NewGuy's Disproving Evolution Thread

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Well, smart-ass, I have some issues going on here at home I have to take care of. If you would take a look at the foundation of your argument, and look at the previous thread I adressed this in several weeks ago, you would see step one.

That step one would be that every dating system for all of your fossil evidence is garbage.

How about cutting a guy some slack so he can get his family life in order and prepare a scientifically proper lengthy response to an ungrateful skeptic who can't read the other thread in the first place.

Cut you some slack? STFU, whiner.

I checked out your disproval of evolution thread in the chat section. It doesn't disprove evolution.

"scientificically proper lengthy response"-- more words don't make you more right.

Whether you would prefer Bush or Kerry is what you won't say. Notice "neither" is not a choice in the current construction of this question. That is intentional; it's to determine if you would prefer Bush or Kerry.

 

[Bullypulpit]

originally posted by NewGuy on another thread

The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe.

1. The Earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the Earth may also be located near the center - perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction.

2. The universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out".
Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1, 2 Sam. 22:10, Psalm 144:5, Ezekiel 1:22, Isaiah 48:13, Job 26:7, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 51:13, Job 37:18, Isaiah 44:24, Jer. 51:15, Psalm 18:9, Isaiah 45:12.

3. The universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center.

1. No evidence of this by any observations made thus far. "...perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction...." a statement unequaled in its ignorance except by pre-Copernican church dogma.

2. Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Psalm 104: 2 ...wrapped in light as with a garment. You stretch out the heavens like a tent... Ezehiel 1:22 1:22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature [was] as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. Isaiah 48:13 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together.

The rest go on in a similar vein. Allegory for the expanse of the sky unlit by city lights in those ancient days. Are you trying to impute some knowledge of astrophysics to the authors?

3. See 1.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
1. No evidence of this by any observations made thus far. "...perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction...." a statement unequaled in its ignorance except by pre-Copernican church dogma.

No evidence?
" 1. The Earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the Earth may also be located near the center - perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction.
"
You have to mentally be at maximum density to think the Earth is NOT the center of attention in relation to all of creation according to Biblical view. Obviously you do not know what the Bible isabout. It doesn't spend 80% of its pages talking about other universes OR other planets, but the Earth and its inhabitants. If you DO read the Bible, you would find:

Ps 19:1 -1 [To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

1Cor15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

If the Earth is in position for Man to see the heavens in all of the glory they were created in, it could easilly be supposed that the Earth would be in the center. Nowhere in this entire discussion of EVOLUTION is this point submitted as FACT, but supposition. Having not READ the thread in its context, you wouldn't know that. In addition, you having this issue with the supposition really means nothing as you cannot prove otherwise anyway and the exact location of the Earth has no bearing on evolution anyway. This was illustrated to help bring about the understanding of what the Bible claims in its logic for clearer understanding.

2. Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Psalm 104: 2 ...wrapped in light as with a garment. You stretch out the heavens like a tent... Ezehiel 1:22 1:22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature [was] as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. Isaiah 48:13 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together.

The rest go on in a similar vein. Allegory for the expanse of the sky unlit by city lights in those ancient days. Are you trying to impute some knowledge of astrophysics to the authors?

You tell me:
1. This would point to knowing the stars' formational probability of directional movement
2. Is 40:22 "22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: "

Ummm...this was written in 700 BC. The correct original hebrew word more correctly means SPHERE.

3. Job 26:7 "7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. "

Listed is the fact Earth is suspended in space. This verse was written roughly 2000 BC.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot get away from the fact that MEN did not write these things. MEN whose hands were directed by GOD wrote these things.

If you have a problem with these clear facts, you have a problem with God, not the facts.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Everything you argue is based on the biblical view. Not everyone excepts the bible as literal truth. This is the disconnect.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Cut you some slack? STFU, whiner.

I checked out your disproval of evolution thread in the chat section. It doesn't disprove evolution.

Yes, it does. It doesn't make its way through your infinitely thick head, is all.

"scientificically proper lengthy response"-- more words don't make you more right.

MORE right?

Right is right. -And you just admitted it. You just don't want anyone to know, so you are trying to DOWNPLAY how right I was.

