If your’e looking for scientific arguments, see Logo’s comments on the flagella motor just above my comments.  I pray that you will be open minded enough to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for creation.

I pray that you will be open minded enough to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for creation.

What evidence?

-Elid

    bro the evidence is OVERWHELMING young earth, biology, geology…IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY, apparently you did not read logos arguement…bro please adress the refuting at hand…and do the evolution religion some justice.

Recent studies in microbilogy have revealed that even the smallest organisms such as “flagella�? reach a point in their infastructure referred to as “irreducible complexity

Sheez.  Irreducible complexity rears its retarded head again.

Get over it already people.  It’s still the “god of the gaps” argument.  It’s only an indication of design until somebody figures out how it evolved.  Then it’s *oops*  time to scoot along to our—next—example!

Flagella not evolved?

Flagellum Unspun

Evolution defying thermodynamics?

You guys can’t—seriously—be busting out these old chestnuts again!?!?

Whatever.  Take this shit over to internet infidels, if you really think you’ve got an argument.  I’ve heard this crap before, and it gets—boring—repeatedly refuting it.  Boring and pointless.  If you want to run around believing that evolution isn’t science, then go right ahead. 

Capcha “hope”

As in, I -hope- somebody else has the time to deal with these guys’ inane blatherings, because I don’t.

why dont apes still produce humans?

:rubeyes:

yer shittin me, right?

Apes -do- still produce humans.  Every time a human baby is born, it is the offspring of two apes.

oh man.  What’s next?  We’re going to start arguing for a flat earth and a geocentric solar system? 

LOL.  Thanks guys, you brightened my day!

(nowiser) As in, I -hope- somebody else has the time to deal with these guys’ inane blatherings, because I don’t.

I can’t motivate myself past playing creationist bingo. Why bother with tired old saws…

Les, it looks like EE is choking on this thread. Just saying.

Question(s):

Why is it that everything that’s “evolved” is from a species that’s extinct, yet humans are the only thing that’s come from something that’s still around today?  If we did come from monkeys, shouldn’t all the other apes, monkeys, etc. be extinct since they are not “the fittest”?
And if they are “fit” enough now, why did they need to evolve to humans?  Everything else is dead, why are monkeys the exceptions…I’ll tell you why:  Some guy was like “hey look, monkeys kinda look like us” so he got his theory and then from that decided that everything else came from something that looked like it.  Something he imagined.

And another thing, how did the animals of each “period” fossilize?  It takes specific conditions to fossilize, and the animals that die normally would either be eaten by something else or they would deteriorate from weather conditions and not fossilize.  So at the end of every age was there a timer that went off and everything was like “oh look, its time to fossilize”?  Um…I don’t think so…

One last thing: Where do layers come from?  If each layer represents a time period, then why isn’t one being made now?  If you say that there is (by plant matter, etc.) how are the deserts getting the layers?  The sands in the deserts go up and down constently.  And the high mountians have no way of getting layers either…yet there are layers EVERYWHERE.  Looks like water and sand mixed to me.  Another thing…is this time period another limestone one, or is it raining granet?

Elwe, nowiser

  k guys if you got it down so hardcore take it up against Kent Hovind…he WANTS you to debate feel me? why doesnt he lose debates against all the other professors who get owned? Lets assume irreducible complexity isnt valid (even tho it prolly is), you still need a ridiculous amount of time…an amount not supported by evidence…not happinin fellas. were losing the moon [sorry fellas, a certain time ago, fish couldnt have turn into hamsters cuz they were drowning from tides] , the sun is losing mass, the earth rotation is slowing down [sorry guys…corriolis (sp) effect and all…not good living condition, earth is losing its magnetism [sorry guys…bacteria cant become a fish cuz its too hot], we still have comets they constantly lose mass…(only last up to 10k years…(ill give you the benefit of the doubt…30k)). Why is the oldest desert in existence only about 3.5k years old…why is the largest reef only about 3.2k years old…why is the oldest living lifeform 3.Xk years old?

