My two favorite arguments for creation

[Arikay]

And how is that? Or is it just a lazy way to ignore my comments? (wahoo, irony again)
Would you like me to provide you with a correct definition of the theory of evolution?

I am sorry I just disagree. I think your arguments are intellectually lazy.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"

1) You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself. This includes implied accusations that another member is not a Christian.

First, I will not suspend my beliefs or my call to action when I recognize sin. If I need to address it a different way that's fine. Now just to be clear there was a person who called me an idiot and used that word....funny, no one said anything. Me being a nice guy I laughed it off.

Anyways, the intent was to make clear what was being said and convict an idividual to stand on their beliefs and defend their position. Apologies if someone thought I was attacking them or "Flaming".

 

[nyjbarnes]

And how is that? Or is it just a lazy way to ignore my comments? (wahoo, irony again)
Would you like me to provide you with a correct definition of the theory of evolution?

That would be a good start. You have quite a backfill of posts that have no emperical data. I should would like to eat soon, so if you could pass me somthing I could chew on I would appreciate it.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Why is that creationists bring this line out whenever it's clear that the only ones combining godlike arrogance and crippling ignorance is them? It's as though they think that by quoting a part of the Bible, they can ignore all the inconvenient evidence that's been set out before them.

nyjbarnes, if you have an argument, make it. If you lack the necessary knowledge to discuss evolution, feel free to read some FAQs or just read the threads here without responding. As it is, all you've done is given several PRATTs and been easily refuted. Instead of responding substantively, you've either ignored them to repeat your unsupported assertions or you've become needlessly insulting. The standard right-wing projection, far from enhancing your case, only makes it all the more clear you've nothing more than useless creationist rhetoric.

So I suppose this was ME being insulting;

CUT AND PASTED FROM YOUR LINK

Quote:

Originally Posted by: nyjbarnes

please, if you are going to call me an idiot, please at least back up your argument.

From post #11

Quote:

Originally Posted by: nyjbarnes

Now for the predictive nature of the Bible. The Bible predicts over 300 things that relate specifically to Jesus Christ. I will name a couple.

That Jesus' legs would not be broken during his crusifixion
That Jesus would be born in a manger

Now here is the significance. This is recorded history.

From post#24

Quote:

Originally Posted by: nyjbarnes

Not recorded history. Okay, so since I am not a biblical scholar and I expect that none of you are either...and since I am not a historian

Idiot

 

[nyjbarnes]

nyjbarnes, if you have an argument, make it. If you lack the necessary knowledge to discuss evolution, feel free to read some FAQs or just read the threads here without responding. As it is, all you've done is given several PRATTs and been easily refuted. Instead of responding substantively, you've either ignored them to repeat your unsupported assertions or you've become needlessly insulting. The standard right-wing projection, far from enhancing your case, only makes it all the more clear you've nothing more than useless creationist rhetoric.

I have made my arguement, so far no one has been able to refute it. There were a couple good beginning arguments...I liked the one about the ark, about the flood..

But it seems that most peoples method of debating on this board is to call you names, insinuate a lack of knowledge on a topic or just generalize about Christians. I found just a few people who bring up real arguments and back them up...such as Delta-32 and the Retrovirus'.....I am still researching those...as for the rest of ya...keep quiet while the adults are talkin'

 

[Brahe]

So is DNA replaced or added to?

UPDATE
I found the answer myself

In light of your knowledge of retroviruses, perhaps you could tell us just how creationists explain the presense of endorgenous retroviral sequences.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11591322&dopt=Abstract

This says that all mutations are lethal....

No, nyjbarnes. From the link: "However, all full-length endogenous retroviruses described to date in humans are sufficiently old that all humans examined were homozygous for their presence [1]. Moreover, none are intact; all have lethal mutations [1, 3, 4]."

 

[Brahe]

So I suppose this was ME being insulting;

CUT AND PASTED FROM YOUR LINK

(numerous tags and such snipped)

Do note the "Preview Post" button.

In any case, yes, you are indeed insulting. You don't appear to have anything except PRATTs and invective.

