I issue a formal challenge.

[WhiteMageGirl]

I issue a challenge to you to raise five points against Evolution and five points supporting Biological creationism. These points must be direct, clearly defined, based on evidence(you must cite the evidence), be fasifiable, and pertaining specifically to Evolution. Which means, you may not ask questions about the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Atheism, or Morality. Furthermore, you must raise points against the current theory of Evolution, and based on current evidence. This means various quotes from a hundred years or more ago are probably going to be irrelevent. Don't try to switch the burden of proof, Evolution has ample evidence, and is agreed upon by virtually every Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, and Agnostic Biologists(experts) in the world. Thus it is Creationism, that needs to present evidence for it's case. If you don't meet these requirements, do not post in this thread. These requirements are what Science requires, if you can't present a scientific case for Creationism, it's not science.

 

[Peaceandfearlesslove]

Well, I only have one point to make. And from that point, I can show you all the evidence in the world that evolution is indeed false. And to be as fair as I can. I won't invoke the Bible. However please know that I believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God that reveals all truth.

To answer your challenge, I offer you a challenge that is simple compared to yours. Please name for me one "thing" that is and remains perfect forever?

That thing could be anything of any shape or form, philosophy or idea, or even scientific law?

I think that if you are honest with yourself that you can not name a single thing in our universe that is "perfect". The arguments for evolution have been made by a great many of people. Those who make the arguments have constantly revised and updated those same arguments. hence admitting by default that there is no "perfect" argument against creation.

This being true. I will quote the often misused "Newtons third law of motion" I say misused because Sir Isaac Newton as we all know was a creationist by evidence of his writings. And his third law states.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

I myself find this an interesting law of physics and I also find it to be true. I will use this law of "science" to demonstrate what Sir Isaac Newton intended to be understood.

That is in a imperfect universe that there must be a Lasting perfection. That is to say that, if that law is true, then surely something must be perfect? And yet we find exceptions to all of the scientific laws, hence making them imperfect. We also find exception to every shape and form,philosophy,and idea. Sir Isaac Newton himself realized his own law of motion by saying "All these things being considered, it seems probable to me, that God in he beginning formed." "no ordinary power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first creation." And finally Sir Isaac Newton said this " it may be also allowed that God is able to create particles of matter of several sizes and figures, and in several proportions to space, and perhaps of different densities and forces, and thereby to vary the laws of nature, and make worlds of several sorts in several parts of the universe. At least, I see nothing of contradiction in all this."

If we are honest with ourselves we can only answer the question of imperfection with the perfect Creation of and by God. If not then we make Isaac Newtons' third law obsolete.
Something must be perfect on an equal scale to all the imperfection of our universe. And some will say the law itself is perfect. And the answer to that is, If the law is perfect then you believe That there is a Creator of all things. Because you would have to admit that there is nothing that is perfect in our natural world.

Now I can easily relate five biological impossibilities of evolution because there are many. to site just five, the evolution of the giraffe, platypus, beaver, stink beetle, and woodpecker. I would be more then happy to explain why all these are biologically impossible to have evolved.

But I ask you, Can you name me one thing that is "perfect" and is of "Lasting perfection" in this universe? And if you answer honestly the answer is a resounding NO, there is nothing in this universe that can be proven to be of any "lasting perfection" except for one, That the answer to eternal imperfection is a lasting and eternal perfection of One God our Creator. To deny this would be to deny the third law of motion, on which so many of the worlds science are based.

To deny this there would be no hope, only misery. To deny this there would be no justice, only injustice. to deny this there would be no truth, only untruth.

I will pray for you that the Lord touches your heart to be honest in your assessment of my answer. Please Remember there is hope. There is an equal and opposite reaction to all the imperfection of this universe and that is a God of "perfect and Lasting Creation!" Amen.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

I think that if you are honest with yourself that you can not name a single thing in our universe that is "perfect".

Mathmatics are perfect.

That is in a imperfect universe that there must be a Lasting perfection.

