A Quick History of Theory: Creationism and Evolution.

[geckopelli]

A Quick History of Theory: Creationism and Evolution.



Although creationism is not technically a theory in the scientific sense, it is nevertheless held up as such by many uneducated individuals, and as such, is included here.



Creationism is thousands of years-old. It dates from the origination of the Hebrew people. [The author is quite aware of the pre-historical roots of what came to be the Jews, as well as the acquisition and assimilation of cultural myths that accompanied them. However, for the purposes of this essay, the history of creationism begins with the written codification of the Old Testament.]



Creationism is the name given to the belief that the bible literally describes the beginnings of the Universe and all it contains, ver batim. The Universe was created in 6 days, and all the life forms that ever existed were created intact and as a piece, separately, and at the same time.

The history of Creationism, is then, a history of defending this blind belief on faith, with no physical evidence needed.

------------

The history of the Theory of Evolution is little known, but over a hundred years before Charles Darwin published his On Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, the foundations for it were laid.



In 1758, Carolus Linnaeus, a Swedish Naturalist and firm Creationist, first attempted to classify all species. He placed humans, apes, and monkeys in a single group, Primates, suggesting beyond all Biblical “reason” that humans, apes, and monkeys were all related.



Contemporary with Linnaeus, was the French Naturalist Georges de Buffon. He had been the first to describe gibbons in the literature, and had grown interested in the differences between species. Buffon believed that the two splints on either side of a horse’s leg bone indicated that there had once been three bones present. He spoke of the mutability of species, and although he suggested only the degeneration of one species into another, he was the first to speak of one species actually changing into another, and by implication , that species could exist that were not created at the time of Genesis,



And then, in 1796, Eramus Darwin (grandfather of the famous Darwin), published Zoonomia, in which he suggested that species changed as a direct result of environmental pressures.



This was followed, in 1809, with Zoological Philosophy, by Jean Baptiste de Lamarck.

In it, he suggested a full-blown theory of evolution. He even went so far as to describe a mechanism where by this was accomplished.

He was proven wrong, but Lamarck did succeed in bringing the concept of Evolution into the minds of Scientist everywhere.



Only then came THE Darwin. He spent twenty years researching and polishing his theory before publishing, and a dozen more before his second publication, The Descent of Man.



And the lid on the creationist coffin slammed shut.



Science has been nailing it down ever since.

-----

A thus is the brief history of two “competing” theories; one, appropriately created whole from nothing, and another, which evolved from more than a century of research and painstaking work.





The Author Reserves All Rights

[geckopelli]

xxxxxx

[Brocktoon]

A Quick History of Theory: Creationism and Evolution.



Although creationism is not technically a theory in the scientific sense, it is nevertheless held up as such by many uneducated individuals, and as such, is included here

Sorry Folks but I was having issues pasting this table in here:

Please check out this link to see if Geckopelli's assertion holds up or now:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp (http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp)



Creationism is thousands of years-old. It dates from the origination of the Hebrew people. [The author is quite aware of the pre-historical roots of what came to be the Jews, as well as the acquisition and assimilation of cultural myths that accompanied them. However, for the purposes of this essay, the history of creationism begins with the written codification of the Old Testament.]

Naturalist Evolutionists believe the Universe was created too. They just happen to believe unguided 'Blind Chance' created the Planet.

'The Author' is only aware that many other cultures record a tradition of a worldwide cataclysm and the re-birth of humanity.

'The Author' is using his imagination to assume they are 'assimilations' and 'acquisitions' found in Moses account.


Creationism is the name given to the belief that the bible literally describes the beginnings of the Universe and all it contains, ver batim. The Universe was created in 6 days, and all the life forms that ever existed were created intact and as a piece, separately, and at the same time.

There are 'Old Earth' Creationists and 'Young Earth' Creationists.

In either case, it is their belief that the Natural Universe was created by Intelligent Design.
I do not know what you intend to mean by 'All life forms that ever existed' or "Created intact as a Piece".

The understanding is that all 'Kinds' of creatures (incl Humans) were created.
Variations of those kinds were yet to come.

The history of Creationism, is then, a history of defending this blind belief on faith, with no physical evidence needed.

Mr. Non Sequitor,

There would most certainly be physical evidence needed.
For Example: Genesis clearly states that one kind of animal should only reproduce with the same kind of animal.

So... we should not see different species being able to mate and reproduce.

Creationists definately NEED that physical evidence.

------------

The history of the Theory of Evolution is little known, but over a hundred years before Charles Darwin published his On Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, the foundations for it were laid.



In 1758, Carolus Linnaeus, a Swedish Naturalist and firm Creationist, first attempted to classify all species. He placed humans, apes, and monkeys in a single group, Primates, suggesting beyond all Biblical “reason” that humans, apes, and monkeys were all related.

He classified them as a type of land animal. Linnaeus can do what he likes. This does not go beyond 'All Biblical Reason' but ... Ok?



Contemporary with Linnaeus, was the French Naturalist Georges de Buffon. He had been the first to describe gibbons in the literature, and had grown interested in the differences between species. Buffon believed that the two splints on either side of a horse’s leg bone indicated that there had once been three bones present. He spoke of the mutability of species, and although he suggested only the degeneration of one species into another, he was the first to speak of one species actually changing into another, and by implication , that species could exist that were not created at the time of Genesis,

Amazing.

Yes, he is definately on to the right idea by theorising and then seeking evidence for THE OPPOSITE OF EVOLUTION.

BTW - Species do not mutate into different species.
Species can select genes (via Natural Selection) from PRE-EXISTING POOLS.

Since this has nothing to do with Evolutionism other than fly in its face - I guess I should applaud De Buffon.



And then, in 1796, Eramus Darwin (grandfather of the famous Darwin), published Zoonomia, in which he suggested that species changed as a direct result of environmental pressures.



This was followed, in 1809, with Zoological Philosophy, by Jean Baptiste de Lamarck.

In it, he suggested a full-blown theory of evolution. He even went so far as to describe a mechanism where by this was accomplished.

He was proven wrong, but Lamarck did succeed in bringing the concept of Evolution into the minds of Scientist everywhere.

Yes, it was becoming very apparent that Natural Selection works.
Too bad the future Darwin literally GOT IT BACKWARDS.



Only then came THE Darwin. He spent twenty years researching and polishing his theory before publishing, and a dozen more before his second publication, The Descent of Man.



And the lid on the creationist coffin slammed shut.

Errrr... Well theres another 'announcement' from you. Weren't you supposed to tell us why?
Huxley has an opinion why Darwinism became all the rage.. but thats another topic I suppose.


Science has been nailing it down ever since.

This statement doesnt even make sense, since 'Science' supports Creationism.

-----

A thus is the brief history of two “competing” theories; one, appropriately created whole from nothing, and another, which evolved from more than a century of research and painstaking work.

Creation Science is, in fact MUCH Older than the recent Evolutionist Theories (of which Darwinism has long since been discarded).

YOU SAID THAT YOURSELF AND EVEN DOCUMENTED THAT IN THIS VERY POST YOU DINGBAT!




The Author Reserves All Rights

I cant begin to tell you how hilarious your 'All Rights Reserved' tagline is!! :D

Ok just so Im clear:

You entire post can be summed up as followed:

People used to be Creationists until Darwin 'Came Along'.
Then you announce Creationism is 'Dead'.

Weirdly... you do not seem aware that Natural Selection has LONG since been throughly discounted by EVERYONE as a mechanism for Evolutionists Belief system?

You do know that right?

[thumontico]

You are dumb.

[Brocktoon]

You are dumb.
Please do not post 'Flames' or posts with no other intention other than to insult other members.

Thanks

[geckopelli]

"Sorry Folks but I was having issues pasting this table in here:

Please check out this link to see if Geckopelli's assertion holds up or now:

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp" (http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp)


So once more you want me to debate someone who is not here?
That is clear indication that we have suppassed you meger store of knowledge.
That's a start.

But please- I'm not going to waste my time reading a creationist propaganda web site for the pupose of explainning it's fallacy to you.


"Naturalist Evolutionists believe the Universe was created too. They just happen to believe unguided 'Blind Chance' created the Planet."

No, they don't. They "believe" it evolved- as per the evidence.

'The Author' is only aware that many other cultures record a tradition of a worldwide cataclysm and the re-birth of humanity."

Of course they do. All people started out with two things in common- ignorance and the tendency to be human.

"'The Author' is using his imagination to assume they are 'assimilations' and 'acquisitions' found in Moses account."

With this statement, you fall further into the hole of pompus ignorance
Jeez!. Read upon the Jews history before Abraham, would you? Ever her of Sumeria?

"There are 'Old Earth' Creationists and 'Young Earth' Creationists"

Ah- finally something new. Define both, please.

"In either case, it is their belief that the Natural Universe was created by Intelligent Design."

A belief without a single shred of evidence is not to be confused with tentative theory based on myriads of observation.

"I do not know what you intend to mean by 'All life forms that ever existed' or "Created intact as a Piece"."

You repeatedly have claimed that all life was created at once and not subject to change. Was it or wasn't it?

This is the best part:


"Mr. Non Sequitor,

"There would most certainly be physical evidence needed."

So show us. Except you can't. because ther isn't any.

"For Example: Genesis clearly states that one kind of animal should only reproduce with the same kind of animal."

"It's in the bible" is NOT evidence!

"So... we should not see different species being able to mate and reproduce."

Fool! Mules come from horses and donkeys. Tylons aand lygers come form a crossing of tigers and lions. Buffalo can mate with common cattle to produce beefalo.

"Creationists definately NEED... physical evidence."

They certainly do!
To bad they have none.

"He classified them as a type of land animal. Linnaeus can do what he likes. This does not go beyond 'All Biblical Reason' but ... Ok?"

The history of the theory of evolution is what it is. He classified them as primates.
The bible states that man was made in the image of god, yet Linnaeus called us a type of ape.
Good old Linnaeus- a man of faith who wasn't afriad to state the obvious.

"yes, he is definately on to the right idea by theorising and then seeking evidence for THE OPPOSITE OF EVOLUTION."

Fool! the noted sciencetist contributed to an eventual theory of evolution. One did not yet exist, so how could he try to disprove it?

"BTW - Species do not mutate into different species.
Species can select genes (via Natural Selection) from PRE-EXISTING POOLS."

An ignorant and unsubstantiated statement. You are a liar.

"This statement doesnt even make sense, since 'Science' supports Creationism"

You have passed beyond arrogant ignorance. You know nothing of science.
Clearly, you lack the base knowledge required.

"Creation Science is, in fact MUCH Older than the recent Evolutionist Theories (of which Darwinism has long since been discarded).

YOU SAID THAT YOURSELF AND EVEN DOCUMENTED THAT IN THIS VERY POST YOU DINGBAT!"

First, Darwin remains as strong as ever among the educated.
Second- If you think that age begats truth, you are beyond foolish and well into laughable stupidity.

I'm getting embarassed for you.

"I cant begin to tell you how hilarious your 'All Rights Reserved' tagline is!!"

You're a dumb little shit, aren't you?
I am a professional writer.


"Weirdly... you do not seem aware that Natural Selection has LONG since been throughly discounted by EVERYONE as a mechanism for Evolutionists Belief system?"

Once more you show yourself to be not only a liar, but a bad one at that.

You 've lost; to continue is to actively become a loser.

[geckopelli]

Brockton- everything you post is flaming spams.

I'm with tumontico: you are one dumb puppy.

[Brocktoon]

Your gonna have to edit that to include Block quoting since its including quotes and replies to quotes.

As near as I can tell.. you are simply stating that new genetic information is produced by Natural Selection?

The word 'Selection' means the next generation is SELECTING.

There is no point in calling me a liar LMAO!
That IS WHAT NATURAL SELECTION MEANS.

Please realise that Natural Selection (in itself) can not and does not provide ANY reason to believe New Genes are created.

In fact.. there is no NEED for 'New' Genes to magically self-appear because the new offspring can choose NEW COMBINATIONS.

But anyway.. here is the part I really love about your post:

You're a dumb little shit, aren't you?
I am a professional writer.

That was CLASSIC!

[geckopelli]

Yea, yea.

Juice is the word, it's the word. it's the word...

No matter the face you present, you'll always be defeated.

Now state a case for creationism, or shut the fuck up, loser.

[thumontico]

I think Brocktoon is fucking with us. I have never seen such consistent hypocrisy, irrationality, and just plain foolishness.

[geckopelli]

Brockton is the person who holds the record for being banned.

he'll continue to register and repeat his bullshit, even when banned.

He is of no account; but the rest of us must make sure that his ignorance does not go unanswered, least some gullible soul be taken in.

He also post under another name.

Beside the muslims, he is the only other anti-evolution person posting.

Sorry...brockton. But it's time you admit defeat again, and move on.

[Brocktoon]

Im curious if anyone here knows anything about 'Darwinism' and why its no longer accepted by modern Evolutionists?

[geckopelli]

Why are my post doubling?

[geckopelli]

This is his usual tactic.

I'm afraid I will no longer be able to post without drawing his spam.

But none of it will ever expound on creationism.

[Brocktoon]

This Topic IS about the brief history of "Evolutionism" and Creationism.

The author gave us his opinion about Creationism and some early Creationist Scientists and then 'Introduced' us to Darwin.

Little was said about Darwin and his times, so I thought I would elaborate thanks to some helpful articles found online:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In his book, Darwin never mentioned the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living things had very simple structures.

Since mediaeval times, spontaneous generation, the theory that non-living matter could come together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted.

It was believed that insects came into existence from leftover bits of food. It was further imagined that mice came into being from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would emerge in due course.

Louis Pasteur destroyed the belief that life could be created from inanimate substances.

Similarly, the fact that maggots appeared in meat was believed to be evidence for spontaneous generation. However, it was only realized some time later that maggots did not appear in meat spontaneously, but were carried by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.

Even in the period when Darwin's Origin of Species was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

Advocates of the theory of evolution refused to accept Pasteur's findings for a long time. However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse. We shall consider this subject in some detail in this book.
------------------------------------------------
Now i was not even aware the belief that life could develop 'Spontaneously' was ever popular till after Evolutionists began spreading that tale.

To this day the only people I know of who believe complex working lifeforms can spontaneously 'Come into being' by 'accident' are Evolutionists.
Seems the public doesnt even believe that anymore!

Anyway.. back in Darwins Day.. people could be 'forgiven' for believing the BlackSmiths 'Muscles' would be passed on to his Son.
It sounds funny but people believed you could do things to your own body which would 'pass on'.

So here was an interesting and more detailed explanation of Darwins mistaken belief that outside forces made the Genes themselves change
(though he didnt put it that way since he had no knowledge of Genetics and DNA etc)

-------------------------

Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin's theory was inheritance. At the time when Darwin developed his theory, the question of how living beings transmitted their traits to other generations-that is, how inheritance took place-was not completely understood. That is why the naive belief that inheritance was transmitted through blood was commonly accepted.

Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false grounds. Darwin assumed that natural selection was the "mechanism of evolution." Yet one question remained unanswered: How would these "useful traits" be selected and transmitted from one generation to the next? At this point, Darwin embraced the Lamarckian theory, that is, "the inheritance of acquired traits." In his book The Great Evolution Mystery, Gordon R. Taylor, a researcher advocating the theory of evolution, expresses the view that Darwin was heavily influenced by Lamarck:


Lamarckism... is known as the inheritance of acquired characteristics... Darwin himself, as a matter of fact, was inclined to believe that such inheritance occurred and cited the reported case of a man who had lost his fingers and bred sons without fingers... [Darwin] had not, he said, gained a single idea from Lamarck. This was doubly ironical, for Darwin repeatedly toyed with the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics and, if it is so dreadful, it is Darwin who should be denigrated rather than Lamarck... In the 1859 edition of his work, Darwin refers to 'changes of external conditions' causing variation but subsequently these conditions are described as directing variation and cooperating with natural selection in directing it... Every year he attributed more and more to the agency of use or disuse... By 1868 when he published Varieties of Animals and Plants under Domestication he gave a whole series of examples of supposed Lamarckian inheritance: such as a man losing part of his little finger and all his sons being born with deformed little fingers, and boys born with foreskins much reduced in length as a result of generations of circumcision.

[ :O ]
However, Lamarck's thesis, as we have seen above, was disproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by the Austrian monk and botanist, Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, and that genetic inheritance takes place according to certain unchanging laws. These laws supported the view that species remain unchanged. No matter how much the cows that Darwin saw in England's animal fairs bred, the species itself would never change: cows would always remain cows.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/Mendel1.jpg
The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution.

Gregor Mendel announced the laws of genetic inheritance that he discovered as a result of long experiment and observation in a scientific paper published in 1865. But this paper only attracted the attention of the scientific world towards the end of the century. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the truth of these laws had been accepted by the whole scientific community. This was a serious dead-end for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of "useful traits" on Lamarck.

Here we must correct a general misapprehension: Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. As the article "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," published in the Journal of Heredity, makes clear, "he [Mendel] was familiar with The Origin of Species ...and he was opposed to Darwin's theory; Darwin was arguing for descent with modification through natural selection, Mendel was in favor of the orthodox doctrine of special creation."

The laws discovered by Mendel put Darwinism in a very difficult position. For these reasons, scientists who supported Darwinism tried to develop a different model of evolution in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Thus was born "neo-Darwinism."

------------------------

Part two.. Next post...

[geckopelli]

Juicy,

Keep your articles. If anyone was interested, they google them without you.

I speak from personal knowledge and in my own words, whereas you are merely spamming the board. You don't even understand your own spam.

Just give it up, would you?

Accept defeat with a little class.

If the author of your articles wishes to debate, bring him here and let him fend for himself. Otherwise, nobody cares. You stand- for the 7th (or is it the 8th?) time, defeated.

at least re-invent yourself and try a new approach, for christ sake!

[Brocktoon]

Now Geckopelli.. you should pay attention to this next bit.


When I say that Darwinism is NOT accepted anymore, please understand that Im not just 'Saying it' because Im 'Mad at Darwinism.'

No.
Darwinism is NOT accepted anymore. If you walked into an Evolutionists Convention nowadays and insisted that Natural Selection was the Mechanism -You would be soundly rejected and probably laughed off the stage!

Dont blame me - I think the new belief in Hopeful Monsters is even MORE ridiculous than Darwins misunderstanding.

.....................


A group of scientists who were determined to reconcile Darwinism with the science of genetics, in one way or another, came together at a meeting organized by the Geological Society of America in 1941. After long discussion, they agreed on ways to create a new interpretation of Darwinism and over the next few years, specialists produced a synthesis of their fields into a revised theory of evolution.

The scientists who participated in establishing the new theory included the geneticists G. Ledyard Stebbins and Theodosius Dobzhansky, the zoologists Ernst Mayr and Julian Huxley, the paleontologists George Gaylord Simpson and Glenn L. Jepsen, and the mathematical geneticists Sir Ronald A. Fisher and Sewall Wright.5 (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/short_history_04.html#5)

To counter the fact of "genetic stability" (genetic homeostasis), this group of scientists employed the concept of "mutation," which had been proposed by the Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries at the beginning of the 20th century. Mutations were defects that occurred, for unknown reasons, in the inheritance mechanism of living things. Organisms undergoing mutation developed some unusual structures, which deviated from the genetic information they inherited from their parents. The concept of "random mutation" was supposed to provide the answer to the question of the origin of the advantageous variations which caused living organisms to evolve according to Darwin's theory-a phenomenon that Darwin himself was unable to explain, but simply tried to side-step by referring to Lamarck. The Geological Society of America group named this new theory, which was formulated by adding the concept of mutation to Darwin's natural selection thesis, the "synthetic theory of evolution" or the "modern synthesis." In a short time, this theory came to be known as "neo-Darwinism" and its supporters as "neo-Darwinists."

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/18.gif
The architects of Neo-Darwinism: Theodosius Dobzhansky,
Ernst Mayr, , and Julian Huxley. Yet there was a serious problem: It was true that mutations changed the genetic data of living organisms, yet this change always occurred to the detriment of the living thing concerned. All observed mutations ended up with disfigured, weak, or diseased individuals and, sometimes, led to the death of the organism. Hence, in an attempt to find examples of "useful mutations" which improve the genetic data in living organisms, neo-Darwinists conducted many experiments and observations. For decades, they conducted mutation experiments on fruit flies and various other species. However, in none of these experiments could a mutation which improved the genetic data in a living being be seen.

Today the issue of mutation is still a great impasse for Darwinism. Despite the fact that the theory of natural selection considers mutations to be the unique source of "useful changes," no mutations of any kind have been observed that are actually useful (that is, that improve the genetic information). In the following chapter, we will consider this issue in detail.

Another impasse for neo-Darwinists came from the fossil record. Even in Darwin's time, fossils were already posing an important obstacle to the theory. While Darwin himself accepted the lack of fossils of "intermediate species," he also predicted that further research would provide evidence of these lost transitional forms. However, despite all the paleontologists' efforts, the fossil record continued to remain a serious obstacle to the theory. One by one, concepts such as "vestigial organs," "embryological recapitulation" and "homology" lost all significance in the light of new scientific findings.

---------------------------------

So there is more details on the short-lived but highly popular world of Darwinism.

Darwin did have one really unique quote I just found again:


Creation Ex Nihilo (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/magazines.asp), 5(4):18, April 1983 "ONE IS FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT MANY SCIENTISTS AND TECHNOLOGISTS PAY LIP-SERVICE TO DARWINIAN THEORY ONLY BECAUSE IT SUPPOSEDLY EXCLUDES A CREATOR"

Interesting was a quote from Aldous Huxley [Brave New World Author].. the Grandson of Darwins Peer Huxley.

‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’


In another quote - Huxley basically attributes the stunning and almost immediate popularity of Darwinism to the same reasons he gives for himself.
Unfortunately I cant find that quote again.

Anyyyyway.
That should give us a lot more insight into Darwinism and his times.

[geckopelli]

Ditto my last post.

Besides, I've lost interest.

You'd better quit spamming the boards before darrell notices you're back.

[Brocktoon]

Juicy,

Keep your articles. If anyone was interested, they google them without you.

I speak from personal knowledge and in my own words, whereas you are merely spamming the board. You don't even understand your own spam.

Just give it up, would you?

Accept defeat with a little class.

If the author of your articles wishes to debate, bring him here and let him fend for himself. Otherwise, nobody cares. You stand- for the 7th (or is it the 8th?) time, defeated.

at least re-invent yourself and try a new approach, for christ sake!

In this case, I am quoting articles but my posts offer a context, introduction and interjected with my opinion, analysis and even ask others to comment on the articles throughout.

In this case the snippets are directly related to the exact topic.

Having said that - a good example of 'Spamming' would be repeatedly denouncing members with no other purpose than to insult or antagonise.

[geckopelli]

Ditto, ditto.

[geckopelli]

Why not go here

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50888

and live your fantasy to teach me something?

[Brocktoon]

Gpelli - I taught you that Natural Selection is not the Mechanism for Evolution.;)

Is anyone familiar with with the very very latest changes in Evolutions 'Establishment'?
Ever since Gould passed away I have been waiting to see who the next 'High Priest' will be and what different 'Facts' He or She will instruct us to accept?

I keep hearing Richard Dawkins (but im getting overwhelmed by names so dont quote me)

Im aware that virtually all the 'NeoDarwinists' are now 'officially' sticking (or reduced to) the Hopeful Monster explanation for New information.

They dont seem to be getting too far but then again... the fossil record doesnt give them much choice.

Last I checked the ID movement was kicking the fossilised shit out of the Neo-Darwinists (who most likely will try and lose that 'legacy' name too)

[Sera Michele]

Brocktoon, the scientific community is not involved in some conspiracy to get us to accept false information. You would love them if they told you everything you wanted to hear, but reality doesn't work that way. You don't even care about discovering our origins, learning more about our existance, you only care about your favored theory. At least science continues on for it's quest for answers rather than believing and questing after proof of some stupid religious theory (that holds no more credibility than the aztec myth that Coatlique got pregnant and gave birth to the to the moon and stars, or that we came from a divine egg, or the plethera of other mystical theories out there).

When you look for answers you have to do it objectivly. If you disregard everything you don't like to hear then you are doing yourself a disservice.

Why is it that religious zealots seem to want to halt progression? I guess in a natural social structure, you have to have something to counter-balance the flow, even things out. But that is a sociological topic, not scientific...but you see some interesting indications of it here.

[Brocktoon]

Im for Scientific Progression.
That is why I like the ID movement.
They are Scientific and Progressive.

I also like the Creationist Researchers who dare to study objectively and are willing to actually 'Question' things.

Naturalist Evolutionists would take us back to the days of Darwin if they could.
I definately do NOT support their brand of 'Science'.

Sera ... Do you really think its necessary for you to post a comment which basically says YOU have declared Evolutionism 'Progressive' *Therefore* it gets to be deemed 'Progressive'.?

[geckopelli]

"Why is it that religious zealots seem to want to halt progression?"

It seems to be a reflection of the general conservativness that human posses, i.e., change is bad, because it might not be good. It is simply held closer to the surface in those more attuned to subjective knowledge, than in those who lean toward objective knowledge.

[geckopelli]

"Naturalist Evolutionists would take us back to the days of Darwin if they could."

This is flat out the dumbest statement you've ever made in all your incarnations!

Science moves has reality dictates- wants and desires have nothing to do with it!

Only the religious mistake opinion for reality.

[Sera Michele]

Sera ... Do you really think its necessary for you to post a comment which basically says YOU have declared Evolutionism 'Progressive' *Therefore* it gets to be deemed 'Progressive'.?
Progression is just the adjective for progress. When I say that evolutionism is progressive, i mean that it is knowledge we are constantly building upon. ie we are progressing in our knoweldge of the topic. It isn't progressive because I say it is, it is progressive because it fits the definition.

Naturalist Evolutionists would take us back to the days of Darwin if they could.Scientists would be outta a job if they did shit like that. Plus, that is a ludacris accusation, one that doesn't make you sound any smarter or help your point by any means. Just gives more evidence to the fact that you are simply filled with bias. If you want to be taken more seriously dump the bias, and let the scientific knowledge lead your conclusions. You can't just pick and choose through science to only fit the conclusions you want. You have to weigh it all without bias.

[Brocktoon]

Alot of Naturalist Evolutionists ARE losing their jobs to ID Evolutionists.

Progress in Science by letting the fact take you where they will.. and you see an overwhelming wave of Creationist coming down the pike folks.

If you are still a Darwinist.. consider yourself a fossil these days ;)

[geckopelli]

You've already surrender once today, juice. and Multiple times in the past.

And I'm not a "Darwinist"- no matter how many times you say it.

Further, creationist have no theory- so they are not relavant, no matter the number of ignorant followers they brainwash.

[Sera Michele]

I don't see things in black and white, Brocktoon. I never implied I was a "darwinist" nor was I arguing for "darwinists"

I was arguing for science, and against every religious fool who seems to think religious beliefs are in some form scientific.

And maybe you need to stop staring through the magnifying glass. There is no "overwhelming wave" of creationists doing anything in the name of science. If ther are some, they are in the kiddie pool.

[geckopelli]

Well said!

[Disarm]

The only thing I have a problem with is that it is written creationism began with the creation of the torah (as the torah was the first publication naming g-d as the creator) but there is absolutely nothing on how this conclusion was reached. If the torah was to follow the scientific process and publish its writings scientifically (ie with its hypothesis, method, results, conclusion, discussion etc), then you could look at it and say "there's a flaw here, the conclusion is invalid".

But there isn't. The torah is not a piece of scientific literature, reading it to judge its conclusions valid or invalid is invalid IN ITSELF, because there's not way of looking at the method and results to judge it an accurate investigation. Thus, you personally are invalid if you look at it in terms of a scientific investigation/conclusion, the door is slammed shut with 'insufficient evidence', not 'right' or 'wrong'.

