What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

solid_core said:

I think they were simply unable to invent another word. Americans...

Or they did not know a difference between foot and hand. They were quite uneducated back then

Click to expand...

It's a variation of Rugby football, in which the hands are allowed to be used. Blame the Brits.

MIDutch said:

Then what are you?

You deny the evidence that supports the observed fact of evolution and the biological Theory of Evolution that explains it.

You don't believe in ecological speciation.

You don't accept natural selection and common descent.

Every single one of your "arguments" is textbook creationist.

You self identify as a Christian.

You will have to explain to me what you are then because "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it's probably a duck" certainly may apply here.

Click to expand...

Labels are a tricky thing. Though I call myself a creationist, many YEC over the years have told me I'm not.

GodsGrace101 said:

Are the above YOUR words?

Click to expand...

I've just realised you were asking if I had plagiarised my comments from somewhere. I'm not sure why you would think so, but let me re-affirm and expand my original answer: Yes, those are entirely my own words, written off the cuff, based on my recollection of the dozens of textbooks and hundreds of research papers I have read on the topic.

I'm intrigued to know why you asked the question. It strikes me as odd. I'd also be interested to know why you have turned down every offer I have made to extend your knowledge on the topic.

A few posts ago you complained that no one had bothered to try to explain the Cambrian Explosion to you. I make such an attempt and rather being thanked, or being intensely questioned on the details (something I have encouraged you to do) I get an implication that I am a plagiarist. Don't you think that is odd?

solid_core said:

I think they were simply unable to invent another word. Americans...

Or they did not know a difference between foot and hand. They were quite uneducated back then

Click to expand...

We could do it like the Germans ... just tack another word on and make it handfootball.

GodsGrace101 said:

It could be added, but not absolutely needed as the goal of the game has been stated.

And yes, it's called FOOTBALL in the states...it IS rather strange! Maybe because the ball is kicked every now and then? Who can know....

Click to expand...

See, I'd have to waste a couple words just to make sure you knew which sport I was even talking about...

Resha Caner said:

We could do it like the Germans ... just tack another word on and make it handfootball.

Click to expand...

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

(association of subordinate officials of the head office management of the Danube steamboat electrical services)

Resha Caner said:

22 men try to put a ball into a goal.

Click to expand...

As a Dutchman supporting the Oranje I need to (sadly) finish your 25 word or less "explanation".

22 men run around for 90 minutes trying to put a ball into a goal, and in the end the Germans win.

The real quote belongs to Gary Lineker, July 4, 1990, Turin, Italy, after England were beaten by Germany in the 1990 World Cup. "Football is a simple game; 22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans win."

MIDutch said:

I must have missed the Biblical passages about the agricultural uses of manure.

Click to expand...

Luke 13:7-9 King James Version (KJV)

The biblical "dunghill" was actually a compost pile.

7 "Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:

9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down."

solid_core said:

I think they were simply unable to invent another word. Americans...

Or they did not know a difference between foot and hand. They were quite uneducated back then

Click to expand...

They could have just called it ... Rugby. Since it was an evolution of the game that was played at Rugby School, or at least differentiated off of that (American Gridiron Rugby)since rugby itself was an evolution from the game the rest of the world knows as football.

OldWiseGuy said:

Luke 13:7-9 King James Version (KJV)

The biblical "dunghill" was actually a compost pile.

7 "Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?

8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:

9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down."

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

MIDutch said:

Then what are you?

You deny the evidence that supports the observed fact of evolution and the biological Theory of Evolution that explains it.

You don't believe in ecological speciation.

You don't accept natural selection and common descent.

Every single one of your "arguments" is textbook creationist.

You self identify as a Christian.

You will have to explain to me what you are then because "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it's probably a duck" certainly may apply here.

Click to expand...

I could accept that God used evolution to get to where we are now.

I said in a previous post that IF it was positively proven (and I mean proven) that the u niverse was created in some other way (than ID) then I think Christianity would be in trouble.

I need to get off this thread....
No need to reply.

46AND2 said:

Awesome. Please explain Differential Equations to me, so I can save myself a bunch of time and money. I'm sure my university will accept your explanation in lieu of their curriculum. No? How about just the section on complex roots?

Click to expand...

46....it would NATURALLY have to be something the person knows about.

Ophiolite said:

I've just realised you were asking if I had plagiarised my comments from somewhere. I'm not sure why you would think so, but let me re-affirm and expand my original answer: Yes, those are entirely my own words, written off the cuff, based on my recollection of the dozens of textbooks and hundreds of research papers I have read on the topic.

I'm intrigued to know why you asked the question. It strikes me as odd. I'd also be interested to know why you have turned down every offer I have made to extend your knowledge on the topic.

A few posts ago you complained that no one had bothered to try to explain the Cambrian Explosion to you. I make such an attempt and rather being thanked, or being intensely questioned on the details (something I have encouraged you to do) I get an implication that I am a plagiarist. Don't you think that is odd?

Click to expand...

No. I don't think it's odd.

It's called explosion because all of a sudden, different life forms appear without prior evolution from a source life form.

