Honest Question

[random325nicaea]

"you deceive yourself. "

mwha maybe.

"I think the venom you have shown is evidence that you are afraid to hear anothers point of view"

oh please, PLEASE don't take this line. this sit startign like one of those "you just don't want to hear the truth" replies.
PLEASE just give me your evidence so we can get this started.
i don't wan to get into the entire "why would you think im so dam deluded and what do you think i would gain from it" part with you.

"ult of only knowing what you have been taught and not knowing how to reason for yourself."
WOW tnx for insulting my intellect!

now lets get to the meat of your evidence...

"no sarcasm, good luck in what you are pursueing, may you find truth and grace in all your pursuits."

well then my apologies for not taking you serious. thank you.

"wrong, but you are free to deceive yourself, it's your right. "

ok...what do i have to do to convince you i do not know all of hovind's, Comforts. Ham's or Yahya's arguments?

btw, i would like to hear yours now.

"nothing even close to the point, but okay. "
what? am I wrong in assuming he thought everyone had that same thirst for knowledge that he has?

"I've read it, but only see the deception you use to excuse your venom. "

mmm because i consider the ignorance of saying "all mutations are detrimental" worthy of an insult, im decieving myself.

please, lets not get into this anymore. just come with the meat.

"I have had some very incredible discussions with some very educated evolutionists. But I refuse to do so with venom and attacks."

i haven't released any on you personally yet?

"it can be if treated like a religion. "

..how can acceptanc eof a natural explination of the diversity of life, be comparable to religion, or at least in the same way that christianity is a religion.

"then talk to them alone because you have not offered anyone else here a civil tongue. "

i do, but first i wanted to adress the entire "it's just prejudace" accusation.

now lets hear your evidence.

"yet not every creationist does, so labeling them as such, is an injustice. "

i do not label them all like that. it's just the people who do, i come to dislike.

"you'd be surprised at what an actual study reveals. "

and what might i be doign wrong with it atm then?

"right, only after your inicial attacks "

those were onyl aimed at these people, didn't that becoem apparent in the posts enough?

"Already provided what I believe....why repeat it for someone as intellegent as yourself?"

ok all i got now is "god created, not sure how, flood happened but not exactly liek the bible, designers evidenc is everwhere."

that's to general.
come on, toss soem details.

do you agree with the 4.5 bil year old estimate of the earth?
why ID over ToE?
god created how? fully formed, or basal form which "adapt"?
where did you get the idea that mand an pangea conincided?
massive flood? so when was it exactly? durign pangea or during man?
when do you think made first came along?
where do neahnderthalers fit in with you?
what about our close relationship with chimps, and what about all the transtional fossils?
what about all the fossils?
if during man (if you think he wasreally recent), how can we see so much marine diversity in so little time?
how do you believe the flood happaned?
how old do you think the universe is?


and most improtantly
what is your understanding of ToE?
yes this is a very important question to me, most of the times people tend to think it's somehting entirely else then wat it is.

come on, there is much more for me to learn about you.

 

[razzelflabben]

"okay, let's try it this way, show me one peer review presented by a creationist that is full of lies...."

impossible they have no system of peer review. and they haven't even gotten through one actual peer review set once. not only that, the people who do write most of the articles aren't exactly top notch scientists either.

from a scientific standpoint, it is the same peer review....so you should have no problem, unless of course, a double standard is your best stratagy.

i can show you lots of standard debunking vids tho (mainly hovind, Ham and expelled) and even a rare part where a creationist is called on his unscientific conduct in one of their own magazines.
ofc, the man who wrote the article didn't fix the errors.
im latking about the infamous "variable C" paper.
you' might be awar of it, it's very old tho.

but we are only allowed by your previous post to talk about peer review, nothing private, only scientific peer review of which you still haven't provided one creationist whose work is full of lies.

but, YOU made the first claim. so pelae provide me with the "lie" sicne you seem to know what you are referring too.

my claim was that just like creationists that lie, many evolutionists lie as well. I said nothing about peer reviews only...in fact, you change the criteria based on which side we are referring to. In your posts, if we are talking about evolutionists, it can only be evidenced in peer review reports, but if we are talking about creationist, it is the lay person who is posted on the web that shows us who lies. This double standard if left to continue, will end this discussion really quick.

"all this was posted before you asked....makes you the one jumping to conclusions..."

before i asked you i wasn't even adressing your beliefs

"and a scientist on this very forum actually admitted once that that was because of bias in the scientific community...interesting to note he is a hard core evolutionist."

that is half true. see you an consider it a kind "bias" if you're only allowing acutal scientific papers though your peer review system and if you're only dealign with natural explinations.

and article that sais "because god.." is almost instantly rejected.

but like so many evolutionists, you rely on the "god of the gaps" theory instead of engaging in the arguement presented.

but still i wan tat least one name.
and i wan tone who'se from the actual field, not one that specializes in something else intirely.

can't blame a aerospae engineer because he knows little of biology.

" Nothing worse than discussing "origins" with an evolutionist with double standards. "

double standards?
explain

see above

"so you are welcome to discuss your objections with him anytime you want"
can't , he either ignores you or send you a "you deluded by staten"esque reply, even to fellow christians who point him on his BS.

"Testing for a designer is incredibly easy, we do it everyday, without being able to test for a designer, we couldn't test for anything in our natural world."

does not compute.
how do you you test for something supernatural, and why test for something when there is no need for it to eb designed at all?

if we want to know truth, we can and should test anything and everything that is part of our empirical world. Therefore, we can and should test for God, since He is part of our empirical world.

and still you need to give a mechanism by WHICH the designer does it.
no point in just replacing the "how" with "who".

well, it seems to me that logically we would first need to determine if it was created or "just happened", and only if we determine it was created, would we then formulate a mechanism for that creation, of the possibles I would think TOE could be included, which satisfies the theistic evolutionist, but would include others as well, things which we then could test for all with the same premise.

"if we can't test for design, how can we know which are heritage seeds and which are hybreds?"

because of their morphological and genetic charactaristics.
stuff that needend be "designed" at all.

"then be my guest, have a discussion with him, most of the creationists here on this forum aren't him."

can;t, he ceonsors you.
look at the entire DMCA scandal between Discovery institute and the youtube user "donexodus2".
that and he doesn't call himself a "creationist" as that would hurt their image.

it's still a different group than those here.

 

[razzelflabben]

"you deceive yourself. "

mwha maybe.

"I think the venom you have shown is evidence that you are afraid to hear anothers point of view"

oh please, PLEASE don't take this line. this sit startign like one of those "you just don't want to hear the truth" replies.
PLEASE just give me your evidence so we can get this started.
i don't wan to get into the entire "why would you think im so dam deluded and what do you think i would gain from it" part with you.

then quite simply drop the hostility. It's pretty easy, leave the hostility somewhere else so that our discussion does not turn into venom which is against the rules.

"ult of only knowing what you have been taught and not knowing how to reason for yourself."
WOW tnx for insulting my intellect!

now lets get to the meat of your evidence...

"no sarcasm, good luck in what you are pursueing, may you find truth and grace in all your pursuits."

well then my apologies for not taking you serious. thank you.

"wrong, but you are free to deceive yourself, it's your right. "

ok...what do i have to do to convince you i do not know all of hovind's, Comforts. Ham's or Yahya's arguments?

btw, i would like to hear yours now.

I already told you my personal views on the topic of "origins". you ignored it.

"nothing even close to the point, but okay. "
what? am I wrong in assuming he thought everyone had that same thirst for knowledge that he has?

"I've read it, but only see the deception you use to excuse your venom. "

mmm because i consider the ignorance of saying "all mutations are detrimental" worthy of an insult, im decieving myself.

please, lets not get into this anymore. just come with the meat.

"I have had some very incredible discussions with some very educated evolutionists. But I refuse to do so with venom and attacks."

i haven't released any on you personally yet?

"it can be if treated like a religion. "

..how can acceptanc eof a natural explination of the diversity of life, be comparable to religion, or at least in the same way that christianity is a religion.

depends of what truth is...

"then talk to them alone because you have not offered anyone else here a civil tongue. "

i do, but first i wanted to adress the entire "it's just prejudace" accusation.

now lets hear your evidence.

"yet not every creationist does, so labeling them as such, is an injustice. "

i do not label them all like that. it's just the people who do, i come to dislike.

"you'd be surprised at what an actual study reveals. "

and what might i be doign wrong with it atm then?

"right, only after your inicial attacks "

those were onyl aimed at these people, didn't that becoem apparent in the posts enough?

"Already provided what I believe....why repeat it for someone as intellegent as yourself?"

ok all i got now is "god created, not sure how, flood happened but not exactly liek the bible, designers evidenc is everwhere."

that's to general.
come on, toss soem details.

then you missed the point completely which is why I refuse to go into more details until you drop the hostility...what I am saying is that there is not enough evidence in the bible or in science to know for sure some of the questions we are trying to claim to know for sure.

do you agree with the 4.5 bil year old estimate of the earth?
why ID over ToE?

maybe, not sure the 4.5 bill is percise, but much closer than a few thousand years to be sure....Why ID? Two mainreasons 1. I have tested for God and found Him to be very real, and 2. Because the evidence of our empirical world better supports a created world than a just happened world.

god created how? fully formed, or basal form which "adapt"?

jury is still out on that one.

where did you get the idea that mand an pangea conincided?

missing the point, try again.

massive flood? so when was it exactly? durign pangea or during man?

during man

when do you think made first came along?

Made? do you mean man? After all other things were created.

where do neahnderthalers fit in with you?

jury is still out, we need more science to even know for sure what they are.

what about our close relationship with chimps, and what about all the transtional fossils?

what about our close relationship with chimps...? I don't understand the problem....as for transitional fossils, that is the most troubling for the creationist, but keep in mind, it is sorting, not experiments on our world per sa....for example, I can sort these posts any number of ways, including using 3 or 4 criteria for sort by, will that tell us who wrote the post and when they were written? No, not unless they were sorted by author and date...sorting is not going to tell us what happened, only that we can sort them a certain way which suggests but does not evidence who or how.

what about all the fossils?

what about them?

if during man (if you think he wasreally recent), how can we see so much marine diversity in so little time?

