opinion, notion, or conviction are true.​
Theories have some basis in fact and are based on accepted scientific methodology behind the testing that have been found to be both sound and opinion or conviction whose validity has been established or proved. It consists of a hypothesis and a conclusion.



Calypso Jones said:


> Would that be introducing kids to all concepts and then LETTING THEM CHOOSe.....or is that freedom to choose part of the problem?





Hollie said:


> Probably a good idea. Gravity is just a theory. The "alternate belief" should be taught. What's the alternate to Germ Theory? Prayer beads, perhaps?


*(COMMENT)*
.
Gravity is an undefined observable effect.  There is no single and generally accepted theory as to what Gravity is.  But it has an accepted Newtonian equation which is so accurate, that it can plot a trajectory and land on a comet 786 days and ≈ 600 million kilometers later.  But yet, the Newtonian Equation is not perfectly correct.
If I offer a group of kids, within a western culture, cake and ice cream for breakfast (as opposed to some generally accepted menu), what would the kids choose?  Free Will and Choice are not always the correct answer.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Calypso Jones

There is such a thing as Creation Science and there is MUCH evidence to support the theory if you will of Intelligent design.  I know Evolutionists don't want this to be true.  So part of their agenda is to discredit and ridicule creation science.

Your belief is based on your presuppositions about Creation or evolution, your argument is based on  your presuppositions.   Creation Scientists and Evolutionists look at the same facts, facts are neutral and based on what you want to believe, you interpret the facts.    you have your facts, perhaps Darwin yet you deny Christian scientists the courtesy of using their basis for facts and truth...God's word.  you rather set the parameters in your favor and then not content with that...you must attack the character and credibility of creation scientists.    That sounds like fear to me.


----------



## Hollie

Calypso Jones said:


> There is such a thing as Creation Science and there is MUCH evidence to support the theory if you will of Intelligent design.  I know Evolutionists don't want this to be true.  So part of their agenda is to discredit and ridicule creation science.
> 
> Your belief is based on your presuppositions about Creation or evolution, your argument is based on  your presuppositions.   Creation Scientists and Evolutionists look at the same facts, facts are neutral and based on what you want to believe, you interpret the facts.    you have your facts, perhaps Darwin yet you deny Christian scientists the courtesy of using their basis for facts and truth...God's word.  you rather set the parameters in your favor and then not content with that...you must attack the character and credibility of creation scientists.    That sounds like fear to me.


I would disagree that there is any legitimate science to creation science. I have to note that creation science is a relatively recent label used fundamentalist Christians. Earlier attempts by fundamentalist christians 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 and more extremist.

There are various forms of fake science, bad science, and perverted science. History has seen many come, and decline, but none ever seem to die. The ideas of flat earth, hollow earth, astrology, alchemy and perpetual motion have supporters even today. These are interesting examples of the human ability to hold to an idea even without supportive evidence, and even in the face of contrary evidence. They, however, pose little threat to science, which simply ignores them and goes about its work.

"Creation science", has tried to impose the literal interpretation of Biblical accounts into science, and into the schools. This movement had considerable public support amongst fundamentalist Christians. Scientists generally ignored it as irrelevant to their work. In recent years a movement called "intelligent design" (ID) has been promoted by various creation ministries. 

Can you provide any peer reviewed data on supernatural creation?


----------



## Hollie

RoccoR said:


> RE: It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
> SUBTOPIC:  Focal points of Education
> ※→Hollie, Calypso Jones,  _et al_,
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is a conflict here that needs clarified.  You cannot accurately compare a scientific theory with that of a religious belief.  (You are mixing apples and oranges.)
> 
> ◈.  A theory is generally a set of accepted principles or statements, which have many interlocking facts, that yet have NOT been absolutely proven. Theories have been tested many, many times, and have not been disproven (even once).​​◈.  A religious belief is is beyond the reach of scientific test and measurement, but taken on faith that the opinion, notion, or conviction are true.​
> Theories have some basis in fact and are based on accepted scientific methodology behind the testing that have been found to be both sound and opinion or conviction whose validity has been established or proved. It consists of a hypothesis and a conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> Gravity is an undefined observable effect.  There is no single and generally accepted theory as to what Gravity is.  But it has an accepted Newtonian equation which is so accurate, that it can plot a trajectory and land on a comet 786 days and ≈ 600 million kilometers later.  But yet, the Newtonian Equation is not perfectly correct.
> If I offer a group of kids, within a western culture, cake and ice cream for breakfast (as opposed to some generally accepted menu), what would the kids choose?  Free Will and Choice are not always the correct answer.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


