The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now a cat evolving into a dog would certainly prove evolution, even to JC and me.

Well look at the fossil record. It is all there. The fossil record are snapshots of these changes taking place over millions of years.

We can't sit around watching the accumulation of mutataions. We can look back at the fossil record and see them.

Of course you have to accept the fossil record is this, which you have already closed your mind to, so I'm probably talking to the wall here. But this is what you see in the fossil record, you see the intermediate forms that Creationists lie about by saying they don't exist.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If that is proof of goo-to-you evolution, then I see why you as so convinced. :pac:

It is evidence of evolution producing accumulation of changes large enough to cause speciation, and really once you have that you don't need anything else. These mutations repeated over billions of years will produce "goo-to-you".

That is what is predicted and that is what the fossil record shows.

Of course you refuse to accept any of that because of your religious beliefs. If you have closed your mind there is very little I can do to open it. That is up to you.

The only thing lacking here is any evidence from Creationists that this process some how stops at certain points for some unknown supernatural reason.

Morbert

.

wolfsbane wrote: »

This is an example of why I don't take dismissals and accusations of lying against creationist scientists seriously. Each time I follow-up on the accusations, the rock-solid assertions disappear in a flurry of 'snow'.

I was assured that there were many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" and the top creationists know this, they have been presented with the evidence.

Now you assure me there are none, because it is irrelevant to evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
Put simply wolfsbane, that's because you are expecting rebuttals to questions asked by people who do not understand evolution. Someone trying to defend gravity will not be able to provide evidence of proteins spontaneously forming either but that's because no one has ever claimed that gravity causes proteins to spontaneously form and neither have any evolutionists.

I don't doubt your sincerity for a minute but the top creationists could not but be lying, We know of many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" and the top creationists know this, they have been presented with the evidence. They just keep saying they haven't so they can convince people like yourself.
OK, Sam and Wicknight, humour me on the lying issue. Show me the many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" which my linked article denied.
The gene pools of today carry vast quantities of information coding for the performance of projects and functions which do not exist in the theoretical ‘primeval cell’. Hence, in order to support protozoon-to-man evolution, one must be able to point to instances where mutation has added a new ‘sentence’ or gene coding for a new project or function. This is so regardless of one’s assumptions on the survival value of any project or function.

We do not know of a single mutation giving such an increase in functional complexity. Probabilistic considerations would seem to preclude this in any case, or at least make it an exceedingly rare event, far too rare to salvage evolution even over the assumed multibillion year time span.

Morbert (to JC) wrote:

And after doing a little searching, it seems that functional information is a valid term used by evolutionary biologists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16301205
http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...2007/404/tw340 [this link is broken for some reason]

However, it supports evolutionary biology, and is unrelated to what you and wolfsbane have been asserting

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Now a cat evolving into a dog would certainly prove evolution.

This would refute Darwinian evolution.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

We have in the Wood's case a more extreme case of creationists differing. But he is not denying YEC creationism. For evolutionists, the dispute over punctuated equilibrium was rather heated - though Gould was not denying evolution.

Certainly, nearly all evolutionists (I recall one or two being careful on the issue) give no ground to creationism as being even mistakenly scientific. Yet creationists are happy to acknowledge evolution is a mistaken scientific argument.

Why the difference? I suggest a few factors; bigotry against the God of the Bible, fear of the establishment, assumption that the great majority must be right.

Of course creationism is open to all sorts to claim it. Hovind is not part of the creationist movement I give any credibility to. I'm sure anyone can also set themselves up as defenders of evolution, and make an ass of themselves. In fact, I linked on such not long back. But I do not dismiss the evolutionary case on the activities of such eccentrics.

Science is not a conspiracy and scientists don't assume. They submit work, have it reviewed by their peers, criticised, improved, edited or thrown out as necessary. Creationists probably tried this at first but every time they've tried the scientific approach they've been humiliated so instead they try political wrangling to get their religious beliefs taught as science. There is no more a scientific conspiracy against creationism than there is against fortune tellers. It's simply nonsense and has been proven to be nonsense over and over again. They're not being "silenced", they're more than welcome to submit work for review but they don't because they don't have anything that hasn't been shot down a hundred times

wolfsbane wrote: »

This is an example of why I don't take dismissals and accusations of lying against creationist scientists seriously. Each time I follow-up on the accusations, the rock-solid assertions disappear in a flurry of 'snow'.

I was assured that there were many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" and the top creationists know this, they have been presented with the evidence.

Now you assure me there are none, because it is irrelevant to evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
Put simply wolfsbane, that's because you are expecting rebuttals to questions asked by people who do not understand evolution. Someone trying to defend gravity will not be able to provide evidence of proteins spontaneously forming either but that's because no one has ever claimed that gravity causes proteins to spontaneously form and neither have any evolutionists.

I don't doubt your sincerity for a minute but the top creationists could not but be lying, We know of many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" and the top creationists know this, they have been presented with the evidence. They just keep saying they haven't so they can convince people like yourself.
OK, Sam and Wicknight, humour me on the lying issue. Show me the many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" which my linked article denied.
The gene pools of today carry vast quantities of information coding for the performance of projects and functions which do not exist in the theoretical ‘primeval cell’. Hence, in order to support protozoon-to-man evolution, one must be able to point to instances where mutation has added a new ‘sentence’ or gene coding for a new project or function. This is so regardless of one’s assumptions on the survival value of any project or function.

We do not know of a single mutation giving such an increase in functional complexity. Probabilistic considerations would seem to preclude this in any case, or at least make it an exceedingly rare event, far too rare to salvage evolution even over the assumed multibillion year time span.

There are many examples of increases in functional complexity. There are two problems though. Firstly I'm not sure exactly what you mean and what, if anything, will be acceptable to you. You've already been shown e-coli developing the ability to metabolise citrus and you're still a creationist so such things aren't convincing to you

And secondly, the best evidence for such increases is in the fossil record and you don't accept that

monosharp

Alleged back up of many aspects, but not proof.

No, they are absolutely 100% proven aspects which you could prove yourself in your home with the right tools and know how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Abiogenenisis - The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time.

The definition was enough for me to make the obvious deduction of the absurdity of such a theory.

Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.

Oganic matter has been proven to be capable of forming from non-organic material.

A living organism has not been proven to form from non-organic material YET.

Hence my comment about the car sprouting a pair of wings and flying away? To be honest, I haven't studied it and doubt that I ever will.

So you will continue to believe your nonsensical rubbish without a single grain of evidence instead of keeping your mind open to what scientists are doing research into what COULD have happened.

The various theories of Abiogenesis PROPOSE that living organisms formed from non-living matter, No scientist says that life DID form this waybecause they have not proven it (yet).

This is what seperates science from creationist nonsense. Science requires proof, creationism requires an opinion.

Lets revisit the little mouse trap debunk for a second. How does reducing one or several elements and turning it into a device to launch a projectile wipe the floor with Behe.

Because Behe said that the mousetrap could not perform any function if any of its parts was missing. It could.

Miller has now given the trap an entirely different function.

Which is the whole point.

If you gave the flagellum a totally different function, that doesn't exactly help the E Coli bacteria.

The Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.

E Coli bacteria's ancestor might have had a system similar to this which evolved into the flagellum.

He needs to propel himself through his microscopic world for survival

He does, his ancestors did not

The flagellum has to remain a miniature outboard motor at all times, if not then the E Coli doesn't survive.

This shows comprehensively you don't understand evolution at all.

Simple Organism -> Tiny change -> Slightly more complicated organism.
E Coli ancestor with something similar to a type 3 secretary system -> Tiny Change multiplied by X (Very long time) -> Modern E Coli bacteria.

The E Coli NEEDS the flaggelum, the E Coli's ancestor DID not.

The E Coli's ancestor may have used something similar to the type 3 secretion system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three_secretion_system

I'm very happy you picked this example actually because E Coli are such a good example for evolution.

Please read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

almost like casting a grey cloud over the whole thing to trick us into believing something away from the fact that the purpose is for transportation.

The purpose NOW is transportation, the purpose has changed over time, that is the very basis of evolution.

What do you think your appendix is for ?

It never ceases to amaze me just how strongly creationists believe that something is true and something else is wrong yet they haven't got the slightest clue of EITHER side of the argument.

You don't understand evolution and you don't even understand Behe's argument.

You miss my point. Remember I don't believe in evolution like Miller and I do believe that God created each species individually. I have chosen to accept this as absolute truth.

You could choose to accept that we were created by a giant space banana and it would make no difference to what the truth actually is.

Evolution is a fact, either God used evolution, created evolution or God did nothing but evolution is a fact the same as gravity is a fact. Its absolutely irrefutable that evolution has occurred.

As much as you disagree with me, I am entitled to my opinion, the same way as you are entitled to yours.

This is not politics, this is not a social arena, this is not a theological debate. This is hard scientific fact. Opinions mean nothing without evidence.

This is another reason you can't seem to grasp this, you seem to think evolution is some kind of belief like a religion or a choice like a political party. Evolution is science, science is fact. You can have a difference of opinion on HOW something happens but unless you back up that opinion with facts and evidence then you will be ignored and rightly so.

This is because of my faith in the Genesis account of the Bible. This makes a whole lot more sense to me.

And again we're back to religious belief not fact. :pac:

As it has already been agreed upon - evolution does not disprove God.

Science makes no comment on the supernatural, it can't.

But if you want a Christian to believe in evolution, we have to call certain parts of God's word lies - and I will never be prepared to do that.

The vast majority of christians including the catholic church disagree with you and creationist nonsense.

Are they not christian ?

That would be denouncing my faith. That does not mean that I won't view your arguments objectionally and unbiasedly.

I know that and that is why creationism is so dangerous, it promotes ignorance because of ONE minority interpretation of a religious book.

Just common sense

So when god was creating organisms it makes more sense to you that he did them one by one instead of all at the same time because that seems to be the best way to do it ?

Fossils based on the interpretation of those who believe in the theory of evolution, but they are highly debateable and by no means proven.

99% of Scientists that have any connection to the study of fossil records agree that evolution is a fact and those fossils are supporting evidence.

Who exactly is 'debating' them on this ?

Even if the authorities and the secular scientific world say so, that doesn't change me or Creationists and Christians one iota. You challenge my basic human rights.

Yes I fully understand that you will not believe it because it disagrees with what you THINK is your religion. I know that if gravity disagreed with the Bible literally you would do the exact same thing.

A biological qualification is not necessary, just freedom of thought and speach. I don't abide by the dictatorship of modern science and the corrupt world system. Its people like me that the system wants to silence and supress. It's people like me that stand up and say that I refuse to be spoon fed and told what I must believe. I'm another human being just like you, and I'm definitely not stupid.

Thats the best joke we've had here in a few weeks at least.

Remeber thats only in your opinion mono.

No its a fact. The largest christian denomination if the world, the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution. The Anglican church has no problem with evolution. The majority of protestant churches in Europe and the US have no problem with evolution.

This are easily research statistics.

You know our communication has taken a big slide downhill. I think we would of gotten a lot further if we didn't sling the insults, regardless of how much we disagree. Nothing is ever achieved by such argument. It just breeds more and more animosity.

I'm not insulting you, your insulting yourself and your religion. Creationism is an embarrassment to christianity and Islam. The mainstream Christian churchs want nothing to do with this rubbish.

Turtwig

Thought I'd chuck this in here, seen that we're onto abiogenesis again...

We're related to a rock?:eek::D
Brilliant article

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

I'm sorry, but in no way does this refute irreducibly complexity to me.

It doesn't try to. Its a joke which I didn't think needed an explanation.

It says that if E Coli are designed then they were designed to kill us.

Now getting back to Miller's taking away of 40 of the 50 parts of the flagellum, I didn't hear his theory of what the function of the flagellum now is. The reason for that is that he couldn't give us one as it would be pure speculation. Hence he still hasn't overcome the major hurdle here. The taking away of parts has now changed the function to which he has no way of knowing what the hell it is, because he simply does not have the tools to perform the necessary surgical experiment at such a microscopic molecular level.

Anyone else laughing their asses off ? That has to be the best creationist comment I have heard since I joined this thread, its absolutely priceless. You couldn't make that up if you tried to.

This is why they believe their creationist rubbish. They think evolution works like some kind of lego playset where theres some invisible force randomly adding fully formed organs to see if they fit.