Life is diverse, look around you, or do you mean something else that is illuding me?

how do you believe the flood happaned?

what are we talking about the flood for? I thought that we were talking about creation vs. evolution.

how old do you think the universe is?

see above.

and most improtantly
what is your understanding of ToE?

the theory of evolution is an explaination of the "origins of species". a theory that relies heavily on evolution, the mechanism of change. I could provide some different definitions, but I primarily work with kids so I like to keep things on a simple, more lay level. for a more comprehensive definition go to Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes this is a very important question to me, most of the times people tend to think it's somehting entirely else then wat it is.

oops I answered before I read this part...

come on, there is much more for me to learn about you.

you don't have a clue who I am, and I like it that way, it's easier to determine whether or not the hostility and venom is gone.

 

[random325nicaea]

"from a scientific standpoint, it is the same peer review....so you should have no problem, unless of course, a double standard is your best stratagy."

ok sow theyr system of peer review is "one layman, to another layman".
they won't allow any scientists, who work on the fields of what they are writing about, to dissect their articles.

no there are no double standards. just people who try to get around peer review, because they know it won't pass it if an expert on the subject reads it.

" only scientific peer review of which you still haven't provided one creationist whose work is full of lies."

they HAVE no scientific peer reviewed articles.
either because they aren't scientific, or they weren't or didn't get through peer review.
i CAN however give you a standard debunk of most creationists arguments, and in video format. would you like that?

"my claim was that just like creationists that lie, many evolutionists lie as well."

then give me the lies.

"I said nothing about peer reviews only...in fact, you change the criteria based on which side we are referring to."

peer review, is when you write something on a subject you are studying and you let other people who study the subject review it for factual and logical correctness.
the IS no redefining here. either creationists aren't letting their scientific articles get peer reviewed, or they aren't aimed at the scientific community (not beign scientific articles)

" it is the lay person who is posted on the web that shows us who lies."

what would a Lay person know about ToE if he can't even understand how IRC systems ccan form via evolutionary means?

this is one of the main problems with creationists arguments. the laymen who try to "exposes the lies" are usually so ignorant on the subjects they are writing about that the only thing they end up exposign is their own ignorance.

"This double standard if left to continue, will end this discussion really quick. "

explained above.

"but like so many evolutionists, you rely on the "god of the gaps" theory instead of engaging in the arguement presented. "

?
when we don't know somehtign, we do not call "god", THAT is "god of the gaps".
when a theory doesn't explain the data, it's altered so that it does, thus increasing it's explanatory power (and yes this goes with lots of work and experimenting)

but you seem to be implying you have a unknown here.
tell me what you think ToE doesn't explain?

"see above "

so you think it's ok for a aerospace engineer to write about how he thinks he can disprove evolution, when he starts of without understandign ToE thoroughly?

"Therefore, we can and should test for God, since He is part of our empirical world."

ok, show me the test.
and tel me what we are testign for.
make your hypothesis, think up an experiment, gather the data, look at the conclusion, and let it be reviewed.

that's they way we do stuff.

"well, it seems to me that logically we would first need to determine if it was created or "just happened""

WOW> back up.
please don't use the words "just happened".
that is a horrible discription of the natural processes that are involved with "reading " DNA, protien synthesis, growth, change of teh environment, ect.

to say it "just happened" is to imply that it just "formed by pure chance", and evolution IS NOT CHANCE. it's called natural SELECTION.

"and only if we determine it was created" show me one thing that needs to be "created" and cannot form via natural means.

"would we then formulate a mechanism for that creation"
so far i've never sean an ID proponet ever give me a discription of that process other then "that's the way the designer did it". im hoping you will finally give me one.

"of the possibles I would think TOE could be included, which satisfies the theistic evolutionist"

ok.

"but would include others as well, things which we then could test for all with the same premise."

do you have another natural process that can form these "created things" other then that the "designer did is molecule by molecule at a time?
that OR it was just replicatign itself and was selcted for by the environment.

"it's still a different group than those here."

maybe you, but there are plenty out here on the forum. just have a look.

 

[random325nicaea]

":then quite simply drop the hostility. It's pretty easy, leave the hostility somewhere else so that our discussion does not turn into venom which is against the rules."

im not even hostile towards you!
im just explainign why i am hostile to the people you accused me of "having a prejudace against" and i even outline WHICH people.

"I already told you my personal views on the topic of "origins". you ignored it. "

which we're sadly lacking in details. i need more than that.

"depends of what truth is..."

isn't that another branch of philosophy?
how about the definition.

"1. Conformity to fact or actuality."
and that would be withing reality.

"I am saying is that there is not enough evidence in the bible or in science to know for sure some of the questions we are trying to claim to know for sure"

science never claims 100% certainty (otherwise we would stop asking) but we do claim a high degree of certainty.
like when we see a nested hieracry of similarities converging the further back in time we go (like in the fossil record).

"1. I have tested for God and found Him to be very real, and"

i REALLY want to see that test.

"2. Because the evidence of our empirical world better supports a created world than a just happened world."

how so? so far we have explained most of reality throught means of natural processes. ones that do not require any sort of supernatural guidence.

can you name me something that screams "created"

btw again "happened" horrible to describe natural processes that always happen a certain way (hence we managed to distill "laws" from nature).

"jury is still out on that one."

wel he didn't create humans like we are now.and he didn't create brids like we are now. we know that because we aren't finding "precambrian bunnies".

"missing the point, try again."

No. you said a flood whiped out a large portion of mankind, then you said you thought the flood happened during pangea. so which is it?

"during man"
THANK YOU.

"Made? do you mean man? After all other things were created. "

gj at getting the correct meaning XD sry i tend to make lots of typos in these long posts.

" After all other things were created. "

which was when in the planet's history? because this doesn't realy answer "when" that well.

"jury is still out, we need more science to even know for sure what they are. "'

well we know they weren't Homo sapiens, we know that from their DNA.
and we know we are very similar to them and that they died out when we started encroaching on their turf.

"for example, I can sort these posts any number of ways, including using 3 or 4 criteria for sort by,"

WOW, please don't try to accuse paleantologist of not sortign thign in chronological order, and then noticing a pattern of similarities.

the further back we go, the more fossil line "merge".
note, we stil ahve gaps, but we also have lots of filler.

also we can SEE that certain traits only start appearing after a certain age.

there where no feathers in the cambruim, there where no chordates in the precampruim, there where no reptiles in the divonian, ect.

" No, not unless they were sorted by author and date...sorting is not going to tell us what happened, "

the deeper down you go, the further back in time.

"what about them? "

let me rephrase that.

"what about the fossil record?"

"ife is diverse, look around you, or do you mean something else that is illuding me?"

yes.
when you see a massive distruption of a ecosystem, lots of species tend to die.
since you claim this huge flood happend recently (relatively) how can we still see so much diversity, that could not have arizen from basal forms in such a short amount of time, and a ecological disturbance would have whiped them out if the speices was in existance durign the flood.
EG: fresh water fish, or salt water fish depending on whether the flood was salt or fresh water)

"what are we talking about the flood for? I thought that we were talking about creation vs. evolution. "

a huge flood, beign the massive ecological disruption that it is, would leave telltale signs in the biodiversity today. so yes, it IS important if you say it happened.

"see above."

i take it 13.5-14 billion years then?

"a theory that relies heavily on evolution, the mechanism of change."

ehm...evolution isn't the mechanism.

natrual selection, sexual selection and genetic drift are.

evolution is the apparent consequence of these mechanisms.

"for a more comprehensive definition go to"

wiki would have told you the above...

" I could provide some different definitions,""

please do, one that is more inline with the actual concept.

"but I primarily work with kids so I like to keep things on a simple, more lay level."

a simple kiddie example would be.
"all livign things live in special part of nature.
all living thign make more of themselves, but the children are always a little different form their parents.
nature changes, so the living thing are constantly left with a changing home.
some little changes in the children will make them mroe likely to make children.
as time goes on, these little changes become more apparent to all the animals of that kind (*im substituting kind for speices here for kiddie level).
as more time goes by and nature changes more, the changes become bigger and the grand, grand children look much less then their grand grand parents.

if enough time goes by they won't look anything like what the original form looked.

and that's a simle form of growign more complex,
keep in mind this is horribly simple, irl brnaching would probably take place too, between the animals that stayed more like the basal for, and the living things that specialized.

a simple form of branching can be explained like this.

on a grey plain live grey rats.
the grey rats have grey and a few green children.
the green rats tend to get eaten a lot.
the plain gets divided by a river the rats cannot cross.
the rat population is divided by the river.
one side of the river turns green.
on that side the grey rats get eaten a lot.

after a long time, the grey side contians mostly grey rats, and the green side green rats.

when the river dissapears, the grey and the green side can no longer have babies anymore.

they've becoem 2 different species!

ofc that was also a brutally over simplified version, but it's enough to give kids a basic idea of what evolution is, and how natural selction works.

 

[razzelflabben]

"from a scientific standpoint, it is the same peer review....so you should have no problem, unless of course, a double standard is your best stratagy."

ok sow theyr system of peer review is "one layman, to another layman".
they won't allow any scientists, who work on the fields of what they are writing about, to dissect their articles.

obviously you don't want to communicate, only to talk and make yourself puffed up....

We are talking about scientists, not those who call themselves by any and every name in the book. Not one layman to another layman, but rather the peer review that you are holding the evolutionists to...which peer reviewed creation scientist is lieing....that is your question. It's consistancy...your response will tell me if you are ready to move on into the meaty stuff...

no there are no double standards. just people who try to get around peer review, because they know it won't pass it if an expert on the subject reads it.

Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net
Creation question
WikiAnswers - What scientific evidence do young earth creation scientists use to support their argument that the world and universe is young
http://creationwiki.org/Creation_Scientists

" only scientific peer review of which you still haven't provided one creationist whose work is full of lies."

they HAVE no scientific peer reviewed articles.
either because they aren't scientific, or they weren't or didn't get through peer review.
i CAN however give you a standard debunk of most creationists arguments, and in video format. would you like that?

"my claim was that just like creationists that lie, many evolutionists lie as well."

then give me the lies.

"I said nothing about peer reviews only...in fact, you change the criteria based on which side we are referring to."

peer review, is when you write something on a subject you are studying and you let other people who study the subject review it for factual and logical correctness.
the IS no redefining here. either creationists aren't letting their scientific articles get peer reviewed, or they aren't aimed at the scientific community (not beign scientific articles)

I know what peer review is, don't pull that stunt with me, my complaint is the double standard you present.

And BTW, you forgot the third option, one admitted to on the forum buy a well educated scientist, an evolutionist scientist at that, 3. the peer review process is biased and use a different criteria to determine if the creationist is worthy of publication.

" it is the lay person who is posted on the web that shows us who lies."

what would a Lay person know about ToE if he can't even understand how IRC systems ccan form via evolutionary means?

you can't even understand what I am saying about peer review and double standards, so apparently you don't know anything about science and origins right? The argument is similar to yours, so let's call it fact and move on, okay?

this is one of the main problems with creationists arguments. the laymen who try to "exposes the lies" are usually so ignorant on the subjects they are writing about that the only thing they end up exposign is their own ignorance.

just like you have been doing with your venom and hostility and purposeful disregard for what is being said....right?!

"This double standard if left to continue, will end this discussion really quick. "

explained above.

"but like so many evolutionists, you rely on the "god of the gaps" theory instead of engaging in the arguement presented. "

?
when we don't know somehtign, we do not call "god", THAT is "god of the gaps".
when a theory doesn't explain the data, it's altered so that it does, thus increasing it's explanatory power (and yes this goes with lots of work and experimenting)

but you seem to be implying you have a unknown here.
tell me what you think ToE doesn't explain?

First, drop the "god of the gaps", I don't buy it, secondly, there is a host of things ToE does not explain.

"see above "

so you think it's ok for a aerospace engineer to write about how he thinks he can disprove evolution, when he starts of without understandign ToE thoroughly?

where did this come from?

"Therefore, we can and should test for God, since He is part of our empirical world."

ok, show me the test.
and tel me what we are testign for.
make your hypothesis, think up an experiment, gather the data, look at the conclusion, and let it be reviewed.

that's they way we do stuff.

"well, it seems to me that logically we would first need to determine if it was created or "just happened""

WOW> back up.
please don't use the words "just happened".
that is a horrible discription of the natural processes that are involved with "reading " DNA, protien synthesis, growth, change of teh environment, ect.

to say it "just happened" is to imply that it just "formed by pure chance", and evolution IS NOT CHANCE. it's called natural SELECTION.

right, natural selection is a fancy way of saying, random, just happened, by process but not with purpose...

"and only if we determine it was created" show me one thing that needs to be "created" and cannot form via natural means.

"would we then formulate a mechanism for that creation"
so far i've never sean an ID proponet ever give me a discription of that process other then "that's the way the designer did it". im hoping you will finally give me one.

"of the possibles I would think TOE could be included, which satisfies the theistic evolutionist"

ok.

"but would include others as well, things which we then could test for all with the same premise."

do you have another natural process that can form these "created things" other then that the "designer did is molecule by molecule at a time?
that OR it was just replicatign itself and was selcted for by the environment.

"it's still a different group than those here."

maybe you, but there are plenty out here on the forum. just have a look.

I am aware of who is out there, and I am also aware that the most venomous people I have found on this forum (not to mention other places) is without doubt evolutionists and Obama supporters. They do no listening and spew venom randomly, got to wonder why those to groups win the prize every time....that being said, I have met some exceptions to the rules on all side, but generally speaking...

 

[razzelflabben]

":then quite simply drop the hostility. It's pretty easy, leave the hostility somewhere else so that our discussion does not turn into venom which is against the rules."

im not even hostile towards you!
im just explainign why i am hostile to the people you accused me of "having a prejudace against" and i even outline WHICH people.

"I already told you my personal views on the topic of "origins". you ignored it. "

which we're sadly lacking in details. i need more than that.

"depends of what truth is..."

isn't that another branch of philosophy?
how about the definition.

"1. Conformity to fact or actuality."
and that would be withing reality.

"I am saying is that there is not enough evidence in the bible or in science to know for sure some of the questions we are trying to claim to know for sure"

science never claims 100% certainty (otherwise we would stop asking) but we do claim a high degree of certainty.
like when we see a nested hieracry of similarities converging the further back in time we go (like in the fossil record).

claiming and showing with the evidence are not necessarily the same thing...like I said at the beginning, instead of just quoting what you have been taught, use logic to view the evidence for yourself. Notice your words here, "do claim "

"1. I have tested for God and found Him to be very real, and"

i REALLY want to see that test.

"2. Because the evidence of our empirical world better supports a created world than a just happened world."

how so? so far we have explained most of reality throught means of natural processes. ones that do not require any sort of supernatural guidence.

just because we can explain something doesn't make it truth...consider the existance of God, just because we can explain His existance as supernatural, does it make Him real? Of course not, same is true here, once again you quote what you have been taught, but refuse to logically think it out for yourself.

can you name me something that screams "created"

lots, but one thing at a time...

btw again "happened" horrible to describe natural processes that always happen a certain way (hence we managed to distill "laws" from nature).

"jury is still out on that one."

wel he didn't create humans like we are now.and he didn't create brids like we are now. we know that because we aren't finding "precambrian bunnies".

what you know is that we haven't found any precambrian bunnies, the rest is just logical conclusions of which there are others as well.

"missing the point, try again."

No. you said a flood whiped out a large portion of mankind, then you said you thought the flood happened during pangea. so which is it?

I think you need to read it again. This time without your "your a YEC glasses"

"during man"
THANK YOU.

"Made? do you mean man? After all other things were created. "

gj at getting the correct meaning XD sry i tend to make lots of typos in these long posts.

" After all other things were created. "

which was when in the planet's history? because this doesn't realy answer "when" that well.

"jury is still out, we need more science to even know for sure what they are. "'

well we know they weren't Homo sapiens, we know that from their DNA.
and we know we are very similar to them and that they died out when we started encroaching on their turf.

we also know that there are different species of the same animal, proves nothing but that they were a different species.

"for example, I can sort these posts any number of ways, including using 3 or 4 criteria for sort by,"

WOW, please don't try to accuse paleantologist of not sortign thign in chronological order, and then noticing a pattern of similarities.

the further back we go, the more fossil line "merge".
note, we stil ahve gaps, but we also have lots of filler.

except that wasn't the claim I made, so more hostility instead of communication reigns...

also we can SEE that certain traits only start appearing after a certain age.

there where no feathers in the cambruim, there where no chordates in the precampruim, there where no reptiles in the divonian, ect.

" No, not unless they were sorted by author and date...sorting is not going to tell us what happened, "

the deeper down you go, the further back in time.

"what about them? "

let me rephrase that.

"what about the fossil record?"

"ife is diverse, look around you, or do you mean something else that is illuding me?"

yes.
when you see a massive distruption of a ecosystem, lots of species tend to die.
since you claim this huge flood happend recently (relatively) how can we still see so much diversity, that could not have arizen from basal forms in such a short amount of time, and a ecological disturbance would have whiped them out if the speices was in existance durign the flood.
EG: fresh water fish, or salt water fish depending on whether the flood was salt or fresh water)

several problems with your assumptions here 1. we are talking massive flood vs. universal flood, not the same thing, that's like calling me wrong because we had a big flood here a couple years back...2. according to the flood account, life was spared in species, therefore diversity would be understood, it's really amazing that the ancient people knew enough science to build that into their story isn't it? (sarcasm)

"what are we talking about the flood for? I thought that we were talking about creation vs. evolution. "

a huge flood, beign the massive ecological disruption that it is, would leave telltale signs in the biodiversity today. so yes, it IS important if you say it happened.

see above, you are still responding with hostility rather than understanding, listening and logic.

"see above."

i take it 13.5-14 billion years then?

"a theory that relies heavily on evolution, the mechanism of change."

ehm...evolution isn't the mechanism.

natrual selection, sexual selection and genetic drift are.

evolution is the apparent consequence of these mechanisms.

"for a more comprehensive definition go to"

wiki would have told you the above...

" I could provide some different definitions,""

please do, one that is more inline with the actual concept.

"but I primarily work with kids so I like to keep things on a simple, more lay level."

a simple kiddie example would be.
"all livign things live in special part of nature.
all living thign make more of themselves, but the children are always a little different form their parents.
nature changes, so the living thing are constantly left with a changing home.
some little changes in the children will make them mroe likely to make children.
as time goes on, these little changes become more apparent to all the animals of that kind (*im substituting kind for speices here for kiddie level).
as more time goes by and nature changes more, the changes become bigger and the grand, grand children look much less then their grand grand parents.

if enough time goes by they won't look anything like what the original form looked.

and that's a simle form of growign more complex,
keep in mind this is horribly simple, irl brnaching would probably take place too, between the animals that stayed more like the basal for, and the living things that specialized.

this is for evolution not the theory of evolution of which I was asked for....you apparently don't know your own beliefs if this is how you would explain the ToE to a child...btw, genetics was mentioned in Gen. which basically means, that it is not contrary to the idea of creation.

a simple form of branching can be explained like this.

on a grey plain live grey rats.
the grey rats have grey and a few green children.
the green rats tend to get eaten a lot.
the plain gets divided by a river the rats cannot cross.
the rat population is divided by the river.
one side of the river turns green.
on that side the grey rats get eaten a lot.

after a long time, the grey side contians mostly grey rats, and the green side green rats.

when the river dissapears, the grey and the green side can no longer have babies anymore.

they've becoem 2 different species!

ofc that was also a brutally over simplified version, but it's enough to give kids a basic idea of what evolution is, and how natural selction works.

see above this is why science cannot and never will be able to falsify creation, because they are too similar in concepts.