Then you should be able to demonstrate the existance of this perfection. You have only asserted in throughout your post. Never demonstrating why, with anything other than imperfection leads to perfection. Non sequintor, until proven otherwise. Also quoting Newton's personal opinion does not count as evidence.

Anyways, argument about imperfection and perfection have nothing to do with Evolution. Unless of course you are implying that since there is imperfection, there must be perfection, and there must be a Christian god and a Christian creation story as described in the Bible. Therefor, Evolution is false. You must provide evidence for every step, if that's what you are trying to demonstrate.

Now I can easily relate five biological impossibilities of evolution because there are many. to site just five, the evolution of the giraffe, platypus, beaver, stink beetle, and woodpecker. I would be more then happy to explain why all these are biologically impossible to have evolved.

This is the only point you have raised against Evolution, and really what research can you cite about them that makes the incapable of being evolved? I would really like to see if you can demonstrate that they don't have any pseudogene and retro virus simularities with their closest relatives. Which would be one way to falsify Evolution and natural history. However, I doubt you will bring any evidence other than the "because I said so" to evidence yourself.

 

[Peaceandfearlesslove]

8192 is not a perfect number.

But I don't think we ever said it was. If you plug in m=7 to the
formula n = 2^(m-1) * (2^m - 1), you don't get 8192, you get 8128.
Is this what happened?

You asked for the numbers "and so on."

Here are the first few perfect numbers:

6,
28,
496,
8128,
33550336,
8589869056,
137438691328,
2305843008139952128,
2658455991569831744654692615953842176,
191561942608236107294793378084303638130997321548169216,

131640364585696483372397534604587229102234723183869431
17783728128,

144740111546645244279463731260859884815736774914748358
89066354349131199152128,

2356272345726734706578954899670990498847754785839260071014302
7597506337283178622239730365539602600561360255566462503270175
0528925780432155433824984287771524270103944969186640286445341
2803383143979023683862403317143592235664321970310172071316352
7487298747400647801939587165936401087419375649057918549492160
555646976,

1410537837067120690632079580860631898814867435147156678388386
7599995486774265238011410419332903769025156195056870982932716
4087724366370087116731268159313652487450652439805877296207297
4467232951666582288469268077866528701889208678794514783645693
1392206037069506473607357237869517647305526682625328488638371
5072974324463835300053138429460296575143368065570759537328128,

5416252628436584741265446537439131614085649053903169578460392
0818387206994158534859198999921056719921919057390080263646159
2800138276054397462627889030573034455058270283951394752077690
4492443149486172943511312628083790493046274068171796046586734
8720992572190569465545299629919823431031092624244463547789635
4414813917198164416055867880921478866773213987566616247145517
2696430221755428178425481731961195165985555357393778892340514
6222324506715979193757372820860878214322052227584537552897476
2561793951766244263144803134469350852036575847982475360211728
8040378304860287362125931378999490033667394150374722496698402
8240806042108690077670395259231894666273615212775603535764707
9522501738583051710286030212348966478513639499289049732921451
07505979911456221519899345764984291328



There are many more of these types of equations. As far as the animals. you really should do the research yourself so you are better prepared. I will give you a week to investigate before I post "your evidence" Untill then, know that there are thousands of imperfect mathmatics. So the challenge still stands to name for me one perfect thing. Consider the amount of imperfection and then consider the equal and opposite of that imperfection. remember this is science. and your job now is prove the third law obsolete by naming one thing that is perfect. your arguement to say this law does not relate to evolution is a bold face deception. after all what is the theory of evolution without a constant action and reaction? I'm a patient person so don't feel rushed. Take your time and really think things through before you respond. And please keep the debate civil. ie please don't put words in my mouth. I will never tell you "because I said so" I am hoping to lead you to the answers to your questions by your own research. Good luck and God bless.

 

[Freodin]

Excuse me for chiming in: could you define "perfect"?

 

[Loudmouth]

8192 is not a perfect number.

4096*2=8192 is perfect. Math is axiomic. Therefore, any self consistent mathematical formula is considered perfect.

So the challenge still stands to name for me one perfect thing.