And the way to prove we evolved from simplier lifeforms is to randomly slice pieces off living organism to find out if they can survive.

I take it a creationist experiment to prove irreducible complexity of humans would involve removing a mans lungs and seeing if he could still breath.

AND REMEMBER THAT UNLESS THE FLAGELLUM MAINTAINS THE SAME FUNCTION (TO PROPEL THE BACTERIA), THEN HIS ALLEGED DEBUNKING OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY IS ABSOLUTELY FLAWED BECAUSE WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION IT DOESN'T SURVIVE.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION AND YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND BEHE'S ARGUMENT EITHER. PLEASE READ UP ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE POSTING NONSENSE HERE.

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.

This is Behe's argument.

The bacterial flagellum evolved from a simplier predecessor which had a different function. What don't you understand there ?

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

monosharp

J C wrote: »

monosharp
So JC will you please answer my question, are you an Intelligent Design supporter or not ? ... yes

So your an Evolutionist ?, according to your own words that is.

JC wrote:

In fact, the Intelligent Design Movement is a breakaway EVOLUTIONIST GROUP that is somewhere on the faith spectrum between atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists.

originally ALL Bcteria were good ... but then came the fall and death ... and some bacteria became pathogenic ... but even today many bacteria are in symbiotic relationships with us and STILL are 'good'!!!

And this ladies and gentlemen is why people laugh at creationists.

All bacteria used to be "good" but now some are apparently "evil". Such scientific terminology in use it boggles the mind.

For any lurkers out there, just spends a few minutes reading this pre-school infantile "babies come from storks" nonsense. Its better then anything anyone could make up.

Turtwig

monosharp wrote: »

I take it a creationist experiment to prove irreducible complexity of humans would involved removing a mans lungs and seeing if he could still breath. [/SIZE]

ROFLMAO..

Thanks a million for making my night monosharp:D

Sam Vimes

monosharp wrote: »

The purpose NOW is transportation, the purpose has changed over time, that is the very basis of evolution.

It was a good while before I even realised that when people were talking about irreducible complexity they were assuming that whatever they were talking about must maintain exactly the same function in exactly the same way as parts are removed because it shows such a fundamental understanding of the process of evolution.

people arguing for evolution generally take irreducible complexity to mean that if any part is removed the remaining parts cannot have any function because if that was true that would refute evolution and we go about proving things like the type 3 secretory system to show that parts of the bacterial flagellum can perform a function, not the function of the motor but a function nonetheless.

But it seems we've been giving the creationists too much credit. All they're saying is that if you remove a part from the basterial flagellum motor it can no longer perform the function of a bacterial flagellum motor, or in other cases that it can't perform the function to the same extent, eg an eye without a lens. Our response to that should simply be: "You're absolutely right but what's your point?" because the fact that an eye cannot function as well if missing some of its parts and the fact that the motor cannot function as a motor if missing some of its parts does not refute evolution

man of faith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It was a good while before I even realised that when people were talking about irreducible complexity they were assuming that whatever they were talking about must maintain exactly the same function in exactly the same way as parts are removed because it shows such a fundamental understanding of the process of evolution.

people arguing for evolution generally take irreducible complexity to mean that if any part is removed the remaining parts cannot have any function because if that was true that would refute evolution and we go about proving things like the type 3 secretory system to show that parts of the bacterial flagellum can perform a function, not the function of the motor but a function nonetheless.

But it seems we've been giving the creationists too much credit. All they're saying is that if you remove a part from the basterial flagellum motor it can no longer perform the function of a bacterial flagellum motor, or in other cases that it can't perform the function to the same extent, eg an eye without a lens. Our response to that should simply be: "You're absolutely right but what's your point?" because the fact that an eye cannot function as well if missing some of its parts and the fact that the motor cannot function as a motor if missing some of its parts does not refute evolution

Ok, so do you know of any bacteria fossil examples that can show reduced complexity of a flagellum?

I will make a concession here. If I were to engage in an in depth discussion about evolution with you and mono, I concede that you should absolutely beat me hands down. Due to the countless number of journals, peer review tests and research articles out there, your knowledge of it should be absolutely superior to mine. This doesn't make you smarter, just more knowledgable in it, as your entire belief system which you are passionate about is tied to its science. In many ways, you will have to educate me. However, on the same token, if you were to enter a discussion on Biblical truths with me, I should absolutely beat you hands down, as you have now stepped into my arena which is the very foundation of my belief system. In no way does it make me smarter, just more knowledgable on the subject.

And mono, from what I can gather about who you are, I can see how proud and arrogant a person you are. You are very knowledgable in evolution, as demonstrated by your responses, but your sense of intellectual superiority to people who you consider so stupid to believe in creation, is your greatest downfall. You are choosing a very dangerous road as you have now made yourself unteachable. You can't be taught, because your demi-god complex says that you already know it all. Pride always comes before a fall. If you have made yourself invinceable from reproof or correction, then you have made yourself a prime candidate for deception. The difference between you and me is that I do possess the humility to admit when I am wrong. You're horendously rude behaviour doesn't make people say 'Yeah you sure showed him'. It just makes people see your true colours and your anger inside, and only people with your ruthless nature would laugh and scoff along with you. You are a very cruel and insensitive human being, and an absolute disgrace. But I do forgive you, because it is the Christian way. My motivation here is to reach out to you people, because I so desperately don't want to see you go to that horrific place known as hell which The Bible talks about in length. God's love in me wants to reach out to you.

