Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

[thumontico]

Best wishes to your fragile ego...

This is the only selection I find reasonable enough to respond to:
Maybe one day you can explain why you have decided that Evolutionisms Creation Myth is MORE accurate than Creationist Theory.
This is the day.

Scientific evidence strongly supports evolution. That is scientifically probable explainations of the initial creation of amino-acids can be explained through scientific means.

The creationist theory (to my understanding) is that one day some ineffable being created the heaven and the earth. That is by some metaphysical occurence that, is clearly beyond the comprehension of man, the reality of which I am presently percieving was created.

So I have two theories here. One that is supported by the sciences of this reality that I am percieving and One that has no explaination at all [simply that it happened].

Beyond my disbelief in God, a priori to me, one is left with these two possibilities. That a scientifically probable explaination is more likely or an epistemogically unfounded, unexplained, metaphysical process of God is more likely.

Furthermore, the realization that there are not merely two possibilities endorses the fromer theory. There are many different religions that have different explainations of the creation of the world, not merely the Christian Creationism and Evolutionism.

Essentially, in no way, its entirety.

[geckopelli]

Brockton,

Your propensity to make-up new definitions to established words and accepted terms indicates you may have lost your anchor in reality altogether.

So for the sake of your mental health...

Boy, that brockton really showed us! He brought down the entire scientific establishment, as well as redefined some of the dictionary! Man, do I feel silly wasting all those years on education when all I had to do was consult an un-educated high schooler!
Just think of all that research over the last 300 year- a waste of time. Magic was the answer and the explanation all along!

[Brocktoon]

Best wishes to your fragile ego...
Thumontico.. Dont worry.. I dont even believe there is an 'Ego' anyway, [although I do like some of Freuds ideas.]

This is the only selection I find reasonable enough to respond to:

This is the day.

Scientific evidence strongly supports evolution.
I do not agree.

Please tell me your logic is not circular though?
You believe Evolutionism is 'Scientific' because it 'IS' Scientific, therefore it is Scientific?

We had this guy called Geckopelli who ran that hamster-wheel to death.

That is scientifically probable explainations of the initial creation of amino-acids can be explained through scientific means.
I recall a researcher claimed to have done this back in the 1950's.
Although it was never accepted by the rest of the scientific community (on the whole) it quickly became something of an 'Urban Legend'.
So much so - that numbers of experiments were done just to demonstrate it was NOT true.

If you know of some new way (and Im sure you dont) please throw me a link to it.
If not, then I suggest you are mistaken.

The creationist theory (to my understanding) is that one day some ineffable being created the heaven and the earth. That is by some metaphysical occurence that, is clearly beyond the comprehension of man, the reality of which I am presently percieving was created.
So far, we are only stating that it must have been an Intelligent Designer.

Maybe you think it was Many Aliens or maybe you say it was Allah?

We start by looking at what (based on reason and knowledge) must have been the Cause.

So I have two theories here. One that is supported by the sciences of this reality that I am percieving and One that has no explaination at all [simply that it happened].
Evolutionists are stating that it 'Simply Happened'.
This IS their belief.

Creationist also state that it 'Happened' but provide a reasonable explanation based on the observable reality around us.

Beyond my disbelief in God, a priori to me, one is left with these two possibilities. That a scientifically probable explaination is more likely or an epistemogically unfounded, unexplained, metaphysical process of God is more likely.
Ok. Again you are doing nothing here but make more lame insult comments.

You are once again Stating Evolutionism is 'Probable' simply because you say its Probable, 'therefore' its 'Probable'.

Furthermore, the realization that there are not merely two possibilities endorses the fromer theory. There are many different religions that have different explainations of the creation of the world, not merely the Christian Creationism and Evolutionism.

Essentially, in no way, its entirety.
Everybody is a Creationist.

Geckopelli believes the Universe was Created.

Evolutionists also believe the Universe was created. They just insist it happened ONCE by ACCIDENT and then 70000000+ MORE TIMES, DAY AFTER DAY For MILLIONS of years.

(We like to call this 'Less Probable' than the theory proposing it happened ONE TIME)

[geckopelli]

geckopelli DOES NOT believe the Universe was created.

stop puting words in my mouth, you ignorant fool.

[geckopelli]

" recall a researcher claimed to have done this back in the 1950's.
Although it was never accepted by the rest of the scientific community (on the whole) it quickly became something of an 'Urban Legend'.
So much so - that numbers of experiments were done just to demonstrate it was NOT true."

A flat lie.

I already layed you to rest with a more detailed description of these proceses.

Your an ass brockton- you're just making shit up now.

This forum is for discussions of facts and opinions, not your need to complusivly lie.

[Brocktoon]

geckopelli DOES NOT believe the Universe was created.

stop puting words in my mouth, you ignorant fool.
Its hard to 'Not' put words in your mouth when you say pretty much anything that 'sounds' like you are 'trouncing' something.

In anycase, I should have said 'All that is IN the Universe'

Or knowing you.. 'The WAY all that is IN the Universe is now assembled'.

Maybe I should brush up on your ground-breaking theory .. err.. Equatics was it?
That thing was CLASSIC!

[Brocktoon]

A flat lie.

I already layed you to rest with a more detailed description of these proceses.


You were not refering to the same unfounded rumour that Thumbonitca was (probably) refering to.

Having said that - your description was definatley NOT 'Detailed' and did not even describe a 'Process'.

You simply asked an open-ended 'Why Not' Question and made bizarre presumptions for Creationism.

Then you admitted you've never heard of New Genetic Information being observed to appear.
You then admitted that dont know of any way it happens.

Then you repeatedly 'announced' I had been 'Vanquished'.

[Brocktoon]

Had to post you guys this article snippet in hopes it will clear up some misunderstandings (some) people here are having regarding the Theory of Evolution.

This btw takes us directly back to the actual topic. Darwinism.
Darwinism DOES NOT work and is NOT the belief system of Evolutionists anymore.

the quote from biophysicist Dr. Spetner explains why mutations DO NOT add information - but are known to REDUCE information. (The OPPOSITE of what Evolutionists believe 'must have happened' once upon a time when, they believe, laws of biophysics 'must' have been different)

Geckopelli.. Could you please read through this and tell me if you agree with Dr. Spencer?

If you disagree - Why?
================================================== ======
Even if we grant evolutionists the first cell, the problem of increasing the total information content remains. To go from the first cell to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of information—billions of base pairs (‘letters’) worth. This includes the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. In the section on variation and evolution, we showed that evolution relies on copying errors and natural selection to generate the required new information. However, the examples of ‘contemporary evolution’ presented by Teaching about Evolution are all losses of information.
This is confirmed by the biophysicist Dr Lee Spetner, who taught information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University:


In this chapter I’ll bring several examples of evolution, [i.e., instances alleged to be examples of evolution] particularly mutations, and show that information is not increased. … But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information.


All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.

The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.[17 (http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp#17)]


This is not to say that no mutation is ‘beneficial,’ that is, it helps the organism to survive. But as pointed out in previously, even increased antibiotic and pesticide resistance is usually the result of loss of information, or sometimes a transfer of information—never the result of new information. Other beneficial mutations include wingless beetles on small desert islands—if beetles lose their wings and so can’t fly, the wind is less likely to blow them out to sea.[18 (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp?vPrint=1)] Obviously, this has nothing to do with the origins of flight in the first place, which is what evolution is supposed to be about. Insect flight requires complicated movements to generate the patterns of vortices needed for lift—it took a sophisticated robot to simulate the motion.[19 (http://www.trueorigin.org/design01.asp#19)]

[cabdirazzaq]

Brocktoon, you are like the evil guy poking his lying opponent with a stick while being down, meaning you have won this battle[according to ME] along time ago, it has started to become quite boring acually -this is the first time we ever seem to agree on something, interesting and scary-.

[Razorofoccam]

Brocktoon, you are like the evil guy poking his lying opponent with a stick while being down, meaning you have won this battle[according to ME] along time ago, it has started to become quite boring acually -this is the first time we ever seem to agree on something, interesting and scary-.
Cabdirazzaq

So you agree with brocktroon, that evolution is false....

Even though occam has propossed that EVOLUTION
Is gods way of creating. And you cannot say it is not.

No-one can....
Evolution...Is now religions great hope....
For IT IS THE LAW OF GOD. It is 'creation' by any other name.
[that smells just as sweet]

Occam

[Sera Michele]

This is just hilarious....Sorry guys, but I am going to drop out of this one. The quote at the bottom of my signature should lend some explanation as to why.

I have climbed the ropes with Brocktoon before over a topic while he twists human history, reality, and the meaning of words to fit inside his padded walls. It gets nowhere. We all have to realize that there are a few dolts in this world we would never reach, even if logic came up and bit them in the ass they wouldn't know how to use it. Just how to twist it of course.

[geckopelli]

Your article is not scientific. Your "Dr." begins by stating that he is defending his agenda.

Enough propagadistic bullshit from the lunatic fringe crowd.

I shall give a definitive, verifiable, account of the first steps in the evolutionary process of life, as well as demonstrate that the formation of life from non-living beginings is not only practical, but inevitable. Further, the matter of complexed system evolving from simple systems will be illustrated.
After all, when brockton talks of "new", this is what he is trying to say: he doesn't accept complexity coming spontaneously from simplicity.

I invite our fanatic friends to read it, and dare them to offer rational objections.

Look for "The Evolution of the Universe: Life Inevitable."

[Brocktoon]

Brocktoon, you are like the evil guy poking his lying opponent with a stick while being down, meaning you have won this battle[according to ME] along time ago, it has started to become quite boring acually -this is the first time we ever seem to agree on something, interesting and scary-.
Cabdiraz.. you and me agreeing on something is very surprising and even scary hehe.
And yet.. the chances of this happening are far far greater than even ONE single strand of DNA 'accidently' developing over Millions of years!

;)

[Brocktoon]

Your article is not scientific. Your "Dr." begins by stating that he is defending his agenda.

Enough propagadistic bullshit from the lunatic fringe crowd.

