Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

shunyadragon · Feb 1, 2004, 06:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Just a quick post... I can't seem to get away!

You did not address the second point fogus made about natural selection.

For those of you who have obtained your information about the flood from Talk.Origins, here is a rebuttal of Mark Isaak’s “Problems with a Global Flood” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive:
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Checked this out too. I have seen this before. Detailed layering in volcanic and other recent deposits do not explain the detailed layering of most geologic deposites including volcanic deposites when each layer contains rivers swamps and other features formed descretly in each layer. In fact they confirm the long geologic history model, because these types of deposits are found in the layers of other deposits that cannot be explained this way.

Nothing was said of the layers of limestone hundreds of feet thick with hundreds of feet of coral reefs that cannot form quickly by any known mechanism.

Much of this was addressed in the rebuttal indicated by pooeypants. This was

jpapadpapa still hasn't responded to the other TIME issues.

PeterAngelo · Feb 1, 2004, 07:09 pm

The Bible is fiction.

I have studied many religions and a lot more. I have lived sixty years and have been a family and financial success in a very competitive system

I did not do that by adhering to fake philosophies that no "winner" ever takes seriously. It is for the "sheep"

Even that phony street preacher - Billy Graham - got cought on the Nixon tapes revealing his true nature.

Christian?

Like Caligula was a living god.

We are still ruled by the gun - period.

All the babble about laws, religion, "render to Caesar", is all about herding the sheep.

I am just making observations in my old "seer" days. It was the rare bird that lived to an old age that the young used to seek out for wisdom.

I do not care if my exercise in futility does anything for anyone but me. If it makes idiots angry - that is frosting on the cake.

The people intelligent enough to understand me do not need me.

All others annoy me so I return the favor.

Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll are all I ever really cared about, and seeing my children enjoy eating the Earth.

I am the same age as Bush - we are a lot alike except I am not burdened with public attention. His family has to live off the public tit because they are inferior to people like me. We make them possible. They are our hired guns.

For sale cheap, really, and they take all the guff for the real rulers - the bankers.

If there is a christian god that supports what we do, it is an obscene god who should be impeached immediately.

jpapadpapa · Feb 1, 2004, 08:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
jpapadpapa still hasn't responded to the other TIME issues.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Good point and I'm sorry I haven't addressed this. Since I don't have time, here is a link, which I'm sure you will have fun picking apart. (:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

BTW, I came across some more information about Einstein and I'm not too arrogant to admit that apparently I was misinformed. (; I appologize. Here's a link for those interested:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...i1/einstein.asp

shunyadragon · Feb 1, 2004, 09:11 pm

[quote=jpapadpapa,]
Good point and I'm sorry I haven't addressed this. Since I don't have time, here is a link, which I'm sure you will have fun picking apart. (:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

This is core of the explanation that was offered. It is basically an explanation that explains nothing.

In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and ‘seen’ the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c. (Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster.) However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be traveling at c.

It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem. The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It is not based on math and physics totally accepted by cosmologists. None would accept the change in the time from billions to a few thousand for light to travel accross the universe It requires no ‘massaging’—the results ‘fall out’ so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called ‘what the experts don’t tell you about the “big bang”’) This is actually what was done. Having or not having a boundary or an arbitrary starting point has nothing to do with the speed of light and the distance between objects. The magnitude of change proposed here is beyond any comprehension of science and the speed of light. .

This gets back to an earlier statement. The 'Creation Science' arguement rejects not only evolution but all modern science.

jpapadpapa · Feb 2, 2004, 09:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This gets back to an earlier statement. The 'Creation Science' arguement rejects not only evolution but all modern science.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I believe you yourself made the point earlier that science is constantly changing. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 2, 2004, 10:31 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

I believe you yourself made the point earlier that science is constantly changing. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Once again, you show ignorance of the highest order. Evolutionists do not have to answer the question of where matter originated from. It is a totally different branch of science, called cosmology and thats Physics. Evolution starts with the first living cell. How that cell formed etc, is a different model, namely, abiogenesis.

And if you really want to be picky, thanks to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, energy and matter do spontaneous appear by quantum fluctuations, as long as the energy and duration is equal to or less than the Planck constant.

fogus · Feb 3, 2004, 08:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
(shunyadragon)
Scientists have dug through most of the earth and pretty much know where to find what kind of fossils. This is why in recent years the scientists have made many discoveries.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Wow! They must have been in quite a hurry.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
(shunyadragon)
There are many many fossils in the world.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I was trying to give an explanation to Meatros about why there are not very many fossils found (I think this is what he meant)

Why don't the evolutionists try to give an explanation of why we don't find so many human skeletons as we can expect from millions of years of evolution?

**Pooeypants** · Feb 3, 2004, 08:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)

I was trying to give an explanation to Meatros about why there are not very many fossils found (I think this is what he meant)

Why don't the evolutionists try to give an explanation of why we don't find so many human skeletons as we can expect from millions of years of evolution?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Do you know the conditions for skeletal fossilisation? And what environments early hominids lived in?

Meatros · Feb 4, 2004, 01:16 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

I believe you yourself made the point earlier that science is constantly changing. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Except for particles in quantum physics

.

In any event, creationism (YEC) does deny most of modern science (physics, geology, astronomy, biology, plate tectonics, paleontology, etc).

PeterAngelo · Feb 4, 2004, 06:06 pm

Some minds are physically, chemically, genetically, and forever unable to absorb information and process it in any meaningful way.

IQ tests measure intelligence for a reason. Not all are created equal - intellectually.

Those "lesser" minds will never be able to believe that the laws of physics are the only laws in the universe that matter.

It is too frightening to believe that we (individually) will cease to exist forever.

The argument over creationism v. evolution is an argument between the smart and the dumb. It cannot be won.

The percentage of dumb people is constant. The support they give to state authority, based on fake gods (render to Caesar and all that nonesense), insures a control mechanism for the "sheep" (as the church likes to call the dumb).

There is good business in keeping the argument going, both for fund raising and deliberate divisiveness. It is never ending, and it is boring.

Whatever!!

shunyadragon · Feb 4, 2004, 07:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus @ shunyadragon)

Scientists have dug through most of the earth and pretty much know where to find what kind of fossils. This is why in recent years the scientists have made many discoveries.

Wow! They must have been in quite a hurry.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The exploration of the earth's geology in recent years has been quite extensive using modern technology. No hurry, just extensive use of technology for everything from mineral wealth, water resources to fossils and research into the history of the earth. Actually the collection of data in these fields exceeds the scientists ability to use all the data. Example, geologists knew where the diamonds could be found in Canada more than thirty years before they got around to actually researching the details of the data and mining them.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
(shunyadragon)
There are many many fossils in the world.

I was trying to give an explanation to Meatros about why there are not very many fossils found (I think this is what he meant)

Why don't the evolutionists try to give an explanation of why we don't find so many human skeletons as we can expect from millions of years of evolution?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Who expects to find so many primate fossils? Scientists surely don't and the reasons are obvious. The environments where humans lived is on land and the early huumans and our ancestors lived in warm climates where there are many animals, insects and weather that destroy most remains of life in the intensive cycle of life. The coast lines where many of our ancestors lived is now under the sea. But despite this handicap, they are finding more and more today because we have learned where to look. Ancient lake and river sediments do bury remains quick enough in periodic floods so that we are able to find some fossils. Forty years ago the total number primate fossils could be placed on the kitchen table with room to spare. We know have over one hundred times that number.

shunyadragon · Feb 4, 2004, 08:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

I believe you yourself made the point earlier that science is constantly changing. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

My point was that much of the science that forms the foundation for evolution also forms the foundation of all science and HOW they then apply the knowledge in our real world. The 'Creation Science' uses the knowledge in a manner that cannot be applied to reality in the manner ALL the sciences use it.