1 gram of liquid water fits perfectly in a 1 cubic centimeter container.

Consider the amount of imperfection and then consider the equal and opposite of that imperfection. remember this is science. and your job now is prove the third law obsolete by naming one thing that is perfect.

Newton's third law deals with physical forces, not perfection. You have extended Newton's law beyond the phenomena it was supposed to explain.

your arguement to say this law does not relate to evolution is a bold face deception. after all what is the theory of evolution without a constant action and reaction?

How is evolution affected by the inertia of mass? If you can't explain how these two are related then you have no cause to accuse us of deception.

As far as perfection goes, evolution does not produce perfection. It only produces species that are better than their competitors. As an analogy, you don't have to build a perfect race car to win a race. You only have to build a race car that is faster than your opponents.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

As far as the animals. you really should do the research yourself so you are better prepared.

I have a hundred college hours as a Biology major. And you agreed to this when you posted in this thread:

Don't try to switch the burden of proof, Evolution has ample evidence, and is agreed upon by virtually every Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, and Agnostic Biologists(experts) in the world. Thus it is Creationism, that needs to present evidence for it's case.

So far you are failing to yield any evidence.

I will give you a week to investigate before I post "your evidence"

I will give you a week to make an actual objection to Evolution; I'm ready now.

Untill then, know that there are thousands of imperfect mathmatics.

Define perfect.

Math is axiomic. Therefore, any self consistent mathematical formula is considered perfect.-LoudMouth

Furthermore, I said math is perfect. You need to disprove math, not give me some silly equation, plug in the numbers and tell me that the result makes numbers imperfect by an unknown definition of perfect.

Consider the amount of imperfection and then consider the equal and opposite of that imperfection. remember this is science. and your job now is prove the third law obsolete by naming one thing that is perfect.

Perfection and imperfection are not opposite of one another they are the absence of one another. Same way for light and dark, they are just the absence of one another. However there is an opposite to light, the anti-photon.

Now, it is your job to show that they(perfection and imperfection) by scientific definition of newton's third law are opposite and equal of one another. Then you still have several steps after that to prove biblical creationism, since you are taking such an indirect debating pathway.

your arguement to say this law does not relate to evolution is a bold face deception

I'm not decieving, decieved, or trying to decieve anyone. The law is a law of motion, only applying scientifically as a law to objects in motion. You are trying to assert it's scienticfic law for everything. You have to prove your assertion scientifically. Remember this is science.

I'm a patient person so don't feel rushed. Take your time and really think things through before you respond.

Right back at you.

I will never tell you "because I said so"

You're the one raising objections with unnamed evidence, and when i ask for evidence, you tell me I need to research it myself even when you agreed to the terms of debate:

These points must be direct, clearly defined, based on evidence(you must cite the evidence), be fasifiable, and pertaining specifically to Evolution.

I didn't make this challenge impossible, the rules are clearly stated and are very feasible, logical, and fair. If you are unable to meet the requirements, I had a rule for that too. If you were to start a thread with rules, and I didn't meet them, I wouldn't post in the thread. It would be different if I had some insane rules like the hovind challenge.

 

[Peaceandfearlesslove]

If you refuse to disscuss the general, then why should I discuss the complex with you.

to quote Newton again."And so much the uniformity in the bodies of animals, they having generally a right and a left side shaped alike, and on either side of their bodies two legs behind, and either two arms, or two legs, or two wings before their shoulders, a neck running down into a backbone, and a head upon it; and in the head two ears, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and a tongue, alike situated. Also the first contrivance of those very artificial parts of animals, the eyes, ears, brain, muscles, heart, lungs, midriff, glands, larynx, hands, wings, swimming bladders, natural spectacles, and other organs of sense and motion; "

And so the third law of motion is working in every biological thing that is alive and dead at this very moment.

and first you said that "mathmatics are perfect" and now your saying "math is perfect" clearly two different phrases.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

I said math is perfect.

well here is an imperfect number ie. imperfect mathmatics

Quoting your title(post #4), I'll let your post speak for itself. I have a screen shot of your entire post if you try to edit it in there after I make this post.

