Creationists

[Hollie]

Well lets see you put a thought together of your own concerning the questions you were asked. You are gonna have to do it on your own because science has no explanation for it.

And what questions were those?

All the questions you have ignored since you entered this thread.

You're being intentionally evasive because we both know you're being dishonest.

You have embraced the tactics of your masters at the creationist ministries.

 

[daws101]

For the YEC'ers, Flat Earth types who have chosen to remain ignorant of the science facts surrounding evolution, it should br pointed out that in spite of the religious claims to the contrary, there is no doubt that science proves the theories of evolution.


Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exactmechanism of evolution; there are severaltheories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. [This trick has been used by darwinists ad nauseum, but I guess they still think their trick of trying to mention evolution in the same context with real science will give it some much needed credibility. Evolutionary theory is a joke compared to the law of gravity, yet evolutionists think that by comparing the two, no one will notice one is actually based on the scientific method and the other nice stores, aka, pseudoscience. ]

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

If we have no practical way to sum up and assess the fitness or adaptive value of the traits of an organism apart from measurements of survival rates (evolutionary success), then on what basis can we use the idea of survival of the fittest (natural selection) to explain evolutionary success — as opposed to using it merely as a blank check for freely inventing explanations of the sort commonly derided as “just-so stories?

More than a decade later, Beatty remarked that “the precise meaning of ‘fitness’ has yet to be settled, in spite of the fact — or perhaps because of the fact — that the term is so central to evolutionary thought.”[29] This is, if anything, even more emphatically true today. The concept remains troubled, as it has been from the very beginning, with little agreement on how to make it a workable part of evolutionary theory.

Not only do we have great difficulty locating meaningless chance in the context of the actual life of organisms; it now turns out that the one outcome with respect to which randomness of mutation is supposed to obtain — namely, the organism’s fitness — cannot be given any definite or agreed-upon meaning, let alone one that is testable. How then did anyone ever arrive at the conclusion that mutations are random in relation to fitness? There certainly has never been any empirical demonstration of the conclusion, and it is difficult even to conceive the possibility of such a demonstration.

In any case, it is startling to realize that the entire brief for demoting human beings, and organisms in general, to meaningless scraps of molecular machinery — a demotion that fuels the long-running science-religion wars and that, as “shocking” revelation, supposedly stands on a par with Copernicus’s heliocentric proposal — rests on the vague conjunction of two scarcely creditable concepts: the randomness of mutations and the fitness of organisms. And, strangely, this shocking revelation has been sold to us in the context of a descriptive biological literature that, from the molecular level on up, remains almost nothing but a documentation of the meaningfully organized, goal-directed stories of living creatures.

Hawly, this is the part where you don't respond to this argument on fitness, but go on about the ICR and how we fundies are so desparate.

creation wiki!

 

[daws101]

Your sources are not worried about it, There is a math formula that say's they should be.

Quit trying to regurgitate NP no answer. Then explain the conditions they were found in that made it possible for these things to not be degraded in that length of time ?

a formula based on what?
NP'S ANSWER WAS THE CORRECT ONE ! as always your bigotry precludes any answer except your own.

ever heard of micro climate? that's the best explaintion I can give
it's preserved "iceman" for better than 3000 years.

We are talking 68 million years not 3,000 years that which is within the biblical time line.

no we're not you are trying to bullshit your way out of my question"a formula based on what? "
as to the rest there is no provable biblical time line
Icemans culture had bronze tools

From around 9000 BC, people in different lands began to work with nuggets of soft metals, such as copper. Later, they discovered how to extract metals, such as tin, from rocks by smelting (heating). Finally, they discovered how to melt metals together to make new materials called alloys, such as bronze.

Table 41. SOME OF THE FIRST METALWORKERS

9000 BC Hammered copper, Central Asia
5000 BC Gold/copper, Europe
4000 BC Bronze, Middle East
2300 BC Bronze, Europe
1500 BC Iron, western Asia
1000 BC Iron, Europe



Read more: FIRST METALWORKERS — Infoplease.com FIRST METALWORKERS — Infoplease.com
once again you are full of shit.
also there is no reason a micro climate inside a buried dinosaur could not last millions of years if not disturbed.

 

[daws101]

She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.

misquoting again!
she said (not "admitted" you stupid fuck) that they find none because other palentolgist were not looking in the right way...
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
there is no should in science just is or is not...should infers intent and there is none.

In what you just posted genius,she admits no one would think these blood cells could survive millions of years. The text books say the say the same thing.

Let me show you circular reasoning at it's finest. She automatically concluded the textbooks were wrong. They can survive millions of years .She based that off because the dating of the dinosaur.

That dinosaur is not as old as the dating method claims that is actually why they are still there. If you cut off oxygen they would deteriorate over time. Not near the time she is claiming. If the dead carcass is exposed to oxygen after the organism dies it wil also deteriorate. Dead carcasses are exposed to oxygen because rocks and debris which surround the carcass contain oxygen.

No way no how these bloodcells could have survived 68 million years.

another baseless claim !

 

[daws101]

She admitted the blood cells should not be able to be detected.