Pretty funny your slip up here. I will take the fact I convinced you as a compliment.

Whether you would prefer Bush or Kerry is what you won't say. Notice "neither" is not a choice in the current construction of this question. That is intentional; it's to determine if you would prefer Bush or Kerry.

Note everyone on the board can easily see how much you are a liar and can easily refer back to many threads where I have adressed this topic. You just like to be an idiot and cause trouble. Phonics will help you read, but nobody can make you learn.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Everything you argue is based on the biblical view. Not everyone excepts the bible as literal truth. This is the disconnect.

That does not make the point any less valid. If it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does the Bible, which one scientifically speaking is more probable?

In addition, if there is not real evidence to evolution, Biblical statements AT LEAST have equal weight.

The topic was to prove evolution false.

I have done that.

I have proven the Bible to illustrate science that COULD NOT have been known by man at that time.

There is only one logical conclusion to be reached.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy


There is only one logical conclusiojn to be reached. [/B]

Yep. You're insane.

I find evolution quite believable. It's not a matter of faith. It's based on observation of the world, and the history of species, and knowledge of genetics, etc.

You haven't disproven anything.

oh yeah. Bush or Kerry?

 

[DKSuddeth]

personally, i'm not convinced of either theory and to be honest newguy, you haven't really disproved the theory of evolution.

You bring up great instances of how carbon dating is flawed but your entire theory of creation as truth relies solely on someones faith and belief in the readings of the bible.

Scientists and theologists have many different methods for discouting theories they don't subscribe to but doesn't do much to factually disprove those theories.

Take, for example, the carbon dating and reasons cited for disproving its scientific authenticity. While many examples are given to prove its unreliability there are no facts provided with it to prove that the very same fossil or skeletal remains are only 20 or 30 k years old. If the theory that claims a catastrophic event 65 million years ago is what wiped out the dinosaurs is wrong because the earth is only 30,000 years old, then where is the record of carbon dating these skeletal finds, or any other method of dating, to show a consistent age?

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

some matter is perfect, others are not. A diamonds molecular structure is near perfect in shape while a ruby is less so. Further down the line is granite which is a very shoddy molecular structure. In living beings its even worse.

-Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

energy can come from a variety of sources so its not the energy that we need to look at, its the ways in which these processes come together to form that energy. chemical reactions can have a wide variety of results based solely on its particle makeup. Water is commonly known as H2O. Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. H2 O2, or hydrogen peroxide, has one extra oxygen element and therefore is changed so much that its not water. Do we assume that a higher power is responsible for this 'organizing', and if so, what proof do we have other than faith?

-When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

That's something that scientists try to find out everyday. All this talk about carbon based forms with amino acid reactions sparking mutations of cells into RNA, then DNA, and so on is beyond my knowledge but it stands a good theory and offers slightly more factual evidence than someone proselytizing creation.

-When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

This is what living cells, whether singular or complex, do. Life forms propogate, maybe its so simple that its beyond our understanding.

-With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

reproduction does not have to include sexual activity. There are lifeforms that can reproduce within themselves. The ebola virus that I talked about earlier, as well as other virus's that reproduce themselves, use cell splitting to reproduce. It only requires an acting agent to intervene to provide that ability to split.

-Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

any species with a basic thought process can learn and then adapt. That adaptation is passed to the next generation through training and eventually becomes instinct. Everytime we learn something new, our brain pattern changes for we have introduced new information to form our lives, our habits, our 'instinct' so to speak.

-Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

This works on a daily basis in the animal kingdom, thats why we label it 'only the strong survive'. Its natures way of keeping a species strong. The pride of lions care for its young so that it can spread its particular gene pool and continue the line of strength. If food is scarce and they can't find enough food to feed the cubs, the cubs will die or find a way to survive on their own. Thats instinct.

