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

**Pooeypants** · Jan 30, 2004, 02:54 pm

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

The biggest evidence for creation, in my opinion, is simple common sense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Sorry but that just happened to catch my eye, does common sense tell you creatures pop out of thin air fully formed?

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 03:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
There is a book I have been reading called "What is Creation Science?" If anyone feels they are up for the challenge, I highly recommend it. But, I am probably wasting my words, since I doubt any of you will bother.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I do not agree with your position, however I will read this book-if you feel it best presents creationism's case.

I have read several other creationist books (as well as many other evolutionists books), so I doubt there will be anything new to learn here-but I'll give it a read through.

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 03:43 pm

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

The biggest evidence for creation, in my opinion, is simple common sense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Sorry but that just happened to catch my eye, does common sense tell you creatures pop out of thin air fully formed?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

N'ah, I think he means 'common sense' in the same way that people used common sense to deduce that the world was flat.

jpapadpapa · Jan 30, 2004, 08:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I do not agree with your position, however I will read this book-if you feel it best presents creationism's case.

I have read several other creationist books (as well as many other evolutionists books), so I doubt there will be anything new to learn here-but I'll give it a read through.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Thanks for being open-minded. I appreciate it. Of course, the book that best presents Creationism's case is the Bible, but I know it would be hard to convince most of you to read it.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Sorry but that just happened to catch my eye, does common sense tell you creatures pop out of thin air fully formed?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No, common sense tells me there was a Creator who created everything to reproduce after its own kind. My biggest mistake in this whole debate was to not realize that we are working off of different presuppositions. We both have the same evidence, but how we interpret it will be different based on that. I should have given more emphasis to what I believe and why. Maybe this will be a better explaination: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

But, I realize that I have done my best with the time that I had and I honestly pray that some of you will search further and find the Truth. Because I believe wholly in the Bible, I believe that those who reject God will face an eternity in hell. So, it just makes me feel more and more discouraged the longer I talk with all of you that some of you have rejected Him totally. I'm sure that many of you will just say I am a fanatical nut-case, but ask yourself what if I am right? What will happen if you spend your life defending something, only to die one day and find out it was a lie and the "crazy Creationists" were right? It is too late then. I think if you are going to accept evolution, you must do so intelligently by really delving into the argument for Creation, but more importantly, reading through the Bible, which is what most of us base our belief upon. What do you have to lose? You will either gain a new life in Christ (I can almost hear the shudders) or you will find a lot more arguments to discredit Creationists and Christianity in general. Perhaps the reason many of you will not is because you are afraid of the first possibility?

So, I hope I have finally made some sense to some of you. I'm sorry I don't have more time to debate.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 30, 2004, 08:46 pm

Wow, you are willing to ignore 150 years worth of collected scientific data for the sake of an ancient book which preaches fairy tales. It's amazing, but not surprising. You were brainwashed into believing nothing other than the word of the bible. But then yours is an opinion, and if you choose all so to believe that the earth is flat it wouldn't change reality. Evolution is a fact whether you like it or not, if science had to stop just because a few ppl didn't like it's conclusion we'd probably still be in the middle ages.

And as for reading the bible, when I was at school I already enough of it shoved into my face but by the time I was 11 I kind of figured, why the heck should I believe in an invisible sky fairy? And how preposterous the old testament would be if you took it literally.

It saddens me that in a developed societies in the west, we'd still have such backwards thinking. You can keep your fundermentalism, I'll choose the truth.

shunyadragon · Jan 30, 2004, 08:59 pm

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

But how does this prove anything? Is something considered transitional simply because it has some characteristics of another species? I don't understand how this proves evolution because as I stated before, could the Creator not have created an animal with characteristics of both? Why not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Why not? Why not evolution?

Transitional is often misused. Having some of the characteristics shared between species is not the issue. Birds and one group of dinosaurs are considered closely related species, because of very very close morphological characteristics. It has been recently found that at least some small birds were present towards the end of the age of the dinosaurs. The main issue is evolutionary science considers the species as related, 'Creation Science' does not. One of the big issues is time, which is important for the evolutionists.

THE IMPORTANT POINT OF TIME!

It is possible given billions of years that evolution can take place, but if you consider a short history for existence, evolution cannot take place.

Interesting and important point on time that I would like you to explain. I will assume that the laws of nature would be consistent over time whether the universe is a few thousand or billions of years old. How can you explain the vast distances between galaxies and stars in the universe and the time required for light to travel those vast distances. The short history explanation of 'Creation Science' would be unable to explain the amount of time required for light to travel those vast differences.

shunyadragon · Jan 31, 2004, 01:51 am

I thought I would present the more of the issues where 'Creation Science' fails as a science I included in another question. It also relates to the statement by jpapadpapa the 'Creation Science' has 'common sense' on it's side. These concepts do not fit the common sense of science.

