Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[DJ_Ghost]

I just wanted to see what he would have came up with. Probably linked to some blurry pictures on a site that also sells von Däniken books.

Do they still sell Von Danikens books? Good grief.

Ghost

 

[Jacquo]

Dear Wiccan_Child,

Further to Isaac Newton’s words I quoted earlier here is Michael Faraday’s:

'In conclusion, I may remark that . . . our philosophy, feeble as it is, gives us to see in every particle of matter, a centre of force reaching to an infinite distance, binding worlds and suns together, and unchangeable in its permanency. Around this same particle we see grouped the powers of all the various phenomena of nature: the heat, the cold, the wind, the storm, the awful conflagration, the vivid lightning flash, the stability of the rock and the mountain, the grand mobility of the ocean, with its mighty tidal wave sweeping round the globe in its diurnal journey, the dancing of the stream and the torrent; the glorious cloud, the soft dew, the rain dropping fatness, the harmonious working of all these forces in nature, until at last the molecule rises up in accordance with the mighty purpose ordained for it, and plays its
part in the gift of life itself. And therefore our philosophy, whilst it
shows us these things, should lead us to think of Him who hath wrought them; for it is said by an authority far above even that which these works present, that "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead." '

Taken from Life and Letters of Faraday by Dr. Bence Jones Secretary of the Royal Institution. Published by Longmans, Green and Co. of London 1870

Regards,



Jac

 

[Dannager]

Dear Baggins,

I asked, “where is the mention of the Giraffe's particular blood clotting system?”

And instead of giving me this you persist in pointing out other blood clotting mechanisms.

That's because I don't need to show you any other blood clotting mechanism. You haven't explained what problem you have with the Giraffe's blood clotting system. Are you saying that the Giraffe's blood clotting system is intelligently designed? It's not. It uses the same blood clotting mechanism all mammals do - though some mammals are missing portions of this mechanism and their blood clots just fine (see: dolphins). This is a refutation of the irreducible complexity argument as it pertains to blood clotting systems. Irreducible complexity argues that certain mechanisms cannot function in piecemeal (thus it follows that they cannot have evolved from a previous, "less-complete" mechanism because that mechanism would not be environmentally favored without any utility). I have demonstrated that the blood clotting mechanism present in mammals (giraffes included) cannot be said to be irreducibly complex because it can be seen missing portions that are required in certain mammals for proper clotting while still clotting blood properly in the mammals missing the parts. Irreducible complexity has not yet once been successfully demonstrated. It remains a hypothesis without supporting evidence.

I asked “where are the co-ordinates requested?”

This was in the context of the so-called Kuiper belt and Oort cloud. To which you responded with a link and a mention of 250+ objects found in the region of space now commonly mentioned as “the Kuiper Belt” area.

I note there is no mention of any observations of anything in the Oort cloud ‘region’.

That's because the Oort cloud has never been directly observed, as I'm sure you're aware. We don't have equipment capable of it. It is extremely likely that the Oort cloud does exist in the location posited by astronomers.

Now, it must be realised that the Kuiper Belt first came up as an idea of somewhere as the source of short term comets might be found.

Well, yes, they must have come from somewhere. Given their observed paths the Kuiper Belt solution was fitting.

However, looking at this linked article and diagrams I cannot help but picture a cloud in the Kuiper “BELT” so-called area and no distinct belt. But that is an aside.

Yes, it is, and has no bearing on the Kuiper Belt's ability to harbor comets.

More importantly all these observations are of objects 1000 times the mass and volume of the largest observed comets. Some argue that Pluto should be classed among them…

So, please where are the co-ordinates for all the comet material?

We can't see things that small, that far off. It follows, though, that if we measure this number of small Kuiper bodies, many countless smaller objects exist within the Kuiper Belt, some of which are likely comets. The evidence is as follows: The Kuiper Belt exists. It contains small astronomical bodies. Comet measurements pin the location of the Kuiper Belt as a likely point of origin. If large bodies exist, due to current knowledge regarding stellar body formation we know that small, currently-undetectable bodies must exist as well. The evidence most certainly points to the Kuiper Belt as a source of comets.

