Creationists

[ima]

UR, so what if science keeps changing their minds about things, at least they're looking for the truth, you're just sitting back on your simpleton couch repeating how your invisible god made everything because the universe is too complex for you to wrap your rigid mind around.
What IDers do is ASSUME, with no proof, that there's a god who made all of this. Do you also think that the earth is flat?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh boy let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

Kenneth Feder is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning....

What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.

This reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation

And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.

To deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)

You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity.

You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces complex, specifiable digital code.

I would be willing to bet their credentials are superior to the ones that are critical of their background not only are they attacking their background they are attacking the other textbooks that say the same thing about the 3 minute mark of reaching nuclei.

 

[ima]

UR: "And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents."

So because we figured something out, we are gods? Bra, you make no sense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're trying so hard to slam me, you are not even paying attention, and shoving your foot in your mouth.

For the purposes of this discussion, relativity is not involved, since light is simply being used as a rate (C) as it applies to the light-year, or the distance light travels in a year. No relativistic effects are involved in this discussion, so there is no application of the theory of relativity here. This is very simple arithmetic.

Game. Set. Match. Stick to your own debates. You only make a fool of yourself when you are obviously trying so hard just to "pwn" an atheist.

Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvZfx7iwq94&feature=player_embedded]Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube[/ame]

Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.

None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.

I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.

The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.

TO LONESTAR: Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.

Yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.

You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[newpolitics]

Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube

Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.

None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.

I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.

The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.

TO LONESTAR: Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.

Yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.

You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.

Could you be a little more specific? How do you account for starlight at night? I am not trying to attack your beliefs. I am curious as to how you explain this.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
If not at the beginning of life then when?

They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.

They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.

The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh boy let me educate you on this as well.


1st law of thermo dynamics.
The law of conservation of mass & energy: matter(energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

So I need to ask you where did the ENERGY come from ? where did the energy come from to power my laptop ? or the lights in my home ? or to spin this planet ? or to power the sun ? or move the stars throughout the universe ?

The big bang isn't a theory of absolute origins, YWC. You are just being silly now.

Human Antiquity an introduction to Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. Kenneth L. Fader and Michael Alan Park 2001 4th edition pages 44 & 45. Quote from the textbook.

"in the beginning all the energy was condensed into an inconceivably tiny speck the laws of Physics can't account for this"

Kenneth Feder is an archaeologist not a physicist and Michael Park is an anthropology professor. On top of the source not being written by experts in the field the quote is a partial sentence so I guarantee that if I were to track down that text book I would find it to be taken grossly out of context. This display of dishonesty is really testing my patience; a fair warning....

What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.

This reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation

And what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.

To deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)

You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity.

You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces complex, specifiable digital code.

Priceless,thank you for bringing tis to our attention now this is funny and something I didn't know.

 

[Hollie]

Only in the pseudo scientific world of evolutionary biology. In the observable sciences like physics where experiments can actually be done to test theories, something is always afoot that changes what we know about the universe...

"There is another issue too. Einstein introduced the speed of light as a mathematical constant, c. If neutrinos can indeed exceed the speed of light, then c loses its special status, giving rise to a host of other problems elsewhere in physics, where c has been used in calculations, such as the famous formula E=mc^2."

Why The Speed of Light Matters | Theory of Special Relativity & Faster Than the Speed of Light | Albert Einstein | LiveScience

Space-Time And The Speed Of Light | Einstein's Relativity - YouTube

Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.

None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.

I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.

The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.

TO LONESTAR: Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.

Yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.

You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.

That's an odd claim coming from a religious zealot who can offer no better evidence for his gods than the Greeks could offer for theirs.

 

[Hollie]

These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
If not at the beginning of life then when?

They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.

They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.

The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.

If you choose to educate yourself with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

 

[Youwerecreated]

Cool video, thanks, but I'm not sure why posted it. You seem bent on following this crazy path your on.

