Have any of the creationists here done the following?

[AV1611VET]

Thank you. And that was the point of this thread. Every single person here who tries to debunk evolution doesn't even understand even the basic principles of evolution. It would be like me trying to debunk calculus when I don't even know basic math.

--- guilty as charged!

What's the penalty?

 

[gaara4158]

--- guilty as charged!

What's the penalty?

Discussion rights have been revoked until further notice!

 

[jpcedotal]

"we do not know any more about matter and how it is produced than we know about spiritual things. Therefore, I think it is unwise to say in our present state of knowledge that the one precludes the other. The universe seems to exist as a series of emergent levels, none of which is like the level below. That man and all the rest of life have evolved and changed is undeniable, but what lies beneath these exterior manifestations, we do not know. I wish I could answer your question, but to clothe my ignorance in big words would benefit neither yourself nor me." (Dr. Loren C. Eiseley, Office of the Provost, University of Pennsylvania)

hmmm. no proof there, just speculation

"The archaeological finds of prehistoric cultural objects must be so arranged that the cruder industries must always be dated earlier than those of a 'more advanced' type, regardless of where they are found." (J. V. N. Talmage)

What happens when more advanced civilizations are found under these "older" ones? Better do a little research before you say this has never happened.

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all of the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." (Dr. G. A. Kerkut, of the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry at the University of Southampton in England. Though he himself is an evolutionist, in his book, The Implications of Evolution)

Yeah, that really sounds like indisputable proof to me....

There is no unanimous acceptance of evolution even by scientists.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by experiment carried on for more than forty years, have completely failed…. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint…." It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. Deficiencies are real. They will never be filled…. The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief." (Swedish botanist, Dr. Heribert Nilsson, who is also an evolutionist)

This sound an awful lot like.....RELIGION, not science. So now we are just talking about one belief against another.

I reject evolution because it rejects God and it rejects revelation. It denies the fall of man and the fact of sin, and it opposes the virgin birth of Christ. Therefore, I reject it with all my being. I do not believe that it is the answer to the origin of this universe. (Dr Vernon McGee)

Amen.

 

[Hespera]

Not in this context though.

I have a feeling you know I'm about to pwn you with however you answer.

Not at all. We both know its impossible to write down every digit.
that is quite different from getting the numbers wrong right from the first decimal place. The bible gets it wrong right after the decimal place.

You know as well as I do that no matter what value you answer with, it will be, according to your words, 'wrong'.Yes they do.---No, I do not.

not al all! if the bible got it right, i'd say it did. if it gets it wrong after 0, or ten, or any other number of decimals, id say it was approximately right. You wont tho, coz that word bothers you... a perfect book would not be approximate.


I have a feeling you already know that I have stated:

1. The Bible does not state the value of Pi.
2. To read Pi into the Bible accurately, simply truncate the decimal places.

If you dont like it as as value of pi, then here is another way to put it. The value of pi proves that the numbers given in the bible are only approximate. There is no way that 10 cubits and 30 cubits is accurate, or even possible.

"truncate" is in this context the same as "approximate", which is of course my point about this deal.. that the numbers are approximate, not accuate.

Not that it needs proving, since the impossibility of making accurate measurements with cubits and string is obvious to anyone. (well not to you, i see) Same as you cant make a circle based on pi=3.0

I would really like to know how you make measurements accuarate to billions of decimal palces with fingers elbows and strings. Care to explain?



Yes.Why should I change my style now?I think "anyone watching" for any length of time will quickly see that you are the only person that seems to have this much trouble with Pi and cubits.

Pi and cubits (dont forget the perfect measuring string) will only give trouble to a person who thinks the bible is always accurate.

If the 'anyone watching" cares to comment, we will see who they think is making sense or having trouble, and who thinks that the numbers give could possibly be accurate out to over 206 billion decimal places (tnx for the number)

 

[jpcedotal]

Here is a scientific question, I guess.

What are the most general forms into which the manifestation of the Unknowable are re-divisible?

time, space, matter, force, motion according to Herbert Spencer. It took him 50 years of experiments and theories to come up with this law...50 years.

Now check this out:

'In the beginning [time] God created the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God [force] moved [motion] upon the face of the waters.'

Now, let me just say I am cool with science as long as it stays within the boundaries of the Bible. When it tries to veer off, then it simply becomes belief (I think the scientific word is "theory").