Also, when speaking to a non-scientist, normal language should be used. Your words made very little sense to me. Remember, YOU are the one that said I am scientifically ignorant...so why use such BIG WORDS?

solid_core said:

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

(association of subordinate officials of the head office management of the Danube steamboat electrical services)

Click to expand...

supercalafragilisticexpealidoucious
(I think).

GodsGrace101 said:

46....it would NATURALLY have to be something the person knows about.

Click to expand...

No person on earth could could explain how to do DiffEQ in 25 words or less.

The trouble with science is that they don't properly manage the development and use of many of their discoveries.

pitabread said:

Come up with a scientific theory that has equivalent or better explanatory* power for the origin and diversity of species on Earth, and equivalent or better application in fields of applied biology.

Until creationists can do that, everything else is irrelevant.

*(And for the record, "God made stuff" isn't an explanation.)

Click to expand...

God made stuff is an explanation, just one without any support by good evidence. I would say they need an explanation supported by good evidence from many different scientific fields of study that converge on creationism.

GodsGrace101 said:

Also, when speaking to a non-scientist, normal language should be used. Your words made very little sense to me. Remember, YOU are the one that said I am scientifically ignorant...so why use such BIG WORDS?

Click to expand...

So, rather than complain, why not ask me to explain the words. I offered to address any of your questions, but rather than do so you just raise more complaints.

GodsGrace101 said:

It's called explosion because all of a sudden, different life forms appear without prior evolution from a source life form.

Click to expand...

My notes, the words you suspected might not be mine, explained that there were many earlier life forms from which the Cambrian life forms evolved. You say I did not write clearly enough, because I used big words. Here are my original words (italicised) with an expanded explanation (normal text). Once again, please feel free to ask for any point of clarification, but I would prefer you do that without the complaints.

• Early geological field work recognised the "sudden" appearance of fossils in the Cambrian period, with most major animal phyla appearing within a few tens of millions of years. The Pre-Cambrian was apparently barren of life.

Although much of the work of a geologist is conducted in a laboratory the samples they examine have been gathered in the field. And it was in the field that early geologists recognised that some rocks contained fossils and some did not. As they built up an understanding of the relative position of certain formations they realised that below a certain group of formations there were no fossils.

The group of formations, found in many places around the world and identified by the similar fossils they contained, was called the Cambrian. Many (though not all) of the rocks above the Cambrian held fossils, but none of the rocks below the Cambrian did - at least as far as they could see at that time. The older rocks, those below the Cambrian were called, logically, the Pre-Cambrian.

The apparent sudden appearance of life, as evidenced by the fossils in the Cambrian and no fossils in the Pre-Cambrian, is called the Cambrian explosion.

• Subsequent research has revealed that prokaryotes, "simple", single celled organisms without a nucleus were active 3.5 billion years ago, almost 3 billion years before the Cambrian

The discoveries referred to in my first italicised comment were made starting more than two hundred years ago. In the subsequent two hundred years we have made many more discoveries. This includes recognition of some simple organisms, stromatolites. These are colonial, single celled photo-synthetic bacteria. Colonial, they grouped together; single-celled, hopefully self explanatory (if not, ask); photo-synthetic, harvesting sunlight to provide energy; bacteria, a prokaryote, micororganism.

What is a prokaryote? You and I are composed of cells each of which has a nucleus where the bulk of our DNA is located. Outside the nucleus, but inside the cell wall, are a host of other 'bodies' performing a variety of functions. Cells like this are called eukaryotes. The simpler prokaryote lacks a nucleus. The DNA sits within the cell wall and there are fewer of the functional bodies found in our cells.

So, some 3.5 billion years ago these particular prokaryotes, called stromatolites existed. That is the first evidence I have presented that contradicts your faulty understanding that there was no life from which the Cambrian organisms could have evolved.

I'll deal with my other statements in a similar, expanded, simplified fashion, after you have confirmed you understand the above, or have asked for clarification.

46AND2 said:

No person on earth could could explain how to do DiffEQ in 25 words or less.

Click to expand...

Well, again, as was my point with the soccer example (though never directly stated) and the point of my first post here (where it was directly stated), it all depends on the type of explanation you desire.

A differential equation is simply an equation relating derivatives, and through the use of LaPlace Transforms, can be solved in the same manner as algebraic equations.

I think that's less than 25 words. But I doubt that's what you really want. What you really want to know is how to pass a class - how to answer a specific set of problems set before you by an instructor. Or are you interested in the theory of general calculi, because that's a topic that fascinates me.

Another thing that has always fascinated me about diffeq is that you are taught to guess. Guess an answer and try it. If it works, you solved the problem. That such an approach would be part of an official mathematics curriculum fascinates me - especially given the public perception regarding the intellectual prowess supposedly required for science/math and the amazing insights it offers. It doesn't make for a good story if the scientist/mathematician, when asked about his great discovery, replies, "Uh, I guessed."

But the same thing occurs at lower math levels when students are taught to factor a number into primes. You do it by guessing (or memorizing).

The reason that occurs is due to a mind-blowing, fascinating, full-math-geek-out concept expressed by the simple equation P/=NP.

But anyway, I get your point. So what type of explanation do you seek from creationists?