Chris, keep reading creationist propaganda… it suits you.

I was gonna rebut Chris’ ignorant statements with some facts, but seriously, is there really any point?  Has anyone ever convinced someone like him that what they know is right that they are wrong?  Ignorance is certainly bliss, I just wish they’d keep that shit off my lawn.

Chris- there are plenty of transitional fossils.  The problem is everytime one is found, creationists say they want the one beween that one and the latest/first. Essentially what a creationist who want transitional fossils is asking for is an unbroken line of ancestors.

Not only is there evidence for evolution, but it has been observed many time actually happening.  Of course these observations are on animals with quick life cycles- observing the evolution of Galapogos tortoises is a long term project by anyone’s book!

What exactly is your evidence for creationism?  Even if you could prove evolution is false- and you are not, you are merely recycling the statements of those already shown to be wrong- it does not prove creationism, no more than proving 2+2 does not equal 5 proves that 2+2 must therefore equal 3.

Even if it is obvious that an animal discovered tomorrow is created, it is impossible to be evolved, which particular creation story should we believe? Judeic? Sihk? Hindu? Buddhist?

Pick your myth, and present your arguement. Demonstrate the accuracy of your source. 

Biology
Please explain the reason for the fault with the human eye, why the Panda is a carnivore, why the enzymes used in mammalian reproduction need a lower temperature, thus the need for the testes to be outside the body, the function of the appendix in carnivores, why humans only get two sets of teeth, when elephants get 6, and sharks permanently renew,  the purpose of freckles, the positioning of the prostrate, the architecture of the genito-urany tracts, and anus, thus being a major source of infection, recessive genes (if we all came from two created people) especially blood types, and any other imperfections in human kind that would have been shared by Adam and/or Eve before the fall, and if we are all decended from one jewish man 2000 BC, the adaptation of human kind to local enviroment, which could be seen as evolution.

Geology
Please explain the difference between carbon dating and creation claims, plate tectonics, the reversal of the magnetic poles, why the magnetic poles wander. Show examples in the bible of Glaciers, the features of which would seem to predate young earth creatinism

Astronomy
Please explain the size of the universe, the fact that we detect light that has travelled farther than allowed for in creationism.

History
Please explain the events that lead to the founding of the 1st Chinese imperial dynasty just 50 years after the great flood.

Hydrology
all the known H2O in the world would not have raised sea levels high enough to cover Mr Ararat, explain the extra water, where did it go?

Anthropology
How did humans reach Australasia, America etc.  Why do these people not have residual stories as those of the old testament

I started that before DoF’s post!

Of course there are transitional fossils—they are generally known as creationists.

I’m not sure which is more amusing, Chris’ comment or Bahamat’s reply.

How did humans reach Australasia, America etc.  Why do these people not have residual stories as those of the old testament

Who cares?!  I’m more interested in knowing how KOALA BEARS got to Australia.  Kangaroos too.  Last time I checked these are not aquatic species, and Noah’s trip ended at Ararat, which by the latest reckoning is one hell of a trip (over quite a bit of water) to Australia.

Les - I’m guessing it’s my tenacity you find amusing, because it tickles your cynicism, which feels good for all (why I like Dilbert)

What do you think my main intentions are with SEB, bearing in mind the double-edged, apparantly self-contradicting sword I am?

I will reveal if asked, and it’s something that’s changed over time. I nolonger care about any consequences and don’t even necessarily desire to know about the system, because that’s out of my hands and I don’t think it’s important anyway for reasons I can explain. There is something far more important than opinion or stance that transcends everyday life that I want to make the best of, but through prevention rather than cure, hence my willingness to conflict and harm to achieve.

Just an observation, I ran across this thread googling something completely different.  Most educated Christians believe in evolution, just not as an explanation for the creation of life.  Evolution is a fact and has been proven WITHIN species, but never ACROSS species. 

Besides, if a water-dwelling organism over time developed lungs and legs, what would happen to it???
IT WOULD DROWN.

