Creationists

[koshergrl]

Still waiting for that evidence that everybody has.

 

[daws101]

Still waiting for that evidence that everybody has.

What Are We Made Of?
By Jonathan Atteberry, HowStuffWorks.com

Protons, Neutrons and Electrons Only Part of the Picture

What are we made of? The question has rankled scientists and philosophers for millennia, and even with the amazing progress made in fields like particle physics and astronomy, we are left with only a partial answer. We know, of course, that the visible world is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons that combine to form atoms of different elements, and we know those elements are the building blocks of the planets and stars that give rise to solar systems and galaxies.

What we didn't know until very recently, however, is that those protons, neutrons and electrons appear to form less than 5 percent of the universe, and questions remain about how these building blocks arose. If regular matter represents only a small slice of the universe, what is the rest of the universe made of?

Such questions prompted the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) beneath the border between France and Switzerland. As the world's largest particle accelerator, experts designed the LHC to recreate conditions that occurred shortly after the very foundation of universe itself. Here are a few of the mysteries scientists hope the LHC and other particle accelerators can shed light on.

What Are We Made Of? : Through The Wormhole : Science Channel

 

[ilia25]

thanks, I'll continue to believe in God.

Which one?

 

[Youwerecreated]

again that's bullshit ALL CULTURES BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER .
FOR CHRISTIANITY IT ONLY BECAME ROUND AFTER COLUMBUS AND THE POPE SAID IT WAS.
IT'S laughable that people who claim to be christians, don't know shit about what they purport is the truth!

I guess you can't read.

Flat Earth Theory
by Abby Cessna on December 28, 2009


Model of a flat Earth
The flat Earth theory was believed by many cultures around the world including Ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures as well as China up to the last few hundred years. The flat Earth theory states that the world is a flat disk rather than a sphere. As early as the fourth century B.C. however, philosophers and scientists realized that the Earth was actually a sphere. Aristotle was one Greek philosopher who advocated that Earth was a sphere. This debate has raged on in many cultures throughout the centuries. Now, some believe that most educated people since around the fourth century B.C. and on realized that the Earth was a sphere, and that the belief that the flat earth theory was widespread is just a myth that took root in the 19th century. It is now thought by many, including the Historical Association based in England, that Columbus did not believe the Earth was flat and that this story was merely a myth spread by Washington Irving in his book about Columbus.



Many people who believe in the flat Earth theory turn to the Bible in order to back up their theory. They quote various passages in order to back up their theories and interpret certain passages literally. Not all of them rely on the Bible though or simply on the Bible. Samuel Shenton who formed the Flat Earth Society, one of the most modern flat earth groups, believed that his beliefs could be proven using common sense and science. The Flat Earth Society was one of the most modern flat Earth organizations in the past century, but that too faded when its last president died in 2001. The name is still being used, although the new organization or organizations are not necessarily linked to the old society.

Those who adhere to the flat Earth theory have certain answers to criticisms of their theory. Charles Johnson, who was a president of the Flat Earth Society, said that the Moon landing was also a hoax and that it was scripted and filmed on a set in Hollywood. Gravity is seen as a mystical force – that does not exist – to many who believe in the flat Earth theory. Charles Johnson accepted Aristotle’s idea that things naturally fall downwards. Adherents to the flat Earth theory have often been criticized and parodied. Some of the web sites that use the name are simply satires.

Flat Earth Theory

So what you posted contradicted your claim.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Um, I think I'd better refrain from commenting. I'm afraid nothing good would come from it

Let me point out another flaw in your thinking. You asserted that modern day humans evolved from neanderthals how is that since the neanderthals had larger brains ?

Fist, modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals, they were different branches, sharing a common ancestor. Second, modern humans are smarter than Neanderthals because the structure of their brains is different.

I have a question to you as well -- why are you keep asking about things that you can read in any textbook?

They may not have had the technology of today but that does not mean humans today were more intelligent then neanderthals. Where do you get the evidence for all your assertions ? Have you ever seen the brain of a neanderthal ?

You are a person of faith admit it.

 

[LOki]

Sooo...you're going back and changing what you are quoted saying, and pretending that it means something?

I didn't go back and change anything that I said.

 

[LOki]

I think there might be a rule against that.

You might think there's a rule about exposing your bullshit, but there isn't.

Sorry about your retarded luck.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oxygen is not needed for life, it is a byproduct of photosynthetic plants and bacteria. Only after they filled the Earth atmosphere with oxygen some other living things had evolved to make use of it.