You can say I am an idiot for not accepting the alleged proven facts that you claim evolution to be. You can say this untill the cows come home and come up with all your debunks and refutes as much as you like, but I will point out the very root of my problem with it.
And here it is (leaving Christian beliefs aside):
When you estimate the age of our earth, you only have calculated guess and assumption. And as you evolutionists wil tell me - you have found fossils that are millions if not billions of years old and that this species evolved from x ancestor over x millions or billions of years. Sure you will use every piece of scientific evidence gathered from tree rings (dendrochronology), carbon and radiometric half life decay, but you still need to assume the elapsed time of the half life based on all the theories of dating. Now I know that you will vehemenantly refuse to accept what I have just stated, and that there are pages and pages of information that make claims of both its accuracy and inaccuracy. It is wide open for debate and assumption must be made due to the unknown factor of whether the atmosphere was a constant, or whether it was exposed to a volcano or intensified cosmic rays etc. etc. No way of knowing what the specimen being dated was exposed to and when, just guessing. So you can then deduce an age range of millions or even perhaps billions of years and be grossly incorrect. The perfect theory for evolution to fit nicely in to, as it is essential to have a very old earth for the theory to work. With any such calculation, you must allow for margin of error. This margin increases exponentially, the more your age calculations extends. The only real accurate dating method that can be relied upon according to my research is carbon dating as it has the youngest half life which we know to be 5730 years before the carbon 14 changes to nitrogen. There is still much calibration necessary (as I believe was proven with the dating of the Shroud of Turin). So how much more difficult will it be, when you are trying to calibrate radiometric isotopes with supposed much older half lives - a much higher degree of unknowns make it even harder to calibrate. So is evolution a proven fact? You already know my answer, I challenge you to question it too.

Apart from all of this, I have encountered supernatural occurrance which I have no other way of explaining, other that it must have been God. My whole family have been in a room where we all witnessed a demonic entity. My Father, a Christian pastor, commanded it to leave in the Name of Jesus Christ, and it disappeared right before mine and my whole families very eyes. I have witnessed supernatural healings and other events all in the name of Jesus Christ. Laugh, mock and scorn me as hard as you like calling me delusional and insane. I know full well what I saw. The truth will remain unchanged, irrespective of what you want it to be.

The Mad Hatter

Morbert wrote: »

This would refute Darwinian evolution.

I wonder how many times this needs to be pointed out before they realise that what they're arguing against isn't evolution.

Zombrex

man of faith wrote: »

When you estimate the age of our earth, you only have calculated guess and assumption.

The age of our Earth is not a calculated guess nor is it an assumption. It is a testable verified scientific measurement based on testable verified scientific theory. It may still be wrong, but the odds of that diminish each time the theory is tested and it's predictions are found to match observation.

It the age of the Earth is simply a calculated guess, then how your computer works (based on electromagnetic theory) is also a calculated guess. So is how your car works (chemical combustion).

Amazing that Dell could build something that works so well if they were just guessing the whole time about what would happen, isn't it :rolleyes:

man of faith wrote: »

Now I know that you will vehemenantly refuse to accept what I have just stated

That tends to happen when people state things that are wrong.

man of faith wrote: »

No way of knowing what the specimen being dated was exposed to and when, just guessing.

Man you must think scientists are dumb. And you were giving out about people taking the intellectual superior route with you? :rolleyes:

All dating methods are verified using other dating methods. If you date something 5 different ways and they all come up with the same answer odds are far more in favour that that is the age of the object than 5 independent dating methods just randomly gave exactly the same answer.

Then you do this a hundred thousand times with different objects and again these 5 or 10 or 15 methods all give similar dating, you know the system works. Why? Because if it didn't work they would not all be giving the same answer.

It is a pretty safe bet that if you think you have just discovered the fundamental flaw in science, you haven't. Scientists send all their time trying to test their theories.

man of faith wrote: »

So you can then deduce an age range of millions or even perhaps billions of years and be grossly incorrect.

Yes but you will know you are grossly incorrect. Again you must think scientists are really dumb. You think they dated something once and went "Great, that is that done! Time for the pub"

man of faith wrote: »

The only real accurate dating method that can be relied upon according to my research is carbon dating

I suggest you do more research

man of faith wrote: »

Apart from all of this, I have encountered supernatural occurrance which I have no other way of explaining, other that it must have been God.

What a bizarre statement. If you are happy to accept that these were supernatural occurrences then sure you can explain then with any explanation, since there are no rules to the supernatural. God could explain them, but he can't possibly be the only thing that can explain them.

What you probably mean is that God was the only supernatural explanation you considered.

man of faith wrote: »

My whole family have been in a room where we all witnessed a demonic entity. My Father, a Christian pastor, commanded it to leave in the Name of Jesus Christ, and it disappeared right before mine and my whole families very eyes.

And the only possible explanation you can come up with for that is the Christian God?

Really? You couldn't imagine any other supernatural explanation for that? At all?

man of faith wrote: »

I have witnessed supernatural healings and other events all in the name of Jesus Christ. Laugh, mock and scorn me as hard as you like calling me delusional and insane. I know full well what I saw.

So you know full well what you say, but hundreds of thousands of world class scientists are assuming too much about the age of the Earth ... ?

Morbert

man of faith wrote: »

You can say I am an idiot for not accepting the alleged proven facts that you claim evolution to be. You can say this untill the cows come home and come up with all your debunks and refutes as much as you like, but I will point out the very root of my problem with it.

And here it is (leaving Christian beliefs aside):
When you estimate the age of our earth, you only have calculated guess and assumption. And as you evolutionists wil tell me - you have found fossils that are millions if not billions of years old and that this species evolved from x ancestor over x millions or billions of years. Sure you will use every piece of scientific evidence gathered from tree rings (dendrochronology), carbon and radiometric half life decay, but you still need to assume the elapsed time of the half life based on all the theories of dating. Now I know that you will vehemenantly refuse to accept what I have just stated, and that there are pages and pages of information that make claims of both its accuracy and inaccuracy. It is wide open for debate and assumption must be made due to the unknown factor of whether the atmosphere was a constant, or whether it was exposed to a volcano or intensified cosmic rays etc. etc. No way of knowing what the specimen being dated was exposed to and when, just guessing. So you can then deduce an age range of millions or even perhaps billions of years and be grossly incorrect. The perfect theory for evolution to fit nicely in to, as it is essential to have a very old earth for the theory to work. With any such calculation, you must allow for margin of error. This margin increases exponentially, the more your age calculations extends. The only real accurate dating method that can be relied upon according to my research is carbon dating as it has the youngest half life which we know to be 5730 years before the carbon 14 changes to nitrogen. There is still much calibration necessary (as I believe was proven with the dating of the Shroud of Turin). So how much more difficult will it be, when you are trying to calibrate radiometric isotopes with supposed much older half lives - a much higher degree of unknowns make it even harder to calibrate. So is evolution a proven fact? You already know my answer, I challenge you to question it too.