The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true.

I actually don't assume evolution to be true in the same manner as you assume the Bible to be true. Those that promote 'Creation Science' believe as you do and all assumptions and beliefs concerning science MUST fit their understanding of the Bible as literal.

In reality evolution is not an important issue. I don't view the belief of evolution is a 'fact' and I don't believe it is 'proven'. I am a little more careful in my statements concerning 'proof', theory and knowledge in science.

My biggest concern is the abuse of science and the effect of wide spread intellectual dishonesty in religion doctrine has on the science and technology of the future.

The arguement in the article on Time and space is a classic issue. A very weak dishonest arguement is presented using scientific principles like 'event horizon' and 'time dilation' in ways the have no logical or real reference to their actual meaning and application. Then they end the arguement by saying you must believe this because any other choice would undermine the belief in the Bible as the literal infallible word of God.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The source of existence is a seperate arguement and not related to the evolution issue. Yes, part of the creation vs. evolution definitely deals with the belief in God and religion. I personally believe in God and the answer to the question of 'nothing from nothing' is answered, but other scientist deal with the question in their own way.

'God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes.'

fogus · Feb 4, 2004, 10:07 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
jpapadpapa
There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I agree with jpapadpapa on this. I would clarify this statement though. (Simply dealing with the non supernatural:) No human comes from non-human; No life comes from non-life; No matter comes from non-matter; no thing(s) comes from no thing(s) (absolutely nothing); etc.

But this is more on the philosophy and logic side of evolution, rather than the scientific side; which I assume this thread is more devoted to.

Does any one know how to make the signatures work?

~ Fogus

shunyadragon · Feb 4, 2004, 10:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
jpapadpapa
There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I agree with jpapadpapa on this. I would clarify this statement though. (Simply dealing with the non supernatural:) No human comes from non-human; No life comes from non-life; No matter comes from non-matter; no thing(s) comes from no thing(s) (absolutely nothing); etc.

But this is more on the philosophy and logic side of evolution, rather than the scientific side; which I assume this thread is more devoted to.

Does any one know how to make the signatures work?

~ Fogus<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You can click on you name in red at the top of the page and I think from there edit you profile.

The philosophy of science and religion does play a role. As you stated the premise or assumptions of 'Creation Science' before the debate begins is 'No human comes from non-human; No life comes from non-life'. The other main assumption is that the Bible is a literally true inspired document by God from cover to cover. All other scientific evidence outside these assumptions must fit or be dismised. This method of approaching the sciences is unacceptable by most scientists.

Capitalist Pig · Feb 5, 2004, 06:50 am

Fogus: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...=165&#entry9634

Any input?

jpapadpapa · Feb 5, 2004, 08:53 am

I am about to go into labor with my baby within a few days, so I don't have the time required to research this. I would be lying if I pretended to have a good knowledge of this subject that you bring up. Sorry. I just don't have time anymore and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. I'm sure I could dig up some links on this particular example, but I think you and I both know it wouldn't do any good anyway, since both our minds are made up.

Paavo · Feb 5, 2004, 09:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
I would be lying if I pretended to have a good knowledge of this subject that you bring up.
.......
since both our minds are made up.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

How can you make up your mind about something you know little of?
Shouldn't these kind of things make you question your views?

When it comes to religious "facts", I guess they won't.

EDIT: Good luck with popping out that baby!

