God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-02-2013, 08:00 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(20-02-2013 07:43 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:But if you are so sure of yourself PleaseJesus, so sure that you understand evolution - I challenge you to begin a new thread. You can call it something like "Evolution Explained by PJ". Tell us what you think evolution is, and what evidence you think there is to support it - and where the holes in evolution are. You can present the evidence for Creation to if you like - assuming there actually is any.
What is the purpose for this move? I'll make it if you can help me understand, since it is a loaded thread.

Why not just say, "Evolution is the nail in the Bible's coffin. The Bible clearly teaches creation and then we're done with Christianity..."?

From my perspective, it's irrelevant whether a Christian believes Evo or Cre--this has no bearing on salvation, only Bible (mis)interpretation.

And there's nothing more to understand. For every "what" I post there will be scientists in different camps because all the holes in our knowledge are filled with further theories/conjecture.

"Many species came on to the land over a long time in sustainable ways."

Which species? When? Which part of Pangaea? What evidence is there in the fossil record that we can date and be exact as to which species came first? What did they eat and why was it accessible to them since roots must be dug from the ground, flowering plants grow in the air where they'd need fully developed land-limbs to reach, etc?

It's like Darwin's famous plant where he conjectured a bird with a lengthy tongue to pollinate it. Darwin was a genius and he was correct--except that the plant and bird would have evolved at different times or if at the same time, VERY rapidly to be pollinated--and there are no fossils of these plants with different length petals and no fossils of birds with different length tongues (of course) or tongue imprints.

This notion of giraffe neck and plant heights evolving together makes TOTAL logical sense to me--except for the woeful lack of evidence in the fossil record. And wait for it--here comes--"we just haven't found those fossils yet."

We have BILLIONS of fossils and specimens in museums now. Billions. A local butterfly museum has millions of them near my home--none of these teeming millions and billions are macro-evolving or show ANY evidence of macro-Evolution at all.


If you applied the EXACT SAME level of skepticism and credulity to your Bible as you do to Evolution, you'd be an atheist... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-02-2013, 08:14 AM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2013 08:19 AM by Vosur.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(20-02-2013 07:43 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Which species? When? Which part of Pangaea? What evidence is there in the fossil record that we can date and be exact as to which species came first? What did they eat and why was it accessible to them since roots must be dug from the ground, flowering plants grow in the air where they'd need fully developed land-limbs to reach, etc?
For the third time: If you want to have answers to your questions, educate yourself by reading a book about the theory of evolution. Your persistent willfull ignorance says a lot about your intellectual honesty (or lack thereof).

(20-02-2013 07:43 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We have BILLIONS of fossils and specimens in museums now. Billions. A local butterfly museum has millions of them near my home--none of these teeming millions and billions are macro-evolving or show ANY evidence of macro-Evolution at all.
Actually, they do.

Try the Archaeopteryx.

How about every single transitional fossil (technically speaking, every fossil is a transitional fossil)?

I don't mean to disrespect you, but have you ever attended a biology class in school?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
20-02-2013, 08:15 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(20-02-2013 07:43 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:But if you are so sure of yourself PleaseJesus, so sure that you understand evolution - I challenge you to begin a new thread. You can call it something like "Evolution Explained by PJ". Tell us what you think evolution is, and what evidence you think there is to support it - and where the holes in evolution are. You can present the evidence for Creation to if you like - assuming there actually is any.
What is the purpose for this move? I'll make it if you can help me understand, since it is a loaded thread.

Why not just say, "Evolution is the nail in the Bible's coffin. The Bible clearly teaches creation and then we're done with Christianity..."?

From my perspective, it's irrelevant whether a Christian believes Evo or Cre--this has no bearing on salvation, only Bible (mis)interpretation.

And there's nothing more to understand. For every "what" I post there will be scientists in different camps because all the holes in our knowledge are filled with further theories/conjecture.

"Many species came on to the land over a long time in sustainable ways."

Which species? When? Which part of Pangaea? What evidence is there in the fossil record that we can date and be exact as to which species came first? What did they eat and why was it accessible to them since roots must be dug from the ground, flowering plants grow in the air where they'd need fully developed land-limbs to reach, etc?