There are multiple dating methods, some rely on radioactive decay, some don't. All of them support evolutionary biology. You seem to be asserting that this is all one big coincidence, and that they aren't really reliable. That is on par with asserting that the earth is only a week old, and our incorrect memories all just happen to be consistent.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

Ok, so do you know of any bacteria fossil examples that can show reduced complexity of a flagellum?

I don't have to show you a fossil, it exists today in the type 3 secretory system

man of faith wrote: »

if you were to enter a discussion on Biblical truths with me, I should absolutely beat you hands down,

As far as I'm concerned no such topic exists. You'd probably know more about the bible alright but that's not the same thing.

man of faith wrote: »

You can say I am an idiot for not accepting the alleged proven facts that you claim evolution to be. You can say this untill the cows come home and come up with all your debunks and refutes as much as you like, but I will point out the very root of my problem with it.
And here it is (leaving Christian beliefs aside):
When you estimate the age of our earth, you only have calculated guess and assumption. And as you evolutionists wil tell me - you have found fossils that are millions if not billions of years old and that this species evolved from x ancestor over x millions or billions of years. Sure you will use every piece of scientific evidence gathered from tree rings (dendrochronology), carbon and radiometric half life decay, but you still need to assume the elapsed time of the half life based on all the theories of dating. Now I know that you will vehemenantly refuse to accept what I have just stated, and that there are pages and pages of information that make claims of both its accuracy and inaccuracy. It is wide open for debate and assumption must be made due to the unknown factor of whether the atmosphere was a constant, or whether it was exposed to a volcano or intensified cosmic rays etc. etc. No way of knowing what the specimen being dated was exposed to and when, just guessing. So you can then deduce an age range of millions or even perhaps billions of years and be grossly incorrect. The perfect theory for evolution to fit nicely in to, as it is essential to have a very old earth for the theory to work. With any such calculation, you must allow for margin of error. This margin increases exponentially, the more your age calculations extends. The only real accurate dating method that can be relied upon according to my research is carbon dating as it has the youngest half life which we know to be 5730 years before the carbon 14 changes to nitrogen. There is still much calibration necessary (as I believe was proven with the dating of the Shroud of Turin). So how much more difficult will it be, when you are trying to calibrate radiometric isotopes with supposed much older half lives - a much higher degree of unknowns make it even harder to calibrate. So is evolution a proven fact? You already know my answer, I challenge you to question it too.

Is this how it's going to be? You put forward every bit of creationist nonsense and we have to debunk it one after another? Radiocarbon dating is not a guess and neither is it the only thing we have. Every single piece of evidence we have ever gleaned from the universe (not just just earth) points to it being about 14 billion years old, everything that is except creationists who simply declare that it isn't and call the entirety of science "a guess". If you actually think that then you're a fool if you ever step onto a plane. Sure they might only be guessing that jet engines work :rolleyes:

man of faith wrote: »

Apart from all of this, I have encountered supernatural occurrance which I have no other way of explaining, other that it must have been God.

Yeah, so do I, I call them "unexplained things". It used to be that people didn't understand lightning so they said "it must be god". Now we live in more enlightened times...or so I thought.

man of faith wrote: »

My whole family have been in a room where we all witnessed a demonic entity. My Father, a Christian pastor, commanded it to leave in the Name of Jesus Christ, and it disappeared right before mine and my whole families very eyes. I have witnessed supernatural healings and other events all in the name of Jesus Christ. Laugh, mock and scorn me as hard as you like calling me delusional and insane. I know full well what I saw. The truth will remain unchanged, irrespective of what you want it to be.

Yeah things like that are very common to many religions. Human perception is very flawed

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

Ok, so do you know of any bacteria fossil examples that can show reduced complexity of a flagellum?

Can we show an example of a bacterial flagellum missing some of its parts but doing the same function of a bacterial flagellum ? Of course we cannot. By its very definition that is complete nonsense.

Its the same question as asking can we show you a human being without a pair of lungs but breathing.

This doesn't disprove evolution at all. This is complete utter nonsense.

Can we show an example of (a possible) earlier stage of evolution OF the bacterial flagellum, yes we can.

I will make a concession here. If I were to engage in an in depth discussion about evolution with you and mono, I concede that you should absolutely beat me hands down. Due to the countless number of journals, peer review tests and research articles out there, your knowledge of it should be absolutely superior to mine.

And this is exactly the problem.
The creationist and Intelligent design movements are NOT scientists, they have SOME scientists on board but the vast majority of them have no idea about biology.

This doesn't make you smarter, just more knowledgable in it, as your entire belief system which you are passionate about is tied to its science.

And this is utter nonsense and I am sick of hearing it.

Science is NOT a belief system. Science falsifies things using evidence.

If an idea agrees with the evidence then its an accepted idea.
If an idea disagrees with the evidence then its wrong. It doesn't matter who believes it, it doesn't matter how many people believe it, it doesn't matter how beautiful that idea is, its wrong.

In many ways, you will have to educate me. However, on the same token, if you were to enter a discussion on Biblical truths with me, I should absolutely beat you hands down, as you have now stepped into my arena which is the very foundation of my belief system. In no way does it make me smarter, just more knowledgable on the subject.

I completely agree you would beat us hands down on biblical knowledge, but you cannot compare the two things.

Religion is by very definition belief, Science is everything that religion is not.

If anything in science requires 'belief' then its not science.

And mono, from what I can gather about who you are, I can see how proud and arrogant a person you are.

Thank you I do try.

I may be arrogant but only in terms of listening to this schoolyard nonsense about creationism/intelligent design. The vast majority of academics and scientists as a whole are far more knowledgeable then me.

Thank again, elementary school children seem to be more knowledgeable on evolution then creationists so I hardly feel proud of it.

You are very knowledgable in evolution, as demonstrated by your responses, but your sense of intellectual superiority to people who you consider so stupid to believe in creation, is your greatest downfall.

I have NO problem with people believing in religion or creation. I have a huge problem with people ignoring what are very simple basic facts.

Evolution is a fact just as much as gravity is a fact.
We actually know more about Evolution then we know about gravity, do you realise that ?

Maybe creation did occur, but if it did there are many aspects of a literal interpretation of genesis which are wrong.

I don't particularly care if god or buddha or Bob Dylan started the universe, life etc. BUT regardless of how it started, Evolution DID occur after it started.

Maybe evolution is a gods magic recipe for life, I have no problem with that, neither do the vast majority of religious people including Christians. Why do you ?