 

[Peaceandfearlesslove]

"you agreed to the terms of debate:"

why would I do something silly like that? I have done no such thing. your funny. Faith is not science. period. and you by no means make the rules of my faith. If you want to debate, then answer my question. physics is science. evolution is not. By all indications you are attacking my beliefs. So indeed the burden of proof is on your end. always has been always will be.

Now if I went around trying to pick fights or arguments with scientist, then yes the burden of proof would be on me.

I suggest that if you want to debate, then you are going to have to ask the right questions.

Your very much doing a disservice to science by ignoring the general topic. Jumping to conclusions is just not what a good scientist does.



Good luck and God bless.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

"you agreed to the terms of debate:"

why would I do something silly like that? I have done no such thing. your funny. Faith is not science. period. and you by no means make the rules of my faith. If you want to debate, then answer my question. physics is science. evolution is not. By all indications you are attacking my beliefs. So indeed the burden of proof is on your end. always has been always will be.

Now if I went around trying to pick fights or arguments with scientist, then yes the burden of proof would be on me.

I suggest that if you want to debate, then you are going to have to ask the right questions.

Your very much doing a disservice to science by ignoring the general topic. Jumping to conclusions is just not what a good scientist does.



Good luck and God bless.

By posting in this thread you agreed to the terms of this debate, if not then you're trolling my thread, because only those who meet the requirements are invited to post here. By rules of the forums, only those invited can post in this thread.

If you don't meet these requirements, do not post in this thread.

I made myself clear, and you've made it clear that your only purpose is to troll my thread with nonsense. I have not attacked your belief, I have only provided evidence that your claims are wrong and contradictory. No the burden of proof is not on me, it's still on creationism, and all the faith in the world won't change that fact. Only facts will and so far you have not provided any facts. If you do not have facts that meet the requirements ready to present to me, do not post in this thread, even to respond to this post.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

If you refuse to disscuss the general, then why should I discuss the complex with you.

I'm sure I can handle it, just keep the biological details to an undergraduate level and I'm sure I will do fine.

to quote Newton again."And so much the uniformity in the bodies of animals, they having generally a right and a left side shaped alike, and on either side of their bodies two legs behind, and either two arms, or two legs, or two wings before their shoulders, a neck running down into a backbone, and a head upon it; and in the head two ears, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and a tongue, alike situated. Also the first contrivance of those very artificial parts of animals, the eyes, ears, brain, muscles, heart, lungs, midriff, glands, larynx, hands, wings, swimming bladders, natural spectacles, and other organs of sense and motion; "

Yes, putting an object in motion is what those things do, but that doesn't mean an arm is in motion, so it doesn't apply to an arm always. Even when it does it doesn't apply in the way you are thinking.

And so the third law of motion is working in every biological thing that is alive and dead at this very moment.

No the law only applies to physical objects in motion and still only in a very literal scientific way. If you can't apply the equations of motion to it, the law doesn't apply.

and first you said that "mathmatics are perfect" and now your saying "math is perfect" clearly two different phrases.

The standard definitions disagree.

[SIZE=-1]Mathematics; is the study of quantity, structure, space and change. It developed, through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, from counting, calculation, measurement, and the study of the shapes and motions of physical objects. [/SIZE]

Math:[SIZE=-1]mathematics: a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement [/SIZE]

 

[Peaceandfearlesslove]

"Yes, putting an object in motion is what those things do, but that doesn't mean an arm is in motion, so it doesn't apply to an arm always. Even when it does it doesn't apply in the way you are thinking."

Wow, my guess is you really don't know anything about science. You can't go changing the rules of motion just because of your lack of understandng.

I'm sure Mr. Newton understood his own studies.

"Now by the help of these principles, all material things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid particles above­mentioned, variously associated in the first creation by the counsel of an intelligent agent."

So again I ask you to show one thing that is perfect?