Simply saying that what's written in the torah is the history of the idea of creationism is a totally erroneous statement, and also invalid. The writings of the Torah are the conclusion reached after the evolution of this idea, noone woke up and said "g-d created the world in seven days...", it having never been thought of before, nor did the torah write those words into itself. The history of creationism is how people arrived at that initial conclusion, and how it evolved to the present day, and should be written much like the author did for the history of evolutionism. So, when looking at this piece describing these two histories; for the history of evolutionism it is a bare, yet factual piece of literature, for the history of creationism, I would take it as flippantly as you took the writings of the torah, it certainly explains no history of the concept at all.

[geckopelli]

Please reread.

I noted the pre-history of the jews, "as well as the acquisition and assimilation of cultural myths that accompanied them."

further, I stated, "However, for the purposes of this essay, the history of creationism begins with the written codification of the Old Testament"

Those calling themselves "Creation Scientist" or "creationist" base thier case on the Bible. It is thier only piece of "evidence".

I explianed no history of the concept, because there exist none in the creationist eye.

And you are quite right: The bible is not to be read as a scientific document. and by implication, creationism is not a scientific theory.

And that's the point!

[geckopelli]

Also:

"The writings of the Torah are the conclusion reached after the evolution of this idea, noone woke up and said "g-d created the world in seven days...", it having never been thought of before, nor did the torah write those words into itself."

The torah is a book of myths "borrowed" from ancient sumeria. And you can bet, the concept of magical creation pre-dates that.
But there is no linear history to it; it is a cultural myth common to nearly all ancient societies. Many people jumped to the same conclusion all over the world.
There exist no line of researchers building evidence until the creation "theory" was accepted.

It's just accepted blindly

[Brocktoon]

Every Society in all the Earth has held the belief the world was 'Created'.
With almost no exception they all attribute it to an 'intelligent Designer' or 'Instigator'.

Evolutionists like Geckopelli also believe in a Creation of the World.
So he also has a Creation Story (in his case, Chemicals formed the Earth and Soup Morphed into People)

The fact that most ancient cultures believed the Earth had been created by a God is evidence thats what happened.
(I did NOT say Proof, so Sera do not bother implying that thanks)

Interestingly, many ancient cultures have Creation Stories which follow similar patterns - Paradise, Judgement, Deluge (Floods), Small group surviving to repopulate Earth.

This lends more credibility to the theory, at least when the traditions match.

At any rate, IF The Deluge did happen, then we would EXPECT to find accounts of this all over the world.
The Ancient Sumerians (who were a little better at record keeping than most) Have an account of Gilgamesh, who, at one point in the story meets what is most definately Noah.
Noah (called some other name in their language) tells Gilgamesh pretty much what we find in Genesis.

Years later Moses of the Jews writes down what is said to be the 'Official' Version, which Christians and Jews believe is divinely inspired.
[Gilgamesh's Tales never claim to be Divine or inerrant]

So just as Geckopelli has admitted - The Idea of a Created World is absolutely nothing new and nothing unique to Christians or Jews.
In fact, the idea of a Global Catastrophe followed by a new Human Civilisation is pretty much the standard of all time.

Usually when you hear the term 'Creationist' its refering to those who hold the Genesis account as the accurate one.

The Intelligent Design Movement is really something different.
ID people are usually found in the 'Hard Sciences' - meaning the ones who do the actual lab work, experiments and 'hands-on' work.
They do not necessarily have any interest in Christianity, Genesis or even Religion at all.
They simply record, report and interpret the fact of life, which indicate Intelligent Design was the common cause of our natural world.
They are not interested in discussing why and who that ID is.
They leave that for people like Geckopelli to wonder about.

In this case, you do not need to be interested in Genesis either.
You can go and observe, test and record that most area's of the planet exhibit signs of mass flooding.
Then you conclude that, at some point water has covered most part of the Earth.

By happy coincidence it turns out that Genesis reports that same thing and one happens to validate the other.

Evolutionism is a little different: Its not based on any recorded history, any eye-witness accounts and unlike Genesis (which is not editable) Evolutionists Story is Unverifiable because it can change or Cancel things whenever it wants to.
If any part of Evolutionism is proved False - it simply abandons it and replaces it with a new chapter (yet to be proven).

People who believe in Evolution usually do so because they read it in a book where the author told them it was true.
Or they saw a programme in which it was presented as 'Fact' and therefore they believe it must be true.

[geckopelli]

"The fact that most ancient cultures believed the Earth had been created by a God is evidence thats what happened."

That's not objective evidence- at most, it's an indcation. But the fact is, There's a reasonable alternative explantion that has to do with psychology and instictive behavior.
There's also the matter of ancient use of hallucenogenic plants and fungi known to cause specific reactions, including those of a religious nature.
Without making any grand and complexed assumptions, we can, perhaps, assign this common basic belief with being the result of the workings of the minds of primitve human on earth.

Now, before you go off half-cocked, I don't nesacarily support eithier of those hypothesis. But it is enough to leave the question wide open. Besides, occam's razor is not to be disregarded.

"So just as Geckopelli has admitted - The Idea of a Created World is absolutely nothing new and nothing unique to Christians or Jews."

Admitted? I pointed it out in the essay. Are you critizing something you didn't read?

"The Intelligent Design Movement is really something different.
ID people are usually found in the 'Hard Sciences' - meaning the ones who do the actual lab work, experiments and 'hands-on' work.
They do not necessarily have any interest in Christianity, Genesis or even Religion at all.
They simply record, report and interpret the fact of life, which indicate Intelligent Design was the common cause of our natural world.
They are not interested in discussing why and who that ID is.
They leave that for people like Geckopelli to wonder about."

First-you're a fool. I don't wonder about "who" and "why". I don't believe in a "god". That's your department. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Although you've been quite succesusful at discrediting yourself, you cannot discredit me with your attempts at sutrefuge.

As to the rest of that statement, who is this "they" you speak for? All unsubstantiated BS. Do you talk to yourself in the dark?

"By happy coincidence it turns out that Genesis reports that same thing and one happens to validate the other."

So, your argument is that because the bible speaks of a flood, and most the world has been flooded at some point, that is evidence of a super intelligence with the power to create a Universe? Save it for church. That's both unresonable and illogical. Hell, it's outright dishonest.

"If any part of Evolutionism is proved False - it simply abandons it and replaces it with a new chapter (yet to be proven)."

That's the first time you got it right! See-you CAN learn!
When scientific theory is proving false, it IS abandoned and replaced with a new theory- which is then subjected to attempts to prove it false. If it is, it starts over. If it appears to be valid enough, it is used to design research to bring about new and better theories.

Or we could do it your way- assume something and than try to rationalize some evidence, in spite of reality.

"People who believe in Evolution usually do so because they read it in a book where the author told them it was true.
Or they saw a programme in which it was presented as 'Fact' and therefore they believe it must be true."

Again, replace "evolution" with "creationism" and you may be correct. Of course, I really doubt you can speak for anyone who accepts the fact of Evolution.

And you've managed to bury yourself yet deeper. Pathetic.

[Brocktoon]

"The fact that most ancient cultures believed the Earth had been created by a God is evidence thats what happened."

That's not objective evidence- at most, it's an indcation. But the fact is, There's a reasonable alternative explantion that has to do with psychology and instictive behavior.
There's also the matter of ancient use of hallucenogenic plants and fungi known to cause specific reactions, including those of a religious nature.
Without making any grand and complexed assumptions, we can, perhaps, assign this common basic belief with being the result of the workings of the minds of primitve human on earth.
I agree there could be other explanations and its certainly not 'proof' of anything.
However,
If there are a thousand people claiming their ancestors claimed to be from across the Atlantic - it indicates that a reason to believe the story is based on an actual event.

I suppose its possible that cultures across the world were using similar drugs but Im not sure that would necessitate the same hallucinations.

Credit where it really is due - you definately are far more familiar with the affects of hallucinagens and the consequent delusions of grandeur than I could ever hope be.

Now, before you go off half-cocked, I don't nesacarily support eithier of those hypothesis. But it is enough to leave the question wide open. Besides, occam's razor is not to be disregarded.
I would go with Occams Razor.
If I showed up on an uninhabited desert island and found some watches - I would probably conclude that someone was behind the watches.
Assuming they accidently self-appeared would be my second choice.
Occams Razor.

"So just as Geckopelli has admitted - The Idea of a Created World is absolutely nothing new and nothing unique to Christians or Jews."

Admitted? I pointed it out in the essay. Are you critizing something you didn't read?
I thought it was a Rant.. but Essay? Ok.

Im just happy to know we agree on something.
Wierdly, in what appeared to be the same essay I think you stated Creationism is based solely on Genesis?

Well as long as you picked one view and are sticking with it - its all good.

"The Intelligent Design Movement is really something different.
ID people are usually found in the 'Hard Sciences' - meaning the ones who do the actual lab work, experiments and 'hands-on' work.
They do not necessarily have any interest in Christianity, Genesis or even Religion at all.
They simply record, report and interpret the fact of life, which indicate Intelligent Design was the common cause of our natural world.
They are not interested in discussing why and who that ID is.
They leave that for people like Geckopelli to wonder about."

First-you're a fool. I don't wonder about "who" and "why". I don't believe in a "god". That's your department. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Although you've been quite succesusful at discrediting yourself, you cannot discredit me with your attempts at sutrefuge.
Im pretty sure you are the one writing and researching for the role of a Moderate Christian.
You have been in here WONDERING ABOUT how YOUR Character will carry out his Theism.
You specifically ASKED PEOPLE to answer your QUESTIONS about the nature of God.

YOU DID THIS TODAY!

As to the rest of that statement, who is this "they" you speak for? All unsubstantiated BS. Do you talk to yourself in the dark?
I dont talk to myself in the dark (usually) however many Scientists speak to each other about Intelligent Design.
Clicking on any of these links and you can eventually get the names of thousands of Researchers (All with big fancy degree's if thats what you need)

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

http://www.discovery.org/csc/

http://www.iscid.org/

And be sure to check out Michael Behe's page on the net:

http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm

"By happy coincidence it turns out that Genesis reports that same thing and one happens to validate the other."

So, your argument is that because the bible speaks of a flood, and most the world has been flooded at some point, that is evidence of a super intelligence with the power to create a Universe? Save it for church. That's both unresonable and illogical. Hell, it's outright dishonest.
Your example is illogical because you made it that way.
You also drew out conclusions for yourself.

The Author of Genesis claims the Earth was Flooded.
Researchers (having nothing to do with Genesis) find the Earth was flooded.

So this lends credibility to to claims made in Genesis.

Thats really all that is being said.

"If any part of Evolutionism is proved False - it simply abandons it and replaces it with a new chapter (yet to be proven)."

That's the first time you got it right! See-you CAN learn!
When scientific theory is proving false, it IS abandoned and replaced with a new theory- which is then subjected to attempts to prove it false. If it is, it starts over. If it appears to be valid enough, it is used to design research to bring about new and better theories.
Yes indeedy.
Evolutionism is doing a fabulous job of constantly replacing its previous versions with new ones.

Yesterdays 'Fact' is today's embarrassment.
No matter... just replace it with a yet-to-be-tested theory and insist THIS ONE is really really really 'IT'.
No really!

Or we could do it your way- assume something and than try to rationalize some evidence, in spite of reality.
If you mean find evidence that supports a Hypothesis (if i can call Genesis a Hypothesis?)
Yes.

"People who believe in Evolution usually do so because they read it in a book where the author told them it was true.
Or they saw a programme in which it was presented as 'Fact' and therefore they believe it must be true."

Again, replace "evolution" with "creationism" and you may be correct. Of course, I really doubt you can speak for anyone who accepts the fact of Evolution.
You believe Evolution is 'Scientific' because you read a book which told you it was 'Scientific' therefore its 'Scientific'.

Its slightly more complicated really... Someone like Darwin simply tells you that Fossils are 'Evidence' and you then believe its evidence.

You dont really know 'why' its supposed to be evidence for Evolutionism - you just accept that it is.

For the record - I was taught Evolutionism was a 'Fact' all throughout my education.
It wasnt until I started questioning the books i was reading (including the Bible) that I became enlightened to the real facts.

And you've managed to bury yourself yet deeper. Pathetic.
You were doing really good up till this point.
Im not sure why you keep 'Announcing' Victory and/or my 'Trouncing' but I suggest Hallucinagens are an equally reasonable explanation.

[Razorofoccam]

People who believe in Evolution usually do so because they read it in a book where the author told them it was true.
Or they saw a programme in which it was presented as 'Fact' and therefore they believe it must be true.
Brocktroon

EXACTLY LIKE RELIGION

Occam

PS

Yet science says many things are FACT... And it can SHOW YOU THOSE THINGS.
Religion cannot... [show you what it calls fact..thus its central doctrine of FAITH...to believe ,, without verification]

Think on it.

[Brocktoon]

Brocktroon

EXACTLY LIKE RELIGION

Occam
Christianity asks its followers to critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true.
It also counts those who question its claims as 'Noble' and worthy of commendation.

Further more - It challenges followers to live out the claims it makes.
Example: Jesus suggests that Worry can not produce tangible results like Creating new hair follicles.
Followers can then repeatedly test these claims.

This way there can be an objective and testable reason to have hope in things not yet seen.

Evolution doesnt even have that going for it.. Darwin simply tells you that animals USED TO Morph into other animals.
There is no way to ever know.
You cant even test this for your own sake.

You dont even have objective and testable claims to give you reason to hope for things you have never seen yet.



PS
Yet science says many things are FACT... And it can SHOW YOU THOSE THINGS.
Yes, Science shows me there are organs of irreducable complexity.
These are facts we can see and touch.

Science does NOT show me animals being born with new genetic information.
Stephen J Gould is perfectly entitled to go on PBS and simply say that must have happened millions of times in the past - but he is simply stating his Imagination.
Theory at best - but absolutely NOT a Fact.

Religion cannot... [show you what it calls fact..thus its central doctrine of FAITH...to believe ,, without verification]

Think on it.
This is not necessarily or always true Occam.
Matthew tells us there was a garden called Gethsemane.
We can then verify there was a garden.

