• 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Quote from Valtaus »
    Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper »

    Haha, at the same time I present evidence against evloution I present evidence for creationism. I don't understand why it is so hard your you to click a link and read.


    I would bet you don't understand the first thing of what your posting. It's all directly copy and pasted off of Creation Wiki or Answers in Genesis.


    I understand all of it and I have read all of it, it is very nice information. Lets move along.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Quote from Soulfox »

    You act as if he's persecuting you. No, he's not just "claiming" they are not credible, that is a fact.
    They don't use any positive evidence, just evidence against evolution. How is that evidence for creationism? This is not an argument for Evolution vs Creationism, this is a debate for Evolution vs. non-Evolution now, and Evolution has practically won.


    Haha, at the same time I present evidence against evloution I present evidence for creationism. I don't understand why it is so hard your you to click a link and read.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Quote from Metadigital »
    ElectrocutionCreeper, neither Creationist Wiki nor Answers in Genesis are credible sources. Try to find something to back up your arguments from any sort of scientific (or, hell, even philosophic) authority. Your uninformed opinions and uninformed sources are really not worth responding to in detail.

    I recommend, perhaps, to just take some college courses on the material you speak about with authority. Community colleges are cheap. Intro biology and geology classes don't require high level math. You'd get a lot from them and emerge from the sort of dogmas you've seemed to have fallen into.


    Translation:
    Quote from Metadigital »
    If you don't use sites that support evloution I am gonna claim that they are not credible. You are stupid for not believing what I believe.


    Please just read the links I gave you in my post! Thanks.

    Straw Man Arguments


    I am going to do a quick preview of some straw man arguments that most evolutionists resort to when all else fails:

    Creationists are not scientists?
    This has never been true. What is true is the fact that most founders of scientific disciplines were creationists, and today there are many thousands of scientists who are creationists. Here are several lists of selected creationary scientists (with qualifications and biographies):
    Creation Archive List
    Creation Ministries International
    Answers in Genesis
    Institute for Creation Research

    Creationists deny natural selection?
    Natural Selection is not synonymous with evolution. Natural Selection is an observed process that was described by a creationist (Edward Blyth) in 1835–7, before Darwin. Creationists consider Natural Selection to be a conservative process, not an innovative one.

    Main Source: Sceptic arguments

    ---------------------------

    EDIT:
    Quote from CedricD »
    I decided to stop trying to reason with creationists.

    Why?



    If creationists wouldn't argue like that, though, they wouldn't be creationists, so it's kinda pointless anyway.


    Do not claim this applies to all creationists (It doesn't). It is faulty and sometimes foolish to generalize about groups of people.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    First I'd like to point out that your entire post seems to be plagiarized from here:

    http://kenparksproductions.info/crs/09007.html

    Good job keeping the bar high. I'm not sure what this forum's stance is on plagiarism, but I don't really tolerate that ****. If you don't have the capacity to even have your own ideas about this stupid ****, you're obviously not interested in having a discussion. You're just a troll. You don't care about what arguments are made against you, because you'll just ignore them and dig up some more of this creationist copypasta for us to debunk. But this really is par for the course for creationists.
    And it's the atheists that are supposed to have no morals.

    I am sorry, I forgot to include that it was mainly quoted from a book I have (I had to type it, no copypasta for me :tongue.gif:)It was a stupid mistake on my part. And no one said "atheists that are supposed to have no morals".
    You seem to be under the impression that somehow certain organisms have (or should have) existed unchanged since life first appeared. This is not the case. Every living organism currently on Earth is the product of all of these billions of years of evolution. There's no reason to expect that the simplest ancestral organisms would still exist unchanged. This represents a profound misunderstanding on your part of both biology and evolution. Of course, that's not surprising in the least.


    There are many many problems with "billions of years of evolution" an example is the horse and how they claim it mutated from its ancestors:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/horse.asp

    Kingdom Monera no longer exists. It was replaced in 1991 with the domains Archaea and Bacteria. Note that these domains are even higher level than kingdoms. Each domain represents the base of a lineage that descended from organisms that had not yet developed sophisticated genetic machinery.