None of the math involved in my argument has to do with relativity. Just because you are using "c" doesn't automatically mean you must consider relativistic effects, since we are not using any speeds lower than c in the math, and we are only considering the travel of the light itself over distance, not a subjective observer. It is very simple. I feel sorry for you now, so I am going to try to explain this very clearly.

I asked YWC how he could justify belief in a 6,000 year old universe when anyone can demonstrate his beliefs to be false by simply looking up at the night sky. The light from any star over 10,000 light years away would falsify the idea that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. I was genuinely curious to hear his response, but then I got the retard brigade on my ass, headed by Lonestar, who started telling me that a light-year was a distance... no shit. Now, here we are with you telling me I need relativity. Is this a joke you guys are playing on me? You can't all be this unable to comprehend written word and follow ideas logically.

The only thing that needs to be established is that there is, for example, light from a star that is 10 Billion light years away. What this means is that, that light left that object 10 billion years ago, meaning the universe has been around for at least that time, falsifying any notions of a young earth.

TO LONESTAR: Yes, a light-year is a distance, but it also gives you time when we are talking about anything traveling at the speed of light. If an object is ten light-years away, that means, NECESSARILY, the light take ten years to travel that distance. This is definitional. Therefore, if we are seeing the light from objects that are billions of light-years away, then the universe must be at least billions of years old for that light to have existed.

Yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.

You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.

Could you be a little more specific? How do you account for starlight at night? I am not trying to attack your beliefs. I am curious as to how you explain this.

your figures are based on the stars coming from the same position of where the supposed big bang took place and the speed of objects remained constant.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
If not at the beginning of life then when?

They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.

They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.

The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.

If you choose to educate yourself with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is assumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

 

[ima]

These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
If not at the beginning of life then when?

They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.

They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.

The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.

If you choose to educate yourself with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

 

[Gadawg73]

God, that looks like us, sits on a gold throne and creates everything.
If there was anything that ever qualified as "flawed" scientifically the above claim would be.
That one is #1 flawed argument.

 

[Hollie]

These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
If not at the beginning of life then when?

They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.

They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.

The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.

If you choose to educate yourself with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is assumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

I understand that you're in denial of demonstrable science and you can continue to deny in favor of supernaturalism but your argument is just more creationist babble.

Which of the gods came first in the hierarchy of gods, super-gods, etc. which were the designer gods of your gods?

 

[newpolitics]

These idiots support evolutionary theory but cannot say at what point evolution began.
If not at the beginning of life then when?

They want us to believe that "light year" is a measurement of time.
Sane people know it's a measurement of distance.

They claim that with all it's flaws dating methods are accurate.

The fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do. They assume the rate of decay has been constant thoughout its entire geological history. An impossible assumption because they were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

Nobody wants you to believe a light-year is a measurement of time. A light-year is a distance measurement, but for anything travelling at light speed, we can easily deduce the amount of time it will take to travel that distance. Hence, you can get a time measurement. Get it? I doubt it, but it was worth a try. You'll probably come back with another inane response that completely ignores this.

By definition, light travelling between two points that are X light-years apart, will take X years to make that trip. Substitute any value you like for X. For example, (for the third time), if a star is 13 billion light-years away, we know, definitionally, that the light took 13 billion years to travel to us. This is EVIDENCE that the universe is AT LEAST 13 billion years old. Unless, you're willing to use the creationist claim (Kent Hovind) that light has "gotten" tired and slowed down since "creation" 6,000 years ago.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Unfortunately, the creationist ministries make every effort to keep their adherents ignorant and uninformed.

If you choose to educate yourself with one knowledgeable about dating methods not corrupted by creationist misinformation, here's a good start:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

 

[newpolitics]

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

Nice dodge. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia has been shown to be as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica, so you can stop whining about how it lacks credibility.

Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News

And once again, you misrepresent the positions of people here. You are impossible to debate because you can't even pay attention. You just make things up as you go along.
This is called being intellectually dishonest. Might want to work on that. Nowhere did he "contradict their sentiment." Abiogenesis would have produced the first self-replicating primitive cells, and these cells would still have existed within the "primordial soup" for an incredible amount of time- one billion years, before even becoming multi-cellular eukaryotes. Therefore, evolution would have begun directly after abiogenesis successfully produced the first self-replicating cell, while still in these tidal pools.

 

[Hollie]

You can post the same link a thousand times it doesn't prove anything other than you are incapable of providing your own argument.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed for the very reasons I've given. The rate of decay is asumed.

Fact: You are unable or unwilling to say when evolution began.

Fact: You are unable to answer basic questions like which came first? Male or female? And at what point did evolution decide to start using seeds in reproduction? Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?

Evolution started in earth's early primordial soup, as it were.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

As for radioactive decay Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hopefully, it's not too complicated for you.

Fact, just because you don't know ALL the answers doesn't mean that some invisible dude made it.

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

There is no evidence that your particular gawds or anyone else's gawds were involved.

The fact is, a still young science is showing that gawds are simply not a requirement for existence. You fail to understand that your gawds are simply the more recent configuration of earlier supernatural entities that have been abandoned due to humanity shedding the fear and superstition you choose to embrace. Your gawds are little more than a consolidation of earlier Greek gawds. For conveniences' sake, many gawds have been relegated to inconsequential tasks or have been fired for being obsolete. We now have only a few gawds who themselves have been relegated to menial tasks as knowledge and enlightenment has reduced their workload and relevance.

 

[newpolitics]

Yeah you can prove my beliefs wrong if you use circular reasoning and other theories that are not based in fact.

You were using a theory to prove a point a theory thats credibility can't stand up to scrutiny.

Could you be a little more specific? How do you account for starlight at night? I am not trying to attack your beliefs. I am curious as to how you explain this.

your figures are based on the stars coming from the same position of where the supposed big bang took place and the speed of objects remained constant.

"The same position of where the big bang took place"? This is logically incoherent and has nothing to do with our discussion. Everywhere, is where the big bang took place. The universe has expanded from a single point. There is not a distinct point in our universe where the big bang happened, because at one point, it was the entire universe. Secondly, this has NOTHING to do with light traveling from distances greater than would be possible if the earth were only 6,000-10,000 years old. All you need is a start that is farther than 10,000 light years away to disprove young earth creationism and a literal translation of the bible. We could point to any star over 10,000 light years away, of which there are hundreds of billions in the galaxy.

You make a vague assertion that the speed of "objects" has not remained constant, yet you provide no evidence for this. You are dishonestly simply trying to inject doubt without cause. First of all, light is not an "object." It displays a particle/wave duality, but this is irrelevant as far as its speed, since it sets the cosmic speed limit, and because photons have no mass.

Lastly, you are actually asserting that the relative and actual strengths of the four fundamental forces have changed over time. You assert that the speed of light has changed, therefore you are saying the strength of the electro-magnetic force has changed, yet you offer no explanation as to how this is possible, or why. You simply assert it.
You assert that decay in carbon atoms have changed over time, making radiometric dating impossible, which is to say, that the weak nuclear force has changed over time. Yet, again, you offer no explanation of this. You simply posit it as a possibility, and consider this a refutation.

No creationists own up to their own burden of proof they put on themselves when they make these bald assertions. They simply posit and run.

 

[newpolitics]

What? Is this a threat? I really love it when evolutionists point to authors and try to discredit them on the basis they are outside of the field. This must come from a complete and utter ignorance that their own high priest of their materialistic religion, Charles Darwin, had no formal training in biology. His bachelor's degree was in Theology of all things!!! And he studied Geology on his 5 year voyage. So you see, his whole theory is a sham because it was based on principles outside his field.