Clearly math is not. the simple fact that math is defined by terms such as "perfect numbers" and "imperfect numbers" should exclude "math" or "mathmatics"

 

[Freodin]

Clearly math is not. the simple fact that math is defined by terms such as "perfect numbers" and "imperfect numbers" should exclude "math" or "mathmatics"

I have to ask you again to define "perfect".

 

[Elduran]

Since this is supposed to be a formal debate between 2 participants, can I ask the non participants to join the commentary thread I started and leave the formal debate here to be between WhiteMageGirl and her chosen opponent?:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=34662204#post34662204

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

"Yes, putting an object in motion is what those things do, but that doesn't mean an arm is in motion, so it doesn't apply to an arm always. Even when it does it doesn't apply in the way you are thinking."

Wow, my guess is you really don't know anything about science. You can't go changing the rules of motion just because of your lack of understandng.

You're the only one changing laws of motion to laws of everything. They simply can't be scientifically applied to anything more than motion. I've had Calculus based physics I,II, so I know a little bit about the fundamentals of physics and as a senoir in college as a science major, my guess is it is you that don't know anything about Science.

The laws are meant to relate force and motion of an object, not anything else. When the law states "everything," it means everything within the domain of motion. Take a look at the full version of each law, in context, read Newton's books if you have to.

I'm sure Mr. Newton understood his own studies.

"Now by the help of these principles, all material things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid particles above­mentioned, variously associated in the first creation by the counsel of an intelligent agent."

His studies were of motion, it is purely opinion that he attributes them to a creator. I've seen a Geneticist study the human genome and attribute it to the Christian god, and in his next sentence use the Evolution based pathway of creation. You have still yet to show me anything other than a couple of 400 year old quotes to prove your point.

So again I ask you to show one thing that is perfect?

You agreed earlier that math was perfect. QED

And I ask you again to demonstrate that perfection is the opposite of imperfection. If you can do that, and somehow manage to get out of your earlier statement that math is perfect. You will be one step closer to disproving Evolution.

Clearly math is not.

Now you're just a walking contradiction. Want me to show you the screen shot of you post before you modified it, now you won't be able to go around pulling a bait and switch game on me, not in this debate.

I have to ask you again to define "perfect".

Not going to happen, his whole argument is based on undefined terms and making a law of motion a law of everything.

 

[Peaceandfearlesslove]

yes please do show me where i said "math was perfect"

you must have me confused with someone else.


And it really is sad to support the the third law and then disregard the explanation by the creator of the law. hmm. you can't have it both ways.

Should you still wish to continue to accuse and call me names such as trolls and what not. Why should I explain to you how the third law applies?

You only came here to play word games, not to debate.

Yes please show me this screen shot?

 

[Peaceandfearlesslove]

Yeah I'm done. it can never be a civil debate with some people. it always ends up being pointing fingers and name calling.

It should be point and counter point. period. <Staff Edit>
Mr. Newton was a great and Free man. <staff edit>

you have completely over looked that we live in a physical world. In which the laws of motion applies to everything in it and outside of it. from the molecular to the infinite.

The honest answer would have been, "there is nothing perfect." not even mathematics.

And the response is as Mr. Newton clearly intended. That there must be an equal and opposite reaction to all of the universes imperfection, And that is a perfect God and creator of all that is in the universe.

MY quotes of Newton are taken from his notes on the application of the natural laws.

Good luck, God Bless you. and please be honest if you are going to debate. <staff edit>

 

[Freodin]

I know that this is not my debate here, but for clarities sake, I ask for the third and final time: please define "perfect"!

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

yes please do show me where i said "math was perfect"

you must have me confused with someone else.

I'll keep the truth between us.

And it really is sad to support the the third law and then disregard the explanation by the creator of the law. hmm. you can't have it both ways.

It's the third law of motion, not the third law of everything.

Should you still wish to continue to accuse and call me names such as trolls and what not.

By definition you admitted to being a troll, by not accepting the requirements of the debate and still posting.

Why should I explain to you how the third law applies?

Because your entire rants in this thread are based on your definition of the third law of motion.

In which the laws of motion applies to everything in it and outside of it.

They apply to every physical object but only in specific ways.