Capitalist Pig · Feb 5, 2004, 09:06 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
I am about to go into labor with my baby within a few days, so I don't have the time required to research this. I would be lying if I pretended to have a good knowledge of this subject that you bring up. Sorry. I just don't have time anymore and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. I'm sure I could dig up some links on this particular example, but I think you and I both know it wouldn't do any good anyway, since both our minds are made up.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>No big deal, I don't think anybody expected to change anyone's mind. Most debates held in private forums such as these are tables for a sort of intellectual ping-pong. Good luck with your baby.

shunyadragon · Feb 5, 2004, 08:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Capitalist Pig,jpapadpapa,I am about to go into labor with my baby within a few days, so I don't have the time required to research this. I would be lying if I pretended to have a good knowledge of this subject that you bring up. Sorry. I just don't have time anymore and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. I'm sure I could dig up some links on this particular example, but I think you and I both know it wouldn't do any good anyway, since both our minds are made up.

No big deal, I don't think anybody expected to change anyone's mind. Most debates held in private forums such as these are tables for a sort of intellectual ping-pong. Good luck with your baby.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Some people enter the debates with the view to convince or convert not realizing that this is an intellectual sparing match where for the most part no one wins. Those that enter with the purpose of sharing knowledge, learning and sharpening your debate skills get the most from this forum.

Debating scientific issues from the point of view of the bible is weak. I learn a lot from these debates from researching topics and about how other people think. I don't think people debating scientific issues from the biblical perspective actually research both sides of the subject.

Capitalist Pig · Feb 6, 2004, 01:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
Debating scientific issues from the point of view of the bible is weak. I learn a lot from these debates from researching topics and about how other people think. I don't think people debating scientific issues from the biblical perspective actually research both sides of the subject.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Oh well certaintly, I apologizing for appearing to minimize the benefit of debating like this. It was not my intent. It is always an exercise in the psychology of your opponent, and a measure of your own ability to appeal to their perspective to clue them in on how you rationalize. In addition, it is a learning experience when you view the other arguments and their counters from both sides of the camp. Perhaps your stance was weak on one issue, well now you have the logic necessary to fill the gap. As well, there is usually always a new argument that pops up from a third perspective, or something that directly challenges your belief, making debates a healthy practice of mental agility likewise.