Jesus can teach that replacing anxiety with thankfulness will lead to a state of peace.
Certainly anyone can test and retest this and verify whether it works or not.

[Razorofoccam]

Christianity asks its followers to critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true.
It also counts those who question its claims as 'Noble' and worthy of commendation.

Further more - It challenges followers to live out the claims it makes.
Example: Jesus suggests that Worry can not produce tangible results like Creating new hair follicles.
Followers can then repeatedly test these claims.

This way there can be an objective and testable reason to have hope in things not yet seen.

Evolution doesnt even have that going for it.. Darwin simply tells you that animals USED TO Morph into other animals.
There is no way to ever know.
You cant even test this for your own sake.

You dont even have objective and testable claims to give you reason to hope for things you have never seen yet.



Yes, Science shows me there are organs of irreducable complexity.
These are facts we can see and touch.

Science does NOT show me animals being born with new genetic information.
Stephen J Gould is perfectly entitled to go on PBS and simply say that must have happened millions of times in the past - but he is simply stating his Imagination.
Theory at best - but absolutely NOT a Fact.


This is not necessarily or always true Occam.
Matthew tells us there was a garden called Gethsemane.
We can then verify there was a garden.

Jesus can teach that replacing anxiety with thankfulness will lead to a state of peace.
Certainly anyone can test and retest this and verify whether it works or not.
Brocktroon

No christian occam knows uses rational method [about religion] except a few on this forum
Occam lives what christians call the life of a good man..
Yet he will go to hell because he does not accept the copyright of GOOD that the christians faith claims.

Thus religion contradicts

There is indeed a method that allows us to 'see an objective and testable
reason to have hope in things unseen.'

Scientific/rational method...
Neptune the planet exists..because rational method SEES it.
RELIGION does not. [it needs science/reason to see it]
According to religion ,,there is no planet neptune..
And if religion was our guide. There bever would be...

Yet neptune EXISTS

Think on this.

Occam

[Brocktoon]

Im sure there are tens of millions of natural world objects not mentioned in the Bible.
God had to go with references to 'Stars and Heavenly Bodies' - no doubt to save Moses a lot of writing.

Regarding Salvation.

What we DO know is that anyone who understands these things to be true - yet - deliberately rejects the truth they have - is choosing to go to Hell.

For those who do not know the Gospel to be true - they are to respond to the light they are given.

If your telling me you understand Christ is your Salvation but are purposely going to reject it - then how could you complain about deliberately choosing to go elsewhere?

There is simply no 'Contradiction' in that whatsoever.

[Razorofoccam]

Im sure there are tens of millions of natural world objects not mentioned in the Bible.
God had to go with references to 'Stars and Heavenly Bodies' - no doubt to save Moses a lot of writing.

Regarding Salvation.

What we DO know is that anyone who understands these things to be true - yet - deliberately rejects the truth they have - is choosing to go to Hell.

For those who do not know the Gospel to be true - they are to respond to the light they are given.

If your telling me you understand Christ is your Salvation but are purposely going to reject it - then how could you complain about deliberately choosing to go elsewhere?

There is simply no 'Contradiction' in that whatsoever. Brocktroon

How is christ occams salvation?
What is salvation? from what?

Occam DOES NOT CHOOSE TO IGNOR THE SALVATION OF CHRIST.
HE DOES NOT UNDERSAND WHAT IT IS.
AND WHAT is it?
Fiction

What part or whole of occam needs to be saved?
Nothing
The only thing of occam that deires or requires saving.
Is the self preservation of the totality of occam.

Only occam can desire that...And it has NOTHING to do with religion.
Self aware being desires its self preservation.
Religion 'requires' its self preservation.

Religion the system will survive.
Occam the MIND will not.

So what...Occam has what he has FREE. [existance]
If he gets no more freebies...tough
He is not a social system as religion is.
He is an existant being.

He will die..Sytems such as religion only die when the PEOPLE that belive in them die. And none replace them..evolution. Religion and belief systems exist because self aware beings do.
Without US.
They do not exist

There are NO GODS .. without human beings.
There is only complexity in reality..and its causes


Occam

[Brocktoon]

So the point is you dont understand what Salvation is, why you need it or who gives it. (etc etc).
So how can you be held to rejecting it?

Lets say Jesus is the Way and The Bible called it all correctly.
You Die.
You show up on Judgement Day.

What happens to you next - I do not know.
Maybe its explained to you then - and THEN you are asked to make a decision?

Where the Bible is silent, so are we.

As to your assertion there are no gods without human beings... I suppose you are entitled to beleive that by faith.

[darrellkitchen]

Christianity asks its followers to critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true.
It also counts those who question its claims as 'Noble' and worthy of commendation.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out on this one, Brocktoon.

Show me !!!

Show me where in Christian literature where it implies or indicates one to "critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true."

Show me where Christianity states anything converse to Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


Darrell

[Razorofoccam]

So the point is you dont understand what Salvation is, why you need it or who gives it. (etc etc).
So how can you be held to rejecting it?

Lets say Jesus is the Way and The Bible called it all correctly.
You Die.
You show up on Judgement Day.

What happens to you next - I do not know.
Maybe its explained to you then - and THEN you are asked to make a decision?

Where the Bible is silent, so are we.

As to your assertion there are no gods without human beings... I suppose you are entitled to beleive that by faith. Brocktroon

No..Occam does not.
He has no soul as interpretations of the bible describe it.
There is no judgement day as interpretations of the bible says.

If any of the above EXIST..occam has seen no evidence,
If he sees no evidence...
They are low probabillity only.

Who has seen their soul?
None occam knows.
Who has seen judgement day?
None occam knows.

Soul, salvation and judgement day are YOUR words that mean NOTHING TO OCCAM.

In you holy righteousness..you say they exist.
Fine..

SHOW THEM TO ME.
Occam lives in a world where we believe or not...
Based on a method...
Reason has shown religious method to be non-existant.
And religion knows it.
The simple question of the existance of hell has destroyed most peoples faith in religion.
No rational being will accept eternal torture.
For that is what hell is.
Without redemption.

Yes..to be punnished is acceptable..
to be tortured forever IS NOT

Religion has destroyed itself by stupid clinging to dogma.
And that is why so many turn away from it...

Religion is a a path to power for those that create it..
[in this reality, occam sees no other]

Christ would vomit if he could see what 'christianity' has become.

Occam

Faith? HoHo

Occams faith is of one thing. That humanity , using self aware reason, Will make its own fate..
We will make reality to be ,, what we wish.
Occam has precedent for this faith...
It is the difference between us grubbing for root plants as a tribe of semi conscious beings.
And us building a machine that can process 70 trillion coded instructions
PER SECOND [floating point calcs]

It is the difference between someone like occam being an 'elder', someone who is still alive after 40. [no mean feat,, maybe self awareness originated in ENVY of those that continued to exist...repeatedly... ' i want to continue' on the virgin lips of the pre-sentient]
And just another self styled middle aged idealist who has it so easy, that his life CAN BE, totally, a persual of interests.

If
WE have come that far in a mere few thousand rotations of earth....
The future is ours to make of as we wish.

[geckopelli]

Amen, brothers!

[Brocktoon]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out on this one, Brocktoon.

Show me !!!

Show me where in Christian literature where it implies or indicates one to "critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true."
"..On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

So the Bereans are counted as Noble for examining (questioning) what Paul was trying to prove to them.

Happily that is almost a word-for-word answer to your Question.

Show me where Christianity states anything converse to Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Darrell
Sorry, I cant find anything Converse to Hebrews 11:1

Please note the Obvious - Christianity starts with as much hard living reality as you can ask for.
So we START with an observable, recordable, falsifiable reason for the Faith we have.

So there is a substantial warranted Faith in which we base our hopes for things not yet seen.

This is NOT the same as a Faith where there is no objective reason to START with and then asking to maintain that for things not yet seen.
(Like Evolutionisms Faith)

Big Difference

[darrellkitchen]

Where I said: Show me where in Christian literature where it implies or indicates one to "critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true."


You followed with: On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

You, Brocktoon left out two important keywords, one in your first claim to "critically examine the claims it makes" and second in not mentioning to "examine Scripture". So what you really meant to say was to "examine Scripture, to see if these things are true," not to "critically examine the claims it makes."

In examining Scripture, you are not making any examinations on your own using logic, deductive reasoning, or scientific proof ... your making claims to examine the words written by men several hundreds of years ago (perhaps several several thousands, since that is probably how old the text is now that the Bereans had to examine back then). In reading what someone else said, you're going on blind faith that that is what is true without actually examining the truth for yourself.

Darrell

[geckopelli]

"...Christianity starts with as much hard living reality as you can ask for.
So we START with an observable, recordable, falsifiable reason for the Faith we have."

Would you please elucidate on the meaning of this statement? Are you saying that the christian faith in god is subject to verification thourgh observation- and meets the test?

[Disarm]

Please reread.

I noted the pre-history of the jews, "as well as the acquisition and assimilation of cultural myths that accompanied them."

further, I stated, "However, for the purposes of this essay, the history of creationism begins with the written codification of the Old Testament"

Those calling themselves "Creation Scientist" or "creationist" base thier case on the Bible. It is thier only piece of "evidence".

I explianed no history of the concept, because there exist none in the creationist eye.

And you are quite right: The bible is not to be read as a scientific document. and by implication, creationism is not a scientific theory.

And that's the point!
So, what you're saying is that you began the essay by mentioning that cultural myths were an influence in writing the torah, yet do not talk of where the ideas come from, meanwhile giving an account of the formation and modification of the evolutionary ideas. You start at the end with creationism, yet begin at the start with evolutionary perspectives. You have given no evidence of what formed these ideas in the first place, or how the ideas came to be accepted by people, which what you should base your comparison on, as you are looking at the difference between two viewpoints.

Look at it like this, if I were to compare the effects of the first and second world wars in the way you compared the two concepts, I would say: The first world war had a basis in foreign policy, but for the purposes of my essay I will look at its effects from the writing of the first textbook explaining the event onward. The second world war began with the assassination of franz ferdinand, which then quickly progressed to germany fighting a war on two fronts etc etc etc. Therefore, the second world war had more widespread effects, because the only thing which came out of the first world war was a textbook, and it only SAYS that people were injured/hurt/upset. Rather revisionist, don't you think?

You also concede that the bible should not be read scientifically, yet it's ok to compare it to a fully scientific concept? It's like comparing the running ability of a cheetah with a piece of carpet, completely invalid. You can't compare the two from either a scientific or a belief base, because, for one, they have totally different concepts of proof, evidence, belief, and fact. Doing things like this, to me, seem far too much like an imagined power trip to give people a buzz, to make them feel that their concept is right, from whichever side they come from.

[geckopelli]

disarm,

You're way off base.

"And you are quite right: The bible is not to be read as a scientific document. and by implication, creationism is not a scientific theory.

And that's the point!"

Did you skip those two sentences?

I don't "conceed" that the bible is not science- THAT's MY POINT!

It ISN'T " ok to compare it to a fully scientific concept..."

Again, That's the point. Talk to the creationist- it's THEY whom equate biblical statements with science, not I.

"So, what you're saying is that you began the essay by mentioning that cultural myths were an influence in writing the torah, yet do not talk of where the ideas come from, meanwhile giving an account of the formation and modification of the evolutionary ideas."

There IS no documented INDIVIDUAL history of the development of creationism. Naming every culture with a creation myth, serves no purpose. There is no research trail- no train of historical people who slowy acumulated knowledge, suggested hypothesis, and eventually reach the tentative conclusion of creationism. It did not develop through consideration of other, lessr theories.
In EVERY case, creation myths appear full blown without ANY empirical reason.
THEY ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY DERIVED.

Evoultion theory is based on prior research and obseravtion over a period of time.
Science.

At that's the point of the essay- only a fool would call creationism science, and evolution a belief system.

Perhaps you should read the thread before you make wild assumptions. Try a few others, too.

They're filled with me explianing to that creationist wacko that CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE.

I've posted thousands of words stating that- and demonstrated it to boot.

You need to do a review-

I await your apology- unless your faith forbids you from admitting your mistakes.

CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE.

[Brocktoon]

"...Christianity starts with as much hard living reality as you can ask for.
So we START with an observable, recordable, falsifiable reason for the Faith we have."

Would you please elucidate on the meaning of this statement? Are you saying that the christian faith in god is subject to verification thourgh observation- and meets the test?
Yes, these people put faith in these scriptures (OT), which turned out to be physically and tangibly proven out in reality (Messiah).

So these Christians (and today) are STARTING with an objective reality which begins their reason to then have faith in what will come next.

Deryl:
Sorry but the only thing I can see here is that you protest that the word 'Critically' was not explicitly included in the description of 'Studied to see if these things were true or not'.

Most of us would say that IS a description and the definition of Critical Thinking.

[geckopelli]

"Yes, these people put faith in these scriptures (OT), which turned out to be physically and tangibly proven out in reality (Messiah)."

A lie. Show this proof that dosen't exist.

Be careful- you're tetering on pathology.

Opinions are not proof-

And no matter how many times you repeat the same idiocy, it will still be idiocy, mr bush.

Now attack me in a fit of frustration, as you do, and see where it get's you.

[Brocktoon]

Gecko... for the sake of your bizarre denouncements - Could you PLEASE learn how to use Block Quoting.
Thanks

[geckopelli]

Ditto my last post.

[Brocktoon]

Brocktoon Says:
Gecko... for the sake of your bizarre denouncements - Could you PLEASE learn how to use Block Quoting.
Thanks


Gecko Replies:
A lie. Show this proof that dosen't exist.
Be careful- you're tetering on pathology.
Opinions are not proof-
And no matter how many times you repeat the same idiocy, it will still be idiocy, mr bush. Now attack me in a fit of frustration, as you do, and see where it get's you.

[geckopelli]

I'm really, REALLY trying darrell-

May I post another thread without juiceman hijacking it?

I suspect that my threads are welcomed here by all but the flamer.

[Brocktoon]

[Geckopelli - Trying what?

Please keep in mind this is an active thread and at least two people are in the middle of a discussion about critical thinking and the Bereans.

