sorry guys I used the search engine…nothing about the water salinity promblem, nothing about earth’s magnetism…do I need to type in the others? if this is really, truely, old chestnuts, I would like to see where it already got refuted.

Jay, with every reply you leave you show that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Your insistence that “no one sees an oak tree producing a whale” as proof that Evolution isn’t real just demonstrates your stunning ignorance of Evolutionary theory. If you had one iota of understanding of the theory you wouldn’t use such a ridiculously pathetic argument in trying to defeat it. As it’s clear you have no understanding of the theory and are working purely off the fantasy that “Dr.“ Hovind peddles there’s little point in trying to engage you in a conversation of the topic, let alone a debate.

Brock, EE does have the ability to paginate comments the same way it does entries and I’ve considered turning that on for long threads like this. The only problem with that is the “Recent Comments” plugin doesn’t know how to handle paginated comments so the links to them end up being wrong. Once I figure out a way to do a recent comments that takes into account pagination I’ll enable it and probably limit the display to 20 or 30 comments at a time.

there’s little point in trying to engage (Jay) in a conversation of the topic, let alone a debate.

I say we keep egging him on for the entertainment value.

I like where the cult-sect-cultists associate Darwinism with Nazism.  I don’t think we’ll fall for that as easily as you did.  We peeps ain’t brainwashed, yo.

At least they aren’t speaking in Biblical verse, although the plaigerism is tiring.

If they have magic brownies at communion, church attendance would be up and they’d all be high on Jesus!

sorry guys I used the search engine…nothing about the water salinity promblem

Here on SEB?  Maybe not, but you didn’t seriously think we addressed—every single misconception—that an eedjit like you is toting around, did you?  That’s why I also suggested that you use Google.

And you couldn’t find anything on Google?  Apparently, you are using a different internet.  Here, try this.  Type in “Salinity creationist crap”

Salinity addressed

Amazing how that works.  If you were trying to educate yourself, you might have figured that out on your own.

Do I need to find the refutation for the magnetism assertion as well?  Here’s a hint, type in “creationist magnetism” and then tack on “bullshit, lies, crap, laughable, refutation, etc.“ 

See?  Research methodology is easy.  Just use the hand that’s not in the paste jar, and you can learn all sorts of things!

if this is really, truely, old chestnuts, I would like to see where it already got refuted.

Well, that would require you to click on a link, but let’s give it a try, shall we?

Whoa!  You mean evolution is both a fact, and a theory?  That, like, makes my brain hurt!

Get away from the paste, Jay.  I know it’s—supposed—to be non-toxic, but you look like you’re having trouble uncrossing your eyes.

Hey Elwed!  You’re right!  There -is- entertainment value in this!  Wheeeeee!

Wow, I never new that insulting people proved that they were wrong!  Ingenious!  Oh, and high school kids, thats a good one!  Shoot, I guess I’m too stupid to understand this complicated thing you call “science.“  Aw man, I got paste all over me!

Seriously though, the moral to your story Brock…Um…science doesn’t say ANYTHING about truth…and if you mean truth as in stuff we can touch and test, then you’re saying that science doesn’t show us truth, meaning that science is lying, and seeing that evolution is based on “science”...hmm…I’ll let you figure that one out.

What I’m saying is that your moral is wrong.  Science does say truth is certian, otherwise they would have nothing to stand on.  There are certianties all throughout science.  Maybe I’m just misinterpreting your moral, so maybe you should make it a little clear.

You know another funny thing, you guys seem to think the same thing of us as we think of you: Ignorant, taking other peoples ideas, etc.  Not an insult, just an observation (Wait…observing…isn’t that part of science…hmm…can’t remember…the probability of my brain being there is probably nil anyway, right?).

PS: Give me one proof, that I cannot disprove, for evolution.  Dude, Kents offering a quarter of a million dollars or something, take that opportunity and run!

Can’t touch, you guys have not made a serious effort to understand what science is all about, yet you want to be taken seriously. 

Read back over this thread - thoroughly - and you’ll see that one question after another is answered, references given, only to be met with the same tired old junk.  You want to believe in a god for which there’s no evidence, and in a young Earth when all the evidence points to an old Earth and an old universe, yet you want to be taken seriously.

Insulting you doesn’t prove you’re wrong - your creationist/ID babble does a pretty good job of that on its own.

I think Jay summed it up nicely:

“given enough time�?
something you guys dont have.