 

[Hespera]

"we do not know any more about matter and how it is produced than we know about spiritual things. Therefore, I think it is unwise to say in our present state of knowledge that the one precludes the other. The universe seems to exist as a series of emergent levels, none of which is like the level below. That man and all the rest of life have evolved and changed is undeniable, but what lies beneath these exterior manifestations, we do not know. I wish I could answer your question, but to clothe my ignorance in big words would benefit neither yourself nor me." (Dr. Loren C. Eiseley, Office of the Provost, University of Pennsylvania)

hmmm. no proof there, just speculation

"The archaeological finds of prehistoric cultural objects must be so arranged that the cruder industries must always be dated earlier than those of a 'more advanced' type, regardless of where they are found." (J. V. N. Talmage)

What happens when more advanced civilizations are found under these "older" ones? Better do a little research before you say this has never happened.

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all of the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." (Dr. G. A. Kerkut, of the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry at the University of Southampton in England. Though he himself is an evolutionist, in his book, The Implications of Evolution)

Yeah, that really sounds like indisputable proof to me....

There is no unanimous acceptance of evolution even by scientists.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by experiment carried on for more than forty years, have completely failed…. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint…." It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. Deficiencies are real. They will never be filled…. The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief." (Swedish botanist, Dr. Heribert Nilsson, who is also an evolutionist)

This sound an awful lot like.....RELIGION, not science. So now we are just talking about one belief against another.

I reject evolution because it rejects God and it rejects revelation. It denies the fall of man and the fact of sin, and it opposes the virgin birth of Christ. Therefore, I reject it with all my being. I do not believe that it is the answer to the origin of this universe. (Dr Vernon McGee)

Amen.

You can always cherry pick quotes. Maybe from a priest who decided that god is a big fake. That would prove, what?

You said all that you have to say in your last paragraph. "i reject evolution because it rejects god".

That of course is just your opinion / failing, others seem to be able to reconcile reality with their religion.

None of us think that it (evolution) is "the answer to the origin of the universe".

As for me, I reject a simple literal reading of certain bible passages because for example, I dont believe pi=3.0, (because you can check for yourself and see that it isnt).

I can also see for myself that there is no evidence whatever for a world wide flood; and no evidence anywhere to contradict the vast trove of data that indicates evolution real.

If faith is what requires a person to ignore reality in favor of ideology, well, you can have it.

 

[jpcedotal]

Pi and cubits (dont forget the perfect measuring string) will only give trouble to a person who thinks the bible is always accurate.

If the 'anyone watching" cares to comment, we will see who they think is making sense or having trouble, and who thinks that the numbers give could possibly be accurate out to over 206 billion decimal places (tnx for the number)

Wow, you really are a "word game" kind of gal....

 

[Hespera]

Here is a scientific question, I guess.

What are the most general forms into which the manifestation of the Unknowable are re-divisible?

time, space, matter, force, motion according to Herbert Spencer. It took him 50 years of experiments and theories to come up with this law...50 years.

Now check this out:

'In the beginning [time] God created the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God [force] moved [motion] upon the face of the waters.'

Now, let me just say I am cool with science as long as it stays within the boundaries of the Bible. When it tries to veer off, then it simply becomes belief (I think the scientific word is "theory").

Theory, yes. That veered off theory that the earth is round, that the earth orbits the sun, that the stars are not just set in a rigid sky. Darn that science that just refuses to be tamed by a middle eastern sky god fable book.

 

[jpcedotal]

You can always cherry pick quotes. Maybe from a priest who decided that god is a big fake. That would prove, what?

You said all that you have to say in your last paragraph. "i reject evolution because it rejects god".

That of course is just your opinion / failing, others seem to be able to reconcile reality with their religion.

None of us think that it (evolution) is "the answer to the origin of the universe".

As for me, I reject a simple literal reading of certain bible passages because for example, I dont believe pi=3.0, (because you can check for yourself and see that it isnt).

I can also see for myself that there is no evidence whatever for a world wide flood; and no evidence anywhere to contradict the vast trove of data that indicates evolution real.

If faith is what requires a person to ignore reality in favor of ideology, well, you can have it.

Evolution is a belief so is Christianity. Both require faith....either in man or in God.

I will take my chances with God, but I appreciate your honest response.

 

[jpcedotal]

Theory, yes. That veered off theory that the earth is round, that the earth orbits the sun, that the stars are not just set in a rigid sky. Darn that science that just refuses to be tamed by a middle eastern sky god fable book.

If the universe is infinite then why can't the earth be the center of it?

 

[loveiseverywhere]

--- guilty as charged!

What's the penalty?

Proverbs states that a fool hates correction.