I shall give a definitive, verifiable, account of the first steps in the evolutionary process of life, as well as demonstrate that the formation of life from non-living beginings is not only practical, but inevitable. Further, the matter of complexed system evolving from simple systems will be illustrated.
After all, when brockton talks of "new", this is what he is trying to say: he doesn't accept complexity coming spontaneously from simplicity.

I invite our fanatic friends to read it, and dare them to offer rational objections.

Look for "The Evolution of the Universe: Life Inevitable."
Oh man!

This should be RICH! I cant wait to see your latest work - 'LIfe Inevitable' appearing on our Hipforum Shelves!

[geckopelli]

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50743

An education awaits you, oh believer of corrupt nonesense.

Up to the challenge?

[BlackGuardXIII]

The theory that is taught which describes the last ice age. Totally ludicrous.
There is a veritable treasure chest of easily accessible evidence that there was a very serious global cataclysm at the time the Mammoths, etc. went extinct.
Yet the gradual, nonthreatening version is still taught. It is BS in the extreme.
You are mistaking state of the art for belief. Theories are just that; they are not dogmatic belief.
They roll with the punches or are eventually demolished by factual observation.

The subject is currently a matter of debate between various sciences.

Also, it's a soft science, not a hard one. It cannot be mathematically described.

It's a matter of proabilities.

Geckopelli.


I submit that these 'theories', esp. the ice age one, have had decades of time to admit that the evidence reflects a very different version of events, yet the 'scientific establishment', has not yet rolled with the punches.
How long is eventually?

[Brocktoon]

One reason I distrust the 'Established' Evolutionist crowd is because they deliberately allow the public to keep believing in theories or 'Evidence' - as long as it helps their cause.

'Lucy' was never thought to be anything more than a Giant Gibbon by MOST researchers, and yet 'Lucy' was absolutely touted as 'Proof' of an 'in-between'.
Most people dont even realise that all the professionals KNOW Lucy really IS a Giant Gibbon (Thanks to MRI).
So Evolutionists said 'Goodbye' to Lucy a few years ago..
.. and YEt...
'Lucy' is STILL drawn into textbooks (with added 'human looking skin and erected vertebrae supplied by artists).

You can still watch a documentry on 'Discovery' channel that talk about her 'as if' its important 'proof' we evolved from apes (which evolved from soup).

The Ice Age is another good one you brought up BlackGuard.

Millers Experiment is still cited by laymen and you never see Evolutions being interested in correcting that, even though it was disregarded decades ago.

Recapitulation can STILL be found discussed by Laymen.. even though Evolutionists themselves would 'Spit-Take' coffee if anyone brings up that Hoax in a serious converstion.

Honestly.. there are far too many to go over each one - yet there is almost NO Apology when just about ANY so-called 'Evolution Fact' is then disregarded by the same people who just 10 years earlier told us was 'Proof'.

It just makes it hard to trust these people.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Hey, I don't mind the supportive note, but let's be clear, I am 180 degrees off of the creationists microbus. I lean more towards science, warts n all. I do have seriously scientific studies as my reason to dismiss the ice age fable being taught now.

What info. can you offer me to add to my knowledge base? Why do you find it to be wrong?
Please, honestly, I would really like to know, I am not joking.

[Brocktoon]

Im not that familiar with Ice-Age Research but I can tell you about one of the most amazing 'News Documentaries' I saw last year.

This guy is camped out in the NWT where he is going to prove once and for all how Old the Earth must be.

[This was all recorded on tape in case I didnt mention that]

So the crew follows his work while he begins taking Core-Samples.
For those who dont know - Every year there is a certain amount of Snow-Fall but not quite enough heat in the Summer to Melt all the last years snow.

If you take out a 'Core' you can see the 'Rings' .. much like how you would date a Tree (except this time the Years are lines up along the tube)

So long story short.. Im watching this and thinking "I know he wont get past about 7-8,000 years.

Yep... you guessed it - 8,000 Years of Winter/Summers.

He did NOT look impressed and you could just sense the .. almost 'Anger'.
Oh.. there was more at the bottom but it was basically a big mix of MUD, DEBRIS and ICE.
They tried to end the show by having him suggest that for Millions of years.. there must have been many chaotic seasons of mud, then water, then freezing, the melting and so thats why it was like this...

Hehe.. but they were truly fucked because that meant modern seasons were still only happening for the last 8,000 years (give or take a few)

This DID NOT FIT with ANYTHING that was 'Supposed' to have happened in any 'Official' Story.

And Im not gonna imply anything here but I have NEVER seen that documentary or study EVER again.
Not a single 'Peep' about it.

And yet.. this should have been touted as a MAJOR Discovery that would have us 'Rethink' the entire history of the Arctic.

Instead they seem to have disregarded it as an 'Abberation' and decided they will review all this data later when they can 'make sense of it'.

Whats crazy is - this was about as 'Hard Evidence' as you can get in this world.

Anyway.. if you ever see that documentary BlackG - let me know!
It was run on Global over there on the Coast but I cant recall the names involved.

VERY interesting and even more interesting how it 'Disappeared' afterwards

[geckopelli]

Brockton thinks watching the discovery channel and reading the bible equates with a Phd.

It doesn't. It doesn't even cover general science 101.

Let "brocktoon" post something not culled from a creationist anti-science web site, and answer questions himself. He doesn't understand the things he post, just as he has no clue as to what the scientific method is.

I went to some of his creationist sites. Most do not allow dissent to be posted- christians blowing smoke up one anothers asses is all that's premitted.

"How long is eventually?" Why, until they get it right, of course!

[darrellkitchen]

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46753

Just a reminder ...

[POPthree13]

Brocktoon -


The deepest ice core ever was over 3800 m in Antarctica. This sample dates from present to 400,000 years ago.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html

Ice cores in Greenland date to 110,000.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eismayewski.html

I am not familiar with the particular program you are talking about but failed ice-core dating projects are pretty common place - which is why you didn't see it splashed all over the news. It takes a high degree of scientific knowledge to find the right spot to get an ice core with any sigfnificant date range because:
1) In all but a FEW locations in the arctic snow melt is statistically equal to snow fall. Yes, a little snow builds up, but not enough to obtain clear dating results.
2) MOST of the artic is floating ice. Ice at the bottom of the sheet melts off continually into the sea.

Not knowing who/where/when this core was taken I can't refute the details. Lets just say that scores of core samples taken from precisely chosen locations around the world are able to cross-reference each other back well over 100,000 years. Deeper than that the ice is so closely compacted that you can only point out date ranges (not precise times), but those go back over 400,000 years.

[Brocktoon]

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46753

Just a reminder ...
Helpful Reminder Darrel.

This member has started three new Evolutionism Topics (in the same day) when there was already an active Evolutionism Topic being participated in.

Not Helpful to start redundant Topics all at once.

[geckopelli]

Give it up, juiceman.

The topics I started were all legit. but you go right ahead and lobby to get me band. It hasn't worked before, and it won't work again.

[Brocktoon]

PopThree:

In this case, these were Snow Samples. In the Summer the top layer of (that years) snowfall would melt just slightly. So you would basically get Cores of Snow with 'Ice Lines' in them.

Im not very familiar with Ice Cores but I agree they are fairly complicated to analyse (and yes, probably why they arent, so to speak, 'Popular')
I was just recently reading up on the Greenland Cores so hopefully I can get back to you on that soon.

The Snow Cores were supposed to be a solution to the Ice Cores but i suppose they will abandon them now.

[Razorofoccam]

Brocktroon

Occam askes how any Thinking being could believe that the world was created
AS IS .

If it was..Then it was created to look like it was not created.
Agree?

For the world looks OLD to occam...
Billions of years old...beaches with a billion years of silicon deposits..sand...
Mountains worn by eons of storms and gravity.
Tectonic plates..Solidification of magma at surface temps...

This deception may be how your god wished it to be...
But WHY?

[Why would a god wish us to think the world was NOT created AS IS {ex nihilo}
For there are a million indications it evolved .. and NON that it was created]

Why would a god create a world that has the marks of a world evolved..
Deception

Occam

[Brocktoon]

Your asking the wrong person the wrong question Occs.

Genesis is an account of a perfect planet which is then destroyed in a Global Cataclysm.
So there is really a first Creation.. then we have the next and current Creation.

If Genesis is right - then we expect to find features of the Earth eroded, washed out, re-arraigned, or buried in miles of debris.

In other cases - the reason you think the world looks very very old is because you have used your imagination to assume the appearance of age.
Or
You have pre-decided to accept something Evolved and therefore you state it evolved because it has evolved - therefore it appears to have evolved.

[Mui]

i think someone needs to take a basic class of physical anthropology before they start making absurd and false claims about darwinism

[Sera Michele]

You have pre-decided to accept something Evolved and therefore you state it evolved because it has evolved - therefore it appears to have evolved. My high school science teacher had this same deluded view of evolution. In fact, this could be a quote from him. Keep in mind he also believed that men had one less rib then women.

The evidence for evolution is there, Brocktoon, wether you refuse to see it or not. And it doesn't have to disrupt your belief in god.

And to everyone else: Brocktoon will go hundreds of pages repeating the same nonsense, but hasn't he proved his ignorance to you enough? I don't know if you are getting humor out of it (and I admit, much of it is funny) or trying to defend the science he is foolishly and illogically attacking and mutilating to fit his views. You can't talk sense into everyone, and while I think we have all made an ambitious run of it, I think Brocktoon is just someone who won't be able to step away from his bias and take an objective look at the subject. I suggest giving up rather than encouraging his irrationality. It doesn't do people any good to fuel the fire of religious fools.

[Brocktoon]

i think someone needs to take a basic class of physical anthropology before they start making absurd and false claims about darwinism
I agree.
Geckopelli probably did, but it was back in the 70's and that was using textbooks from the 1930's which referenced studies from the turn of the century.

Mui, that is one reason why Ive gone into detail about what Darwinism really is, why it made those claims and why it is no longer acceptable.

[Brocktoon]

Sera Michele:

Could you please be specific about what exactly you think Im 'Ignorant' of?
When I ask you that question - Im asking you to state the actual points and issues themselves.
Simply spamming this board with 'Announcement' that 'Brocktoon is wrong' is not exactly helpful.