He’s right.  I don’t have time for this.  Life’s too short.  Enjoy your fantasy!

Les:

“Jay, with every reply you leave you show that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Your insistence that “no one sees an oak tree producing a whale” as proof that Evolution isn’t real just demonstrates your stunning ignorance of Evolutionary theory.“

first off, its a religion…i whipped out websters remember? whos ignorant now? and with that reply actually you just showed you have no idea what youre talking about, if you knew better you would know Darwin’s little assertion about matter being related. The fact that this doesnt strike you as a problem demonstrates that you just like the theory because of pure lust.

Ragman:
“We peeps ain’t brainwashed, yo.“

I beg to differ, millions of years…err…a completely secular education will do that to you…have you carefully examined the merits of today’s textbooks? preeeetty darn bias.

nowiser:
“ Maybe not, but you didn’t seriously think we addressed—every single misconception—“

What you guys are going is just so simple, Insult and distract. check it:

Jay: dude theres a problem here…
Pro-evo’s: yea but (insert insult here) Im laughing…I win.
Jay: wha—?

Found some refutation stuff…Stellar Refutes

bout magnetism:
“The field is definitely decreasing in strength - at present - but there’s abundant evidence that its strength varies up and down over time, over cycles of tens of thousands of years.“

I think not…Its stronger weaker, not reversals…10k years for a cycle? he knows that through extensive experience right? thats not science.

Comets:
  “This led two astronomers, Oort and Opik, to suggest independently that such comets come from a spherical ‘cloud’. This is the Opik-Oort Cloud, or just Oort Cloud, of comets. Such comets can’t be seen so far from the Sun, but their orbits can be modelled mathematically.

Comet Halley [orbital period 76 years] is an example of a short-period comet. After a visit by a variety of spacecraft in 1986 its expected life-span grew from a few thousand to perhaps 250,000 years because its size was greater than expected. But eventually short-period comets die-out and so a source of such comets is needed. In about 1950 two astronomers, Edgeworth and Kuiper, suggested a disk of comets just beyond Neptune as the source of short-period comets based on the nature of their orbits NOT the need for a supply of comets.“

all I see is suggested this and suggested that…Oort never saw an Oort cloud…this is pure imagination…they do a good job of making it look like science though…mathmatically calculated? with rubber rulers…pure baloney.

Spiral and Stars dying:
...just read it.
“As they die their explosions produce shockwaves that compress gas and dust into new star forming regions, producing fresh stars to light up the spiral, perpetuating the process.“

this is just retarted, no one has ever seen this happen. THINK LOGICALLY PEOPLE…a bunch of stars blowing up to produce new ones????The best part is how he just says it assuming its true. amidst the big words and profound language it comes down to straight fairy tales. Even if stars were replenishing in numbers…that is no means of keeping a SPIRAL, an orderly design! especially from somethign as RANDOM as eevolution.

Look your responses are complete bias. Im willing to accept Evolution but you guys dont have one iota of fact to give me. Im giving you plenty of arguement things that are happening, and its observable SCIENCE. and yet all I get, is rebuttle based on assumed baloney. What i love most is how Im reading the articles and toss numbers around like millions, billions with no experience whatsoever. Look boys if your going to risk eternity on something, you may as well risk it on something that has some backbone to it. You cant play this game forever.

Oh yea and this is supposed to be science, dont play the “plagerism” card fellas you didnt make your stuff up either…

“you can get any desired level of complexity…given enough time”

tell me that one didnt come out of the book…Apparently you guys are just plain ignorant, see I already told you when a professor explains the big bang its right outta the book homie…lets go there anymore, that “chestnut” would have evolved by now had it been possible.

However I must say, at least I have material in mine…at least im not coming up with responses like this:

“Do I need to find the refutation for the magnetism assertion as well?  Here’s a hint, type in “creationist magnetism�? and then tack on “bullshit, lies, crap, laughable, refutation, etc”

honestly plagerism is better…but in either case a call like that is just silly in a field like this anyhow…contradicting yourself, saying I am copying…is like saying me using 2+2 is 4 is copying…doesnt work.

Wow.  They’ve descended into incoherent rambling!  That’s a first!  They’re mixing together multiple posts, from separate people, and responding to them all, while posting “clips” of uncited sources.

Yikes!  I don’t know what they’re putting in paste these days but, come Friday, I’m gonna get me some a that!

