Creationists

[daws101]

Have you ever heard someone say that if there is a nuclear war, roaches will be the only things that survive? Now, that's obviously a bit silly, but the idea isn't entirely without merit. There are organisms that can survive environments humans cannot. It's not likely, but certainly possible, that we could kill ourselves off in a nuclear war, but that other creatures would survive. Wouldn't that make them, in that situation, better than humanity?

Better is a terrible word to use, especially as you two are. Being the top of the food chain doesn't make a creature better. It makes them the top of the food chain. Other links in the chain are just as necessary. Being more intelligent doesn't make us better. Perhaps it could, say if we were to populate another planet and then life on earth were wiped out. But just because we have technology doesn't make us better than a bacteria from an evolutionary standpoint. Bacteria don't seem to have any particular problems surviving and reproducing.

As I've said multiple times, better is too subjective a term. You could look at the stars and say, 'White dwarf stars are better than all the others'. It makes as much sense. By some standards that may be true, but only in the right context. If you are explaining what we know about the movement of stars, no particular one would be better. In the same way, it's hard to say that one species is better than all others when speaking of evolution. Too many variables, too subjective.

Raid kills roaches.

only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
failling at being clever too.

 

[daws101]

I would like to point something out to you people. DR. Max participates on the talk origins website a favorite site for evolutionists. On that site they try to show 29 cases of macro evolution by DR. Theobald but yet DR. Max admits there are no observed cases for macro evolution someone is lying and I don't think it is DR.Max nor DR.Spetner. I would avoid that site if I were you.

ever heard the term whipping boy? that's what dr max is..

 

[Hollie]

I would like to point something out to you people. DR. Max participates on the talk origins website a favorite site for evolutionists. On that site they try to show 29 cases of macro evolution by DR. Theobald but yet DR. Max admits there are no observed cases for macro evolution someone is lying and I don't think it is DR.Max nor DR.Spetner. I would avoid that site if I were you.

I think you're still suffering from an inability to distinguish truth from lies.

FromTalkorigins:

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

Certainly, you would avoid the site because it offers fact and evidence as opposed to your simpleton claims for supernaturalism.

Put your dunce hat on and go sit in the corner.

I expected more of your childish banter and you never fail to disappoint.

Your falsely attributed claims are once more shown to be nonsense.

 

[UltimateReality]

I think you're still suffering from an inability to distinguish truth from lies.

FromTalkorigins:



Certainly, you would avoid the site because it offers fact and evidence as opposed to your simpleton claims for supernaturalism.

Put your dunce hat on and go sit in the corner.

I expected more of your childish banter and you never fail to disappoint.

Your falsely attributed claims are once more shown to be nonsense.

And you are still 0 for 100 for making an intelligent argument instead of commenting on everyone else. "I am a robot. I am a robot."

 

[Hollie]

Put your dunce hat on and go sit in the corner.

I expected more of your childish banter and you never fail to disappoint.

Your falsely attributed claims are once more shown to be nonsense.

And you are still 0 for 100 for making an intelligent argument instead of commenting on everyone else. "I am a robot. I am a robot."

You have written repeatedly that you are going to put me on ignore, yet you stalk me through page after page of posts with your juvenile name-calling. In other words, you lied.

I have made a choice to expose the falsehoods and dishonestly altered cut and paste that the fundie creationist crowd has a habit of posting.

Your particular style of mindless banter is even less appealing. You have offered nothing worth even a couple of paragraphs.

 

[UltimateReality]

I expected more of your childish banter and you never fail to disappoint.

Your falsely attributed claims are once more shown to be nonsense.

And you are still 0 for 100 for making an intelligent argument instead of commenting on everyone else. "I am a robot. I am a robot."

You have written repeatedly that you are going to put me on ignore, yet you stalk me through page after page of posts with your juvenile name-calling. In other words, you lied.

I have made a choice to expose the falsehoods and dishonestly altered cut and paste that the fundie creationist crowd has a habit of posting.

Your particular style of mindless banter is even less appealing. You have offered nothing worth even a couple of paragraphs.

And yet, you still remain silent on the accusation of plagiarizing. No matter how long you ignore, I can guarantee I won't let your blatant lying and dishonesty die.

 

[Hollie]

And you are still 0 for 100 for making an intelligent argument instead of commenting on everyone else. "I am a robot. I am a robot."

You have written repeatedly that you are going to put me on ignore, yet you stalk me through page after page of posts with your juvenile name-calling. In other words, you lied.

I have made a choice to expose the falsehoods and dishonestly altered cut and paste that the fundie creationist crowd has a habit of posting.

Your particular style of mindless banter is even less appealing. You have offered nothing worth even a couple of paragraphs.

And yet, you still remain silent on the accusation of plagiarizing. No matter how long you ignore, I can guarantee I won't let your blatant lying and dishonesty die.

And yet to continue to post false claims quote mined from your fundie religious sites and post that nonsense as though anyone should believe it.

The angry fundie persona is not at all becoming. It's comical, but dated.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda

DR. Lee Spetner is well respected by evolutionist.

just one? or is evolutionists?

Evolutionists

 

[Youwerecreated]

so what? lots of people were crucified.. it was a spectator sport at that time.
as to this: then appearing to more than 500 people after his death.

it's hearsay at best there are no non biblical sources to verify it.
since the bible is error ridden highly edited and bias, it can't be considered as evidence.

Oh boy

fine retort potsey!
prove me wrong!

Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit! it's more creationist propaganda

Look at what the evolutionist admits to,exactly what i have said in the past.


Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them. Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.

Notice the admissions DR. Max makes Daws.

there is only one relevant one :Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.....

whatever else you wish it to suggest is not relevant..

He admits the extrapolation of micro adaptations is because there is no observed evidence for macro evolution. The rest of their evidence are from assumptions as well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have you ever heard someone say that if there is a nuclear war, roaches will be the only things that survive? Now, that's obviously a bit silly, but the idea isn't entirely without merit. There are organisms that can survive environments humans cannot. It's not likely, but certainly possible, that we could kill ourselves off in a nuclear war, but that other creatures would survive. Wouldn't that make them, in that situation, better than humanity?

Better is a terrible word to use, especially as you two are. Being the top of the food chain doesn't make a creature better. It makes them the top of the food chain. Other links in the chain are just as necessary. Being more intelligent doesn't make us better. Perhaps it could, say if we were to populate another planet and then life on earth were wiped out. But just because we have technology doesn't make us better than a bacteria from an evolutionary standpoint. Bacteria don't seem to have any particular problems surviving and reproducing.

As I've said multiple times, better is too subjective a term. You could look at the stars and say, 'White dwarf stars are better than all the others'. It makes as much sense. By some standards that may be true, but only in the right context. If you are explaining what we know about the movement of stars, no particular one would be better. In the same way, it's hard to say that one species is better than all others when speaking of evolution. Too many variables, too subjective.

Raid kills roaches.

only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
failling at being clever too.

What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?

 

[Hollie]

Oh boy

fine retort potsey!
prove me wrong!

Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.

To add a bit of truth to your claim, the bible has occasionaly been used along with other means and methods...

 

[Youwerecreated]

fine retort potsey!
prove me wrong!

Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.

To add a bit of truth to your claim, the bible has occasionaly been used along with other means and methods...

Truth

 

[Montrovant]

Raid kills roaches.

only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
failling at being clever too.

What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?

I can't believe you are still arguing this!

The point (among a few I made in the post, but this was the only one you responded to) is that humans are not the 'best' organism. There are plenty of things that can survive in places we cannot, that are stronger, faster, etc. The roaches were used as a light-hearted example, because it has often been said that they would survive a nuclear war after humans all died.

 

[Youwerecreated]

only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
failling at being clever too.

What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?

I can't believe you are still arguing this!

The point (among a few I made in the post, but this was the only one you responded to) is that humans are not the 'best' organism. There are plenty of things that can survive in places we cannot, that are stronger, faster, etc. The roaches were used as a light-hearted example, because it has often been said that they would survive a nuclear war after humans all died.

Just responding. It's give and take monty,give and take.

 

[daws101]

Oh boy

fine retort potsey!
prove me wrong!

Daws, the bible is used as a guide for archaeologists to locate old communites, it has proven reliable.

that's convenient since most of the cities in the bible are still occupied today ..

also:
Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy
by Farrell Till

1998 / March-April



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


Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.

Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.

What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.

The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002

 

[daws101]

This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).
The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.

Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.

 

[daws101]

Look at what the evolutionist admits to,exactly what i have said in the past.


Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them. Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.

Notice the admissions DR. Max makes Daws.

there is only one relevant one :Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.....

whatever else you wish it to suggest is not relevant..

He admits the extrapolation of micro adaptations is because there is no observed evidence for macro evolution. The rest of their evidence are from assumptions as well.

hummm. last time I checked all your "evidence" is assuption.

by the way he's not "admitting" to anything but simply stating fact.
it seems that you interpret everything any body that refutes your shit says as if you just caught them masturbating...

 

[daws101]

Raid kills roaches.

only for a little while the more you use the less effective it becomes.
failling at being clever too.

What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?

well the city of las vegas has been on the receiving end of nuclear fallout since the late 1940's .
it's only about 50miles from dreamland the test range.
and it still has roaches......

 

[daws101]

What do you think nuclear contamination would do ?

I can't believe you are still arguing this!

The point (among a few I made in the post, but this was the only one you responded to) is that humans are not the 'best' organism. There are plenty of things that can survive in places we cannot, that are stronger, faster, etc. The roaches were used as a light-hearted example, because it has often been said that they would survive a nuclear war after humans all died.

Just responding. It's give and take monty,give and take.

it's a dodge.
the only best about humans or why we're the top of the food chain is we kill on an industrial scale that other predators can't match...