You are choosing a very dangerous road as you have now made yourself unteachable.

On the contrary, I am not arrogant in this respect at all. I am always learning and I will be the first one to admit that of all the people here, I am probably the least qualified evolutionist and I always learn new things from people all the time.

The difference between you and me is that I do possess the humility to admit when I am wrong.

So do I. It just hasn't happened on this thread.

You're horendously rude behaviour doesn't make people say 'Yeah you sure showed him'. It just makes people see your true colours and your anger inside, and only people with your ruthless nature would laugh and scoff along with you.

Creationism is akin to suggesting Santa Claus provides the presents for children on Christmas day.

This deserves nothing but scoffing at. Its ridiculous nonsense. Its rubbish which has been disproven as such for at least 150 years. And thats just talking about the biological part, the geological and astronomical evidence destroys Young Earth Creationism.

Do you really believe the earth is 6000 years old ?

You are a very cruel and insensitive human being, and an absolute disgrace.

Coming from creationists I take that as a compliment.

You can say I am an idiot for not accepting the alleged proven facts that you claim evolution to be.

Some people don't accept the Earth is round, what do you think of them ?

Some people think the sun goes around the Earth, what do you think of them ?

You can say this untill the cows come home and come up with all your debunks and refutes as much as you like, but I will point out the very root of my problem with it.

Which is, no matter how much evidence we provide it will never change your mind because of what you think is your religion.

When you estimate the age of our earth, you only have calculated guess and assumption.

Do you have the foggiest idea how people calculate the age of the Earth ?

There is no guessing or assuming involved.

And as you evolutionists wil tell me - you have found fossils that are millions if not billions of years old and that this species evolved from x ancestor over x millions or billions of years. Sure you will use every piece of scientific evidence gathered from tree rings (dendrochronology), carbon and radiometric half life decay, but you still need to assume the elapsed time of the half life based on all the theories of dating.

Assume ? you think its an assumption ? What evidence do you have that says radiocarbon dating is NOT accurate ?

And radiocarbon dating is just one way we have of telling the age of the Earth. We can tell the age of the Universe by light.

Are you suggesting the speed of light can change ?

It is wide open for debate and assumption must be made due to the unknown factor of whether the atmosphere was a constant, or whether it was exposed to a volcano or intensified cosmic rays etc. etc.

No. No it is not.

Modern geologists and geophysicists accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

You see the above ? This is called 'evidence'.

This margin increases exponentially, the more your age calculations extends. The only real accurate dating method that can be relied upon according to my research is carbon dating as it has the youngest half life which we know to be 5730 years before the carbon 14 changes to nitrogen.

Did you really just say that ?

Radiocarbon dating, or carbon dating, is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.

So is evolution a proven fact? You already know my answer, I challenge you to question it too.

Is gravity a proven fact ?

You don't understand what evolution is so how can you claim to reject it ?

Apart from all of this, I have encountered supernatural occurrance which I have no other way of explaining, other that it must have been God.

Evolution says NOTHING about god. God can exist or not exist, evolution and science don't care.

My whole family have been in a room where we all witnessed a demonic entity. My Father, a Christian pastor, commanded it ....

Proving Christianity to me is NOT proving creationism. I used to be Christian and still I was still equally as opposed to creationist nonsense as I am now.

This is not a thread on atheism vs christianity, this is a thread on evolution vs nonsense.

man of faith

monosharp wrote: »

No, they are absolutely 100% proven aspects which you could prove yourself in your home with the right tools and know how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment



In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time.

I never said that I confused it with evolution. You have underestimated me there. I understand the difference.


Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.

Oganic matter has been proven to be capable of forming from non-organic material.

A living organism has not been proven to form from non-organic material YET.



So you will continue to believe your nonsensical rubbish without a single grain of evidence instead of keeping your mind open to what scientists are doing research into what COULD have happened.

The various theories of Abiogenesis PROPOSE that living organisms formed from non-living matter, No scientist says that life DID form this waybecause they have not proven it (yet).

This is what seperates science from creationist nonsense. Science requires proof, creationism requires an opinion.

If you had experienced what I have, you would understand why I believe what I do.

Because Behe said that the mousetrap could not perform any function if any of its parts was missing. It could.



Which is the whole point.



The Type III secretion system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells has ten elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum work.

E Coli bacteria's ancestor might have had a system similar to this which evolved into the flagellum.



He does, his ancestors did not



This shows comprehensively you don't understand evolution at all.

Simple Organism -> Tiny change -> Slightly more complicated organism.
E Coli ancestor with something similar to a type 3 secretary system -> Tiny Change multiplied by X (Very long time) -> Modern E Coli bacteria.

The E Coli NEEDS the flaggelum, the E Coli's ancestor DID not.

The E Coli's ancestor may have used something similar to the type 3 secretion system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three_secretion_system

I'm very happy you picked this example actually because E Coli are such a good example for evolution.

Please read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment



The purpose NOW is transportation, the purpose has changed over time, that is the very basis of evolution.

What do you think your appendix is for ?

It never ceases to amaze me just how strongly creationists believe that something is true and something else is wrong yet they haven't got the slightest clue of EITHER side of the argument.

You don't understand evolution and you don't even understand Behe's argument.



You could choose to accept that we were created by a giant space banana and it would make no difference to what the truth actually is.

Just read my response to Sam, it is also addressed to you and covers my response to these quotes.

Evolution is a fact, either God used evolution, created evolution or God did nothing but evolution is a fact the same as gravity is a fact. Its absolutely irrefutable that evolution has occurred.

Really??? Only in your mind and in the minds of other evolutionists.


This is not politics, this is not a social arena, this is not a theological debate. This is hard scientific fact. Opinions mean nothing without evidence.

Please read response to Sam in relation to this.

This is another reason you can't seem to grasp this, you seem to think evolution is some kind of belief like a religion or a choice like a political party. Evolution is science, science is fact. You can have a difference of opinion on HOW something happens but unless you back up that opinion with facts and evidence then you will be ignored and rightly so.



And again we're back to religious belief not fact. :pac:

Well myself along with many others don't agree that its fact. We've already agreed that it doesn't disprove God, and if that be so, then I am entitled to accept what it says in Genesis. First I'm allowed by your standards to believe there is a God, so if this be so, then you are going back on your agreement by saying I can't believe in what it says in Genesis. So what your really saying is that I must call my God a liar. Absolute hypocrisy!!