Either join in or please stop interjecting unrelated comments.]

Where Darrel said: Show me where in Christian literature where it implies or indicates one to "critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true."


Brocktoon followed with: "On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Darrel suggested that this is not 'Critical Examination'.

I suggest that it is.
The type of Examining is made clear - 'To see if what Paul said was true'.
This not only 'indicates' they are being 'critical' but it directly implies they were critical.
I suggest it beyond 'Implication' and is simply stating the act of critical examination in order to determine truth.

For some reason Geckopelli is 'Holding his tongue'?

Is it being suggested that the Bereans accepted what Paul said and did not question it?
Darrel seems to be suggesting this passage describes the Bereans as accepting whatever Paul said as true - then were just 'looking at' things they had already accepted as true.

The text (in any translation I can find) say they did this to see 'IF' Paul was telling the truth.
Without getting into a full-blown English/Greek exegesis on the word 'IF' - I suggest it clearly indicates and implies 'A Question' exists first, in the minds of the Bereans.

So its not 'To see the true things Paul had said'
but rather
To see 'IF' things Paul said 'were' true?
[and that itself implies an 'or were not']

Geckopelli, Please feel free to explain what it is that requires you to 'Try Real Hard' and Why?

[Brocktoon]

Its weird but it seems like anything Darrel asked and I replied to has been deleted?

Oddly the last post which was basically nothing more than an insult post was left?


Wierd

[Disarm]

disarm,

You're way off base.

"And you are quite right: The bible is not to be read as a scientific document. and by implication, creationism is not a scientific theory.

And that's the point!"

Did you skip those two sentences?

I don't "conceed" that the bible is not science- THAT's MY POINT!

It ISN'T " ok to compare it to a fully scientific concept..."

Again, That's the point. Talk to the creationist- it's THEY whom equate biblical statements with science, not I.

"So, what you're saying is that you began the essay by mentioning that cultural myths were an influence in writing the torah, yet do not talk of where the ideas come from, meanwhile giving an account of the formation and modification of the evolutionary ideas."

There IS no documented INDIVIDUAL history of the development of creationism. Naming every culture with a creation myth, serves no purpose. There is no research trail- no train of historical people who slowy acumulated knowledge, suggested hypothesis, and eventually reach the tentative conclusion of creationism. It did not develop through consideration of other, lessr theories.
In EVERY case, creation myths appear full blown without ANY empirical reason.
THEY ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY DERIVED.

Evoultion theory is based on prior research and obseravtion over a period of time.
Science.

At that's the point of the essay- only a fool would call creationism science, and evolution a belief system.

Perhaps you should read the thread before you make wild assumptions. Try a few others, too.

They're filled with me explianing to that creationist wacko that CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE.

I've posted thousands of words stating that- and demonstrated it to boot.

You need to do a review-

I await your apology- unless your faith forbids you from admitting your mistakes.

CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE.
You're way off base, I'm saying that its wrong to compare the two, and you agree. Yet you write an 'essay' comparing the two. I await YOUR apology ;)

If you call an essay a comparison of two histories, whether one has a history or not (there is no history of the evolution of the concept of creationism, yet you're describing their 'histories..'), then you should talk about the history of the concepts. You say there is no way of finding how the concept of creationism was reached SO DON'T SAY YOU'RE DESCRIBING ITS HISTORY.

To digress, some creationists do try and use science to prove their theories. So attack them. Many things we cannot actually prove, we use a theory which best fits it, and usually completely fits it. This is science. The idea of science, which I'm sure you've heard, is that if all variables are kept constant, then one is changed, any difference is caused by that variable. If something has happened once, and we have absolutely no control over it, nor can we observe it, we choose the best theory which fits the result. As we cannot conduct any investigation on how the universe was created, and know little of its immediate after effects, we cannot have a completely valid scientific theory- we cannot conduct an experiment, put everything in the same conditions, and reach the same result time after time. Therefore, any theory which fits the result is just as valid as the next until it can be disproven. That's what myths are, explanations which fit the environment. So, until you disprove the existence of g-d, or his ability to make the universe; or a creationist disproves all other theories on the creation of the universe; we're all as right as the other.

My point, in a way which I hope you will understand this time, is that you should not compare the two concepts. You have already agreed with this. So don't compare the two concepts, and furthermore don't try and make one seem better than the other- they're incomparable. That was all I was saying.

[Disarm]

I await your apology- unless your faith forbids you from admitting your mistakes.
Oh yeah, and btw, I don't actually have any theory on why the universe was created, and couldn't really give a damn. I just get iffy about bad literature.

I apologise when I have something wrong, regardless of the topic or my beliefs, not that you even know them. So don't get rude.

[Brocktoon]

Unfortunately for you Disarm, You just gave a reasonable, clear and cohesive definition of Science and its Methods.

You gave this to Geckopelli for his benefit.

Your a 17 year old British girl.

This can not possibly go well for you now.

:P

[Disarm]

im nt 17 im 32 i hav liek 3 baccelars degres in chemystry an yew r jst sum punk kidzor il maek thngs nt go well 4 u if u dnt shut ur face (and a zor for luck) ;)


Things can't benefit those who don't know how to use them. It's like that with knowledge for some people. Anywho, it's summer (I live in NZ at the moment, not the UK sadly). Soon heat/sun will come and I can go outside, and skip and dance and play and not be bothered with people with agendas trying to convince me to either go to jesus, stay away from jesus, believe in the bible, hate the bible, be ignorant, be selectively ignorant, be knowledgeable (another term for selective ignorance), or try and work out how we all came to be. Or, of course, that it's all a lie implanted in my head by the state.

I wish more people would focus on fun things like the last one. Either way, I try for a while, it gets funny, it gets irritating, then it gets infuriating. I'm up to funny, and hoping funny will last till the sun comes out, wish me luck :)

[Brocktoon]

Trust me - Its not me you need to worry about here.
I dont have any degrees in chemistry and even I can comprehend how 'Science Works'.
Unfortunately, This is not necessarily true for every member in here.
Some will 'Vanquish You' by the Critical Methodology of 'Denouncement'.

Anyways.. it was nice to see a 'professional' version of the shit I (and a few others) have been trying to communicate all along.

[Disarm]

Yeah, professional like a high school diploma. I haven't taken science since I was 14. But this year I decided to do it as a university entrance paper (last year of high school is considered level 3; first year uni level 5; I did level 4 in science as well as a level 5 psychology paper). So, until I get my results in january, I'm as professional as those kids who dropped out of high school without even passing level 1 (taken at 15). I did get an A in psychology though! Averaged 84%! yay!

[Brocktoon]

Im sure I meant to say Academic rather than Professional, but at this time at night, and after my day at word - I dont know what the hell is going on anymore.

Personally, I have just as much fun when Geckopelli is trying to convince me away from Jesus, To Evolutionism, into Equotics, away from facts or whatever the heck he or anyone else is up to here.

I only lose my sense of 'Fun' when I see certain types here demand ANY expression of ideas be 'Censored' or 'Banned' from my (or anyone elses consideration).
At that point the fun stops and a sick feeling inside takes its place.

[You who delete thoughts and censor speech know who you are, btw]

The others who deliberately request that some ideas be 'banned' should feel just as ashamed of yourselves too.

Otherwise, Its all good.

[Occam]

Amen, brothers!
LOL

Occam

[Brocktoon]

You should have read what came after that post OCcam.. it was even funnier when Geckopello DIDNT (rather- CouldNT) post anything at all.

No matter - someone did NOT like the answer they got and decided YOU should not be able to know about it either.

So its deleted to protect your mind.

LOL indeed!

[darrellkitchen]

You should have read what came after that post OCcam.. it was even funnier when Geckopello DIDNT (rather- CouldNT) post anything at all.

No matter - someone did NOT like the answer they got and decided YOU should not be able to know about it either.

So its deleted to protect your mind.

LOL indeed!
Grasping, Brocktoon ...

Darrell

[Occam]

I only lose my sense of 'Fun' when I see certain types here demand ANY expression of ideas be 'Censored' or 'Banned' from my (or anyone elses consideration).
At that point the fun stops and a sick feeling inside takes its place.


Brocktoon

Well said...Occam gives ALL belief ITS DUE....[possibillity]

Where is the censoring and banning?
Obviously besides the fact that 'razorofoccam' is somehow no
longer a valid username on this forum. Occam has missed something..

Occam

[Occam]

You should have read what came after that post OCcam.. it was even funnier when Geckopello DIDNT (rather- CouldNT) post anything at all.
No matter - someone did NOT like the answer they got and decided YOU should not be able to know about it either.
So its deleted to protect your mind.

LOL indeed! Brocktroon

Really..!

Well occam is glad someone is watching overhim
Deflecting ideas/concepts that he is patently unable to handle
That may shatter his feeble mind.

Occam

[Brocktoon]

Now why is RazorofOccam invalidated now?!
Ya.. now that he is gone I can say it - his 'stanza's' style of writing was entirely annoying - but banned?!

Now Geckopelli has seemingly been stopped from posting his crazy-ass ramblings?
Its ok.. i dont need to be protected from thoughts - even if they are delusional rants!

How odd.. S.K.I.P. must be going haywire on us??

[Occam]

Now why is RazorofOccam invalidated now?!
Ya.. now that he is gone I can say it - his 'stanza's' style of writing was entirely annoying - but banned?!

Now Geckopelli has seemingly been stopped from posting his crazy-ass ramblings?
Its ok.. i dont need to be protected from thoughts - even if they are delusional rants!

How odd.. S.K.I.P. must be going haywire on us??
Brocktoon

Well 'occam' is still here...so you have lost nothing...:)

If it is annoying..it is your inherent right to NOT have to read it..
Why not exercise your rights?

Occam

[Brocktoon]

Sometimes I do, Sometimes I dont.
I would rather be annoyed than have someone 'protect my mind' for me by deciding what thinking I can consider or not consider valid, scary, truthful, meaningless etc

[Occam]

Sometimes I do, Sometimes I dont.
I would rather be annoyed than have someone 'protect my mind' for me by deciding what thinking I can consider or not consider valid, scary, truthful, meaningless etc
Brocktroon

Occam was not talking about external censorship..

He speaks of why you read his posts?
No-one forces you... you read them and answer because you want to.
Yet you say his [occams]thinking is incorrect...

Why do you care? If occam is a bald face liar.. how does that effect you..
Not at all..

Individual psychological domination of another...
Is the lowest of the low..
Personal power is why it happens. Ego
EGO is our enemy
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND HE IS US"

Occam has no personal power over others...the very idea is abhorrent.
Believe what you wish to believe...
Dont ever be so arrogant as to think that others that do not believe as you wish to believe. Are LESS than you.

Different , yes,, not less..or more
THAT is a small wisdom 30 years [of thought] has taught. [occam]

Occam

[Disarm]

Brocktroon

Occam was not talking about external censorship..

He speaks of why you read his posts?
No-one forces you... you read them and answer because you want to.
Yet you say his [occams]thinking is incorrect...

Why do you care? If occam is a bald face liar.. how does that effect you..
Not at all..

Individual psychological domination of another...
Is the lowest of the low..
Personal power is why it happens. Ego
EGO is our enemy
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND HE IS US"

Occam has no personal power over others...the very idea is abhorrent.
Believe what you wish to believe...
Dont ever be so arrogant as to think that others that do not believe as you wish to believe. Are LESS than you.

Different , yes,, not less..or more
THAT is a small wisdom 30 years [of thought] has taught. [occam]

Occam
*loves occam*

[darrellkitchen]

Brocktroon

Occam was not talking about external censorship..

He speaks of why you read his posts?
No-one forces you... you read them and answer because you want to.
Yet you say his [occams]thinking is incorrect...

Why do you care? If occam is a bald face liar.. how does that effect you..
Not at all..

Individual psychological domination of another...
Is the lowest of the low..
Personal power is why it happens. Ego
EGO is our enemy
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND HE IS US"

Occam has no personal power over others...the very idea is abhorrent.
Believe what you wish to believe...
Dont ever be so arrogant as to think that others that do not believe as you wish to believe. Are LESS than you.

Different , yes,, not less..or more
THAT is a small wisdom 30 years [of thought] has taught. [occam]

OccamTo use an ever-popular Christian phrase ...

Amen, brother!


Oops ... sorry ... looks like I plagerized Geckopelli: http://hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=706306&postcount=46 (http://hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=706306&postcount=46)


Darrell

[Brocktoon]

Thats wonderful Occam and even better when you get 'high fives' from Darrel and Disarm.

Why your telling me this?
Last I checked I wasnt having any 'issues' about reading peoples ideas, replying to them or not?

Better question - why is Darrel 'high fiving' such a statement?
Change of heart?

Anyway, if it makes you feel any better OCcam - if there is anyones posts who get glossed over by me - its your posts.
[no kidding]

[Occam]

Thats wonderful Occam and even better when you get 'high fives' from Darrel and Disarm.

Why your telling me this?
Last I checked I wasnt having any 'issues' about reading peoples ideas, replying to them or not?

Better question - why is Darrel 'high fiving' such a statement?
Change of heart?

Anyway, if it makes you feel any better OCcam - if there is anyones posts who get glossed over by me - its your posts.
[no kidding] Brocktroon

Actually it is a blanket post to you to cover allthreads on agnosticism.

it results from comments by you like this...

"So basically i learned absolutely nothing other than 2 halfwits parrot a story"

Who would those you declare as HALFWITS be? Shall occam name them?

Occam

[Brocktoon]

Geckopelli did a piss-poor job of 'parroting' a Grade 10 Science 101 Textbook "How the Universe Began'.
He barely bothered to put it in his 'own words'.

Thumbotico offered absolutely nothing except to announce "What Geckopelli Said"

So what we end up with is two people citing (poorly) very very basic assertions about the Universe Evolving.

At least I informed the readership that Natural Selection has LONG SINCE been disregarded as the mechanism for Evolution.
At least I informed people that genetic information is NOT observed to occur, rather LOSSES are observed.

Apparently not one other person in this forum (besides maybe Cabdirraz and BlackGuard??) seem to have been aware of this.