 

[Brahe]

I have made my arguement, so far no one has been able to refute it. There were a couple good beginning arguments...I liked the one about the ark, about the flood..

Like I showed, and like you once again ignored, your "arguments" have been solidly refuted. Yelling "nuh-uh!" at the top of your lungs simply won't make that fact go away.

But it seems that most peoples method of debating on this board is to call you names, insinuate a lack of knowledge on a topic or just generalize about Christians.

Yes, we are all well-aware of creationist tactics. Do note that you've been warned against insulting Christians because they accept science. Oh, I see you've ignored that as well.

 

[Split Rock]

First, I will not suspend my beliefs or my call to action when I recognize sin. If I need to address it a different way that's fine. Now just to be clear there was a person who called me an idiot and used that word....funny, no one said anything. Me being a nice guy I laughed it off.

The reason I brought up the point that you were breaking a forum rule, was because you did so in response to my previous post. It is true that others in this forum use insulting terms, and that should not be tolerated either.

 

[Arikay]

Oh the irony is killing me.

Here we go definition of evolution,

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html​

This change comes from two basic mechanisms,
•Mutations,
"Mutations (or mutagenesis, both words originating in the Latin word mutare, to change) are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations

•Natural Selection
"The basic concept of natural selection is that environmental conditions (or "nature") determine (or "select") how well particular traits of organisms can serve the survival and reproduction of the organism;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

•Other
"Other mechanisms of evolution include genetic drift, gene flow and mutation."



Shouldn't you have researched this yourself before coming here and making claims? This is basic knowledge that you should have before debating, or you should ask questions to learn about it. You shouldn't expect people to put in intellectual thought when you obviously haven't. Especially considering your rude and insulting posts that are devoid of data (something you complain about our posts lacking) or anything to back them up.
You can quote the bible, but have you really read it? Do you realize that Jesus says (paraphrased) that you should look to yourself for error before others and that you should treat others the way you want to be treated?

That would be a good start. You have quite a backfill of posts that have no emperical data. I should would like to eat soon, so if you could pass me somthing I could chew on I would appreciate it.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Oh the irony is killing me.

Here we go definition of evolution,

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html​

This change comes from two basic mechanisms,
•Mutations,
"Mutations (or mutagenesis, both words originating in the Latin word mutare, to change) are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations

•Natural Selection
"The basic concept of natural selection is that environmental conditions (or "nature") determine (or "select") how well particular traits of organisms can serve the survival and reproduction of the organism;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

•Other
"Other mechanisms of evolution include genetic drift, gene flow and mutation."



Shouldn't you have researched this yourself before coming here and making claims? This is basic knowledge that you should have before debating, or you should ask questions to learn about it. You shouldn't expect people to put in intellectual thought when you obviously haven't. Especially considering your rude and insulting posts that are devoid of data (something you complain about our posts lacking) or anything to back them up.
You can quote the bible, but have you really read it? Do you realize that Jesus says (paraphrased) that you should look to yourself for error before others and that you should treat others the way you want to be treated?

It actually says to look at the oak or tree trunk in your own eye before you look at the splinter in someone elses.

Honestly, there was no new discovery here. I was arguing from these same points. Though I have just a thought that I need to look up speciation.

 

[Arikay]

Actually it is more than just a specific verse, its a theme that runs through out the entire NT.

Really? Now its your turn to present evidence to back up your statements.
Show us how a watch in a box is the same as life and the environment. show us How mutation and natural selection can act on that watch.

Your argument completly ignored the basis of evolution (this basis is accepted by pretty much every creationist group, they don't argue against evolution, but against non constrained evolution which is basically what creationism is about).


Out of curiousity, where are the verses in the bible that predict jesus will be born in a manger, and then the verse that says he is born in a manger? (were you the one talking about that, or was it someone else?)

It actually says to look at the oak or tree trunk in your own eye before you look at the splinter in someone elses.

Honestly, there was no new discovery here. I was arguing from these same points. Though I have just a thought that I need to look up speciation.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Actually it is more than just a specific verse, its a theme that runs through out the entire NT.