Until such time as these are ‘found’ the weight of evidence points to the argument that short term comets are indicators of a young solar system.

What evidence?

 

[Magnus Vile]

Hi Mr GoodByte,

I may now have enough posts to include a link:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-rock-art-man-riding-triceratops.jpg

And this is a triceratops, not a stegi or an archei. Please feel free to search the web for those until such time as I have enough posts to permit me to post images.

Regards,

Jac

Both Answers in Genesis, and Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute have written that those stones are recently made.

Answers in Genesis said, (in a footnote in an article claiming that men and dinosaus did coexist)

Unfortunately, some initially plausible evidences for man’s contemporaneity with dinosaurs have later turned out to be mistaken. The controversial ‘Ica stones’—allegedly genuine pre-Inca engravings of dinosaurs from Peru—have since been shown to be a fraud. Creation 24(2) featured these with the cautionary label, ‘Too good to be true?’ In fact, it turns out that an unscrupulous Peruvian surgeon had purchased the stones from a local artist and installed them in his museum, claiming them to be ancient artefacts; the artist himself makes these stones for tourists and never claims them to be ancient.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Hi Mr GoodByte,

I may now have enough posts to include a link:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-rock-art-man-riding-triceratops.jpg

And this is a triceratops, not a stegi or an archei. Please feel free to search the web for those until such time as I have enough posts to permit me to post images.

Oh, goodie! Ica stones, indeed. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but those are hoaxes. At least the ones depicting dinosaurs and other strange animals and devices. Searching the web, as you suggested, turns up these reports for instance:

http://skepdic.com/icastones.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=10663018&postcount=5

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Hi Mr GoodByte,

I may now have enough posts to include a link:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-rock-art-man-riding-triceratops.jpg

And this is a triceratops, not a stegi or an archei. Please feel free to search the web for those until such time as I have enough posts to permit me to post images.

Regards,

Jac

TalkOrigins has thouroughly refuted similar (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm) evidence from the very same organization here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

Thus, I am rather disinclined to believe that this particular piece of dinosaur paintings is authentic.
Now, where are those civil war archaeopteryx photos ?

 

[Herman Hedning]

Now, where are those civil war archaeopteryx photos ?

I guess he is refering to this pictures of an alleged pterodactyl.

Unfortunately, that too is a hoax.

As it turned out this photograph was a promotional tool of Orlando, Florida's Haxan Production (producers of "The Blair Witch Project"), to develop interest in their forthcoming fictional program, "Freaky Links." The series, first broadcast on Fox TV, finally in 2000, involved the character "Derek Barnes," an investigator of the unknown.

The picture was a hoax and the pterodactyl was a prop created exclusively for two episodes of Freaky Links. Fox is done with the prop, however, and this intriguing pseudo-cryptid was acquired by Loren Coleman, and is now part of the collection of the Museum--that is all 22 feet by 11 feet of it.

From here: http://www.lorencoleman.com/museum.html

 

[notto]

And they say that those that accept evolution are being deceived.

Jacquo has been suckered in by two well documented and well know hoaxes. I bet we see a basking shark next.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

And they still bring up Piltdown Man.

 

[Baggins]

Hi Mr GoodByte,

I may now have enough posts to include a link:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-rock-art-man-riding-triceratops.jpg

And this is a triceratops, not a stegi or an archei. Please feel free to search the web for those until such time as I have enough posts to permit me to post images.

Regards,

Jac

At which point he finally reveals himself to be just another looney.

What else do you believe in because you've seen pictures of it?

Just tick the boxes

Unicorns
Leprachauns
Flying spaghetti monsters
Griffons
Dragons
Fairys
elves


Your arguments would be laughable if they weren't obviously so important to your faith. They are built on hoaxes and poor understanding of science.

You cling to the blood clotting system of giraffes for some reason, when it has been pointed out to you that it is no different from your blood clotting system and not irreducibly complex because the blood clotting system of a dolphin is a less complex form of the same system and still works.

You bandy about terms like Oort clouds and Kuiper belts but you seem to have no real understanding of the answers people give you.

You should really get get back into your cocoon of ignorance because interaction with real scientists will only prove painful to you.

