The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[The Last Conformist]

These are the exact reasons why I reject Darwinism. They go against both logic and reason.

I can't resist pointing out that, strictly speaking, but using a plural pronoun, he's attributing the opposition to logic and reason to his reasons, not Darwinism.


But come on, Smidlee; explain why Darwinism, as you call it, is illogical and irrational. Don't let your previous abject failures deter you.

 

[Brighteye]

I am perfectly willing to admit that my faith, at least, is not governed by the rules of logic. I believe that this is becasue God is above logic (which I think is a human convention), but it does not bother me to say that my religion is inherently non-logical.

Logic isn't a human convention. Logic is admissable a priori. It's a codification of how truth is apparent, not a human system.

 

[Brighteye]

Someone up above said something about opening up a biology book. If that book teaches things that even non-theistic scientists don't agree on, but just leaves it in there for who knows whatever reason, then can we deduce that the whole of what it teaches is suspect?

I have come to the conclusion that Creationism does not have even the remotest chance in being accepted in this thread. Not because it is not valid, but because athiests, agnostics would rather worship science as a religion, than conclude that there is the remotest chance that an intelligence that transcends time, and space could be involved.

So I will leave it at this, in the end we will all know who was right and who was wrong.

Perfection hit most of it. I'd like to add that if we discard any book that people don't agree on, that'd be most of the (non-fiction) in the world, including the Bible itself: the work on which creationism rests.

No-one worships science. That's a sickening piece of rhetoric cooked up by some fanatics somewhere who do not have the intelligence to understand the difference between science and religion; it's the sort of point made by someone who cannot understand viewing the world in anything other than a religious manner. Don't be fooled by such people: expand your mind.

 

[classical_hero]

Please, bgast, will you answer this first?

I give you the human eye. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342/
There is no other creature that has an eye just like ours. We have a wide range of scope of light.

Another example is the amazing reduction of time taken to produce chemical reactions.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4475/
These enzymes make life possible because the improve slow reactions by speeding up. Without these enzymes life on earth would not be possible an some chemical reaction needed for life would take one trillions years, which would mean life would be impossible. The problem for Evolutionists is to explain how these can suddenly just appear without any prior enzymees.

 

[carlosMM]

I give you the human eye. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4342/
There is no other creature that has an eye just like ours. We have a wide range of scope of light.

Oh, c_h, no you fall again intot he old old habit of making up things that simply are not true.

First, ALL mammals have eyes that are extremely similar. Second, as I have already repeatedly pointed out, the human eye is easily explained as a product of evolution. 'The little eyeball that could' is one of the many usual creationist lies - and I have already described the pevolutionary processes that lead to it.

Sigh.

Want me to do it again?
I will if you ask nicely, but I expect you will as usual just disappear again.

Another example is the amazing reduction of time taken to produce chemical reactions.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4475/
These enzymes make life possible because the improve slow reactions by speeding up. Without these enzymes life on earth would not be possible an some chemical reaction needed for life would take one trillions years, which would mean life would be impossible. The problem for Evolutionists is to explain how these can suddenly just appear without any prior enzymees.

Ah, another load of bollocks.... Just because TODAY new life couldn't come into being without such 'dope' doesn't mean that orignially, life couldn't come into existence without them. Or that they cannot evolve. But you seem to claim that - well, show how youa re correct! Your link doesn't address these points at all, as is usual for creationist lies.

see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html

 

[The Last Conformist]

Another example is the amazing reduction of time taken to produce chemical reactions.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4475/
These enzymes make life possible because the improve slow reactions by speeding up. Without these enzymes life on earth would not be possible an some chemical reaction needed for life would take one trillions years, which would mean life would be impossible. The problem for Evolutionists is to explain how these can suddenly just appear without any prior enzymees.

The underlying assumption here seems to be that organic catalysts could not arise abiotically. Care to justify that?


Edit: Ooooh, and reminds me; could c_h kindly point out what obviously terrestrial traits Remingtonocetus has that the sea otter does not? He unaccountably disappeared from the thread before he found time to answer that question ...

 

[ironduck]

classical_hero:

Could you reply to my post #115? I'm pasting it here for your convenience:

Hey classical_hero, remember in that other thread I asked why you believe the bible is the word of god and you said it was because a) the bible said so and b) the bible had been preserved miraculously?

Then I asked why you single out this specific religion when other religions just as old or older have their scripture surviving as well (the vedas for instance), and on top of that we have non-religious texts that have survived just as long without even having a strong following to protect them, such as the Homeric stories.

Just wondering if you could clarify if you really base your belief that the bible is the word of god on the fact that it's old?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Isn't there a better thread for that discussion? I mean, c_h's reasons for believing in the Bible are at best only related to the subject of this thread by several removes.

 

[ironduck]

I know, but I was really interested and the other thread disappeared into obscurity, this was the only thread that I've seen him post in that seemed remotely related..

 

[El_Machinae]

It seems that we always fall for the 'drive by' postings. He's not interested in debating, and he's not willing to put the mental effort into even understanding your comments.

 

[Perfection]

Classical Hero, I'd like you to know that you are in violation of debate rule number one (as laid down in the first post):

1. No swamping the thread with articles. If you feel an article would be appropriate you may post it, but please only one per response. Also do not just post some random article, please use it as a means to augment your arguement, not as your arguement.

Please debate on your own two feet. I don't want to have a googled article war I want to have a discussion.

 

[The Last Conformist]

It seems that we always fall for the 'drive by' postings. He's not interested in debating, and he's not willing to put the mental effort into even understanding your comments.

Creationists all tend to end up that way. Our task is to help them along.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Moderator Action: carlosMM, The Last Conformist, El_Machinae, discuss the topic, not other posters.

classical_hero, discuss the topic as requested or don't post.

 

[Stylesjl]

A while ago (a couple years ago actually) i had a teacher who said that there was a problem in evolution when he stated that scientists couldn't explain the Platypus (something about it's features not being quite compatible with natural selection).

I know that he was wrong on the issue, but do creationists or anti-evolutionists ever bring up this issue? Does this issue have any validity, however small? He wasn't actually making this as a proof of creationism but as a proof of evolution being flawed.

Sorry if the question is a little vague

 

[Perfection]

You asked that already:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169198&page=46

 

[The Last Conformist]

Creationists sometimes bring up the platypus as a true chimera, asserting it combines a duckbill with an otherwise mammalian structure.

(The catch, of course, is that the platypus's bill only superficially looks like duckbill - the underlaying structure is different, a fact of which you can easily convince yourself, should you happen to have a duck and a platypus at hand, simply by touching the things. The platypus's bill is softish and leathery, not hard and horn-like as a bird's beak.)

 

[bgast1]

Could a catastrophe such as a global flood erode huge quantities of sediment and deposit them elsewhere, and could organisms be buried quickly and then fossilized? Why or why not?

I not asking the question, did this happen, I am asking, could it?

Also, please answer this is plain english. I am not a scientist. Please do not point me to some link. I want to read your answer here, and as Perfection stated earlier, stand on your own two feet.

 

[nihilistic]

Could a catastrophe such as a global flood erode huge quantities of sediment and deposit them elsewhere, and could organisms be buried quickly and then fossilized? Why or why not?

I not asking the question, did this happen, I am asking, could it?

Also, please answer this is plain english. I am not a scientist. Please do not point me to some link. I want to read your answer here, and as Perfection stated earlier, stand on your own two feet.

Maybe, but fossilization takes a long time. Also, where is all that water?

 

[El_Machinae]

Could a catastrophe such as a global flood erode huge quantities of sediment and deposit them elsewhere, and could organisms be buried quickly and then fossilized? Why or why not?

I don't know if the fossilization could occur quickly, but let's assume for a minute that it can. Let's make some predictions, then, from your question, okay?

Would you expect an even 'mix' of types of animals in the rock? I mean, if the animals were killed and laid down in the mud/grit/silt/sand and then compressed, you'd expect a 'first-come/first-serve' type of fossilization. If a dead dolphin landed first, and was captured, there's no reason why a dead armadillo couldn't land above it and get captured in the mud (if they were both alive when the Flood occurred; which you posit them to be).

The second prediction you would make is that the number of animals captured (and fossilized) would be roughly equal to the number of animals present at one time. If there were a million buffalo alive at the time, you would expect no more than a million buffalo to be found, right?

Are these reasonable predictions for your premise that the Flood could cause 'flash fossilization'?

 

[nc-1701]

Could a catastrophe such as a global flood erode huge quantities of sediment and deposit them elsewhere, and could organisms be buried quickly and then fossilized? Why or why not?

I not asking the question, did this happen, I am asking, could it?

Also, please answer this is plain english. I am not a scientist. Please do not point me to some link. I want to read your answer here, and as Perfection stated earlier, stand on your own two feet.

YES It has happend in the past on a smaller scale. (During droughts Dinosaurs would congregate around what was left of rivers and all be buried in a flash flood.) Normally when something dies there is oxygen for perisites to breath while eat it. (causeing decay) However when its buried under 10s of feet of mud there is no oxygen massively slowing decay and giving the fossilization process more time.

Similarly that is why tar pits have so many well preserved fossils.