Occam - you havent offered anything either.
You are just as guilty as anyone for simply popping in to 'Declare' Evolutionism is 'Scientific' *because* someone told you it was 'Scientific' *therefore* you announce it is SCientific.

The most 'Evidence' you have offered is an 'Appeal to Authority/Majority' by stating 'The Scientific Community' accepts 'Evolutionism'.

You other contribution is the 'always cute' question "So why did God create the Universe to appear as if it evolved"
Which is -
Nothing more than asserting it 'Looks Evolved' because you imagine it does, *therefore* it does appear to be evolved.

So lets stop 'asserting our positions' and PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS:

EXPLAIN WHY you think a fossil of a Eohippus morphed into a Horse... BESIDES YOU IMAGINE IT DID?

Explain WHERE you read that new addition genetic information is ADDED to a next generation of creature.

Its all good and well for Thumbotico to 'Posture' as the 'No BS' poster
or
Geckopelli to just 'Act' like he is 'Explaining' something
or
Occam to just make BroadBrushing 'Announcement' about 'what is' and what 'does not seem'.

Let talk Science fact and fiction.
If you say Natural Selection is a mechanism - then explain WHY Stephen Gould is wrong.

I have no problem telling you I believe the Earth was flooded.
Im not just 'Asserting' this.
I see Fossil Graveyards.
Real Science is finding millions of lifeforms buried in Sediment.
Thats REAL SCIENCE.

You want to 'Announce' that 'Dust' landed on them for millions of years (preserving even their scales) and then suddenly millions of years of Chalk did the same?

Go ahead.. but DAM WELL SHOW ME WHERE THIS IS OBSERVED AND REPEATED IN THE NATURAL WORLD?

Look.. IF YOU CAN.. Im HAPPY to say 'Oh great.. well thanks.. I didnt know animals developed new genes each generation!'

"Wow.. yes mutations ARE beneficial MORE THAN 51% of the time!"

Instead all I get is "Evolution is SCience because its SCience and you are wrong because your wrong"

annnnnd SCene!

[Occam]

Geckopelli did a piss-poor job of 'parroting' a Grade 10 Science 101 Textbook "How the Universe Began'.
He barely bothered to put it in his 'own words'.
Thumbotico offered absolutely nothing except to announce "What Geckopelli Said"
So what we end up with is two people citing (poorly) very very basic assertions about the Universe Evolving.

Brocktoon

Sorry,, one answer at a time...

1.
So..because they quoted something poorly in your opinion.
They are halfwits...
So..You are by definition a halfwit unless your have 'never stated something poorly in someones opinion'

No?

2.
In the 'dont remain tied' thread..occam states his position on evolution.
And what it may be about.

When you read that you may understand that occam does not argue such
fine points as you put forward..He tries to fit a theory into his understanding of observable reality . That theory is creationism.
It does not fit...

If the universe is 10k years old...geologic weathering is a lie..stellar and planetary evolution is a lie. For occam considers those sciences to have a fair understanding [non contradictory] of the age of observable reality and especially the age of the earth...They dont even need to be that accurate.. 2 billion years either way and the earth is still 1 billion years old.

This is why he says..If god created the earth in 10,000 bc. Why did he create it to look like it was not created..
You say occams idea of how old the earth is is based on false information.

then turn away from the question to hairsplitting on special evolution.

But to say occams understanding of the sciences of geology and astophysics is incorrect. Then you must show those sciences that their
theories are false...
CAN you disprove current scientiffic theories held by geology and astrophysics as to the science/process of planetary and stellar objects?
Especially earth.

A simple example...show how all the sand on all the beaches of the world
got where it is from the weathering of sandstone in just 12k years..
If you say god made them that way.. then god also made the laws that science calls the objective laws..[for god made everything///no?]
And those laws say the sand came from eons of natural process...
A small part of planetary evolution.
So god created the beaches.. to look like they evolved through geologic process.

So...to occam, creationist theory is contradictory at its most basic level..
While evolution is not...For stars and planets are born and die.. They have a life line. dying stars give life to new stars...new species of stars..
And in the doing make a universe that is NOT ALL HYDROGEN...

Evolution theory of life. Is far more complex than stellar evolution.
Yet it follows the same pattern.The same structure. A result of the
'objective laws' [of which we likely know only a few]
You say evolution theory is false...Occam holds it a far more probable that
you and science understand little of how evolution may work..
But..as stated before. Evolution is but the MOST PROBABLE , to occam,
at this time.
While of ALL theories of existance..creationism is the least.

Occam

[Occam]

Let talk Science fact and fiction.
If you say Natural Selection is a mechanism - then explain WHY Stephen Gould is wrong.

I have no problem telling you I believe the Earth was flooded.
Im not just 'Asserting' this.
I see Fossil Graveyards.
Real Science is finding millions of lifeforms buried in Sediment.
Thats REAL SCIENCE. Brocktroon

Stephen Gould states "the earth was flooded"
There is enough water on this planet to reduce the current above sea level land masses by some 40 %...
There is not enough water to submerge more than that..

Thus, unless Mr Gould proposses that god doubled the ammount of water on earth to flood it..then took that water away afterwards.
A thing not mentioned in any biblical text...

Then it is not physically possible to "flood the earth" with the amount of water on it.

Occam

PS. And if you believe the flood..You believe a single family built a ship to carry several MILLION species of insect/animal/plant. ANd managed to hop to south america and other such 'easily accessable to a guy on a donkey in the mid east' places.. Cause ALL of the species that exist now...according to the flood myth.. must have travelled in that ark.
Cause there is no evolution..right?
And as a small extra..who carpented the wood needed to build a ship able to carry several millions of species?
Occam estimates at the least..it must have been 500 meters in length alone. Thats like...100 thousand tons of timber.

Now..how many days does the bible say noah and his family did all those things in?

PPS...And if 'The noah bunch' were the only humans to survive...
Then we are all products of god sponsored incest.

[LuMpYtRiChOmEy]

PPS...And if 'The noah bunch' were the only humans to survive...
Then we are all products of god sponsored incest. >LT>**^^~~ ----That would explane alot :) .

[Brocktoon]

Since I have to make my way to work soon - let me just correct the last conclusion asserted by Dr. Occam.

Noah and His Wife.
Noahs Three Sons (Shem, Ham and Japeth) and Their Three Wives.
[Im not aware that the Noah's had any more children in the new world]

The Three Couples split up into regions - North, East and West and began to repopulate the Earth

There is no incest involved.

Mind you... if this 'Explains anything' - it might explain why there are three basic 'looks' among the human family which are found in the Northern Peoples, the Eastern Peoples and the Southern Peoples
(Turkey as the relatative point)

.
.
..
... Stephen J Gould (rip) is the most recent 'High Priest' of Evolutionism.
He is what was called a 'Neo Darwinist' and like most Evolutionists he clearly states that Natural Selection is not a mechanism for Evolution.
Gould and modern Evolutionists can not even believe that gradual evolution happened either (the fossil record wont support it) and now insist that 'Hopeful Monsters' were appearing in 'huge jumps'.

Im not aware of his theory on World Wide Flooding.

More later

[Occam]

Since I have to make my way to work soon - let me just correct the last conclusion asserted by Dr. Occam.

Noah and His Wife.
Noahs Three Sons (Shem, Ham and Japeth) and Their Three Wives.
[Im not aware that the Noah's had any more children in the new world]

The Three Couples split up into regions - North, East and West and began to repopulate the Earth

There is no incest involved.

Mind you... if this 'Explains anything' - it might explain why there are three basic 'looks' among the human family which are found in the Northern Peoples, the Eastern Peoples and the Southern Peoples
(Turkey as the relatative point)
Brocktroon

Ahh well,, that explains everything...
Three families built that ark and repopulated the world...
This opinion is based on WHAT physical evidence?
Ah yes, some book...

Occam read that nazis flying saucers are based in the antarctic..
That came from a book as well.

Occam

PS..the 'Dr Occam' comment comes from where? Ah yes..the desire
to ridicule...A method of gaining that illusory personal power.
All, a product of ego.

[thumontico]

All, a product of ego.
Yeah, thats what I've been saying, which is why there is no point in responding to him.

[Brocktoon]

What evidence is there that our population came from Three families (whol ultimately came from Adam and Eve (and certainly Eve)

Some people do point to the three 'branches' of the human family - sometimes called 'Negroid' 'Caucaziod' and 'Mongoloid' (dont blame the naming conventions on me please)

Others point to traditions in ancient cultures (many refering to an early few people)

The better way to handle it would be to take a look at world population and growth - then reverse it backwards.

The latest way would be to map the human genome and take samples from all the worlds populations.

That last one is kinda scary for some of you - it will pretty much give you know other option than to conclude that ALL humans today come from one woman.

Scientists refer to this original woman as 'Eve'.
[They got the naming idea from a book]

Those are just the few I can think of.
Archaeology would be another way to find evidence.

I think Dr.Occam sounds pretty cool ... in case your not hip to the Spidermania - it kinda sounds like Dr.Oc

Oh yea.. and also my 'Ego' (which doesnt exist other than something you read in a book by a guy saying it does)

[gnrm23]

http://amonhotep.com/2002/realeve.html

[Brocktoon]

gnrm..

My favourite part of Mitochondrial Eve is where the artists depicts her as a human being (in this case she is) but for pure evolutionist fun - he puts 'Chimp Hair and skin' on her.

No reason other than pure funny propaganda lol!

But yes.. its 'more or less exact' that we all had to come from one woman.

I suppose its 'fun' to imagine she had 'Chimp like features' and probably walked with a weird hunched over wobble (like the Discovery channel actors do when portraying early humans)

Gotta love it!

[geckopelli]

I see that being off-line for a week did nothing to quell brocktoon's obsession with me.

But you know, I read all his post and he failed to say a SINGLE thing he hasn't repeated ad nauseum. Like Bush, he's a spam man- repeat it enough, and some other idiot will believe it, too!

[Brocktoon]

Yes but in all fairness to you Geckopelli ... your not a Scientist, so the Science of Probability Formulas would 'Sound like a bunch of words and words' to your ears.
Some in here appreciated the discussions on Formula on improbability.

[geckopelli]

I understand probability on a plateau many levels above you and you propaganistic, sycohphantic, brigade of bible fanatics. .

Anyone whom has the slightest grasp of the statistical nature of reality has long dispensed with childish explanations of a magic man in the sky pulling all the strings.

[geckopelli]

geckopelli: " ...I read all his post and he failed to say a SINGLE thing he hasn't repeated ad nauseum."

Brocktoon: "Yes..."

A self-acknowledged spamist!

What was that rule again?

[Brocktoon]

The 'Rule' is:

It does not qualify as 'Spam' just because one Reader (Geckopelli in this case) is confused by the posts and thinks they all sound like 'Talky stuff'.

Other, more advanced readers are able to discern a difference between Mitochondrial Eve and another post about Genetic Variation.

Hang in there.. ..You'll catch on soon!

;)

[geckopelli]

Ditto!

[BlackGuardXIII]

What evidence is there that our population came from Three families (whol ultimately came from Adam and Eve (and certainly Eve)

Some people do point to the three 'branches' of the human family - sometimes called 'Negroid' 'Caucaziod' and 'Mongoloid' (dont blame the naming conventions on me please)

Others point to traditions in ancient cultures (many refering to an early few people)

The better way to handle it would be to take a look at world population and growth - then reverse it backwards.

The latest way would be to map the human genome and take samples from all the worlds populations.

That last one is kinda scary for some of you - it will pretty much give you know other option than to conclude that ALL humans today come from one woman.

Scientists refer to this original woman as 'Eve'.
[They got the naming idea from a book]

Those are just the few I can think of.
Archaeology would be another way to find evidence.

I think Dr.Occam sounds pretty cool ... in case your not hip to the Spidermania - it kinda sounds like Dr.Oc

Oh yea.. and also my 'Ego' (which doesnt exist other than something you read in a book by a guy saying it does)

I don't yet buy into that theory, though 'Eve' allegedly lived around 250 000 years ago. I believe we have been around here many times that no. of years.
more like 50 000 000 years. The lack of genetic variety, in my humble opinion, is due to a number of extinction level events over that time.


Oh yeah, Brocktoon, I just want you to know in case you didn't, that the 'Eve' theorists feel she was from Africa. You may not have known that, or maybe just forgot to mention it, huh? Either way, it matters not, and I don't buy the whole "Eve" theory anyway.

[Disarm]

I understand probability on a plateau many levels above you and you propaganistic, sycohphantic, brigade of bible fanatics. .

Anyone whom has the slightest grasp of the statistical nature of reality has long dispensed with childish explanations of a magic man in the sky pulling all the strings. I've said it before. Focus on your english skills, especially seeing you've mastered science :rolleyes: People who aren't hung up on which jargon sounds best will then see the glimmer of enlightenment you assure us you have.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I understand probability on a plateau many levels above you and you propaganistic, sycohphantic, brigade of bible fanatics. .

Anyone whom has the slightest grasp of the statistical nature of reality has long dispensed with childish explanations of a magic man in the sky pulling all the strings.
While I tend to agree, I do not claim to know that, however ludicrously fantastical one's beliefs may be, they are not right for them. I say to them, you are right. It's true. Valid beliefs to be sure. I might also say, I feel all faiths are full of people whose beliefs are not any more or less 'righteous', nor more favored by the Spirit, or whatever it is.
The poor spelling in your post........I say cuz in mine. I can spell, i don't feel I hafta. I had no trouble getting your point, so i dont care how you spell, and your points are what I care about, and if your grammatical and punctuation skills ever negatively impact my ability to quickly, clearly, and directly agree or disagree with you, then i might hint that you need to work on it. Some of the smartest people I know can't spell worth shit. But at least I can read thru the terrrabul spelling mistakes with no difficulty, in moments, and I get their point succinctly, efficiently, and unambiguously. English wuz alwaze my best subject, and my test scores are rare around here anywaze. I know what they mean effortlessly, so there, ooops, they're...no, their spelling is not an issue. I know that many people do find it hard to accept poor English skills, but I just wanted to say that education level, and academic achievements are not in any way whatsoever to be confused with intelligence.
I say, to all who spell bad. just do your thing....whether someone is the Dean of English at a large institution, or a person who didn't finish grade 8, sucked at English, and has no estate, no equity, no degrees, or diplomas....not even high school, doesn't tell me that one is an asshole and the other one is being straight with me. I have seen too many academics who have a lot of learning to do to be as smart as many a minimum wage labourer with bad english. High IQ is overemphasized and not fair, too. If a IQ test was translated into any one of the many original, traditional, tribal languages around the world, they would not necessarily need to know what a refridgerator does, or if a Slushie was a toy, a drink, a shoe, or whatever. Many of our material belongings, our vastly different living environments, and our culturally influenced educational systems would be foreign. They would not do well, and if I was sent to Australia and tried to learn the Aboriginal peoples knowledge and wisdom, my western world education will be of little use. If someone failed in school, they may still in fact be very smart. In the areas I find important. Education is good, I support it.....it is nothing compared to common sense, and far more common. Jargon...elitist. Mark Twain, never use a dollar word where a dime word will do.
Okay, I'm done.