-When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

all animals express these same emotions on a limited basis. example, Two dogs who have lived together as siblings the whole of their lives. After 12 years or so, one of them dies. Watch the other dog go through a period of sadness or depression because he/she no longer has the sibling its known its whole life. Is it because it was a sibling? probably not but we may never know since we don't speak dog and they don't speak english. It's more likely that the dog has become so accustomed to having that particular 'friend' in its life and the change is hard to accept. It 'misses' its buddy. Your statement of feelings not evolving in evolution really doesn't apply except that we, as humans with higher thought patterns, have been able to explore, identify, and define those things we've become accustomed to as love, hate, mercy, guilt, etc.

-How did thought evolve?

answered above as well. everytime a being learns something new, its imprinted on the brain. Its taught to the future generations. Sometimes that 'evolution' of thought hits a stumbling block and doesn't advance for awhile, but it still evolves.

-Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

how can you expect to predict evolution accurately? there are too many variables to predict evolution with any degree of accuracy.

just my .02 cents anyway.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Where'd you get all that patience, DK?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Where'd you get all that patience, DK?

God only knows!

 

[KLSuddeth]

Well, I must be God, because I know.

He got the patience from having to deal with my abuse!
:whip3: :whip3:

 

[KLSuddeth]

methinks that this is a thread right up my alley - I'll have to read it, and then tell everyone why they are wrong and why I am right

:cof:

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth
methinks that this is a thread right up my alley - I'll have to read it, and then tell everyone why they are wrong and why I am right

:cof:

 

[KLSuddeth]

To DK - the bane of my existence...errrr I meant my reason for living.....

 

[DKSuddeth]

:rotflmao:

 

[KLSuddeth]

Dk,

In closing....

PPPPFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!

You should exalt me, praise me, worship the very ground I walk on
(after all, if you dont - who will?)

:cof:

PS
I have starbucks - you dont
HA!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by KLSuddeth
Dk,

In closing....

PPPPFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!

You should exalt me, praise me, worship the very ground I walk on
(after all, if you dont - who will?)

:cof:

PS
I have starbucks - you dont
HA!

no fair. i have no lunch either.

 

[KLSuddeth]

Hey - I so dont feel badly about that.

I would make you lunch if you asked - I dont ask anymore b/c you always say no.

Go to the cafeteria and buy lunch. Lord knows you just LOVE that place!!!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you haven't really disproved the theory of evolution.

Actually, you are correct. You cannot disprove a theory.

All I have done is prove that it ISN'T FACT. If something is to be proven, it is no longer just theory and has to move toward being proven through a sequence of logical proving steps.

What I HAVE done, is prove the steps claimed are NOT fact and in fact are theory. -And BAD theory at that.

You bring up great instances of how carbon dating is flawed but your entire theory of creation as truth relies solely on someones faith and belief in the readings of the bible.

Again, this DOES disprove evolution, which was the topic.

The second part was that the Bible claims information in its verses, quite literally, that IS proven by our science. In this case, your statement of it relying solely upon FAITH would be entirely incorrect.

Belief is a different issue. I can believe my dog to be 100 years old as well. That doesn't make it fact.

Scientists and theologists have many different methods for discouting theories they don't subscribe to but doesn't do much to factually disprove those theories.

Take, for example, the carbon dating and reasons cited for disproving its scientific authenticity. While many examples are given to prove its unreliability there are no facts provided with it to prove that the very same fossil or skeletal remains are only 20 or 30 k years old. If the theory that claims a catastrophic event 65 million years ago is what wiped out the dinosaurs is wrong because the earth is only 30,000 years old, then where is the record of carbon dating these skeletal finds, or any other method of dating, to show a consistent age?

To claim a theory true because there is no alternative answer is a flasehood. Just because there is a hole left in the understanding of how something works, there does not have to be a proof that something else is true. We may not have an alternative answer for something like this dating becasue of 3 reasons:

1. We haven't developed an accurate way of reading the age of fossils.

2. Reading the fossil date is impossible based upon the sediments and weather from the time of the Great Flood.

3. We ignore the Bible.

some matter is perfect, others are not. A diamonds molecular structure is near perfect in shape while a ruby is less so. Further down the line is granite which is a very shoddy molecular structure. In living beings its even worse.

In context, the issue was the perfect organization of matter in order to support the necessary perfect complex changes evolution supposedly requires. I should have made that more clear. Sorry.

energy can come from a variety of sources so its not the energy that we need to look at, its the ways in which these processes come together to form that energy. chemical reactions can have a wide variety of results based solely on its particle makeup. Water is commonly known as H2O. Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. H2 O2, or hydrogen peroxide, has one extra oxygen element and therefore is changed so much that its not water. Do we assume that a higher power is responsible for this 'organizing', and if so, what proof do we have other than faith?

First, the idea is that an energy had to arrainge all of the matter to be perfect for the previous question to be an evolutionary foothold.

Second, you are correct in how energy may be produced AFTER the energy already exists in other forms.....in other words, there HAD to be a start. -Which is what the creation of the universe, by scientific standards, still doesn't explain. -The Bible does.

Third, you ask for proof other than faith. Faith would standardly be defined as blind belief. I don't accept that. It is firmly proven in Biblical verses and verified by scientists that the Biblical explaination of astrophysics (where adressed) are correct. People just choose not to go the route of believing what is contained therein because it causes them to:

1. Believe that the Bible has to then be devine in origin

2. Believe God is who/what He claims.

Given the ego of man, that is a bitter pill to take.

That's something that scientists try to find out everyday. All this talk about carbon based forms with amino acid reactions sparking mutations of cells into RNA, then DNA, and so on is beyond my knowledge but it stands a good theory and offers slightly more factual evidence than someone proselytizing creation.

Again, you are ignoring the data in favor of a group collective who ignore literal verses backed by science in favor of a completely religious belief in their man-made theories in order to deny a higher authority.

This is what living cells, whether singular or complex, do. Life forms propogate, maybe its so simple that its beyond our understanding.

That is what they want you to believe so you cannot then accept the Bible as fact. Again, it proves its self.

reproduction does not have to include sexual activity. There are lifeforms that can reproduce within themselves. The ebola virus that I talked about earlier, as well as other virus's that reproduce themselves, use cell splitting to reproduce. It only requires an acting agent to intervene to provide that ability to split.

The question is not what can happen after man's intevention, but how did we get here?

These are two totally seperate issues.

any species with a basic thought process can learn and then adapt. That adaptation is passed to the next generation through training and eventually becomes instinct. Everytime we learn something new, our brain pattern changes for we have introduced new information to form our lives, our habits, our 'instinct' so to speak.

Again, this is a mechanism. This proves only the fact that this function does happen. It does not prove higher orders of evolutionary theory.

all animals express these same emotions on a limited basis. example, Two dogs who have lived together as siblings the whole of their lives. After 12 years or so, one of them dies. Watch the other dog go through a period of sadness or depression because he/she no longer has the sibling its known its whole life. Is it because it was a sibling? probably not but we may never know since we don't speak dog and they don't speak english. It's more likely that the dog has become so accustomed to having that particular 'friend' in its life and the change is hard to accept. It 'misses' its buddy. Your statement of feelings not evolving in evolution really doesn't apply except that we, as humans with higher thought patterns, have been able to explore, identify, and define those things we've become accustomed to as love, hate, mercy, guilt, etc.

The point, though, is that these emotions came from somewhere. Because they are here does not mean they were a function of evolution.

Was your computer rolled off the assembly line with Windows installed on the HD platters when the platters were created? Of course not. The operating system had to BE INSTALLED. No amount of time or molecular changes would have EVER cause the operating system to install its self spontaneously so the computer could live.

answered above as well. everytime a being learns something new, its imprinted on the brain. Its taught to the future generations. Sometimes that 'evolution' of thought hits a stumbling block and doesn't advance for awhile, but it still evolves.

We haven't proven that to be the case. We have only proven SOME thought processes can be passed down. Again, it started from somewhere.....Where?

how can you expect to predict evolution accurately? there are too many variables to predict evolution with any degree of accuracy.

Hence the impossibility of it occuring.



-Yet the Bible has direct provable statements backed by science in other realms proving it devine and accurate. To discard the statement of creation is requiring more faith than believing it.

 

[DKSuddeth]

All good points except for the following

"Hence the impossibility of it occuring."


just because something is too random to be predicted doesn't mean that its an impossibility.

I can predict that gamma radiation will one day turn us all into great green hulking monsters, does that mean its impossible?