It's like Darwin's famous plant where he conjectured a bird with a lengthy tongue to pollinate it. Darwin was a genius and he was correct--except that the plant and bird would have evolved at different times or if at the same time, VERY rapidly to be pollinated--and there are no fossils of these plants with different length petals and no fossils of birds with different length tongues (of course) or tongue imprints.

This notion of giraffe neck and plant heights evolving together makes TOTAL logical sense to me--except for the woeful lack of evidence in the fossil record. And wait for it--here comes--"we just haven't found those fossils yet."

We have BILLIONS of fossils and specimens in museums now. Billions. A local butterfly museum has millions of them near my home--none of these teeming millions and billions are macro-evolving or show ANY evidence of macro-Evolution at all.
The purpose would be exactly as I explained.

From your posts in this thread you have demonstrated that you do not understand evolution at all, and yet you claim that you do. If you explained your understanding in a separate thread it would be much simpler for us to help you to understand where you are getting your facts wrong and why.

For instance, take this mention of "macro-evolution". There is no distinction between macro and micro in the case of evolution, except for that of scale. Macro-evolution is just lots of micro-evolution one after the other. You either accept the truth of evolution or you don't - people who suggest that micro evolution is true and macro evolution isn't are just plain wrong. Either both are true or both aren't. And the massive fossil record we have shows tons of cases of evolution.

Hell, you don't even need the fossil record to see evolution in action. Take the case of nylon eating bacteria. http://web.mst.edu/~microbio/BIO221_2010...erium.html

Before 1935 nylon did not exist. Yet in that time this species of bacteria has evolved in order to digest it.

I'll wait while you go and ask answersingenesis what to think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes hedgehog648's post
21-02-2013, 07:38 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:Try the Archaeopteryx.

How about every single transitional fossil (technically speaking, every fossil is a transitional fossil)?
Archaeopteryx is not anything. Growing up, pj's local museum proudly displayed information about Arch before they updated to get with modern science.
You're missing the obvious--a slave to the machine--that 1) Christians believe in Evolution, adaptation, new species--just not macro-Evolution. 2) There are NO fossils that show ANY developments. Every significant change happened super-rapidly.
When we speak of transitional fossils, we're talking about fossils that exhibit traits common to its "Evolutionary ancestors"--fine. But there are millions of fossils in museums and none that show any burgeoning or developing anythings... There are long-necked giraffes and tall plants they eat--period. The whole concept of thousands to millions of years of giraffes with different-sized necks is just conjecture. There are none in the record.
Wait for it... "We'll find those fossils eventually." Meanwhile, what we have found in archaeology from modern times is compelling and shows the historical facts of the Bible are accurate. What do y'all think of:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/pdf/JeffBIBL...ision2.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 07:43 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:The purpose would be exactly as I explained.

From your posts in this thread you have demonstrated that you do not understand evolution at all, and yet you claim that you do. If you explained your understanding in a separate thread it would be much simpler for us to help you to understand where you are getting your facts wrong and why.

For instance, take this mention of "macro-evolution". There is no distinction between macro and micro in the case of evolution, except for that of scale. Macro-evolution is just lots of micro-evolution one after the other. You either accept the truth of evolution or you don't - people who suggest that micro evolution is true and macro evolution isn't are just plain wrong. Either both are true or both aren't. And the massive fossil record we have shows tons of cases of evolution.

Hell, you don't even need the fossil record to see evolution in action. Take the case of nylon eating bacteria. http://web.mst.edu/~microbio/BIO221_2010...erium.html

Before 1935 nylon did not exist. Yet in that time this species of bacteria has evolved in order to digest it.

I'll wait while you go and ask answersingenesis what to think.
I hardly need to visit AIG or anywhere else online to demonstrate where you are either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting fundamentalists' claims.
Only an idiot could not see new species evolve and proliferate. From bacteria and viruses to new breeds of dogs, we can see Evolution at work.
But the Bible says each will bear fruit according to its "kind" and Mendel's taxonomy foundations were Bible foundations. Cats never become dogs. Fish never evolve to walk on the land. Apes do not become homo sapiens.
The percentage difference between human genes and ape genes still translates to millions of genetic differences. A car has wheels, some boats have wheels, and many airplanes have wheels--but they didn't evolve one from another. Each was a product of intelligent design. Some animals may have hairy coats and opposing thumbs but they didn't evolve from one another--nor from lemurs--nor from one-celled animals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 08:37 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(21-02-2013 07:38 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Try the Archaeopteryx.