This statement shows complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the global climate system. In your scenario, the plants just continue releasing oxygen until there is no more carbon dioxide left and they die off. There are delicate symbiotic relationships that have been designed into the earth. Your explanation is an extremely oversimplified description which is typical of the fairy tales your side promotes.

You are an idiot -- my explanation was of the origin of oxygen in the atmosphere, not of the "global climate system".

Careful with the insults you have said some pretty dumb things you cannot support.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's right, everybody has always existed.

No...they have not you ignorant cow. Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.

One day it rained on rocks and poof we had life,so what your saying is life evolved from a rock

You don't have a clue of what you are talking about. First off,RNA and DNA could not form in water nor when they were exposed to oxygen why is this so hard for your side to grasp ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have evidence of that?

Yes we all have evidense of that. Don't let that slow you down in your fantasy world though.

I guess you don't want to present this evidence,typical.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's right, everybody has always existed.

No...they have not you ignorant cow. Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.

go easy, that's above her pay grade!

This coming from someone probably unemployed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Still waiting for that evidence that everybody has.

What Are We Made Of?
By Jonathan Atteberry, HowStuffWorks.com

Protons, Neutrons and Electrons Only Part of the Picture

What are we made of? The question has rankled scientists and philosophers for millennia, and even with the amazing progress made in fields like particle physics and astronomy, we are left with only a partial answer. We know, of course, that the visible world is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons that combine to form atoms of different elements, and we know those elements are the building blocks of the planets and stars that give rise to solar systems and galaxies.

What we didn't know until very recently, however, is that those protons, neutrons and electrons appear to form less than 5 percent of the universe, and questions remain about how these building blocks arose. If regular matter represents only a small slice of the universe, what is the rest of the universe made of?

Such questions prompted the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) beneath the border between France and Switzerland. As the world's largest particle accelerator, experts designed the LHC to recreate conditions that occurred shortly after the very foundation of universe itself. Here are a few of the mysteries scientists hope the LHC and other particle accelerators can shed light on.

What Are We Made Of? : Through The Wormhole : Science Channel

You will believe anything,talk about fantasy land.

 

[Youwerecreated]

thanks, I'll continue to believe in God.

Which one?

There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Inquisitor]

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

What I like about the Creation theory timeline is the idea that Noah's ark made ground 2200-2400 BC.

This leaves 4 men and 4 women to populate the earth.

The strange thing is that we have numerous contiuous culturs prior to 2000 BC. These cultures do not have a break - extinction from a global flood - and most have continuous language (contrary to the tower of Babel story).

We have continuous culture in China, India, South America, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Africa, Europe and so on.

Now Noah and sons lived a good 400 years after the flood. Shem was still alive when Abraham was born and died just before Joseph who went into Egypt around 1700 BC.

The Egyptians have all kinds of stories about their origins. None record that one of the fathers of all humanity was still alive in 1800 BC.

The Sumerians also have creation stories written in 2400 .. one actually mentions a local flood where a Noah managed to save some of his belongings on a barge. No meantion of this fellow being father of all humanity though.

It does mention King Sargon however and talks about how he united the city states of mesopotamia into one of the first world Empires.

To think that Noah and sons managed mutate into all the different aforementioned races and cultures we find existing on the earth prior to 2000 has got to be one of the most absurd ideas ever. How on Earth did they get to South America and turn into Indians ?

The ability of folks to live in abject denial of reality is truly amazing to me.

 

[Inquisitor]

thanks, I'll continue to believe in God.

Which one?

There is only one God and one holy book that can stand up to scrutiny.

I believe in God and am a Christian but not even ministers (ones that have attended a proper seminary - 8 years including learning Hebrew, Latin, and Greek) believe the Bible stands up to rigorous intelectual scrutiny.

If it did one would not need the concept of "Faith".

 

[UltimateReality]

made up nonsense strawman version...

What on earth would someone who uses such an idiotic phrase know about the "intellectual honesty" that he keeps carping about?

Someone who does not present a refutation of a misrepresentation of an assertion to be a refutation of the actual assertion; someone who does not edit the quotes to create the illusion that the source cited agrees with their conclusions when they clearly don't; someone who does not engage in the ad-hominem logical fallacy to support their position, is someone who practices intellectual honesty and might know quite a bit about intellectual honesty.

The real question koshergrl, is what on earth would you know about it?

PREDICTION: koshergrl (and others of her retarded tribe) will seize upon this citing my use of the term "retarded" as an example. What they will prove they fail to understand is that an ad-hominem attack is not the same thing as an ad-hominem argument. An ad-hominem attack may be impolite, but it's not necessarily invalid since it can be a conclusion that follows from valid premises. The ad-hominem argument is what koshergrl engages in--she asserts that I'm an idiot, and then declares from that position that anything I post is idiotic.​

Turtles all the way down...

 

[UltimateReality]

That's right, everybody has always existed.

No...they have not you ignorant cow. Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.

So now you are channeling Carl Sagan???

 

[UltimateReality]

Still waiting for that evidence that everybody has.

What Are We Made Of?
By Jonathan Atteberry, HowStuffWorks.com

Protons, Neutrons and Electrons Only Part of the Picture

What are we made of? The question has rankled scientists and philosophers for millennia, and even with the amazing progress made in fields like particle physics and astronomy, we are left with only a partial answer. We know, of course, that the visible world is composed of protons, neutrons and electrons that combine to form atoms of different elements, and we know those elements are the building blocks of the planets and stars that give rise to solar systems and galaxies.

What we didn't know until very recently, however, is that those protons, neutrons and electrons appear to form less than 5 percent of the universe, and questions remain about how these building blocks arose. If regular matter represents only a small slice of the universe, what is the rest of the universe made of?

Such questions prompted the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) beneath the border between France and Switzerland. As the world's largest particle accelerator, experts designed the LHC to recreate conditions that occurred shortly after the very foundation of universe itself. Here are a few of the mysteries scientists hope the LHC and other particle accelerators can shed light on.

What Are We Made Of? : Through The Wormhole : Science Channel

Yeah, how is the search for the "god particle" working out??

 

[HUGGY]

That's right, everybody has always existed.

No...they have not you ignorant cow. Even in the most technical sense the stuff WE are made of did not exist until stars started exploding in Super Novas scattering heavier newly formed elements thruout the universe.

So now you are channeling Carl Sagan???

You are just chock full of fantasy ideas eh Sport? Sorry ...I don't subscibe to ANY hocus pocus made up fairy tales. Why do guys like you give yourselves names with words like "reality" in them? Who do you think you are fooling? You can call youself anything you want but faith is a fantasy you happen to believe. Why the over reaching?

 

[UltimateReality]

Post the question. Link to it.

I have no illusions that this intellectually dishonest retard is any different than any other. He has no "stumpers" that are not based upon a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of evolutionary theory or scientific method, or BOTH. He'll refuse on some dumbass grounds, and then consider himself absolved of having to actually support his assertions with verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.​

Montrovant posted it directly above you. Since Darwinism is about gradual change over millions of years, my point was to go from a hairy, large brow-boned hominid to the modern form of homo sapien, the brow bone obviously had to shrink and body hair had to be lost. It is ridiculous to think that natural selection would weed these individuals out that had minor changes no other hominid would notice. The sarcasm is... would NS really eliminate what I call the "inbetweener", especially when he or she was in the early stages of being in between? Basically, logic has to throw Darwinism out because it just can't fit with the dating of the fossils we find and the lack of transitional fossils. What we find in nature is punctuated equilibrium. If we are to believe in evolutionary theory, we have to believe that massive structural changes happened to organisms in EXTREMELY short periods (in the big scheme of earth's history) and then just as quickly stopped happening. Homo Sapien appears on the scene suddenly. But where were his great, great grandparents to the nth power while they were transitioning from the ape like hominids evolutionists get all giddy about? Why is there so much evidence fossil evidence for Neandertal and Homo Sapien, but none of the transitional species that came from their common ancestor and why didn't the guy with a 1mm less brow bone and less hair survive when it would be preposterous to believe that nature, other hominids, or natural selection could tell them apart? If we are to believe evolutionary theory, what accelerated the changes needed to go from one very diverse species to another with no evidence of anything in between? If we follow Darwin's own writings, in light of this evidence, we have to throw out his theory because the gradual change doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the fossil record, and if we follow the hard line about random genetic mutations causing the species to have more "fitness" we can't logically explain the rapid change and abrupt stasis we find.

There it is, all in black and white, for you folks that totally missed the sarcastic simplified version. Doh!!!

Clearly you ask rhetorical questions (premised upon your-made-up-nonsense strawman version of evolutionary theory), but are you asking questions you actually expect answers for? If so, why don't you just level up and post them like an intellectually honest person?