And BTW, isn't a scientific theory suppose to be able to falsify?

 

[random325nicaea]

"obviously you don't want to communicate, only to talk and make yourself puffed up...."

no.
i just have never seen any creationist article stand up to any form of peer review by a scientist who studies the subject.

".which peer reviewed creation scientist is lieing....that is your question."

lying or ignorant?

for the record. most creationist arguments are NOT written by scientists.
and those who are, are not written by experst on the subjects they write on.

EG: the entire "oldest tree alive proves 6000 year old earth" was written by an actual scientist who did actual work, but was so intelectually dishonest he would even dare to publish it in a peer reviewed paper concearnign dendrochronology..
why?

because he assumed that trees where here at the conception of the earth.
because he based his conslusion on a preconceived notion of "it must be 6000 years".
because he made up and ad hoc argument to explain why there are more then 6000 years worth of tree rings in a dendrochronological record, and because he quotemined other scientists to support his conclusion.

and that is a paper written by an actual "creation science" scientist. im not even talking about the laymen.

"your response will tell me if you are ready to move on into the meaty stuff..."

just take it out already.
i really wan to know what you think and why.

"Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net"

please don't tell me you buy the entire "conspiracy" stuff. im sorry

"[FONT=Times, Times New Roman]The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does"

[/FONT]im sorry, but no supernatural in natural philosophy, and you are utterly wrong on matter not arranging it self. look at snowflakes and other crystals, and they aren't even ALIVE.

as a chemist mr Wilder-smith should know better. the man had to spedn years to understand why and how organic molecules interact. besides that statement is dealing with abiogenesis, NOT ToE.

i'll have a further look into whoexactly is in that list.

" Insufficient sea-floor sediment: At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found could accumulate in 12 million years. The oceans are alleged to have existed for 3 billion years. "

....any geologist will explain to you why that is to falalcious.
1 ocean plates get recycled.
2 the oceans haven't occupied their current locations.
3 we have a HUGE amount of sementairy rock, and it's all dry land now.

". Insufficent Sodium Chloride in the sea: Evolutionary estimates for the age of the earth's oceans are 3 billion years. With current rates of deposition, the salt in the sea could have accumulated in 42-62 million years at todays rate and of course much faster in the Noahic flood."

again, falacious.
salts are recycled trhough trenches or they are diposited. you are aware of huge salt mines aren;'t you? those depositions can only happen in the presence of water.

"Decay of the magnetic field of the Earth: This is occurring too rapidly to fit the long-age evolutionary paradigm - the total energy stored having decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Creationists have a model explaining this based on sound physics."

again falacious, the magnetic poled of the earht have switched around, we got the ironparticles in the rocks to prove it.

not only that, the overall magentic field of the earth hasn't deteriorated.

"Tightly bent strata: These stata, thousands of feet thick are tightly bent without cracking. Yet they are meant to have solidified over millions of years and then bent. The creationist explanation is that they formed while still plastic as the entire formation had to be soft when formed to avoid cracking. This would point to the folding having occurred thousands of years and not millions after formation.
"

and geolgosits haven't explained that yet?
nope. that data has been analyzed and taken into account. we got models to explain that.

"7. Misplaced Helium: Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this Helium into the atmosphere can be measured. If this has been occurring for 5 billion years there should be much more Helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there when compared to the relevant time scale.
"

ehm...we do know that th earht is constantly losing gases form the atmosphere? ddi the creationists take those values into account?

"8. Insufficient stone-age skeletons: The 100,000 year stone-age of evolutionary anthropologists should have produced many more skeletons - around 4 billion, many more of which should still be around compared to the few thousand found"

O_O WOW>
1) we haven't dug everywhere.
2) what makes these people think 4 billion corpses will be preserved in varying conditions?

"9. Recent Agriculture: The archeological evidence shows the stone age people to be as intelligent as modern man and yet it is claimed they existed for 100,000 years before discovering that plants grow from seeds. Creationists would think that it is more likely that man was without agriculture for a much shorter period immediately after the flood."

....you do know that it's quite a realization to come up with famrign don't you?
it's quite a realization to come up with the weel aswell, look at the inca's, they never even discoreved it! and they lived well after christ.

we have evidence that farmign origninated on several places on it's own, that and you don't nessicarily need a huge or complex tools to farm. it's just that we start findign cities and villages the moment we start to see cultures that exist solely by farming and animal husbandry.

in fact, there are still cultures alive today, who do not farm.

"10.History too short: Stone-age people built huge monuments, did beautiful cave paintings and kept records of lunar phases. It seems unreasonable that they should wait nearly 100,000 years before beginning to make written historical records around 4-5000 BC. A much shorter Biblical time-scale seems to better fit this evidence."

XD this is so easy to understand.
writing is in essence and administrive tool, you didn't need it untill yous tarted dealing with large amounts of resources...like say....grain...in cities.
no suprise we start findin the first forms of sritign the when we start finding the first cities (the agricultural revolution and the invention of writing are tied).

"11. Saturn's Rings are aged much less than claimed by evolutionary theory:
This is based on relatively recent observations which show a decay rate of the rings which would mean that they would not still exist if the universe were as old as claimed by evolutionary theory."


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! i can't belvie they are still spewing this 1!


what do the rings have to do with the age of the planet?
and what does that have to do with the diversification of life?
and why did they ignore the nasa data that the rings are constantly beign broken down and reformed again?


"

Coal and Oil formation.
Opal formation.
Stalactites and Stalagmites in Limestone and other caves.

Diamonds "

yes, IN LABS.
and nature, is anythign but the perfect conditions of a laboratory.

"General Geologic processes are not always slow and gradual but sometimes catastrophic in nature"

which means they all are? NO.

"my complaint is the double standard you present. "

it's not a double standard! they jsut wnt to get AROUND the standard.

"3. the peer review process is biased and use a different criteria to determine if the creationist is worthy of publication." again.

claimign "god did it", coming up ad hoc explinations and quotemining.
yes we have a bias towards that.

"so apparently you don't know anything about science and origins right?"

yes natural hpilosophy and naturalistic materialism. and it works.

"o let's call it fact and move on, okay? "

sure

"just like you have been doing with your venom and hostility and purposeful disregard for what is being said"

well ya, when people bring up arguments like the ones you wkianswer link had.
or when they descibe ToE as "just a theory" or "so you belive it just happened" while disregarding all the mechanics or reality.

"{ there is a host of things ToE does not explain. "

not, or not yet? and which things btw?

" where did this come from? "

that people not writing their area of expertise, abusing their titles or credibiliy is possibly ok with you. that was where it came from. in regard to what "see above" was respondign too.

"right, natural selection is a fancy way of saying, random, just happened, by process but not with purpose..."

NO.
mutatiosn happend randomly, natural selection DOES NOT. animals unsuited for the cold WILL NOT SURVIVE IN COLD CLIMATES. THAT is natural selction. and that is why it's not random.

btw you're suddenly attachign "purpose" to this.
the only purpose of livign things is to reproduce. that's all they care about and that's all the existance of their speices and subsequesnt subspecies is dependant apon.

please let go of your misunderstanding of the mechanics of evolution asap.

"s without doubt evolutionists and Obama supporters."

wow intersting fact.

"They do no listening and spew venom randomly"

with regard to the arguments i got from the wikianswers page, that is not random spewing, that's aimed critizism fo shallow reasoning.

"got to wonder why those to groups win the prize every time"

either because the other side resorts to trolling, or they get exposed on their ignorance. try the entire "chimps and humans share commen ancestor" thread, where the ID is pointed out how he shouldn't be using ptREV's as a magic bullet against ToE, yet he refuses to change his error, or even understand it.

 

[random325nicaea]

"use logic to view the evidence for yourself."
will you notice the irony of that in regard to the wikianswers "arguments for creation".

i explained how THOSE were the result of not "using logic to view the evidence".
"you can't just take the influx and ignore the outflux" (with the salts, sediment and helium)

"just because we can explain something doesn't make it truth."
nope, but if can use a natural explination, a supernatural one is NOT required, and should not be held as "evidence" for somehtign other then the supernatrual explination.
EG: "god did it" is the same a "pixies did it" in the form of a supernatural explination.

" just because we can explain His existance as supernatural, does it make Him real? Of course not, same is true here"

the difference is you cannot test the supernatural, you CAN the natural.

any hypothesis that doesn't make a correct prediction, is incorrect, and must be altered or rejected.

" but refuse to logically think it out for yourself. "

you call assesing the existance of a A on a nonsequitor, as being inconclusive, NOT using logic?

eg: "god made X happend" therefore the god of the (insert religion here) is true!"
i see that an awefull lot in creationists. same goes for: "well god can account for it, therefor he must be the explination!"

"lots, but one thing at a time..."

bring it foreward then

"what you know is that we haven't found any precambrian bunnies, the rest is just logical conclusions of which there are others as well."

noo, the homo sapiens isn't found beyond a point in time, yet we find another rhomonid who looks very similar but can no longer be classified as homo sapiens, and this goes on and on, the further back you go in the ground.
same goes for birds and all other speices who we found fossils of.

to conclude all these species and the predececcors where supernaturally created and put on the earth to die out, is...well not that rational.

"I think you need to read it again. This time without your "your a YEC glasses""

consequence of point by point answerign, i got my answer in the next line.

"we also know that there are different species of the same animal,"

"same animal..."
where do you draw this "same" line? species? genus? order?family?class?phylum?
after all, we are just another species of "chordata" or another species of "mammals". do you understand where the conundrum is now?