    Learn your biology, Kingdom Monera is simply a term used in a classification system that used to be popular. You are using the currently more popular system called the “Three Domain System”


    Also I'm sure that their complexity has nothing to do with the fact that they've been evolving just as long as every other organism on Earth.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/hominid.asp
    It's the cell membrane, and it's not plasma, it's a lipid bilayer with proteins embedded in it.

    Please study biology before you talk, the "plasma membrane" is not actually plasma. This refers to a membrane that is made of chemicals called phospholipids and other chemicals called proteins.
    That's an eternity on the molecular scale. And while this is significantly faster than what's seen in eukaryotes, this speed introduces a lot of errors. Also, a more relevant number would be the replication rate in nucleotides/second. Bacteria copy DNA on the order of around 1000 nt/s. In terms of data rate, that'd be roughly equivalent to 2 kbit/second (one nucleotide represents a single base-pair which comes in 4 types, so we can represent a single nucleotide with 2 bits), 28 times slower than a 56k modem. And that is fast as far as DNA replication goes.

    You cannot compare a modem and bacteria, they are completely different things. And considering that a bacteria is so much smaller, its is STILL amazing how fast they copy the huge amounts of data contained in their DNA.
    Breaking news, tiny things can be built from tinier atoms.

    I surprised you just learned this now.
    And this is exactly what's seen.
    Which is what's not seen.

    Not exactly.
    http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/platypus.asp
    No, they aren't literally clams. They're litterally fossilized shells from a variety of organisms (collectively known as mollusks). They're not the fossilized remains of modern clams.

    I never said they were "modern" clams.
    Not terribly surprising that marine creatures that leave hard shells when they die leave a lot of fossils

    Well then, then it’s not terribly surprising that “mollusks” died in every layer of rock, everywhere.
    No, it isn't. I'm starting to think that when you look at that picture you think that it means that you can only find horses at the top. Since there are still shelled organisms today, we kind of expect them to show up in the fossil record recently as well. This is really irrelevant since your claim was essentially that we don't see increasing complexity as you work your way up the geological column and you do. It never claims that you have to stop finding simple things (in the phenotypic sense) as you go up.

    Like I said, the geological column is not accurate:
    ‘Everybody knows that organisms ... get more complex as they evolve.’
    ‘The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it's true.’ ----L. Oliwenstein, ‘Onward and Upward?’, Discover magazine, June 1993, p. 22
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fossils.asp

    Refer to here for more Q&A about fossils:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/fossils

    Of course that wouldn't be the case. Fossilization is a rare event that is highly dependent on the local environment. Since the surface of the Earth isn't really homogeneous, neither are the sediment layers. The point is simply that layers that were laid earlier in the past are underneath layers that were laid later. To spell it out for you, you don't get young layers underneath older layers.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/limestone.asp
    Brilliant, you can cast doubt on any idea by just digging up a suitably simplified picture intended to illustrate the basics of the idea to laypeople and then by claiming that it's supposed to be exact representation of the way things work.

    Many evolutionists “cast doubt on any idea by just digging up a suitably simplified picture”. An example of this person is the guy who make the video, and even you.

    No, it doesn't predict that. It predicts that life will become more complex. Abiogenesis is what predicts that life started out as very simple forms.

    No, abiogenists claims that life supposedly came from non-living matter. At the moument, Abiogenesis no nothing more than a hypothesis according to the definitions of hypothesis/theory/law.
    Otherwise it's evidence that a catastrophic event can miraculously sort organisms by relative complexity. You also only listed one assumption: that the processes that govern the changes in the shape of the Earth are slow (Uniformitarianism).

    There is a huge amount of data that supports the Global Flood. There is a very small amount of data that supports the slow creation of rock layers.
    A amazing example that supports the global flood is this picture:



    This is a fossil of Fish Swallowing Fish. Burial and fossilization must have been quite rapid to have preserved a fish in the act of swallowing another fish. Thousands of such fossils have been found.

    ********. You wouldn't know a scientific standpoint if it grabbed you by the ankles and smacked your ass.


    Ha ha, do you even know what a scientific standpoint is? Here you are at it again, just spitting out insults because you can’t think of anything smarter to say.

    Apparently you missed the geology lesson where they learned how to tell those kinds of events apart. You know, where a geologist can look into the strata and see where the catastrophes occurred and where they didn't.

    No actually, I have learned that lesson 10 times over. Here are examples of strata that show the rocks where laid down quickly:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/limestone.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/chalk.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/no-slow-erosion
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n2/folded-not-fractured
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/bell.asp


    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

    You see, mutations good or bad, have never been known to add more information to the DNA. Ill get deeper into this if you want.

    Please, go deeper. Might want to read this first, though:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

    http://creationwiki.org/Mutations_don%27t_add_information_(Talk.Origins)

    I found a really nice Q&A session from the Washington Post, I recommended you read it:
    http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/01/evolution3_092801.htm

    Wow, really?

    I enjoy debates, and have a nice time doing them, but when did this become a war?
    Why does it need to be a war?
    What is so hard about debating like a gentleman?
    Why is it so easy for you to wage war like a three-year-old?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    DEFINITION OF THEORY:
    About.com: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry ... theory.htm

    According to this, evloution is not a theory or a law.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Before I say anything else, I want to say there is no such thing as a simple organism. The simplest of organisms (Kingdom Monera) are still incredibly complex. Bacteria have capsules that protect the cell and, along with help of the fimbriae, allow it to attach to surfaces. They have a cell wall that keeps the shape of the bacterium.And inside the cell wall there is a plasma membrane that regulates the passage if substances in and out of the cytoplasm. These bacteria have DNA which stores all the information needed to live, and have the ability to copy this information in a mere 20 minutes! They also have ribosomes which can produce complicated chemicals called proteins. Finally they have incredibly advanced systems of locomotion which, in fact, strongly resembles the design of an outboard motor. All of these things are contained in a cell that is barely 2 micrometers long. (1,000 bacteria fit in the dot of this "i.")

    Response to:


    In this video, his first question is a simple one:

    If evolution is true, you should see simple lifeforms at the bottom of the geologic layers and complex lifeforms at the top. According to him it should look like this:


    If creationism was true, one should see different animals (Dinosaurs with humans for an example) together in the same levels

    -----

    It is very important to realize that even though that picture is a common representation of the geological column, it is not really what the geological column looks like! You see, 95% of all fossils that are recovered are those of clams and similar organisms. They are, quite literally, fossilized clams in every region of the earth in nearly every layer of rock. So the picture really only represents 5% of the geological column. Nevertheless, since the geological column is usually discussed in reference to macro-evolution, the clams are ignored. Thus, any conclusions you make based on the geological column are, in fact, based on a tiny minority of the available data.

    Second, it is important is know that the geological column is an idealized representation of the sedimentary rock and fossils that we see here on earth. There is really no place on the planet where you can dig and find every fossil layer of the geological column as well as the fossils in those layers. Instead you will find one set of fossil-bearing strata in one are of the worlds, and another set of fossil-bearing strata in another area of the world. These sets often contain the same strata, so by comparing many sets of strata, that picture is a representation of what the geological column might look like if you could find all of the strata and their fossils in one place. In other words, it is a theoretical construct that may or may not be accurate. It probably is a reasonable representation of the nature of the fossil record, but nevertheless, it is not pure data. That must be remembered when using it as evidence for or against any hypothesis, including that of macro-evloution.

    Now I am assuming you know about the geologist Lyell (Every evolutionist should know about him) and his theories on rocks forming over time.

    Based on Lyell's speculation, Darwin and his followers argued that the geological column shows us that long ago, only "simple" life forms existed. That is why we see fossils of only "simple" forms in the lowest strata. As you look up the geological column, however, the fossils become more and more "complex". This indicated to Darwin that as time when on, life forms got more and more complex. Well, Darwin argued, this is great evidence for macro-evloution. After all, macro-evloution predicts that life started out simple and, over eons of time and guided by natural selection, more complex life forms emerged.

    Now you have to realize that this conclusion is based on assumptions. You must assume that the geological column is an accurate picture of the earth's sedimentary rocks and the fossils found in them. You also have to believe that those rocks formed as Lyell and many geologists today speculate: by the slow accumulation of sediment over eons of time. The geological column is evidence for macro-evloution only when those two assumptions are right.

    The big question is, are those two assumptions right? The answer, from a scientific standpoint, is that we don't know. The issue of those rock strata forming is quite tricky, scientists have seen sediments form slowly as a result of a process much like that suggested by Lyell. These layers look a lot like "soft" versions of the sedimentary rocks we see today. Thus it is reasonable to assume that sedimentary rocks can form that way. However, scientists have also seen that natural catastrophes like floods and volcanic eruptions can lay down many layers of rock virtually overnight. Geologists who have spent time studying the results of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in the state of Washington, for example, have documented the formation of a huge wall of sedimentary rock that has many strata in it, all in the span of about five hours.

    In conclusion, science tells us that rock strata can be formed either slowly in a process like that suggested by Lyell or quickly as a result of natural catastrophes. So if you want the geological column to provide evidence for macro-evloution, it does. You simply have to assume that it was formed in much in the way Lyell suggested that is was formed. If, on the other hand, you don't want the geological column to provide evidence for macroevloution, you can assume that it was not formed that way. Instead, you can assume that it was quickly at a result of the worldwide flood that happened during Noah's time. An excellent book written by Dr.Steven Austin entitled Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe uses the specific example of the Grand Canyon to provide convincing evidence that this is, indeed, the case. Of course, those who believe that the geological column was formed according to the speculations of Lyell also have evidence of their own, so the final answer is not clear.

    Ill finish responding to the rest of the video if you want me to, I am tired.

    Sources:
    AnswersinGenesis Research Journal
    Creation Wiki (Honestly, its more of a archive then a wiki)
    Geology.com
    Google

    Quote from IVI4tt »
    Because I don't have anything new to add to this argument, I'm going to keep posting these videos in the hope that one day, someone will watch them.


    The man that made the videos do a good job explaining how evloution should work, but never provided evidence/examples to support the idea that animals evolve over time into completely different organisms. You see, mutations good or bad, have never been known to add more information to the DNA. Ill get deeper into this if you want.

    Thanks
    ElectrocutionCreeper

    PS: Again, It took a long time for me to write all of that, I am going offline for now. Thanks!
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Mothers' Day!
    Quote from Wheatley »
    At times like these I feel bad I don't have a mom, damn it. I wanna see what other people do though, I've seen a guy buy this almost $100,000 car for his mom before, it was crazy.



    You do know mothers day doesn't only mean your mom :tongue.gif:
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Quote from kuro_suna »
    Translation:
    Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper »

    Creationists can't think freely


    Were not closed mined, the bible says were open minded so it must be true.



    Do not bend my words, fool.

    Quote from kuro_suna »
    Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper »


    Lack of scientific credentials

    When all else fails, anticreationists resort to Ad hominem insults in attempt to undermine creationist credibility. This includes the baseless claim that creationists don't possess valid scientific credentials:

    Creation “scientists” have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology.
    And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.


    This is ironic since your creation wiki keeps claims all science is wrong but hasn't show one shred of evidence yet.


    Please quote the place that creation wiki claims science is wrong?

    sci·ence/ˈsīəns/Noun
    1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.


    PS: Its late for me, I am going to bed, do not expect me to reply for about 15 hours or so. =D
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Quote from XDragon350 »
    Why don't you try looking for something from someone who actually spends their professional life studying these things, instead of a creationist wiki. You want Creation to appear scientific, go find some scientific articles.


    Lack of scientific credentials

    When all else fails, anticreationists resort to Ad hominem insults in attempt to undermine creationist credibility. This includes the baseless claim that creationists don't possess valid scientific credentials:

    Creation “scientists” have more need than most of us to parade their degrees and qualifications, but it pays to look closely at the institutions that awarded them and the subjects in which they were taken. Those vaunted Ph.D.s tend to be in subjects such as marine engineering or gas kinetics rather than in relevant disciplines like zoology or geology.
    And often they are earned not at real universities, but at little-known Bible colleges deep in Bush country.

    This claim is entirely false and has been refuted elsewhere.

    Evolution is an adequate explanation because small changes over a short amount of time become larger changes as that amount of time increases. This has been documented with fossil and other evidence, such as the evolution of the horse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_Horse) and the evolution of cetaceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans)
    
    Such examples are proof positive that radical physiological changes can happen to a given species given enough time and the impetus to do so, otherwise known as natural selection.
    
    Btw, you are not refuting anyone by posting links to creationist wiki. Think for yourself.


    You didn't even read that whole article...

    I also agree with the creationist wiki and have helped with creating some of its contents.

    Creationists can't think freely


    Anticreationists often argue that creationists are not capable of "free thought." Thinking freely requires applying critical scrutiny to one's own beliefs. Since creationists take the authority of the Bible on faith, they are not capable of "free thought." Jeffery Lowder, writing for infidels.org argues:

    Anyone who attempts to obey Biblical passages such as these [Proverbs 3:5] cannot be a freethinker, though a person as a freethinker could become an Evangelical Christian (and, ironically, cease to be a freethinker)[...] Freethought is an epistemology, one that is incompatible with an Evangelical worldview[35]

    Besides taking scripture verses out of context, this example, like most, is devoid of any justification. There is nothing inherently close minded about accepting the authority of scripture. Especially if the acceptance is the result of honest inquiry. It is possible to subject the Bible to historical and scientific criticism and reach conclusions without taking the Bible on faith, as defined by the skeptics.

    "Free thinkers," like Lowder, take issue with verses such as Proverbs 3:5 and 2 Cor. 10:5 because they teach that Christians must ultimately put their trust in Christ and reject worldly wisdom. But, these verses don't encourage blind faith. Keeping in mind how the Bible uses the word "faith," Christians were to trust in Christ based on the evidence provided by the miracles he performed. Today we have an historical account of those miracles in the Bible, which we can examine for its accuracy. In the Biblical sense, being obedient to Christ is not the same as blindly accepting unreasonable supernatural claims.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Quote from kuro_suna »


    Quote by ElectrocutionCreeper


    Fail


    Radiotrophic fungi are fungi which appear to use the pigment melanin to convert gamma radiation[1] into chemical energy for growth.[2] This proposed mechanism may be similar to anabolic pathways for the synthesis of reduced organic carbon (e.g., carbohydrates) in phototrophic organisms, which capture photons from visible light with pigments such as chlorophyll whose energy is then used in photolysis of water to generate usable chemical energy (as ATP) in photophosphorylation of photosynthesis. However, whether melanin-containing fungi employ a similar multi-step pathway as photosynthesis, or some chemosynthesis pathways, is unknown.

    These were first discovered in 2007 as black molds growing inside and around the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.[1] Research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine showed that three melanin-containing fungi, Cladosporium sphaerospermum, Wangiella dermatitidis, and Cryptococcus neoformans, increased in biomass and accumulated acetate faster in an environment in which the radiation level was 500 times higher than in the normal environment. Exposure of C. neoformans cells to these radiation levels rapidly (within 20–40 minutes of exposure) altered the chemical properties of its melanin and increased melanin-mediated rates of electron transfer (measured as reduction of ferricyanide by NADH) 3 to 4-fold compared with unexposed cells.



    Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium that is capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture. This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became collectively known as nylonase.
    Contents

    In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.[1]


    http://creationwiki.org/Natural_selection

    EDIT: I can, if I wish, quote links, juts like "Yourself" did. Also, please show me a transitional form.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Quote from XDragon350 »
    Not if you believe in magic, Garret.


    CLAIM: Creation is Unscientific


    Anticreationists often claim that Creation is unscientific; and attempt to support this assertion with disingenuous arguments about the scientific method and the testability of Creation Science. The most popular version of this claim seeks to define science as a purely naturalistic enterprise, thereby excluding Creation from the realm of examination from the beginning of the debate. This tactic's weakness is revealed when one recognizes that the 'science is naturalistic' definition actually redefines the word. Science is merely a method of testing a hypothesis against the available evidence. There is nothing inherent in scientific inquiry that restricts it to materialistic causes.