This is not the same thing, and you are committing a logical fallacy in drawing an analogy to Darwin. Darwin's theory, the Theory of Evolution is completely separate from who Darwin was and what he believed. The theory itself stands or falls on its own merits, not on what Darwin thought about X, Y, and Z, including the theory itself, or god (he was a devout christian, by the way, and got ridiculed for it while on the ship, and which is why he delayed publication of "Origin of Species" for 30 years). The theory has nothing to do with Darwin, in terms of its efficacy and ability to explain our universe. This goes for any person who makes a theory. As for these two other authors, they are not creating a new theory. They are offering educational material, in which case, credentials matter, because credibility matters.

reminded me of another point from Meyer's book that NP just can't seem to logically grasp. And that is, the title of Lyell's book that Darwin read while on the HMS Beagle... Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation

...okay. It's not that I can't seem to logically grasp Meyers. I've listened to the arguments from IDers including Meyer's and Behe, and none of them are logically valid and sound. No matter how much scientific understanding they have of the workings of the cell, their conclusions are based on arguments from ignorance and inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning.

what "cause" do we see now in operation for digital code? The cause is us, intelligent agents. We find no other cause NOW in operation that can produce functional, specifiable, digital code. We draw the distinction to complex and specifiable. This has a component of Shannon information with the added specificity of performing a function, i.e., building complex proteins with precise folding mechanisms. We also find that the very instructions to copy and reproduce the code are contained within the code itself. This enigma so far has been unexplained by naturalistic processes... they don't even come close. Ahhh, but former changes can be explained by the single cause now in operation. This is precisely the scientific method Darwin used being used by Meyer, and it is perfectly scientifically legit, whether or not NP's faith in his materialism will let him believe it or not.

You're assessment of what DNA is, being complex, specifiable, and "digital," is not evidence of a creator. You validated my assertion here, even after you denied it and told me I knew nothing about ID, that you are using pure inductive reasoning to reach your conclusions. You try to use all of these concepts, such as this information being "shannon information," as if this somehow vindicates this use of pure induction, and trying to re-package it as if it were deductive. What difference does it make that this information is specifiable, digital, complex, and shannon information? NONE! IDers are leading the evidence to a creator, not following the evidence to where it leads. If this is where the evidence led, then all scientists would see this. I am sure you explain this away by saying scientists are operating under the presuppositions of metaphysical naturalism.

deny this you must deny DNA is digital (which it has already be proven it is, even to the point that some Harvard students are using it as an incredibly compact storange medium for data.)

Who cares if DNA is digital? First of all, it isn't, because quite simply, digital code uses a sequence of zeros and ones, which each correspond respectively, to "no" and "yes" and are used to answer "questions" by the programs in the computer. This is not how DNA works, and the language is obviously not the same. Funny that those at harvard don't mention a creator:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv4XJHT2J7w]Is DNA the future of large scale digital storage Channel 4 News - YouTube[/ame]

You must deny the 4 nucleobases do not have any special affinity for their binding sites, i.e., there is equal chance for them to attach to the sugar and phosphate backbone. This fact eliminates the origin of the protein building information occurring by necessity.

This is a complete non-sequitur, and you are attacking straw-men. There isn't equal chance for them to attach to the bases. If there were, we wouldn't be here, because DNA wouldn't work. It relies on chemistry to work, where certain chemicals only "fit" with others, like a key in a lock. We see this fact of chemistry being taken advantage of all over cell anatomy. I don't see how this demonstrates god, at all.

You must find another cause now in operation, exclusive of an intelligent agent, that produces complex, specifiable digital code.

No, we don't at all. This is where you are completely wrong. Who made this standard that you are producing, that we MUST find another cause now in operation, that can produce "complex, specifiable DIGITAL CODE" and to satisify who? Creationists? Yeah, those who aren't so consumed with denying evolution and metaphysical naturalism don't have to worry about complying with such standards. The only thing we have to find is the truth, here, in this universe.