whoa nowiser, you just contradicted the religion of eevolution, if its still apes producing humans than they didnt evolve did they? dunno bout you but I see Man producing man…point is, why does it only happen 300 million years ago? I want a grapevine to produce a dog and this time i want to see it. Science is things we can test and observe and demonstrate, empirical evidence see. Evo. isnt a scientific theory, its a religion. Gentlemen I have here the definition from websters dictionary, yes the one we tried to create with toothpicks:

Religion
Noun
1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;
2. Institution to express belief in a divine power;

explanation:
1. supernatural power…lets see, I recall personifying Nature with the power to select, and theres this mysterious process that explains existence today…Man’s also. Supernatural that works.
2. Oh right divine, no God so its not a religion, but lets see the definition of divine

-Devoted to or in the service or worship of a deity;

2 cont: I also remember deifying Nature.

Welp I guess that works.

Mutations? i think not…mutations are harmful, we have plenty of evidence for mutations that suck, but not ones that are beneficial…Mutation is just a scrambling of already existing information you never get new info. A fly with 4 wings already had the capacity to create a wing…its never going to get a harrier engine or an afterburner. (uhh or some biological superadvancedmegaIownyourfishWingoranyotherrelationthereto).

Irreducible complexity owned? start dropping toothpicks till you get…lets see im gonna make it astronomically easier than that of replicating life from dirt…“Breakfast”...tell me when your done.

Oh ya! just as a side note…lets recall the term oxodize…life cant evolve w/o oxygen, and it cant evolve with it…how’d nature pull that off? New objective…get “breakfast” accept throw the toothpicks in a fire. FlipaRicano out.

Whoops forgot something…a fly with 4 wings is another suck result…cant fly…hows this one gonna survive?

just for fun, Another limiting factor is the water salinity. Water is getting saltier every year (salt…from the land goin to the ocean)...but you already know that. Anyways we know the rate but it doesnt add up when pertaining to an obscene amount of time. If the earth really were old, then the oceans would be like the dead sea…indeed a dead ocean or four. Prolly worse. I got a theory for that…The Flood…oh say 4k years ago.

But honestly why are we doing this? just to irritate you? I think not, we have better things to do, were doin this cuz we care. Better think twice about where youre goin when you die. Our agenda is to bring you to Jesus where you peeps will be happy.

Lets refute the bible racism right quick. God had a chosen people because they believed in him. Ummmmmmmm…yaah, see Israel was supposed to be an example to the gentiles to bring more people to the Lord. God wanted in the old testament, Jews and Gentiles alike. The temple had a place for others to come. Galations (book), says that you are one of the chosen people (sons of Abraham works) when you are a believer…no racism buddy, Bible clearly teaches that all men are of one blood…and racists arent right with God. Dont use Hitler…he sucked…ya. that’ll do…obviously his actions contradicted the Bible so wasnt doin jack for God. On the other hand when students come to believe they are just a protoplasm that washed up on the beach, they are going to wear evolution T-shirts and go shooting peeps on hitler’s birthday (i believe I did a better job of tying 2 together then watshisface did)...who are black. (pretty specific/ narrowed down example ey?)

Oh shelley, you dont want to destroy your cousin’s or whatever’s faith…Jesus said that it were better for you that a millstone were around your neck and you were drowned in the depths of the sea…I dont wanna be near you when you talk to Jesus cuz hes not gonna be pleased that you led someone astray.