 

[Dannager]

Hey, now, c'mon guys. I'm sure Jacquo simply wasn't aware that he was being deceived. The most blame he possibly deserves is placing too much trust in the wrong people.

 

[Baggins]

Hey, now, c'mon guys. I'm sure Jacquo simply wasn't aware that he was being deceived. The most blame he possibly deserves is placing too much trust in the wrong people.

To be taken in by such things one has to want to believe in them, you can't get someone with a skeptical mindset to believe in a photo of a pterodactyl.

He wants to be deceived, because in some way it sustains his christian faith.

 

[Dannager]

Then at the very least we need to show him that his Christian faith does not require him to believe in all that nonsense.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Then at the very least we need to show him that his Christian faith does not require him to believe in all that nonsense.

Amen to that.

 

[Baggins]

Then at the very least we need to show him that his Christian faith does not require him to believe in all that nonsense.

Agreed.

Attempts have been made, but he seems to hold on to anything he feels hasn't been completely refuted with extreme tenacity.

I would hope that the cute pictures of aztec dinovases were a last desparate throw of the dice.

But I wouldn't be too sure.

People like that just bounce back agin usually onto a point that was refuted 20 pages ago.

Shinbits on the termites/flood thread is an example of this. After 30 pages of having his every objection answered he proves to have not understood anything by proclaiminh his faith in the flood to now be stronger than ever because he has 'learnt' that limestones form underwater.

I reckon this guy will be pretty much the same. They can't let go because their faith is not built on solid irrefutable ( or unfalsifiable at any rate )foundations like yours, but on the sand of pseudoscience and quackery.

 

[TexasSky]

Over and over and over again, I have asked in these discussions that Talk Origins not be used by others as their support.

It is scientifically wrong in several locations.

It is as biased against creationism as evolutionists claim certain ID sites are.

If you truly can support your views, you can do so with sites that are NOT clearly biased and factually in error.

I recommend that creationists reject Talk Origins in these discussions the same way evolutionists reject any site run by YEC groups.

 

[TexasSky]

Then at the very least we need to show him that his Christian faith does not require him to believe in all that nonsense.

The world will really and totally have reached the last age of Christianity when Chrisitans look to atheists or agnostics to teach us what our faith requires.

 

[Baggins]

Over and over and over again, I have asked in these discussions that Talk Origins not be used by others as their support.

It is scientifically wrong in several locations.

Examples and proof please, otherwise this just rhetoric

It is as biased against creationism as evolutionists claim certain ID sites are.

It just gives the honest unvarnished scienctific truth. If that is contrary to creationism then that is just bad luck.

If you truly can support your views, you can do so with sites that are NOT clearly biased and factually in error.

Do you have proof of factual errors or is this just more hot air

I recommend that creationists reject Talk Origins in these discussions the same way evolutionists reject any site run by YEC groups.

The same way you reject reality

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Over and over and over again, I have asked in these discussions that Talk Origins not be used by others as their support.
It is scientifically wrong in several locations.

Show us, please.

It is as biased against creationism as evolutionists claim certain ID sites are.

If by "biased" you mean "refuted every single claim ever made", then, yes.

If you truly can support your views, you can do so with sites that are NOT clearly biased and factually in error.

Again, show us where TO is "clearly biased" and factually wrong.

 

[Magnus Vile]

Over and over and over again, I have asked in these discussions that Talk Origins not be used by others as their support.

It is scientifically wrong in several locations.

It is as biased against creationism as evolutionists claim certain ID sites are.

If you truly can support your views, you can do so with sites that are NOT clearly biased and factually in error.

I recommend that creationists reject Talk Origins in these discussions the same way evolutionists reject any site run by YEC groups.

Be fair, I deliberately chose information from AIG and the DI to address the Ica stones. I guessed there were plenty of people that could point out that everyone else knew they were fakes, I wanted to show that even a YEC organisation like AIG knew they were fakes...

So not all of us use TO to address all points. (Probably, in my case, because I'm too lazy to read all the good stuff there. Unlike AIG, though, TO offers links to people they don't agree with. You can get to AIG from the TO links page, you can't do it the other way. I couldn't even find a links page on AIG...)