Nota bene:  I can’t -prove- that if I drop a ball, it will fall to the earth, but -science- allows me to have a fair degree of -confidence- that this will happen.  Not faith.  Confidence.  Science makes no claims for “Truth” with a capital T.  Science does not claim that it is impossible for God to suddenly decide that the ball will -not- fall, but hang motionless in the air while playing Wagner’s ride of the Valkyries. . .  backwards.

What science -does- say is that this is highly improbable, and that there is no evidence to indicate that this -will- happen.

Holy crap, I -did- have this conversation before, verbatim, with David!  The main difference, of course, was that David was an articulate asshole, which made debating him somewhat stimulating.

Playing with these guys is like playing “Cowboys and Indians” with those kids who’ll never “die,“ but keep shouting “nuh uh!  You didn’t get me!  it was just a flesh wound!“

That reward is sure to be plenty safe, as long as people retain the ability to screw their fingers into their ears and shout “Ican’thearyouIcan’thearyou!“

I’m sure this will become massively boring at some point, but it’s still semi-amusing at the moment, so let’s keep playing.

I like the fact that the Worshipers of Hovind are at least reading some text.  A little open-mindedness goes a long way toward finding solutions.  I’m quite curious as to how you can go back and reconcile any of that with anything resembling a Christian belief system.  Hence a new cult, WOH, is born.

One of the big mistakes here is giving credence to creationism as a science.  Once credence is given to false studies by calling them science it becomes possible to prove or disprove whatever one sees fit.  I’m sure there’s a nice, neat technical name for it but I’m at a loss.

Basically, If you want to believe the Earth is 10,000 years old and man coexisted with dinosaurs that’s fine with me.  Just don’t try and pass it off as science.  If you get lonely there’s some people up in a Radon Mine they would be more than happy to take you in.

As far you caring about my eternal life.  That’s nice.  I’ll add you to the list.  BTW:  Enjoy that good feeling of eternal life while it lasts, in the meantime you might want to focus on the here and now.

bout magnetism:
“The field is definitely decreasing in strength - at present - but there’s abundant evidence that its strength varies up and down over time, over cycles of tens of thousands of years.�?

I think not…Its stronger weaker, not reversals…10k years for a cycle? he knows that through extensive experience right? thats not science.

Did you even read the article?  It’s -your- dude, the creationist, who claims that the exponential decay model indicates polarity reversals. (1) 

Jeezus.  It’s your freakin citation, man, at least reproduce it correctly.  The refutation merely points out that—a model that postulates such reversals can’t make any claims about short-lived magnetic fields— Why?  Should I spell it out?  Fuck that, I’m already doing way more work than you are, which is the way it always works.  Creationist throws out bullshit, someone else has to spend hours cleaning the crap up.

I notice that you skipped right over the part where Backus demonstrated that magnetic fields could be regenerated (in a dipole dynamo) by velocity fields in a conducting fluid.  Strike two for exponential decay, -and- fluid dynamo theory starts to look even better.

Wow, the ‘Dude, I think not’ school of argument is looking less compelling all the time.

Comets:
“This led two astronomers, Oort and Opik, to suggest independently that such comets come from a spherical ‘cloud’. This is the Opik-Oort Cloud, or just Oort Cloud, of comets. Such comets can’t be seen so far from the Sun, but their orbits can be modelled mathematically.

Comet Halley [orbital period 76 years] is an example of a short-period comet. After a visit by a variety of spacecraft in 1986 its expected life-span grew from a few thousand to perhaps 250,000 years because its size was greater than expected. But eventually short-period comets die-out and so a source of such comets is needed. In about 1950 two astronomers, Edgeworth and Kuiper, suggested a disk of comets just beyond Neptune as the source of short-period comets based on the nature of their orbits NOT the need for a supply of comets.�?

all I see is suggested this and suggested that…Oort never saw an Oort cloud…this is pure imagination…they do a good job of making it look like science though…mathmatically calculated? with rubber rulers…pure baloney.

Gee.  When you just say “I don’t believe their mathematical models, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah!“ I just shiver all over in anticipation of the next gem of wisdom.  Explain -why- you don’t accept their mathematical models.  And show us your math.

Science establishes the existence of the “unseen” all the time.  By observing certain—effects—it can use the tools at hand, including math and physics, to produce a—reasonable—suggestion for what might be the cause.  And YES, scientists have frequently been wrong!  At that point, of course, their work is rejected, they are patted on the back for their attempt at contributing, and they move on to their next project.  They do NOT start insisting that, NO, Thor—really—is the cause of thunder, and there’s a vast conspiracy to hide it.  That kind of behavior is reserved for religious nuts and flat-earthers. 