Hello again.  Although the argument against the flagella motor has essenitally partially true aspects to it. Such as the induction of basteria who exitence enable functionlality, again the core issue is skirted for a specific contextual example.  The bacteria would have had to evolve to compensate for underdeveloped flagella’s.  Not only is this left unexplained but does not this indeed defeat the purpose of evolution?  Observe.  If a organism exists to aid a failing organism this must mean one of two things.  That 1.Organisms which lack the funadmental parts for motion and survival require asistance from other organisms to continue in survival thus we have a “disabled” organism.  Does not this in itself go against Darwin’s ideals?  Accepting the fact that organisms are dpendent of aid although they may be defective physically is not a darwinian argument.  2. To say that an organism exists to compensate for a lack of funcitonality would indicate that all its dependent or host organism would have to be at a co-existent level in order to survive, therefore does this not also refute a random darwinian mindset?  In all honesty to state this furthers a creationist mindset, rather than hamper it.  In another regard we must examine the principles behind darwinian thought.  As i’m sure you are all aware int he advent of the 20th century people embraced social darwinism.  A beleif that those who are incompetent or unproductive are so because of choice not circumstance and therefore are to be disregarded for their failings and abdicated for the further advancement of a people.  Social Darwinism took its most monstrous form in the way of Naziism.  This of course is not to infer that all darwinists are nazis or any such thing; however, to it must be recognized that the Nazi fully embraced a Darwinian theme of mind.  They destroyed those they beleived were impure, flawed, or otherwise damaging to thier super race.  Nations like Sparta in ancient days had similar practises in that they killed deformed infants and encourage healthy mothers who could add to the might of the spartan army.  Hence, things like caring for those who are disabled, indeed health care itself must be regarded as an anti-darwinian practice.  However, this is not accepted because it does not work.  On a related note I am sure that all of you have heard of the concept that overspecialization breeds weaknesses.  This is certainly true on a microbiotic level.  Those cells too uniform and specialized can be shattered by a single virus.  Therfore, flaws are as much a necessary part of progression as are strengths.  By removing the aspect for failure or weakness overspecialization occurs and weakness seaps into a species.  This is evident in everyday things such as dogbreeding.  Everyone knows pure bred dogs are more susceptable to illness.  Therefore, to flaws are simply the other side of the coin in one manner of speaking.  To state that progression occurs by eradication of flaws or by removal of differences from a species is not a sound argument.  While inexplicable factors can always be argued, it is important to regard the core issue of a mindset.  I do appreciate your counterpoint on the flagellate motor, however, I think it rather dubious of people who proclaim to be intelligent to simply insult people with different arguments in a dismisisve manner.  That kind of hostility is simply a deflection of uncertainty.  thanks again.

Looks like we’ve been brought up on some Kent Hovind Fan Club mailing list or something. I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time. You kids are cracking me up.

What’s clear is that you folks haven’t read much of this thread or any of the other related threads here at SEB as most of this has already been covered before. Until you folks come up with something original I’m just going to sit back and laugh.

Reading through a couple of these a little more closely I’d almost swear these guys are just cutting and pasting straight from Hovind’s books as many of these sad arguments are word-for-word from Hovind’s text.

Elwed, EE pulled up this thread just fine for me, but it is pretty early in the morning and the server load isn’t that high yet. I could always re-lock it and point everyone to the forums again.

But honestly why are we doing this? just to irritate you? I think not, we have better things to do, were doin this cuz we care. Better think twice about where youre goin when you die. Our agenda is to bring you to Jesus where you peeps will be happy.

Thanks for making your agenda explicit. Since proselytizing is incompatible with serious debate, we are relieved from any obligation to point out how wrong you are. I suppose the short version will suffice:

We’re not buying what you’re selling.

Holeee Mackeral! (the true deity) 22 comments in 20 hours.  At the current rate this thread will become a geologic layer and contain fossils in 3.5K years (just kidding)

OK, creationists, you got me - there’s no way I can answer all that in one shot because IT’S POINTLESS.  No force on Earth can puncture willful ignorance. But I have 5 minutes while the coffee is brewing:

Mutations come from: replicative fading, cosmic rays, and DNA crossover.  That part could be considered random but the process of selection is nonrandom. It divides features that don’t make it as far as reproduction, from others that turn out to be an advantage and are reproduced.  No designer is required; only predators, disease, and food supply. 