 

[loveiseverywhere]

"we do not know any more about matter and how it is produced than we know about spiritual things. Therefore, I think it is unwise to say in our present state of knowledge that the one precludes the other. The universe seems to exist as a series of emergent levels, none of which is like the level below. That man and all the rest of life have evolved and changed is undeniable, but what lies beneath these exterior manifestations, we do not know. I wish I could answer your question, but to clothe my ignorance in big words would benefit neither yourself nor me." (Dr. Loren C. Eiseley, Office of the Provost, University of Pennsylvania)

hmmm. no proof there, just speculation

"The archaeological finds of prehistoric cultural objects must be so arranged that the cruder industries must always be dated earlier than those of a 'more advanced' type, regardless of where they are found." (J. V. N. Talmage)

What happens when more advanced civilizations are found under these "older" ones? Better do a little research before you say this has never happened.

"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all of the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." (Dr. G. A. Kerkut, of the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry at the University of Southampton in England. Though he himself is an evolutionist, in his book, The Implications of Evolution)

Yeah, that really sounds like indisputable proof to me....

There is no unanimous acceptance of evolution even by scientists.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by experiment carried on for more than forty years, have completely failed…. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint…." It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. Deficiencies are real. They will never be filled…. The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief." (Swedish botanist, Dr. Heribert Nilsson, who is also an evolutionist)

This sound an awful lot like.....RELIGION, not science. So now we are just talking about one belief against another.

I reject evolution because it rejects God and it rejects revelation. It denies the fall of man and the fact of sin, and it opposes the virgin birth of Christ. Therefore, I reject it with all my being. I do not believe that it is the answer to the origin of this universe. (Dr Vernon McGee)

Amen.

You really have no idea what evolution is? Do you?

 

[loveiseverywhere]

If the universe is infinite then why can't the earth be the center of it?

Um, because infinity cannot have a center.

 

[Hespera]

Evolution is a belief so is Christianity. Both require faith....either in man or in God.

I will take my chances with God, but I appreciate your honest response.

Oh my, the "evolution is as belief / faith" canard.

It really isnt. Its about like you said New York City is a belief. Go look. Lots of evidence! Data all about.

The existence of Atlantis is a belief. It, like creationism, has zero data to support it.

If Atlantis or Creationism were valid, wouldnt there be at least one piece of data on their side?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you. And that was the point of this thread. Every single person here who tries to debunk evolution doesn't even understand even the basic principles of evolution. It would be like me trying to debunk calculus when I don't even know basic math.

--- guilty as charged!

What's the penalty?

Proverbs states that a fool hates correction.

So everyone who doesn't understand basic evolution is an atheist???

I don't see the connection to "hating correction" here.

 

[gaara4158]

So everyone who doesn't understand basic evolution is an atheist???

I don't see the connection to "hating correction" here.

No, but anyone who tries to speak with authority on something they know nothing about is a fool.
Yes, I know the Bible says that fools don't believe in God and are evil and all that. The KJV is goofy like that.

So I guess, according to the Bible, you're an atheist. Still think it's infallible?

 

[loveiseverywhere]

So everyone who doesn't understand basic evolution is an atheist???

I don't see the connection to "hating correction" here.

I didn't say anything about anyone being an atheist.

I said, "A fool hates correction."

The fact that you won't even learn what evolution is but try to say what it isn't is complete foolishness.

 

[jpcedotal]

Oh my, the "evolution is as belief / faith" canard.

It really isnt. Its about like you said New York City is a belief. Go look. Lots of evidence! Data all about.

The existence of Atlantis is a belief. It, like creationism, has zero data to support it.

If Atlantis or Creationism were valid, wouldnt there be at least one piece of data on their side?

I would argue and say evolution has no evidence, no data. It may prove mutation which is apparent today, but not evolution which is soooooo sloooooow that we just can't pick it up (isn't that the argument?).

 

[AV1611VET]

No, but anyone who tries to speak with authority on something they know nothing about is a fool.

Well, I guess that leaves me out then, doesn't it?

Yes, I know the Bible says that fools don't believe in God and are evil and all that. The KJV is goofy like that.

And a few other versions as well --- right?

So I guess, according to the Bible, you're an atheist. Still think it's infallible?

I'm an atheist, according to LIE, if I am ignorant of the basics of evolution, while at the same time trying to debunk it.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that you won't even learn what evolution is but try to say what it isn't is complete foolishness.

Well, like I've always said --- I'm an atheist when it comes to evolution --- qv please: 37 .

So I guess maybe you're right after all.