Science makes no comment on the supernatural, it can't.

Watch this 6 minute video clip, and then you tell me what scientific discovery is telling us. It will absolutely blow your mind if you have a true respect for science:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god-video.htm

If you have faith in our origins not being from a Creator, then you would make a phenomenal Christian if you chose to believe. Your faith is actually exponentially higher than mine, if you truly believe that God did not create us and our universe. The calculation at the end of the film will actually show you just how high your level of faith is!!!

The vast majority of christians including the catholic church disagree with you and creationist nonsense.
In response to your quote about the catholic church, they have also added to the Bible by praying to Mary and have ignored the passage of scripture that talks about Sodom and Gamorrah (condoning homosexuality). As for all your other churches you mentioned, there are many streams of churches that disregard sections of the Bible. The Bible also warns us of false prophets and deceptive churches in the times we live in.

Are they not christian ?

I'll let God be their judge, lest I be judged myself. Matthew 7:1-2.


I know that and that is why creationism is so dangerous, it promotes ignorance because of ONE minority interpretation of a religious book.

Anyone who doesn't believe all of the book is being hypocritical. They are on one hand believing, yet on the other hand doubting. They don't communicate much credibility to unbelievers. It doesn't say much for the parts that they do actually believe.


So when god was creating organisms it makes more sense to you that he did them one by one instead of all at the same time because that seems to be the best way to do it ?

No. The real underlying reason as to why it makes more sense to me is because the book says so. I have put my faith in the uncomprimised Word of God, which means I can't pick and choose. I must believe the whole thing.


99% of Scientists that have any connection to the study of fossil records agree that evolution is a fact and those fossils are supporting evidence.

Who exactly is 'debating' them on this ? Any true believer of all of God's word



Yes I fully understand that you will not believe it because it disagrees with what you THINK is your religion. I know that if gravity disagreed with the Bible literally you would do the exact same thing.



Thats the best joke we've had here in a few weeks at least.



No its a fact. The largest christian denomination if the world, the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution. The Anglican church has no problem with evolution. The majority of protestant churches in Europe and the US have no problem with evolution.

This are easily research statistics.



I'm not insulting you, your insulting yourself and your religion. Creationism is an embarrassment to christianity and Islam. The mainstream Christian churchs want nothing to do with this rubbish.

Please also read post reply to Sam which is addressed to you also.

lugha

man of faith wrote: »

Watch this 6 minute video clip, and then you tell me what scientific discovery is telling us. It will absolutely blow your mind if you have a true respect for science:
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god-video.htm

If you have faith in our origins not being from a Creator, then you would make a phenomenal Christian if you chose to believe. Your faith is actually exponentially higher than mine, if you truly believe that God did not create us and our universe. The calculation at the end of the film will actually show you just how high your level of faith is!!!

I'm afraid not man of faith. You're making a fallacy in suggesting that if something, which has occurred, can he shown to have a prior probability of occurring due to chance of virtually zero, then it is unreasonable to suppose that chance was in fact the cause. To see why, try estimating the probability that you would come to be in existence in 2009. This would require all of your ancestors to meet the exact partners they did and give rise to the exact same off spring they did at the very times that they did. I would hazard the probability, if calculated at the time of the birth of Christ, of you coming to be in the 20-21 century, would be effectively zero.
And yet, here you are.

Turtwig

Man of Faith,

I suggest you invest some time reading some popular science books that explain how science works. My first recommendation would be the excellent Bill Byron's 'A Brief History of Nearly Everything'. The book has an excellent section on the history of calculating the age of the earth.
Starting at Chapter IV : The measure of things.

Zombrex

lugha wrote: »

I'm afraid not man of faith. You're making a fallacy in suggesting that if something, which has occurred, can he shown to have a prior probability of occurring due to chance of virtually zero, then it is unreasonable to suppose that chance was in fact the cause. To see why, try estimating the probability that you would come to be in existence in 2009. This would require all of your ancestors to meet the exact partners they did and give rise to the exact same off spring they did at the very times that they did. I would hazard the probability, if calculated at the time of the birth of Christ, of you coming to be in the 20-21 century, would be effectively zero.
And yet, here you are.

Exactly

Calculate the probability from last Thursday to today that you would be doing the exact thing you are doing now, rather than something else. Given all the possible things you could be doing, the odds that you would be reading this right now, as opposed to say tying your shoe laces, or sitting on the toilet, are ridiculously unlikely

But because there is no particular significance with you doing this right now as opposed to doing anything else, no one cares.

People only start wondering about probability when they have assigned meaning to a particular thing over everything else. If you felt it was special or important that you tie your shoe laces, then you will marvel that this is what you were doing.

Sam Vimes

lugha wrote: »

I'm afraid not man of faith. You're making a fallacy in suggesting that if something, which has occurred, can he shown to have a prior probability of occurring due to chance of virtually zero, then it is unreasonable to suppose that chance was in fact the cause. To see why, try estimating the probability that you would come to be in existence in 2009. This would require all of your ancestors to meet the exact partners they did and give rise to the exact same off spring they did at the very times that they did. I would hazard the probability, if calculated at the time of the birth of Christ, of you coming to be in the 20-21 century, would be effectively zero.
And yet, here you are.

Yup. It's the texas sharpshooter fallacy

edit: and it also explains the bible code

man of faith

Did you really just say that ?

Radiocarbon dating, or carbon dating, is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.


Come on man, you really should give me a little more credit than that. I was talking about one half life, I didn't say that it couldn't go through several half lives as which is understand to be up to about 50000 years before its all gone. Although, you still don't know if the decay was a constant. You have to guess. Probably easier to work out over a smaller period of time - I'll grant you that - but still an estimation.

My problem isn't so much with radiocarbon dating, its with radiometric dating. The problem being that you don't know how much of the isotope was there at the beginning of decay, you don't know if the decay rates have always been constant and whether or not a parent or daughter isotope was added. I may not be an ultra intelligent scientist, but it doesn't take Einstein to understand this.