If you’re a termite (or any other creature with a gut) there are always bacteria in your gut.  Bacteria go through millions of generations in very short timescales so they adapt within the span of a single organism - witness antibiotic resistance.  Given enough time you get bacteria that specify - that is, speciate - to the environment of the one animal’s gut.  And if they provide some advantage to the animal it will begin to capitalize on it and develop features over many generations.

In your hypothetical auto assembly line, you left out: a source of new features, and some way for advantageous features to be selected and cycled back into the line.  Do that and you’ll get your space shuttle and then some, given enough time.

And in our world, there is enough time.  If you insist on thinking the world is young I can’t stop you but if you would learn how science is done, you’d find it has a selection process of its own.  Methods and arguments that can’t be reproduced, or at least verified, and which aren’t consistent with the corpus of discovery, are discarded.  Science, like the biological world, ratchets up.

Ah! the coffee.  G’bye.

You kids are cracking me up.

I’d almost swear these guys are just cutting and pasting straight from Hovind’s books

I’d guess highschool kids on a mission. Regardless, The Science of Discworld should be on their reading list.

EE pulled up this thread just fine for me

It was horrible last night/early morning.

*bullshit bullshit bullshit* *blather blather* *yet more inane blather* I do appreciate your counterpoint on the flagellate motor, however, I think it rather dubious of people who proclaim to be intelligent to simply insult people with different arguments in a dismisisve manner.  That kind of hostility is simply a deflection of uncertainty.  thanks again.

Clearly you -don’t- appreciate the counterpoint on the flagellate motor, or you wouldn’t continue to assert that “the core issue is skirted.“  It’s not.  IDists present specific examples of organisms that could not possibly have evolved, scientists demonstrate -how- that organism evolved, and then IDists scurry off to point to some -other- example. 

All IDists are proving is that science doesn’t know -yet- how certain systems evolved.  And all they have to do, to continue to raise doubt, is keep “moving the goalposts.“

Irreducible complexity only indicates that something is irreducibly complex—right now—.  IDist consistently point to examples of IC systems while screeching “Ahah! See!  it couldn’t have evolved!“  Of course, once a modified/simpler version of the Kreb’s cycle is found in some other critter, then they have to abandon that example and move on.

The KEY difference between the scientific approach, and the IDist approach, is that one only requires scratching one’s head and saying “gee, I can’t imagine how that happened.  God must of done it!“ while the OTHER approach, the SCIENTIFIC approach requires:
  1—knowing your ass from a hole in the ground
  2—years of research to disprove even ONE example that the IDists have arbitrarily pointed to.

As for finding it “dubious of people” and “dismisisve” of me to insult you. . .

that’s what I do to people who are too fucking lazy to use Google, or even the SEB boards native search function.  This conversation about ID has already been had, ad nauseaum.  You have yet to say a -single- original thing, or provide a single serious challenge to evolution.  The fact that you write about the “intent” of supporting bacteria/organisms further indicates that you don’t even understand the basic premises of evolution;  evolution is ordered, non-random, and completely without any intention.

Yes I dismiss you, in the same way that I dismiss the nut-jobs that think the earth is flat.

You are not engaged in a search for the truth.  People who are engaged in a search for the truth question their own position.  And they read, widely, from both sides of any argument.  Then they think.

Try it.  First ask a question, then read, then think.

OH nohs, u ar doing scienz!  run, run!

I’d guess highschool kids on a mission. Regardless, The Science of Discworld should be on their reading list.

Reading through Logos’ posts, it almost reads like Dr. Wilder-Smith may have taken the time to drop in.

It’s so nice when the worshipers of Kent Hovind drop by.  It’s like a cult within a sect within a cult.

SEB is now ranked fourth for Dr. Kent Hovind.

OH nohs, u ar doing scienz!  run, run!