Is the Oort cloud a “best guess?“  You bet.  And it makes a hell of a lot more sense than “Invisible pink unicorn is throwing huge fairy rocks at us to test our faith!“

Oort cloud?  That’s where the IPU lives.

Spiral and Stars dying:
...just read it.
“As they die their explosions produce shockwaves that compress gas and dust into new star forming regions, producing fresh stars to light up the spiral, perpetuating the process.�?

this is just retarted, no one has ever seen this happen. THINK LOGICALLY PEOPLE…a bunch of stars blowing up to produce new ones????The best part is how he just says it assuming its true. amidst the big words and profound language it comes down to straight fairy tales.

Apparently you now have a problem with the law of gravity, since all this guy is saying is that massive quantities of gas and dust, when hurled into space by a supernova, will eventually accrete into discs, then spheres, etc., etc., due to the principle of universal gravitation.  I don’t have to go look up a refutation for this one because it’s basic.  And accretion discs -are- visible.  In fact, the “leftovers” if you will, can be seen in our own solar system.  They’re called “rings,“ (and NO, the name does not imply that God hammered them out on some deified anvil). 

this is just retarted

Oh man, this is getting sooooo old.  And it’s “retarded,“ not “retarted.“  Someone who is “retarted” has just reapplied garish makeup.  Someone who is “retarded,“ on the other hand. . . eh.  whatever.  why go there. . .  it’s really not even worth the effort, and it’s only mildly amusing.

Even if stars were replenishing in numbers…that is no means of keeping a SPIRAL, an orderly design! especially from somethign as RANDOM as eevolution.

Whaaaaa?  Uh, dude, the theory of evolution only deals with genetic changes in a specific -biological- population over time.  Stars don’t evolve.  Nor does “order” imply “design.“  When I pull the plug on my bathtub, and the water -spirals- down the drain, it does so because of its physical properties.  You know, fluid dynamics.  The same thing that the exponential magnetic decay theorists “forgot” to take into account when making their argument for a “young earth.“  Water spirals down the drain because of its physical properties, not because God has suddenly become preoccupied with my bathwater and is sending me a “sign” of his divine hand in the Creation of All. (shite, I would so like to be able to insert a TM, there).

2.  Evolution is not RANDOM.  Only someone who does not understand the basic principles of evolution would make such a statement.  I could explain, but, oooooh, I’m just overwhelmed by the futility of trying to communicate with someone who insists on pointing and grunting, even though he has access to the internet.  Sigh.

**************
Notes:
1)  Humphreys also rejects Barnes’ idea that the Earth’s field has been decaying exponentially ever since creation, and has instead postulated a more complex history for the magnetic field, built around the presumption that the field reversals happened very rapidly. 

OK.  I’m through.  We’ve dealt with Flagella, salinity, exponential decay of earth’s magnetosphere, short-range comets, and my bathwater.  I really, really, really don’t have time for this.  Yeah, I could dedicate the rest of my life to “proving” that the world is round, but there’s nothing in it for me.  I don’t get any “conversion” points if the nutcases suddenly see the light.

If you guys truly have to courage of your convictions, though, you’ll take this garbage over to the internet infidels forum.  They’ve got a forum dedicated to just the validity of Evolution, and they’ll welcome you with open arms (and sharpened knives, but what do you expect from infidels?)

I really, really, really don’t have time for this.

Let’s talk about the evolution of Christianity, then. Let’s say the species are Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox. Speciation (schism) occurs when a mutagen (like secular knowledge) causes a sufficient amount of mutations (disagreement about the interpretation of scripture or whatnot). The selection criteria would be the effect on the congregation’s membership numbers.

From there, we can pursue a creationist interpretation - the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations is clearly designed. The particular dogmas would be the equivalent of irreducible complexity.

Jay continues to babble his nonsense…

first off, its a religion…i whipped out websters remember? whos ignorant now?

Apparently you are.

First you make it clear you don’t even know what the Theory of Evolution actually says and then you make it clear that you don’t know the difference between a scientific theory and a religion. No, I take that back; you’re worse than ignorant. You’re an idiot. With ignorant people there’s at least some hope you can educate them. With idiots there’s usually no hope.

Seeing as you seem to feel that the dictionary is a good authority on this issue try looking up “evolution” in your Webster’s and you will see that it is listed as a theory and not a religion. The same is true in the The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, and the Merriam-Webster Unabridged dictionary, along with several others I won’t bother to list at this time. Perhaps your dictionary is missing those pages? Or, more likely, you just didn’t bother to consult that section.

and with that reply actually you just showed you have no idea what youre talking about, if you knew better you would know Darwin’s little assertion about matter being related. The fact that this doesnt strike you as a problem demonstrates that you just like the theory because of pure lust.

Nice try at turning my words against me. Shame you ended up looking like an idiot trying to use the dictionary to support your silly claim that Evolution is a religion without bothering to see if it actually said anything on the issue first.

I never said anything about Darwin’s assertion on matter being related, in fact I’m not entirely certain what the hell you mean by that as I don’t recall Darwin ever discussing matter. Not that he’d be wrong if he had said it. All matter is made up of the same basic building blocks so in that sense it’s a perfectly reasonable statement to make, though one that’s more likely to come from a physicist than a naturalist such as Darwin.

Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. How the hell does one “lust” after a theory?

If it weren’t for the fact that I’ve actually had people I’ve met try to use the same absurd arguments I’d almost think you were just a comment troll stirring up trouble. It’s hard to decide whether to be saddened or amused by your antics.

THINK LOGICALLY PEOPLE

You seem to be incapable of this yourself so the irony here is almost too much to bear.

The other irony comes from your constant harping on how no one has ever seen first-hand various things such as the Oort cloud or the life cycle of stars to support the idea that a God which no one has ever seen is responsible for holding everything together via some process that no one has ever seen first hand. There’s nothing observable or scientific about the claims you’ve made to date, though there is much that is laughable about them.

Stay tuned for the next episode of Jay and Silent God…

Damn, I wish I’d said that, elwedriddsche. Too funny!

We can only hope that Jay will continue to grace us with his fallacious argumentative styles. It really helps me to see what not to do.

Nota bene:  I can’t -prove- that if I drop a ball, it will fall to the earth, but -science- allows me to have a fair degree of -confidence- that this will happen.  Not faith.  Confidence.  Science makes no claims for “Truth�? with a capital T.  Science does not claim that it is impossible for God to suddenly decide that the ball will -not- fall, but hang motionless in the air while playing Wagner’s ride of the Valkyries. . .  backwards

WHAT?? Not this again…YOU DON’T NEED FAITH FOR GRAVITY, we see it happening, we don’t see fish growing limbs to walk on land!! THAT REQURES FAITH Don’t compare these.

  One of the big mistakes here is giving credence to creationism as a science.  Once credence is given to false studies by calling them science it becomes possible to prove or disprove whatever one sees fit.  I’m sure there’s a nice, neat technical name for it but I’m at a loss.

One of the big mistakes is also giving credence to evolutionismarywhatever as a science. ITS NOT happening. No one has evidence for it.

I notice that you skipped right over the part where Backus demonstrated that magnetic fields could be regenerated (in a dipole dynamo) by velocity fields in a conducting fluid.  Strike two for exponential decay, -and- fluid dynamo theory starts to look even better.

I notice you skipped over the toothpick argument, the oxidize problem and whatnot. Don’t make it look like Im not takin 5 people.

Whaaaaa?  Uh, dude, the theory of evolution only deals with genetic changes in a specific -biological- population over time.  Stars don’t evolve.  Nor does “order�? imply “design.�? Yadda yadda.

Thank you for showing you don’t even know your own theory (not scientific,). Gotta have stellar, chemical (which by the way is a huge problem), and bio evolution for all this to happen. Don’t say that’s not part of it, it’s a package deal. White dwarf star much? Gotta have stars replenish remember (what?? A bunch of Stars blow up to create new ones to maintain an orderly spiral fashion?)

  Evolution is not RANDOM.  Only someone who does not understand the basic principles of evolution would make such a statement

I beg to differ, only someone who doesn’t get it would say its not random. Bunch of stars blowing up creating new ones, animals killing each other to survive until they become man, primordial soup coming alive…if nothing is governing this with sovereignty then sorry its random. If something does, (nature selects?? Wha—? That’s more ridiculous than a God selecting, at least mine is intelligent.) then your deifying whatever the mysterious force is thus making it a religion even more…it’s a lose lose situation…its gonna contradict itself through you guys nonetheless.

Apparently you are.
First you make it clear you don’t even know what the Theory of Evolution actually says and then you make it clear that you don’t know the difference between a scientific theory and a religion. No, I take that back; you’re worse than ignorant. You’re an idiot. With ignorant people there’s at least some hope you can educate them. With idiots there’s usually no hope.
Seeing as you seem to feel that the dictionary is a good authority on this issue try looking up “evolution�? in your Webster’s and you will see that it is listed as a theory and not a religion. The same is true in the The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, and the Merriam-Webster Unabridged dictionary, along with several others I won’t bother to list at this time. Perhaps your dictionary is missing those pages? Or, more likely, you just didn’t bother to consult that section.

Call it theory or whatever you want. Point is, it fits the criteria for a religion…I could say Christianity is a scientific theory also. We got our interpretation of the evidence you got yours. If fact lets end this now. I believe in the Beginning God made the universe, you believe it made itself OUT OF NOTHING (WHAT??). You believe man was once an Ape, and the ape was once a fish, all a bunch of assumptions. Your religious theory (there we go) is based on evidence that has NEVER been observed. Both require FAITH, and are based on NOT empirical evidence. Apparently JOO don’t know what the evolutionary religion says, because you would know there is nothing on it. Wheres my iota of fact anyways? Religion it is. And in either case don’t let the definition spoil you, you know both viewpoints are on the same grounds. In the beginning….(insert something here). Nice try.

  Nice try at turning my words against me. Shame you ended up looking like an idiot trying to use the dictionary to support your silly claim that Evolution is a religion without bothering to see if it actually said anything on the issue first.
I never said anything about Darwin’s assertion on matter being related, in fact I’m not entirely certain what the hell you mean by that as I don’t recall Darwin ever discussing matter.

Whats that? Never said anything about Darwins assertion on matter being related? Don’t recall? Difference between then and now Is I still don’t care. Read his book…For once. Then come back. Cuz if you did you would know he states that life forms are related. Even if he didn’t its common sense, look through your own theory about where life came from and tell me an orange and a dog cant be related.

Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. How the hell does one “lust�? after a theory?

WHAA? Read again…It clearly states BECAUSE of lust…I have official insulting rights but Im not like you.

  You seem to be incapable of this yourself so the irony here is almost too much to bear.
The other irony comes from your constant harping on how no one has ever seen first-hand various things such as the Oort cloud or the life cycle of stars to support the idea that a God which no one has ever seen is responsible for holding everything together via some process that no one has ever seen first hand

Watch it Les you just choked yourself. Im impressed though that you figured out my position is a religion. Now why don’t you admit yours is one too? I just love how you try to make mine look like its based on faith and somehow that proves yours is science.

Stay tuned for the next episode of Jay and Silent God… 

Stay tuned for the next episode of elwedriddsche and Silent dirt…

Lets look at this from a common sense point of view…You actually believe that pouring water on rocks will eventually come alive…I don’t care how long you mix dirt…do it for 832749 billion years if you want…it doesn’t have the capacity for life. Don’t make it look like Im against science or something when in fact evolution has nothing to do with it. Truth is you guys cant even get past the concept of dirt having the drive to reproduce…and become a fish. Its just not viable people. Dropped any toothpicks lately? I don’t care how long you stand outside and flap your arms, your not gonna get wings. I know whats going on. A creationist pulls out a reason why evolution is impossible, and you think that an article posing a MINUTE possibility proves it happened (and those are just the ones that are MINUTE). If you guys got it so down and the evidence is so overwhelming then go debate Hovind publicly (as opposed to opening up a thread and babbling about him behind his back)…I would doubt you would, cuz even your boy Steven Jay Ghoul (sp) backs off, hes one of the big dogs too. He also admits there is a serious lack of evidence to support your religion…Would you do it then? Doubt it. But I would definitely buy that video for laughing purposes because watching the other professors get their mom’s fish owned is hilarious.  ~[FiliRican out]

Jay,

PLEASE come on over to IIDB!!

It’s been a little boring and we could use a laugh!

Testing, 1, 2, 3 testing

Logos,

Quote:
“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.“

I’m not sure that this argument has much grounds.  For example the Nazis weren’t particularly interested in “Darwinism”.  Hitler, from what I remember from reading Mein Kampf years ago, badly interpreted Nietzschean views, which were more informed by the side effects of a case of syphilis than Darwin (at least in Der Wille zur Macht).  So to say that Darwin led to the horrors committed by the Nazis doesn’t seem to be a reasonable claim.  Secondly, I don’t know what Sparta has to do at all with this discussion given that Sparta was a city state long before Darwin was even born.  I’m not sure how Darwin’s views and the Spartans’ views have anything to do with one another.  As such I’m not sure how it follows that aiding one another is “anti-Darwinian”.  Indeed, there are very good evolutionary reasons for us to help one another.  Mutual assistance greatly improves fitness for all individuals involved.  Elliott Sober has a number of good articles regarding altruism and group selection, those would be a good place to start if you are interested in the topic that I just mentioned above.

you figured out my position is a religion. ... I just love how you try to make mine look like its based on faith

Priceless.