Because radiometric is used to date specimens considered to be millions or billions of years old, there are some major problems with it, considering you have to calibrate with very little margin for error. The concentrations of the isotope are not disputed as they have been found to be extremely accurate, but you can't possibly claim to have known what happenned in the past (unless of course you own a time machine), and seeing as this guess is being used to make the date calculation, how ever can this be considered proof of an old earth? Can you see now why I understand it as a theory and not fact?

By the way, did you watch my video? Please watch it.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

Although, you still don't know if the decay was a constant. You have to guess. Probably easier to work out over a smaller period of time - I'll grant you that - but still an estimation.

We know the decay rate is constant to the same extent as we know anything else in physics and for the same reason why we know anything else in physics, because people studied it unlike creationists who simply declare things to be the way they wish they were. If a constant rate of decay is a guess, then guesswork produced the computer you're typing on, the plane you flew in last year and the moon lander.

Man, those scientists are really good guessers :rolleyes:

man of faith wrote: »

By the way, did you watch my video? Please watch it.

The video has already been explained as a texas sharpshooter logical fallacy, just like the bible code

man of faith wrote: »

My problem isn't so much with radiocarbon dating, its with radiometric dating. The problem being that you don't know how much of the isotope was there at the beginning of decay, you don't know if the decay rates have always been constant and whether or not a parent or daughter isotope was added. I may not be an ultra intelligent scientist, but it doesn't take Einstein to understand this.

You, a random guy on the internet, sees these potential limitations in radio carbon dating. Do you not think that at some point since its inception these potential issues have also occurred to the brightest minds in the world and that they might have accounted for them?

man of faith

lugha wrote: »

I'm afraid not man of faith. You're making a fallacy in suggesting that if something, which has occurred, can he shown to have a prior probability of occurring due to chance of virtually zero, then it is unreasonable to suppose that chance was in fact the cause. To see why, try estimating the probability that you would come to be in existence in 2009. This would require all of your ancestors to meet the exact partners they did and give rise to the exact same off spring they did at the very times that they did. I would hazard the probability, if calculated at the time of the birth of Christ, of you coming to be in the 20-21 century, would be effectively zero.
And yet, here you are.

I am here by a miraculous act of God, not by one in one trillionth of a chance (which is being very conservative). Extremely low probability should make you stand in awe and say 'this transcends my natural mind'. You should say that this is way too big a question for man in his wisdom alone to be able to answer, based on my pea size brain in comparison. You don't really know how, you just have to use your imagination to guess. Darwin admittedly came up with evolution by using his imagination. I suppose you can't blame him for that, he had to start somewhere. You have already made up your mind that God doesn't exist, so evolution and big bang is all you have to cling too. The facts aren't even getting a fair chance.
Probably just about anything can be explained away (such as evolution) when you have billions of years at your disposal.

Zombrex

man of faith wrote: »

My problem isn't so much with radiocarbon dating, its with radiometric dating. The problem being that you don't know how much of the isotope was there at the beginning of decay, you don't know if the decay rates have always been constant and whether or not a parent or daughter isotope was added. I may not be an ultra intelligent scientist, but it doesn't take Einstein to understand this.

So when sceintists say this isn't a problem do you think they are all just lying?

Or do you think they have figured out ways to verify if the radiometric dating is giving an accurate result? Such as using two different methods to see if they give similar results?

Again this comes back to your apparent arrogance. You claim to not even understand this subject very well but seem convinced you understand it better than scientists who work in the area, and have apparently concluded that they are lying or just guessing

Zombrex

man of faith wrote: »

I am here by a miraculous act of God, not by one in one trillionth of a chance (which is being very conservative).

You seem to be slightly underestimating the size of the universe.

If there is one in one trillionth of a chance that life would appear in a solar system in this universe then life has, on average, appeared in approx one trillion solar systems in this universe. :rolleyes:

man of faith wrote: »

You should say that this is way too big a question for man in his wisdom alone to be able to answer, based on my pea size brain in comparison.

So naturally then we should turn to the mythological stories of ancient man to answer these question, right?

man of faith wrote: »

Probably just about anything can be explained away (such as evolution) when you have billions of years at your disposal.

That is the whole point. Billions of years and billions upon billions of stars.

The idea therefore that life wouldn't appear some where at some point in this universe seems to me to be the most crazy idea going.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

I am here by a miraculous act of God, not by one in one trillionth of a chance (which is being very conservative).

No it's not, you're basing that figure on a video that used a logical fallacy. As people have pointed out, if last Thursday you went about trying to calculate your odds of typing your last post at that exact time the odds would be astronomical. It only seem unlikely when you place value on the outcome. It's a misunderstanding of probability.

man of faith wrote: »

Darwin admittedly came up with evolution by using his imagination. I suppose you can't blame him for that, he had to start somewhere. You have already made up your mind that God doesn't exist, so evolution and big bang is all you have to cling too. The facts aren't even getting a fair chance.
Probably just about anything can be explained away (such as evolution) when you have billions of years at your disposal.

In Darwin's day everyone was a creationist. He didn't just dream up evolution one day, he went around the world on the beagle and studied lots and lots and lots of animals and looking at the evidence he was presented with he came up with a hypothesis to explain it. The evidence came first and the theory was formed to explain it, just like how we noticed that things fell and then came up with the theory of gravity to explain it. And that theory has survived to this day with some modifications, such as the fact that Darwin knew nothing of DNA. Some would say the theory.....evolved :eek:

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Again this comes back to your apparent arrogance. You claim to not even understand this subject very well but seem convinced you understand it better than scientists who work in the area, and have apparently concluded that they are lying or just guessing

It's madness. "I know absolutely nothing about radiometric dating but it's all guesswork and the scientists who've dedicated years to studying and who stand by it's accuracy are all fools". :pac:

lugha

man of faith wrote: »

You have already made up your mind that God doesn't exist, so evolution and big bang is all you have to cling too. The facts aren't even getting a fair chance.

I would say a disbelief in God in my current position, yes. But it is revisable. In fact I would be thrilled if you or anybody else could persuade me that there was a God whom I could explore to intercede to answer my prayers and who would grant be eternal life and everything else. But so far nobody has persuaded me.

lugha

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yup. It's the texas sharpshooter fallacy

edit: and it also explains the bible code

Well isn't everyday a school day! I encounter that fallacy a lot but I have never heard it given a name before.