The Big Think Creationism debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2013, 09:12 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 09:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 08:45 PM)theword Wrote:  You have not done anything. Genes mutate, we get that! That is not evolution. It is a bad gene. A chicken can have a bad gene and it wont give birth to a pig. You cannot show one thing on this earth that went from non-living to living. Yes, we have changes, a tadpole turns into a frog- not a pig. A rock is a rock- it will never produce a living organism.
Your round about explanations make no sense. evolution does not occur. Man did not evolve from a rock.
Mutating genes is a key component in evolutionary theory. We couldn't have evolution without mutating genes. It would actually prove evolution false if you could prove that genes don't mutate, or if you could prove that there are structures that could not be progressively formed via incremental gene mutations. The theory of evolution is easily falsifiable and yet it has not been falsified.
If a chicken gave birth to a pig then that would be proof that Darwin's theory of evolution is incorrect. But such a thing hasn't happened so evolution still stands on solid ground even though it remains open to be falsified.
Living from non-living is not in the scope of evolution. Evolution only deals with how living organisms change and diverge over time.
So again, rather than deflecting.
" I've provided the evolutionary explaination regarding the faulty gene. If mankind was created by god then why did god give all of mankind a faulty gene? Is god a poor designer?"
You have not explained anything. Evolution does not exist. "I God a poor designer?" Good question. NO!
Let's look at the facts. The Bible says that man was perfect upon creation and has gone downhill ever since. Fact- man was bigger, animals were bigger, and (as reported in the Bible) man lived longer. So the fact that man is not what he was when Adam was alive is not surprising. Is God a poor designer? NO. Is man smaller (and some would say less healthy) than in Adam's day? Yes. It's all in the Bible. I don't have top make up facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 09:13 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 08:30 PM)theword Wrote:  "Darwin sat on it for so long"... how do you atheists make up this stuff?

All great discoveries come from those who did the grunt work before us. "We stand on the shoulders of giants" as the saying goes.

(25-08-2013 08:30 PM)theword Wrote:  Darwin's grandfather had the theory of evolution long before Charles. He was the one Charles learned from.
Darwin's grandfather was very perceptive, and had a good line of thought going. Charles was the one to put it all together.

Whether it was him or his grandfather, what difference does it make as to what the evidence show us?

We can play the "you can't prove it" game all day long and nobody will have a satisfactory answer for anything.

It's juvenile and it's overdone. It's time to live in the real world, dude.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 09:16 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 09:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 08:24 PM)theword Wrote:  Come on son, I have read,,,,there is no proof of evolution. If there was, you would show me. Instead you make long to read posts and send you tube videos. You have no proof, why don't you just admit it?

Are you willing to read a book on evolution?
I have read many books on evolution. It is an interesting theory, I will give you that. But if you look at the big picture- it has way too many unanswered questions. The glaring being, how did the whole thing start? This is something evolutionists cannot answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 09:17 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
Quote:It's all in the Bible. I don't have top make up facts.

Jesus fucking jumped up christ on a cracker, and you call yourself educated. Never mind dude, carry on with your delusion.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2013, 09:21 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 08:22 PM)theword Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 06:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, Haeckel admitted to have used the wrong plate for some illustrations.

Piltdown man was a fraud - so?

Brontosaurus was a duplicate name for an already named species.

Nebraska man was a misclassification on slim evidence.

If you think any or all of that is counter-evidence or disproof, your reasoning abilities are sorely lacking.

Chaz, these are outright frauds.
Here are the examples and non-Christian web sites that verify the fraud. evolution is a fraud... period.
1. Haeckel- faked drawings of embryos to prove evolution. Later recanted, admitted it was a hoax.
Article: NY Times- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.ht...5B808DF1D3


"Haeckel faked photographs" ??? Are you so gullible or ignorant? Drawings, not photogrpahs.
Wiki Wrote:The book sold very well, and while some anatomical experts hostile to Haeckel's evolutionary views expressed some private concerns that certain figures had been drawn rather freely, the figures showed what they already knew about similarities in embryos. The first published concerns came from Ludwig Rütimeyer, a professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the University of Basel who had placed fossil mammals in an evolutionary lineage early in the 1860s and had been sent a complimentary copy. At the end of 1868 his review in the Archiv für Anthropologie wondered about the claim that the work was "popular and scholarly", doubting whether the second was true, and expressed horror about such public discussion of man's place in nature with illustrations such as the evolutionary trees being shown to non-experts. Though he made no suggestion that embryo illustrations should be directly based on specimens, to him the subject demanded the utmost "scrupulosity and conscientiousness" and an artist must "not arbitrarily model or generalize his originals for speculative purposes" which he considered proved by comparison with works by other authors. In particular, "one and the same, moreover incorrectly interpreted woodcut, is presented to the reader three times in a row and with three different captions as [the] embryo of the dog, the chick, [and] the turtle." He accused Haeckel of "playing fast and loose with the public and with science", and failing to live up to the obligation to the truth of every serious researcher. Haeckel responded with angry accusations of bowing to religious prejudice, but in the second (1870) edition changed the duplicated embryo images to a single image captioned "embryo of a mammal or bird". Duplication using galvanoplastic stereotypes (clichés) was a common technique in textbooks, but not on the same page to represent different eggs or embryos. In 1891 Haeckel made the excuse that this "extremely rash foolishness" had occurred in undue haste but was "bona fide", and since repetition of incidental details was obvious on close inspection, it is unlikely to have been intentional deception
Quote:.

2. Piltdown man
The Piltdown Man was a hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilized remains of a previously unknown early human
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilt_down_man

Already stipulated - that was a hoax. Shall we start listing the many religious frauds?
Wiki Wrote:From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."[10] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[1] Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.

Quote:3. Nebraska man- discovery thought to be the missing link, turned out to be a pigs tooth. Hoax!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

Again, not a hoax, an error.
Wiki Wrote:From its initial description, Hesperopithecus was regarded as an inconclusive find by a large portion on the scientific community. Examinations of the specimen continued, and the original describers continued to draw comparisons between Hesperopithecus and apes. Further field work on the site in the summers of 1925 and 1926 uncovered other parts of the skeleton. These discoveries revealed that the tooth was incorrectly identified.

Quote:4. Brontosaurus- A museum operator put the head of one dinosaur on another dinosaur body in an effort to win the “dinosaur war”… A complete fake.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/brontosaurus.html
Chas, you do have a leg to stand on...

Again, an error. Your description is false.
Wiki Wrote:Othniel Charles Marsh, a Professor of Paleontology at Yale University, described and named an incomplete (and juvenile) skeleton of Apatosaurus ajax in 1877. Two years later, Marsh announced the discovery of a larger and more complete specimen at Como Bluff Wyoming—which, because of discrepancies including the size difference, Marsh incorrectly identified as belonging to an entirely new genus and species. He dubbed the new species Brontosaurus excelsus, meaning "thunder lizard", from the Greek brontē/βροντη meaning "thunder" and sauros/σαυρος meaning "lizard", and from the Latin excelsus, "highest, sublime", referring to the greater number of sacral vertebrae than in any other genus of sauropod known at the time.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-08-2013, 09:35 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 09:12 PM)theword Wrote:  "Is God a poor designer?" Good question. NO!
Let's look at the facts. The Bible says that man was perfect upon creation and has gone downhill ever since.
OK, so are you saying that humans were created perfect and that we have broken our Vitiman C gene?
How did we do that?
How come it affects us all?
Do we all have a common ancestor, or are we all concieved perfect but somewhere between conception and birth this gene gets broken?
Can you please explain?
Evolution theory provides a detailed explaination, can creation theory match the level of detail?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
25-08-2013, 09:48 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 09:16 PM)theword Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 09:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  Are you willing to read a book on evolution?
I have read many books on evolution. It is an interesting theory, I will give you that. But if you look at the big picture- it has way too many unanswered questions. The glaring being, how did the whole thing start? This is something evolutionists cannot answer.

Your statements about evolution don't support your assertion that you have read any.

But if you did, were they by reputable scientists or from creationists?

You are demanding that every question already be answered? That is not how science, or any area of human knowledge, works.
Except theology - buts that's not knowledge.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-08-2013, 10:59 PM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2013 11:54 PM by ShirubaDangan.)
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 08:24 PM)theword Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 06:10 PM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  



^This is not evolution.

Thats one of the first times people have said my posts are too long but its filled with the information regardless. You already wasted your time believing in fallacies so it won't be that much learning about the evidence of evolution.

Yes that is an example of natural selection. Now we do have varieties of chickens, dogs, cats, cows and pigs and yes you are correct that they give birth to the same species. If a cow ever turned into a chicken that would actually disprove evolution so you should strongly look for one since you have such a deep hatred for it. Evolution does not change a chicken to a dog. What it does is it takes an species and those that can survive and adapt propagate and those that die simply don't carry their genes to the next generation.

I have asked you for what your substitute for this is and you have yet to tell me. You seem to have a delusional view of evolution so I at least first advise you to read about the Theory of Evolution by means of Natural Selection and come back with your new thoughts because you clearly do not understand what it is.
Come on son, I have read,,,,there is no proof of evolution. If there was, you would show me. Instead you make long to read posts and send you tube videos. You have no proof, why don't you just admit it?

EDIT:

Actually, No, I shouldn't joke around. If you truly are this ignorant then I feel sorry for you. I don't know what kind of severe brainwashing you went through or how much they placed this idea into your head to believe it so fervently with an incredible lack of evidence. I have provided a ridiculous amount of evidence in place of you and you have yet to read a single bit of it. Its most likely because you don't wish to. You are afraid of learning about differing ideas and those that are definitely backed by the scientific community and not those who are biased and have an agenda. We have multiple people, from multiple backgrounds, ideologies, political systems, religions and nations who agree with us. The only people who agree with you are widely not considered scientists who are experts in the field.

And you know what. Call me son because a child's mind is open to a multitude of ideas and explores those ideas while you lack the curiosity to even think for yourself. I posted videos because you couldn't read and I definitely provided things in front of you but it isn't me who is the problem but you. Why don't you just admit that you just want to believe because you want to believe? Its obvious now just come out and say it but I will not say I do not have proof because that is severely on your side(The creationists). If creationism had a stance it would be a debate but I never considered it once a debate between the two because one is just wishful thinking by the radically religious who do not know the evidence while the other is made up of Atheists, Christian's, Jews, Muslim's, etc. whom are scholars who have studied in this field and have said with high confidence that with what they present is correct(And no that is not religion although they all claim their individual one is the right one) which is evolution. If I had to side with whom it is obvious to me but I am sorry it isn't so obvious for you.

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

It has been a long time. How have you been?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ShirubaDangan's post
26-08-2013, 08:00 AM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(25-08-2013 09:17 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
Quote:It's all in the Bible. I don't have top make up facts.

Jesus fucking jumped up christ on a cracker, and you call yourself educated. Never mind dude, carry on with your delusion.
Another very unintelligent and ignorant atheist post
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(26-08-2013 08:00 AM)theword Wrote:  
(25-08-2013 09:17 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Jesus fucking jumped up christ on a cracker, and you call yourself educated. Never mind dude, carry on with your delusion.
Another very unintelligent and ignorant atheist post

Did I really read in one of your posts the claim that humans are bigger and live longer so they are better than all other animals?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: