Would someone please prove that creationism is not a crock,

[Thomas Anderson]

So what's the fossil record then?

whatever you evos and your faith do with it

 

[LightHorseman]

whatever you evos and your faith do with it

But do you agree it exists?

 

[Thomas Anderson]

But do you agree it exists?

i agree that there are NO transitional fossils.....big problem for the evos.....big gaping hole......I see you have fallen in

 

[Cabal]

OH, ok

Urgh, please learn to tag.....

evo has empirical evidence, why is that only in the evos faith is it seen then?

Because it's NOT faith, because it HAS empirical evidence, which is far more than creationism has ever managed to come up with.

There have been many studies. Does similarity necessarily prove common decent? Maybe in your book it does but studies have shown that the genetic comparisons between chimps and humans is not so clear cut.Researchers have come to different conclusions. At first we have been thought to share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee...(your uncle not mine) 95% at best including the indels..other studies have dropped it to 86.7%..including indels...Richard Buggs most recent studies after taking into account many differences between the two genomes concluded may actually be less than 70% genetic similarities.
Studies have show that the DNA of mice is only different from ours by 2.5%...(does that make mice our uncle to?)other studies have shown that our genes are 99% identical to mice.

No, please reread the link I gave you, I am not talking about bare similarities between genomes, I am talking about the same gene sequences being perfectly repeated in the SAME LOCATIONS in DIFFERENT SPECIES that were originally left by a virus whose traces are passed on from one generation to the next. To claim that these exact same sequences in the exact same places is caused by chance is insanity - whereas ToE gives the solution, common ancestry and inheritance. If such a viral effect occurs, it's guaranteed to be transmitted, even across the species barrier on speciation.

Its not the info you evos find its what you do with it that bothers most. The truth is that similarity is actually necessity to survie. Biochemically, even to have food we need to have the food available we have to be genetically similar to other animal groups, or we couldn't live. Similarity is not proof of evo but rather it is proof, like other species and organisms, are living beings with certain necessites...we eat the same food...breathe the same air.

Citation needed.

Also to argue that the divergence between humans and other species is due to mutation is nothing but wishful thinking due to the fact that there has not been one single case in which a mutation has been observed to add new information to the genome.

Look up what a "duplication" mutation is, then get back to me.

So my conclusion is that even though at first the 98.5% similarity between chimps and humans appears to vindicate Darwin’s theory, it seems to me that to assume that this is proof of common descent is just an over-simplification made by people that want Darwin’s theory to be true.

No, you need to read what I posted about ERVs. Properly.

Is it really my lack of knowledge of thermodynamics, or is it what you evos do with the info given?

No, it's your lack of understanding of thermodynamics. If we're just talking about evolution as in the change in organisms over time, this is thermodynamically not forbidden. Lifeforms on Earth are part of an open system, there is nothing stop local REDUCTIONS in the Earth's entropy to create life, as the entropy of the Earth-Sun system will INCREASE by a bigger amount to compensate.

Once again..twist, distort, stretch the info to satisfy your faith.

No, you're bringing in things that don't pertain to the actual scientific definition of TE. And there have been plenty of discussions recently involving finds relating to the possibility of abiogenesis.

Please do start reading what people are trying to show you in an attempt to answer your questions despite your continued rudeness - otherwise this is just trolling.

Plenty of evidence.?..I have only seen and heard speculation and assumptions....no facts yet...where are those transitionals?

Go to a museum? Look them up? There's thousands.

1 John 4 1-3 "Dear freinds do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false profits have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God. Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world"
Have you tested your spirit of evo?...is it anti - christ?

No. Deal with it.

who said anything about testing the mind with EEGs...the brain was tested not the mind......nice try though

The mind is representative of activity in the brain. Nice sidetrack, but it's irrelevant and just goes to show how you can't test for a god.

No problem what-so-ever. The bible has the answers...dont scim through it though and be born of His Spirit...makes it easier to understand.The answers there...I have it..you want it you seek and you will find.

You didn't answer the point, that your argument makes an infinite regress by appealing to a complex creator that creates complexity.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Dear Thomas Anderson,

1. please start to use punctuation and paragraph breaks. Nobody will read giant walls of random musings loosely connected by "...".

2. Pick one, just one topic you want to debate and start a new thread in this forum. Copying and pasting without even giving a source is generally frowned upon, as is skipping people's rebuttals and going straight for the next topic.

3. It would do wonders for your credibility if you'd stop taking Hovind's 250.000 challenge seriously. Why, I hear you ask? Wikipedia has the answer (emphasis mine)

yes, we all have our points of veiw....I knew already which point you would side with....