What a shame that you're reduced to inventing lies to promote an utterly absurd claim.

Your behavior typifies so much of the frantic, christian fundamentalist agenda. Honesty and integrity is thown out the window in pursuit of pressing a Dark Ages mentality.

You and Daws both possess reading comp problems.

place irony here. how many times do you need to be busted for intentional misinterpretation bvefore you see your problem?
maybe I've given you too much credit for being a manipulating fuck.

 

[daws101]

I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.

pulling up your skirts and running away!

 

[UltimateReality]

I already addressed this, my gawds fearing little xtian.

Here's something for you to consider: It is not only in Christiaity that gawds evolved, gawds are in a constant state of evolution as theological thinking changes throughout the centuries.

Praise Jay-zus. Evilution is born anew.

Nice try. You NEVER addressed this, unless you consider cutting and pasting totally irrelevant evo fundie propaganda. So predictable. How about some thoughts of your own?

It certainly was addressed.

It's not surprising that you're unable to confront the fact of evolution and an ancient universe. While both these elements you find revolting as they destroy the credibility of your religious ideology, you need to let go of the fear and superstition that keeps you chained to ignorance.

Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...

 

[UltimateReality]

And what questions were those?

All the questions you have ignored since you entered this thread.

You're being intentionally evasive because we both know you're being dishonest.

You have embraced the tactics of your masters at the creationist ministries.

You're insane. Are you locked up somewhere in a mental institution with the internet as your only outlet to pass the time? Is that why you respond so quickly and make absolutely no sense?

 

[UltimateReality]

I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.

pulling up your skirts and running away!

Are you referring to Hawly again? Have we figured out if its skirts or pants for him/her?

"Extraordinary ignorance requires extraordinary patience [on ywc's part]". CARL SHENANIGAN

 

[Hollie]

Nice try. You NEVER addressed this, unless you consider cutting and pasting totally irrelevant evo fundie propaganda. So predictable. How about some thoughts of your own?

It certainly was addressed.

It's not surprising that you're unable to confront the fact of evolution and an ancient universe. While both these elements you find revolting as they destroy the credibility of your religious ideology, you need to let go of the fear and superstition that keeps you chained to ignorance.

Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...

Fundie creationist, with no respect intended, you are just stupid.

How many times do we need to read of your slathering apologetics for the YEC / Flat Earth groupies?

 

[Hollie]

I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.

pulling up your skirts and running away!

Are you referring to Hawly again? Have we figured out if its skirts or pants for him/her?

"Extraordinary ignorance requires extraordinary patience [on ywc's part]". CARL SHENANIGAN

More of your typical 12 year old antics.

You're unable to address the comments directed toward you so you're only avenue left is to spam with your typically nonsensical rubbish.

 

[daws101]

I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.

pulling up your skirts and running away!

Are you referring to Hawly again? Have we figured out if its skirts or pants for him/her?

"Extraordinary ignorance requires extraordinary patience [on ywc's part]". CARL SHENANIGAN

ahhh the Junior high wit just flows out of you.. what next you gonna snap your jock?

 

[daws101]

Nice try. You NEVER addressed this, unless you consider cutting and pasting totally irrelevant evo fundie propaganda. So predictable. How about some thoughts of your own?

It certainly was addressed.

It's not surprising that you're unable to confront the fact of evolution and an ancient universe. While both these elements you find revolting as they destroy the credibility of your religious ideology, you need to let go of the fear and superstition that keeps you chained to ignorance.

Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...

the only difference between you and yWC's lies is about 13billion years.

 

[Hollie]

All the questions you have ignored since you entered this thread.

You're being intentionally evasive because we both know you're being dishonest.

You have embraced the tactics of your masters at the creationist ministries.

You're insane. Are you locked up somewhere in a mental institution with the internet as your only outlet to pass the time? Is that why you respond so quickly and make absolutely no sense?

It is a shame that the entirety of your posting involves a really creepy preoccupation with me.

You're like a 12 year old girl discovering her sexuality is focused toward the same sex and its causing you terrible confusion.

 

[UltimateReality]

pulling up your skirts and running away!

Are you referring to Hawly again? Have we figured out if its skirts or pants for him/her?

"Extraordinary ignorance requires extraordinary patience [on ywc's part]". CARL SHENANIGAN

More of your typical 12 year old antics.

As predicted in post 7187 above. You need some new material.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're being intentionally evasive because we both know you're being dishonest.

You have embraced the tactics of your masters at the creationist ministries.

You're insane. Are you locked up somewhere in a mental institution with the internet as your only outlet to pass the time? Is that why you respond so quickly and make absolutely no sense?

It is a shame that the entirety of your posting involves a really creepy preoccupation with me.

You're like a 12 year old girl discovering her sexuality is focused toward the same sex and its causing you terrible confusion.

You couldn't respond to an argument if your life depended on it.

 

[Hollie]

You're insane. Are you locked up somewhere in a mental institution with the internet as your only outlet to pass the time? Is that why you respond so quickly and make absolutely no sense?

It is a shame that the entirety of your posting involves a really creepy preoccupation with me.

You're like a 12 year old girl discovering her sexuality is focused toward the same sex and its causing you terrible confusion.