Can I just say I fell out of my chair laughing at the above line? Cause I did.

whoa nowiser, you just contradicted the religion of eevolution

riiiight.  In the same way that dropping a tennis-ball disproves gravity.  :rubeyes:

if its still apes producing humans than they didnt evolve did they? dunno bout you but I see Man producing man

Man—is—an ape.  But I understand your basic point.  It’s the old chestnut about “transitional forms.“  A point already raised by David, and already dealt with.  Use your search function.

I want a grapevine to produce a dog and this time i want to see it

And I’d like to see you grow a brain.

(does some quick calculations)

Yep!  It appears that both events share the same level of probability!

Apparently, the new approach to challenging evolution is to bury its proponents in waves of already discredited bullshit.

Looking back over the most recent postings, I have to throw my hands up in disgust and simply abandon it.  Social Darwinism?  No beneficial mutations?

I think that from here on in I’m just going to stand back and watch the kiddies eat the paste.

nowiser, out of curiosity, why did you bother to reply after they flushed their game?

Rather than trying to deal with the creationist fad of the day - flat earth, old earth, young earth, whatever - it’s preferable to simply tell them to stop bothering us until they’ve sorted things out between themselves. It’s perhaps a promising angle to keep creationist bullshit out of school - if the issue comes up, insist that all flavors of creationism get equal coverage.

Another thing to consider is that the effort of a serious reply is wasted on a post-and-runner. Why provide free apologetics training until you know that they’re at least committed?

OK, this thread is only going to grow so I might as well continue to add to it. By the way Les, couldn’t you just create a Page 2 for this thread?

Nowiser makes my nuts tingle! (In a good and proper way, of course.)

It seems to me that religious faith requires far too much head-up-ass activity to qualify as a noble pursuit, but I’ve always been the kind of thinker who’s willing to admit we have much yet to learn. There will always be individuals who accept beliefs indiscriminately or through intimidation, then doggedly pass on those sloppy constructs. Information has no value to these individuals because information has the potential to modify belief. These individuals are far happier choosing what they want to believe first, then they assume facts are available or utilize only information which will back up their beliefs.

These discussions often remind me of “The Blind Men and the Elephant” by John Godfrey Saxe.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!“

The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, “Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me `tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!“

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up he spake:
“I see,“ quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!“

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,“ quoth he;
“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!“

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!“

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
“I see,“ quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!“

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
“The Blind Men and the Elephant”; is John Godfrey (1816-1887)Saxe’s version of the famous Indian legend. The original parable originated in China sometime during the Han dynasty (202 BC-220 AD) as: “Three Blind Men and an Elephant”

I guess the greatest difference between science and theology is that science never says a truth is incontrovertible.

Decrepid:
“In your hypothetical auto assembly line, you left out: a source of new features, and some way for advantageous features to be selected and cycled back into the line.  Do that and you’ll get your space shuttle and then some, given enough time.“

thats the point, there are no new features.

“given enough time”

something you guys dont have.

“but the process of selection is nonrandom. It divides features that don’t make it as far as reproduction, from others that turn out to be an advantage and are reproduced.“

like I said, stop calling it science. 

Les:
“Reading through a couple of these a little more closely I’d almost swear these guys are just cutting and pasting straight from Hovind’s books as many of these sad arguments are word-for-word from Hovind’s text.“

When A professor from U.C. describes the big bang theory i can assure you its no different. and that doesnt disprove anything.

willfull ignorance? i would think believers of an entire religion based on outdated information would be just that.

Nowiser:
“ Yep!  It appears that both events share the same level of probability!“ 

woooowww…absolutely no material watsoever. wait are you trying to admit its improbable through an insult?

“riiiight.  In the same way that dropping a tennis-ball disproves gravity.  :rubeyes:“

That is by far the worst comparison I’ve ever read, dont confuse science with fantasy. We can SEE gravity happening, You can see the tennisball falling…no one sees an oak tree producing a whale. :rubsyoureyesforyou:

-FiliRicano out