Micah6:8 writes…

Just an observation, I ran across this thread googling something completely different.  Most educated Christians believe in evolution, just not as an explanation for the creation of life.

The Theory of Evolution doesn’t deal with the creation of life. This leads me to think you clearly don’t understand the theory at all.

Evolution is a fact and has been proven WITHIN species, but never ACROSS species.

And the above confirms that you’re a clueless idiot who doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.

Besides, if a water-dwelling organism over time developed lungs and legs, what would happen to it???
IT WOULD DROWN.

So then perhaps you can explain the existence of such lung-based water creatures as whales, dolphins, and the very aptly named African Lungfish?

Thanks for demonstrating that you’re not one of the aforementioned educated Christians. I’m glad we were able to clear that up.

Hi Les - I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to be insulting, you are obviously an intelligent guy; and the whole Britney Spears thing just came to me…

Anyway, I do have a schoolboy’s grasp of the Big Bang Theory, and I thank you for the synopsis.  My question is:  Where did this energy come from?  How was it compressed?  The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. 

Actually, is the universe expanding?  The Red Shift theory is now in question, as some stars are observed to be moving toward us, not away. The speed of light (C) appears to be slowing down also, which points to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - Entropy.

I think you might be suprised if you took a good look a the book of Genesis - It’s really amazing.  A Hebrew scholar named Nachmonidies in the 12th century conluded that we live in 10 dimesions, just from reading the book of Genesis.  He concluded that (4) are knowable (three spatial dimensions and time)and (6)are unkowable (curled in less than 10-33 centimeters - inferable only by indirect means).

I look forward to your reply…

Adam stops by several weeks later to try again…

Anyway, I do have a schoolboy’s grasp of the Big Bang Theory, and I thank you for the synopsis.  My question is:  Where did this energy come from?  How was it compressed?  The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I don’t know if it’s so much a schoolboy’s grasp as much as a preschooler’s. What’s most amusing is that you answer your own question at the end of that paragraph.

If energy cannot be created or destroyed then it logically must have always existed in one form or another.

Actually, is the universe expanding?  The Red Shift theory is now in question, as some stars are observed to be moving toward us, not away. The speed of light (C) appears to be slowing down also, which points to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - Entropy.

Oh yes, the classic Creationist one-two punch asserting that redshift theory is wrong and the speed of light is slowing down. I can tell what websites you’ve been reading lately. I’d love to have you tell me which stars, specifically, have been observed heading towards us and where, exactly, you get your claim that light is slowing down.

Nothing I’ve read supports either claim.

I think you might be suprised if you took a good look a the book of Genesis - It’s really amazing.

I’ve read the book of Genesis a number of times and the only thing amazing about it is how it tries to pass off two different accounts of creation as a single event.

A Hebrew scholar named Nachmonidies in the 12th century conluded that we live in 10 dimesions, just from reading the book of Genesis.  He concluded that (4) are knowable (three spatial dimensions and time)and (6)are unkowable (curled in less than 10-33 centimeters - inferable only by indirect means).

Yet another assertion with nothing to back it up. Please cite your sources. Keep in mind if it’s Answers in Genesis you’ll probably be laughed at.

Adam: My question is:  Where did this energy come from?  How was it compressed?  The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It’s a known thing that nothingness (empty space of 0 energy) is able to split into matter (of negative energy) and antimatter (of positive energy). As long as the amounts are equal and the products are symetrical, they would cancel back down to zero energy and zero mass were they to meet. As no energy is gained/lost overall (just redistributed), it doesn’t violate thermodynamics.

I have theories as to why there is seemingly more matter to antimatter if you ask (one of the puzzles of late)

The speed of light (C) appears to be slowing down also

Give me a valid possible explanation and I will think about it seriously, i’ll only consider it if you can do that

I think you might be suprised if you took a good look a the book of Genesis - It’s really amazing.  A Hebrew scholar named Nachmonidies in the 12th century conluded that we live in 10 dimesions, just from reading the book of Genesis.  He concluded that (4) are knowable (three spatial dimensions and time)and (6)are unkowable (curled in less than 10-33 centimeters - inferable only by indirect means).