Feel free to quote an actual sentence/paragraph and then CLEARLY explain WHY you disagree.
Dont just announce that you deem it 'Ignorant' or just ask us to believe 'You know otherwise' without explaining why.

See.. this is how people 'Discuss' things meaningfully.
Thanks

[Sera Michele]

You can go back and read my posts if you wish. I have no intention of participating further in this joke of an accusation that evolution is somehow uncientific. Especially when that accusation is coming from a creationist.

However, if you want specifics of how you are being ignorant, go back and read your last posts.

[geckopelli]

Brocktoon signels defeat when he shifts too maligning me in post that have nothing to do with me, such as his last, but one.

It seems his usefulness is at an end once again.

The problem is, I have a few interesting topics to post, (you see I'm severly laid-up right now, and have way too much time on my hands), but if I do so, "brooktoon" will disrupt them and attempt to turn them into anti-evolution propaganda threads.

What to do?

[Brocktoon]

Geckopelli - There was already an active post about Darwinism, in which most any of your related ideas could have been fit.
Instead you posted THREE similar topics in the same 24 hour period.

But hey.. since my ideas are so 'Defeated' then I really dont see why you cant just ignore away and post to your own delight.

If you or anyone else finds the scroll bar (or mousewheel) so difficult to use - then you can simply censor my posts from you own eyes.

Enjoy

[geckopelli]

Darrell,

I'm biting my tongue really hard...

I leave it to you-

Should I go hardcore on his ass, or would you like to handle it?

[Brocktoon]

No no.. Id like it if you did Gecko.

Please DO go 'Hardcore' on my 'ass'.
I cant bear to see your poor tongue like that.

Please DO explain Critical Thinking.
Explain why the Bereans could not have been using it and why.

Please, by all means feel free.

Go Go Gecko!

[Brocktoon]

Once again people - Its not helpful to just jump into threads and announce your intended position - without - explaining why or how .. or what it means to the discussion.

"I dislike Evolutionists commenting in this thread.. Im not going to like Evolutionism!"

Is that Helpful.
No.

So it would be great if we can avoid that kind of posting folks.
Thanks

[Occam]

Razorofoccam is no longer a valid username on hip forums
Why

Tech glitch? maybe...
occam thinks he will soon find out.

[Occam]

The evidence for evolution is there, Brocktoon, wether you refuse to see it or not. And it doesn't have to disrupt your belief in god.
Sera

Agree..why..Because each individual belief in god is just that...

A personal belief....an idea of what one wishes a thing to be....
For the reality of the thing..A religious god...is all words.

[Brocktoon]

Sera

Agree..why..Because each individual belief in god is just that...

A personal belief....an idea of what one wishes a thing to be....
For the reality of the thing..A religious god...is all words.
This is not necessarily true.

Not from a logic standpoint.

Should Moses be minding his own business and God Himself appears before him, demonstrates Omnipotence and then leaves a number of physical demonstrations and witnesses on His way out the door...

.. Then we have Reality and its true whether Moses likes it or not.
Whether Moses 'Speaks Words' or Whether Moses likes Atheism or not.

Same could be true for many folks.
At least the possibility exists that someone could actually confirm (or have it confirmed to them) there IS a God.

Thats unlike your Evolution story - because no one even has THAT possibility.
[Unless Time Travel is possible one day??]

So Evolutionism is limited to ONLY faith in words.

God believers, at the very least COULD have a way that, they the individual can find proof.

Dig it?

[Sera Michele]

So creationism is more likely because there is a chance that a god could make himself present to an individual, wheras there is no being to make themselves present to prove evolution? It seems like you are pulling at strings here to keep faith in your favored theory...

Bah, nevermind I dropped out of this conversation. I was just dumbfounded by the terrible logic that is being used to support creationism.

...and I always have the urge to get the last word in...damn my stubborn personality :&

[Brocktoon]

No no Sera.. dont drop out.
Ive decided to try out your style.
Here I go:

Oh? So just because Someone is pulling at Strings to keep Faith in their favoured Theory YOU SAY that PRoves EVolution happened?

[enjoy that - its called a 'Classic Sera']

What I AM saying is that Occams assertion does not need to be correct.
Someone might very well believe God exists because it was empirically proved to them.
For example - Doubting Thomas does not end up having 'Faith in just words' but believes Jesus is God BECAUSE he has seen, touched and met with the resurrected and Omnipotence-Wielding Christ.

So its not necessarily true that a person believes in God through just 'Faith in what they have heard'.

Now it might be true that Im basing my faith on eyewitness accounts of people who based their faith on objective reality.

Tying this back to the topic (just for fun)
Evolutionism is based on having faith in words alone.

There are not even eyewitnesses or the possibility to have ones faith demonstrated empirically.

[darrellkitchen]

[enjoy that - its called a 'Classic Sera']
What are you doing, Brocktoon?

Darrell

[Sera Michele]

Evolution is based on scientific research, not just words alone.

It is creationism that needs faith in words.


But I am not here trying to prove that evolution (as we define it to be) is exactly how we got here. I am no expert in the field, but from my research of the subject it seems to be the most logical and scientific theory we have. Not to say how it is currently defined is absolute, I'm sure we will still make discoveries that will shape and change the theory.

Creationism, on the other hand, is just another mythical story of our origins. I don't take it any more seriously than any other mythical story I have read, like pregnant goddesses giving birth to our planet to hatching from a devine egg.

Anyhow, I consider myself to be agnostic, I don't deny the possibility of a god, I even enjoy the idea. But that doesn't mean I am going to let that change my perspective on reality.

But if some god made his physical presence known to me I would believe in that god. I would likely be surrounded by padded walls as well, but if that is my reality you gotta play the cards you're delt, ya know? It is hard to tell the difference between someone who is just crazy (seeing things), or someone who is seeing a real god. I don't think we can tell the difference. I doubt there is a difference...

[Sera Michele]

Oh? So just because Someone is pulling at Strings to keep Faith in their favoured Theory YOU SAY that PRoves EVolution happened?

[enjoy that - its called a 'Classic Sera']


haha

I do this same thing to my husband all the time, suffice it to say it does not make him so happy...I think I oversimplify the argument to make it sound a bit dumber than it is. Or something like that...

But now it's a 'Classic Sera'. I like that :p

[Brocktoon]

What are you doing, Brocktoon?

Darrell
This 2001 Space Odyssy Scenario just appeared in my mind and I can not stop laughing myself silly LOL!

Oh mannn Thanks Darrell, you just gave me huge smiles!
;)

[Occam]

Bah, nevermind I dropped out of this conversation. I was just dumbfounded by the terrible logic that is being used to support creationism.
Sera Michele

Creationism is not based in logic.
It is based in desire...

Creationism is not a possible explanation for a phenomena..as evolution is.
Existant phenomena -> theory
cause -> effect...

It is a 'theory' that exists to support the validity of an opinion...
That opinion being a religious belief..

Without the bible for example...There would be no christian creationist theory [ex nihilo]
AND THAT IS THE SUM TOTAL OF CREATIONIST THEORY
'EX NIHILO'

Occam

[Brocktoon]

Occam
Here is the difference:

Evolutionism is not based in logic.
It is based in desire...

Evolutionism is not a possible explanation for a phenomena..as Creation is.
Existant phenomena -> theory
cause -> effect...

It is a 'theory' that exists to support the validity of an opinion...
That opinion [Evolutionism] being a 'religious' belief..

Without the Evolutionist Stories for example...There would be no Evolutionist theory [ex nihilo]
AND THAT IS THE SUM TOTAL OF Evolutionist THEORY
'EX NIHILO'

Brocktoon.

[PS.. if you ever want to stop declaring positions and get into WHY you assert your positions - let me know]

[thumontico]

Brocktoon : "[PS.. if you ever want to stop declaring positions and get into WHY you assert your positions - let me know]"

You are rediculously hypocritical. The one who will go to great lengths to try to refute evolutionary theory in several pages on this forum and when questioned upon his beliefs on creationism he does not reply or makes an irrelevant comment.

Brocktoon, how old are you?

It would be very nice to believe that I would live on after death--what is my motivation for believing the contrary? Actuality.

[Brocktoon]

Thumotico,
Explain why you believe this and why.
Cite accurate sources.
I will tell you if and when your explanation satifies me.
Thanks

BTW.. It would be great to have some discussions about Creationism, however there are about 5 Evolutionists here who do absolutely nothing but 'Announce Evolutionism is Scientific becasue they deem it true (Scientific) there its Scientific becasue its Scientific'.

You already learned that complex working information (and you DID get many many sources for that concept) is observed to have Intelligent Design as its Cause.
This is true on most any observable situation we test.

At least you got to learn something.

Here, I see that Space Gasses turned into Planet Earth (as asserted by Geckopelli and parroted by you).
Is this based on ANYTHING?
Nope.
You two simply 'Say its true'.
You just want to 'believe' this happened.

Wow.

So basically I learned absolutely nothing other than two half-wits parrot a 'Story' they were told, based on NOTHING observable in Science.
In fact.. its a story that goes AGAINST observable and testable world as we know it.

So ya.. your UP on scientific enlightenment.
I have yet to get ANY enlightenment from Evolutionists.

[thumontico]

Let us clarify eachother. End the hostility, okay? Let us understand eachother.

Science is a medium for explaining phenomena, testable for authenticity to any probable degree, therefore, one could verily say that something is 'true' because it is based on scientific evidence.
Agreed?

My perception of Intelligent Design: Theorists posit explainations for phenomena (creation of the universe, life) that could, but do not NECESSARILY require Intelligent Design.

My perception of Evolutionary Theory: A theory, imperfect as it is, that gives us a reasonable and probable [for those with a particular mindset] on the creation of our universe, Earth, and existence of life on said planet. Although I believe this theory is probable, it is not NECESSARILY true, if only because Intelligent Design is possible.

You comment that the basis from which Evolutionary theory has been posited is contrary to the 'observable and testable' world in which we live. I respectfully and categorically believe this assertion to be false. Without clarification, we cannot procede.

If you wish, let us begin from here.