Loki, here is what I have learned about you in the short time I have been posting here. First, you like to post up video's of a very "intelligent sounding" IGNORANT englishman who says a whole lot of nothing, makes circular arguments out of circular arguments, manufactures strawmen out of left over straws and then doesn't even bother to tear them down, says he is the know all on the theory of evolution, but never really tells us what it really is, if it is what Darwin laid out in the origin of the species or something else. He speaks in assumptive language (typical) as if he has all the secrets and knows everything there is to know. He spews a wild donkey guess on how the first cell formed, which is just speculation and not based in any science I know of. You sadly seem to think he knows something and proudly display his stupidity as if we can all learn some deeper meaning about so many of the problematic issues facing the TOE if we just watch him. So I wasted 10 minutes of my life watching a comepletely worthless video, which I promise you I will not do again.

Second, I have learned that you are an exquisite chess player. You will never allow yourself to get too many steps into an argument where you would have to admit you don't actually know the answer, or have to admit, yes, the theory of evolution has a ways to go to really explain that one. Nope, you just rest comfortably, thinking the TOE has everything figured out and there are no valid questions. All problems solved... nothing to see here. You remind me of alot of Christians that don't like to ask hard questions about the Old Testament. You live in your little comfortable mind, never wandering into a gray area that would show weakness in your belief. You absolutely flee from any topic where you might have to admit you just don't know or conveniently just ignore the hard questions. You are, in effect, your own version of a strawman. You've built yourself up in your mind and dad burn it you'll be damned if you let anyone actually back you into a corner where you have to admit TOE doesn't have ALL the answers. You are a sad, sad, little man.

You see, the simple response to the actual questions I asked (they were not rhetorical BTW) is "we simply don't have enough scientific evidence to give a definitive answer. Our theory has some holes in it but we are working on them.

The real information can be found for anyone who cares to read.

Modern evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference between the clowns on here and the REAL scientists is the REAL scientists willingness to say... "We think that is the way it happened." A doofus in this very thread used assumptive language and stated as fact that oxygen came from Cyanibacteria. The REAL scientist are careful to say, "we think the oxygen came from Cyanobacteria." Or one example cited in the Wiki article below, says "caused PROBABLY by".

"Our understanding of the evolution of the Earth's atmosphere has progressed. The substitution of oxygen for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which occurred in the Proterozoic, caused probably by cyanobacteria in the form of stromatolites, caused changes leading to the evolution of aerobic organisms.[32][33]"

You see your precious theory doesn't have it all figured out. Darwin is being proven wrong everyday.

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually NONEXISTENT in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."

"Mayr later complimented Eldredge and Gould's paper, stating that evolutionary stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists" and that punctuated equilibrium "had a major impact on paleontology and evolutionary biology."[7]"

You see, whether or not you peeps on here want to admit it, there are still some HUGE hurdles for Darwinists to match their theories to the ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE presented in the fossil record. You guys can pretend all you want in this thread but you don't really have to go to far to get the real story (not like Wiki should be entirely trusted but humor me here)

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much speculation has been devoted to the issue:

"Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain the putative causes of stasis. Gould was initially attracted to I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis. However this hypothesis was rejected over time,[22] as evidence accumulated against it.[23] Other plausible mechanisms which have been suggested include: habitat tracking,[24][25] stabilizing selection,[26] the Stenseth-Maynard Smith stability hypothesis,[27] constraints imposed by the nature of subdivided populations,[26] and normalizing clade selection.[28]"

"The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.[62][63] When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influences of catastrophism and progressive creationism, which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay, "Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."[64]"

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."[38] Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years.[39]"

Even your high priest has some things to say about it which contradict the actual scientists:

"Richard Dawkins believes that the apparent gaps represented in the fossil record document migratory events rather than evolutionary events. According to Dawkins, evolution certainly occurred but "probably gradually" elsewhere.[51] However, the punctuational equilibrium model may still be inferred from both the observance of stasis and documented examples of rapid and episodic speciation events documented in the fossil record.[52]"

My point is, what you have is a bunch of atheists presented with a total lack of HARD EVIDENCE in the fossil record, waving their hands about and saying, "Well maybe this is what happened. Or maybe it happened that way".

I wouldn't actually call this a solid theory that you materialists disciples seem so much more convinced of than the actual qualified people doing the science.

Oh and YES!!! I cut and pasted from Wiki!!! How 'bout one of them there Alligator awards???