You couldn't respond to an argument if your life depended on it.

That's a strange comment because you have hoisted up your skirt and run from the argument when I presented you facts that dismantle your silly clams to gawds.

 

[UltimateReality]

It is a shame that the entirety of your posting involves a really creepy preoccupation with me.

You're like a 12 year old girl discovering her sexuality is focused toward the same sex and its causing you terrible confusion.

You couldn't respond to an argument if your life depended on it.

That's a strange comment because you have hoisted up your skirt and run from the argument when I presented you facts that dismantle your silly clams to gawds.

Hawly, now you are quoting Daws??? Are you guys one and the same?

 

[UltimateReality]

The strongest argument for intelligent design is to clearly state the alternative view, which is that physics explains all of chemistry (probably true), chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus, physics alone explains the human mind and all it does. The following fictional thought experiment is designed to help those who dismiss intelligent design as unscientific, to think about what it is they really believe.

In a 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article, I speculated on what would happen if we constructed a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational and electromagnetic forces and the strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet. If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, I asked, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards?

A friend read my article and said, computers have advanced a lot in the last seven years, I think we could actually try such a simulation on my new laptop now. So I wrote the program -- in Fortran, naturally -- and we tried it. It took several hours, and at the end of the simulation we dumped the final coordinates of all the particles into a rather large data file, then ran MATLAB to plot them. Some interesting things had happened, a few mountains and valleys and volcanoes had formed, but no computers, no encyclopedias, and no cars or trucks. My friend said, let me see your program. After examining it, he exclaimed, no wonder, you treated the Earth as a closed system, order can't increase in a closed system. The Earth is an open system, you need to take into account the effect of the sun's energy. So I modified the boundary conditions to simulate the effect of the entering solar radiation, and reran it. This time some clouds and rivers had formed, but otherwise Earth still looked a lot like the other planets, and still no libraries or computers or airplanes.

My imaginary friend looked more carefully at the program, and said, good grief, you are using classical physics, you can't simulate the effects of the four forces without quantum mechanics. He explained that according to quantum mechanics, the exact effects of these forces on any particular particle are impossible to predict with certainty, the new laws only provide the probabilities. I said, you mean there is a supernatural force at work here? He said, well, technically, yes, if you define the supernatural to be that which is forever beyond the ability of science to predict or explain -- British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington said quantum mechanics "leaves us with no clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural." But there is no reason to doubt that this so-called "supernatural" effect is completely random, you can simulate it using a random number generator. So I completely re-wrote my simulator, I used an IMSL random number generator with a user-supplied probability distribution to simulate this randomness, and computed the required probability distributions by solving the Schrodinger equations with my own partial differential equation solver, PDE2D. Still no luck -- no space ships, no TV sets, no encyclopedias, not even a cheap novel.

My friend looked at the new graphs and tried to mask his disappointment. Well, he said, of course the problem is you haven't taken into account the one natural force in the universe which can violate the second law of thermodynamics and create order out of disorder -- natural selection. You mean there is a fifth force -- why didn't you say so? Just give me the equations for this force and I will add it to my model. He said, I can't give you the equations, because it isn't actually a physical force, it doesn't actually move particles. So what does it do, I asked. He explained that one day a long time ago, by pure chance, a collection of atoms formed that was able to duplicate itself, and these complex collections of atoms were able to pass their complex structures on to their descendants generation after generation, even correcting errors. He went on to talk about how genetic accidents and survival of the fittest produced even more complex collections of atoms, and how something called "intelligence" allowed some of these collections of atoms to design computers and laser printers and the Internet. But when he finished, I still didn't know how to incorporate natural selection -- or intelligence -- into my model, so I never did get the simulation to work. I decided the model was still missing a force or two -- or a smarter random number generator.

Intelligent Design: Consider the Alternative - Evolution News & Views

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html

 

[UltimateReality]

If a billion engineers were to type at the rate of one random character per second, there is virtually no chance that any one of them would, given the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth to work on it, accidentally duplicate a given 20-character improvement. Thus our engineer cannot count on making any major improvements through chance alone. But could he not perhaps make progress through the accumulation of very small improvements? The Darwinist would presumably say, yes, but to anyone who has had minimal programming experience this idea is equally implausible. Major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself. Even the smallest improvements usually require adding several new lines. It is conceivable that a programmer unable to look ahead more than 5 or 6 characters at a time might be able to make some very slight improvements to a computer program, but it is inconceivable that he could design anything sophisticated without the ability to plan far ahead and to guide his changes toward that plan.

Whether at the microscopic or macroscopic level, major, complex, evolutionary advances, involving new features (as opposed to minor, quantitative changes such as an increase in the length of the giraffe's neck1, or the darkening of the wings of a moth, which clearly could occur gradually) also involve the addition of many interrelated and interdependent pieces. These complex advances, like those made to computer programs, are not always "irreducibly complex"--sometimes there are intermediate useful stages. But just as major improvements to a computer program cannot be made 5 or 6 characters at a time, certainly no major evolutionary advance is reducible to a chain of tiny improvements, each small enough to be bridged by a single random mutation.