"proves nothing but that they were a different species."

so you would say that the jusry is out on the fact that neanderthals weren't modern humans, and yet where related?

"except that wasn't the claim I made, so more hostility instead of communication reigns..."
nooooo, lets look at what you said.

you claimed that the transitional fossils where just there because of the "way we classifed things" while you know, or should know, that we classify any fossil chronologically, and when we they look at their morpholigical charactaristics, we start to see a pattern with later and earlier animals that look a like it.

"1. we are talking massive flood vs. universal flood, not the same thing,"

actually, that is irrelivent as even in the case of a massive flood we should stil find a geographical (not to mention the strata) zone where we see a pattern in the biodiversity.

"according to the flood account, life was spared in species,"
i can assure you, that most species of fish that would be affected by the flood, would have died out in that region. you should underestimate the fraily of aquatic environments and it's inhabitants.

" it's really amazing that the ancient people knew enough science to build that into their story isn't it? (sarcasm)"

good place of the ()

"see above, you are still responding with hostility rather than understanding, listening and logic."

only hostility is see is the CAPS, but that was added for emphasis.
and no, i was running both situations and told you that in both cases, it would leave telltalte signs, signs which we do not find in the time period you ascribe it to.

"this is for evolution not the theory of evolution of which I was asked for....you apparently don't know your own beliefs if this is how you would explain the ToE to a child"

what? this wasn't a oversimplified version of change over time?

"not the theory of evolution of which I was asked for...."
this example was of one the mechanics of the theory in effect.

"you apparently don't know your own beliefs if this is how you would explain the ToE to a child"

you claiming i don't know ToE?

"genetics was mentioned in Gen"

really? link verse.

"And BTW, isn't a scientific theory suppose to be able to falsify?"

and evolution ISN"T????
since when?

precambrium bunnies.
no nested hierarchy of similarities.
(in other words, human should be more related to chimps then we are to mice)

"see above this is why science cannot and never will be able to falsify creation,"

that would mean you admit creationism isn't science.
and btw, it is a claim that can be falsified.
unless you contend that god made everything to appear as if it had evolved.

 

[razzelflabben]

"obviously you don't want to communicate, only to talk and make yourself puffed up...."

no.
i just have never seen any creationist article stand up to any form of peer review by a scientist who studies the subject.

so you've seen all of them, or just the few you mentioned earlier.

".which peer reviewed creation scientist is lieing....that is your question."

lying or ignorant?

for the record. most creationist arguments are NOT written by scientists.
and those who are, are not written by experst on the subjects they write on.

EG: the entire "oldest tree alive proves 6000 year old earth" was written by an actual scientist who did actual work, but was so intelectually dishonest he would even dare to publish it in a peer reviewed paper concearnign dendrochronology..
why?

because he was a dishonest man? Just as many evolutionists are dishonest...news flash, dishonesty is a common human character trait. But that doesn't mean that all evolutionists lie, much less all evolutionist scientists....which is indeed the point.

because he assumed that trees where here at the conception of the earth.
because he based his conslusion on a preconceived notion of "it must be 6000 years".
because he made up and ad hoc argument to explain why there are more then 6000 years worth of tree rings in a dendrochronological record, and because he quotemined other scientists to support his conclusion.

and that is a paper written by an actual "creation science" scientist. im not even talking about the laymen.

"your response will tell me if you are ready to move on into the meaty stuff..."

just take it out already.
i really wan to know what you think and why.

but that is the point, your posts show you don't want to know...if you did, there would be some changes in your tactics for example, if you did want to know, you wouldn't 1. keep bringing up the flood as I have already stated very clearly it isn't part of creation 2. you wouldn't keep bringing up the creationists you are in a tizzy over in that I don't fit that catagory 3. you would loose the attitude as you have already been asked to do and 4. you would respond to the comments I make, not twist them to be the YEC arguments that you want to defeat, because I have also clearly stated that isn't my thing.

"Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net"

please don't tell me you buy the entire "conspiracy" stuff. im sorry

"[FONT=Times, Times New Roman]The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does"

[/FONT]im sorry, but no supernatural in natural philosophy, and you are utterly wrong on matter not arranging it self. look at snowflakes and other crystals, and they aren't even ALIVE.

I didn't say matter didn't arrange itself? where did you get that from...this is one more evidence you aren't ready to talk, only to hear your own "voice"

as a chemist mr Wilder-smith should know better. the man had to spedn years to understand why and how organic molecules interact. besides that statement is dealing with abiogenesis, NOT ToE.

i'll have a further look into whoexactly is in that list.

" Insufficient sea-floor sediment: At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found could accumulate in 12 million years. The oceans are alleged to have existed for 3 billion years. "

....any geologist will explain to you why that is to falalcious.
1 ocean plates get recycled.
2 the oceans haven't occupied their current locations.
3 we have a HUGE amount of sementairy rock, and it's all dry land now.

". Insufficent Sodium Chloride in the sea: Evolutionary estimates for the age of the earth's oceans are 3 billion years. With current rates of deposition, the salt in the sea could have accumulated in 42-62 million years at todays rate and of course much faster in the Noahic flood."


again, falacious.
salts are recycled trhough trenches or they are diposited. you are aware of huge salt mines aren;'t you? those depositions can only happen in the presence of water.

"Decay of the magnetic field of the Earth: This is occurring too rapidly to fit the long-age evolutionary paradigm - the total energy stored having decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Creationists have a model explaining this based on sound physics."
again falacious, the magnetic poled of the earht have switched around, we got the ironparticles in the rocks to prove it.

not only that, the overall magentic field of the earth hasn't deteriorated.

"Tightly bent strata: These stata, thousands of feet thick are tightly bent without cracking. Yet they are meant to have solidified over millions of years and then bent. The creationist explanation is that they formed while still plastic as the entire formation had to be soft when formed to avoid cracking. This would point to the folding having occurred thousands of years and not millions after formation.
"

and geolgosits haven't explained that yet?
nope. that data has been analyzed and taken into account. we got models to explain that.

"7. Misplaced Helium: Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this Helium into the atmosphere can be measured. If this has been occurring for 5 billion years there should be much more Helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there when compared to the relevant time scale.

"

ehm...we do know that th earht is constantly losing gases form the atmosphere? ddi the creationists take those values into account?

"8. Insufficient stone-age skeletons: The 100,000 year stone-age of evolutionary anthropologists should have produced many more skeletons - around 4 billion, many more of which should still be around compared to the few thousand found"


O_O WOW>
1) we haven't dug everywhere.
2) what makes these people think 4 billion corpses will be preserved in varying conditions?

"9. Recent Agriculture: The archeological evidence shows the stone age people to be as intelligent as modern man and yet it is claimed they existed for 100,000 years before discovering that plants grow from seeds. Creationists would think that it is more likely that man was without agriculture for a much shorter period immediately after the flood."

....you do know that it's quite a realization to come up with famrign don't you?
it's quite a realization to come up with the weel aswell, look at the inca's, they never even discoreved it! and they lived well after christ.

and you do realize I assume, since you are so learned on what creationist believe, that the bible, in Gen. talks about who, why, how these things were learned and the genetics behind some of it....interesting study from the standpoint of stupid, illogical, uneducated, cave men, huh? To have such knowledge without any brains to use to collect that knowledge. How do you suppose 2000 year old sheep herders had enough knowledge to talk about genetics in the first place?

we have evidence that farmign origninated on several places on it's own, that and you don't nessicarily need a huge or complex tools to farm. it's just that we start findign cities and villages the moment we start to see cultures that exist solely by farming and animal husbandry.


in fact, there are still cultures alive today, who do not farm.

"10.History too short: Stone-age people built huge monuments, did beautiful cave paintings and kept records of lunar phases. It seems unreasonable that they should wait nearly 100,000 years before beginning to make written historical records around 4-5000 BC. A much shorter Biblical time-scale seems to better fit this evidence."


XD this is so easy to understand.
writing is in essence and administrive tool, you didn't need it untill yous tarted dealing with large amounts of resources...like say....grain...in cities.
no suprise we start findin the first forms of sritign the when we start finding the first cities (the agricultural revolution and the invention of writing are tied).

"11. Saturn's Rings are aged much less than claimed by evolutionary theory:
This is based on relatively recent observations which show a decay rate of the rings which would mean that they would not still exist if the universe were as old as claimed by evolutionary theory."



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! i can't belvie they are still spewing this 1!


what do the rings have to do with the age of the planet?
and what does that have to do with the diversification of life?
and why did they ignore the nasa data that the rings are constantly beign broken down and reformed again?


"

Coal and Oil formation.
Opal formation.
Stalactites and Stalagmites in Limestone and other caves.

Diamonds "

yes, IN LABS.
and nature, is anythign but the perfect conditions of a laboratory.

"General Geologic processes are not always slow and gradual but sometimes catastrophic in nature"

which means they all are? NO.

where and when did I suggest or refute this? In yet other words for the slow to listen, non of this is even been brought into the discussion yet for review, therefore it is nothing more than you talking to people who aren't even on this thread and expecting me or others to jump in and defend what we do not.

"my complaint is the double standard you present. "

it's not a double standard! they jsut wnt to get AROUND the standard.

your insistance of certain evidence is the double standard. You want to only accept certain evidence of creation, all the time holding a different evidence for evolution. All I'm asking you to do is apply the criteria evenly across the board, you know, using the evidence at hand to reason for yourself rather than just spouting what you have been taught to answer.

"3. the peer review process is biased and use a different criteria to determine if the creationist is worthy of publication." again.

claimign "god did it", coming up ad hoc explinations and quotemining.
yes we have a bias towards that.

"so apparently you don't know anything about science and origins right?"

yes natural hpilosophy and naturalistic materialism. and it works.