(1) The idea of a young earth and a young static universe is contrary to the basics of physics and astronomy. The vast size of the universe and the need of time, for the speed of light, to explain the vast distance between galaxies and stars we can see and we cannot see all of them. The observations of change in the expanding universe, constantly changing galaxies and stars with time, and the big bang are essential to the principles of modern physics began with Einsteins theory of relativity. If 'Creation Science' sticks to this view than physics, chemistry and astronomy are based on faith and not sciences either. The static universe cannot explain things like the red shift of light of stars and the supernovas we observe taking place.

(2) The flood. One of the key anchors (or lode stone around their neck) of the arguement that the bible is a literal history. There is no evidence in the Geologic record of a world flood. There is significant evidence to local and regional catastrophic flooding events, but never involving the world. Instead there is overwhelming evidence of continuous cyclic deposites of different kinds of rocks extending millions of years in the past all over te world. There are limestone formations hundreds of feet thick with associated coral reefs that can only be deposited very slowly over a very very long time in warm tropical and subtropical environments. The cyclic deposites include sandstone, shale limestone and coal and show evidence of vast river systems in each layer. One of the best examples of these cyclic layers is the coal region of appalachia where I worked as a geologist.

The common sense of not enough water for a world flood, Arc not sufficient to the task, or the nature of what happens in a world flood.

(3) The short history view cannot explain sea floor spreading we observe now and the continuous evidence that his sea floor has been spreading for millions of years in a neat concise and continuous record without a pause or break under all the oceans of the world. The movement of this ocean crust over the Hawaii hot spot shows a continuous pattern of islands and the slow progressive erosion of each island into the oldest which are seamounts below the surface of the sea. The hot spot is now off the east side of the biggest island showing the continuing movement of the ocean crust west. A new island is beginning to form to the east.

Nothing in the logic or the common sense of 'Creation Science' can come close to explaning this.

There is not any evidence or basis for these concepts in modern science, in fact they run contrary to the basic nature of all science.

fogus · Feb 1, 2004, 02:09 am

in responce to LogicaLunatic

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Also, if the world was flooded, how was the salt/sea water and fresh water kept separate? Today we have species of Fresh water fish and species of Salt/Sea water fish. There are also a few that can tolerate both to some extent. But, there are others that will die immediately if the salinity of the water is changed just a little bit. So, given that, the two types of water would have had to have been separated by something if the world were flooded. What separated them? Say the waters were allowed to mix and a lot of fish died. How would you account for the species of fish alive today that couldn't have made it through a flood? A second fish creation? Or do you submit that it is possible for speciation (evolution of new species) to occur?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Answers in genisis has the answer here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...26-feb-2001.asp

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Well, most fish didn't survive. In fact, if you'd been a diver in the oceans before the flood, and then you'd been saved on the Ark and had started diving again after the flood, you would've said something like, "What happened? Where's everything gone?" You see, most marine species were killed during the flood. Now certainly some fish did survive, and we see their descendants in the oceans today. Some people then ask a related question; "How did freshwater fish survive in the saltwater oceans?" There are two possibilities. First, there are many areas in the world today where we see freshwater and salt water together, and the two waters don't mix. So it's possible that certain organisms survived in pockets of fresh or salt water. Second, because of natural selection, which creationists accept, organisms today have become very specialized. Organisms at the time of the flood, however, would've been much stronger and able to tolerate many more changes than they can today. There's really no problem at all in answering this question.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

fogus · Feb 1, 2004, 02:17 am

In reply to Meatros about fossels,

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

As for your skepticism about fossils; take a step back-your objections explain why there are so very few fossils.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If you assume that there were relativly few animals at creation, that Noahs flood happend only 2000 years after the creation, and realize how little rock scientists have dug through, you will realize that we should have not found more fossels than we have.