Feb 1, 2004, 06:48 pm	#181 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Just a quick post... I can't seem to get away! You did not address the second point fogus made about natural selection. For those of you who have obtained your information about the flood from Talk.Origins, here is a rebuttal of Mark Isaak’s “Problems with a Global Flood” FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive: http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Checked this out too. I have seen this before. Detailed layering in volcanic and other recent deposits do not explain the detailed layering of most geologic deposites including volcanic deposites when each layer contains rivers swamps and other features formed descretly in each layer. In fact they confirm the long geologic history model, because these types of deposits are found in the layers of other deposits that cannot be explained this way. Nothing was said of the layers of limestone hundreds of feet thick with hundreds of feet of coral reefs that cannot form quickly by any known mechanism. Much of this was addressed in the rebuttal indicated by pooeypants. This was jpapadpapa still hasn't responded to the other TIME issues. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 1, 2004, 08:23 pm	#183 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by jpapadpapa still hasn't responded to the other TIME issues.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Good point and I'm sorry I haven't addressed this. Since I don't have time, here is a link, which I'm sure you will have fun picking apart. (: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp BTW, I came across some more information about Einstein and I'm not too arrogant to admit that apparently I was misinformed. (; I appologize. Here's a link for those interested: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...i1/einstein.asp I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Feb 1, 2004, 09:11 pm	#184 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	[quote=jpapadpapa,] Good point and I'm sorry I haven't addressed this. Since I don't have time, here is a link, which I'm sure you will have fun picking apart. (: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp This is core of the explanation that was offered. It is basically an explanation that explains nothing. In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and ‘seen’ the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c. (Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster.) However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be traveling at c. It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem. The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It is not based on math and physics totally accepted by cosmologists. None would accept the change in the time from billions to a few thousand for light to travel accross the universe It requires no ‘massaging’—the results ‘fall out’ so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called ‘what the experts don’t tell you about the “big bang”’) This is actually what was done. Having or not having a boundary or an arbitrary starting point has nothing to do with the speed of light and the distance between objects. The magnitude of change proposed here is beyond any comprehension of science and the speed of light. . This gets back to an earlier statement. The 'Creation Science' arguement rejects not only evolution but all modern science. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 2, 2004, 09:59 am	#185 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by This gets back to an earlier statement. The 'Creation Science' arguement rejects not only evolution but all modern science.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I believe you yourself made the point earlier that science is constantly changing. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Feb 2, 2004, 10:31 am	#186 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,469	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) I believe you yourself made the point earlier that science is constantly changing. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Once again, you show ignorance of the highest order. Evolutionists do not have to answer the question of where matter originated from. It is a totally different branch of science, called cosmology and thats Physics. Evolution starts with the first living cell. How that cell formed etc, is a different model, namely, abiogenesis. And if you really want to be picky, thanks to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, energy and matter do spontaneous appear by quantum fluctuations, as long as the energy and duration is equal to or less than the Planck constant. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 1, 2004, 07:09 pm	#182 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	The Bible is fiction. I have studied many religions and a lot more. I have lived sixty years and have been a family and financial success in a very competitive system I did not do that by adhering to fake philosophies that no "winner" ever takes seriously. It is for the "sheep" Even that phony street preacher - Billy Graham - got cought on the Nixon tapes revealing his true nature. Christian? Like Caligula was a living god. We are still ruled by the gun - period. All the babble about laws, religion, "render to Caesar", is all about herding the sheep. I am just making observations in my old "seer" days. It was the rare bird that lived to an old age that the young used to seek out for wisdom. I do not care if my exercise in futility does anything for anyone but me. If it makes idiots angry - that is frosting on the cake. The people intelligent enough to understand me do not need me. All others annoy me so I return the favor. Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll are all I ever really cared about, and seeing my children enjoy eating the Earth. I am the same age as Bush - we are a lot alike except I am not burdened with public attention. His family has to live off the public tit because they are inferior to people like me. We make them possible. They are our hired guns. For sale cheap, really, and they take all the guff for the real rulers - the bankers. If there is a christian god that supports what we do, it is an obscene god who should be impeached immediately.

Feb 3, 2004, 08:06 pm	#187 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon) Scientists have dug through most of the earth and pretty much know where to find what kind of fossils. This is why in recent years the scientists have made many discoveries. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Wow! They must have been in quite a hurry. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon) There are many many fossils in the world. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I was trying to give an explanation to Meatros about why there are not very many fossils found (I think this is what he meant) Why don't the evolutionists try to give an explanation of why we don't find so many human skeletons as we can expect from millions of years of evolution? ~Fogus

Feb 3, 2004, 08:20 pm	#188 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,469	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) I was trying to give an explanation to Meatros about why there are not very many fossils found (I think this is what he meant) Why don't the evolutionists try to give an explanation of why we don't find so many human skeletons as we can expect from millions of years of evolution?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Do you know the conditions for skeletal fossilisation? And what environments early hominids lived in? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 4, 2004, 01:16 pm	#189 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) I believe you yourself made the point earlier that science is constantly changing. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Except for particles in quantum physics . In any event, creationism (YEC) does deny most of modern science (physics, geology, astronomy, biology, plate tectonics, paleontology, etc).

Feb 4, 2004, 06:06 pm	#190 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	Some minds are physically, chemically, genetically, and forever unable to absorb information and process it in any meaningful way. IQ tests measure intelligence for a reason. Not all are created equal - intellectually. Those "lesser" minds will never be able to believe that the laws of physics are the only laws in the universe that matter. It is too frightening to believe that we (individually) will cease to exist forever. The argument over creationism v. evolution is an argument between the smart and the dumb. It cannot be won. The percentage of dumb people is constant. The support they give to state authority, based on fake gods (render to Caesar and all that nonesense), insures a control mechanism for the "sheep" (as the church likes to call the dumb). There is good business in keeping the argument going, both for fund raising and deliberate divisiveness. It is never ending, and it is boring. Whatever!!

