The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[El_Machinae]

Evolution is Bull**** mate (terribly sorry to have to break it to you)

Do you really think that you know more about this topic (evolution) than someone who has studied it for 15 years? Really?

By this logic, just because you can't think of a way to get to the moon (on your own) you should doubt that we actually landed on the moon.

 

[diablodelmar]

People, remember that he's a teenager. Complex biology will just be ignored, complex links will be ignored, etc. The trick is just to answer the questions quickly and easily.

For example - we didn't evolve from apes. Apes and humans evolved from a single species. We evolved differently from apes. Because natural selection doesn't have a 'point', apes aren't evolving 'into' anything.

Erik's example is a good one. If everyone came from Africa (the original species) then people in America does NOT contridict that there are people in Europe.

Ooooh so now age is what determines whether my legitamit arguements are paid any attention to. There is no trick, amigo, apart from just disprove the damn thing, which hasn't happend so far, I might add.

Just because I am outnumbered it doesn't mean I am lying!

 

[diablodelmar]

Do you really think that you know more about this topic (evolution) than someone who has studied it for 15 years? Really?

By this logic, just because you can't think of a way to get to the moon (on your own) you should doubt that we actually landed on the moon.

I can stare a cow turd for 15 years. Does that make me more knowledgable about bovine anatomy? I should hope not...

 

[diablodelmar]

I can never hope to change your minds - so what the heck am I doing here?

Are you trying to change my mind?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Evolution is Bull**** mate (terribly sorry to have to break it to you)

"Gravity is Bull**** mate (terribly sorry to have to break it to you)"

Now that I've showed that your factless mouthings swing both ways, why don't you try providing some arguments?


Here's the disproof for gravity's existence:
http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html

If gravity propagates at highly FTL speeds, we can measure it and use it to send FTL signals by moving heavy balls of lead around.
If gravity moves slower than that, every single orbiting body would fall out of orbit because of lag. For a circular orbit, the force applied to the orbiting body has to be exactly perpendicular to the direction of travel in order to keep it in orbit. You can check this for yourself with a parametric curve modeled by
x = sin t
y = cos t
Then take the derivative and second derivative of x and y to get the direction of travel and the direction of acceleration.
A similar proof exists for elliptical orbits, but this is sufficient to show that circular orbits cannot exist unless God keeps the planets in motion.

Obviuosly not since you are ignoring what God did and said. I don't expect your name is in The Lamb's Book of Life at the moment.

You dare?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Just because I am outnumbered it doesn't mean I am lying!

No, but because our evidence outnumbers your evidence by a few orders of magnitude, and the support for our model does the same to the support for your model, it means that you are in the wrong.


Now please answer my posts about genetic information. I'll repeat the situation for you:
We can go from a gene that reads "gabojabe" to a gene that reads "gabojabebaje". In my opinion, this is a gain in information. Please demonstrate otherwise.

 

[The Last Conformist]

SOURCE PLEASE. This site says that dinosaur bones have been known for hundreds of years. Possibly, the Chinese were finding dinosaur bones 2300 years ago. Read this link as well: http://dml.cmnh.org/2003Dec/msg00137.html

He may be refering to the fact that Iguanadon bernissartensis was one of the very first dinosaur species to be scientifically described. The second, to be exact.

No doubt, some had found a neanderthal bone or three before 1856, but without subjecting it to comparative anatomical study.

Amusingly, long before Megalosaurus bucklandii became the first described dinosaur in 1824, part of of a thighbone belonging to this species was discovered and called Scrotum humanum. The ICZN has, thankfully, determined that this did not constitute a valid nomenclatural act.

 

[Samson]

I can never hope to change your minds - so what the heck am I doing here?

Are you trying to change my mind?

You could change my mind with a well thought out logically consistant agrument backed up by peer reveiwed facts.

I have some hope of at least getting you or some lurkers to this thread to think about what they belive in a reasnoble way.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Ooooh so now age is what determines whether my legitamit arguements are paid any attention to. There is no trick, amigo, apart from just disprove the damn thing, which hasn't happend so far, I might add.

Bold words from the kid who backs away when any specific claim he makes is refuted.

Can you give any reference for rickets giving the afflicted big strong bones, or do you admit your claim about neanderthals being moderns with rickets is just plain wrong?

 

[diablodelmar]

@ Samson

Thats what I tried but I got heavily critisised!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

You could change my mind with a well thought out logically consistant agrument backed up by peer reveiwed facts.

Facts get peer reviews?

You could change my mind with some of the same, for example an argument that included atleast 35% of the existing data and rebutted 35% of the evidence for evolution.

 

[diablodelmar]

Bold words from the kid who backs away when any specific claim he makes is refuted.

Can you give any reference for rickets giving the afflicted big strong bones, or do you admit your claim about neanderthals being moderns with rickets is just plain wrong?

I will look into it presently - I promise I will get you an answer. Remeber the Roman Military Maxim: "Come back with your shield, or on it"

I will get you an answer or else submit to evolution.

 

[Samson]

@ Samson

Thats what I tried but I got heavily critisised!

This thread is a bit long to have followed all of it in detail. If you link to a logically consistant agrument with peer reviewed facts I shall read it with great interest.

 

[diablodelmar]

No, but because our evidence outnumbers your evidence by a few orders of magnitude, and the support for our model does the same to the support for your model, it means that you are in the wrong.


Now please answer my posts about genetic information. I'll repeat the situation for you:
We can go from a gene that reads "gabojabe" to a gene that reads "gabojabebaje". In my opinion, this is a gain in information. Please demonstrate otherwise.

I will search for the answers to this question like as above. Meanwhile, you could explain how you morally defend being a Christian and refuting the Bible at the same time?

 

[diablodelmar]

This thread is a bit long to have followed all of it in detail. If you link to a logically consistant agrument with peer reviewed facts I shall read it with great interest.

yes, part of my problem is that I noticed this thread when it was at page 30 or so. I missed out on most of the arguements (btw, am I the only Creationist here? Who else is on my team?) and couldn't be bothered to go back and read the whole thing while replying to some old arguements.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ooooh so now age is what determines whether my legitamit arguements are paid any attention to.

No, that's not what I meant. I just meant that the detail of the replies to your questions should factor in your education. We have to remember what we learned in High School, and then remember that you probably don't know all that information. For example, your statement that mutations don't lead to information gain is really, really false. But it's hard to show you how, unless you know a little about genetics, junk dna, and things like that.

Meanwhile, you could explain how you morally defend being a Christian and refuting the Bible at the same time?

What's more important to being a Christian? Believing what Jesus said or believing what the Jews said that Moses said?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I will search for the answers to this question like as above. Meanwhile, you could explain how you morally defend being a Christian and refuting the Bible at the same time?

I will as soon as you tell me where I am refuting the Bible.

PS: Stating that the Bible is not literal truth will lead you only to contradictions. The earth will last forever, but it won't.

 

[Samson]

I will search for the answers to this question like as above. Meanwhile, you could explain how you morally defend being a Christian and refuting the Bible at the same time?

I can do that. I accept that many of the stories in the bible are alagories. Some are simple stories to get the important facts of the world to a primative people whos main form of records was the "story telling tradition". The story of creation was perfect for this job.

I belive that jesus came to earth and died for our sins.

I find nothing contradictory in any of this.

The only way I could belive in 7 day creationism was that God created the world in 7 days to look like it had come about by natural processes over 4.5 billion. I do not have a great problem with this. What I have a problem with is that he did this to trip us up, ie. he made the world look like it was 4.5 billion years old, but if you belive it is then you go to hell. This does not square with my view of a loving God.

 

[warpus]

If we evolved from apes all those Billions and Giziquafizikillions of years ago - then why are apes still around? Why arent half fish, half amphibian little thingies wandering around? It is rather convenient, don't you think, that every single species that anything has evolved from becom extinct except apes?

This shows you don't even understand the basics of the theory of evolution.

We did NOT evolve from APES. Some of the apes that are around today simply share a common ancestor with us. We are cousins. The species we've evolved from are long gone. Your reasoning is flawed.

Ok - prove that theory by bringing me a copy of Civ4 that evolved into place naturally.

I did not say that EVERY SINGLE thing that is complex must have evolved naturally. You are saying that things that are complex must have had a designer - I am pointing out that snowflakes do not have a designer - yet are incredibly complex - thus disproving your statement that "If something is complex it must have naturally had a designer"

Is this really so hard to understand?

I will search for the answers to this question like as above. Meanwhile, you could explain how you morally defend being a Christian and refuting the Bible at the same time?

Sensible Christians understand that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally.

 

[El_Machinae]

This does not square with my view of a loving God.

He is the same being that put a pleasure center in your anus ... so don't sell him short.

edit: "mate", "amigo" ... I'd say you're modifying your responses based on your perception of our race!