Ok, here is my viewpoint. Let me say first off that I am a Christian. I believe that God created the earth in six, literal, 24 hour days. I have not been able to find any factual evidence for evolution instead, I have found severe gaps in the THEORY of evolution.

According to the theory of evolution, when conditions were right, the universe exploded from nothing into the vastness as we know now. Gap #1, if there was nothing (and I mean nothing) how could there be “conditions” that would trigger the Big Bang? If the Big Bang really happened (I don’t believe it did) where did the triggering elements come from?

The theory of evolution also bases the creation of man on mutations. Gap #2, how would creatures survive if only parts of them developed at one time? Take the woodpecker for example. It’s beak and head are especially designed for hard pounding. If beak evolved first, the head would be crushed if the woodpecker tried to use it. Vice versa, if the head had developed first, the beak would crinkle up like an accordian the first time he’d try to use it. Well, you say, “it’s called survival of the fittest” or, “adaptation. That’s all fine, but Gap #3. In adaptations, there is a loss of genetic information, there would be no way intelligence could increase by adaptation. Let me show you an example:

Here are some bears with medium length fur in a mild climate. The fur length if a combination of the genes Long “L” and Short “S”. See below:

LS   LS   LS   LS   LS   LS

These bears mate and produce offspring that has either long, medium, or short fur as a result of gene combinations. See below:

LS   LS   LS   LS   LS   LS
‘’‘I’‘’    ‘’‘I’‘’    ‘’‘I’‘’
  LL         LS         SS
(long fur)  (medium fur)  (short fur)

Now, as long as the bears are around each other, they can mate and produce offspring with random lengthed fur because of the variation in genes. Now suppose the climate changes. Let’s say the ice age hit (I DO believe in the ice age). Only the bears with long fur (LL) survive the cold, all others die off. So, with only bears with long fur around, they can only produce offspring with long fur.

LL   LL   LL   LL   LL   LL
‘’‘I’‘’    ‘’‘I’‘’    ‘’‘I’‘’
  LL         LL         LL
(all long fur)

There has been a loss of the “short” “S” fur genes. The same would be true of the long fur genes had the climate suddenly become very hot. That is an example of an adaptation. Therefore, there is no way you coul “adapt” to a high intelligence level.

“Intelligent design” is the next issue. There are certain microscopic parts of the body that are so intricate, our most expensive computers cannot equal them, yet they are vital to our life. They have so many little parts that are vital to their operation.Gap #4 In order for these to work each piece had to have evolved at exactly the same time. If bodies evolved piece by piece, these machines would have been useless at least, probably even eliminated during the adaptation process.

Gap #5—Time. The theory of evolution says that it took billions of years to form the earth. Things like humans and rocks took millions of years to form as well as did several sedimentary layers in the earth’s crust. Where is the proof? Yes, I have heard of Carbon 14 dating but guess what. Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to about fifty thousand years or so. Any further than that and it is unreliable. Ok, so you look at the fossils in the fossil column? According to the theory of evolution, the different layers of the column represent different ages. The fossils in there are dated according to the layers they are in. How were evolutionists able to date the layers? Why, it was by the fossils that was in them! Imagine that, the fossils date the layers, and the layers date the rocks. Is that circular or just me?

Ok, so if I’m refuting all of this, where is the proof that my beliefs are true? The Bible. Not only do studies show that the “young earth” viewpoint is becoming more and more feasible, isn’t it better to believe something based on faith rather than speculation?

I am open to debate on this subject, but please no crap about issues that are to the side. If you have another topic you would like to debate, bring it up, but if you are going to debate my topics, do so with that sole purpose in mind. I don’t want any crap about weak arguments until you have looked them up. By the way, http://www.answersingenesis.org is a great place to back up these arguements. If one of these is wrong, I’ll admit it. Post the link. But again, if you are going to refute the arguements I listed, do so with FACTUAL evidence, no theories. Thank you,

Hiseyea

Bibliography

http://www.answersingenesis.org
Creation Magazine
The Answers Book by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten.
Refuting Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
“Why Evolution is not True” by myself (copyright 2000).
Refuting Evolution by

Genes don’t just disappear, they get inactivated. That much as a (very) simple rebuttal to the ‘fur’ question. Also, you seem to be ignoring that mutation = new genetic information.

