How much longer?

[Loudmouth]

I've yet to hear a rational explanantion for how the universe and life could have got started all on their own.

We don't know how the universe got started. That isn't evidence that it came about by magical poofing.

In the absence of any such explanantion, to accept that the creator God of the Bible did it makes much more sense to me.

When has a God of the Gaps ever made sense?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You simply arbitrarily pick a point in the Darwininistic evolutionary tree and make the claim of humans being apes. I can do the same thing with humans being a different form of banana...or a banana being a different form of human.

Ignoring all the while the evidence:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-much-longer.7910094/page-12#post-68687815

And refusing to take those mistakes in classification out of the books, because mistakes in classification is all they have in an attempt to show continuity...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean Darwinian Evolution. Microevolution is testable, provable and verifiable. Natural Selection is as well. Unfortunately non astute Evolutionist like to meld an "educated guess" with a verifiable fact and say "this is good science", and then refuse to see the error of their ways.

I guess you don't understand how the scientific method works. What we have are scientific hypotheses that make specific and testable predictions. When the observations match those predictions, then the hypothesis is supported. This is how the theory of evolution has operated for the last 150 years, and it has passed 150 years of stringent testing. It isn't guessing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ignoring all the while the evidence:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-much-longer.7910094/page-12#post-68687815

And refusing to take those mistakes in classification out of the books, because mistakes in classification is all they have in an attempt to show continuity...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

How are 3 examples of a transitional species (i.e. H. erectus) a problem for evolution? You never explain that one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We don't know how the universe got started. That isn't evidence that it came about by magical poofing.

Of course it didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

"was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven.[1] He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

You just stole it and twisted it beyond reason.

When has a God of the Gaps ever made sense?

What gaps - they exist only in your theory. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces a Chinook. There is no gap between the different variations - or transitory forms. And no evolution through mutation was involved. Just the recombination of genes bringing about new dominant and recessive traits.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How are 3 examples of a transitional species (i.e. H. erectus) a problem for evolution? You never explain that one.

Except its not - it is simply another "breed" or infraspecific taxa of humans - it's all those other links you refuse to correct - even if the science showed you need to.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

I explained it - you just never bothered to read the link - as you will refuse to look at any data that does not conform to your pre-conceived beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course it didn't.

Of course it didn't what?

What gaps - they exist only in your theory. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Husky mates with Mastiff and produces a Chinook. There is no gap between the different variations - or transitory forms. And no evolution through mutation was involved. Just the recombination of genes bringing about new dominant and recessive traits.

H. erectus is not Asian or African.

 

[Loudmouth]

Except its not - it is simply another "breed" or infraspecific taxa of humans - it's all those other links you refuse to correct - even if the sciece showed you need to.

If it was a modern human it would be classified as H. sapiens. It isn't. They are a different species, H. erectus.

 

[justlookinla]

If it was a modern human it would be classified as H. sapiens. It isn't. They are a different species, H. erectus.

Yellow bananaus.

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting said: ↑
Science says that nature cannot create energy, matter, intelligence, or useful information on it own.

Really?
You feel like showing any evidence that this statement is true?
Evolution is considered a fact by science and the theory of evolution is a scientific theory used to explain how evolution works. What part of the theory of evolution evokes something other than natural events in the evolution of man?

I'll skip the evolution reference, because it's not involved.

nature cannot create energy, - Symmetry, Broken-Symmetry and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
matter, - The Law of Conservation of Matter
intelligence or useful information - information conservation

 

[DerelictJunction]

SkyWriting said: ↑
Science says that nature cannot create energy, matter, intelligence, or useful information on it own.

I'll skip the evolution reference, because it's not involved.

nature cannot create energy, - Symmetry, Broken-Symmetry and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
matter, - The Law of Conservation of Matter
intelligence or useful information - information conservation

Evolution most certainly is involved because this is a thread about the folly of Creationism. You said that nature cannot create intelligence.
1. Evolution is a scientific theory.
2. Study of the evolution of life shows that intelligent creatures have evolved from less intelligent creatures.
3. Therefore, science does not say that intelligence cannot be created.

Your information conservation link equates entropy with information. I don't understand how they are linked because it doesn't explain that link.

 

[SkyWriting]

Evolution most certainly is involved because this is a thread about the folly of Creationism. You said that nature cannot create intelligence.
1. Evolution is a scientific theory.
2. Study of the evolution of life shows that intelligent creatures have evolved from less intelligent creatures.
3. Therefore, science does not say that intelligence cannot be created.

Your information conservation link equates entropy with information. I don't understand how they are linked because it doesn't explain that link.

1. Evolution does not explain origins. It only explains how things change.
2. Not supported.
3. You are correct that one link does not cover the
conservation of information and intelligence.

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=24045

Entropy and conservation of information

Do Black Holes Destroy Information?

What is the law of conservation of information?

 

[DerelictJunction]

1. Evolution does not explain origins. It only explains how things change.

Neither does Creationism. "God made things" is not much of an explanation.