"o let's call it fact and move on, okay? "

sure

"just like you have been doing with your venom and hostility and purposeful disregard for what is being said"

well ya, when people bring up arguments like the ones you wkianswer link had.
or when they descibe ToE as "just a theory" or "so you belive it just happened" while disregarding all the mechanics or reality.

"{ there is a host of things ToE does not explain. "

not, or not yet? and which things btw?

" where did this come from? "

that people not writing their area of expertise, abusing their titles or credibiliy is possibly ok with you. that was where it came from. in regard to what "see above" was respondign too.

"right, natural selection is a fancy way of saying, random, just happened, by process but not with purpose..."

NO.
mutatiosn happend randomly, natural selection DOES NOT. animals unsuited for the cold WILL NOT SURVIVE IN COLD CLIMATES. THAT is natural selction. and that is why it's not random.

and you have not even touched on natural selection not even in your mocking attempt to speak in child ease....interesting how natural selection is so much a part of the theory you hold as truth and yet when explaining it to children, you don't even attempt to explain what it is???? Sounds like more lies to me, only this time, from the evolutionist camp.

btw you're suddenly attachign "purpose" to this.
the only purpose of livign things is to reproduce. that's all they care about and that's all the existance of their speices and subsequesnt subspecies is dependant apon.

please let go of your misunderstanding of the mechanics of evolution asap.

"s without doubt evolutionists and Obama supporters."

wow intersting fact.

"They do no listening and spew venom randomly"

with regard to the arguments i got from the wikianswers page, that is not random spewing, that's aimed critizism fo shallow reasoning.

"got to wonder why those to groups win the prize every time"

either because the other side resorts to trolling, or they get exposed on their ignorance. try the entire "chimps and humans share commen ancestor" thread, where the ID is pointed out how he should be using ptREV's as a magic bullet against ToE, yet he refuses to change his error, or even understand it.

And what of those of us who seek to engage in meaningful discussion but can't because all we can do is avoid the venom that is being spewed?

 

[razzelflabben]

"use logic to view the evidence for yourself."
will you notice the irony of that in regard to the wikianswers "arguments for creation".

i explained how THOSE were the result of not "using logic to view the evidence".
"you can't just take the influx and ignore the outflux" (with the salts, sediment and helium)

we aren't even close to being ready to discuss all of this, and yes, I see some problems, as I do with all the "evidence" for evolution as well.

"just because we can explain something doesn't make it truth."
nope, but if can use a natural explination, a supernatural one is NOT required, and should not be held as "evidence" for somehtign other then the supernatrual explination.
EG: "god did it" is the same a "pixies did it" in the form of a supernatural explination.

I have asked you several times now to stop with the "god of the gaps" or "god did it" argument of which I have no use. It would be nice to find even one evolutionist willing to not use that argument to justify their own biases. Are you going to be the one who chooses to honor my wise and not keep relying on the "god did it" argument to make yourself sound right, or are you going to be like all the rest and let your entire argument rest on that one idea?

" just because we can explain His existance as supernatural, does it make Him real? Of course not, same is true here"

the difference is you cannot test the supernatural, you CAN the natural.

we can test the supernatural if it is part of the natural or influences, that is interacts with the natural.

any hypothesis that doesn't make a correct prediction, is incorrect, and must be altered or rejected.

" but refuse to logically think it out for yourself. "

you call assesing the existance of a A on a nonsequitor, as being inconclusive, NOT using logic?

where do you get this stuff?

eg: "god made X happend" therefore the god of the (insert religion here) is true!"
i see that an awefull lot in creationists. same goes for: "well god can account for it, therefor he must be the explination!"

wrong once again, I'm sorry for you, school must be tough for you...

"lots, but one thing at a time..."

bring it foreward then

when the hatred and venom ceases I'm be thrilled to.

"what you know is that we haven't found any precambrian bunnies, the rest is just logical conclusions of which there are others as well."

noo, the homo sapiens isn't found beyond a point in time, yet we find another rhomonid who looks very similar but can no longer be classified as homo sapiens, and this goes on and on, the further back you go in the ground.
same goes for birds and all other speices who we found fossils of.

to conclude all these species and the predececcors where supernaturally created and put on the earth to die out, is...well not that rational.

"I think you need to read it again. This time without your "your a YEC glasses""

consequence of point by point answerign, i got my answer in the next line.

"we also know that there are different species of the same animal,"

"same animal..."
where do you draw this "same" line? species? genus? order?family?class?phylum?
after all, we are just another species of "chordata" or another species of "mammals". do you understand where the conundrum is now?

"proves nothing but that they were a different species."

so you would say that the jusry is out on the fact that neanderthals weren't modern humans, and yet where related?

"except that wasn't the claim I made, so more hostility instead of communication reigns..."
nooooo, lets look at what you said.

you claimed that the transitional fossils where just there because of the "way we classifed things" while you know, or should know, that we classify any fossil chronologically, and when we they look at their morpholigical charactaristics, we start to see a pattern with later and earlier animals that look a like it.

nope, wrong again, I said nothing at all about transitional fossils, only classification.

"1. we are talking massive flood vs. universal flood, not the same thing,"

actually, that is irrelivent as even in the case of a massive flood we should stil find a geographical (not to mention the strata) zone where we see a pattern in the biodiversity.

so you really believe there has never been a missive flood anywhere in the world....interesting....what scientific evidence are you providing to evidence this claim?

"according to the flood account, life was spared in species,"
i can assure you, that most species of fish that would be affected by the flood, would have died out in that region. you should underestimate the fraily of aquatic environments and it's inhabitants.

" it's really amazing that the ancient people knew enough science to build that into their story isn't it? (sarcasm)"

good place of the ()

"see above, you are still responding with hostility rather than understanding, listening and logic."

only hostility is see is the CAPS, but that was added for emphasis.
and no, i was running both situations and told you that in both cases, it would leave telltalte signs, signs which we do not find inthe time period you ascribe it to.

"this is for evolution not the theory of evolution of which I was asked for....you apparently don't know your own beliefs if this is how you would explain the ToE to a child"

what? this wasn't a oversimplified version of change over time?

change as in evolution yes, how that change occurs as in Theory of Evolution, not even close.

"not the theory of evolution of which I was asked for...."
this example was of one the mechanics of the theory in effect.

"you apparently don't know your own beliefs if this is how you would explain the ToE to a child"

you claiming i don't know ToE?

the evidence speaks for itself....that is how all evidence should work...your explaination said nothing at all about the ToE only about evolution itself.

"genetics was mentioned in Gen"

really? link verse.

when your ready I would be thrilled to do so...I'm still trying to get you to drop the hostility long enough to hear someone other than yourself.

"And BTW, isn't a scientific theory suppose to be able to falsify?"

and evolution ISN"T????
since when?

precambrium bunnies.
no nested hiarchy of similarities.
(in other words, humand should be more related to chimps then we are to mics)

"see above this is why science cannot and never will be able to falsify creation,"

that would mean you admit creationism isn't science.

and btw, it is a claim that can be falsified.
unless you contend that god made everyhitn to appear as if it had evolved.

Sometimes I could swear you haven't even peeked at my post, just pretended to.

 

[random325nicaea]

"so you've seen all of them, or just the few you mentioned earlier."

i have seen many, yhough feel free to direct me to one you think i haven't read yet.

"because he was a dishonest man? Just as many evolutionists are dishonest...news flash, dishonesty is a common human character trait. But that doesn't mean that all evolutionists lie, much less all evolutionist scientists....which is indeed the point."

it's the scientist who formulated ToE, if they lied, that is a serious offence, please show me a scientist who lied. when taking on ToE, you're not taking on the people who support it, you're talking on the explanatory model.

"but that is the point, your posts show you don't want to know...if you did, there would be some changes in your tactics for example, if you did want to know"...

...i'd ask what you did believe and why. and you'd hopefully tell me. you told me you believe a large flood happaned to whipe out a large portion of mankind.
i challange that conclusion by aksing you to show evidenc and point out flaws when i find it lacking.

"1. keep bringing up the flood as I have already stated very clearly it isn't part of creation"
you still believe it, and to hold such an idea would mean you claim that you have evidence for such a thing. evidence which would include the example i previously stated. so, where is your evidence? and why don't i find the pattern in biodiversity such and event would cause?

" 2. you wouldn't keep bringing up the creationists you are in a tizzy over in that I don't fit that catagory"

sicne you linked the wikianswers page, i suspect you're convinced by soem of the same evidence that convinced them, evidence that is so utterly fallacious.

"3. you would loose the attitude as you have already been asked to do and"

have i directly insulted you yet? no. if you could stop with the entire "he's just gonna persecute me and not even listen to my arguments" mentality, and actually started to explain to me why and what. then we could get this on.

i for one wouldn't care. i feel confident in my case and i will happily defend it against any1, regardless of how they respond. had quite a bit of experience with talking to walls tbh..>(figuratively, check freehovind.com)

"4. you would respond to the comments I make, not twist them to be the YEC arguments that you want to defeat,"

i'm sorry, it's just that almost of the "creation evidence" is produced by such people, includign the arguments you got from the wikianswer AND the AIG link.

"because I have also clearly stated that isn't my thing. "

you have, but if i find you clinging to the same arguments that they do, i will point that out and how they are flawed.

"I didn't say matter didn't arrange itself?"

that IS said by the source you cite. look it up. and i wasn't even referring to you, i was referring to the scientists who said that. you migth want to read all your sources....

" that the bible, in Gen. talks about who, why, how these things were learned and the genetics behind some of it"

by what you mean farming?
and what do you mean by "how"?
i've not seen an argument phrased like this before, i suspect im familiar with it, but i can't say for sure.

" How do you suppose 2000 year old sheep herders had enough knowledge to talk about genetics in the first place?"

they didn't know about genetics, and i'm still w8ing for that verse btw.

"In yet other words for the slow to listen, non of this is even been brought into the discussion yet for review, therefore it is nothing more than you talking to people who aren't even on this thread and expecting me or others to jump in and defend what we do not."

it's in YOUR SOURCE. and i have seem the way this reasoning can be pulled from "a few events' to "ALL events". i'm mearly trying to point out the leap in logic soem creationists tend to take.

" You want to only accept certain evidence of creation, all the time holding a different evidence for evolution. "
...
different?
i still do not understand what you exactly mean by this. is this a version of the "it looks designed therefore ID" argument?

where you take a complex system, which can be explained by ToE, and yet you explain it with "ID".

"All I'm asking you to do is apply the criteria evenly across the board, you know, using the evidence at hand to reason for yourself rather than just spouting what you have been taught to answer."

will you stop with the "you're indoctrinated" crap.
please, just tell me the arguments and i'll evaluate them.

and another thing, just because i accept the current concensus, doesn't mean i just blindly copied it, so will you stop claiming that.

"and you have not even touched on natural selection not even in your mocking attempt to speak in child ease."
ehm, that was actually not mocking you at all, i was trying to give genuine example of how to explain it as simple and completely as possible to a child.

"nteresting how natural selection is so much a part of the theory you hold as truth and yet when explaining it to children, you don't even attempt to explain what it is????"

???WHAT?
it's so bloody easy.
organism inhabit a niche.
the niche changes, and new selecting criteria are established.
the new selecting criteria start to work on the mutations and the expressed genes in the genepool, after several generations the selected traits start to becoem more prevelent in the population.

simple. but usign those word will confuse kids. so it's better to try and use words like living things, or bunnies. and homeor nature.

instead of throwing the words "ecological niche" and "ecological bearign capacity" at them. oh and im presuming young kids. you'd probably be able to use the more complex terms on 12 year olds quite effectively.

" Sounds like more lies to me, only this time, from the evolutionist camp. "

oh? how did i lie about depicting natural selection at work on a population?

"And what of those of us who seek to engage in meaningful discussion but can't because all we can do is avoid the venom that is being spewed?"

why are you so afraid of the venom?!
it's easy, ignore it. just like you ignore trolls. in the end it's only the arguments that count.

so let's hear em.

 

[random325nicaea]

"see some problems, as I do with all the "evidence" for evolution as well."

oh? please point them out.
where do we ignore important factors?

" It would be nice to find even one evolutionist willing to not use that argument to justify their own biases."

eehm....you DO understand that the entire "so complex it couldn't have evolved, ergo Designer" is the core point of ID , don't you? or at least that's how Behe put it. (and yes i paraphrased)

"Are you going to be the one who chooses to honor my wise and not keep relying on the "god did it" argument to make yourself sound right,"

im just saying, people who do that aren't being honest about drawing the most logical conclusion. i'll refraim from mentioning it again.

so, your arguments now?

"we can test the supernatural if it is part of the natural or influences, that is interacts with the natural. "

then it's not longer supernatural.
btw, this reminds me: What was your test for god again?

" where do you get this stuff? "

ehm real simple.
"this is designed, so there is a designer, ergo it's the god of the bible".
ignoring the possiblilty it's any other deity, who's claims are deep down just as valid.
ID is smart on this and always chooses to "stay neutral" on the identity of the designer.

"wrong once again, I'm sorry for you, school must be tough for you..."

i didn;'t see this in schools i saw it on creationists websites.

"when the hatred and venom ceases I'm be thrilled to."

you keep contending that there is this "humongous hatred" that soemhow impeded my ability to evaluate arguments.

hitn, if that where so, i would be an atheist.

"nope, wrong again, I said nothing at all about transitional fossils, only classification."

ya, the classificaion OF those fossils.

but please elaborate on it if im mistaken again.

"so you really believe there has never been a missive flood anywhere in the world....interesting....what scientific evidence are you providing to evidence this claim?"

1) we need to set a dfinition on "massive",
2) no, not in the time frame you are referrign to. and not in the scale you are implying it was.

3) i do however accept there was a bottleneck in the human population the tiem a super volcanoe erupted in indonesia . 70,000 years ago (Toba),
but hey either you;'re gonan look at the genetics or not.

" how that change occurs as in Theory of Evolution"

? what? ok you got me REAL confused here.
are you saying that ToE doesn't predict change over time via natural selection, genetic drift and sexual selection?

"not even close. "
or actually, explain what you think ToE is again>?

"your explaination said nothing at all about the ToE only about evolution itself."

do you want me to go deeper into the consequences of speciation via natural selection? things like common descent, gene homology?

" Sometimes I could swear you haven't even peeked at my post, just pretended to"

aah, that "mics" whould have read "mice" and "should" should be "shouldn't". and yes i do respond to your posts, or at least what i can fill in with the background info i have of you atm, and the arguments im already familiar with.

some how
"And BTW, isn't a scientific theory suppose to be able to falsify?"

is a little to vague for em to understand exactly what you meant.

 

[random325nicaea]

but i suggest we stop the arm longs posts now and focus on some claim and questions.

so please answer the questions i asked you in the last posts, and we'll continue from there.

i'll stop with the god of the gaps efutationa nd the rant on other forms of creationism.

and you stop with the 'venom" and "what you've been taught".

we'll just focus on questions.
and arguments and how they hold up.

 

[razzelflabben]

"so you've seen all of them, or just the few you mentioned earlier."

i have seen many, yhough feel free to direct me to one you think i haven't read yet.

"because he was a dishonest man? Just as many evolutionists are dishonest...news flash, dishonesty is a common human character trait. But that doesn't mean that all evolutionists lie, much less all evolutionist scientists....which is indeed the point."

it's the scientist who formulated ToE, if they lied, that is a serious offence, please show me a scientist who lied. when taking on ToE, you're not taking on the people who support it, you're talking on the explanatory model.

"but that is the point, your posts show you don't want to know...if you did, there would be some changes in your tactics for example, if you did want to know"...

...i'd ask what you did believe and why. and you'd hopefully tell me. you told me you believe a large flood happaned to whipe out a large portion of mankind.
i challange that conclusion by aksing you to show evidenc and point out flaws when i find it lacking.

I told you what I believe about "origins" and you for the most part ignored it to invent something about the flood. In fact, what I said about the flood is that it is possible from the text to be a massive flood but not universal.

"1. keep bringing up the flood as I have already stated very clearly it isn't part of creation"
you still believe it, and to hold such an idea would mean you claim that you have evidence for such a thing. evidence which would include the example i previously stated. so, where is your evidence? and why don't i find the pattern in biodiversity such and event would cause?

like I said before, your denial that there has ever been a massive flood in the world is pretty pathetic.

" 2. you wouldn't keep bringing up the creationists you are in a tizzy over in that I don't fit that catagory"

sicne you linked the wikianswers page, i suspect you're convinced by soem of the same evidence that convinced them, evidence that is so utterly fallacious.

only problem is that if you read what I said about my personal beliefs, you would see that if fit neither category.

"3. you would loose the attitude as you have already been asked to do and"

have i directly insulted you yet? no. if you could stop with the entire "he's just gonna persecute me and not even listen to my arguments" mentality, and actually started to explain to me why and what. then we could get this on.

i for one wouldn't care. i feel confident in my case and i will happily defend it against any1, regardless of how they respond. had quite a bit of experience with talking to walls tbh..>(figuratively, check freehovind.com)

"4. you would respond to the comments I make, not twist them to be the YEC arguments that you want to defeat,"

i'm sorry, it's just that almost of the "creation evidence" is produced by such people, includign the arguments you got from the wikianswer AND the AIG link.

"because I have also clearly stated that isn't my thing. "

you have, but if i find you clinging to the same arguments that they do, i will point that out and how they are flawed.

why not drop the attitude and find out, you might be surprised.

"I didn't say matter didn't arrange itself?"

that IS said by the source you cite. look it up. and i wasn't even referring to you, i was referring to the scientists who said that. you migth want to read all your sources....

I know what the site said, and I know why it was provided which seems a lot more than you can say.

" that the bible, in Gen. talks about who, why, how these things were learned and the genetics behind some of it"

by what you mean farming?
and what do you mean by "how"?
i've not seen an argument phrased like this before, i suspect im familiar with it, but i can't say for sure.

" How do you suppose 2000 year old sheep herders had enough knowledge to talk about genetics in the first place?"

they didn't know about genetics, and i'm still w8ing for that verse btw.

"In yet other words for the slow to listen, non of this is even been brought into the discussion yet for review, therefore it is nothing more than you talking to people who aren't even on this thread and expecting me or others to jump in and defend what we do not."

it's in YOUR SOURCE. and i have seem the way this reasoning can be pulled from "a few events' to "ALL events". i'm mearly trying to point out the leap in logic soem creationists tend to take.

" You want to only accept certain evidence of creation, all the time holding a different evidence for evolution. "
...
different?
i still do not understand what you exactly mean by this. is this a version of the "it looks designed therefore ID" argument?

where you take a complex system, which can be explained by ToE, and yet you explain it with "ID".

"All I'm asking you to do is apply the criteria evenly across the board, you know, using the evidence at hand to reason for yourself rather than just spouting what you have been taught to answer."

will you stop with the "you're indoctrinated" crap.
please, just tell me the arguments and i'll evaluate them.

and another thing, just because i accept the current concensus, doesn't mean i just blindly copied it, so will you stop claiming that.

"and you have not even touched on natural selection not even in your mocking attempt to speak in child ease."
ehm, that was actually not mocking you at all, i was trying to give genuine example of how to explain it as simple and completely as possible to a child.

"nteresting how natural selection is so much a part of the theory you hold as truth and yet when explaining it to children, you don't even attempt to explain what it is????"

???WHAT?
it's so bloody easy.
organism inhabit a niche.
the niche changes, and new selecting criteria are established.
the new selecting criteria start to work on the mutations and the expressed genes in the genepool, after several generations the selected traits start to becoem more prevelent in the population.

simple. but usign those word will confuse kids. so it's better to try and use words like living things, or bunnies. and homeor nature.

instead of throwing the words "ecological niche" and "ecological bearign capacity" at them. oh and im presuming young kids. you'd probably be able to use the more complex terms on 12 year olds quite effectively.

" Sounds like more lies to me, only this time, from the evolutionist camp. "

oh? how did i lie about depicting natural selection at work on a population?

"And what of those of us who seek to engage in meaningful discussion but can't because all we can do is avoid the venom that is being spewed?"

why are you so afraid of the venom?!
it's easy, ignore it. just like you ignore trolls. in the end it's only the arguments that count.

so let's hear em.

the problem with venom is that it clouds the real issues, hides the real evidence and stiffles debate. And if you can't get rid of it, we are done, just like most of the ignoring I am doing in this post....you see, when you use venom, you prevent yourself from addressing the issues raised.

 

[random325nicaea]

"I told you what I believe about "origins" and you for the most part ignored it to invent something about the flood."

you have just given me a general outline of your beliefs. i still have lots of questions.
and i focused for a bit on the flood because if you understand believe that claim, there is somethign to explain given the evidence for it, or lack thereof.

" what I said about the flood is that it is possible from the text to be a massive flood but not universal."

i DID run the "massive and not global flood" scenario and i asked questions and pointed out particularities about holding that belief.

"like I said before, your denial that there has ever been a massive flood in the world is pretty pathetic."

did you MISS the "not in the timeline and size you you ascribed to it" not only that i still don't know which geological region.

oh ya, and you STILL have to put forth some evidence to support it.

"only problem is that if you read what I said about my personal beliefs, you would see that if fit neither category."

you beleive there was a massive flood that whiped out a potion of humanity.
now your evidence to accept such a claim?

you believe god created life forms, and that's all you told me, you didn't specify if it was all the species, or merely the basal types or even only the first cell.

"why not drop the attitude and find out, you might be surprised."

THEN TELL ME WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND WHY ALREADY!
you have yet to put forth any arguments.
i have no idea what exactly you believe and why, you haven't told me the that yet.

"I know what the site said, and I know why it was provided which seems a lot more than you can say."

what? are you tying to claim you gave this as source while you didn't really support that position yet understand why it was given their anyway and you only quoted it for about half of what was in there (which is the "many scientists" claim)?

"which seems a lot more than you can say."

who sais i don't? you just never asked me.

"the problem with venom is that it clouds the real issues,"

will you stop with the venom already and give me the arguments....

", hides the real evidence and stiffles debate."
ironically you're the one who is stiffling it by not providign me with a comprehensive description of your believes and evidence, despite me asking for several posts now.

" And if you can't get rid of it, we are done,"

i am NOT spewing venom at you....yet.
if you STILL think that is so...well i guess you might have a little persucution complext because i hate all the nuty arguments all those BatS crazy fundie like hovind puts forth, and you are incapable of distinguishing my hatred of them, from my genuine curiosity as to what you believe and why.

"just like most of the ignoring I am doing in this post...."

oh so THAT's why.

"you see, when you use venom, you prevent yourself from addressing the issues raised.

you haven't even RAISED any issues yet, except for accusing me of not understanding ToE, blaming me for having double standards,saying im just regurgutating what i've been taught and claiming i have a increadable hate for anyone who calls themselves a creationist, despite my specific outlining of what parts of that minority i actually hate.

 

[razzelflabben]

"I told you what I believe about "origins" and you for the most part ignored it to invent something about the flood."

you have just given me a general outline of your beliefs. i still have lots of questions.
and i focused for a bit on the flood because if you understand believe that claim, there is somethign to explain given the evidence for it, or lack thereof.

but you still haven't shown any evidence that massive floods are not part of our world....I told you that according to the text, the flood could have been universal or massive local, the only absolute on the issue was that all of mankind except one family was wiped out. To which you went off on your little tyrant about the flood and some nonsense about no massive floods were possible. Point is, your posts still hold a lot of venom of which I will go no further until it is gone. Now if you want to show through evidence how massive floods are not part of our world, I would be happy to listen and consider what you offer, however, we know first hand that massive floods can and do happen, so you have a long uphill battle ahead of you....

" what I said about the flood is that it is possible from the text to be a massive flood but not universal."

i DID run the "massive and not global flood" scenario and i asked questions and pointed out particularities about holding that belief.

right, like you believe that there could not be a massive flood, of which observation says your wrong, massive floods can and do happen...so either you are trying to reinvent what I said, or you don't believe the very science we see everyday. Which is it, still blinded by your prejudice or not willing to accept the science we see everyday?

"like I said before, your denial that there has ever been a massive flood in the world is pretty pathetic."

did you MISS the "not in the timeline and size you you ascribed to it" not only that i still don't know which geological region.

The only timeline I offered was after man appeared on the earth....which evidence shows we still have massive floods, after man's appearance on the earth....the only size I offered was massive, which leaves your argument more hostility toward those you deem stupid and not about what I said at all. Now it is true that you asked how massive massive is, but the truth is, I didn't answer the question so that I knew whether you were listening or using more venom. You failed!

oh ya, and you STILL have to put forth some evidence to support it.

evidence to support that according to the text it could be either universal or massive local? Wow, just read the text.

"only problem is that if you read what I said about my personal beliefs, you would see that if fit neither category."

you beleive there was a massive flood that whiped out a potion of humanity.
now your evidence to accept such a claim?

see, this is exactly the problem with hostility and anger, or venom if you will, I never once stated where I stood on the issue of flood, only that the bible could be interpreted either way...what my personal beliefs are, are still confined to my personal beliefs. You are reading into my posts what is not there so that you can unleash your venom without cause. I personally will keep my beliefs private until the venom ceases for this very reason.

you believe god created life forms, and that's all you told me, you didn't specify if it was all the species, or merely the basal types or even only the first cell.

exactly, now your catching on, and I won't tell you anymore until I see you attempting to listen, not just unleash your displeasure of anothers beliefs.

"why not drop the attitude and find out, you might be surprised."

THEN TELL ME WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND WHY ALREADY!
you have yet to put forth any arguments.
i have no idea what exactly you believe and why, you haven't told me the that yet.

"I know what the site said, and I know why it was provided which seems a lot more than you can say."

what? are you tying to claim you gave this as source while you didn't really support that position yet understand why it was given their anyway and you only quoted it for about half of what was in there (which is the "many scientists" claim)?

the site was offered as evidence that those who oppose you, use much of the same evidence only interpret it differently. The site did that very well, so it was included. Your anger is clouding your understanding of what is being said.

"which seems a lot more than you can say."

who sais i don't? you just never asked me.

"the problem with venom is that it clouds the real issues,"

will you stop with the venom already and give me the arguments....

", hides the real evidence and stiffles debate."
ironically you're the one who is stiffling it by not providign me with a comprehensive description of your believes and evidence, despite me asking for several posts now.

" And if you can't get rid of it, we are done,"

i am NOT spewing venom at you....yet.
if you STILL think that is so...well i guess you might have a little persucution complext because i hate all the nuty arguments all those BatS crazy fundie like hovind puts forth, and you are incapable of distinguishing my hatred of them, from my genuine curiosity as to what you believe and why.

look, experience shows me (your posts confirm you will do the same) that people who are so angry with one group will read into anything someone says that is not in total agreement with their beliefs as more of the same. IOW's evidence of the past shows that people with your mindset will take a comment like "I believe God did it..." and then why and how, to read "I'm a hovin supporter and believe everything he says about creation, lies and all, so don't listen to me, listen to him and place his beliefs on me"...this falacy is why I refuse to discuss it with someone who shows such venom, because we will never be able to discuss what I believe, only what hovin or someone else prominent in the movement believes and in the meantime, I take their heat from someone like you. If you want a punching bag, have at it, but don't apply the arguments of someone else to me and call it mine. So far, everyone on the topic with unchecked anger has evidenced this behavior and your earlier posts confirm you will as well, so if you want to discuss my personal beliefs, get rid of the attitude.

"just like most of the ignoring I am doing in this post...."

oh so THAT's why.

"you see, when you use venom, you prevent yourself from addressing the issues raised.

you haven't even RAISED any issues yet, except for accusing me of not understanding ToE,

correction, I said you didn't explain the ToE in terms a child could understand, I said nothing about what you personally understood about the Theory.

blaming me for having double standards,

now that one I did say, because you asked for evidence that all scientists that believe in creation lie...but when offered the same of evolutionists, I was limited to only peer review and nothing more, all the time you present non peer review evidence for the creationist. That is a double standard perion.

saying im just regurgutating what i've been taught

actually, I suggested you don't do that, but hey, you just keep proving my point about venom so have at it.

and claiming i have a increadable hate for anyone who calls themselves a creationist,

again no, what I claimed is that all you see when someone says creationist is the extemist YEC.

despite my specific outlining of what parts of that minority i actually hate.

I get your complaint, what you lack is evidence that you don't put every creationist in that box...

 

[marktheblake]

There is some awesome sermons being delivered in this thread.
The only problem is sermons make me fall asleep.

The only way to stop this madness is to make the people who really believe in ID and creationism see that they're wrong.

How would you feel if someone tried to make you change what you beleive?

 

[plindboe]

How would you feel if someone tried to make you change what you beleive?

Challenging each others' beliefs, be they about politics, music, religion, favourite milkshake etc. is everyday experience (for most of us). Why would anyone mind being challenged, unless they have some emotional attachment to their belief combined with an underlying insecurity concerning its veracity?

Personally I want to challenged. How can learning take place without it?

Peter

 

[marktheblake]

The only way to stop this madness is to make the people who really believe in ID and creationism see that they're wrong.

How would you feel if someone tried to make you change what you beleive?

Challenging each others' beliefs, be they about politics, music, religion, favourite milkshake etc.

i dont think you are following - I don't object to being challenged but everyone will object to being made to change their belief.