|
|
Post by rational on Jan 31, 2016 22:10:05 GMT -5
So have evolutionists changed their format ? When the supporting data changes the theory is modified to accommodate the new information. Pretty obvious you gleaned this bit of misinformation from a creationist site. A straw man set up, as far as I can tell, to point out their ignorance.And still like the toddler with the stamping feet, you provide no details to support what you claim.It is clear that you have almost no knowledge of the theory you are attempting to ridicule. But keep going, it is revealing. |
|
|
|
Post by Todd ler on Jan 31, 2016 23:36:44 GMT -5
So have evolutionists changed their format ? When the supporting data changes the theory is modified to accommodate the new information. Pretty obvious you gleaned this bit of misinformation from a creationist site. A straw man set up, as far as I can tell, to point out their ignorance.And still like the toddler with the stamping feet, you provide no details to support what you claim.It is clear that you have almost no knowledge of the theory you are attempting to ridicule. But keep going, it is revealing. Truly an exercise in futility. Nevertheless can I accept comments from sources that are evolutionists? Or do some of them also "stomp their feet" ? From web: notmanynoble.wordpress.com Refer to : Tradesecrets of paleontology There is a huge disappointment of the lack of fossil evidence among evolutionists that are quoted . Please don't read these quotes it might make you see that it isn't just about ID vs evolutionists. This is about evolutionists that are bailing out on lack of evidence to support the theories I believe some are looking at alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2016 23:41:56 GMT -5
Yes but Spike was an atheist so he had a different perspective of evolutionists don't you believe that the Big Bang is integrated into the theology of evolutionists?
I have had many encounters with Christians claiming the same thing.
They tend to wave that flag as if it to show that they now know the TRUTH.
I tend to believe that they were simply non-religious and had not really given much, if any, thought to whether there was, or was not, a "god."
They had not thought through the idea.
Now that they are Christians they want to claim ATHEISM when they actually didn't know anything about what the term meant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Todd ler on Jan 31, 2016 23:53:31 GMT -5
Programming of life written by Dr Don Johnson
Totally exposes the weakness of evolution as
it is
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 1, 2016 0:01:24 GMT -5
Yes but Spike was an atheist so he had a different perspective of evolutionists don't you believe that the Big Bang is integrated into the theology of evolutionists?
I have had many encounters with Christians claiming the same thing.
They tend to wave that flag as if it to show that they now know the TRUTH.
I tend to believe that they were simply non-religious and had not really given much, if any, thought to whether there was, or was not, a "god."
They had not thought through the idea.
Now that they are Christians they want to claim ATHEISM when they actually didn't know anything about what the term meant.
Personally I find Dr Don Johnson , information scientist and physical scientist to illuminate some of the common sense and scientific realities about how life came to be Without doubt you will not agree with everything But be makes a very nice presentation of facts. Thanks for being kind. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Feb 1, 2016 0:03:58 GMT -5
Dr Johnson also had some related videos about
evolution, etc
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 1, 2016 0:46:51 GMT -5
When the supporting data changes the theory is modified to accommodate the new information. Pretty obvious you gleaned this bit of misinformation from a creationist site. A straw man set up, as far as I can tell, to point out their ignorance.And still like the toddler with the stamping feet, you provide no details to support what you claim.It is clear that you have almost no knowledge of the theory you are attempting to ridicule. But keep going, it is revealing. Truly an exercise in futility. Nevertheless can I accept comments from sources that are evolutionists? Or do some of them also "stomp their feet" ? From web : notmanynoble.wordpress.comRefer to : Trade secrets of paleontology There is a huge disappointment of the lack of fossil evidence among evolutionists that are quoted . Please don't read these quotes it might make you see that it isn't just about ID vs evolutionists. This is about evolutionists that are bailing out on lack of evidence to support the theories I believe some are looking at alternatives.  I have already read these sites!  Am I distressed?  Hardly!
I have been through those arguments many times now.
You say your cites are from "evolutionists that are bailing out?"
Hardly looks like it.
Look who these sites belong to.
# 1. Trade secrets of paleontology:
This site is from: (guess who?)
"Creation Ministries International
Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history"
So this group are evolutionists that are bailing out? 
# 2. notmanynoble.wordpress.com
Author of the blog states:"I really consider myself just one of the “idiotes”, Greek for one of the marginalized unlearned. (See Acts 4:13), and before I placed my faith on the risen Lord Jesus Christ, just a semi reformed, “dirty dog drug addict” from the streets of western L.A.
the author of this site; evolutionist? Doesn't look like it. 
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 1, 2016 13:18:25 GMT -5
Truly an exercise in futility. Nevertheless can I accept comments from sources that are evolutionists? Or do some of them also "stomp their feet" ? They tend to back their claims with data and research. From the blog you memtioned: On pg. 137 the 7th grade textbook Life Science says. “The most abundant evidence for evolution comes from fossils like those found on the shore of Lake Lavon in Texas” , However, they fail to inform the reader exactly what this abundant evidence consists of. After all, if evolution is true, museum shelves should be full of creatures with slowly forming wings, legs and partially formed eye sockets etc. There should be, according to Charles Darwin, millions of true transitionals between bird and mammals, reptile and birds, and all the other major kinds or classes of animals. Again, this is a straw man set up by someone who either does not have a working knowledge of the theory of evolution or is deliberately presenting lies. This description is simply not the current theory of evolution. Believe it or not, things have changed since Darwin published his theory. Using what Darwin wrote to contradict the current theory of evolution would be equivalent to using what Aristotle wrote about the brain, an organ that worked as a cooling agent for the heart, to contradict modern medical theory. Unlike you, I do read and evaluate the references you post. So far, not very impressive support for your claims/beliefs. It is about creationists setting up straw men in a vain attempt to discredit the data in record and the new discoveries. BTW - there are millions of transitional fossils. Creationists just keep saying they don't exist. Actually, today's humans may well become transitional fossils. It just is not clear in the short time humans have been around to what they are transitioning! Transitional fossils of horses.  |
|
|
|
Post by created on Feb 2, 2016 15:21:47 GMT -5
Where did we come from
NOT
Where did God come from
That is unanswerable
Just like we have other unanswerable
questions. : what is. : 10/0 answer : there is no answer
By definition
This God created me, that I do know
And no one created God
|
|
|
|
Post by Todd ler on Feb 2, 2016 20:37:30 GMT -5
I believe those bones likely were unfruitful?
If Only those bones could talk what a tail
they would tell.! It might be a tall tail .
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 3, 2016 0:26:11 GMT -5
Where did we come from NOT Where did God come from That is unanswerable Just like we have other unanswerable questions. : what is. : 10/0 answer : there is no answer By definition T his God created me, that I do knowAnd no one created God
Ah, so you know that "God" created you.
But which god?
The Native American god?
The Egyptian god?
The Hawaiian god?
|
|
|
|
Post by created on Feb 3, 2016 4:50:23 GMT -5
Where did we come from NOT Where did God come from That is unanswerable Just like we have other unanswerable questions. : what is. : 10/0 answer : there is no answer By definition T his God created me, that I do knowAnd no one created God
Ah, so you know that "God" created you.
But which god?[?
You forgot to ask where this GOD came from Unlike other idle idols , this cannot be answered. It is an undefinable concept to human minds Have you ever divided 0 by 0? I accept the known fact that this is an unanswerable question , just like I do not know where GOD (my creator) came from . The fact remains : He created the universe that I live in, and He created me. Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by created on Feb 3, 2016 4:51:03 GMT -5
Where did we come from NOT Where did God come from That is unanswerable Just like we have other unanswerable questions. : what is. : 10/0 answer : there is no answer By definition T his God created me, that I do knowAnd no one created God
Ah, so you know that "God" created you.
But which god?[?