[BlackGuardXIII]

And furthermore......to get back to my original point that I was getting to in that last post. I lost it somewhere in that rabbit trail of red herrings, equivocation, speculation, conjecture, and double entendres.
A persons spiritual beliefs and ethical values, their goodwill, heart, generosity, and love......compared to IQ ha ha ha ha


Hmmmmmmm



Love...........illogical and unsolvable as it can be is a good focus.

Knowing what obfuscation is, or what obsequiousness, dichotomy, epitome, hors d'oevre, hyperbole, or quark means, or what 3.15149265358979323, or 1.6180339, or 13/64th, or .125 millimeters is, even the completion of the highest levels in any academic subject, doesn't touch love.
sorry,
its a non issue
love
IQ
more value, hmmm
what is intelligence anyway...is it smart to love....I think so. Way smarter than knowing any science.
And so my point is,

I don't equate smarts with education level. They are completely unrelated, in my experience, and no education is no reason to think that someone is stupid.
I just wanted to say that, becuz I know some shy, self-conscious about their booklearnin', uneducated, low income, genii, feeling inadequate cuz they know that their poor spelling reveals their low education, and are sensitive about being judged on it.

Intellectualism is summed up well by Cheryl Crow.

...he was high on intellectualism, I've never been there but the brochure looks nice.

She's great,
BG13

[geckopelli]

I've said it before. Focus on your english skills, especially seeing you've mastered science :rolleyes: People who aren't hung up on which jargon sounds best will then see the glimmer of enlightenment you assure us you have.
I'm a professional writer, my dear, and I have zero interest in your quest for enlightenment.

Since you have nothing to contribute, perhaps you should continue practicing your hamburger flipping skills. And don't put too much salt on the fries.
-----------
I find it truly astonishing that so many people take offense upon encountering someone with superior knowledge in a given field. How do such people learn?

It seems to me, a little education would do more to supress this apparent inferiority complex than the usual arrogant/ignorant stupidity that disarm personifies so well. Oh well!

Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, learn. And those who can't learn, critize.

[Sera Michele]

I've said it before. Focus on your english skills, especially seeing you've mastered science :rolleyes: People who aren't hung up on which jargon sounds best will then see the glimmer of enlightenment you assure us you have.What are you talking about? He spoke well and it was easily understood (maybe you need to tafocus on your english skills, my dear, if you were having a tough time with it). Not to mention that I agree. Anyone that has a firm grasp on science would find it hard to believe that there is some devine being in the sky that is responsible for, and controlling our existance. I can't make myself believe in a god if I tried, now that I have a more scientific understanding of the world around me. My scientific expertise is minimal, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that mystical characters such as a gods only exist in the human mind.

Some people are just so stuck on the bible stories they are told, and have been told since a child, that they can't seem to wrap their mind around the possibility that there is no god or creator of the universe. Science has tought us that people think differently. It seems that some people just can't get the idea of god out of their minds in order to look objectively at any logical theory of our existance. But let's face it, Creationism holds no more water than any other early myths of our coming into existance. It is a religious, mythical belief that has no supporting evidence besides wishful thinking.

But even christians are coming around. They are realizing that their faith doesn't have to be affected if they accept that we evolved. The only people who have a hard time letting go of creationism are the fundamentalists. The pope even accepted the big bang theory like 50 years ago. (Even though that theory now is getting a little weak). If the religion is going to survive it needs to be flexible. If it continues to ignore scientific discovery the religion will lose any validity it has, and will be considered among all the other old religions that worshipped gods and mythical characters.


I understand probability on a plateau many levels above you and you propaganistic, sycohphantic, brigade of bible fanatics. .

Anyone whom has the slightest grasp of the statistical nature of reality has long dispensed with childish explanations of a magic man in the sky pulling all the strings.

[Disarm]

What are you talking about? He spoke well and it was easily understood (maybe you need to tafocus on your english skills, my dear, if you were having a tough time with it). Not to mention that I agree. Anyone that has a firm grasp on science would find it hard to believe that there is some devine being in the sky that is responsible for, and controlling our existance. I can't make myself believe in a god if I tried, now that I have a more scientific understanding of the world around me. My scientific expertise is minimal, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that mystical characters such as a gods only exist in the human mind.
LOL you haven't read any of my other posts, huh. I'm not bothered with who's right or wrong in this, you would know that if you read (and understood- perhaps its your skills that lack. Or perhaps you're just lazy.) my other posts. ;)

[Sera Michele]

LOL you haven't read any of my other posts, huh. I'm not bothered with who's right or wrong in this, you would know that if you read (and understood- perhaps its your skills that lack. Or perhaps you're just lazy.) my other posts. ;)


Well my entire post wasn't meant for you, the first sentance was. The rest was my contribution to the topic of the thread, and in paticular gecko's post.

And if you don't care about who is right or wrong in this issue, why are you posting in it? And what makes it wrong for me to give my opinion in a thread? Just because you don't care doesn't mean the entire hipforums should go "oh, Disarm doesn't care, so lets all stop talking about it."

But your reaction awfully hypocritical coming from a person who in another thread was complaining about the fighting and insulting people do in these forums. Seems that you like to cause it so you can be the "mature" person and lecture us about it as well. What it seems like to me is you are the teenager that thinks she is much more mature than she really is.

[BlackGuardXIII]

My scientific expertise is minimal, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that mystical characters such as a gods only exist in the human mind.
Sera Michele

I have a so so level of scientific knowledge, and I believe in guardian spirits. I don't expect anyone else to, and if you and I differ on that, I support you in your beliefs, and I believe your truth is the right one for you. Mine is the right one for me.
I am not saying I am not stupid, just that the belief I have is not my area of stupidity.

[Brocktoon]

Oh yeah, Brocktoon, I just want you to know in case you didn't, that the 'Eve' theorists feel she was from Africa. You may not have known that, or maybe just forgot to mention it, huh? Either way, it matters not, and I don't buy the whole "Eve" theory anyway.

For starters.. Mitochondrial Eve is not a 'Theory for your consideration'.
Its as close to 'Proof' as you can ask for in the world of Science.
We know and can repeatedly examine, calculate and demonstrate that we all come from one woman.

When, Where and How long ago is certainly up for grabs.
Evolutionists stretch the maximum of maximum feasable time lines to the 100,000+ mark.
Then they have an artist depict her as having Chimp-like Skin and hair LMAO!

The guess she came from Africa is really nothing more than 'Imagineering' but recently they imagine she appeared in North Africa (born from Ape-like creatures by somehow 'knowing' to develop new DNA in the fetus development?)

This is rather funny because the actual historical account puts Eve as having been cloned from Adams DNA in a little place just North of Africa now called IRAQ.

So the historical account has Eve being Cloned from Adams DNA by Intelligent Design - somewhere just North of (what is now) Africa.

The Evolutionists story about the same (now proven beyond all mathematical doubt to have existed) Eve - An Ape-like female suddenly gave birth to a Woman, who fortunately mated with a lot of ape-like males.
The offspring with the most 'Human' characteristics inbred and eventually became Civilisation!
[or something like that.. you have to ask Evolutionists what this weeks story will be from them]

Good Times!

[BlackGuardXIII]

Hooey, horsefeathers, bovine scat. Did Rush Limbaugh tell you that? He has just as hard a time resisting making up 'facts' out of thin air.

[Brocktoon]

Hooey, horsefeathers, bovine scat. Did Rush Limbaugh tell you that? He has just as hard a time resisting making up 'facts' out of thin air.
Blacky 'Colonel Potter' Guard
Could you please specify which part you think is 'Hooey', which part is 'Horsefeathers' and exactly what you think is 'Bovine Scat'?

The Evolutionists story about Ape-like creatures giving birth to a fully human baby girl?

The idea that Iraq is the birthplace of human civilisation?

What is 'HorseFeathers' to you?

[BlackGuardXIII]

Your entire post is suspect since it has points in it you claim are absolutely proven, when they are not, and then you dismiss other findings by the same researchers as guesswork.

You pick and choose to support your balderdash.

[Brocktoon]

Ok.. 'Hooey' was one thing
'HorseFeathers' another..
.. and you were pushing it with 'Bovine Scat'...

But BalderDash!?

How dare you!

Darrel.. Ruling?

[BlackGuardXIII]

Ok.. 'Hooey' was one thing
'HorseFeathers' another..
.. and you were pushing it with 'Bovine Scat'...

But BalderDash!?

How dare you!

Darrel.. Ruling?
how about 'baseless, delusional, fabricated, fictional, fantasies, and concocted pretzel logic.'
Or just carelessness with the truth.
plausible deniability?
equivocation
the last two are not strong enough to describe your bold fibs, though.

[Brocktoon]

Please be specific about what you think are 'Fibs'?

Please stop spamming the board with blanket accusations.
Its not helpful and seems to be a maneover to halt discussion?

What exactly do you have a problem with?

Thanks

[BlackGuardXIII]

You said:
For Clarification ..

BlackGuards Opinion that Genesis was 'borrowed' from Babylonians is entirely his own and should not be confused with facts.

It should also be noted he is assuming it is not based on a real event.


After I said this.....
The flood is far too universally refered to by cultures world wide to not have something to it.
I agree with the book Cataclysm, which shows copious evidence that such an event did happen, when the gravitational force of a massive object that passed very close by earth pulled the oceans over the continents.

[Brocktoon]

BlackG

The problem is that you say two differnt things.
So I can be both correct and incorrect based on whatever one of your statements are chosen.

You specifically refer to the Genesis account as a 'Tale' and insist it was borrowed from the Babylonians.
(Implying it does not base itself on a real event)

Then you ALSO say its based on a real event.

From now on I will make multiple replies to your posts.. then pick one for either of your contradictory trains of thought.

;)

[BlackGuardXIII]

BlackG

The problem is that you say two differnt things.
So I can be both correct and incorrect based on whatever one of your statements are chosen.

You specifically refer to the Genesis account as a 'Tale' and insist it was borrowed from the Babylonians.
(Implying it does not base itself on a real event)

Then you ALSO say its based on a real event.

From now on I will make multiple replies to your posts.. then pick one for either of your contradictory trains of thought.

;)
the fanciful ark fable is not a literally plausible historical event, though it is a great story,
the worldwide disaster is a very skillfully studied and evidence supported one.

[Occam]

the fanciful ark fable is not a literally plausible historical event, though it is a great story,
the worldwide disaster is a very skillfully studied and evidence supported one. Blackguard [and laterally.. brocktroon]

World wide disaster?
In recent [25k years]?
Occam understands there are two possible major events in the med in the last 10k years or so.
And also
That there have been 2 near total extictions of life in the history of this planet...

However the 'flood myth' seems to be only a local or centered on the med event. [mediterranean]
Where is evidence of a world flood anywhere but the med?
Occam knows of no major worldwide extinction event that has occurred anytime in the history of humanity.[the species]
If there was one..why are ther 2 million plus species on this planet NOW.

Evidence suggests that 85% of species perished in the cretaceous period
some 65million years back [a rock?]
And that 95%+ of all species perrished in the permian era some 245 million years back. [another rock? and and there ARE a LOT of rocks out there.We can see them]

In occams idea of reality and direction...'God' lets this planet suffer the injustices of being pounded by lumps of extraplanetary rock every now and then...This is called enviromental adaption...
Where is the evidence that a 'god' is micromanaging this planet..
A wee ball of rock orbiting a nondescript sun.
One of ten to the 24th power suns on the observable universe.

Who are we to say a 'god' ...gives a damn about our situation.
That our 'justice' is anything such an entity considers of import.
Ego?

Occam

[Brocktoon]

Occam.. I see where you are confused now.
We DO KNOW that billions of lifeforms were encased in sediment.(basically mud)
That is called 'Fact'.

Your belief these fossils (and the rock encasing them) are 65 million years old.
This is called 'Speculation'.

As far as the ADMISSION that a catastrophic flood did indeed happen in the Mediteranean..
It is definately not a case of 'Where the evidence it happened elsewhere'

Its a case of a 'Plea Bargain' from Critics.

Faced with a 'Deluge' of Scientific Fact - Naysayers like BlackG have no choice but to admit there was a flood.
In an effort to Plea Bargain - they now 'posture' themselves as if they obviously knew that .. but 'Only' that much.

They think if we (the Science seekers) will concede it was only regional .. and let them act like 'They discovered' the flood.. then we can all get along.

BS

Billions of lifeforms are encased in Sedimentary Rock.. Too bed Evolutionists.. Genesis is, has and always will be Bang on accurate.

[Occam]

Occam.. I see where you are confused now.
We DO KNOW that billions of lifeforms were encased in sediment.(basically mud)
That is called 'Fact'.

Your belief these fossils (and the rock encasing them) are 65 million years old.
This is called 'Speculation'.

As far as the ADMISSION that a catastrophic flood did indeed happen in the Mediteranean..
It is definately not a case of 'Where the evidence it happened elsewhere'

Its a case of a 'Plea Bargain' from Critics.

