Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

"Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 13 of 17
 [ 337 posts ] 
"Let us reason amongst the brethren"
Author Message
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Greetings,

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Collecemall wrote:I'm not real smart so forgive me if I'm way off base but if you have all the evidence you say and think a nobel prize can be won then why aren't you busy writing up that study yourself? If a Nobel Prize is just sitting there waiting to be picked up I'd be all up on that if I were as confident as you appear to be.

Although if anyone here deserves a prize I would like to nominate Dragan Glas for it. The amount of patience he seems to have goes above and beyond anything any mortal could expect. There are others here who are worthy of mention but my memory is limited and names are still new to me. So forgive me not naming everyone. Myself I'm really starting to feel some empathy for Cain in his wanting to slay Able and I'm just reading. So hats off to you guys who can keep your composure.

If nothing else this is entertaining. I think it's at least plausible to think that's what he's going for.

Thanks for your response even if you disagree with me.I have to say Dragan Glas is knowledgeable when it comes to biblical themes but really all that is going on is a denial of the Gap theory even when I provide evidence and they don't.I actually like the challenge Dragan Glas gives me about the Gap theory and as I get stumped here or there I will learn from it and will find a way to explain it later.Also about a Nobel prize? I am just trying to make a point when I say that I really don't believe that a Nobel prize would be won proving the bible true as science is focused on naturalism to explain things and will not allow the bible in the door but the Gap theory can seriously challenge evolution like no other theory,etc out there that I know of because it uses a lot of the evidence evolution uses for evidence and since there is no way to demonstrate a dinosaur could evolve into a bird the Gap theory would be more believable to people when all they can do is declare it happened but can provide no real evidence.

We can look at the evidence they use to prove evolution true finches,salamanders,viruses,bacteria,frogs,fruit flies,etc and in every case no evolution happens,yet somehow they imagine it did eventhough the evidence does not bear this out and this actually proves natural selection is bunk because even when life is able to survive hostile environments and adapts to survive,it still remains what it was before showing us that environmental pressures still does not cause life to evolve.

Again this is based on the evidence used as proof and evidence that life evolves when all it does is prove life does not evolve,it reveals that there are limits to life even if life is able to adapt to survive.

Thank you for the acknowledgement, abelcainsbrother. I trust that, although we disagree, it doesn't mean that we need dislike each other.

My problem with what your claiming in your posts is that you do not appear to be taking any of the scientific evidence seriously when it disagrees with your beliefs.

You claimed to like science in a earlier post yet dismiss it when it threatens your belief in your "gap" theory, the bible and - of course - God.

Earlier, you claimed that science proved the Genesis account - but noted science said that life came from water whereas the bible says it came from land. And then you said that the science proves the bible true. Despite my pointing out this contradiction, you ignored it.

If you did respect science the way you claimed, then you should have put aside the bible and gone with the science. Instead, you ignore what the science said.

This is where you are being intellectually dishonest - you are cherry-picking (hijacking) science when it supports your belief in the bible but ignoring it when it disagrees with it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Mugnuts wrote:
I have a hypothesis that miniature people called Cobblepoe's exist. They are nocturnal and cannot be seen, because they can turn invisible at will. The Cobblepoe's can sustain themselves by absorbing the sweat from worn shoes with their ears, and can live forever this way. Everyone in the world has shoes therefore there is evidence for my hypothesis. This is further backed up by evidence that my shoes, and everyone else's shoes are dry by morning.

It would be up to you to provide evidence to back it up like I have the Gap theory. You are just not going to change your mind about evolution and I can't make you but I know the Gap theory is true and I have provided evidence but you keep denying it. I can say the fossils coal and oil are evidence for a former world that perished because it is the kind of evidence you would expect if it were true.You denying it doesn't make it untrue.

You don't "know" the Gap theory to be right - you believe it is.

The evidence doesn't support it.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:25 pm
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Dragan Glas wrote:
Thank you for the acknowledgement, abelcainsbrother. I trust that, although we disagree, it doesn't mean that we need dislike each other.

My problem with what your claiming in your posts is that you do not appear to be taking any of the scientific evidence seriously when it disagrees with your beliefs.

You claimed to like science in a earlier post yet dismiss it when it threatens your belief in your "gap" theory, the bible and - of course - God.

Earlier, you claimed that science proved the Genesis account - but noted science said that life came from water whereas the bible says it came from land. And then you said that the science proves the bible true. Despite my pointing out this contradiction, you ignored it.

If you did respect science the way you claimed, then you should have put aside the bible and gone with the science. Instead, you ignore what the science said.

This is where you are being intellectually dishonest - you are cherry-picking (hijacking) science when it supports your belief in the bible but ignoring it when it disagrees with it.


I actually like atheists and non-believers so no I don't dislike you because we disagree and I like the challenge you give me and I respect you.I do like science and I do try to keep up with science the best I can but I am not going to lie as I admit I look at things from an old earth biblical Gap theory point of view but I have also made my point about how scientists look at everything from an evolution perspective and so no matter how you look at it on both sides circular reasoning is going on.

Yes I was watching National Geographic:The story of the earth" one day and as I watched it from knowing what Genesis 1 says I started to realize how similar it is to what the bible tells us in Genesis 1 if you ignore the implication it happened on its own and the evolution perspective.You see considering that science is secular and is not even considering what the bible says as they have made discoveries whether you realize it or not it is too similar to Genesis 1 to overlook,especially looking at it from an old earth biblical Gap theory perspective.Young earth creationists would overlook it, but I see how similar it is to what Genesis tells us and it goes in order to what Genesis says except for science says that life started in the water first and the bible says land but other than that it goes in order to what life comes first all the way to man being last just like Genesis says.

Now just because it is not exact does not mean much because science is looking at everything from a naturalistic and evolution perspective and are not considering what the bible says. I was amazed when I realized how similar it is to what the bible tells us. Try it your self,get out a bible and turn to Genesis 1 and watch National Geographic:The story of the earth" and as you watch it read the bible and I think you'll see how similar it is.

I accept science that has evidence to back it up which is why I reject evolution but according to you I should just ignore the lack of proof life evolves and go along with it because most scientists do,but I cannot do that when there is no reason to when both the bible and evolution are believed by faith.The bible does not tell us life evolves but it does tell us God created kinds to produce after their kinds and science has evidence to back this up so I accept it and it just so happens to confirm the bible true.So just because I reject evolution does not mean I'm anti-science.

There are even die-hard evolutionists who see the problems with evolution like Derek Hough and his book "A case of stating the obvious" in it he claims that it is "preposterous nonsense" to believe that DNA copying errors causes life to evolve like Dawkins,etc believes and he is trying to find a more realistic mechanism and yet he still won't let go of evolution which I can't understand why.But he hasn't.Then you have evolutionists like Rupert Sheldrake who accept evolution but have problems with it,these men are trying to help evolution.

I don't see how I can be cherry-picking when I show how it confirms the bible true.How can it fit?Iis the question you should ask.
Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:10 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

abelcainsbrother wrote: I accept science that has evidence to back it up which is why I reject evolution but according to you I should just ignore the lack of proof life evolves and go along with it because most scientists do,but I cannot do that when there is no reason to when both the bible and evolution are believed by faith.The bible does not tell us life evolves but it does tell us God created kinds to produce after their kinds and science has evidence to back this up so I accept it and it just so happens to confirm the bible true.So just because I reject evolution does not mean I'm anti-science.

...

I don't see how I can be cherry-picking when I show how it confirms the bible true.How can it fit?Iis the question you should ask.


I think it is reasonable to conclude that you don't really understand the evidence for either the science that you accept or the science that you reject. For example, in another thread you indicated that you thought that DNA actually contained letters. Therefore you appear to accept or reject science solely based on whether or not it aligns with your interpretation of the Bible. Any science that agrees with you must be true and any that disagrees must be false.

This is cherry picking.

As a general rule, you should be the most critical of scientific evidence when it conforms to what you want to be true.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:20 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

abelcainsbrother wrote:Yes I was watching National Geographic:The story of the earth" one day and as I watched it from knowing what Genesis 1 says I started to realize how similar it is to what the bible tells us in Genesis 1 if you ignore the implication it happened on its own and the evolution perspective.You see considering that science is secular and is not even considering what the bible says as they have made discoveries whether you realize it or not it is too similar to Genesis 1 to overlook,especially looking at it from an old earth biblical Gap theory perspective.Young earth creationists would overlook it, but I see how similar it is to what Genesis tells us and it goes in order to what Genesis says except for science says that life started in the water first and the bible says land but other than that it goes in order to what life comes first all the way to man being last just like Genesis says.

Now just because it is not exact does not mean much because science is looking at everything from a naturalistic and evolution perspective and are not considering what the bible says. I was amazed when I realized how similar it is to what the bible tells us. Try it your self,get out a bible and turn to Genesis 1 and watch National Geographic:The story of the earth" and as you watch it read the bible and I think you'll see how similar it is.


Nonsense.

Let's actually give this a try:

New International Version - Genesis 1:1 - 1-2 wrote:In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


According to science, there certainly must have been "light" when the earth was formed because the sun was there before the earth. Genesis 1:1 is contrary to the evidence.

Genesis 1:1 - 3-5 wrote:And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


Notice that "day" and "night" were created in sentences 3-5. We'll come back to them in a second.

Genesis 1:1 - 6-8 wrote:And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.


This is just gibberish. There is no "vault" to separate "water from water", the people at that time simply didn't know what an atmosphere and what outer space was.

Genesis 1:1 - 9-13 wrote:And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.


Now I don't know about this "gathered in one place", but there are a lot of lakes and even seas in the middle of the land and there are also islands in the middle of the oceans. Never mind that though.

Genesis 1:1 - 14-19 wrote:And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.


First, light was apparently already there before the sun and the moon, so what the fuck?
Second, God made the sun after the earth? That's not what we know!
Third, the moon isn't a "light" in and of itself, it merely reflects the sun's light.
Fourth, God makes the stars separate from the sun, even though the sun is a star.


And so on and so forth. Most of the contradictions and non-scientific stuff is documented in the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Suffice it to say that the Bible isn't even close to being correct on even the more basic science. You would have to willfully ignore most of moder science (and most of the ancient one, too!) to claim that the Bible is correct on these issues.

ablecainsbrother wrote:I accept science that has evidence to back it up which is why I reject evolution but according to you I should just ignore the lack of proof life evolves and go along with it because most scientists do,but I cannot do that when there is no reason to when both the bible and evolution are believed by faith.The bible does not tell us life evolves but it does tell us God created kinds to produce after their kinds and science has evidence to back this up so I accept it and it just so happens to confirm the bible true.So just because I reject evolution does not mean I'm anti-science.


I doubt anyone here told you that you should "believe evolution because the scientists say so". In fact, I would strongly discourage anybody from believing anything simply because person X said so.
Instead, I would ask you to drop your personal biases and consider the evidence.

You say that there is no evidence for evolution, yet we've given you tonnes just in this thread alone. That you choose to dismiss it without giving it any thought is not our fault.
You say that evolution is believed on faith and that the bible is somehow contrary to evolution. (I would agree on that last one) However, many biologists are bible-believing Christians, they merely interpret the evidence differently. Robbert T. Bakker, Kenneth Miller and Theodosius Dobzhansky, to name but three, are/were all very serious scientists, they not only accept evolution but are/were active champions of it and they're all Christians, too.
You claim that "created kinds" exist, yet Dragan Glas pointed you to two peer reviewed articles, both of which directly refute the notion of created kinds.

So yes, you are very "anti-science".

ablecainsbrother wrote:There are even die-hard evolutionists who see the problems with evolution like Derek Hough and his book "A case of stating the obvious" in it he claims that it is "preposterous nonsense" to believe that DNA copying errors causes life to evolve like Dawkins,etc believes and he is trying to find a more realistic mechanism and yet he still won't let go of evolution which I can't understand why.But he hasn't.Then you have evolutionists like Rupert Sheldrake who accept evolution but have problems with it,these men are trying to help evolution.


I didn't read Derek Philip Hough's book and I couldn't find a single proper review of it, the only two reviews were one barely literate positive review on Amazon and a second, very short negative review, also on Amazon.

If the quote from the book is accurate, then Hough is a pseudo-scientific hack of the worst kind. If the quote is inaccurate, then I'll have to wait for someone to post accurate quotes. In any case, this book had absolutely no impact on anything, in fact it had so little impact that nobody even thrashed it.

As for Sheldrake, this is a guy we actually know is a pseudo-scientific lunatic. In 1991, John Maddox (senior editor of Nature) wrote the following about Sheldrake's book "A New Science of Life": "...Sheldrake's book is a splendid illustration of the widespread public misconception of what science is about. In reality, Sheldrake's argument is in no sense a scientific argument but is an exercise in pseudo-science... Many readers will be left with the impression that Sheldrake has succeeded in finding a place for magic within scientific discussion – and this, indeed, may have been a part of the objective of writing such a book."

As for Sheldrake's views on evolution, I'm not exactly sure he properly understands it to make any claim about it whatsoever. For example, he promotes something called "Morphic Resonance", which is basically pseudo-science once again, not worth discussing. If evolution were to happen by that process, we'd be in a very strange world indeed.

If you want to talk about "evolutionists" who have challenged the status quo, there are many better ones. Steven J. Gould didn't accept the extreme gradualism promoted by scientists at the beginning of the century. He presented the evidence and we now accept that punctuated equilibrium is correct.

What about the "Aquatic Ape Theory"? It's obviously not correct, but it does challenge the status quo in a serious way and it offers new ways of thinking that might lead us to the correct answer.

ablecainsbrother wrote:How can it fit?Iis the question you should ask.