[Brocktoon]

Yes it is contrary to the observable and testable world around us.
[and if you can even find exceptions - they prove the rule]

An example that is also the centre of the debate - Genetic Information.

It is repeatedly observed that new generations DO NOT have ANY additional new genetic information.
This is Scientific Fact.

Further (Important) we DO observe occasional LOSS of genetic information.

So stop asking me to 'Cite Scientific Reason' - this IS clearly and repeatedly observed and understood.

NOBODY observes new additional genetic information. Its simply not seen.
[So far, nobody even knows how, why or if that is even possible.]

So then... its very simple:

IF you want to believe that new additional genetic information USED to appear, you are NOT BASING THIS ON SCIENCE.
That runs CONTRARY to what is seen, observed and repeatedly tested.

Honestly.. there is no argument about this. Its not confusing and its not 'Opinion'
This IS what we know.

How much more clearer can I be about this?

[Occam]

Occam
Here is the difference:

Evolutionism is not based in logic.
It is based in desire...

Evolutionism is not a possible explanation for a phenomena..as Creation is.
Existant phenomena -> theory
cause -> effect...

It is a 'theory' that exists to support the validity of an opinion...
That opinion [Evolutionism] being a 'religious' belief..

Without the Evolutionist Stories for example...There would be no Evolutionist theory [ex nihilo]
AND THAT IS THE SUM TOTAL OF Evolutionist THEORY
'EX NIHILO'

Brocktoon.

[PS.. if you ever want to stop declaring positions and get into WHY you assert your positions - let me know]
Brocktroon

A poor turnaround...

1. Evolution is a theory proposed by science...Based on existant phenomena.. From special differentiation. to species that exist now that did not once exist..And species that one existed that do not exist now...
And many more..
Occam never said it was fact...And it lives as a median possibillity
as an explanation...
There are MANY holes in it...but that is fine..For human understanding
of just about everthing is mostly holes...

This lack of understanding means evolution is possible only..not fact...

You say it is NOT POSSIBLE....no?
If you do not know all the variables involved..How can you say that a thing
IS or is NOT...? Is that logical? Nyet..

2. Christian creationism exists because genesis SAYS..god created everything..That is the only existant phenomena to support it...
And it in turn supports genesis...they work hand in hand to keep eachother alive as transient belief in human heads...
NOWHERE in reality..do we see EXISTANT phenomena created ex nihilo by the christian god.

Now...here is the pivot...

If you COULD show occam existant phenomena of such ex nihilo creation.
Then occam would, without predjudice place such phenomena besides
transition species such as reptile/bird in evolution....He would give creationism the possibily of 'truth' based on it's verifying phenomena
Occam cares NOT IF WE WERE CREATED OR EVOLVED..
Why should he? He is a rational being..what he wants has NOTHING to do with what WAS...and maybe..IS.

Why do you wish to know WHY occam asserts propositions?
Ideas are what we play with here...personal motivations are the LAST thing occam wants to hear about.
And he thinks you are one of the least qualified to comment on his personal motivations.

But occam will play along....
He makes propositions and offers opinions because
THAT IS HIS PURPOSE.

Occam

[Occam]

Brocktoon : "[PS.. if you ever want to stop declaring positions and get into WHY you assert your positions - let me know]"

You are rediculously hypocritical. The one who will go to great lengths to try to refute evolutionary theory in several pages on this forum and when questioned upon his beliefs on creationism he does not reply or makes an irrelevant comment.

Brocktoon, how old are you?

It would be very nice to believe that I would live on after death--what is my motivation for believing the contrary? Actuality.
Thumontico

'How old are you' is not relevent.

Hikaru is less than one third occams age...And is an accute thinker and
a ballanced human being... Far more than occam was at his age.
And occam has met MANY humans of 30 to 80 that are functionally
irrational compared to many teenagers he knows.

Let us not turn conversation of IDEAS..into questions of the person...
The IDEAS/CONCEPTS are why we are here..[most of us]

Those that are here to gain personal power by atacking and overbearing
others through denigration and abuse.. Should be given the respect they deserve.. ;)
Occam does not think brocktoon is one of those.. He has far too little accumen in that field from what occam has read so far.

Occam

[thumontico]

Relevent in the terms of maturity, absolutely. Necessarily? perhaps not, but likely nonetheless.

[Brocktoon]

I just realised this thread degenerated into a 'write-off' between two Star-Wars geeks in a battle for faux-jedi-sounding-philosophy-wisdom.

by default I become the mature one.

Any ideas how new genetic information creates itself?
No.

Maybe 'The Force' caused it?
?

[Occam]

I just realised this thread degenerated into a 'write-off' between two Star-Wars geeks in a battle for faux-jedi-sounding-philosophy-wisdom.

by default I become the mature one.

Any ideas how new genetic information creates itself?
No.

Maybe 'The Force' caused it?
? Brocktroon

Any ideas how EVERYTHING exists..?
No.

Maybe 'The Force' caused it

[woops!!!!..forgot that in creationism..'the force' DID cause it.]

You see..to an agnostic..the 'force' from starwars and the 'holy father'
from the bible.
Have equivalent validity.

Occam

[Brocktoon]

The Same thing happens in Agnostic Evolutionism as in Theistic Creationism:
The Universe comes into existance.

The difference being - The 'Force' A Naturalist 'has faith in' is a blind force which accidently 'happens'.

The Theist has a less amazing parallel - Everything still comes into existence but at the hands of an Intelligent 'Author'.

BTW.. 'The Force' in Star Wars is an authors adaptation of what Christians call 'The Holy Spirit' (God).

So your comparison does have validity.

btw p2:
You See.. To a Creation/ID Scientist The movie Starwars being created 'By Chance' from pools of plastic and ink has 'Equal Validity' as believing that the complex DNA of all living creatures came about 'by Chance'.

Sorry sorry... its not 'equally Valid' comparison because DNA is A MILLION TIMES MORE COMPLEX Than the ink combinations on a roll of Star Wars film.

[Occam]

The Same thing happens in Agnostic Evolutionism as in Theistic Creationism:
The Universe comes into existance.

The difference being - The 'Force' A Naturalist 'has faith in' is a blind force which accidently 'happens'.

The Theist has a less amazing parallel - Everything still comes into existence but at the hands of an Intelligent 'Author'.

BTW.. 'The Force' in Star Wars is an authors adaptation of what Christians call 'The Holy Spirit' (God).

So your comparison does have validity.

btw p2:
You See.. To a Creation/ID Scientist The movie Starwars being created 'By Chance' from pools of plastic and ink has 'Equal Validity' as believing that the complex DNA of all living creatures came about 'by Chance'.

Sorry sorry... its not 'equally Valid' comparison because DNA is A MILLION TIMES MORE COMPLEX Than the ink combinations on a roll of Star Wars film.
Brocktroon

Not at all...To occam there is no 'agnostic evolution'
Evolution theory is a product of science..not agnosticism.
Agnosticism..Is, to occam, a position on the existance or non
existance of a god...
Evolution theory is about physical processes in life.
And it is by no means a fact...it is an open theory...way open...
As an agnostic, occam holds evolution theory as a possible.
And no more...
But it seems he believes it much more possible than you do..

When did occam ever state he believed that reality is an accident?
To occam the incredible complexity and ballance of what we observe of reality.. Indicates 'direction'. But not through gross and apparently acausal events like creation ex nihilo.
Reality is a product of the 'objective laws' ..gravity, electromagnetism..
exct exct. Mater/energy is but the stuff that follows those laws.
Now.
All 'direction' has to do is be able to set the laws....

Occam holds as most probable...at this time [?]
That observable reality is the result of ~14 billion years durational process.
And that process..happened the way it has because 'direction' set the 'objective laws' up to result in maximum complexity...that which is needed to result in self aware conscious life...
Why? we have no idea...The above position , occam finds, holds the least contradiction to his understanding of reality.

The question of when the 'first laws' and the first matter/energy came to be is totally pointless.
Many seem to think Observable Reality is all the reality there is..
What an absurd assumption.. It may be just a small facet of a titanic edifice. And there is no evidence ANYWHERE that it is not exactlty that.
And there is also NO evidence to support the ASSUMPTION that any reality,totallity or facet, has to have had a beginning.
It may always have existed,, and always will. That is,,infinite duration.

He gives little possibillity to the likelyhood that the gods described by any human religion.
Are that 'direction'
They are far to contradictory and simplistic.

So you are saying your god made us...[snap of the fingers so to speak]
An occam suggests. A 'direction' maniplated the laws of reality to result in self aware life,,us.

Occam

[Brocktoon]

For Starters.. The less you use the term 'Ex Nihilo' the better.

Next - you do not believe this planet evolved towards more complexity and order based on Laws.
You base that on Faith that the Laws were not only different but the 'Opposite' of what you know now.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics?

The longer you leave all these chemicals, phenominon and matter to be there (billions of years) - the MORE LIKELY they move towards disorder.

Matter assembling itself into more efficient working complexity is NOT based on Laws you are aware of.

You base it on Faith.

[darrellkitchen]

For Starters.. The less you use the term 'Ex Nihilo' the better.

Next - you do not believe this planet evolved towards more complexity and order based on Laws.
You base that on Faith that the Laws were not only different but the 'Opposite' of what you know now.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics?

The longer you leave all these chemicals, phenominon and matter to be there (billions of years) - the MORE LIKELY they move towards disorder.

Matter assembling itself into more efficient working complexity is NOT based on Laws you are aware of.

You base it on Faith.
(L)aughing (M)y (A)** (O)ff

This reminds me of one of those post hypnotic suggestion ordeals where you are not convincing someone of the truth, but planting the suggestion that they actually believe the way you do ... as if !!!

Only thing is, you forgot ... You're getting sllleeeeppppyyyyy ...

lmao ...

Darrell

[Occam]

For Starters.. The less you use the term 'Ex Nihilo' the better.

Next - you do not believe this planet evolved towards more complexity and order based on Laws.
You base that on Faith that the Laws were not only different but the 'Opposite' of what you know now.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics?

The longer you leave all these chemicals, phenominon and matter to be there (billions of years) - the MORE LIKELY they move towards disorder.