    Nonetheless, even by the subjective standard of many evolution apologists, Creation does make testable, falsifiable claims about the natural world. The skeptics do recognize this: "Some forms of creationism (especially Young Earth Creationism) do make falsifiable predictions that natural events record in some holy work (e.g. The Bible) did occur. The occurrence of a natural event in the past is testable, so does fall under the category of science." While anticreationists may disagree with these Young Earth predictions, they are no less scientific as a result.

    See full article here
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Evidence against common descent


    Introduction to common descent

    Common descent is a principle of Darwinism which holds that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. Darwin's theory of descent with modification led inexorably to this conclusion as is illustrated in the following quote from Prentice Hall Biology (2008). The theory draws support from homology (physical similarities), embryology (developmental similarities), and the geographic distribution of organisms.

    “ Descent with modification also implies that all living organisms are related to one another. Look back in time, and you will find common ancestors shared by tigers, panthers, and cheetahs. Look farther back, and you will find ancestors that these felines share with horses, dogs, and bats. Farther back still are the common ancestors of mammals, birds, alligators, and fishes. If we look far enough back, the logic concludes, we could find the common ancestors of all living things. This is the principle known as common descent.”

    By contrast, creationists believe that God created many kinds of organisms, and that innumerable species developed from those original kinds through microevolution via inherent genetic variability and natural selection. That tigers, panthers, and cheetahs share a common ancestor is a view accepted by most young earth creationists. However, the belief that biological evolution supports that these felines share ancestors with horses, dogs, and bats is a point where evolutionists and most creationists part ways.

    Problems with common descent.


    Challenges to the theory of common descent are numerous. It is especially important to realize that modern evolutionists are now refining their original theory of common descent to one that now includes more original life forms at the beginning. They have argued against a single-celled evolution and thus posit the original existence of no less than three "loosely constructed cellular organizations."

    Tree of life

    Charles Darwin's "tree of life" is not borne out in scientific observation. This is concluded through more modern research, on example of such coming from the Proceedings for the National Academy of Science (PNAS). The research found that "there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy" and that "the only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree."

    There are what are called evolutionary "bushes," but according to Public Library of Science (PLoS) research, these bushes do not support the conclusion of a single cause of a complete tree of life as proposed by Darwin.


    The asserted improbability and impossibility of this completely naturalistic mechanism is a severe problem for modern evolutionists. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous appearance of the first, self-replicating protocell which can be argued has neither been observed nor comprehensively explained.


    Differences in morphology, or "gaps in the fossil record," exist, across which it is argued there is no fossil evidence of transitional forms. For example these gaps are glaring when the context between reptiles and mammals, reptiles and birds, or apes and men is understood.

    Falsifiability

    Because of the absence of substantial hard evidence to support belief in common ancestry, creationists and even some evolutionists acknowledge that evolution is a philosophical belief, not scientific in essence. Evolution is referred to as a fact without providing sufficient explantion for the means. The assertions made by evolutionists are often not falsifiable and cannot be observed in nature or tested by experimentation. It therefore, falls outside the boundaries of the scientific method.

    Full article here.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Quote from Valtaus »
    Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper »

    This is what I find funny/stupid about you evolutionists, you claim their is "mountains of evidence to back it [evolution] up" but never show us that evidence. You claim the creationism is "often demonstrably incorrect, or at the very least, undemonstrable" but never say why. Bottom line is that you are spitting out claims with nothing to back them up, and that is very foolish.

    Show me evidence that supports evolution (real evidence, not lies) and I will show you why I think evolution is a bunch of lies.

    PS: I bet you guys will ignore me.


    Heh. You're funny.

    When we ask you for evidence for Creationism, it is easily refutable. Deny the fossil record, chemical and anatomical similarites between species, and the geographic distribution of related species, which all point to Evolution.


    Show me why they point to evolution.

    Quote from KingPorky »
    @ElectrocutionCreeper
    What makes you think creationism is real? There are fossils of early humans also, I can believe in unicorns too.
    Now prove to me unicorns DON'T exist.


    Show me evidence for evolution and I will show you why its wrong.

    Quote from Piratebay »
    Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.


    This is the most foolish thing one can say, its so incredibly stupid.

    Quote from XDragon350 »
    Evidence for evolution has been published and peer reviewed and is available to the public. You could easily find some using Google. In fact, there have been links here to evidence for evolution. What about the link to the description of the fossil record a few posts up? It's easy to say there is no evidence if you're willing to ignore it all. There has never been any evidence for magical creation.


    Please post links and such here so I may see them.

    Just show me evidence and I will show you why its wrong.



    EDIT: I'm preparing evidence for creationism as we speak, tell me where you want me to start. (Geographic layers show worldwide flood, or earth is 10,000 years old, tell me where you want me to start.)

    EDIT NUMBER TWO: I didn't see yourself's Links, Am preparing counter now.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 1

    posted a message on Evolution
    Quote from HabaneroArrow »
    And even if the fossil record wasn't evidence, there is still plenty of other evidence for evolution.


    Quote from LeanderLeet »
    The only thing I will say to creationists is: We have evidence, you don't.


    Quote from Kargoneth »
    The scientific theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution takes over once life already exists. So I'll take "other", for abiogenesis, thank you very much.



    Quote from Krunchyman »
    If you want the bible to make sense, you have to be willing to study it and take your time with it.

    Wants have nothing to do with it. It either makes sense or it does not make sense. If it does not make sense then one should attempt to gain knowledge that will allow it to make sense up until the point that the costs of understanding it begin to outweigh the benefits. Quantum electrodynamics does not make sense and is extremely counter-intuitive, but unlike the bible, quantum electrodynamics has moved us forward technologically and allows us to build the computer on which you write your messages.

    While creationism has (often demonstrably incorrect, or at the very least, undemonstrable) explanations for things it has no predictive power; it is useless for things other than entertainment. This is one of the reasons for which I discard your bible as anything other than a collection of mytho-historical documents (mytho-historical because although it does contain some truths, it also contains many falsehoods, both of which are so intertwined that teasing the truth from the fiction isn't worth my time, since we can verify the truth by other means anyways).

    I think most athiests (sic) here will read or have read the bible and consider it to be "********" or "garbage" because they told that to themselves from the beginning.

    I think you will find that a large number of atheists were once Christians and took the bible seriously for some time.

    You have to have an open mind when dealing with things like this.

    An open mind is a fine thing to have. Just don't leave it so open that your brain falls out.

    A video discussing the implications of "open-mindedness":
    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/url]


    Quote from McBeeferton »
    There's no definitive proof that evolution is true, either. In some sense, evolutionists are delusional, too.

    Science does not deal with proofs. Proofs are generally restricted to mathematics. I have no doubt that many people that accept the scientific theory of evolution have personal delusions, I just don't think their acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution is one of them (assuming they understand it correctly, know of at least a little evidence for it, and understand it's implications). The scientific theory of evolution has an astoundingly massive amount of evidence backing it up. In fact, it has to because it is the internal structure holding up all of modern biological science.

    A delusion is holding something to be true that is demonstrably false. For example, the belief that the world is flat by biblical authors was a delusion. The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was an approximation of a sphere and had even calculated it's circumference to impressive accuracy. Evolution is demonstrably true; we have mountains of evidence to back it up; the scientific theory of evolution may one day be considered a delusion should dis-confirming evidence ever appear, but until then it is not a delusion.


    This is what I find funny/stupid about you evolutionists, you claim their is "mountains of evidence to back it [evolution] up" but never show us that evidence. You claim the creationism is "often demonstrably incorrect, or at the very least, undemonstrable" but never say why. Bottom line is that you are spitting out claims with nothing to back them up, and that is very foolish.

    Show me evidence that supports evolution (real evidence, not lies) and I will show you why I think evolution is a bunch of lies.

    Thanks,
    ElectrocutionCreeper




    PS: I bet you guys will ignore me.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Mother's Day - May 8
    Mom, your hero. - Karl Fuchs

    For all the things I didn't say,
    About how I felt along the way--
    For the love you give and the work you've done,
    Here's appreciation from your admiring son.

    If only I could write my own poems... ^^
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on [1.1] Piston patch - updated for 1.1
    I made a hidden door: (Its harder to do then you think)

    \

    Ill show you how I did it later =D
    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.