I'm a practical guy. I'll just ask the questions I asked for the third time now:
Inferno wrote:Furthermore, I challenge you to take AronRa's challenge:
"For any creationist model to work, we'd need either a definition of what kinds are or at least a definite model on how to distinguish between kinds. In other words, how can you be sure that the relationship between organisms stops? AronRa put that very well in his Phylogeny Challenge:"
Inferno wrote:Are mallards related to pochards, wood ducks and muscovys? Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes? Are Anseriformes related to Galliformes and other Neognathae? Are Neognathae related to Palaeognathae? Are any extant (still alive) birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Enantiornis or other Euronithes? Are Euronithes related to Confuciusornis or Archaeopteryx? Are all early Aves (birds) related to Microraptor, Velociraptor or other non-avian Dinosaurs? Are dinosaurs related to Pterosaurs, Phytosaurs and other Archosaurs?


and

Inferno wrote:I've dealt with this over in the "macroevolution challenge".
If a fish were to evolve arms and legs, would that be macroevolution?
If a single-celled organism were to evolve into a multi-cellular organism, would that be macroevolution?
How about becoming better at something (eg. being able to use more food) while a nucleotide deletion takes place? (loss of information?)

So far, creationists only agreed that this is macroevolution when they didn't know that this has been directly observed. What would you say?

Also, this is the second time you've dodged my challenges:As I already stated in numerous threads before, any idea or hypothesis can only be scientific if we know what would falsify it. So ablecainsbrother, in the light of Karl Popper's "Science as Falsification", I again ask you the following: What would falsify your "old earth creationism" idea?

We already know what would falsify evolution: To name but one example, fossil bunnies in the cambrian.
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:43 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

In fact, this seems to fit the topic quite well:
Image
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:47 pm
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

SpecialFrog wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote: I accept science that has evidence to back it up which is why I reject evolution but according to you I should just ignore the lack of proof life evolves and go along with it because most scientists do,but I cannot do that when there is no reason to when both the bible and evolution are believed by faith.The bible does not tell us life evolves but it does tell us God created kinds to produce after their kinds and science has evidence to back this up so I accept it and it just so happens to confirm the bible true.So just because I reject evolution does not mean I'm anti-science.

...

I don't see how I can be cherry-picking when I show how it confirms the bible true.How can it fit?Iis the question you should ask.


I think it is reasonable to conclude that you don't really understand the evidence for either the science that you accept or the science that you reject. For example, in another thread you indicated that you thought that DNA actually contained letters. Therefore you appear to accept or reject science solely based on whether or not it aligns with your interpretation of the Bible. Any science that agrees with you must be true and any that disagrees must be false.

This is cherry picking.

As a general rule, you should be the most critical of scientific evidence when it conforms to what you want to be true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code. Codon 1 AUG Codon 2 ACG Codon 3 GAG codon 4 CUU codon 5 CGG codon 6 AGC codon 7 UAG. I thought DNA does not contain letters? It has been decoded by humans and it is evidence of an intelligent designer.
Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:18 am
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Inferno

You are overlooking what verse 1 tells us in Genesis ."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Notice the word heaven or heavens in the NIV version you are reading.This means the sun was shining when God first created everything this includes the planets,stars,moon,etc so we already had sun light.Science overlooks the Gap which I have pointed out,this is the whole point of 2nd Peter 3:3-5 because science teaches that there have never been no full extinctions and that since life got started it has never completely went extinct,this is because everything is looked at from an evolution perspective and this is the point of 2nd Peter 3:3-5 "Knowing this first,that there shall come in the last days mockers,walking after their own lusts,AND saying,Where is the promise of his coming?for since the fathers fell asleep,all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

You see you believe the latter part of that verse because of evolution science but Peter tells us in verse 5-7 that they are ignorant of the former world that perished in water and the gap in between it and this world.You may need to review what I've said.The problem is science is overlooking this Gap and so when they go back billions of years they include the creatures that were in the former world with the ones in this world,however science eventhough they are looking back and believing that all things have continued still have made discoveries that confirm Genesis 1 true like I have pointed out. If you understand that the sun was shining in verse 1.I have already explained why the heavens became black you may need to review and I have given scientific reasons for there being water produced when God turned them off and then turned them back on in day 4 that you read.And again we have "snow ball earth" as an evidence for this darkness in verse 2.I know science rejects a gap or a full extinction that happened but they are wrong,and they are wrong because they look at everything from an evolution perspective.

I doubt anyone here told you that you should "believe evolution because the scientists say so". In fact, I would strongly discourage anybody from believing anything simply because person X said so.
Instead, I would ask you to drop your personal biases and consider the evidence.

You say that there is no evidence for evolution, yet we've given you tonnes just in this thread alone. That you choose to dismiss it without giving it any thought is not our fault.
You say that evolution is believed on faith and that the bible is somehow contrary to evolution. (I would agree on that last one) However, many biologists are bible-believing Christians, they merely interpret the evidence differently. Robbert T. Bakker, Kenneth Miller and Theodosius Dobzhansky, to name but three, are/were all very serious scientists, they not only accept evolution but are/were active champions of it and they're all Christians, too.
You claim that "created kinds" exist, yet Dragan Glas pointed you to two peer reviewed articles, both of which directly refute the notion of created kinds.

So yes, you are very "anti-science".


Yes I do say there is no evidence for macro-evolution and you know it. It is assumed life evolves but there is no way to know based on the evidence thus far.Evolution is believed by faith based on this fact. And see this is important because Satan is a liar and a deceiver and he covers up the truth of God's word and despite not realizing it,he is using evolution to cover up the truth about the former world that existed that perished. I know you don't believe in Satan but the bible teaches about him. And I have briefly given examples of other things Satan has tried to cover up for instance he uses horoscope signs to cover up thew fact that the heavens declare the glory of God and all 12 signs of the zodiac line up with both the old and new testament.But astrology covers up the truth about them. Evolution is another cover up for the former world that existed that perished and this is why the evidence of an old earth,fossils,coal and oil are evidence it is true.And I have given evidence that proves the Gap theory was being preached before Darwin wrote his books and evolution took off like it did.So you cannot say that I'm making the science fit or hijacking the evidence used for evolution,but I think you will.

I've dealt with this over in the "macroevolution challenge".
If a fish were to evolve arms and legs, would that be macroevolution?
If a single-celled organism were to evolve into a multi-cellular organism, would that be macroevolution?
How about becoming better at something (eg. being able to use more food) while a nucleotide deletion takes place? (loss of information?)

So far, creationists only agreed that this is macroevolution when they didn't know that this has been directly observed. What would you say?

Also, this is the second time you've dodged my challenges:As I already stated in numerous threads before, any idea or hypothesis can only be scientific if we know what would falsify it. So ablecainsbrother, in the light of Karl Popper's "Science as Falsification", I again ask you the following: What would falsify your "old earth creationism" idea?

We already know what would falsify evolution: To name but one example, fossil bunnies in the cambrian.


Can you explain to me when macro-evolution comes up why evolutionists get amnesia about the things evolution teaches us? Like over time dinosaurs evolved into birds yet when we ask for evidence amnesia sets in. Why is this? I've even heard evolutionists contradict themselves by saying it would prove evolution wrong if one kind of animakl evolved into another kind,this is a contradiction of everything evolution has taught for years that dinosaurs evolved into birds. The fact is there is no evidence that can demonstrate a dinosaur can evolve into a bird. And yet you believe it without evidence,why? You could just believe the bible instead.

Why the need for falsification? I really don't see a need if we are really going by evidence. I believe in the Gap theory and have provided evidence to back it up.What more would you want? Evolutionists can't do this and so falsification means very little.
Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:03 am
Darkprophet232User avatarPosts: 226Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:42 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

abelcainsbrother wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code. Codon 1 AUG Codon 2 ACG Codon 3 GAG codon 4 CUU codon 5 CGG codon 6 AGC codon 7 UAG. I thought DNA does not contain letters? It has been decoded by humans and it is evidence of an intelligent designer.


Do you honestly believe that when we look at DNA, we see these letters floating around?
“The man who believes that the secrets of the world are forever hidden lives in mystery and fear. Superstition will drag him down." -The Judge
Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:32 am
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

abelcainsbrother wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code. Codon 1 AUG Codon 2 ACG Codon 3 GAG codon 4 CUU codon 5 CGG codon 6 AGC codon 7 UAG. I thought DNA does not contain letters? It has been decoded by humans and it is evidence of an intelligent designer.



Image


With that out of the way, please tell us how you interpret that link you posted in whole and or part that points to 'letters being decoded' from DNA.

Are you inferring that science discovered the letters GATC (and I guess U) within DNA?

When it comes to how you ask questions regarding demonstration, you don't even grasp what the the word.
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:41 am
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Why the need for falsification? I really don't see a need if we are really going by evidence. I believe in the Gap theory and have provided evidence to back it up.What more would you want? Evolutionists can't do this and so falsification means very little.


What you are saying here gets to the crux of all your arguments. Without falsification, then every single proposition to an explanation to absolutely anything would be equal to any other therefore casting validity to everything and anything made up. That is what you want so you can equate your point of view like it is reasonable, just like everything else.

Plain and simple, if you propose a statement, prediction, or hypothesis without falsifiability, then it can not be verified to be true, and still not disproved. If it cannot be verified to be true, then it is not. The default position is always false against the position until it can be proven to not be false, and that's why your gap theory fails.

Your claims to liking, enjoying and studying science are bogus.

Claim after claim. Statement after statement verifies this as a fact that you do not understand science, the scientific method, evidence, demonstration, evolution, biblical interpretations, using the space bar after punctuation, and so on. We are trying each in our own way to present things to you, and get you to correct your misunderstandings, and mis-using of many things.

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
Confucius
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:08 am
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Darkprophet232 wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code. Codon 1 AUG Codon 2 ACG Codon 3 GAG codon 4 CUU codon 5 CGG codon 6 AGC codon 7 UAG. I thought DNA does not contain letters? It has been decoded by humans and it is evidence of an intelligent designer.


Do you honestly believe that when we look at DNA, we see these letters floating around?


No I don't,this was decoded.It is like a secret message from God that God knew we would discover one day.It is the genetic code that tells the cells what to build and where to build itBut I could add even more evidence for God because notice there are 7 codons. In the bible we see that 7 is a Godly number.God rested on the 7th day,there are 7 candle holder on a jewish menorah,etc.the number 7 is a biblical Godly number. 777
Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:14 am
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Image

7′s the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that’s the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin’ on a branch, eatin’ lots of sunflowers on my uncle’s ranch. You know that old children’s tale from the sea. It’s like you’re dreamin’ about Gorgonzola cheese when it’s clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:31 am
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Mugnuts wrote:Image

7′s the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that’s the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin’ on a branch, eatin’ lots of sunflowers on my uncle’s ranch. You know that old children’s tale from the sea. It’s like you’re dreamin’ about Gorgonzola cheese when it’s clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.



I actually just realized it when I found the link and was typing it out.I have researched it before but overlooked it.
Tue Aug 26, 2014 6:52 am
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Now you are bringing numerology into this... :roll: . Why not get cracking not the massive pile of questions piling up on you. You have answered some (but not adequate to the standards of a coherent reply), and more keep piling up.

Your next post better be addressed to these many points that have been addressed to you specifically to actually back up your claims.

Dragan put a lot of time going over each point of contestation, quite thoroughly, and with a shrug of your shoulder and swoop of a keystroke you put a cut and paste repeat reply, and brushed all of it aside to go on to more topics you know nothing about.

Inferno is repeating his question regarding the phylogeny. Answer it or honestly admit you cannot.

As for demonstration...LOOK IT UP. Demonstration does not mean only having it presented to you happening in real time. Evidence and logic can be used to determine a phenomena. Evolution is the phenomena, and the massive amount of evidence are fossils, links in genetics, vestigial organs, etc. These all line up concordantly pointing to one conclusion. Evolution Happens! Laying out this evidence in all forms that information comes in is presented to any and everyone, and is therefore demonstrated. Just like in a court of law it would convince all juries. Providing that the jury selection removes all with biases....hmmm...why do they do that I suppose?

We've given you the links. We've asked you pertinent questions. Quit ignoring them.

Most of us have done our homework regarding your claims and positions, and it is about damn time you did the same. If I can go John Langdon's writings and I did some extra reading after finding the sites that those links came from, then you can do the same with the PZ Meyers link I gave, and the links Dragan and Inferno gave (all the orangey words were links you know).

Fuck me, who hasn't sent you somewhere to have you come back retorting flies are still flies, just plain ignorance, a change of the subject, over usage of bible verses, or a cut and paste the same reply you always do.
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:10 am
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

ablecainsbrother wrote:Codon 1 AUG Codon 2 ACG Codon 3 GAG codon 4 CUU codon 5 CGG codon 6 AGC codon 7 UAG. I thought DNA does not contain letters? It has been decoded by humans and it is evidence of an intelligent designer.


I would suggest you take a basic course in biology. A, C, G and U (or T, depending) are merely the letters we humans have assigned to the nucleobases. At its most basic, they are chemistry. For example, Adenine is made up of 3 Hydrogen atoms and 5 Nitrogen atoms. At no point can we see the "letter A" in our microscopes. Add to that hydrogen bonds and phosphate-deoxyribose groups and you've got DNA.

Let me repeat that again: The letters A, C, G, U and T are human constructs, they do not appear in real life.

ablecainsbrother wrote:You are overlooking what verse 1 tells us in Genesis ."In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Notice the word heaven or heavens in the NIV version you are reading.This means the sun was shining when God first created everything this includes the planets,stars,moon,etc so we already had sun light.


Really? That's odd. How come the sun (and the moon) is made only between the 14th and 19th verse? The stars are also made then, which I take it should be after the first verse, chronologically.

ablecainsbrother wrote:Science overlooks the Gap which I have pointed out,this is the whole point of 2nd Peter 3:3-5 because science teaches that there have never been no full extinctions and that since life got started it has never completely went extinct,this is because everything is looked at from an evolution perspective and this is the point of 2nd Peter 3:3-5 "Knowing this first,that there shall come in the last days mockers,walking after their own lusts,AND saying,Where is the promise of his coming?for since the fathers fell asleep,all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."