4. Read a layman's primer on evolution. Your posts do little to convince us that you even know what you are trying to argue against. should do the trick.


Much love,

MrGoodBytes

Its tricky alright...my what faith ....tremendous....no real substantial evidence or answers ......yet I believe says the evo

 

[AV1611VET]

Still sort of miffed at you for leaving that thread where people were agreeing with you but you didn't like their agreement, just by the way.

???

 

[LightHorseman]

i agree that there are NO transitional fossils.....big problem for the evos.....big gaping hole......I see you have fallen in

There are thousands of transitional fossils. You want a list?

 

[ragarth]

Its tricky alright...my what faith ....tremendous....no real substantial evidence or answers ......yet I believe says the evo

Okay Kirk, first let's debunk this fallacious use of the thermodynamics argument:

Entropy and evolution - The Panda's Thumb

As a synopsis, this link gives the hard numbers on the energy flow into the earth's local system, and the energy requirements for evolution to take place. As shown, there is significantly more energy that comes into the system than is necessary, ergo your use of this argument is nothing more than ignorance whether willful or not.

2nd, your use of transitional fossils is silly. Truth is all fossils are transitional, we as humans think better if we put things in groups, and so we invented taxonomy, but the truth is the transition between species is fluid. What you're asking for is an infinite regression. Tiktaalic was the transitional that was asked for a year ago, now creationists don't consider it a transitional, let me show you this logic:

"A transitional fossil shows a distinct lineage between two species" + "A previously unknown species is discovered showing a lineage between two species" == "If a transitional fossil is given a species name when it's discovered, then it is no longer a transitional fossil, therefore leading to an infinite regress of transitional fossils"

This is literally the definition of moving goal posts. You are being intellectually dishonest by using this claim.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Urgh, please learn to tag.....



Because it's NOT faith, because it HAS empirical evidence, which is far more than creationism has ever managed to come up with.

its faith....put it all together....its faith

No, please reread the link I gave you, I am not talking about bare similarities between genomes, I am talking about the same gene sequences being perfectly repeated in the SAME LOCATIONS in DIFFERENT SPECIES that were originally left by a virus whose traces are passed on from one generation to the next. To claim that these exact same sequences in the exact same places is caused by chance is insanity - whereas ToE gives the solution, common ancestry and inheritance. If such a viral effect occurs, it's guaranteed to be transmitted, even across the species barrier on speciation.

similarities either way you look at it.

Citation needed.

common sense needed

Look up what a "duplication" mutation is, then get back to me.

whos definition?

No, you need to read what I posted about ERVs. Properly.

You mean I need to be of your same faith?


No, it's your lack of understanding of thermodynamics. If we're just talking about evolution as in the change in organisms over time, this is thermodynamically not forbidden. Lifeforms on Earth are part of an open system, there is nothing stop local REDUCTIONS in the Earth's entropy to create life, as the entropy of the Earth-Sun system will INCREASE by a bigger amount to compensate.

same old same old.....

No, you're bringing in things that don't pertain to the actual scientific definition of TE. And there have been plenty of discussions recently involving finds relating to the possibility of abiogenesis.

And i see your brining in nothing but facts and indisputable proof.


Please do start reading what people are trying to show you in an attempt to answer your questions despite your continued rudeness - otherwise this is just trolling.

you lost me here...show me their faith?

Go to a museum? Look them up? There's thousands.

you see thousands..I dont see and have not seen any....remember its your faith that sees them not empirical evidence

No. Deal with it.

yes, deal with it.

The mind is representative of activity in the brain. Nice sidetrack, but it's irrelevant and just goes to show how you can't test for a god.

so you say and have tremndous faith to back it up. One must differentiate between brain and mind

You didn't answer the point, that your argument makes an infinite regress by appealing to a complex creator that creates complexity.

Creation declares that He is. <staff edit> I am tired of beating a dead horse...Your embedded in your faith but I dont limit the power of my God to save.

 

[LightHorseman]

Creation declares that He is. <staff edit> I am tired of beating a dead horse...Your embedded in your faith but I dont limit the power of my God to save.

This is only your 25th post. No one gets to complain about beating a dead horse until they have responded to at least 100 of dad's posts.

 

[Cabal]

This is only your 25th post. No one gets to complain about beating a dead horse until they have responded to at least 100 of dad's posts.

Haha, QFT. Or tackled the AV omni-fecta stable of dead horses.

 

[LightHorseman]

Haha, QFT. Or tackled the AV omni-fecta stable of dead horses.