2. Not supported.

Within the paradigm of Evolution, more intelligent creatures evolved from less intelligent creatures. There are no scientific challenges to this theory. Therefore, science says that intelligence can be created.

3. You are correct that one link does not cover the
conservation of information and intelligence.

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=24045

Entropy and conservation of information

Do Black Holes Destroy Information?

What is the law of conservation of information?

Information is not intelligence as in the measure of the cognitive ability of a living thing.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Incorrect. Atheism addresses a single issue - do gods exist. Atheist's reject all the god claims. It says nothing about proof of how the universe come into being or how life started.

Oxford English Dictionary Definition of Atheist...
athe·ist / Ñ 'eITiIst; NAmE Ñ / noun
a person who believes that God does not exist

So, it is a belief that God does not exist. OK, so if God does not exist then as I said, the Atheist has to come up with some alternative (and credible) explanation for how the universe and subsequent life got started. I aint seen any sign of that to date. You are of course, free to believe non-divine miracles (e.g., the Big Bang), but I prefer to put my trust in God who revealed Himself by coming to earth in the form of a man (Jesus) and who taught us that He is the one who created everything ex-nihilo.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

When has a God of the Gaps ever made sense?

It makes as much sense as any other ideas I have heard, which amount to nada.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If it was a modern human it would be classified as H. sapiens. It isn't. They are a different species, H. erectus.

Says who? That's the exact same excuse they used with Neanderthal - until of course we found some DNA.

They said a lot of things about the extinct for 50 million year Coelacanth, until we found them alive that is and tested its DNA.

Just another infraspecific taxa of the human species - as the Mastiff is another infraspecific taxa of the Canine species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says who? That's the exact same excuse they used with Neanderthal - until of course we found some DNA.

They said a lot of things about the extinct for 50 million year Coelacanth, until we found them alive that is and tested its DNA.

Just another infraspecific taxa of the human species - as the Mastiff is another infraspecific taxa of the Canine species.

Sorry, you don't understand one whit about how fossils are used. The Coelacanth was thought to be extinct. They were wrong. Of course the Coelacanths of today are nothing like the Coelacanths of the past.


You seem to think that the Coelacanth are one species. They are not they are an order. Making the mistake of thinking one Coelacanth is the same as all others is the same as thinking that men are the same as tarsiers.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oxford English Dictionary Definition of Atheist...
athe·ist / Ñ 'eITiIst; NAmE Ñ / noun
a person who believes that God does not exist

So, it is a belief that God does not exist. OK, so if God does not exist then as I said, the Atheist has to come up with some alternative (and credible) explanation for how the universe and subsequent life got started. I aint seen any sign of that to date. You are of course, free to believe non-divine miracles (e.g., the Big Bang), but I prefer to put my trust in God who revealed Himself by coming to earth in the form of a man (Jesus) and who taught us that He is the one who created everything ex-nihilo.

So are you saying they have "Faith", "belief" that their exists no God, no different than my "Faith", "Belief" that there exists a God?

Except the Big Bang is a divine miracle, it's just been twisted into Fairie Dust (redshift/expansion/spacetime). The concept itself is of course from places one must have faith to follow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

"was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

Trust me, it's not the theoretical idea of the Big Bang that is flawed - just their interpretation of redshift making them believe it is still continuing. It is their refusal to then apply time dilation to anything but imaginary twins undergoing acceleration - even in a universe they then claim is continuing to accelerate. Refuse to then accept the postulates of their own theory - that if clocks slow under acceleration - then time passed exponentially faster as one goes backwards in time. So that a day today - was at one point a 1000 years, etc, etc, etc the further back one goes and the "slower" one was accelerating. So they really don't want to discuss any theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oxford English Dictionary Definition of Atheist...
athe·ist / Ñ 'eITiIst; NAmE Ñ / noun
a person who believes that God does not exist

So, it is a belief that God does not exist. OK, so if God does not exist then as I said, the Atheist has to come up with some alternative (and credible) explanation for how the universe and subsequent life got started. I aint seen any sign of that to date. You are of course, free to believe non-divine miracles (e.g., the Big Bang), but I prefer to put my trust in God who revealed Himself by coming to earth in the form of a man (Jesus) and who taught us that He is the one who created everything ex-nihilo.

If you want to know what an atheist is you ask an atheist. You do not go to a dictionary written largely by Christians. Would you go to a Muslim for a definition of what a Christian is?

Please at least try to be reasonable.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, you don't understand one whit about how fossils are used. The Coelacanth was thought to be extinct. They were wrong. Of course the Coelacanths of today are nothing like the Coelacanths of the past.

You seem to think that the Coelacanth are one species. They are not they are an order. Making the mistake of thinking one Coelacanth is the same as all others is the same as thinking that men are the same as tarsiers.

Those Coelacanth are no more different species than the Husky and the Mastiff. Or an Asian and an African. This is what you continually refuse to accept. All observations of how life propagates. Over and over you refuse to apply what is observed to what we find. They are no more a separate species from one another - than are those Finches that produced fertile offspring while they watched.

Only because you ignore observational evidence and your own scientific definitions can your claims hold up in your own mind.