How about every single transitional fossil (technically speaking, every fossil is a transitional fossil)?
Archaeopteryx is not anything. Growing up, pj's local museum proudly displayed information about Arch before they updated to get with modern science.
You're missing the obvious--a slave to the machine--that 1) Christians believe in Evolution, adaptation, new species--just not macro-Evolution. 2) There are NO fossils that show ANY developments. Every significant change happened super-rapidly.
When we speak of transitional fossils, we're talking about fossils that exhibit traits common to its "Evolutionary ancestors"--fine. But there are millions of fossils in museums and none that show any burgeoning or developing anythings... There are long-necked giraffes and tall plants they eat--period. The whole concept of thousands to millions of years of giraffes with different-sized necks is just conjecture. There are none in the record.
Wait for it... "We'll find those fossils eventually." Meanwhile, what we have found in archaeology from modern times is compelling and shows the historical facts of the Bible are accurate. What do y'all think of:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/pdf/JeffBIBL...ision2.pdf
So your local museum displayed false information then corrected it with the modern accepted scientific viewpoint? And the information currently presented is . . . what exactly?

Like I already pointed out (a point that you did not address in your reply, which is quoted below), macro-evolution is just evolution. If you have lots of micro-evolutions from species A to B to C to D to E, you also have a macro-evolution from species A to species E. The only difference is scale, the process is the same. To accept one and not the other is either a) a misunderstanding of what evolution is, or b) dishonesty.

What you say about transitional fossils is pure misinformation and ignorance. Every fossil in the fossil record is a transitional fossil, and every species alive today is a transitional species. Evolution is a continuous process, it doesn't stop and start, and every single species is a transitional species between the species it evolved from and the one it will next evolve into.

(21-02-2013 07:43 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The purpose would be exactly as I explained.

From your posts in this thread you have demonstrated that you do not understand evolution at all, and yet you claim that you do. If you explained your understanding in a separate thread it would be much simpler for us to help you to understand where you are getting your facts wrong and why.

For instance, take this mention of "macro-evolution". There is no distinction between macro and micro in the case of evolution, except for that of scale. Macro-evolution is just lots of micro-evolution one after the other. You either accept the truth of evolution or you don't - people who suggest that micro evolution is true and macro evolution isn't are just plain wrong. Either both are true or both aren't. And the massive fossil record we have shows tons of cases of evolution.

Hell, you don't even need the fossil record to see evolution in action. Take the case of nylon eating bacteria. http://web.mst.edu/~microbio/BIO221_2010...erium.html

Before 1935 nylon did not exist. Yet in that time this species of bacteria has evolved in order to digest it.

I'll wait while you go and ask answersingenesis what to think.
I hardly need to visit AIG or anywhere else online to demonstrate where you are either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting fundamentalists' claims.
Only an idiot could not see new species evolve and proliferate. From bacteria and viruses to new breeds of dogs, we can see Evolution at work.
But the Bible says each will bear fruit according to its "kind" and Mendel's taxonomy foundations were Bible foundations. Cats never become dogs. Fish never evolve to walk on the land. Apes do not become homo sapiens.
The percentage difference between human genes and ape genes still translates to millions of genetic differences. A car has wheels, some boats have wheels, and many airplanes have wheels--but they didn't evolve one from another. Each was a product of intelligent design. Some animals may have hairy coats and opposing thumbs but they didn't evolve from one another--nor from lemurs--nor from one-celled animals.
New breeds of dogs are not necessarily examples of evolution. Most of the time these are examples of selective breeding, where humans have shoved two types of dogs together to see what happens. Evolution would be dogs of the same breed reproducing time and time again until variation set in and they evolved into a recognisably new breed, one that would probably be unable to mate successfully with other dogs to produce fertile offspring and therefore be a new species.

We know cats never become dogs. Evolution would be thoroughly discredited if such a thing were to happen, and it's only morons like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron who claim that this is what evolution is. But certain species of fish have evolved to walk on land, hell you were given examples of which in this thread. Lungfish are an example of an intermediary stage of this.

Hell, whales evolved in the other direction, from a land animal into one that lives in the oceans.

And if you think apes never evolved into homo sapiens, I got news for you. Homo sapiens are apes. Great Apes to be precise. Your mother was an ape, your father was an ape, and you PJ are an ape. So am I. Smile We didn't evolve from any ape alive today, that's true. The species we evolved from are now extinct, as are many other members of the family that didn't evolve fast enough. Other apes just happened to evolve from the same species we did, that's all.

Machines built by humans are not biological lifeforms, and as such are not applicable. For one thing we have seen machines being built, so we can make the assumption that a machine we have not seen built was actually built.

We have never observed any biological species being created, and so the assumption that biological species were created is an unreasonable one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like hedgehog648's post
21-02-2013, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2013 09:04 AM by Vosur.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(21-02-2013 07:38 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Archaeopteryx is not anything. Growing up, pj's local museum proudly displayed information about Arch before they updated to get with modern science.
Thank you for this well-reasoned rebuttal. Oh wait, you actually didn't substantiate your claim that the Archaeopteryx "is not anything".

(21-02-2013 07:38 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You're missing the obvious--a slave to the machine--that 1) Christians believe in Evolution, adaptation, new species--just not macro-Evolution.
Once again, you're wrong.

(21-02-2013 07:38 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  2) There are NO fossils that show ANY developments. Every significant change happened super-rapidly. When we speak of transitional fossils, we're talking about fossils that exhibit traits common to its "Evolutionary ancestors"--fine. But there are millions of fossils in museums and none that show any burgeoning or developing anythings... There are long-necked giraffes and tall plants they eat--period. The whole concept of thousands to millions of years of giraffes with different-sized necks is just conjecture. There are none in the record.
I have already refuted these claims in my previous post. Why don't you try actually reading my sources for once?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
21-02-2013, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2013 01:35 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(21-02-2013 07:43 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The purpose would be exactly as I explained.

From your posts in this thread you have demonstrated that you do not understand evolution at all, and yet you claim that you do. If you explained your understanding in a separate thread it would be much simpler for us to help you to understand where you are getting your facts wrong and why.

For instance, take this mention of "macro-evolution". There is no distinction between macro and micro in the case of evolution, except for that of scale. Macro-evolution is just lots of micro-evolution one after the other. You either accept the truth of evolution or you don't - people who suggest that micro evolution is true and macro evolution isn't are just plain wrong. Either both are true or both aren't. And the massive fossil record we have shows tons of cases of evolution.

Hell, you don't even need the fossil record to see evolution in action. Take the case of nylon eating bacteria. http://web.mst.edu/~microbio/BIO221_2010...erium.html

Before 1935 nylon did not exist. Yet in that time this species of bacteria has evolved in order to digest it.

I'll wait while you go and ask answersingenesis what to think.
I hardly need to visit AIG or anywhere else online to demonstrate where you are either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting fundamentalists' claims.
Only an idiot could not see new species evolve and proliferate. From bacteria and viruses to new breeds of dogs, we can see Evolution at work.
But the Bible says each will bear fruit according to its "kind" and Mendel's taxonomy foundations were Bible foundations. Cats never become dogs. Fish never evolve to walk on the land. Apes do not become homo sapiens.
The percentage difference between human genes and ape genes still translates to millions of genetic differences. A car has wheels, some boats have wheels, and many airplanes have wheels--but they didn't evolve one from another. Each was a product of intelligent design. Some animals may have hairy coats and opposing thumbs but they didn't evolve from one another--nor from lemurs--nor from one-celled animals.


Evolution has NEVER said that we should ever see a dog turn into a cat or vice versa. Cats and dogs both share a common ancestor, and if you follow their lineages back far enough they converge on Miacids; whom also gave rise to bears, skunks, and hyenas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacids

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action...4977041872

[Image: full.jpg]








We are apes you fucking retard. I am an ape, you are an ape; and that fact won't change no matter how much you ignore it or how many time you read your bible. We did not evolve from modern apes, they are our genetic cousins. We share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees, and still further back with the other Great Apes (Gorillas, Bonobos, and Orangutans). We are classified under super family Hominoidea (Apes) and family Hominidea (Great Apes), because we meet all of the characteristics for that classification. We can trace our lineage all the way back to the Chordates at least 530 MILLION years ago, and we can take it back ever further than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of..._evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape



This is what our linage looked like ~480 million years ago. [Placoderm]

[Image: Coccosteus_BW.jpg]

This is what our linage looked like ~375 million years ago. [Tiktaalik]

[Image: Tiktaalik_BW.jpg]

~220 million years ago. [Cynognathus]

[Image: Cynognathus_BW.jpg]

~30 million years ago. [Aegyptopithecus]

[Image: Aegyptopithecus_NT.jpg]

~2.5 million years ago. [Homo Habilis]

[Image: 498px-Homo_habilis-2.JPG]

~1.8 million years ago. [Homo Erectus]

[Image: 480px-Homo_erectus_new.JPG]

~600 thousand years ago. [Homo Heidelbergensis]

[Image: Homo_heidelbergensis_(10233446)_new.jpg]

~200 thousand years ago, the first appearance of [Homo Sapiens] (that would be us).


Of course boats and cars don't evolve, they're not made out of SELF REPLICATING MOLECULES! We however ARE made out of self replicating molecules, RNA and DNA. So your analogy is bullshit, just like all of you other arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication


"Mendel's taxonomy"? WTF are you smoking? Are you screwing that up with Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics? Modern taxonomy started with Carl Linnaeus dumbass, thanks for taking the time to figure that out. Your level of scholarship (or lack thereof) is astounding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_mendel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)


Lets face it SleazyJesus, Evolution is smarter than you are. 'Fish' did evolve to live on land, and just because you're are too stupid, ignorant, and uneducated to understand how does not change that. We evolved, and you are the product of over 480 millions years of evolutionary success. But I hope you do the rest of the human race a favor and never have kids so that your genes never pass on; we already have enough stupid without bellends like you passing it on.


[Image: nuqj.jpg]


I am ashamed that we share 99.99% of our genes.
You are an embarrassment to the human race.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-02-2013, 02:30 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Hey, Evolution.

Can't say that I approve of the language, but you seem to have the evolution pwnage well in hand. Carry on.

Just wanted to point out a small discrepancy.

Quote:Of course boats and cars don't evolve, they're not made out of SELF REPLICATING MOLECULES!

Boats and cars do evolve and they do so as a product of Darwinian principles.

You're 100% correct that they are not made out of self replicating molecules, but replicators aren't actually molecules, they're information (genetic information being stored chemically most of the time, but just as easily stored in the following sentence: AGCTGAACTTG).

Boats and cars are meme products. Memes are expressed as behaviour; like building boats and cars. That behaviour results in boats and cars; hence meme products. As the meme evolves (both the production meme and the useage meme; the two form a complex; no one will produce a five wheeled car if no one will use it) so does its product. That's why the Mustangs of today don't look like the Mustangs of the 60s.

Boats and cars and books and paintings can contain memes, but they have no translation machinery so they can't express them. Human minds and computers and robots (and probably a few other survival machines) do have translation machinery, so they have to retrieve the memes contained in those things before they can be expressed.

Just sayin. Darwin rocks. Continue with the genetic evolution pwnage.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2013 04:10 PM by Filox.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(21-02-2013 07:43 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  A car has wheels, some boats have wheels, and many airplanes have wheels--but they didn't evolve one from another.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIPDT4F-jzLsDXqsRdSD7...JkoLBbKbL8]

You are such a strange person. Not a very convincing troll. I will now take your "proof" and shove it up your ... nose.

[Image: 1447889639_3d80d0ca46.jpg]

[Image: amphicar.jpg]


[Image: 35A5509CC3C04783BA5E312D920E0BC2.jpg]


[Image: amphibious_fishing_car1.jpg]


[Image: SkyCar-Flying-Car-1.jpg]


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR755XUSU62kpEE6mhhj8p...Vs5dKTlbRw]


[Image: transition-car-plane.jpg]


[Image: article-0-12329F0E000005DC-976_634x375.jpg]

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRfTmv99y_J0ko45Mt2977...ns04GsUbF7]


So, what were you saying again?

Big Grin

Hobo Laughat

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: