Hello i have limited time but when you are debating someone who believes we all came from a rock (taken from 6th Grade science text book) and that the birds and bananas are related ( Darwin "Origin of spieces and the suggested theory of superior RACES") it doesn't take much time.
I know i will not be the favorite of the people that believe in the Evolution RELIGON (yes it is a religion you can debate me on that). but please keep your messages short or keep them brief and to the point as i said i have limited time.
I'm a creationist hear me roar!!!!
Moderator: Moderators
-
killingevolution
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:17 am
Post #11
Hi QED --- and thanks for your response. It has prompted me to acknowledge that in one respect, you make a good point. But within the context of the biological evolution (the central theme of Killer's challenge) one perhaps finds a stronger case that "Genetic Programming", with "intelligence" essential in the initial program, actually provides stronger support intelligence (I.D.?) being involved in the appearance and development of currently existing life. Curiously, a similar situations exists with the information sources upon which evo-devo relies.
There is much, undeniable evidence supporting the FACT physical life while incredibly complex and remarkablly adaptable, is still most fragile. ... and NO evidence (beyond mental "belief") that even computer assisted design (CAD) with infinent generations of multiple permutations might yield capabilities beyond those already pre-existing in the designing mechanism and in the raw materials (DNA) involved.
How much easier (and more profitable) it would be to develop "perpetual motion" -- or find a way to spark "life" into a newly deceased baby (with all right chemicals pre-assembled in proper order). Science has rightly recognized that some desired goals are physically impossible. The barriers in nature against their occurrance cannot be denied. So while it is certainly acceptable for some to persist in such efforts, until they have some verifiable evidence, or at least a proper mathematical model, presenting unverified interim explanations as SCIENCE is putting a new inferior meaning on the word. Here I'm reminded of Dr. Popper's reasoned advice telling us: "I propose that we take the methodological decision never to explain physical effects, i.e.reproducible regularities, as accumulations of accidents." [Popper, Karl; THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY; Basic Bookis; 1982; Pg. 199]
Wordsmith
so
In my superficial ability to keep abreast of the many new
QED, in your world of "science", do you really consider the complex program being used does not constitute "intelligent input"? And what is it about "intelligent" GP that inspires such confidence? I lived through similar optimism regarding bell-jar experiments in the 50s, only later to have to accept that the longer they continued (with 6 day fruit fly generation) the more apparent it became that the (entropy-like)) barriers in unguided natural forces, flows like times arrow, ever downward -- from initial viable gene pools to less viable gene pools, to dust. Indeed, this was one of the strong disapointments prompting me to question my then strong "faith" in evolution.QED wrote:Wordsmith, whether deliberate or not, you're making it very difficult to "bring you to book" over the statement you made above. Reading back from post#3 onwards it seems that the language we're talking is clearly computer -- namely the field know as Genetic Programming -- and is not "so general (imprecise, vague)" as you now claim it to be. If you read my post #8 you should now know that Genetic Programming is not just a thought experiment and that it does deliver "intelligent" design without intelligent input -- contrary to your above statement.Wordsmith wrote: a straightforward reply might be "They haven't -- and it works in one's "mind" only if they ignore the known FACT the great majority of "undirected' changes in such programs do not just destroy previously functional code, they "hang Up" the machine so even any few "non-lethel" substitutions possibly(?) accumulated are ALL lost and you have to start afresh.
There is much, undeniable evidence supporting the FACT physical life while incredibly complex and remarkablly adaptable, is still most fragile. ... and NO evidence (beyond mental "belief") that even computer assisted design (CAD) with infinent generations of multiple permutations might yield capabilities beyond those already pre-existing in the designing mechanism and in the raw materials (DNA) involved.
How much easier (and more profitable) it would be to develop "perpetual motion" -- or find a way to spark "life" into a newly deceased baby (with all right chemicals pre-assembled in proper order). Science has rightly recognized that some desired goals are physically impossible. The barriers in nature against their occurrance cannot be denied. So while it is certainly acceptable for some to persist in such efforts, until they have some verifiable evidence, or at least a proper mathematical model, presenting unverified interim explanations as SCIENCE is putting a new inferior meaning on the word. Here I'm reminded of Dr. Popper's reasoned advice telling us: "I propose that we take the methodological decision never to explain physical effects, i.e.reproducible regularities, as accumulations of accidents." [Popper, Karl; THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY; Basic Bookis; 1982; Pg. 199]
Wordsmith
so
In my superficial ability to keep abreast of the many new
-
killingevolution
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:17 am
hello again
Post #12Dear Mr. Bro Dave
Since i can tell you belive in Intelligent Design I can also tell you do believe this Universe is a wonderful Creation so it must have a Creator
(Who, but God, could devise a system based on four proteins in endless combinations, to create all the wonders of nature? For all our scientific arrogance, we still do not understand how microscopic DNA, defines sizes and shapes billions of times its size, and unfolds their development in time scales that are decades long. Where's the "ruler" that monitors sizes and lengths, and makes arms both the same length? Where is the "clock" that tracks it all, and keeps in on schedule? )
Did you no the the geologic collum only exist in text books? 95% of the world only have 3 or less layers and in the layers petrified trees have been found standing up not rotted.
and that for many reasons this earth can not be more than 25,000 years old such as but not limited to
1. The moon is moving away from the earth that means it used to be closer (did i lose you so far?) Waves would have moved florida beach to Chicago
2. The earth is spinning slower which means it used to be spinning faster (did i lose you?) the animals would been thrown of the earth plus the G forces would be unbearable, The days and night would extremely fast (get up go to sleep get up go to sleep)
i have many more if you want more
Since i can tell you belive in Intelligent Design I can also tell you do believe this Universe is a wonderful Creation so it must have a Creator
(Who, but God, could devise a system based on four proteins in endless combinations, to create all the wonders of nature? For all our scientific arrogance, we still do not understand how microscopic DNA, defines sizes and shapes billions of times its size, and unfolds their development in time scales that are decades long. Where's the "ruler" that monitors sizes and lengths, and makes arms both the same length? Where is the "clock" that tracks it all, and keeps in on schedule? )
Did you no the the geologic collum only exist in text books? 95% of the world only have 3 or less layers and in the layers petrified trees have been found standing up not rotted.
and that for many reasons this earth can not be more than 25,000 years old such as but not limited to
1. The moon is moving away from the earth that means it used to be closer (did i lose you so far?) Waves would have moved florida beach to Chicago
2. The earth is spinning slower which means it used to be spinning faster (did i lose you?) the animals would been thrown of the earth plus the G forces would be unbearable, The days and night would extremely fast (get up go to sleep get up go to sleep)
i have many more if you want more
Re: hello again
Post #13killingevolution wrote:Dear Mr. Bro Dave
Since i can tell you belive in Intelligent Design I can also tell you do believe this Universe is a wonderful Creation so it must have a Creator
(Who, but God, could devise a system based on four proteins in endless combinations, to create all the wonders of nature? For all our scientific arrogance, we still do not understand how microscopic DNA, defines sizes and shapes billions of times its size, and unfolds their development in time scales that are decades long. Where's the "ruler" that monitors sizes and lengths, and makes arms both the same length? Where is the "clock" that tracks it all, and keeps in on schedule? )
Did you no the the geologic collum only exist in text books? 95% of the world only have 3 or less layers and in the layers petrified trees have been found standing up not rotted.
and that for many reasons this earth can not be more than 25,000 years old such as but not limited to
1. The moon is moving away from the earth that means it used to be closer (did i lose you so far?) Waves would have moved florida beach to Chicago
2. The earth is spinning slower which means it used to be spinning faster (did i lose you?) the animals would been thrown of the earth plus the G forces would be unbearable, The days and night would extremely fast (get up go to sleep get up go to sleep)
i have many more if you want more
Gidday KillingEvolution,
Pardon my sarcasm in this post but you really need to learn up on some fundamentals before you deem yourself capable of killing anything.
What four proteins are these?*killingevolution wrote: Who, but God, could devise a system based on four proteins in endless combinations, to create all the wonders of nature?
Exactly what has our supposed lack of knowledge about something got to do with the existence/non-existence of your god or the reality/non-reality of evolution.*KE wrote: For all our scientific arrogance, we still do not understand how microscopic DNA, defines sizes and shapes billions of times its size, and unfolds their development in time scales that are decades long. Where's the "ruler" that monitors sizes and lengths, and makes arms both the same length? Where is the "clock" that tracks it all, and keeps in on schedule? )
We do not really understand gravity. Therefore Zeus exits? Therefore Newton’s law of gravitational attraction is bunk?
So you are saying that the geologic column really does exist but that it is mostly 3 layers?KE wrote: Did you no the the geologic collum only exist in text books? 95% of the world only have 3 or less layers
It a tree was buried in such a way that it could not rot and it petrified, then you would expect to get a non-rotted petrified tree. So how does a non-rotted, standing up, petrified tree kill evolution or prove the existence of your god?KE wrote: … and in the layers petrified trees have been found standing up not rotted.
KE, do a really, really, really simple calculation. I think the current rate of separation between the earth and the moon is 6 cm/year. Assume that rate was maintained for 25000 years. Tell me how much closer to the earth the moon was 25,000 years ago – in km. (Hint, you will need to know that there are 100 cm in a meter and 1000 meters in a km.) Then put this into the context that the moon is some 400,000 km from the earth.KE wrote:.. and that for many reasons this earth can not be more than 25,000 years old such as but not limited to
1. The moon is moving away from the earth that means it used to be closer (did i lose you so far?) Waves would have moved florida beach to Chicago
Then tell me if you still believe that “waves would have moved florida (sic) beach to Chicago” 25,000 years ago.
So, did you bother to check up on the rate at which the earth is slowing before you jumped to the conclusion that if the earth was more than 25000 years old then everybody would have been whizzed off?KE wrote:2. The earth is spinning slower which means it used to be spinning faster (did i lose you?) the animals would been thrown of the earth plus the G forces would be unbearable, The days and night would extremely fast (get up go to sleep get up go to sleep)
I think you need to do a lot of homework first. Sack your scientific adviser before you start though. And pay more attention in school. If you do not do maths then enrol in a class.KE wrote:i have many more if you want more
Regards, Roland
* Since posting I see that the part of your post in italics belongs to Bro Dave, and hence the first two comments I make should be directed at him. However, since you appear to agree with him, then I shall keep the questions directed at you.
-
killingevolution
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:17 am
gidday
Post #14Dear rjw
Quotes 2 and 3 where not my writing they where Bro Dave's. I'm sorry for not giving adequate example's for the earth being only 25,000 years old but they are good examples for showing the earth isn't Billions of years old. the easiest way to kill the Evolution religon is to show that the earth is not even millions of years old. So i'm sorry for that. Please do not use fossils for evidence since there is no way to measure that. Alright now i made you mad you now say hey he must of forgot radio-metric dating and aging the fossils by the rocks (aka circular reasoning). i'll will prove you wrong on these but i must go as i said i have limited time.
Quotes 2 and 3 where not my writing they where Bro Dave's. I'm sorry for not giving adequate example's for the earth being only 25,000 years old but they are good examples for showing the earth isn't Billions of years old. the easiest way to kill the Evolution religon is to show that the earth is not even millions of years old. So i'm sorry for that. Please do not use fossils for evidence since there is no way to measure that. Alright now i made you mad you now say hey he must of forgot radio-metric dating and aging the fossils by the rocks (aka circular reasoning). i'll will prove you wrong on these but i must go as i said i have limited time.
-
killingevolution
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:17 am
Re: hello again
Post #16Killer ---
Your enthusiasm and naivety are boundless. Would that your curiosity and patient learning become the same. Lurk awhile, across many of the subforums and pick the ones where you might be most effective.
This is a "science" oriented forum .... and most of the folks you are addressing speak from extended experience. They have all advanced well beyond the examples you reference, and have well established reasons (in their mind) why they find them less than compelling.