Matter assembling itself into more efficient working complexity is NOT based on Laws you are aware of.

You base it on Faith.
Brooktroon

Occam will use the term as often as he sees fit to do so.

Are you saying you or science or any other human KNOWS all the objectives laws? That YOU KNOW that said objective laws will
NOT result in greater complexity?
If humanity doesnt even know what SPACE is. And the objective laws that form it. OR HOW mass warps space to result is GRAVITY.
And science freely admits it has no concrete theory of TIME.
Objective laws apply in the above that we do not know of.

You say matter does not gain complexity according to objective laws..
Then stellar formation and planetary system formation..all from less complex detrius and all work of objective laws are a lie..

That the complexity of the human race as a system of life [including society] is now.. NO MORE COMPLEX THAN IN 3000 BC. ?

Matter assembling itself into more greater working complexity IS
based on laws we are aware of..
The System/structure OF LIFE gaining greater working complexity
is based on laws/processes we are not aware of. Or only partially.

Do you suggest that because we are not aware of something..
Then it does not exist?

Occam

[darrellkitchen]

Sorry ... my post (#279) sure was not very Buddhist of me ... but it sure made me laugh, though ... and laugh ... and laugh ... and laugh ...

It was the funniest thing I read because it reminded me so much of the way a stage hypnotist plants suggestions in their [willing] participants subsconscious.

Sorry if it appeared to be a bit on the rude side ...

lmao ...

Darrell

[Brocktoon]

Its actually funny because YOU are the one planting a suggestion Darrel LOL!

You are suggesting that somewhere in my post was a 'suggestion'.
lol!

I stated a fact of the matter (Which Occam conciously agreed with)
which is:
He bases his belief on the Universe assembling itself into ordered complexity on Faith.
He simple reasons "Just because we dont know it happened - doesnt mean it couldnt'

Yes.. I agree with you Occam.
And credit where its due - your one of the ONLY Evolutionists here who readily admits that Evolutionism 'Might' or 'Might not' have happened.
Its not a 'Fact' but a 'Theory'.

I dont mind saying that none of us can go back in time and 'Prove' God created the world in six days.
All I ask is that Evoluitionists admit the same limitations.

So far, you are the only one who actually agree's.

... mind you... in about two posts later you probably would state that is DID happen because it DID?

[Sera Michele]

I think we all know that evolution is a theory, and what a theory is. Us "evolutionists" here just think it is the most likely theory, and worth defending to any creationist that dare call evolution unscientific.

We all know we can't go back billions of years to observe the process, and no one was trying to hide that from you. Why is it you have such a hard time accepting that we believe that we were created by evolution? We don't have to think it is a fact to do so. You think you would understand that, considering what you believe.

[gnrm23]

i'm proud to be "descended from soup"

:)

[Brocktoon]

"Ascended from Soup"

Don't forget, each generation of your soup ancestors was adding new genetic complexity along the way.

[gnrm23]

"one man gathers
what another man spills"

[gnrm23]

the second law applies to "closed systems"


and while the universe as a whole may or may not be "closed"
the earth most certainly is not (not only is it raining radiant energy from the sun; it is (and even more in the past was) "raining soup" (or at least soup fixins... ;) in the form of ummmm "cosmic infall" - lotta rocks, but a lotta "dirty ice" as well...)

(& as some of us know - whenever the H2) can be liquid state, intersting chemistry starts happening... heyheyhey, SOUP'S ON!)

and here we are...

~

[Brocktoon]

Yep.
So that goes to show that Soup can become a lifeform and grow itself into a Stegosaurus and a Chicken as well as Billions of Bats, Humans and a Trillion Bombadier Beetles.

I think some other soup was hit by lightening and turned into Bananas, A billion Oak Trees and Coral Reefs.

So ya.. the soup was created by outerspace chemicals falling on the earth .. 'And here we are'

Wow.

Well your perfectly entitled to believe that happened Grnm.
What is truly fascinating about your Creation Myth is that it happened BILLIONS OF TIMES IN ROW!


=============================
Update:

OK I found out the specs on the fundamental beliefs of Evolutionists.


Certain simple molecules underwent spontaneous, random chemical reactions until after about half-a-billion years complex organic molecules were produced.
Molecules that could replicate eventually were formed (the most common guess is nucleic acid molecules), along with enzymes and nutrient molecules that were surrounded by membraned cells.
Cells eventually somehow “learned” how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule (which contains a complete set of instructions for building a next generation of cells). During the reproduction process, the mutations changed the DNA code and produced cells that differed from the originals.
The variety of cells generated by this process eventually developed the machinery required to do all that was necessary to survive, reproduce, and create the next generation of cells in their likeness. Those cells that were better able to survive became more numerous in the population

Awesome Morphing Self Growing Space Soup!!

There are just a few little problems with this (not the least of which explaining why a half formed life-form would live long enough to 'learn' how to reproduce itself with more abilities and why it would 'know' to do that)

Probability not being the least dilema:

This guy Coppedge came up with a formula (and frankly - he is being VERY conservative and granting a lot of things to get this far):

1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10119,879 is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.

At this rate he estimates it would require 10119,831 years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10119,831 greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit.

Crazy world!

[gnrm23]

if someone would like a scientist's vesrion of "soup" ;) do check out
---> lynn margulis & dorian sagan:
_microcosmos_



(youl'll be glad you did...)

[gnrm23]

oh, and a fascinating aside about "early earth"


during the formation of the early solar system, it is believed by planetary scientitsts that the ancient earth had an ocean of liquid water, but no moon...
when the locally cosmic collision which generated our lovely luna occurred, the impact body crashed into the earth & sorta "plopped out" a nice spheroid of rather liquid planetary matter, which became our moon (the incredible heat of the collision of course instantly volatilized the oceans into steam) & the earth had to cool down (again) to the point at which "terrestrial" water, & "infalling volatiles" could again exist in liquid state...


pretty neat, huh?

[Brocktoon]

Grnm,,,,

You know very well there is no rationale explanation for the Moon outside of it being 'Put there' by 'someone'.

The best scientific explanation (in the words of Evolutionists even) is that the Moon is an Illusion.
That is how unsatisfactory any other explanation turns out to be.

You gave the impression that 'Planetary Scientists' as a whole endorsed that old theory .. and mistakenly gave the impression that its 'acceptable' when in fact its better described as 'The Least ridiculous but still unworkable' Hypothesis.

Even though the Moon forming or not has nothing to do with explaining why Soup would Morph into a Bird - Its pretty interesting.

Genesis says the Moon was deliberately 'put' there by ID for lighting at night and for seasons and dates.

Interesting thing.. The Moon is (from our point of view) is the same.. almost EXACTY the same size as the Sun.
Where its positioned is just about precisely where it needs to be to reflect just enough light to keep us alive.

Even more interesting - if it wasnt just about precisely where it is - it would work against life on Earth.

Mind you.. Grrm Planetary Scientists seem to believe the Moon could be nearly touching the Earth (or the huge blob of matter it was) and somehow this didnt interfere with Blobs of Stew mating and generating offspring with Eyes and forming tails and eventually Morphing into Teradactyls and such.

Here is some Scientific Info on the Moon:
http://www.trueorigin.org/moonjs.asp

:D

[thumontico]

"Where its positioned is just about precisely where it needs to be to reflect just enough light to keep us alive."

You are insane, Brocktoon. Who are you trying to convince? -- yourself?


Why didn't God create another star [diminished in size] to supplement the Sun's abilities at night? That certainly would be more efficient. For that matter, why didn't God create more habitable systems in general. Those which would create our temporary stay here on Earth a little more comfortable? Assumably by this whole creationist moon theory (and mainstream Judeo-Christian theology) that is clearly his intention. Omnibenevolence, no?

What is the purpose of moons orbiting other planets? To aid in the progressive life on those planets?--Such would be intuitive [by your standards]. What, in fact, is God's purpose for all of these other planets? For our amusement? To show off his glorified omnipotence?

No doubt your arguement will be "thats just how it is". Interestingly, your arguement against evolution, conversely, is typically just that [how could it just happen?], although, unfailingly you take the proposition out of context. You scrutinize scientific theory endlessly, but when it comes to your beliefs you can settle with "God just put it there." Why do your standards suddenly drop?

[geckopelli]

"You know very well there is no rationale explanation for the Moon outside of it being 'Put there' by 'someone'."

Christ! To begin with, "it being 'Put there' by 'someone'." is NOT, repeat NOT a rational explanation. It is begging the question, mr bush.
The hypothesis offered by grnm are far more detailed than your simplistic declaration of a secret "someone".
Remember, your messianic complex is NOT evidence- no god like proclamations of a new version of the Unkowable Truth, if you please.

"The best scientific explanation (in the words of Evolutionists even) is that the Moon is an Illusion."

Since you speak for the "evolutionist", I guess that makes me spokesmen for your side.

Annis,1:26, "And Jesus said unto the Lord, 'How so shall we banish ignorance from the mind of the most witless of my followers? Those who count fantasy and ignorance among the noblest of pursuits? For they are often bent to lies of word and to falsify the words of others.
Annis,1:27, "And thusly God answered his child, "You can fool all of the people for some of the time; and you can fool some of the people for all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people for all time."

"That is how unsatisfactory any other explanation turns out to be."
???????????????

"Even though the Moon forming or not has nothing to do with explaining why Soup would Morph into a Bird - Its pretty interesting."

You fool!
If you understood how the moon may have aided evolution on earth, you might put that together with the low-probability of lunar formation and had a small part of the argument you THINK you have now! Jah!

"Interesting thing.. The Moon is (from our point of view) is the same.. almost EXACTY the same size as the Sun.
Where its positioned is just about precisely where it needs to be to reflect just enough light to keep us alive."

Please recant this idiocy, least I have to point out the ignorance.

"Even more interesting - if it wasnt just about precisely where it is - it would work against life on Earth."

This is an argument for the 7,000 year-old earth, funde. Your true colors emerge-you're still the same old ignorant bible thumper, juice.

The creationist anti-argument (seems appropriate, as they offer no positive evidence for thier mania) here boils down as usual; he wants a mathematical description of the evolution of the earth-moon system.
Well, there isn't one-yet!

So I ask- YOU show a rigorous proof for "theory' of creation.

And-

"Once I saw beneath the stair
A little man who wasn't there..."

- won't cut it.

[Sera Michele]

Grnm,,,,

You know very well there is no rationale explanation for the Moon outside of it being 'Put there' by 'someone'. HAHAHAHAHA How rational...:rolleyes:

This is the "evidence' for your theory, yet you cannot seem to accept that there is evidence for evolution?


The best scientific explanation (in the words of Evolutionists even) is that the Moon is an Illusion.
That is how unsatisfactory any other explanation turns out to be. I think most of us believe that the moon is really there...

You gave the impression that 'Planetary Scientists' as a whole endorsed that old theory .. and mistakenly gave the impression that its 'acceptable' when in fact its better described as 'The Least ridiculous but still unworkable' Hypothesis. Well that definitely tops your "there is no rationale explanation for the Moon outside of it being 'Put there' by 'someone". But I promise you that science won't bother with unworkable theories. And they aren't unworkable just because you don't like them, or can't seem to wrap your mind around the concept of a world without a god.



Genesis says the Moon was deliberately 'put' there by ID for lighting at night and for seasons and dates.

Interesting thing.. The Moon is (from our point of view) is the same.. almost EXACTY the same size as the Sun.
Where its positioned is just about precisely where it needs to be to reflect just enough light to keep us alive.

Even more interesting - if it wasnt just about precisely where it is - it would work against life on Earth. I'm not sure how valid that comment is, but assuming it is correct, why does that work against the theory of evolution? Everything on this planet has been just about perfect conditions to nurture life. That's why we have developed life here, and why it likely hasn't developed in any other planets in our solar system or universe in general. What would be more proof of a god creating us is if we lived on a planet like Mercury, or somewhere that would normally be impossible to nurture life without a devine being's intervention.

[geckopelli]

"Interesting thing.. The Moon is (from our point of view) is the same.. almost EXACTY the same size as the Sun.
Where its positioned is just about precisely where it needs to be to reflect just enough light to keep us alive."

"I'm not sure how valid that comment is..."

It's completely invalid.

The Universal Law of Gravitaion MATHEMATICALLY states that the moon is now, and has been, receeding from the earth at a known rate. It is only during this particular piece of history that the moon has been so near the apparent size of the sun.

In the astronomically-near future, the moon will no longer totally eclipse the sun.

As for needing moonlight to survive, I fear brocktoon has betrayed a secret- he's afraid of the dark!

[BlackGuardXIII]

"Ascended from Soup"

Don't forget, each generation of your soup ancestors was adding new genetic complexity along the way.
He said 'descended from soup', which I would choose over the words you appear to be trying to put in his mouth. If ascended was his meaning, great, but even so, I find it very presumptuous of you to 'correct' him. His words may be exactly what he meant, and he has my full support either way, as that is his reality, and not for me to judge...........hint hint.

Of course the complexity increases. Was the first car a F1 race car?

[BlackGuardXIII]

"Interesting thing.. The Moon is (from our point of view) is the same.. almost EXACTY the same size as the Sun.
Where its positioned is just about precisely where it needs to be to reflect just enough light to keep us alive."

"I'm not sure how valid that comment is..."

It's completely invalid.

The Universal Law of Gravitaion MATHEMATICALLY states that the moon is now, and has been, receeding from the earth at a known rate. It is only during this particular piece of history that the moon has been so near the apparent size of the sun.

In the astronomically-near future, the moon will no longer totally eclipse the sun.

As for needing moonlight to survive, I fear brocktoon has betrayed a secret- he's afraid of the dark!

The dark is good.....it is sacred, infinite, mysterious, and I find it calming. Light is distracting and makes sleeping harder. Brocktoon, those little nite lites are a great idea, just plug em in.

Re: the moon. I have read that it is leaving us slowly, and I thought I read the rate was 14000 k per year, though I am not at all confidant with that speed. Memory is great, recall sucks. I also read that the moons diameter is 400 times smaller than the sun, and it is 400 times closer, hence the exact eclipse thing.
I find it cool we get to see the eclipses like this, as no other periods of time did or will. Na na na na nana.
It would have been awesome millions of years ago though to see this massive moon in the sky, I think.

[geckopelli]

I believe the moon currently receeds at about 1 inch per year.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I believe the moon currently receeds at about 1 inch per year.
Well, I cannot say that you are a little low on your number, but I think it is low.
If correct, the eclipse phenom is a multi century event, and we are not quite so lucky as I thought.
So I would be off by about 4.3 million % then? Hmm, that is not even close....lol.

[geckopelli]

It receeded faster in the past, and will receed slower in the future. The "multi century event" is really many millenium long.

Still, even a million years stands as nothing next to more than 4 billion.

[BlackGuardXIII]

It receeded faster in the past, and will receed slower in the future. The "multi century event" is really many millenium long.

Still, even a million years stands as nothing next to more than 4 billion.
I typed millenial, then deleted it lol.

If .0025% is nothing, then how does a nanosecond stand next to a googleplex to the power of a googleplex millenia? Just goofing around, but I now recall the slowing down point, thanks for the reminder. I might have read that at one point it was only 14 000 k away....who knows?

[Brocktoon]

It receeded faster in the past, and will receed slower in the future. The "multi century event" is really many millenium long.

Still, even a million years stands as nothing next to more than 4 billion.
Just so Im clear on this:

According to YOU [Geckopelli] - The Moon was inside the Earth (or at least sitting on top of it) and then started its journey outward?

After all.. IF you buy this idea the Moon is falling away at an inch per year.. calculate backwards and its touching the Earth.

Now thats really interesting since it seems that would destroy all known possibility of life (which you insist was self aware of its need to create more and more complex DNA for itself).

For those too young to have ever seen a total eclipse of the Sun...
The Moon is in front of the Sun and for a brief few seconds.. the two match each other absolutely perfectly on over top of the other.

I just think that is a neat coincidence they are both near perfectly identical in size FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW.

[I have to clarify that becuase some MORON will actually think its worth 'correcting' this by pointing out the size difference if we were in space and measuring the objects]

Like an Evolutionists once said "The Best Scientific Explanation is that the Moon is an Illusion"

I dont agree that is the best explanation - but its a runner-up for sure.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Always criticizing, yet offering no alternative at all, or any that is any better. come with solutions, not problems. ITs a cinch to criticize.

[Brocktoon]

Always criticizing, yet offering no alternative at all, or any that is any better. come with solutions, not problems. ITs a cinch to criticize.
You could not be more mistaken.

MOST of our best scientific conclusions are found by deduction and elimination of previously proposed solutions.
Its Healthy.

In my case.. I have suggested a solution.
The Moon was created in its place.

You might not 'like' it or want it to be true - but - its the BEST explanation based on the facts and after eliminating the impossible.

Please provide your best solution BlackGueard?

Do you believe the Moon was 'Captured' by the Earth.
Thats what a lot of people think.

It defies all known laws of physics and common sense.. BUT.. its often taught in schools as 'Fact' anyway.

[thumontico]

The 'theory' that God just put the moon there is scientifically improbable. Why do you say it isn't? How exactly did your creator do it?

[Sera Michele]

You could not be more mistaken.

MOST of our best scientific conclusions are found by deduction and elimination of previously proposed solutions.
Its Healthy.

In my case.. I have suggested a solution.
The Moon was created in its place.

You might not 'like' it or want it to be true - but - its the BEST explanation based on the facts and after eliminating the impossible.

Please provide your best solution BlackGueard?

Do you believe the Moon was 'Captured' by the Earth.
Thats what a lot of people think.

It defies all known laws of physics and common sense.. BUT.. its often taught in schools as 'Fact' anyway.
You have given us no evidence besides poor rationality to back up your statement about the moon. IN fact you have given us no evidence beyond poor logic to back up any of your statements. And this whole thread isn't even about the moon as it is the entire theory of evolution.

Besides, how can you criticize other's informative posts on the subject when the best information you present is "the only rational explanation for the moon being there is it being put there by someone"? Seems you don't hold yourself to the same standard as you do the other posters on the forum.

[Brocktoon]

Note to Sera:

I will tell you what is evidence and tell you when YOU fail to supply me adequate evidence. (If i feel like it).
Thanks.

.......

Geckopelli 'announced' that the Moon is theoretically receding about an Inch a Year.
He then reckons that (calculating backwards) the Moon was inside the Earth.(presumably he believes this because he wont explain otherwise?)

So for those interested in Moon explanations - Here ya go:

Friction by the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.
NB: this is the maximum possible age—far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks)—not the actual age.

In anycase.. this doesnt really tell us HOW or WHY the Moon is existing in the first place.
Here are a few stories made to explain it:

Fission Theory, invented by the astronomer George Darwin (son of Charles). He proposed that the earth spun so fast that a chunk broke off. But this theory is universally discarded today. The earth could never have spun fast enough to throw a moon into orbit, and the escaping moon would have been shattered while within the Roche Limit.

Capture Theory—the moon was wandering through the solar system, and was captured by Earth’s gravity. But the chance of two bodies passing close enough is minute; the moon would be more likely to have been ‘slingshotted’ like artificial satellites than captured. Finally, even a successful capture would have resulted in an elongated comet-like orbit.
[certainly not a clean orb!]

Condensation Theory—the moon grew out of a dust cloud attracted by Earth’s gravity. However, no such cloud could be dense enough, and it doesn’t account for the moon’s low iron content.

Impact Theory—the currently fashionable idea that material was blasted off from Earth by the impact of another object. Calculations show that to get enough material to form the moon, the impacting object would need to have been twice as massive as Mars. Then there is the unsolved problem of losing the excess angular momentum.

There are many more problems to any of these hypothesis's and at some point they become so impossible that its been a 'half joking' comment that '*The Best Explanation is that the Moon is an Illusion"
Of course that sounds ridiculous but that IS THE POINT.
Its actually MORE believable than Geckopelli's Moon Creation Myth!
Thats how UNSCIENTIFIC his fable is!!
.. and thats EVOLUTIONISTS SAYING THIS!

[*Irwin Shapiro in a university astronomy class about 20 years ago, cited by J.J. Lissauer, Ref. 10, p. 327. Lissauer affirms that the first three theories have insoluble problems.]


Ok and to the MORONS who reply with STUPID comments like "Show us some evidence"...
Dear Idiot .. I watched the Total Eclipse of the Sun and so did MILLIONS.
Think of how DUMBASS you sound 'Demanding Evidence to back up.."
[Looking your way Sera]

Heres how it works:
One of the most fascinating sights in the sky is a total eclipse of the sun. This is possible because the moon is almost exactly the same angular size (half a degree) in the sky as the sun—it is both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun.

Do I need to find pictures and post them?

http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/ssu/eclipse_91.jpg

You know what an 'Eclipse' is right?
Ok good.
Yes.. they are the same exact size when seen from here.

You can learn a lot about the Moon ... thanks to one of the most brilliant Rocket Scientists in the History of the Planet including many of the facts Geckopelli has learned (then later misunderstood.. sadly)
Thanks to Creationist Wernher von Braun.
He was the 'Father' of a little Space program called NASA.

[Sera Michele]

Note to Sera:

I will tell you what is evidence and tell you when YOU fail to supply me adequate evidence. (If i feel like it).
Thanks.

.......

Geckopelli 'announced' that the Moon is theoretically recedicing about an Inch a Year.
He then reckons that (calculating backwards) the Moon was inside the Earth.(presumably he believes this because he wont explain otherwise?)

So for those interested in Moon explanations - Here ya go:

Friction by the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum.[7] The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance.[8]
NB: this is the maximum possible age—far too young for evolution (and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks)—not the actual age.

In anycase.. this doesnt really tell us HOW or WHY the Moon is existing in the first place.
Here are a few stories made to explain it:

Fission Theory, invented by the astronomer George Darwin (son of Charles). He proposed that the earth spun so fast that a chunk broke off. But this theory is universally discarded today. The earth could never have spun fast enough to throw a moon into orbit, and the escaping moon would have been shattered while within the Roche Limit.

Capture Theory—the moon was wandering through the solar system, and was captured by Earth’s gravity. But the chance of two bodies passing close enough is minute; the moon would be more likely to have been ‘slingshotted’ like artificial satellites than captured. Finally, even a successful capture would have resulted in an elongated comet-like orbit.
[certainly not a clean orb!]

Condensation Theory—the moon grew out of a dust cloud attracted by Earth’s gravity. However, no such cloud could be dense enough, and it doesn’t account for the moon’s low iron content.

Impact Theory—the currently fashionable idea that material was blasted off from Earth by the impact of another object. Calculations show that to get enough material to form the moon, the impacting object would need to have been twice as massive as Mars. Then there is the unsolved problem of losing the excess angular momentum.

There are more problems to any of these hypothesis's and at some point they become so impossible that its been a 'half joking' comment that '*The Best Explanation is that the Moon is an Illusion"
Of course that sounds ridiculous but that IS THE POINT.
Its actually MORE believable than Geckopelli's Moon Creation Myth!
Thats how UNSCIENTIFIC the other beliefs are!

[*Irwin Shapiro in a university astronomy class about 20 years ago, cited by J.J. Lissauer, Ref. 10, p. 327. Lissauer affirms that the first three theories have insoluble problems.]


Ok and to the MORONS who reply with STUPID comments like "Show us some evidence"...
Dear Idiot .. I watched the Total Eclipse of the Sun and so did MILLIONS.
Think of how DUMBASS you sound 'Demanding Proof'.

Heres how it works:
One of the most fascinating sights in the sky is a total eclipse of the sun. This is possible because the moon is almost exactly the same angular size (half a degree) in the sky as the sun—it is both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun.

Do I need to find pictures and post them?

You know what an 'Eclipse' is right?
Ok good.
Yes.. they are the same exact size when seen from here.

You can learn a lot about the Moon ... thanks to one of the most brilliant Rocket Scientists in the History of the Planet..
Creationist and rocket scientist Wernher von Braun. He was the 'Father' of a little Space program called NASA.
"You will tell me what is evidence," huh? Getting a little testy, aren't you?

You still haven't supported your moon theory of "it is most rational that it was put there by someone"

please tell me why that is the only reational explanation for it's existance like you said, since this is your evidence as you have so defined it...

You can make fun of all the other theories all you want, but that doesn't give your's any more credibility. Especially since you seem to hold everyone else's evidence to a higher standard than your own.

You are the only person who doesn't seem to realize how much a fool you are making of yourself. I could almost feel embarrassed for you if it wern't so humorous.

[Brocktoon]

You dont feel embarrassed for me and your not really looking for evidence.
In fact.. you know for certain you just saw far more evidence than you can even begin working through.
You also know Im not embarrassed and I dont look like a fool.

You ARE replying 'as if' this is what is happening because its what you 'need' to say.

Its called a 'Geckopelli Post'.

:O

[thumontico]

Shall we have a poll?

[Sera Michele]

wow, brocktoon, you only hear (or read, i guess) whatr you want to hear. I didn't say i felt embarrassed for you, i said I could if it wasn't so humorous. Nor did I say that were embarrassed.

And I already worked through your evidence, and it is lacking. What it is lacking is the reason why our most rational conculsion about the existance of the moon should be that someone put it there. All you did is list some facts about the moons size, it's rate of ascent out into space, and some different theories (and nothing about your's) regarding the creation of the moon.

[thumontico]

Brocktoon does not really exist. Sure something posts. But it is not what you would call a human. Brocktoon is merely a computer program. He does not exist as an individual human being.

[BlackGuardXIII]

You could not be more mistaken.

MOST of our best scientific conclusions are found by deduction and elimination of previously proposed solutions.
Its Healthy.

In my case.. I have suggested a solution.
The Moon was created in its place.

You might not 'like' it or want it to be true - but - its the BEST explanation based on the facts and after eliminating the impossible.

Please provide your best solution BlackGueard?

Do you believe the Moon was 'Captured' by the Earth.
Thats what a lot of people think.

It defies all known laws of physics and common sense.. BUT.. its often taught in schools as 'Fact' anyway.
But sir, since it is receding at a measurable rate, confirmed by many who have looked into it, your 'best solution', is hogwash.

I already posted my favorite theory, and it is backed up by computer simulations that replicated the event once the original input was fed into it.

You defy all who you disagree with, facts be damned.

[Brocktoon]

That part about the computer simulation was hilarious!

The Moon is part of a working, complex and ordered system which orders and benefits to the rest of the system.

Whenever we find such things [in which we know the cause] we get the same answer over and over - Intelligent Design.

[BlackGuardXIII]

That part about the computer simulation was hilarious!

The Moon is part of a working, complex and ordered system which orders and benefits to the rest of the system.

Whenever we find such things [in which we know the cause] we get the same answer over and over - Intelligent Design.
The state of the art military computer system and program is hilarious to you.
It is quite amazing to me. They use it to show what damage various sizes of bombs would cause, and what different speeds, impact angles, and targets would cause to result.
The moon is as you say, I feel, it shields us from many big rocks that otherwise would've smacked us good.
I get the same answer all the time too........I don't know, it is beyond my grasp as yet. If I decide one day I am certain, I'll let you know, till then I am just making conclusions on what my research suggests to me.
Facts are rare as a stellars sea cow, yet claimed facts are like water.

[Sera Michele]

That part about the computer simulation was hilarious!

The Moon is part of a working, complex and ordered system which orders and benefits to the rest of the system.

Whenever we find such things [in which we know the cause] we get the same answer over and over - Intelligent Design.

Terrible logic

You can't use human examples of intelligent design as significant evidence of intelligent design having it's hand in the creation of the universe. We can't know that just because we have man-made examples of intelligent design that everything with working order was made by intelligent design. Specifically since the vast majority of things in the universe not created by man, and we don't know for a fact how they were created, we can't just assume they were created by intelligent design just because our working creations are. The fact that the world seems to have some order doesn't necessarily call for intellligent design, it could be other things, such as we had the paticular ingredients to form the type of life we now have here on earth.

So what you are basically doing is similar to someone taking a survey of 10 people whom all hate chocolate (this taking place of man made working examples of intelligent design), then speaking for millions saying "the world doesn't like chocolate" (ie, the rest of the entire universe, minus man-made working creations) I don't know if you can understand the analogy, but there it is for ya, maybe you can understand why I can't accept your "intelligent design" theory with what little evidence you have for it.

Your "intelligent design" thery comes from too small a focus group (well focus group isn't the right words, but it was the only one I can think of, you all should know what I mean)

[BlackGuardXIII]

how about the battle of Verdun in WWI? a chaotic bloodbath that was senseless and totally tragic, costing thousands of lives for nothing.

That is very hard to call ordered, and helpful of the system, yet it must be included as part of God's creation, yes?
Or how about the various extinct animals, mankind is directly to blame for, is that a good thing, not to me.
the civil war in Rwanda also comes to mind,

Will someone tell me if these events are, as brocktoon says the moon is,
"part of a working, complex and ordered system which orders and benefits to the rest of the system."

[BlackGuardXIII]

The way zooplankton can convert sunlight via photosynthesis is a very impressive complex procedure, yet I see no reason that it had to be made by God. Maybe it was, I just don't see the 'smoking gun'

[Brocktoon]

Thank you Sera Michele!

For once again pointing out that just because something has a lot of 'something' - that does not 'therefore' prove that everything has a lot of 'Something'.

What would we do without your amazing logical deductions Sera!?!

[BlackGuardXIII]

That is your very incomprehensible (to me) interpretation of her post.
I concluded that she said nothing of the sort.
to each his own
live and let live
we can all be right.

[Brocktoon]

Sera doesnt realise that Scientific investigation is limited by the observable and retestable world around us.

We have no choice but to find what we find and compare to whats available.

We can only accept that we observe highly complex working order inside a human cell.
We honestly do not know what caused this complex working order to exist.
Our best and only option is to find other examples of working complexity where we CAN observe the Cause.
[Dont bother protesting.. this is all that we have]

So we observe a Beaver Dam. It seems to have some basic working complexity and order.
The Cause - over and over again its intelligent designers.
We observe a Ford F250 Crew Cab ... It has a working complexity.
We know the cause is intelligent Design.

This is NOT a case of SELECTING MAN MADE Inventions!
Get that through your head FINALLY.

Your analogy should go this way.

You find a giant Chocolate in the woods one day.
You honestly can not know where or how it came to be.

So the best you can do is find other chocolates with an observable cause.
You go to the Hershey factory and observe thousands of Chocolates and their Cause? Intelligent Design.
You find more chocolates in your Kitchen... and you observe that your Mom is always the Cause. (Intelligent Design again!)

So.. based on SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION you conclude that 'Most LIkely' Scientific explanation is that the Chocolate you found in the woods was CREATED BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER (aka a Chocolate maker)

Sera .. does this PROVE that your mystery chocolate was made by a designer?
No.
Are you silly because you ONLY TOOK EXAMPLES OF MAN MADE CHOCOLATE and that is 'Unfair'?
No.
You found ANY AND ALL EXAMPLES OF CHOCOLATES WHERE YOU COULD OBSERVE THE CAUSE.

Why do I have a creepy feeling that you are going to reply with some information about Chocolate being 'different' from DNA.
Why?
Why?

[BlackGuardXIII]

I have found Sera's views more grounded in empirical science than Brocktoon's by a wide margin.

I would not conclude that the complex, efficient systems that we call life must be created, based on their exquisite inner workings and outer beauty.
Fractals are a definite factor.
I would expect that after billions of years, only the most efficient would be left.

It is a futile discussion, though, since the concept that all this amazing stuff must be divinely made is a conclusion that is impossible to prove either way, so debating it won't definitively answer it, in my view.

[Brocktoon]

Check out my new Sig!

Thanks BlackG.. now THAT was funny!

[BlackGuardXIII]

Check out my new Sig!

Thanks BlackG.. now THAT was funny!
very good, excellent even, bordering on genius.

[Brocktoon]

I will give you a screen credit.
But..
Isnt that from a Beatles 'Sgt Peppers' Song?

;)

[BlackGuardXIII]

I will give you a screen credit.
But..
Isnt that from a Beatles 'Sgt Peppers' Song?

;)
what, a screen credit? I don't know all the words, but your qualifications should be enough for me to just accept you are right.

Isn't it Sargeant Pompous' Fancy Pants Club Band...

that sounds more familiar to me.

Darwin was so cool, sailing the seas on the beagle, and studying certain related species to determine why they differed.....pure genius, yes?

[Brocktoon]

There would be a few of his contemporaries who would strongly disagree with your admirations hehe.
In fact, some would say he stole the idea.

and as far as I know.. he did not 'set out' to do anything.

I think he imagined the story while they were in the Galipagos... not something he planned on.

[BlackGuardXIII]

There would be a few of his contemporaries who would strongly disagree with your admirations hehe.
In fact, some would say he stole the idea.

and as far as I know.. he did not 'set out' to do anything.

I think he imagined the story while they were in the Galipagos... not something he planned on.
Not another one........sheesh, I am still getting over the revelation that Bell stole the telephone idea.

Does no one do their own work?

Next I'll find out that those fine TV Evangelists are not sincere.....

[TARABELLE]

Next I'll find out that those fine TV Evangelists are not sincere.....
Dang it - quit making me laugh! I have to go to lunch and pretend to do some work around here. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Brocktoon]

So... Your Laughing so hard you can barely work..

Im not even going to bother trying to explain why BlackGuard's 'Joke' makes zero sense as a Comedy Object...

Anyyyway.. There is a whole lot of accusation and conjecture.. but a guy named Wallace seemed very bitter about Darwin stealing his ideas.

Since it turned out to be a stupid and unworkable 'idea' - I dont think Wallace should be to worried.
Darwin will go down in history as being entirely wrong about Natural Selection, even though a later group of Evolutionists will give him a 'nod' by dubbing themselves 'Neo Darwinists'.

[BlackGuardXIII]

So... Your Laughing so hard you can barely work..

Im not even going to bother trying to explain why BlackGuard's 'Joke' makes zero sense as a Comedy Object...

Anyyyway.. There is a whole lot of accusation and conjecture.. but a guy named Wallace seemed very bitter about Darwin stealing his ideas.

Since it turned out to be a stupid and unworkable 'idea' - I dont think Wallace should be to worried.
Darwin will go down in history as being entirely wrong about Natural Selection, even though a later group of Evolutionists will give him a 'nod' by dubbing themselves 'Neo Darwinists'.
Bakker, Swaggart, Angely, Falwell et al.......these deviant sociopaths are the immoral shysters whom my joke alludes to.....

now you're a prophet? I predict that you are incorrect, and Darwin will ever be regarded as an important figure in the advancement of our scientific knowledge.

[Brocktoon]

So the comedy principle goes like this?:

You suggest Darwin is admirable and original.

I suggest 'some' of his contemporaries accused him of plagiarising.

Your 'punchline' is "Ya.. ok.. and So were some shysters!"

WTF?

Anyyyyway...

Jerry Falwell has never be charged or accused of any wrong-doing.
I have never even heard anyone complain about Falwells policies, fund-raising etc?

Im no Prophet on Darwins fate.. that is already sealed.
He suggested that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which Evolution could have happened.
He was wrong.
He still is wrong.

To Darwins credit - HE HIMSELF STATED that if Natural Selection could not be proved then his theory fell apart.
HE HIMSELF suggested that the fossil record needed to find inbetweens (half morphed animals) or HE HIMSELF would abandon all hope for his thoery.

Hilariously (and this IS a funny joke) YOU call Darwin a hero where DARWIN ABANDONS HIS OWN THEORY.

THAT is funny!

[BlackGuardXIII]

So the comedy principle goes like this?:

You suggest Darwin is admirable and original.

I suggest 'some' of his contemporaries accused him of plagiarising.

Your 'punchline' is "Ya.. ok.. and So were some shysters!"

WTF?

Anyyyyway...

Jerry Falwell has never be charged or accused of any wrong-doing.
I have never even heard anyone complain about Falwells policies, fund-raising etc?

Im no Prophet on Darwins fate.. that is already sealed.
He suggested that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which Evolution could have happened.
He was wrong.
He still is wrong.

To Darwins credit - HE HIMSELF STATED that if Natural Selection could not be proved then his theory fell apart.
HE HIMSELF suggested that the fossil record needed to find inbetweens (half morphed animals) or HE HIMSELF would abandon all hope for his thoery.

Hilariously (and this IS a funny joke) YOU call Darwin a hero where DARWIN ABANDONS HIS OWN THEORY.

THAT is funny!
it is so awkward trying to explain humor, so I will just let it go.....it was intended to be funny and it made her laugh, therefore, your inability to connect the dots is irrelevent to me.
the myth that he abandoned it was a lie made up by a christian .

that big boob, Falwell preaches hate and violence. nuff sed.

just cuz you amazingly missed that, does not mean it does not exist.
You cant catch everything.

[Brocktoon]

Darwin made quite a few statements which he supposed what would make or break his theory:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

The Origin of Species (1859) in Chapter 10, On the imperfection of the geologic record.

Now keep in mind Darwin was aware there were just a few fossils found so far (at his time) and the future might surely find these gradual changes.
135 years later...

NO.

But does BlackGuard still admire Darwin.. even where DARWIN asks his theory being given up on?
YES.

Is this because BlackGuard is a little silly in the noggin.
YES.

Now speaking of Jerry Falwell..
Believe me.. I wouldnt cross the street to take in a Jerry Fallwell Service and Im not a big fan of his 'style'.
Having said that, You cant just throw him in with Swaggarts and Bakers just because you hate him and want to tar him with the same brush.

Never heard Falwell 'Preach' hate or violence?

Could you give me some example of Falwell preaching hate or violence (maybe there is some?)

What was he doing .. calling people he disliked 'Big Boobs' or naming off criminals and sneaking their name into it the mix so it 'sounds like' they were cons too?

[Occam]

Is this because BlackGuard is a little silly in the noggin.
YES.

Brocktroon

Are you able to make a statement of your beliefs without slagging off another..?
Is the stabillity of you beliefs based on your percieved lack of foundation of others thoughrs...
Or the strength of your own 'system of belief'.?

Occam bases his beliefs TOTALLY on his lifes work of building a system of understanding that results in no contradiction to observed reality.
It relies NOT on the errors of others..
Thus occam NEVER calls another a 'halfwit' or 'silly in the noggin'...

THAT is purely the realm of those of EGO.
In occams experience...Those that belittle HAVE NO SYSTEM BUT EGO AND DESIRE.


Occam

[thumontico]

Brocktoon explained to me that he does not believe in Ego.

[Brocktoon]

Occam,

All Three:

I have an Objective Faith based on objective evidence, which demonstrate proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Also
In addition to that
BlackGuard has a foundationless belief system becasue its based on weak evidence and poor (or non-existant) rationale
In addition to
at the same time
also
BlackGuard is a half-wit

Worth mentioning the complete and utter hypocrisy from you Occam.
Just one post earlier.. BlackGuard (your defendant) blatantly and without justification slagged Jerry Falwell (actually accused him of crimes)..
.. and in a moment of unbridled 'Half Witisism' - BlackGuard 'DEFENDED' his Slagging of Fallwell by calling him a BOOB.

Where were you Occam?

As Thumbotico noted - I dont accept the concept of an 'ego'.

[Occam]

Occam,

All Three:

I have an Objective Faith based on objective evidence, which demonstrate proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Also
In addition to that
BlackGuard has a foundationless belief system becasue its based on weak evidence and poor (or non-existant) rationale
In addition to
at the same time
also
BlackGuard is a half-wit

Worth mentioning the complete and utter hypocrisy from you Occam.
Just one post earlier.. BlackGuard (your defendant) blatantly and without justification slagged Jerry Falwell (actually accused him of crimes)..
.. and in a moment of unbridled 'Half Witisism' - BlackGuard 'DEFENDED' his Sla