Capitalist Pig · Feb 1, 2004, 03:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)
Can any one give me a documented example of a mutation giving rise to new genetic information which was seen as being benificial to an organism?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Allow me to repost a response I made to jpapadpapa on page 5, as I'm sure the same goes for you:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Actually, I don't believe that you did establish that [in your essay on page 1]. You showed that sometimes a loss of genetic material can be beneficial, but isn't this just natural selection? There is a common misconception that Creationists do not believe in natural selection. There is no doubt that occasionally a genetic mutation will be beneficial, but it is still a loss or corruption of genetic information.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>What you are misusing here is Shannon information theory[1], first published in the late '40s by Claude Shannon. He was working for Bell Labs, attempting to better encode information for transmitting over a noisy link. With the transmitter as the only source of information, the noise (randomness) takes on the role of entropy in the link -- decreasing the information content, but never producing it. This form of information theory does not apply to evolution, because the randomness is not separate from the source of information content. It is not trying to communicate from one station to another, it is simply acting.

The alternative is Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff's information theory[2]. The difference between KCS IT and Shannon's theory, is that KCS IT deals with algorithmic complexity, rather than a statistical comparison of the coherency of information from a single source. In this theory, the randomness in a "string" is the information, and the word entropy takes on a new meaning as a measure of information. The more randomness contained, the more information is present because of a low occurrence of redundancy. An increase in redundancy would mean a decrease of randomness, and so you would have less information. When applied to evolution, KCS IT suggests that information is constantly added and removed from the genome. This is not just theoretically possible, it has been observed in the real world.

Flavobacterium (species K172) was discovered in bacterial mats growing in a waste pond behind a factory in Japan[3]. Upon inspection in the laboratory, scientists discovered something extraordinary. The bacterium had apparently undergone a Frame Shift mutation, that produced an entirely new enzyme. This new enzyme, called nylonase, enables the hydrolysis of nylon for metabolization. Nylon is a synthetic polyamide that wasn't around before the 1930s. The evolution of a whole new protein that responds to nylon oligomers, developing in a naturally occurring bacterium floating in the discarded sludge of a nylon factory, presents a tough case to dispute of a mutation clearly adding information.

Footnotes

1 More information on Shannon Theory: http://www.lucent.com/minds/infotheory/

2 Wikipedia entry on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_i...ormation_theory

3 Thomas, D. (2000) Evolution And Information: The Nylon Bug. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

shunyadragon · Feb 1, 2004, 04:21 am

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

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Also, if the world was flooded, how was the salt/sea water and fresh water kept separate? Today we have species of Fresh water fish and species of Salt/Sea water fish. There are also a few that can tolerate both to some extent. But, there are others that will die immediately if the salinity of the water is changed just a little bit. So, given that, the two types of water would have had to have been separated by something if the world were flooded. What separated them? Say the waters were allowed to mix and a lot of fish died. How would you account for the species of fish alive today that couldn't have made it through a flood? A second fish creation? Or do you submit that it is possible for speciation (evolution of new species) to occur?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Answers in genisis has the answer here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...26-feb-2001.asp

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Well, most fish didn't survive. In fact, if you'd been a diver in the oceans before the flood, and then you'd been saved on the Ark and had started diving again after the flood, you would've said something like, "What happened? Where's everything gone?" You see, most marine species were killed during the flood. Now certainly some fish did survive, and we see their descendants in the oceans today. Some people then ask a related question; "How did freshwater fish survive in the saltwater oceans?" There are two possibilities. First, there are many areas in the world today where we see freshwater and salt water together, and the two waters don't mix. So it's possible that certain organisms survived in pockets of fresh or salt water. Second, because of natural selection, which creationists accept, organisms today have become very specialized. Organisms at the time of the flood, however, would've been much stronger and able to tolerate many more changes than they can today. There's really no problem at all in answering this question.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Checked this out and the answer's as bogus as a three dollar bill. I n churning waters of a world flood on the magnitude that is described in the bible you wouldn't have fresh and salt water that would not mix. In situations where there are layers of water mixing today, the lower layers do not support much life. In sediments they produce black shales without fossils.

Even before this question can be answered well, there is a bigger question. Where is the evidence of a world catastrophic flood? There is none. Almost all of the sedimentary rocks of the world show a cyclic deposition of sandstone, shale limestone and coal. None of these are flood deposited in a catastrophic event. The limestone is often hundreds of feet thick and shows millions of years of the growth of coral reefs.

PeterAngelo · Feb 1, 2004, 12:04 pm

Creationists can't market their fear and cloak it in religious terms any other way.

They are locked into their fraud.

They can't "join" science as a pertner because they would lose their franchise.

The church banking system, and the symbiotic relationship with state, is our only control mechanism.

Evolution would call for a march towards sanity in a real world governed by mutual respect and sanctity for each others being.

That is the opposite of the way religion works. It depends on fear of death, division, terror, and control by self-appointed spokesmen for an imaginary god.

How can such a fraud, and pervasive system, ever give up the con willingly?

They can't, and won't.

It is very smart people using their scam to maintain power and wealth.

It is not only church people - it is all of us.

Church and State are conjoined at the hip and cannot seperate, anywhere on Earth.

As long as the majority of the people buy into the god lie, sanity is lost.

Sanity is lost.

jpapadpapa · Feb 1, 2004, 03:13 pm

Just a quick post... I can't seem to get away!
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Checked this out and the answer's as bogus as a three dollar bill. I n churning waters of a world flood on the magnitude that is described in the bible you wouldn't have fresh and salt water that would not mix. In situations where there are layers of water mixing today, the lower layers do not support much life. In sediments they produce black shales without fossils.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
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

jpapadpapa · Feb 1, 2004, 03:16 pm

PeterAngelo, did you form your opinion based on observation from a distance or did you actually read through the entire Bible to see what it is about before coming to your conclusions? By the way, there is a difference between "religion" and a personal relationship with God.

tusaki · Feb 1, 2004, 03:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
But, I realize that I have done my best with the time that I had and I honestly pray that some of you will search further and find the Truth. Because I believe wholly in the Bible, I believe that those who reject God will face an eternity in hell. So, it just makes me feel more and more discouraged the longer I talk with all of you that some of you have rejected Him totally. I'm sure that many of you will just say I am a fanatical nut-case, but ask yourself what if I am right? What will happen if you spend your life defending something, only to die one day and find out it was a lie and the "crazy Creationists" were right? It is too late then. I think if you are going to accept evolution, you must do so intelligently by really delving into the argument for Creation, but more importantly, reading through the Bible, which is what most of us base our belief upon.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, except that there are at least 10 versions of christianity, of which at least half accuse the rest of being false and condeming them to hell. Not to mention the other religions, of which quite a few claim the same. Also, 'which is what most of us base our belief upon' is also wrong, since christianity as a whole only represents 33% of the worlds population. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm <- just searched with google, this was the first I could find)

This remembers me of a south park comic, where a lot of people are in hell and they yell at the devil: "Who? who was right then?" and he said something like 'the (insert small religion) were right'.

I believe, if there is a god, he will know why I made the choices I made and not condem me for them. I dont believe in the devil.

jpapadpapa · Feb 1, 2004, 03:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I believe, if there is a god, he will know why I made the choices I made and not condem me for them. I dont believe in the devil.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What do you base this upon? How can you be sure?

tusaki · Feb 1, 2004, 04:09 pm

I can't be sure. But neither can you. As far as I know you can only believe something. But if you say god is forgiving and understanding then I take that one step further. I believe I act out of goodness and compassion and try to see my faults and better myself. As long as I do that, I don't fear judgement. I believe most people really try to be decent human beings. And I dont think it is fair to condemn someone just because he or she believes something different. There are reasons why that person has chosen to believe something different. Mostly, it has to do with the cultural values of the society he or she has grown up in. If that someone had no opportunity to receive 'truth' how can he be condemned? If that someone heard a different story his entire life and everyone he cares about agrees with that, how can he 'see' truth? I don't think he/she can. Therefore it is impossible to condemn them for it. At least this is what I think :)

jpapadpapa · Feb 1, 2004, 04:16 pm

I don't condemn anyone. I just tell them what I believe the Bible says (and I've studied it for over 25 years) and tell them about the hope that God offers them. There is so much more I could add here, but, I know this thread isn't supposed to be about God or religion anyway, so that's what I will leave it at.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 1, 2004, 04:32 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>
Here is a nice rebuttal of your article. Interesting how this one uses fully qualified and valid sources unlike what you presented. tsk tsk.

shunyadragon · Feb 1, 2004, 06:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,)
In reply to Meatros about fossels,

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

As for your skepticism about fossils; take a step back-your objections explain why there are so very few fossils.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If you assume that there were relativly few animals at creation, that Noahs flood happend only 2000 years after the creation, and realize how little rock scientists have dug through, you will realize that we should have not found more fossels than we have.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

According to 'Creation Science' sources life was abundant before the flood.

Misinformation. There are many many fossils in the world. They are deposited in layers by age. Many marine, lake and swamp environments have abundant fossils. I have seen many in coal mines and found numerous plants, amphibians, turtles, worms and there tracks. There are certain environments where the number of fossil are limited because most of the animals are eaten or there remains are destroyed by weather. This is the problem with many land animals and primates, but despite this handicap, scientists are beginning to find much more because they know where to look.

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.