Feb 4, 2004, 07:33 pm	#191 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus @ shunyadragon) Scientists have dug through most of the earth and pretty much know where to find what kind of fossils. This is why in recent years the scientists have made many discoveries. Wow! They must have been in quite a hurry.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The exploration of the earth's geology in recent years has been quite extensive using modern technology. No hurry, just extensive use of technology for everything from mineral wealth, water resources to fossils and research into the history of the earth. Actually the collection of data in these fields exceeds the scientists ability to use all the data. Example, geologists knew where the diamonds could be found in Canada more than thirty years before they got around to actually researching the details of the data and mining them. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon) There are many many fossils in the world. I was trying to give an explanation to Meatros about why there are not very many fossils found (I think this is what he meant) Why don't the evolutionists try to give an explanation of why we don't find so many human skeletons as we can expect from millions of years of evolution?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Who expects to find so many primate fossils? Scientists surely don't and the reasons are obvious. The environments where humans lived is on land and the early huumans and our ancestors lived in warm climates where there are many animals, insects and weather that destroy most remains of life in the intensive cycle of life. The coast lines where many of our ancestors lived is now under the sea. But despite this handicap, they are finding more and more today because we have learned where to look. Ancient lake and river sediments do bury remains quick enough in periodic floods so that we are able to find some fossils. Forty years ago the total number primate fossils could be placed on the kitchen table with room to spare. We know have over one hundred times that number. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 4, 2004, 08:06 pm	#192 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) I believe you yourself made the point earlier that science is constantly changing. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> My point was that much of the science that forms the foundation for evolution also forms the foundation of all science and HOW they then apply the knowledge in our real world. The 'Creation Science' uses the knowledge in a manner that cannot be applied to reality in the manner ALL the sciences use it. The difference is that you assume that evolution is true and base all your arguments on that, whereas I assume that the Bible is true. I actually don't assume evolution to be true in the same manner as you assume the Bible to be true. Those that promote 'Creation Science' believe as you do and all assumptions and beliefs concerning science MUST fit their understanding of the Bible as literal. In reality evolution is not an important issue. I don't view the belief of evolution is a 'fact' and I don't believe it is 'proven'. I am a little more careful in my statements concerning 'proof', theory and knowledge in science. My biggest concern is the abuse of science and the effect of wide spread intellectual dishonesty in religion doctrine has on the science and technology of the future. The arguement in the article on Time and space is a classic issue. A very weak dishonest arguement is presented using scientific principles like 'event horizon' and 'time dilation' in ways the have no logical or real reference to their actual meaning and application. Then they end the arguement by saying you must believe this because any other choice would undermine the belief in the Bible as the literal infallible word of God. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The source of existence is a seperate arguement and not related to the evolution issue. Yes, part of the creation vs. evolution definitely deals with the belief in God and religion. I personally believe in God and the answer to the question of 'nothing from nothing' is answered, but other scientist deal with the question in their own way. 'God is not a chess player with the white pieces. God is the sea and we are the fishes.' The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 4, 2004, 10:07 pm	#193 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by jpapadpapa There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I agree with jpapadpapa on this. I would clarify this statement though. (Simply dealing with the non supernatural:) No human comes from non-human; No life comes from non-life; No matter comes from non-matter; no thing(s) comes from no thing(s) (absolutely nothing); etc. But this is more on the philosophy and logic side of evolution, rather than the scientific side; which I assume this thread is more devoted to. Does any one know how to make the signatures work? ~ Fogus ~Fogus