Iin such debate, I strive to limit myself to arguments, and counter-arguments, supported by one of several established "scientific-methods". This being similar to that followed by many early scientific founders, who from a wide range of backgrounds and experience let their religion follow where empirical evidence led them.
"Mechanistic evolutionists" often reflect non-Theistic religions (or world-views) as Scientology, Budhism, Taoism, Humanistic Judism, Secular Humanism, Unity, Agnosticism, Athiesm, etc.
"Theisistic evolutionists", while retaining basic Christian features, embrace the I.D. approach to scientific problem solving which recognizes and accepts that "intelligence" is a necessary variable in the production of the specific complexity unique in appearance and development of life observable on earth.
"I.D." is an alternate approach to "Mechanistic" problem solving. Neither are religious per se. Only as an individual identifies some empirically unveriable identification of the "cause", "purpose" (if any) or ultimate "destiny" of their life does either qualify as RELIGION (within its Constitutional context).
Good luck Killer, study hard, test what you "believe" and make haste slowly!
Wordsmith.
Your enthusiasm and naivety are boundless. Would that your curiosity and patient learning become the same. Lurk awhile, across many of the subforums and pick the ones where you might be most effective.
This is a "science" oriented forum .... and most of the folks you are addressing speak from extended experience. They have all advanced well beyond the examples you reference, and have well established reasons (in their mind) why they find them less than compelling.
Iin such debate, I strive to limit myself to arguments, and counter-arguments, supported by one of several established "scientific-methods". This being similar to that followed by many early scientific founders, who from a wide range of backgrounds and experience let their religion follow where empirical evidence led them.
"Mechanistic evolutionists" often reflect non-Theistic religions (or world-views) as Scientology, Budhism, Taoism, Humanistic Judism, Secular Humanism, Unity, Agnosticism, Athiesm, etc.
"Theisistic evolutionists", while retaining basic Christian features, embrace the I.D. approach to scientific problem solving which recognizes and accepts that "intelligence" is a necessary variable in the production of the specific complexity unique in appearance and development of life observable on earth.
"I.D." is an alternate approach to "Mechanistic" problem solving. Neither are religious per se. Only as an individual identifies some empirically unveriable identification of the "cause", "purpose" (if any) or ultimate "destiny" of their life does either qualify as RELIGION (within its Constitutional context).
Good luck Killer, study hard, test what you "believe" and make haste slowly!
Wordsmith.
killingevolution wrote:Dear Mr. Bro Dave
Since i can tell you belive in Intelligent Design I can also tell you do believe this Universe is a wonderful Creation so it must have a Creator
(Who, but God, could devise a system based on four proteins in endless combinations, to create all the wonders of nature? For all our scientific arrogance, we still do not understand how microscopic DNA, defines sizes and shapes billions of times its size, and unfolds their development in time scales that are decades long.
Re: gidday
Post #17It's even easier to kill the Theistic Evolution religion by showing how racist neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are.killingevolution wrote:the easiest way to kill the Evolution religon is to show that the earth is not even millions of years old.
The human fossils prove how racist modern neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of Africa are. They are all human, despite their racial diversity.Please do not use fossils for evidence since there is no way to measure that.
Re: hello again
Post #18Wrong. This is a religion and science oriented forum, in case you harbor any prejudices against religion. Scientists don't have any more "experience" that anyone else does. So much for that form of supremacy.Wordsmith wrote:This is a "science" oriented forum .... and most of the folks you are addressing speak from extended experience.
So you think that scientists are superior to people of religious faith. Nice of you to admit it.They have all advanced well beyond the examples you reference, and have well established reasons (in their mind) why they find them less than compelling.
Ooooo. "Scientific methods" of attaining knowledge and wisdom are superior to all other epistimological systems and methods of learning. You read it first here, folks. Darwinists think they are wiser Homo sapiens than the rest of you religious Homo sapiens.In such debate, I strive to limit myself to arguments, and counter-arguments, supported by one of several established "scientific-methods".
Yes, neo-Darwinists are true followers of the European enlightened ones who turned their backs on revealed truth and decided to establish their own version of 'truth' and then try to force everyone else to believe in their scientific superiority which borders on claims of infallibilty. What a joke. The Muslims are going to make mincemeat out of Social Darwinist and Marxist secularism in France, Belgium and Denmark.This being similar to that followed by many early scientific founders, who from a wide range of backgrounds and experience let their religion follow where empirical evidence led them.
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #19
jcrawford and killingevolution I have not seen you do either
kill the Theistic Evolution religion or kill the Evolution religion.
In fact your ideas are not even credible or reasonable and lack any kind of support. If any thing you have shown an inability to grasp the subject or understand the arguments that have been leveled against your simplistic dogma and irrational belief system. I have seen 5 year olds with a better grasp of reality and they color inside the lines. Time and time again you have made some outrageous claims and have been corrected only to have you repeat the same nonsense. You have taken a myth that your unable to defend or even show relevance and mindlessly attacked well established data and theory with just plan repetitive nonsense that and uneducated farmer could understand. I suppose now that you have two of you babbling you will claim some kind of victory. I say we take a vote on you effectiveness. I must say others have been long suffering and kind as well as presenting well documented and argued, informative posts.
Shall we vote folks? Debate or discussion is obviously futile and becoming redundant. I suggest you go "debate" with some LSD experimenters that may enjoy your rants.
I hold these truths to be self evident and they should not be taken as a personal attack that would not be understood anyway.
I would think that you would make anyone with any religious leaning blush. It is a good thing that Christianity is not dependent upon your tragic defense.
I must admit I have had many a good laugh when I should have been crying.
Michael the Cathar1950
kill the Theistic Evolution religion or kill the Evolution religion.
In fact your ideas are not even credible or reasonable and lack any kind of support. If any thing you have shown an inability to grasp the subject or understand the arguments that have been leveled against your simplistic dogma and irrational belief system. I have seen 5 year olds with a better grasp of reality and they color inside the lines. Time and time again you have made some outrageous claims and have been corrected only to have you repeat the same nonsense. You have taken a myth that your unable to defend or even show relevance and mindlessly attacked well established data and theory with just plan repetitive nonsense that and uneducated farmer could understand. I suppose now that you have two of you babbling you will claim some kind of victory. I say we take a vote on you effectiveness. I must say others have been long suffering and kind as well as presenting well documented and argued, informative posts.
Shall we vote folks? Debate or discussion is obviously futile and becoming redundant. I suggest you go "debate" with some LSD experimenters that may enjoy your rants.
I hold these truths to be self evident and they should not be taken as a personal attack that would not be understood anyway.
I would think that you would make anyone with any religious leaning blush. It is a good thing that Christianity is not dependent upon your tragic defense.
I must admit I have had many a good laugh when I should have been crying.
Michael the Cathar1950
Re: gidday
Post #20killingevolution wrote:Dear rjw
Quotes 2 and 3 where not my writing they where Bro Dave's. I'm sorry for not giving adequate example's for the earth being only 25,000 years old but they are good examples for showing the earth isn't Billions of years old. the easiest way to kill the Evolution religon is to show that the earth is not even millions of years old. So i'm sorry for that. Please do not use fossils for evidence since there is no way to measure that. Alright now i made you mad you now say hey he must of forgot radio-metric dating and aging the fossils by the rocks (aka circular reasoning). i'll will prove you wrong on these but i must go as i said i have limited time.
Hello killingevolution,
Re BroDave – my apologies. I was confused.
As for your reply? No I shall not worry about fossils or radiometric dating for now. I am interested in what you wrote.
Let us just concentrate on the moon and its recession.
I claim that the moon/earth system is in line with the age agreed to by most scientists. That is, I claim it is 4.6 billion years old. Assuming the average rate of recession for the moon has been 6 cm/year for the whole of that time, then redo the calculation and tell me why the earth cannot be 4.6 billion years old!
Regards, Roland