Ex nihilo dead horses.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

Okay Kirk, first let's debunk this fallacious and (if you ask me) intentionally dishonest use of the thermodynamics argument:


As a synopsis, this link gives the hard numbers on the energy flow into the earth's local system, and the energy requirements for evolution to take place. As shown, there is significantly more energy that comes into the system than is necessary, ergo your use of this argument is nothing more than ignorance whether willful or not.

Yah ok, but if i read from the faith of the evo and what they have done with the info found and accept it....then I would become of their faith.....I have indisputable evidence in the bible ...thats where my faith is. SO if you want to direct me to people of your faith and what you think has happened it wont work..I know the truth,.. you can go on and on with your theories and speculations.....dont you understand...I have the TRUTH, its backed by God. What is your faith backed by? Please dont tell me proof that ToE exists. Far tooo many holes there.....my what faith the evos have.

2nd, your use of transitional fossils is silly. Truth is all fossils are transitional, we as humans think better if we put things in groups, and so we invented taxonomy, but the truth is the transition between species is fluid. What you're asking for is an infinite regression. Tiktaalic was the transitional that was asked for a year ago, now creationists don't consider it a transitional, let me show you this logic:

"A transitional fossil shows a distinct lineage between two species" + "A previously unknown species is discovered showing a lineage between two species" == "If a transitional fossil is given a species name when it's discovered, then it is no longer a transitional fossil, therefore leading to an infinite regress of transitional fossils"

This is literally the definition of moving goal posts. You are being intellectually dishonest by using this claim. You are, in effect, attempting to lie for Jesus by using two such thoroughly debunked and fallacious arguments whether you realize it or not.

Who is moving the goal posts...haahahahahaha...really transitional fossils you say?......my what faith

 

[Cabal]

its faith....put it all together....its faith

If I'm ever going to change my view to that, <staff edit>

similarities either way you look at it.

Yes, clearly they're a similarity. But the context in which they're similar is strong support of ToE.

common sense needed

Didn't think you could back it up. Nice try.

whos definition?

The proper one, where a section of genetic data is copied. It's a mutation, and it leaves more genetic information than was there previously. You were wrong.

You mean I need to be of your same faith?

No, you need to actually read what people are posting <staff edit>

same old same old.....

Same old same old which you've failed to debunk every single time. <staff edit>

And i see your brining in nothing but facts and indisputable proof.

Yeah, so address them. It's not like you've proved anything since you've been here.

you lost me here...show me their faith?

<staff edit>

yes, deal with it.

You do NOT know me, or anything about me. <staff edit> I have reconciled my faith with the scientific principles of ToE. <staff edit>.

so you say and have tremndous faith to back it up. One must differentiate between brain and mind

No - it's clear that both are connected. And given that there is no analogue with regards to a god, or testing there is a god, this doesn't help your argument of equating the two scenarios.

Creation declares that He is. <staff edit>

Still missing the point - <staff edit>

I am tired of beating a dead horse...Your embedded in your faith but I dont limit the power of my God to save.

Neither do I, because the saving power of God has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution doesn't make any religious claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

I always like the "dead horses" where I post something (like embedded age) and, faster than Pluto, you guys start with the automatic and unilateral, "no way" --- only to find out later that you didn't even know what I was talking about.

 

[ragarth]

Who is moving the goal posts...haahahahahaha...really transitional fossils you say?......my what faith

Okay, let's do a thought experiment. We have 3 distinct species, A, B, and C. Would you want transitional fossils between A and B, and B and C?

((gotta jet to work, someone else can take over from here for me, the argument is simple enough.)

 

[Cabal]

I always like the "dead horses" where I post something (like embedded age) and, faster than Pluto, you guys start with the automatic and unilateral, "no way" --- only to find out later that you didn't even know what I was talking about.

Your ideas have consequences and implications. If you didn't see them before coming up with the idea, that's not our fault.

 

[LightHorseman]

Who is moving the goal posts...haahahahahaha...really transitional fossils you say?......my what faith

Thousands of transitional fossils.

I don't need faith, I can see them in the museum

 

[ragarth]

Thousands of transitional fossils.

I don't need faith, I can see them in the museum

I also love the fact that his response to my factual arguments was an ad hominem attack. (I consider an implication of faith without support for said implication to be a personal insult, ergo an ad hominem) I can only take this as an implicit admission that he's wrong.

//Gone! For around 12 hours. College + Work. :-(

 

[AV1611VET]

Your ideas have consequences and implications. If you didn't see them before coming up with the idea, that's not our fault.

I don't consider "no way" a consequence, or an implication.

Especially since my Apple Challenge gives you guys a chance to explain how it can be "no way" --- and you guys even argued against that.

(Even after I showed how it agrees with you guys.)

Don't beat a "dead horse" --- dead horses need dead riders.

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.