You're not making a lot of sense. Are you saying that scientists are wrong and life really did go extinct? If so, what evidence do you have to back this up? Also, what has 2 Peter 3:3-5 got to do with this?

ablecainsbrother wrote:You see you believe the latter part of that verse because of evolution science but Peter tells us in verse 5-7 that they are ignorant of the former world that perished in water and the gap in between it and this world.You may need to review what I've said.


I'd rather review evidence, not something a semi-literate creationist has said. And that's being mean to semi-literate people.
Really, there is absolutely no evidence of a world-wide flood, neither 4000 years ago nor at any other point. Even if, contrary to the evidence, we assume that there had been a world-wide flood, not a single fish would have died in the making of that particular story, so the extinction would have been far from world-wide.

ablecainsbrother wrote:The problem is science is overlooking this Gap and so when they go back billions of years they include the creatures that were in the former world with the ones in this world,however science eventhough they are looking back and believing that all things have continued still have made discoveries that confirm Genesis 1 true like I have pointed out.


So far, you've pointed out absolutely nothing of value and I've shown (twice now) that the Bible is rubbish.

ablecainsbrother wrote:If you understand that the sun was shining in verse 1


It obviously wasn't, because God only (supposedly) made it somewhere after the 14th verse. It even says so right there!

ablecainsbrother wrote:I have already explained why the heavens became black you may need to review and I have given scientific reasons for there being water produced when God turned them off and then turned them back on in day 4 that you read.


First, it says "let there be", which Bible-scholars universally take as "created for the first time". How you can interpret this differently is beyond me. If you do interpret it that way, you could then interpret the 1st verse differently and claim that the Universe was dormant before that and God only turned it back on, like a light switch. What a load of rubbish.
Second, when have you given "scientific reasons" for anything, let alone the "heavens" turning black? There is, as far as I'm aware, not a single instance in the history of the universe when the stars suddenly stopped shining.
Third, how was the water produced?
Fourth, God really used a light switch? Really? Is this the level we have stooped to? I'm thinking we should invite BananaMan or CrocoduckMan on, they'd bring more sense into this conversation than you have.

ablecainsbrother wrote:And again we have "snow ball earth" as an evidence for this darkness in verse 2.


The "snowball earth hypothesis" is not only highly disputed, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that it's complete bollocks. In any case, this would mean that the "darkness" was only on the earth, not on any other planet, nor even on the outside of the earth. Now you're just clinging to straws.

ablecainsbrother wrote:I know science rejects a gap or a full extinction that happened but they are wrong,and they are wrong because they look at everything from an evolution perspective.


You keep repeating this "from an evolution perspective" nonsense, but do you even know why it's wrong? There is no "evolution perspective", there's only a scientific perspective and a non-scientific one. Before people came up with evolution, they obviously didn't have an "evolution perspective", so how did they arrive at evolution? Furthermore, you do understand that the person who would actually be able to prove evolution wrong would be rich and famous?

ablecainsbrother wrote:Yes I do say there is no evidence for macro-evolution and you know it. It is assumed life evolves but there is no way to know based on the evidence thus far.Evolution is believed by faith based on this fact.


Based on what fact?
Never mind, here's only two pieces of the puzzle:
Fish with feet are evidence of macroevolution even by creationists standards and the evolution of single-celled to multicellular life is certainly macro-evolution in action.

Multicellular evolution wrote:Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Starting from single celled animals, each of which has the capability to reproduce there is no s@x in the sense that we think of the term. Selective pressure has been observed to convert single-cellular forms into multicellular forms. A case was observed in which a single celled form changed to multicellularity.
Boxhorn, a student of Boraas,writes:
Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."


What was that about evidence again?

ablecainsbrother wrote:And see this is important because Satan is a liar and a deceiver and he covers up the truth of God's word and despite not realizing it,he is using evolution to cover up the truth about the former world that existed that perished. I know you don't believe in Satan but the bible teaches about him. And I have briefly given examples of other things Satan has tried to cover up for instance he uses horoscope signs to cover up thew fact that the heavens declare the glory of God and all 12 signs of the zodiac line up with both the old and new testament.But astrology covers up the truth about them. Evolution is another cover up for the former world that existed that perished and this is why the evidence of an old earth,fossils,coal and oil are evidence it is true.And I have given evidence that proves the Gap theory was being preached before Darwin wrote his books and evolution took off like it did.So you cannot say that I'm making the science fit or hijacking the evidence used for evolution,but I think you will.


Image

That's all I have to say. You're obviously out of touch with reality and I'd strongly suggest you see somebody about that. I won't waste my time with you any more.
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:46 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

abelcainsbrother wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code. Codon 1 AUG Codon 2 ACG Codon 3 GAG codon 4 CUU codon 5 CGG codon 6 AGC codon 7 UAG. I thought DNA does not contain letters? It has been decoded by humans and it is evidence of an intelligent designer.