I see a bit of a contradiction in your comment about gravity. Einstein's theory of gravitation within general relativity replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. I believe Einstein's theory is a generally accepted theory.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> I would disagree that there is any legitimate science to creation science. I have to note that creation science is a relatively recent label used fundamentalist Christians. Earlier attempts by fundamentalist christians 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 and more extremist.
> 
> There are various forms of fake science, bad science, and perverted science. History has seen many come, and decline, but none ever seem to die. The ideas of flat earth, hollow earth, astrology, alchemy and perpetual motion have supporters even today. These are interesting examples of the human ability to hold to an idea even without supportive evidence, and even in the face of contrary evidence. They, however, pose little threat to science, which simply ignores them and goes about its work.
> 
> "Creation science", has tried to impose the literal interpretation of Biblical accounts into science, and into the schools. This movement had considerable public support amongst fundamentalist Christians. Scientists generally ignored it as irrelevant to their work. In recent years a movement called "intelligent design" (ID) has been promoted by various creation ministries.
> 
> Can you provide any peer reviewed data on supernatural creation?


Certainly, Newton was one of the greatest scientists in history and creationist.  Even Einstein paid him tribute -- Einstein on Newton.  You can't just poo poo him away with your poo comments.  Logic, history, observation, literature, natural sense, personal experience and more point to God.  It is said, it is obstinance for atheists/ags/sinners to oppose God as they have no evidence whatsoever.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Certainly, Newton was one of the greatest scientists in history and creationist.  Even Einstein paid him tribute -- Einstein on Newton.  You can't just poo poo him away with your poo comments.  Logic, history, observation, literature, natural sense, personal experience and more point to God.  It is said, it is obstinance for atheists/ags/sinners to oppose God as they have no evidence whatsoever.


Why continue to impose your extremist religious beliefs on someone who never identified as a creationist?

It seems really desperate to try and force your religion on others.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Calypso Jones said:


> There is such a thing as Creation Science and


No there isn't. That's why you can't produce any. Ever. And you never will.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Why continue to impose your extremist religious beliefs on someone who never identified as a creationist?
> 
> It seems really desperate to try and force your religion on others.


Something new I learned about not having evidence against creationism.  It is _obstinance_ of your atheism/ag of non-belief.

The stubborn were struck down in Moses history -- 24 Bible verses about Stubbornness.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Something new I learned about not having evidence against creationism.


What you should learn that creationism is magical fantasy, and there can never be evidence for or against magical fantasy. That's what magic is.


----------



## Calypso Jones

of course there is!!  Don't be ridiculous.





__





						Creation Science Organizations and Ministries
					

Organizations and ministries that are active in creation science apologetics education and outreach.



					www.nwcreation.net


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Something new I learned about not having evidence against creationism.  It is _obstinance_ of your atheism/ag of non-belief.
> 
> The stubborn were struck down in Moses history -- 24 Bible verses about Stubbornness.


So you agree? It's desperate and extremist to try and force your religious beliefs on others?


----------



## Calypso Jones

Forcing the religion of evolution on kids is just fine though isn't it.


----------



## Hollie

Calypso Jones said:


> Forcing the religion of evolution on kids is just fine though isn't it.


"religion of evolution" is a tired slogan.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Calypso Jones said:


> of course there is!!  Don't be ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creation Science Organizations and Ministries
> 
> 
> Organizations and ministries that are active in creation science apologetics education and outreach.
> 
> 
> 
> www.nwcreation.net


Sorry,no. Claims from other nutters that they are creation scientists is not creation science. It's just repetition of the same false claim.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What you should learn that creationism is magical fantasy, and there can never be evidence for or against magical fantasy. That's what magic is.


How can creation science be fantasy when actual science backs it up?  It's your evolution science fantasy that is magical.  That's why the evolution remains only due to the stubborness of evolutionists.  Even shown undeniable proof of creation, the evos stubbornly stick to their fantasy.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> "religion of evolution" is a tired slogan.