Jan 30, 2004, 02:54 pm	#161 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) The biggest evidence for creation, in my opinion, is simple common sense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sorry but that just happened to catch my eye, does common sense tell you creatures pop out of thin air fully formed? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 30, 2004, 03:42 pm	#162 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) There is a book I have been reading called "What is Creation Science?" If anyone feels they are up for the challenge, I highly recommend it. But, I am probably wasting my words, since I doubt any of you will bother.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I do not agree with your position, however I will read this book-if you feel it best presents creationism's case. I have read several other creationist books (as well as many other evolutionists books), so I doubt there will be anything new to learn here-but I'll give it a read through.

Jan 30, 2004, 03:43 pm	#163 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) The biggest evidence for creation, in my opinion, is simple common sense.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Sorry but that just happened to catch my eye, does common sense tell you creatures pop out of thin air fully formed?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> N'ah, I think he means 'common sense' in the same way that people used common sense to deduce that the world was flat.

Jan 30, 2004, 08:11 pm	#164 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I do not agree with your position, however I will read this book-if you feel it best presents creationism's case. I have read several other creationist books (as well as many other evolutionists books), so I doubt there will be anything new to learn here-but I'll give it a read through.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Thanks for being open-minded. I appreciate it. Of course, the book that best presents Creationism's case is the Bible, but I know it would be hard to convince most of you to read it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Sorry but that just happened to catch my eye, does common sense tell you creatures pop out of thin air fully formed?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, common sense tells me there was a Creator who created everything to reproduce after its own kind. My biggest mistake in this whole debate was to not realize that we are working off of different presuppositions. We both have the same evidence, but how we interpret it will be different based on that. I should have given more emphasis to what I believe and why. Maybe this will be a better explaination: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp But, I realize that I have done my best with the time that I had and I honestly pray that some of you will search further and find the Truth. Because I believe wholly in the Bible, I believe that those who reject God will face an eternity in hell. So, it just makes me feel more and more discouraged the longer I talk with all of you that some of you have rejected Him totally. I'm sure that many of you will just say I am a fanatical nut-case, but ask yourself what if I am right? What will happen if you spend your life defending something, only to die one day and find out it was a lie and the "crazy Creationists" were right? It is too late then. I think if you are going to accept evolution, you must do so intelligently by really delving into the argument for Creation, but more importantly, reading through the Bible, which is what most of us base our belief upon. What do you have to lose? You will either gain a new life in Christ (I can almost hear the shudders) or you will find a lot more arguments to discredit Creationists and Christianity in general. Perhaps the reason many of you will not is because you are afraid of the first possibility? So, I hope I have finally made some sense to some of you. I'm sorry I don't have more time to debate. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Jan 30, 2004, 08:46 pm	#165 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	Wow, you are willing to ignore 150 years worth of collected scientific data for the sake of an ancient book which preaches fairy tales. It's amazing, but not surprising. You were brainwashed into believing nothing other than the word of the bible. But then yours is an opinion, and if you choose all so to believe that the earth is flat it wouldn't change reality. Evolution is a fact whether you like it or not, if science had to stop just because a few ppl didn't like it's conclusion we'd probably still be in the middle ages. And as for reading the bible, when I was at school I already enough of it shoved into my face but by the time I was 11 I kind of figured, why the heck should I believe in an invisible sky fairy? And how preposterous the old testament would be if you took it literally. It saddens me that in a developed societies in the west, we'd still have such backwards thinking. You can keep your fundermentalism, I'll choose the truth. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 30, 2004, 08:59 pm	#166 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) But how does this prove anything? Is something considered transitional simply because it has some characteristics of another species? I don't understand how this proves evolution because as I stated before, could the Creator not have created an animal with characteristics of both? Why not?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why not? Why not evolution? Transitional is often misused. Having some of the characteristics shared between species is not the issue. Birds and one group of dinosaurs are considered closely related species, because of very very close morphological characteristics. It has been recently found that at least some small birds were present towards the end of the age of the dinosaurs. The main issue is evolutionary science considers the species as related, 'Creation Science' does not. One of the big issues is time, which is important for the evolutionists. THE IMPORTANT POINT OF TIME! It is possible given billions of years that evolution can take place, but if you consider a short history for existence, evolution cannot take place. Interesting and important point on time that I would like you to explain. I will assume that the laws of nature would be consistent over time whether the universe is a few thousand or billions of years old. How can you explain the vast distances between galaxies and stars in the universe and the time required for light to travel those vast distances. The short history explanation of 'Creation Science' would be unable to explain the amount of time required for light to travel those vast differences. 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 . . .

Jan 31, 2004, 01:51 am	#167 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	I thought I would present the more of the issues where 'Creation Science' fails as a science I included in another question. It also relates to the statement by jpapadpapa the 'Creation Science' has 'common sense' on it's side. These concepts do not fit the common sense of science. (1) The idea of a young earth and a young static universe is contrary to the basics of physics and astronomy. The vast size of the universe and the need of time, for the speed of light, to explain the vast distance between galaxies and stars we can see and we cannot see all of them. The observations of change in the expanding universe, constantly changing galaxies and stars with time, and the big bang are essential to the principles of modern physics began with Einsteins theory of relativity. If 'Creation Science' sticks to this view than physics, chemistry and astronomy are based on faith and not sciences either. The static universe cannot explain things like the red shift of light of stars and the supernovas we observe taking place. (2) The flood. One of the key anchors (or lode stone around their neck) of the arguement that the bible is a literal history. There is no evidence in the Geologic record of a world flood. There is significant evidence to local and regional catastrophic flooding events, but never involving the world. Instead there is overwhelming evidence of continuous cyclic deposites of different kinds of rocks extending millions of years in the past all over te world. There are limestone formations hundreds of feet thick with associated coral reefs that can only be deposited very slowly over a very very long time in warm tropical and subtropical environments. The cyclic deposites include sandstone, shale limestone and coal and show evidence of vast river systems in each layer. One of the best examples of these cyclic layers is the coal region of appalachia where I worked as a geologist. The common sense of not enough water for a world flood, Arc not sufficient to the task, or the nature of what happens in a world flood. (3) The short history view cannot explain sea floor spreading we observe now and the continuous evidence that his sea floor has been spreading for millions of years in a neat concise and continuous record without a pause or break under all the oceans of the world. The movement of this ocean crust over the Hawaii hot spot shows a continuous pattern of islands and the slow progressive erosion of each island into the oldest which are seamounts below the surface of the sea. The hot spot is now off the east side of the biggest island showing the continuing movement of the ocean crust west. A new island is beginning to form to the east. Nothing in the logic or the common sense of 'Creation Science' can come close to explaning this. There is not any evidence or basis for these concepts in modern science, in fact they run contrary to the basic nature of all 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 1, 2004, 02:09 am	#168 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	in responce to LogicaLunatic </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Also, if the world was flooded, how was the salt/sea water and fresh water kept separate? Today we have species of Fresh water fish and species of Salt/Sea water fish. There are also a few that can tolerate both to some extent. But, there are others that will die immediately if the salinity of the water is changed just a little bit. So, given that, the two types of water would have had to have been separated by something if the world were flooded. What separated them? Say the waters were allowed to mix and a lot of fish died. How would you account for the species of fish alive today that couldn't have made it through a flood? A second fish creation? Or do you submit that it is possible for speciation (evolution of new species) to occur? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Answers in genisis has the answer here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...26-feb-2001.asp </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Well, most fish didn't survive. In fact, if you'd been a diver in the oceans before the flood, and then you'd been saved on the Ark and had started diving again after the flood, you would've said something like, "What happened? Where's everything gone?" You see, most marine species were killed during the flood. Now certainly some fish did survive, and we see their descendants in the oceans today. Some people then ask a related question; "How did freshwater fish survive in the saltwater oceans?" There are two possibilities. First, there are many areas in the world today where we see freshwater and salt water together, and the two waters don't mix. So it's possible that certain organisms survived in pockets of fresh or salt water. Second, because of natural selection, which creationists accept, organisms today have become very specialized. Organisms at the time of the flood, however, would've been much stronger and able to tolerate many more changes than they can today. There's really no problem at all in answering this question. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> ~Fogus

Feb 1, 2004, 02:17 am	#169 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	In reply to Meatros about fossels, </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by As for your skepticism about fossils; take a step back-your objections explain why there are so very few fossils. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If you assume that there were relativly few animals at creation, that Noahs flood happend only 2000 years after the creation, and realize how little rock scientists have dug through, you will realize that we should have not found more fossels than we have. ~Fogus