And how did Nachmonidies know that? With a complete lack of equipment… I will only consider it possible if you can provide an explanation

And, if 6 dimensions are unknowable, how do we know they even exist, let alone count 6 of them?

The big bang, the only time it’s flattering to be compared to a Planck.

In his work “Perush al haTorah” Nahmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman of Spain 1194–1270) in the part that comment on Genesis makes the following points:

+ The universe first appeared as a tiny speck, “no larger than a mustard seed”.

+ From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so.

+ As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin, non-corporeal substance took on the tangible aspects.

+ From this initial substance everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is and will be formed.

+ The universe was composed of ten aspects or dimensions. During the six days of creation, six of these ten aspects became so small that we are now capable only of detecting four.

In the 1st century, in his commentary on Genesis, Nechunya ben HaKana wrote “...that if you knew how to use the 42 letter name for God you could decipher the time between the creation of the universe and of man”. He then estimated the age of the universe at about 15,340,500,000 + 3800 years old.

Well, that was amusing if nothing else.

Just spotted this

The speed of light (C) appears to be slowing down also, which points to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics - Entropy.

No its not. There is NO credible evidence for the speed of light slowing.

This particular lie is used to support Creationists unable to respond to the query of why light has come from more than 6,000 years away.  The only other possible explanation for Creationists is God made it that way.  However because of the information in the light, God would have to have invented that- effectively lying to us.

No its not. There is NO credible evidence for the speed of light slowing.

This particular lie is used to support Creationists unable to respond to the query of why light has come from more than 6,000 years away.  The only other possible explanation for Creationists is God made it that way.

That’s not the only other possible explanation that Creationists have come up with, Hussar.  They’re nothing if not imaginative:  I took part in a debate with a mathematician who concocted a sphere of ether around the Earth, which almost magically discombobulated the light coming from the actually rather near and less-than-6000 year old stars in exactly the right way that they appear to atheist astronomers to be distant and old.  This guy went into amazing mathematical detail, way above my head, but I still somehow had the feeling that he was full of shit.  Of course, my feeling was just my arrogant rejection of God, I’m sure.  Glory Jee to Beezus!

I’ve not seen that one. I beieve AiG argue as gravity is known to affect light, it is possible that the gravity wells of massive objects slow the light giving us false readings.

While the speed of light does vary with medium, and the maths may have proved this sphere slows the light as needed, did he prove the existance of the sphere, or is it just another turtle to stand on.

As far as I know gravity wells do not slow down light although they do red-shift it.
And anyway dont they have to come up with something that increases the speed of light to be consistent with a young universe?

As I understand it the “speed” of light depends on the medium. Everything slows down with resistance, whether it’s large masses or obscuring particles.

But gravity does bend light- its the way planets in other solar systems are discovered, and of course black holes pull in light. This is the AiG arguement not mine- “if gravity affects light, it could slow it.“

While the speed of light does vary with medium, and the maths may have proved this sphere slows the light as needed, did he prove the existance of the sphere, or is it just another turtle to stand on.

Hussar- you might call it a turtle, but this guy proved its existence by the necessity of reconciling astronomical observations with the God-given Truth.  Now that I think of it, he said the sphere was made of “ectoplasm”, which did indeed speed up light.  Hey, all’s fair in love, war, and religion, right?  In any case, his sphere started getting pretty complicated, when people pointed out that it still didn’t account for stuff like Cepheid variables: he had to throw in all kinds complications to produce what we see.  At the end, his ectoplasmic sphere was like a giant jelly, a’wigglin’ and a’jigglin’ in very special ways to take care of all the pesky details.

The amazing thing was, he was absolutely serious, convinced that his concoction had to exist, and that he was likely to get the Fields Medal for his “discovery”.  Just goes to show how religion can turn even intelligent people into wackos.

Ah- so turtles all the way down then.

Yep.  Jello turtles all the way down and all around.