It means evolution is an enabler of atheism.  Even chlorine takes time to kill the poop bacteria of evolution.  Evolution really is disgusting.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> How can creation science be fantasy when actual science backs it up?


Take your childish trolling to someone else. You already admitted to me that evidence makes no difference to you. You already admitted this line of bullshit is an attention grab.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It means evolution is an enabler of atheism.  Even chlorine takes time to kill the poop bacteria of evolution.  Evolution really is disgusting.


Incoherent nonsense.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Take your childish trolling to someone else. You already admitted to me that evidence makes no difference to you. You already admitted this line of bullshit is an attention grab.


I've never said such thing and can CLEARLY SEE that you are going BONKERS due to your non-beliefs.  You see BS and TROLLING EVERYWHERE due to believing in LIES FOR SOOO LONG.  What are you gonna be CRYING ABOUT NEXT lol?  Next time, can you just look in the mirror and watch yourself crying, wiping away tears, crying, wiping away tears, crying, wiping away tears repetition?  That should help with your evolutionist illusions and fantasies.

Even the OP had to start this thread because he had to do the same.  He may as have bashed his thumb with a sledgehammer.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Incoherent nonsense.


Have you ever been an apartment owner?  Some atheist type can't pay his rent and subsequent eviction, so leaves his/her poop on the floor as a momento of his leaving.  I think most owners/managers have the evolutionist cleaner use bleach.

Let's face it.  This is par for the course when creationists have to discuss evolution with atheists/ags.


----------



## james bond

Atheists don't get these jokes lol.

Why did the chicken cross the road?





__





						Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?
					

Here are some answers, in the spirit of various well-known physicists, to the age-old question:  Why did the chicken cross the road?  After finding the first four of the following answers on the web, I figured I’d make up some more, and I got on a roll. Have fun with them. A few are a bit...




					www.physics.harvard.edu


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> never said such thing


Liar. We were very clear. You said no evidence could ever convince you of an old earth or evolution. Not even if it is all the evidence ever found.


Yes, you admitted it. We established once and for all that all of your trolling of this section is a silly, attention begging fetish. That, when you claim to have evidence or demand evidence from others, that is nothing but a childish act to garner yourself some attention and to annoy others.

Sorry Bond. You gave up the game.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Have you ever been an apartment owner?  Some atheist type can't pay his rent and subsequent eviction, so leaves his/her poop on the floor as a momento of his leaving.  I think most owners/managers have the evolutionist cleaner use bleach.
> 
> Let's face it.  This is par for the course when creationists have to discuss evolution with atheists/ags.


Pointless.


----------



## james bond

Here's one they may get.

'A college Professor, an avowed Atheist, was teaching his class. He shocked several of his students when he flatly stated he was going to prove there is no God. Addressing the ceiling he shouted: "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!" The lecture room fell silent. You could have heard a pin drop. Ten minutes went by. Again the Professor taunted God, saying, "Here I am, God! I'm still waiting!" His count-down got down to the last couple of minutes when a Marine, just released from active duty and newly registered in the class, walked up to the Professor and punched him full-force in the face. The Professor tumbled from his lofty platform, and he was out cold before he hit the floor. At first the students were shocked, and they babbled in confusion. The young Marine took a seat in the front row and sat silently. The class fell silent... waiting. Eventually, the Professor came to. When he finally regained the power of speech, he glared at the young Marine in the front row. "What's the matter with you? Why on earth did you do that?" The Marine smiled. "God was busy. He sent me."'


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Liar. We were very clear. You said no evidence could ever convince you of an old earth or evolution. Not even if it is all the evidence ever found.
> 
> 
> Yes, you admitted it. We established once and for all that all of your trolling of this section is a silly, attention begging fetish. That, when you claim to have evidence or demand evidence from others, that is nothing but a childish act to garner yourself some attention and to annoy others.
> 
> Sorry Bond. You gave up the game.


Taking a page from the atheist handbook, can you give me the post # and forum or copy-paste what I said?  Maybe it was someone else you mistook.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> Here's one they may get.
> 
> 'A college Professor, an avowed Atheist, was teaching his class. He shocked several of his students when he flatly stated he was going to prove there is no God. Addressing the ceiling he shouted: "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you 15 minutes!" The lecture room fell silent. You could have heard a pin drop. Ten minutes went by. Again the Professor taunted God, saying, "Here I am, God! I'm still waiting!" His count-down got down to the last couple of minutes when a Marine, just released from active duty and newly registered in the class, walked up to the Professor and punched him full-force in the face. The Professor tumbled from his lofty platform, and he was out cold before he hit the floor. At first the students were shocked, and they babbled in confusion. The young Marine took a seat in the front row and sat silently. The class fell silent... waiting. Eventually, the Professor came to. When he finally regained the power of speech, he glared at the young Marine in the front row. "What's the matter with you? Why on earth did you do that?" The Marine smiled. "God was busy. He sent me."'



Those "revenge fantasies for God" are usually pretty funny.  It belies so much hatred kindled deep in the soul of God's pious servants.  

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand it.  It's a perfectly human thing for people to kind of hate those that they disagree with to some greater or lesser extent.  But the irony is in the service of a loving God his followers come up with wonderful stories in which someone punches someone or God himself sends people to roast in agony forever for not being Christian.

At times I wonder what it would be like if there actually WAS a God and all those good Christians had to actually ANSWER TO HIM one day.  I think it would not necessarily be the grade they were expecting.

LOL.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

james bond said:


> It means evolution is an enabler of atheism.  Even chlorine takes time to kill the poop bacteria of evolution.  Evolution really is disgusting.



Evolution is an enabler of atheism if the ONLY religion on offer is one sect of (mostly) American evangelicals with a penchant for hyperliteralism.

(Also:  what is it with you and feces?)


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Calypso Jones said:


> Forcing the religion of evolution on kids is just fine though isn't it.



Like the religion of "germ theory of diseases"?  Or the religion of "quantum mechanics"?  Or the religion of "not-flat earth"?

If we stopped forcing information on kids at what point would we just not be teaching them anything?


----------



## Calypso Jones

Cardinal carminative said:
			
		

> Like the religion of "germ theory of diseases"? Or the religion of "quantum mechanics"? Or the religion of "not-flat earth"?
> 
> If we stopped forcing information on kids at what point would we just not be teaching them anything?


    I think you're lost your place in this conversation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Calypso Jones said:


> I think you're lost your place in this conversation.


You have lost touch with reality. 

The reason you are on the outside looking in when it comes to science and education is because you are ignorant and delusional. 

It's very simple.


----------



## Dante Reawakened

WinterBorn said:


> There are so many threads from religious fundamentalists trying to debunk the Theory of Evolution.    And, I might add, failing.
> 
> 
> My question is simple.     Why?    Why does what happened millions of years ago matter so much?


It’s not a fair fight. Science against Fairy Tales


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Calypso Jones said:


> I think you're lost your place in this conversation.



Probably.  I have a nodding acquaintance with science so my type is not necessarily valued here.


----------



## james bond

Cardinal Carminative said:


> At times I wonder what it would be like if there actually WAS a God and all those good Christians had to actually ANSWER TO HIM one day. I think it would not necessarily be the grade they were expecting.


Sheesh, you're another SAF and POS.  I'm the one who keeps saying "Atheists Need to Die! (ANTD!)" as they just can't be convinced of creation science even when science backs up the Bible.


----------



## NIMWSFWM

Waiting for the big show? The God vs The Son? Or, the other show? The medium show, "God vs God"?


----------



## NIMWSFWM

Damaged Eagle said:


> View attachment 630707
> 
> God is!
> 
> *****SMILE*****


There you are. I got you now just as soon as I get around this smiley face.


----------



## Feeding Crows

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Those "revenge fantasies for God" are usually pretty funny.  It belies so much hatred kindled deep in the soul of God's pious servants.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I totally understand it.  It's a perfectly human thing for people to kind of hate those that they disagree with to some greater or lesser extent.  But the irony is in the service of a loving God his followers come up with wonderful stories in which someone punches someone or God himself sends people to roast in agony forever for not being Christian.
> 
> At times I wonder what it would be like if there actually WAS a God and all those good Christians had to actually ANSWER TO HIM one day.  I think it would not necessarily be the grade they were expecting.
> 
> LOL.


don't forget the priests! lol so sad...


----------



## Feeding Crows

And the argument that they forget and deny, is that they only believe the religion they believe in, because their ancestors were killed, tortured and raped, and the survivors had to believe the new religion, or die. 

It wasn't "god" that mysteriously gave them the truth... It was a penis and a sword.


----------



## james bond

I think the argument comes down to change in animals due to natural selection vs. the global flood.  Also, there wasn't this argument until after the 1850s when James Hutton, Charles Lyell and their star pupil Charles Darwin came up with uniformitarianism (long time) and Darwinism.  It led to evolution vs. creation science.  Yet, we find natural selection by God as the true nature as animals do not become another species even after millions of years.  Their DNA does not contain the plan or genetics to cause it.  To use an analogy, one can't build a turn a dam into a bridge if the dam does not have a plan for the bridge in its architecture.f

Thus, the creationists' analogy PROVES that natural selection by God works while natural selection by atheists and their scientists does not work.

One can check all the dams and dams-bridges and you'll see the dam can't become a bridge by itself unless it was planned for in the future.









						When Was the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge Built? | Las Vegas Advisor
					

When was the bridge built over the Colorado instead of letting you just drive over the dam?



					www.lasvegasadvisor.com
				




ETA:  Here are two wonderful videos of driving across the Hoover Dam (planned for driving across) and another of driving across the bypass bridge which they had to build anyway.



Who knew two videos would DESTROY evolution lol?


----------



## james bond

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Evolution is an enabler of atheism if the ONLY religion on offer is one sect of (mostly) American evangelicals with a penchant for hyperliteralism.
> 
> (Also:  what is it with you and feces?)


Feces and atheists go hand-in-hand and hand-to-face.  That's how I see atheists pampering themselves using their false science as beauty cream.  They are oblivious to the smell and look of their face.  The best thing to do is use creation science to make the atheist and their argument go away.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I think the argument comes down to change in animals due to natural selection vs. the global flood.  Also, there wasn't this argument until after the 1850s when James Hutton, Charles Lyell and their star pupil Charles Darwin came up with uniformitarianism (long time) and Darwinism.  It led to evolution vs. creation science.  Yet, we find natural selection by God as the true nature as animals do not become another species even after millions of years.  Their DNA does not contain the plan or genetics to cause it.  To use an analogy, one can't build a turn a dam into a bridge if the dam does not have a plan for the bridge in its architecture.f
> 
> Thus, the creationists' analogy PROVES that natural selection by God works while natural selection by atheists and their scientists does not work.
> 
> One can check all the dams and dams-bridges and you'll see the dam can't become a bridge by itself unless it was planned for in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Was the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge Built? | Las Vegas Advisor
> 
> 
> When was the bridge built over the Colorado instead of letting you just drive over the dam?
> 
> 
> 
> www.lasvegasadvisor.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA:  Here are two wonderful videos of driving across the Hoover Dam (planned for driving across) and another of driving across the bypass bridge which they had to build anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Who knew two videos would DESTROY evolution lol?


Who knew anyone would be so gullible to believe silly youtube videos.


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Who knew anyone would be so gullible to believe silly youtube videos.


I can see you using feces as _beauty cream_.  You do it here daily.  Maybe hourly is closer to the TRUTH .


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I can see you using feces as _beauty cream_.  You do it here daily.  Maybe hourly is closer to the TRUTH .



Do you kiss your statues of the jeebus with that mouth?


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Do you kiss your statues of the jeebus with that mouth?


It goes to demonstrate that atheists here have lost their natural selection and DNA arguments.  We can't have humans from monkeys nor birds from dinosaurs through natural selection.  The creationists version of natural selection is backed up by science as changes are made only to their own species.  I rather enjoyed watching the two youtubes, but it must've been heart wrenching to see your evolutionary beliefs and atheism _collapse_ before your eyes.  I can see smoke coming out of your ears and red fluid coming out of your eyes.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> It goes to demonstrate that atheists here have lost their natural selection and DNA arguments.  We can't have humans from monkeys nor birds from dinosaurs through natural selection.  The creationists version of natural selection is backed up by science as changes are made only to their own species.  I rather enjoyed watching the two youtubes, but it must've been heart wrenching to see your evolutionary beliefs and atheism _collapse_ before your eyes.  I can see smoke coming out of your ears and red fluid coming out of your eyes.


It goes to show that religious extremism is a debilitating disease.


----------



## james bond

Are these dinosaurs alive today still living with humans?


----------



## sparky

~S~


----------