Feb 1, 2004, 03:38 am	#170 (permalink) (top)
Capitalist Pig Market Anarchist Location: United States Posts: 650	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) Can any one give me a documented example of a mutation giving rise to new genetic information which was seen as being benificial to an organism?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Allow me to repost a response I made to jpapadpapa on page 5, as I'm sure the same goes for you: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Actually, I don't believe that you did establish that [in your essay on page 1]. You showed that sometimes a loss of genetic material can be beneficial, but isn't this just natural selection? There is a common misconception that Creationists do not believe in natural selection. There is no doubt that occasionally a genetic mutation will be beneficial, but it is still a loss or corruption of genetic information.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>What you are misusing here is Shannon information theory[1], first published in the late '40s by Claude Shannon. He was working for Bell Labs, attempting to better encode information for transmitting over a noisy link. With the transmitter as the only source of information, the noise (randomness) takes on the role of entropy in the link -- decreasing the information content, but never producing it. This form of information theory does not apply to evolution, because the randomness is not separate from the source of information content. It is not trying to communicate from one station to another, it is simply acting. The alternative is Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff's information theory[2]. The difference between KCS IT and Shannon's theory, is that KCS IT deals with algorithmic complexity, rather than a statistical comparison of the coherency of information from a single source. In this theory, the randomness in a "string" is the information, and the word entropy takes on a new meaning as a measure of information. The more randomness contained, the more information is present because of a low occurrence of redundancy. An increase in redundancy would mean a decrease of randomness, and so you would have less information. When applied to evolution, KCS IT suggests that information is constantly added and removed from the genome. This is not just theoretically possible, it has been observed in the real world. Flavobacterium (species K172) was discovered in bacterial mats growing in a waste pond behind a factory in Japan[3]. Upon inspection in the laboratory, scientists discovered something extraordinary. The bacterium had apparently undergone a Frame Shift mutation, that produced an entirely new enzyme. This new enzyme, called nylonase, enables the hydrolysis of nylon for metabolization. Nylon is a synthetic polyamide that wasn't around before the 1930s. The evolution of a whole new protein that responds to nylon oligomers, developing in a naturally occurring bacterium floating in the discarded sludge of a nylon factory, presents a tough case to dispute of a mutation clearly adding information. Footnotes 1 More information on Shannon Theory: http://www.lucent.com/minds/infotheory/ 2 Wikipedia entry on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_i...ormation_theory 3 Thomas, D. (2000) Evolution And Information: The Nylon Bug. http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te Fortuna sinet.

Feb 1, 2004, 04:21 am	#171 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) in responce to LogicaLunatic </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Also, if the world was flooded, how was the salt/sea water and fresh water kept separate? Today we have species of Fresh water fish and species of Salt/Sea water fish. There are also a few that can tolerate both to some extent. But, there are others that will die immediately if the salinity of the water is changed just a little bit. So, given that, the two types of water would have had to have been separated by something if the world were flooded. What separated them? Say the waters were allowed to mix and a lot of fish died. How would you account for the species of fish alive today that couldn't have made it through a flood? A second fish creation? Or do you submit that it is possible for speciation (evolution of new species) to occur? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Answers in genisis has the answer here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/...26-feb-2001.asp </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Well, most fish didn't survive. In fact, if you'd been a diver in the oceans before the flood, and then you'd been saved on the Ark and had started diving again after the flood, you would've said something like, "What happened? Where's everything gone?" You see, most marine species were killed during the flood. Now certainly some fish did survive, and we see their descendants in the oceans today. Some people then ask a related question; "How did freshwater fish survive in the saltwater oceans?" There are two possibilities. First, there are many areas in the world today where we see freshwater and salt water together, and the two waters don't mix. So it's possible that certain organisms survived in pockets of fresh or salt water. Second, because of natural selection, which creationists accept, organisms today have become very specialized. Organisms at the time of the flood, however, would've been much stronger and able to tolerate many more changes than they can today. There's really no problem at all in answering this question. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'><hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Checked this out and the answer's as bogus as a three dollar bill. I n churning waters of a world flood on the magnitude that is described in the bible you wouldn't have fresh and salt water that would not mix. In situations where there are layers of water mixing today, the lower layers do not support much life. In sediments they produce black shales without fossils. Even before this question can be answered well, there is a bigger question. Where is the evidence of a world catastrophic flood? There is none. Almost all of the sedimentary rocks of the world show a cyclic deposition of sandstone, shale limestone and coal. None of these are flood deposited in a catastrophic event. The limestone is often hundreds of feet thick and shows millions of years of the growth of coral reefs. 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, 12:04 pm	#172 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	Creationists can't market their fear and cloak it in religious terms any other way. They are locked into their fraud. They can't "join" science as a pertner because they would lose their franchise. The church banking system, and the symbiotic relationship with state, is our only control mechanism. Evolution would call for a march towards sanity in a real world governed by mutual respect and sanctity for each others being. That is the opposite of the way religion works. It depends on fear of death, division, terror, and control by self-appointed spokesmen for an imaginary god. How can such a fraud, and pervasive system, ever give up the con willingly? They can't, and won't. It is very smart people using their scam to maintain power and wealth. It is not only church people - it is all of us. Church and State are conjoined at the hip and cannot seperate, anywhere on Earth. As long as the majority of the people buy into the god lie, sanity is lost. Sanity is lost.

Feb 1, 2004, 03:13 pm	#173 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	Just a quick post... I can't seem to get away! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Checked this out and the answer's as bogus as a three dollar bill. I n churning waters of a world flood on the magnitude that is described in the bible you wouldn't have fresh and salt water that would not mix. In situations where there are layers of water mixing today, the lower layers do not support much life. In sediments they produce black shales without fossils.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 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 I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Feb 1, 2004, 03:16 pm	#174 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	PeterAngelo, did you form your opinion based on observation from a distance or did you actually read through the entire Bible to see what it is about before coming to your conclusions? By the way, there is a difference between "religion" and a personal relationship with God. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Feb 1, 2004, 03:49 pm	#175 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) But, I realize that I have done my best with the time that I had and I honestly pray that some of you will search further and find the Truth. Because I believe wholly in the Bible, I believe that those who reject God will face an eternity in hell. So, it just makes me feel more and more discouraged the longer I talk with all of you that some of you have rejected Him totally. I'm sure that many of you will just say I am a fanatical nut-case, but ask yourself what if I am right? What will happen if you spend your life defending something, only to die one day and find out it was a lie and the "crazy Creationists" were right? It is too late then. I think if you are going to accept evolution, you must do so intelligently by really delving into the argument for Creation, but more importantly, reading through the Bible, which is what most of us base our belief upon.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, except that there are at least 10 versions of christianity, of which at least half accuse the rest of being false and condeming them to hell. Not to mention the other religions, of which quite a few claim the same. Also, 'which is what most of us base our belief upon' is also wrong, since christianity as a whole only represents 33% of the worlds population. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm <- just searched with google, this was the first I could find) This remembers me of a south park comic, where a lot of people are in hell and they yell at the devil: "Who? who was right then?" and he said something like 'the (insert small religion) were right'. I believe, if there is a god, he will know why I made the choices I made and not condem me for them. I dont believe in the devil. Hope & Dream

Feb 1, 2004, 03:55 pm	#176 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I believe, if there is a god, he will know why I made the choices I made and not condem me for them. I dont believe in the devil.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What do you base this upon? How can you be sure? I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Feb 1, 2004, 04:09 pm	#177 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	I can't be sure. But neither can you. As far as I know you can only believe something. But if you say god is forgiving and understanding then I take that one step further. I believe I act out of goodness and compassion and try to see my faults and better myself. As long as I do that, I don't fear judgement. I believe most people really try to be decent human beings. And I dont think it is fair to condemn someone just because he or she believes something different. There are reasons why that person has chosen to believe something different. Mostly, it has to do with the cultural values of the society he or she has grown up in. If that someone had no opportunity to receive 'truth' how can he be condemned? If that someone heard a different story his entire life and everyone he cares about agrees with that, how can he 'see' truth? I don't think he/she can. Therefore it is impossible to condemn them for it. At least this is what I think :) Hope & Dream

Feb 1, 2004, 04:16 pm	#178 (permalink) (top)
jpapadpapa Molten Ash Posts: 53	I don't condemn anyone. I just tell them what I believe the Bible says (and I've studied it for over 25 years) and tell them about the hope that God offers them. There is so much more I could add here, but, I know this thread isn't supposed to be about God or religion anyway, so that's what I will leave it at. I took the road less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

Feb 1, 2004, 04:32 pm	#179 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</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'> Here is a nice rebuttal of your article. Interesting how this one uses fully qualified and valid sources unlike what you presented. tsk tsk. 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, 06:29 pm	#180 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (fogus,) In reply to Meatros about fossels, </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by As for your skepticism about fossils; take a step back-your objections explain why there are so very few fossils. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If you assume that there were relativly few animals at creation, that Noahs flood happend only 2000 years after the creation, and realize how little rock scientists have dug through, you will realize that we should have not found more fossels than we have.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> According to 'Creation Science' sources life was abundant before the flood. Misinformation. There are many many fossils in the world. They are deposited in layers by age. Many marine, lake and swamp environments have abundant fossils. I have seen many in coal mines and found numerous plants, amphibians, turtles, worms and there tracks. There are certain environments where the number of fossil are limited because most of the animals are eaten or there remains are destroyed by weather. This is the problem with many land animals and primates, but despite this handicap, scientists are beginning to find much more because they know where to look. 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. 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 . . .