Really? Now its your turn to present evidence to back up your statements.
Show us how a watch in a box is the same as life and the environment. show us How mutation and natural selection can act on that watch.

Your argument completly ignored the basis of evolution (this basis is accepted by pretty much every creationist group, they don't argue against evolution, but against non constrained evolution which is basically what creationism is about).


Out of curiousity, where are the verses in the bible that predict jesus will be born in a manger, and then the verse that says he is born in a manger? (were you the one talking about that, or was it someone else?)

Yep it was me. I can't seem to find the reference to being born at the inn
But I did find this.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

So I had this whole thing written out as a reply...but my browser deleted it...2nd time this has happend tonight..or this morning rather. So I will attempt to re-write it tomorrw.

 

[Arikay]

I may be incorrect (haven't looked it up recently) but I don't believe the full christmas manger story is actually part of the bible.

Sometimes for long posts I like to type it in a text program and then copy and paste into here. The time it takes to save the file beats the frustration of a bad browser or misclick killing your post.

Yep it was me. I can't seem to find the reference to being born at the inn
But I did find this.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

So I had this whole thing written out as a reply...but my browser deleted it...2nd time this has happend tonight..or this morning rather. So I will attempt to re-write it tomorrw.

 

[nyjbarnes]

No freaking kidding! I am trying to get to 100 posts so I can be an apprentice.

I just started this site like last week.


But I only started posting like 5 days ago!

 

[nyjbarnes]

That's 100!

 

[gluadys]

Yep it was me. I can't seem to find the reference to being born at the inn
But I did find this.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

So I had this whole thing written out as a reply...but my browser deleted it...2nd time this has happend tonight..or this morning rather. So I will attempt to re-write it tomorrw.

The reference is Luke 2:7. It doesn't say he was born at the inn, but he must have been born somewhere near animals because it says "[Mary] ...laid him in a manger because there was no place for them in the inn."

Could have been the stable of the inn as implied in the traditional Christmas concert, or, as another tradition has it, in a cave where animals were sheltered, or in a part of a private home when the domestic animals were kept. Or, it could even be that a manger was brought into a house and he was not actually surrounded by animals at all.

(One of my aunts used to lay visiting babies in a dresser drawer, since she didn't have a crib in the house.)

 

[Mistermystery]

The Bible has a verse crafted specifically for you.
Rom 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I like that passage a lot. Especially when you read it In context instead of quotemined. Last time it was John who did that if I recall correctly.

 

[the_gloaming]

Prove we share a common anscestry. Cite your sources

Endogenous retroviruses. Stating these 2 words usually results in silence from creationists and the death of a thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t96639
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Endogenous_retroviruses

So is DNA replaced or added to?

UPDATE
I found the answer myself

Retroviruses, unlike other viruses, are RNA-based. In addition to two single strands of RNA that constitute its genome, a retroviral particle also carries several copies of reverse transcriptase. After invading a host cell, the reverse transcriptase is used in a process called reverse transcription to decode its RNA into DNA, which it then inserts into the host cell's chromosome. With the newly created viral DNA in place, the host cell's RNA polymerase is used to make more virus RNA, both as templates for the RNA new particles will carry into other cells, and mRNA, which produces the viral proteins. The new copies of viral RNA and proteins are collected together into a new virus particle, and set free to infect other cells.

For more see the retrovirus article.


The reality is how is this different than the host/parasite relationship? I think what you will find is that the organisms that have this happen beyond a single generation will either weed out the code or not be able to reproduce.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...2&dopt=Abstract


This says that all mutations are lethal....

DNA is added to. But that wasn't the question. The question was "prove we share a common ancestry". The first link I provided, to an old thread on this website, has a long and detailed post by WinAce explaining how endogenous retroviruses provide "overwhelming support for human/chimp common ancestry" . In order to understand the implications you should at least READ the long posts by WinAce, rather than replying with a description of a retrovirus (which is not what is being given as evidence) and a link which you either don't seem to have read properly, or are deliberately mis-interpreting. Try reading a message I posted a few days ago for a simple explanation of how retroviruses becomes endogenous retroviruses:
http://www.christianforums.com/t767419&page=4

The link you gave does not say that all mutations are lethal. It says "However, all full-length endogenous retroviruses described to date in humans are sufficiently old that all humans examined were homozygous for their presence [1]. Moreover, none are intact; all have lethal mutations [1, 3, 4]."

That is, all full-length human endogenous retroviruses have mutations in their sequence which have stopped them from being coded. It has nothing to do with mutations as a whole.

 

[Gracchus]

This parallels what scientists would have you believe about the earth and the origins of life.

And they would have us believe this because? Your conspiracy theory is showing.

The simply by things being in the right place at the right time, the earth formed exactly in the right place to support life and exactly on a 23.5 degree axis, so perfect in fact that if were to move just a few degrees closer to or away from the sun we would burn up or freeze respectively.

Google "anthropic principle". If the conditions were different, we would be different and you would be arguing that conditions had to be exactly that way. Or if conditions were different, we wouldn't be around to comment on the fact.

This they would have you believe happend all by chance. Now, the illustration of the watch is a good one, because a good watch has life,(it tells time or ticks) and a good watch has complex moving parts. Things that are dependent on each other for the overall goal of telling time. This relates directly to life.

No it doesn't relate directly to life because it is not believed that live and watches came about by the same processes. You are assuming the watch to be much different from a bryophyte (true) and then claiming they must have come about by the same processes, which you have not demonstrated. This is the fallacy of assuming the consequent.

I expect that won't be enough for some of you.

Bingo!

But that is the start of the debate.

You are starting from your conclusion and using faulty arguments.

Also, why the crystal doesn't have any significance to what I am talking about is because as crystal is a formation of rock.

To be specific, the crystal is an orderly arangement of molecules. So is the watch, but the watch also has a higher level of organization.

There are no complexities to it. It's caused by a number of different things that can be easiliy accounted for and repeated today. Not similar. Thanks for playing though.

You seem to be saying that watches aren't made today. And any living thing is more complex and requires more levels of organization than the crystal. Your analogy is flawed.

Now for the predictive nature of the Bible. The Bible predicts over 300 things that relate specifically to Jesus Christ. I will name a couple.

That Jesus' legs would not be broken during his crusifixion
That Jesus would be born in a manger

It should be easy for you to provide biblical citations. (Be careful. I have anticipated your answer.)

Now here is the significance. This is recorded history. The torah is not just a book of stories.

No. It is also legislation and census information.

It is a document that is corroborated many places not the least of which is the dead sea scrolls.

Since the Dead Sea Scrolls are based on the pre-existing scripture they do not provide independent verification. That's like saying that my freshman literature book verifies the Iliad.

That said, these prophecies were written 2000 years before Christ's brith.

I don't think you can demonstrate that.

If you just took 8 of these prophecies, the odds of a person coincidentally fulfilling all eight of these would be one in 10 to the 17th power.

Since we can't easily picture what that means, I'll give this illustration: Suppose you took the state of Texas and spread silver dollars two feet deep across the whole state, then marked just one of them and buried it somewhere in the state. Then, if you chose one person, blindfolded him, and told him to pick just one silver dollar, his chances of getting the marked one on his first try would be one in 10 to the 17th power

Where did you get the numbers you are using?

And for the most powerful part, Jesus fulfulled all of them. Not just 8, not 18, not 180. All of them. Well not all of them, because he has to return yet again, but that will be fulfilled.

Lets start with the two you mentioned above. You can list these three hundred prophecies and we can examine them one or two at a time.

Now just for reference, scientific absurdity is 10 to the 25 power. It might be less but I can't seem to find my reference.

The chance of any randomly shuffled deck of cards occuring is one in 52! (fifty-two factorial), which is to say there are 52 possibilities for the first card, 51 possiblities for the second, etc, 2 possibilities for the 51st card and one possibility for the last card. So the odds are 1 in 52*51*50*...*3*2*1. (* means times) This is around 1 in 8*10^67. (10^67 means 10 raised to the 67th power) so if what you say were true, any randomly shuffled deck of cards is "scientifically absurd". And so are you.