Hiseyea,

Quote:
“According to the theory of evolution, when conditions were right, the universe exploded from nothing into the vastness as we know now. Gap #1, if there was nothing (and I mean nothing) how could there be “conditions�? that would trigger the Big Bang? If the Big Bang really happened (I don’t believe it did) where did the triggering elements come from?“

Ummm, evolution doesn’t say anything about the big bang, I think you’re conflating cosmological physics with evolutionary biology.  Evolution only regards the shifting of gene frequencies over time as a response to environmental conditions.  It doesn’t say anything about the beginning of the universe.

Quote:
“The theory of evolution also bases the creation of man on mutations”

Yeah, and?  Also prior to Darwin the suggestion was made that humans evolved from the same stock as other primates given fossil findings, it was just no one took the suggestion all that seriously because there was no explanation of how the process might work.  Darwin’s theory of natural selection came after quasi-evolutionary views like the views of Lamarck (who suggested that traits, innate or acquired, can be passed from parent to child), which people accepted before as a result of observed evidence before Darwin came around. 

As for your bear example, I don’t think coding for fur is that simple.  It’s a short hand Mendelean explanation for a multi-locus gene (keep in mind that Mendel, one of the more important contributors to evolutionary theory, was a catholic monk who found that one could breed stable changes in bean plants and suggested the notion of the gene and the shifting of gene frequencies).  Also you assume that all non long haired bears would die.  That’s not clearly the case, it seems plausible to say that a few of the medium haired bears might have survived as a result of other factors such as high body fat content. 

The mistake with the notion of Intelligent Design going all the way back to William Paley is the assumption that the intricacies necessary for our existence arrived as a result of our existence.  Put differently, the suggestion that things are the way they are to suit our needs.  This is simply an assumption to be proved, it seems equally reasonable to say that we happen to be the way we are as a result of things being the way they were previously.  As you note, some of the “intricate” structures if they occurred previous to us would have had no particular use.  I will grant that is the case, but I will also note that many species co-opt old useless traits to new functions.  For example, wings on vertebrate species are found in the fossil record far before animals that could fly.  Numerous dinosaurs with dense bone structure (which indicates a lack of flight) had wing like forelimbs (some have suggested that their purpose might have been to improve running performance or thermoregulation).  However, as time went on, some individuals were probably born with lighter bone structure (perhaps as a result of birth defect, or something like that) that were able to exploit their fairly useless wings to do something far more useful (namely flying).  These individuals were, as history has demonstrated, more likely to survive and reproduce and their concentration in the population increased to their present levels where nearly all winged animals fly.  Now I will grant that if you don’t accept that levelling is indicative of age of fossils then this argument is a no starter, but that move would be similar to me simply denying that God exists which would similarly kill your argument before it starts.

Quote:
“Gap #5—Time. The theory of evolution says that it took billions of years to form the earth. Things like humans and rocks took millions of years to form as well as did several sedimentary layers in the earth’s crust. Where is the proof? Yes, I have heard of Carbon 14 dating but guess what. Carbon 14 dating is only accurate to about fifty thousand years or so. Any further than that and it is unreliable. Ok, so you look at the fossils in the fossil column? According to the theory of evolution, the different layers of the column represent different ages. The fossils in there are dated according to the layers they are in. How were evolutionists able to date the layers? Why, it was by the fossils that was in them! Imagine that, the fossils date the layers, and the layers date the rocks. Is that circular or just me?“

The age of the Earth is determined by plate tectonics, not by Carbon 14 dating or by the theory of evolution.  Carbon 14 dating only is effective with organic material that isn’t too old geologically speaking and evolutionary theory says nothing about the age of the Earth or anything to do with layering.  This time you’re conflating geology with evolutionary biology.  That said, as for the particulars of how plate tectonics can inform us of the age of the planet, I have no idea, I don’t know geology.  However, I would assume that plate tectonics is a sound idea that has gone so far as being accepted by the Catholic Church much as Copernican Astronomy has (so far as I know, the church might still argue that the sun, and the rest of the universe, revolves around Earth and that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur as the result of the will of God).