Feb 4, 2004, 10:49 pm	#194 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by jpapadpapa There are many questions that science cannot answer and there are many questions that are still unanswered by evolutionists, such as where did the original matter come from? As I said earlier, nothing comes from nothing. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I agree with jpapadpapa on this. I would clarify this statement though. (Simply dealing with the non supernatural:) No human comes from non-human; No life comes from non-life; No matter comes from non-matter; no thing(s) comes from no thing(s) (absolutely nothing); etc. But this is more on the philosophy and logic side of evolution, rather than the scientific side; which I assume this thread is more devoted to. Does any one know how to make the signatures work? ~ Fogus<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You can click on you name in red at the top of the page and I think from there edit you profile. The philosophy of science and religion does play a role. As you stated the premise or assumptions of 'Creation Science' before the debate begins is 'No human comes from non-human; No life comes from non-life'. The other main assumption is that the Bible is a literally true inspired document by God from cover to cover. All other scientific evidence outside these assumptions must fit or be dismised. This method of approaching the sciences is unacceptable by most scientists. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 5, 2004, 06:50 am	#195 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	Fogus: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?s...=165&#entry9634 Any input? Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te Fortuna sinet.

Feb 5, 2004, 08:53 am	#196 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	I am about to go into labor with my baby within a few days, so I don't have the time required to research this. I would be lying if I pretended to have a good knowledge of this subject that you bring up. Sorry. I just don't have time anymore and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. I'm sure I could dig up some links on this particular example, but I think you and I both know it wouldn't do any good anyway, since both our minds are made up. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Feb 5, 2004, 09:01 am	#197 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) I would be lying if I pretended to have a good knowledge of this subject that you bring up. ....... since both our minds are made up.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How can you make up your mind about something you know little of? Shouldn't these kind of things make you question your views? When it comes to religious "facts", I guess they won't. EDIT: Good luck with popping out that baby!

Feb 5, 2004, 09:06 am	#198 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) I am about to go into labor with my baby within a few days, so I don't have the time required to research this. I would be lying if I pretended to have a good knowledge of this subject that you bring up. Sorry. I just don't have time anymore and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. I'm sure I could dig up some links on this particular example, but I think you and I both know it wouldn't do any good anyway, since both our minds are made up.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>No big deal, I don't think anybody expected to change anyone's mind. Most debates held in private forums such as these are tables for a sort of intellectual ping-pong. Good luck with your baby. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te Fortuna sinet.

Feb 5, 2004, 08:05 pm	#199 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig,jpapadpapa,I am about to go into labor with my baby within a few days, so I don't have the time required to research this. I would be lying if I pretended to have a good knowledge of this subject that you bring up. Sorry. I just don't have time anymore and I don't feel we are getting anywhere. I'm sure I could dig up some links on this particular example, but I think you and I both know it wouldn't do any good anyway, since both our minds are made up. No big deal, I don't think anybody expected to change anyone's mind. Most debates held in private forums such as these are tables for a sort of intellectual ping-pong. Good luck with your baby.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Some people enter the debates with the view to convince or convert not realizing that this is an intellectual sparing match where for the most part no one wins. Those that enter with the purpose of sharing knowledge, learning and sharpening your debate skills get the most from this forum. Debating scientific issues from the point of view of the bible is weak. I learn a lot from these debates from researching topics and about how other people think. I don't think people debating scientific issues from the biblical perspective actually research both sides of the subject. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 6, 2004, 01:21 pm	#200 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) Debating scientific issues from the point of view of the bible is weak. I learn a lot from these debates from researching topics and about how other people think. I don't think people debating scientific issues from the biblical perspective actually research both sides of the subject.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Oh well certaintly, I apologizing for appearing to minimize the benefit of debating like this. It was not my intent. It is always an exercise in the psychology of your opponent, and a measure of your own ability to appeal to their perspective to clue them in on how you rationalize. In addition, it is a learning experience when you view the other arguments and their counters from both sides of the camp. Perhaps your stance was weak on one issue, well now you have the logic necessary to fill the gap. As well, there is usually always a new argument that pops up from a third perspective, or something that directly challenges your belief, making debates a healthy practice of mental agility likewise. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te Fortuna sinet.