You forgot to ask where this GOD came from Unlike other idle idols , this cannot be answered. It is an undefinable concept to human minds Have you ever divided 0 by 0? I accept the known fact that this is an unanswerable question , just like I do not know where GOD (my creator) came from . The fact remains : He created the universe that I live in, and He created me. Thank you |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2016 9:57:10 GMT -5
I think you are wrong. Could anything make you believe in elves? Could anything make you disbelieve in god? There are a number of things that are unanswered for theists yet you don't discount that theory. If you want an answer regarding what you think are missing facts perhaps asking them would shed light. I have a feeling your sources have not presented you with an accurate view of things. It is like explaining that gravity works because things like each other and want to be close. This is just a restatement of Pascal's Wager. It has a number of flaws. The major one is wouldn't a god know that someone was believing just to hedge their bet on an afterlife? And then the is the issue that with the thousands of gods what are the chances you have discovered the right one? The people of Egypt thought they had the right god for centuries. Doesn't look so good for them now. And in 10,000 years what god(s) will be in favor? I tried to see the intelligent design in the children born with birth defects. On the news today there was a report of a couple who kept their children locked in the bathroom/basement for weeks at a time. Who designed the parents? A quarter of million people died following the earthquake in the Indian ocean - while I am certain the tsunami was a thing of beauty the aftermath probably took away from that. The point is that things happen. Good things and bad things. Had you witnessed a tornado killing people would you still have given credit to god? Or would that have been a force of nature. Sounds fair. When you are wandering around consider that some of the things you see cannot be considered intelligent design. A) If there was concrete evidence as for God then yes I would believe in them  . B)No nothing can make me not believe in God. Yes there is many things I don't understand especially when babies,children and innocent people suffer or are abused. But for myself it would be foolish if I didn't believe because I don't understand. C) I have peace within so that gives me the reassurance that I am serving a living God. But I am sure some on this board would be able to give you more researched information proving that the Bible is in fact backed up by facts. D) Oh yes God would know if we just believe in Him because of what might happen after death. He knows who truly is His, they have His Spirit. |
|
|
|
Post by Todd ler on Feb 3, 2016 14:24:46 GMT -5
Logic
It has been demonstrated that we were
designed , we can accept it or we can
doubt
If we choose to doubt, we are doubting
the most logical understanding of how we
were designed in order to attempt to draft
an unprovable " possibility" that this known life could
have not been designed
It seems that this is really a circular thought
Is there proof that there is a infinitesimal possibility
That life could have evolved from "dead p soup"
Most likely one could consider that it is not
Possible given what we know to be provable
that it takes information life to create a receiver
for the formation of information driven life.
We need life to produce life . We need intelligence
to understand information driven life (all life is DNA driven)
|
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 3, 2016 14:44:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Todd ler on Feb 3, 2016 14:56:28 GMT -5
For the sake of a hypothesis , let us say there is
a miraculous possibility of deriving life from
dead material
On the order of the logical possibility that I will be leaving on a top secret mission to the moon tomorrow morning
Yes there is a remote possibility even the possibility that an agent
will kidnap me tonight just to prove that it could happen without
me knowing about it in advance
So just because it is remotely "possible" for this to happen
does not diminish the absurdity that it ever would
happen . Nevertheless I will keep you informed, just in case?
|
|
|
|
Post by Todd ler on Feb 3, 2016 15:09:25 GMT -5
Even it was miraculously possible, it's a very unlikely . Lots of things are "possible " to happen , yet just because It is infinitesimally unlikely as an event , in no way infers that it is likely to occur ever. We must believe in a supernatural intervention in order for there to be a. Logical explanation to forming life. (and even forming material out of nothing) |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 3, 2016 15:13:25 GMT -5
We must believe in a supernatural intervention
in order for there to be a. Logical explanation
to forming life. (and even forming material out of nothing)
What is your reason for " we must belive in a supernatural intervention ..." ? I hear; "I don't know, so therefore god did it." |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 3, 2016 17:36:27 GMT -5
You forgot to ask where this GOD came from Once you provide some proof that there is a god we can move on to the details. This is not always the case. In some applications division by zero is well defined. Given the dearth of answers you have provided to the many questions asked I am guessing there are many things you do not know about your god. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 3, 2016 20:43:08 GMT -5
Ah, so you know that "God" created you.
But which god?[?
You forgot to ask where this GOD came from Unlike other idle idols , this cannot be answered. It is an undefinable concept to human minds. Have you ever divided 0 by 0? I accept the known fact that this is an unanswerable question , just like I do not know where GOD (my creator)came from . The fact remains : He created the universe that I live in, and He created me. Thank you
Most "creationists" insist that there had to be a creator, -a cause for every effect, right?
They believe a "god" has to be necessary for the creation of the universe.
Right?
If you believe that is true, that there has to be a cause for every effect, then who created the creator you call "god?"
Also, do I assume rightly that the god that you speak of is Yahweh is the biblical god of the old testament, also sometimes known as Jehovah?
How is Yahweh or Jehovah different than Nu, a god from Egypt or perhaps Väinämöinen from Finland?
There are multitudes of "gods" around the world that come from different peoples in their areas.
They are no more idle idols, as you call them, than the god of the Old Testament Yahweh or Jehovah or for that matter, the Christ of the New Testament
That is why I ask you "which" one of the many gods known to mankind though out the history of mankind, -which "god" is it that you so sure created you?
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 3, 2016 21:32:03 GMT -5
Logic It has been demonstrated that we were designed , we can accept it or we can doubt If we choose to doubt, we are doubting the most logical understanding of how we were designed in order to attempt to draft an unprovable "possibility" that this known life could have not been designed It seems that this is really a circular thought Is there proof that there is a infinitesimal possibility That life could have evolved from "dead p soup" Most likely one could consider that it is not Possible given what we know to be provable that it takes information life to create a receiver for the formation of information driven life. We need life to produce life . We need intelligence to understand information driven life (all life is DNA driven)
Right at the beginning you make a statement,: (It has been demonstrated that we were designed) - which may be your "belief" but for which is no evidence of that being the case.
So that throws the discussion off the rails to begin with.
After that, it seems you are really struggling. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 3, 2016 23:21:42 GMT -5
This will come as a shock to NASA after they announced they had discovered bacteris that was not based on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Of course, what about the living organisms that run on RNA? And Philipp Holliger is pushing ahead with life based on XNA (xeno nucleic acid) and has self-replicating protein all built in the laboratory. |
|
|
|
Post by Todd ler on Feb 4, 2016 2:43:17 GMT -5
This will come as a shock to NASA after they announced they had discovered bacteris that was not based on DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Of course, what about the living organisms that run on RNA? And Philipp Holliger is pushing ahead with life based on XNA (xeno nucleic acid) and has self-replicating protein all built in the laboratory. As well it cannot be life as we know it! Can this form "of life" be a naturalistic form that can evolve along the lines of naturalism or can it claim common ancestry to all dead mass? There is a possibility (remote and somewhat strange) that a humanly designed computer programmed robot "could" be instructed to make a copy of itself ? I find this possibility rather remote and certainly not life given even if self reproducible .. |
|
|
|
Post by create on Feb 4, 2016 3:05:41 GMT -5
Logic It has been demonstrated that we were designed , we can accept it or we can doubt If we choose to doubt, we are doubting the most logical understanding of how we were designed in order to attempt to draft an unprovable "possibility" that this known life could have not been designed It seems that this is really a circular thought Is there proof that there is a infinitesimal possibility That life could have evolved from "dead p soup" Most likely one could consider that it is not Possible given what we know to be provable that it takes information life to create a receiver for the formation of information driven life. We need life to produce life . We need intelligence to understand information driven life (all life is DNA driven)
Right at the beginning you make a statement,: (It has been demonstrated that we were designed) - which may be your "belief" but for which is no evidence of that being the case.
So that throws the discussion off the rails to begin with.
After that, it seems you are really struggling. Not struggling here If anything , I do understand that naturalistic logic depends on miracles and "remote likelihood" and ignores the rational intelligence of an instruction given as an information bit was not logically ordered to perform its preprogrammed by design, design. In other words if it looks like it was preprogrammed to self replicate then it is easy to accept the premises and move on to workable and intelligent designs that our nature has demonstrated and surrounds us with! |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 4, 2016 3:21:02 GMT -5
As well it cannot be life as we know it! Perhaps not life as you know it but it is clear that does not include much. Well, the bacteria found without DNA seems to be doing well. The reality is that a new form of self-replicating protein exists and was created and continues to recreate itself. Given the sites from which you receive your information I am not surprised that you reject this well proven claim. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 4, 2016 3:23:35 GMT -5
It is also clear you are applying a different definition to the word 'miracle'. Can you tell us your definition? |
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Feb 4, 2016 3:34:32 GMT -5
Noah's grandson was Mizraim , who is the first ruler
of ancient Egypt.
So the Egyptians were well aware of the flood event
and there is proof that a flood did occur during Noah's life
Noah died 350 years after the flood
|
|
?
I have already read these sites! 
Am I distressed? 
Hardly! 
.