Faced with a 'Deluge' of Scientific Fact - Naysayers like BlackG have no choice but to admit there was a flood.
In an effort to Plea Bargain - they now 'posture' themselves as if they obviously knew that .. but 'Only' that much.

They think if we (the Science seekers) will concede it was only regional .. and let them act like 'They discovered' the flood.. then we can all get along.

BS

Billions of lifeforms are encased in Sedimentary Rock.. Too bed Evolutionists.. Genesis is, has and always will be Bang on accurate. Brocktroon

OK..rational method applied to your post

1. Yes, trillions of life forms are fossilised.

2. That these fossils are 65 million years old is called the belief in a method that works. specularion based on human understanding of objective reality,
This is a method that works because we make planes that fly , and computers that work. Reason has PROVED it works//Because it works.
You WONT GET ON A PLANE DESIGNED BY FAITH...
You get on a 747 designed by rational method.

The same methods you trust to fly you about the world
You DO NOT trust to answer questions about god.

Why?

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Cataclysm: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B. C.
by D. S. Allan (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=D.%20S.%20Allan/002-6711658-4878428), J. B. Delair (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=J.%20B.%20Delair/002-6711658-4878428)


"Faced with a 'Deluge' of Scientific Fact - Naysayers like BlackG have no choice but to admit there was a flood." The nth, record breaking error, making Brocktoon the new world record holder in the 180 deg. quote reversal.
lol
I have stated repetively, in numerous threads, many in replies directly to you, that I have long been convinced by sheer weight of evidence I can accept, that a global disaster happened.
You infer the exact opposite, which I have come to accept as your S.O.P., or M.O.
It is an interesting strategy you employ, but I fail to see the use.

Now, what I did clearly say is that that wonderful subject of Sunday school art, Noah's Ark, as recorded in the bible, is a fanciful, entertaining tale that is very loosely tied to the event the geologic record describes.
BG13........okay, now......

World wide disaster?
In recent [25k years]?
However the 'flood myth' seems to be only a local or centered on the med event. [mediterranean]
Where is evidence of a world flood anywhere but the med?
Occam knows of no major worldwide extinction event that has occurred anytime in the history of humanity.[the species]
by Occam.


First, I agree the med. event did occur, and I in one post somewhere I mention the layer of mud dividing two Sumerian civilizations.
The book above has copious, well explained, plausible repercussions of a large rock skimming our planet, approx. 9500 BC, C14 +-100yrs.
Many of the ancient flood myth attributes match what they concluded from the data they gathered, measured, and recorded.
I found their ability to match the evidence to the ancient traditional reports compelling.
You may not, but I think you would enjoy the book either way.
by BG13, in agreement with all, & disagreed with by all.

[Brocktoon]

Occam said
'This is a method that works because we make planes that fly , and computers that work. Reason has PROVED it works//Because it works.
You WONT GET ON A PLANE DESIGNED BY FAITH...
You get on a 747 designed by rational method.'

If you could only hear yourself talk.

[Mind you... your faith that the rocks are 65 million years old is NOT the same method used to build a plane)

But the analogy is wonderful - believing that 747 assembled itself by random chance requires more 'blind faith' than any religion could ever supply.
Common sense tells you it was 'made' by some rationale design.

[Occam]

Occam said
'This is a method that works because we make planes that fly , and computers that work. Reason has PROVED it works//Because it works.
You WONT GET ON A PLANE DESIGNED BY FAITH...
You get on a 747 designed by rational method.'

If you could only hear yourself talk.

[Mind you... your faith that the rocks are 65 million years old is NOT the same method used to build a plane)

But the analogy is wonderful - believing that 747 assembled itself by random chance requires more 'blind faith' than any religion could ever supply.
Common sense tells you it was 'made' by some rationale design. Brocktroon

Yes..747's are a human construct. a rational design from the human mind...Utilising the rational structure of reality to produce a machine that serves a pupose.
In that we are far mor practical and rational than any religious god..Who makes life mearly to serve and worship god.
An exercise in ego reinforcement.

Occam

PS..And human rational method applies across the board..The same method that results in 747's is used to date fossils and the geoplogic strata they exist in..
Just because you dont believe it takes millions of years for sedimentary
fossilisation to occur..does not mean it does not happen.
You wish occam to believe the world was created.

Occam sees no 'patent pending' stamp on the world. Or humanity.
We may be the product of direction...through process.
But there is no evidence whatsoever to say we just popped into being courtesy of an omnipotent god that that only allows those with intact genitalia into his host.
That says a good man who is of god goes to heaven
And the good man who is good for his own reasons..goes to hell.

[Occam]

World wide disaster?
In recent [25k years]?
However the 'flood myth' seems to be only a local or centered on the med event. [mediterranean]
Where is evidence of a world flood anywhere but the med?
Occam knows of no major worldwide extinction event that has occurred anytime in the history of humanity.[the species]
by Occam.


First, I agree the med. event did occur, and I in one post somewhere I mention the layer of mud dividing two Sumerian civilizations.
The book above has copious, well explained, plausible repercussions of a large rock skimming our planet, approx. 9500 BC, C14 +-100yrs.
Many of the ancient flood myth attributes match what they concluded from the data they gathered, measured, and recorded.
I found their ability to match the evidence to the ancient traditional reports compelling.
You may not, but I think you would enjoy the book either way.
by BG13, in agreement with all, & disagreed with by all.

Blackguard.

Thank you for offering EVIDENCE...For occam to observe.
Rather than simply saying the evidence is just speculation that is false because everything was created by god in XXX BC 'cause THE BIBLE SAYS SO.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

747..........blade of grass.

the single blade of grass is far more exquisitely and efficiently structured.
So..........
Lets just assume, for argument sake, that we are given the first leap of faith as a mulligan from God. He just plain says, that was made by me.
Even with that huge assumption being granted us, I sincerely have no idea how the conclusion that the "Christian" God must be the one, and the other options we could choose as the Divine creator, are by what criteria so convincingly ruled out.

[Occam]

747..........blade of grass.

the single blade of grass is far more exquisitely and efficiently structured.
So..........
Lets just assume, for argument sake, that we are given the first leap of faith as a mulligan from God. He just plain says, that was made by me.
Even with that huge assumption being granted us, I sincerely have no idea how the conclusion that the "Christian" God must be the one, and the other options we could choose as the Divine creator, are by what criteria so convincingly ruled out. Blackguard

Yes, a blade of grass is more exquisitly structured and beautifull than any rational creation of man.
Yet that is only because we have 'just begun to create'
Give us some leeway.
Who but a naysayer would have told a young keats that he would never write anything of worth?
Who but a naysayer says WE can never produce anything as exquisite as a blade of grass?

Who out there KNOWS our future?
NONE

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Blackguard

Yes, a blade of grass is more exquisitly structured and beautifull than any rational creation of man.
Yet that is only because we have 'just begun to create'
Give us some leeway.
Who but a naysayer would have told a young keats that he would never write anything of worth?
Who but a naysayer says WE can never produce anything as exquisite as a blade of grass?

Who out there KNOWS our future?
NONE

Occam
So true, and I hope nothing I posted was misleading enough to suggest that I was saying we never will. I actually, lol, in my unacceptably eccentric view of history, feel it is not impossible that we already have in the distant past. Some prehistoric advanced civilization may have been at that stage. We are young, this time around. There is ample evidence hiding out in plain sight, that we were not always so young.
When asked what he thought of the marvels of modern technology, Thomas Edison was quoted as saying, "I'll be impressed when we can make a blade of grass." That was the source of my choice of examples.

[menlo1]

Brock, why don't you tell everyone here what your version of creationism is. For example, do you believe the earth and people were created 6000 years ago? Or that God created the world 15 billion years ago? What exactly is your position?

Creationism initially sounds like a convenient way of explaining how things got here. It's fun to try to belittle the scientific approach and then vaguely say that something else must have caused it. But when you think about it, there are many more problems with creationism explanations than the scientific method.

[Occam]

When asked what he thought of the marvels of modern technology, Thomas Edison was quoted as saying, "I'll be impressed when we can make a blade of grass." That was the source of my choice of examples.
Blackguard

Understood...And occam points out that the 'modern technology' described is only 'modern' to us...semi civilised apes.
We still communicate with ink on squashed tree matter.
We travel in machines powered by processed organics.
10% of our race are near death from starvation and 24,000 children die EACH DAY from starvation and deficiency problems..
We are hardly technological or even civilised by the standards of
WHAT WE COULD BE.

As occam has said before..We have taken the 'no-return' step on the ladder of technology and understanding...
That is..we have mounted the first step. Now that we are on the ladder , We must keep climbing..If we do not most of us will die.

The bridges were burnt..by our predecessors...


Occam

[Occam]

Brock, why don't you tell everyone here what your version of creationism is. For example, do you believe the earth and people were created 6000 years ago? Or that God created the world 15 billion years ago? What exactly is your position?

Creationism initially sounds like a convenient way of explaining how things got here. It's fun to try to belittle the scientific approach and then vaguely say that something else must have caused it. But when you think about it, there are many more problems with creationism explanations than the scientific method.
Menlo1

Exactly...

Creationism IS contradiction to everything we observe..

While rational observation says only....WAIT..we dont know enough yet to KNOW.

Occam

[Brocktoon]

Brock, why don't you tell everyone here what your version of creationism is. For example, do you believe the earth and people were created 6000 years ago? Or that God created the world 15 billion years ago? What exactly is your position?
First - I dont have a 'version' of Creationism. However, Yahweh did and Moses wrote it down in a book called Genesis.
Scientific Observation meshes with this historical account.
I agree with what works.
Not 'my version'.

Also, I dont suddenly feel the need to 'explain to you' anything Menlo1
(even though I have posted HUNDREDS of 'positions' on this throughout Hipforums and you have posted what? F All?)

Secondly - Im not too too interested in the age of the Universe and neither are you.
The age of the Universe is only signifigant in that Evolutionists used to believe in 'Gradual incremental changes' and felt they needed at least 15 Million years.
Is it possible the Universe existed in 'Rough form' before the 6 days of Creation took place some 6,000 years ago?
Mehhhh Ya.. I suppose, I just dont see any good reason to try and 'read that into' Genesis account.

Creationism initially sounds like a convenient way of explaining how things got here.
I dont agree with you.
I doubt the vast majority of people (religious or otherwise) would agree.
However,
This must have been your 'feeling' at first?

It's fun to try to belittle the scientific approach and then vaguely say that something else must have caused it.
It does seem like many here (incl you) think its 'Fun' to try and belittle the Scientific Approach which is used most properly by Creationistists.

Its true this is usually followed by a very unspecific, unfalsifiable and 'mysterious' story about space-gas forming into soups, which 'somehow' became amphibians which morphed into Brontosaurus and Eagles and Monkey-Men.


But when you think about it, there are many more problems with creationism explanations than the scientific method.
No.
'When I think about it' I have less problems with the scientific method used by Creationists than I do with the Anti-Scientific Method used by Evolutionists like sayyy.. Occam

Im not surprised that YOU have 'many more problems' trying to understand Creationism though.

[Occam]

Brocktroon

But creationism..DOES NOT WORK. DOES NOT FIT..IT IS CONTRADICTORY TO REALITY

You spend a whole lot of words saying how other people agree with creationism.
Yet do you notice that occam NEVER says 'this many people believe in 'so and so'
The number of people that believe in a thing
HAS NO RELEVANCE to the truth of a thing..

Creationism does not explain anything.
CREATIONIST SCIENCE ..IS 3 WORDS
GOD MADE IT.
There is no creationist science.
Do creationists try to work out how god made everything...no.
They accept it...
And blind acceptance is not a science.

ALL other creationist literature seems to be an attempt to undermine any viable explanation other than GOD MADE IT.

Creationism discusts occam
It is the ultimate abandoning of reason.
It is NOT a viable alternative to evolution,,,for it is based in NO evidence,,
THAT SHOWS EVERYTHING JUST POPPED INTO BEING AS IS.

Creationism is a psuedo religious dogma that refuses to believe that any of it's members evolved from monkies.
It stands equal to solipsism

Occam

[Brocktoon]

Nice to see you are still repeating your 'Premise' and backing it up with your 'Premise'.

"Evolutionism IS fact... my rationale.. becuase it IS fact"
Bravo!

Scientific Observation tells us that everything living has a PRE EXISTING Code to choose from whenever it re-creates itself.
[sometimes called Natural Selection]

I do not know how to DUMB THIS DOWN ANY FURTHER OCCAM!?

When YOU decide to believe that animals ADD information (by magic or space aliens or fairies.. i dunno?) then YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING UP NON-SCIENTIFIC Information.

I cant put it more simply that this.
If you can not understand why your Precious Evolutionism Myth IS THE FAKE STORY which btw CONTRADICTS WHAT IS OBSERVED.. then there is no hope for your thick monkey evolving skull!??

Its like I have to reduce this to:

DO YOU or DO YOU NOT believe Animals ADD Genetic INformation?
YES
OR
NO
???

If you say 'YEs'

IS THIS OBSERVED OR NOT?
YES?
OR
NO??

NO?

IS THAT SCIENTIFIC THINKING?

YES
or
NO???

[BlackGuardXIII]

i pick aliens, brock. Maybe Pleiadians, by way of Mars...
magic is a close second. I love watching magicians, don't you?
christian god as defined by most christians, is highly unlikely to me.

[Brocktoon]

It would be 'neat' if you tried to answer all three 'yes or no' questions.

[Kharakov]

DO YOU or DO YOU NOT believe Animals ADD Genetic INformation?Umm, they contribute what they already have. They are just a link in the chain. Sometimes, things will change because of environmental influence upon the genetics of the sperm or the egg.
IS THIS OBSERVED OR NOT? Animals 'give' what they 'give' because of what they are. They have genes from their parents, including any specific mutations caused by the environment they are part of (God's plan).

IS THAT SCIENTIFIC THINKING? Scientific? You mean is there a way to apply knowledge of an animals genetic makeup that is useful? Yes. It's easier with plants, they are less complex. However, eventually God will teach humans to do neat tricks to animals too. I want a girl with boobies with whiskey in them. Or maybe rum and coke and coke.