You understand the concept of using symbols to represent something as a form of shorthand, right? Letters are used to represent the standard nucleobases, each of which is a moderately complicated molecule. You could write out the full molecular formula instead (e.g. "C5H5N5" instead of "A") and it would mean exactly the same thing. You could use abstract symbols instead of letters and it would mean the same thing.

In another context, we use "A" to mean "220Hz". Does doing so involve decoding a secret language?

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is like a secret message from God that God knew we would discover one day.It is the genetic code that tells the cells what to build and where to build itBut I could add even more evidence for God because notice there are 7 codons. In the bible we see that 7 is a Godly number.God rested on the 7th day,there are 7 candle holder on a jewish menorah,etc.the number 7 is a biblical Godly number. 777


This is an excellent example of your cherry picking. You skimmed the first bit of a wikipedia article and noticed that there are 7 codons in the example and decided that this meant that this was evidence for God. Read the text under that diagram carefully.

wikipedia wrote:A series of codons in part of a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule.


There are in fact 64 codons (4^3).
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:08 pm
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

ablecainsbrother wrote:
Yes I do say there is no evidence for macro-evolution and you know it. It is assumed life evolves but there is no way to know based on the evidence thus far.Evolution is believed by faith based on this fact.


Based on what fact?
Never mind, here's only two pieces of the puzzle:
Fish with feet are evidence of macroevolution even by creationists standards and the evolution of single-celled to multicellular life is certainly macro-evolution in action.


Multicellular evolution wrote:
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Starting from single celled animals, each of which has the capability to reproduce there is no s@x in the sense that we think of the term. Selective pressure has been observed to convert single-cellular forms into multicellular forms. A case was observed in which a single celled form changed to multicellularity.
Boxhorn, a student of Boraas,writes:
Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."


What was that about evidence again?



Finally! I am glad you've finally tried to give evidence for macro-evolution as it has been ignored by everybody else but as we all can see it is very weak evidence especially when the fish with legs is just a fish. And the algea evidence is weak too. http://my.execpc.com/~jboxhorn/armsrace.html. Evolution is believed by faith and it is time evolutionists admit it so that they can put their faith in the bible and God again instead of evolution. Just like I have said there is no reason to believe in evolution when both evolution and the bible are believed by faith and Satan uses evolution to cover up the truth and deceive people away from God. You can believe anything you choose to and nobody can change your mind if you are hard-headed but I have given much more compelling evidence for old earth Gap theory creationism if you read through and compare.

I think evolutionists know they have weak evidence for evolution and yet it is preached and taught as fervently as creationism is but is pure state funded indoctrination and because the evidence is so weak it proves it is a lie from Satan the father of lies because the truth is always backed up by evidence and theories and lies are not. Based on the evidence presented you no longer need to doubt the bible based on more compelling evidence I have provided.

Compare the evidence I have given for the Gap theory to this evidence and the biblical Gap theory wins based on evidence not what I just say and believe like with evolution.I don't use intimidation I use evidence instead to back up what I believe.
Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:54 am
abelcainsbrotherBannedUser avatarPosts: 774Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:33 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

I realize a lot of you don't know much about old earth Gap theory creationism that was being preached in the church long before Charles Darwin wrote his books and evolution took off but the old earth biblical Gap theory is still just as true today as before Darwin wrote his books.This is why the church needs to forget young earth creationism and revive the Gap theory like preachers like Thomas Chalmers did.The Gap theory was the bread and butter for Christians at that time before Darwin wrote his books and geological evidence of an old earth was being discovered not young earth creationism but Satan has blinded even the church to the truth as most protestant Christians believe in young earth creationism,they mean well but have misinterpreted the bible to believe it tells us the universe and earth are 6-10,000 years old.This causes them to have to cram all of the geological evidence into 6000 years and only have Noah's flood to work with,so they cram even dinosaurs into 6000 years too overlooking the former world that existed that perished.So we Gap theorists are overlooked right now by much of the church eventhough it is more effective against evolution than any orther theory out there I know of.We should blend Intelligent design and old earth Gap theory creationism because Michael Behe has been vindicated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itkxFby ... jbRmr3OQ0A
Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:29 am
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5009Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Looks like someone's record player needs a new needle, it keeps skipping back to the beginning of the track.

Sent from my Commodore 64
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:07 am
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: "Let us reason amongst the brethren"

Once again, ignore everything and repeat every false and inaccurate claims again.

Seriously, WTF DUDE? "Your evidence is weak, therefore I am right." Are you serious? What a compelling argument.

What a pointless farce this is. If you are not even going to try, then you should just stop all together.

How about this for a larf...ACB, please go on and tell us more about the lies from Satan. What else is he covering up? Not bible stuff, but things in the present.
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:39 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 13 of 17
 [ 337 posts ] 
Return to Creationism/ID

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests