Creationists

[daws101]

Not sure what you're asking for but 99.9% of all animals that once lived are now extinct.

CARPE DIEM: 99.9% of All Species Have Already Gone Extinct

stop doging the question: I ask you to list what scientists post #1335

Looks like you were asking to list the species, But i can't think for you.

No real scientist would believe in abiogenesis. Find me a peer review where scientist accept the abiogenesis theory.

no you find me a list of "real"credible scientists that refute abiogenesis.
that's what I was asking for. since you're the one making the claim "no real scientists...." it's you who must provide the proof.

 

[koshergrl]

"

The reason cited most often is they feel evolution theories of natural selection and speciation are both "settled" science, and the other theories only serve to obfuscate the real issue.
In the mind of the anti-creationist, creation is the only real myth in the debate. This rationale primarily based on their opposition to Young Earth Creationism (YEC).
Not everyone who believes in creationism accepts YEC. However, evolutionists invariably try to establish certain ground rules going into the debate. The unwritten rules appear to include these axioms:

1. Creationism is synonymous with YEC, whether or not the counter-argument to evolution actually embraced the theory.In other words, evolution is really only opposed by YEC advocates.
2. Evolution consists of Darwin's theory of natural selection and speciation. Darwin cataloged an abundance of information in meticulous records that irrefutably prove the process of natural selection does exist. Proof of speciation can be found in the geologic record. Transitional fossils such as Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, and Tiktaaklit.prove speciation has occurred.
3. Only scientific theories can be called theories. Even a bad scientific theory is still scientific. Any theory espousing the divine, a creator, a supernatural extraterrestrial being some people like to call God is dogmatic in nature and cannot rightly be called a theory because the scientific method cannot be applied.
4. Even discredited scientific theories are superior to religious beliefs. Science is rational and religion is delusional.
5. Failure to accept these postulates is an indication of ignorance. Truly enlightened intellectuals understand and embrace the beauty and truth of science.

Efforts inevitably ensue to force the creationist to embrace YEC, regardless of whether it is actually accepted by the creationism advocate. If the evolutionist was always synonymous with YEC, that's what matters most often, not the actual opposing viewpoint in the debate.

Objecting to the inclusion of abiogenesis as a theory of evolution is critical to bolster the evolutionist's perspective, because abiogenesis as it currently is understood requires a scientific "leap of faith" and therefore diminishes evolution as a whole if included in the debate. Abiogenesis requires that non-living matter had to magically become a living organism with adequate sources of food and water in close enough proximity to survive. The first organism had to live long enough to figure out how to replicate itself before its life span was exhausted or entropy took effect. It is clear why an evolutionist must remove abiogenesis from the evolutionary debate. It requires the same suspension of belief for scientific evidence that the evolutionist chides the creationist for employing.


​

Continue reading on Examiner.com Creationism, evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang - Atlanta creationism | Examiner.com Creationism, evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang - Atlanta creationism | Examiner.com

Thought that was kind of interesting...​

 

[daws101]

"

The reason cited most often is they feel evolution theories of natural selection and speciation are both "settled" science, and the other theories only serve to obfuscate the real issue.
In the mind of the anti-creationist, creation is the only real myth in the debate. This rationale primarily based on their opposition to Young Earth Creationism (YEC).
Not everyone who believes in creationism accepts YEC. However, evolutionists invariably try to establish certain ground rules going into the debate. The unwritten rules appear to include these axioms:

1. Creationism is synonymous with YEC, whether or not the counter-argument to evolution actually embraced the theory.In other words, evolution is really only opposed by YEC advocates.
2. Evolution consists of Darwin's theory of natural selection and speciation. Darwin cataloged an abundance of information in meticulous records that irrefutably prove the process of natural selection does exist. Proof of speciation can be found in the geologic record. Transitional fossils such as Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, and Tiktaaklit.prove speciation has occurred.
3. Only scientific theories can be called theories. Even a bad scientific theory is still scientific. Any theory espousing the divine, a creator, a supernatural extraterrestrial being some people like to call God is dogmatic in nature and cannot rightly be called a theory because the scientific method cannot be applied.
4. Even discredited scientific theories are superior to religious beliefs. Science is rational and religion is delusional.
5. Failure to accept these postulates is an indication of ignorance. Truly enlightened intellectuals understand and embrace the beauty and truth of science.

Efforts inevitably ensue to force the creationist to embrace YEC, regardless of whether it is actually accepted by the creationism advocate. If the evolutionist was always synonymous with YEC, that's what matters most often, not the actual opposing viewpoint in the debate.

Objecting to the inclusion of abiogenesis as a theory of evolution is critical to bolster the evolutionist's perspective, because abiogenesis as it currently is understood requires a scientific "leap of faith" and therefore diminishes evolution as a whole if included in the debate. Abiogenesis requires that non-living matter had to magically become a living organism with adequate sources of food and water in close enough proximity to survive. The first organism had to live long enough to figure out how to replicate itself before its life span was exhausted or entropy took effect. It is clear why an evolutionist must remove abiogenesis from the evolutionary debate. It requires the same suspension of belief for scientific evidence that the evolutionist chides the creationist for employing.


​

Continue reading on Examiner.com Creationism, evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang - Atlanta creationism | Examiner.com Creationism, evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang - Atlanta creationism | Examiner.com

Thought that was kind of interesting...​

the article is far from objective!

 

[LOki]

Everything he say's can be supported.

By faith ... which is intellectually meaningless.

He uses strawmen. He's a dope.

He makes fatuous arguments that can't stand the scrutiny of honest analysis.

I noticed you failed to respond to the ones on your side that secialize in the correct fields to make such conclusions that agree with the Doctors explanation of your side.

Sometimes, we all wish you had some notion of what you are talking about.

I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.

Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?

 

[koshergrl]

There's no such thing as an objective article about the origin of life.

 

[koshergrl]

By faith ... which is intellectually meaningless.

He uses strawmen. He's a dope.

He makes fatuous arguments that can't stand the scrutiny of honest analysis.

Sometimes, we all wish you had some notion of what you are talking about.

I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.

Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?

I'm going to do you a favor.

I'm going to edit your response so it can perhaps be taken seriously. Though it's doubtful it will ever be taken seriously, as I doubt that once I've edited it, there will be any substance to it. The red is what I am taking out. I want to highlight it first to draw attention to how incredibly ridiculous it is:


"Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refus(e)al to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

Forgive me while I pause to guffaw and laugh until tears roll down my cheeks...


While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs (HUH? Thank you for a sentence that means nothing. You obviously work for the government. Are you a speech writer?), you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others (and how the hell do you know this? You spend a lot of telling people what it is they require...)with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.(Another journey into Nonsense Land!)

You asshats (what asshats?) validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). (PFFFTTT....HAHAHAHAHAHA) IOW, (Is that a technical term?) if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless (more vanity speak)conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. (Again with the "you" and repetetive nonsense.) Every bit of (Really, EVERY BIT? That's a LOT) evidence and valid logic (redundant, again) that refutes your "evidence" (redundant redundancy) is judged invalid (please use new words)because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. (Is this how they teach you to debate in scientist school?) For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid. (Wow where have I heard that before? Shouldn't you cite me?)

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?" (Honestly, who cares?)

Here's what a serious and well trained debater would have written:


There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you ..

Oh never mind. There's absolutely nothing in that post of substance. But it was fun to mark it up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

By faith ... which is intellectually meaningless.

He uses strawmen. He's a dope.

He makes fatuous arguments that can't stand the scrutiny of honest analysis.

Sometimes, we all wish you had some notion of what you are talking about.

I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.

Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?

I am gonna leave my Christian beliefs for just one second stupid.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry I couldn't resist,please forgive me everyone.

 

[koshergrl]

I had a hard time maintaining a civil demeanor when I was tutoring English with this type too...the people who think they can hide the fact that they haven't a CLUE with a lot of hyperbole and flowery (and repetetive) adjective usage. They will fight you tooth and nail to keep that shit in there, swearing it's absolutely NECESSARY. Of course they think their farts are necessary for the betterment of the world as well....

And they INVARIABLE see themselves as great WRITERS. To which I say...GET YOUR ASS TO A NEWSPAPER AND GO TOE TO TOE WITH A COPY EDITOR for a while if you want to learn how to get your point across. Because they have no use for such a huge waste of wind, bandwidth, ink, and paper, and neither do I.

 

[koshergrl]

So is the theory that monkey evolved from..us???
Aren't we supposed to be improving with time?

 

[Montrovant]

So is the theory that monkey evolved from..us???
Aren't we supposed to be improving with time?

Did I miss a post? Where did this come from?

 

[LOki]

Darwinists frequently raise vehement objections to lumping the Big Bang and abiogenesis together with natural selection and speciation in debates comparing creationism versus evolution. The reason cited most often is they feel evolution theories of natural selection and speciation are both "settled" science, and the other theories only serve to obfuscate the real issue.

This is not entirely true. Although the broad, general structure of natural selection and speciation is pretty much settled, the specifics of the mechanisms regarding why we observe the validated phenomena of natural selection and speciation is still relatively open to inquiry. The actual reason "Dawinists" (provocative label) object to lumping the Big Bang and abiogenesis together with natural selection and speciation, is that unlike creationist "science" where the origin of the cosmos, the planet, life, and the nature of species is all lumped into one unexplained and intrinsically inexplicable mechanism, natural selection and speciation are specific areas of inquiry pursued independently of the origins of life and the universe.

In the mind of the anti-creationist, creation is the only real myth in the debate.

Scientific proponents of evolution (Evolutionists) do not harbor "anti-creationist" bias in the way that Creationists harbor "anti-evolution" bias. It is well understood by both Creationists and Evolutionists that Creationism is the defense of an unexplained and intrinsically inexplicable mechanism for the origin of everything--there's no dispute there. The dispute is centered upon the intellectual validity of frank conclusions derived from scientific inquiry vs. the validity of the preconceptions that Creationism seeks to defend.

In so far as the author is referring to Evolutionists when he discusses the mind of "anti-creationists", he seems to be grousing about the candidly valid point that "creation is the only real myth in the debate." Objectively, by the standards of verifiable evidence and vald logic, the various ancient creation myths told around the world in different cultures practicing every different religion ever have no greater or less valid foundation than the "creation" of creationists.

This rationale primarily based on their opposition to Young Earth Creationism (YEC).

Incorrect. As stated above, the myth status of "creation" is based entirely upon the objective fact that the various ancient creation myths told around the world in different cultures practicing every different religion ever have no greater or less valid foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic than the "creation" of creationists. Intellectually honest Creationists do not dispute this.

Not everyone who believes in creationism accepts YEC. However, evolutionists invariably try to establish certain ground rules going into the debate. The unwritten rules appear to include these axioms:

1. Creationism is synonymous with YEC, whether or not the counter-argument to evolution actually embraced the theory. In other words, evolution is really only opposed by YEC advocates.​

This is neither an axiomatic or any other kind of truth. What Creationists and YEC advocates have in common is the manner in which they validate evidence against their preconceived conclusion, and build hypotheses to defend their preconceived conclusion. If "creation" is discredited in the scientific community upon those grounds, it has nothing to do with YEC at all.

2. Evolution consists of Darwin's theory of natural selection and speciation. Darwin cataloged an abundance of information in meticulous records that irrefutably prove the process of natural selection does exist. Proof of speciation can be found in the geologic record. Transitional fossils such as Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus, and Tiktaaklit.prove speciation has occurred.

This is not entirely true. There is nothing intrinsically irrefutable about Darwin's Theory. "Proof" in the absolute sense that Creationists use the term is not what Evolutionists claim when they assert the degree of certainty they have in their conclusions based upon the best verifiable evidence available to them and/or valid logic.

3. Only scientific theories can be called theories. Even a bad scientific theory is still scientific. Any theory espousing the divine, a creator, a supernatural extraterrestrial being some people like to call God is dogmatic in nature and cannot rightly be called a theory because the scientific method cannot be applied.

Well, yes. It's not as if Evolutionists (or any genuine scientist for that matter) do not hold themselves to that same standard. They're not picking on Creationists here, they are using a precise term in a precise manner. No intellectually honest Creationist has a problem with this.

And just to point out how invalid this complaint of John's is, imagine that someone presented this to a group of Creationists, ...

... and then demanded based upon the faith paradigm that they validate his assertions that all of creation is the result of ancient condensation from the thawing of Niflheim, which begat the giant frost ogre named Ymir. The thawing also begat a cow called Audhumla from which 4 rivers of milk issued that fed Ymir. As Audhumla licked the salty ice blocks, she freed Odin's grandfather. Odin and his brothers killed and butchered Ymir, and from parts of his body created the heavens and the Earth.

I assure you that no Creationist would EVER validate such a story based upon the strength of the presenter's conviction of certainty, and his capacity to stolidly disavow every competing "theory" regardless of it's basis.

4. Even discredited scientific theories are superior to religious beliefs. Science is rational and religion is delusional.

I think this might be a bit unfair ... this depends upon what you consider "delusional". If by delusional you mean, requiring no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, yet demanding absolute unqualified "proof" to refute such baseless beliefs, then if the shoe fits ...

5. Failure to accept these postulates is an indication of ignorance.

Some of those postulates are validly defensible, and I don't think even Evolutionists would accept the strawman postulates John is advancing on behalf of Evolutionists.

5.1 Truly enlightened intellectuals understand and embrace the beauty and truth of science.

I'm not sure that's true or even asserted by Evolutionists, but a more likely postulate is would be, "Truly enlightened intellectuals who understand and embrace the beauty and truth of science don't require the false certainty offered by superstition to console their busted self esteems."

Efforts inevitably ensue to force the creationist to embrace YEC, regardless of whether it is actually accepted by the creationism advocate. If the evolutionist was always synonymous with YEC, that's what matters most often, not the actual opposing viewpoint in the debate.

John is entitled to feel this way, but as I pointed out earlier, what Creationists and YEC advocates have in common is the manner in which they validate evidence against their preconceived conclusion, and build hypotheses to defend their preconceived conclusion. If the actual opposing viewpoint in the debate is this common quality shaered with YEC, and "creation" is discredited in the scientific community upon those grounds, it has nothing to do with YEC at all.

Objecting to the inclusion of abiogenesis as a theory of evolution is critical to bolster the evolutionist's perspective, because abiogenesis as it currently is understood requires a scientific "leap of faith" and therefore diminishes evolution as a whole if included in the debate.

Nope. Objecting to the inclusion of abiogenesis in a discussion of speciation through natural selection as a theory of evolution is critical to the fact of reality that abiogenesis is not a theory of speciation through natural selection.

Abiogenesis requires that non-living matter had to magically become a living organism with adequate sources of food and water in close enough proximity to survive.

Creationism, actually requires that non-living matter had to magically become a living organism (without, BTW adequate sources of food and water in close enough proximity to survive--remeber, it's magic!)

All scientific hypotheses regarding abiogenesis explicitly disallow the application of magic to explain the origin of life.

The first organism had to live long enough to figure out how to replicate itself before its life span was exhausted or entropy took effect.

It "figure[d] out how to replicate itself", eh John? That's what Evolutionists say? The first organism did some "figuring"? What is it with the intellectual disingenuousity of Creationists?

It is clear why an evolutionist must remove abiogenesis from the evolutionary debate. It requires the same suspension of belief for scientific evidence that the evolutionist chides the creationist for employing.

No John, what's clear is that Evolutionists must never validate the intellectual sloth and dishonesty of Creationists just to allow them to feel like they're in the game, and they must always remind them without mincing words of the intellectual dishonesty of their intellectual paradigm, and the lack of intellectual and moral integrity that accompanies it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So is the theory that monkey evolved from..us???
Aren't we supposed to be improving with time?

Did I miss a post? Where did this come from?

Loki needs to learn some manners from you. We can have a civil conversation with people that come across like you do. You actually ask good questions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Darwinists frequently raise vehement objections to lumping the Big Bang and abiogenesis together with natural selection and speciation in debates comparing creationism versus evolution. The reason cited most often is they feel evolution theories of natural selection and speciation are both "settled" science, and the other theories only serve to obfuscate the real issue.

This is not entirely true. Although the broad, general structure of natural selection and speciation is pretty much settled, the specifics of the mechanisms regarding why we observe the validated phenomena of natural selection and speciation is still relatively open to inquiry. The actual reason "Dawinists" (provocative label) object to lumping the Big Bang and abiogenesis together with natural selection and speciation, is that unlike creationist "science" where the origin of the cosmos, the planet, life, and the nature of species is all lumped into one unexplained and intrinsically inexplicable mechanism, natural selection and speciation are specific areas of inquiry pursued independently of the origins of life and the universe.

In the mind of the anti-creationist, creation is the only real myth in the debate.

Scientific proponents of evolution (Evolutionists) do not harbor "anti-creationist" bias in the way that Creationists harbor "anti-evolution" bias. It is well understood by both Creationists and Evolutionists that Creationism is the defense of an unexplained and intrinsically inexplicable mechanism for the origin of everything--there's no dispute there. The dispute is centered upon the intellectual validity of frank conclusions derived from scientific inquiry vs. the validity of the preconceptions that Creationism seeks to defend.

In so far as the author is referring to Evolutionists when he discusses the mind of "anti-creationists", he seems to be grousing about the candidly valid point that "creation is the only real myth in the debate." Objectively, by the standards of verifiable evidence and vald logic, the various ancient creation myths told around the world in different cultures practicing every different religion ever have no greater or less valid foundation than the "creation" of creationists.

Incorrect. As stated above, the myth status of "creation" is based entirely upon the objective fact that the various ancient creation myths told around the world in different cultures practicing every different religion ever have no greater or less valid foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic than the "creation" of creationists. Intellectually honest Creationists do not dispute this.

This is neither an axiomatic or any other kind of truth. What Creationists and YEC advocates have in common is the manner in which they validate evidence against their preconceived conclusion, and build hypotheses to defend their preconceived conclusion. If "creation" is discredited in the scientific community upon those grounds, it has nothing to do with YEC at all.

This is not entirely true. There is nothing intrinsically irrefutable about Darwin's Theory. "Proof" in the absolute sense that Creationists use the term is not what Evolutionists claim when they assert the degree of certainty they have in their conclusions based upon the best verifiable evidence available to them and/or valid logic.

Well, yes. It's not as if Evolutionists (or any genuine scientist for that matter) do not hold themselves to that same standard. They're not picking on Creationists here, they are using a precise term in a precise manner. No intellectually honest Creationist has a problem with this.

And just to point out how invalid this complaint of John's is, imagine that someone presented this to a group of Creationists, ...

... and then demanded based upon the faith paradigm that they validate his assertions that all of creation is the result of ancient condensation from the thawing of Niflheim, which begat the giant frost ogre named Ymir. The thawing also begat a cow called Audhumla from which 4 rivers of milk issued that fed Ymir. As Audhumla licked the salty ice blocks, she freed Odin's grandfather. Odin and his brothers killed and butchered Ymir, and from parts of his body created the heavens and the Earth.

I assure you that no Creationist would EVER validate such a story based upon the strength of the presenter's conviction of certainty, and his capacity to stolidly disavow every competing "theory" regardless of it's basis.

I think this might be a bit unfair ... this depends upon what you consider "delusional". If by delusional you mean, requiring no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, yet demanding absolute unqualified "proof" to refute such baseless beliefs, then if the shoe fits ...

Some of those postulates are validly defensible, and I don't think even Evolutionists would accept the strawman postulates John is advancing on behalf of Evolutionists.

I'm not sure that's true or even asserted by Evolutionists, but a more likely postulate is would be, "Truly enlightened intellectuals who understand and embrace the beauty and truth of science don't require the false certainty offered by superstition to console their busted self esteems."

John is entitled to feel this way, but as I pointed out earlier, what Creationists and YEC advocates have in common is the manner in which they validate evidence against their preconceived conclusion, and build hypotheses to defend their preconceived conclusion. If the actual opposing viewpoint in the debate is this common quality shaered with YEC, and "creation" is discredited in the scientific community upon those grounds, it has nothing to do with YEC at all.

Nope. Objecting to the inclusion of abiogenesis in a discussion of speciation through natural selection as a theory of evolution is critical to the fact of reality that abiogenesis is not a theory of speciation through natural selection.

Creationism, actually requires that non-living matter had to magically become a living organism (without, BTW adequate sources of food and water in close enough proximity to survive--remeber, it's magic!)

All scientific hypotheses regarding abiogenesis explicitly disallow the application of magic to explain the origin of life.

The first organism had to live long enough to figure out how to replicate itself before its life span was exhausted or entropy took effect.

It "figure[d] out how to replicate itself", eh John? That's what Evolutionists say? The first organism did some "figuring"? What is it with the intellectual disingenuousity of Creationists?

It is clear why an evolutionist must remove abiogenesis from the evolutionary debate. It requires the same suspension of belief for scientific evidence that the evolutionist chides the creationist for employing.

No John, what's clear is that Evolutionists must never validate the intellectual sloth and dishonesty of Creationists just to allow them to feel like they're in the game, and they must always remind them without mincing words of the intellectual dishonesty of their intellectual paradigm, and the lack of intellectual and moral integrity that accompanies it.

The truth is there is no way non-life can produce life.

There is no way a non-thinking process can create intelligence.

 

[koshergrl]

So is the theory that monkey evolved from..us???
Aren't we supposed to be improving with time?

Did I miss a post? Where did this come from?

Arg..wrong thread, my apologies. But it is sort of funny to see just completely weird ramdom crap every now and then!

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So is the theory that monkey evolved from..us???
Aren't we supposed to be improving with time?

Did I miss a post? Where did this come from?

Arg..wrong thread, my apologies. But it is sort of funny to see just completely weird ramdom crap every now and then!

If that theory be true that would be evolution in reverse.

 

[koshergrl]

Exactly, it's from another thread where that idiot who claims to have been courted by Mensa maintains we're aunts and uncles of monkeys...

 

[Dr.Drock]

WASHINGTON — March 24, 2005 - For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

If scientists can isolate proteins from the material, they may be able to learn new details of how dinosaurs lived, said lead researcher Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University.

"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.

It was recovered dinosaur DNA — the blueprint for life — that was featured in the fictional recreation of the ancient animals in the book and film "Jurassic Park."

The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died.

The bone was broken when it was removed from the site. Schweitzer and her colleagues then analyzed the material inside the bone.

"The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ... ostrich bone," they reported in a paper bring published Friday in the journal Science.

Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, Schweitzer said she chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available.

Brooks Hanson, a deputy editor of Science, noted that there are few examples of soft tissues, except for leaves or petrified wood, that are preserved as fossils, just as there are few discoveries of insects in amber or humans and mammoths in peat or ice.

Soft tissues are rare in older finds. "That's why in a 70 million-year-old fossil it is so interesting," he said.


Advertise | AdChoices



Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said the discovery was "pretty exciting stuff."

"You are actually getting into the small-scale biology of the animal, which is something we rarely get the opportunity to look at," said Carrano, who was not part of the research team.

In addition, he said, it is a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.

Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.

John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.

Video: Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue Most museums, he said, prefer to keep their specimens intact.

Schweitzer said that after removing the minerals from the specimen, the remaining tissues were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments.

The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible.

She did not know if they were blood cells. "They are little round cells," Schweitzer said.

She likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues.

The research was funded by North Carolina State University and grants .

Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science - msnbc.com

I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links? You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.

"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.


Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.


Thank you.

Look how she is spinning it drock when she has evidence staring her right in the face she can't admit evolutionist have been wrong and their dating methods too.





The Scrambling Continues


An Update on the Amazing T. Rex Bone Discovery Announced a Year ago This Month

March 6, 2006


Layman



dinosaurs
evolutionists
fossils


Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiG–USA’s Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it “certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.”1

At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) At the AAAS meeting, Dr. Schweitzer, as recorded by National Geographic, explained how she has been trying “to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works. … Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.”2

Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that “we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.”3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time.

What did the researchers find?

A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a “68-million-year-old” T. rex uncovered in Montana.

As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4:


The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of “estuarine” origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists—see “Genesis and catastrophe”).

Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).

In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.

When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. …

The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.

To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy.

Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: “One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?”

Her inferred answer was no.

Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?

As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):


The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noah’s time, about 4,300 years ago.)

The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system. … Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.

Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.

Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years … and “stretching” beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.

Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.


Footnotes
1.As we reported nine years ago (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!), there have been previous reports of soft tissue and cells found in dinosaur fossils. Back
2.“Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue,” National Geographic News, February 22, 2006, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html. Back
3.Ibid. Back
4.“Ostrich-osaurus” discovery? Back
5.National Geographic summarized one track of her search for an answer:

New findings not yet published have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.

After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect.

Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.

“Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change,” Schweitzer said.

The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin.

In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. It’s possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition.

The Scrambling Continues - Answers in Genesis

Every Bible blog you've ever posted has been bullshit.

Please provide me a science based website that says DNA was extracted from those T-Rex materials.


Thank you.

 

[LOki]

I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.

Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?

I'm going to do you a favor.

I'm going to edit your response so it can perhaps be taken seriously. Though it's doubtful it will ever be taken seriously, as I doubt that once I've edited it, there will be any substance to it. The red is what I am taking out. I want to highlight it first to draw attention to how incredibly ridiculous it is:


"Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refus(e)al to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

Forgive me while I pause to guffaw and laugh until tears roll down my cheeks...


While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs (HUH? Thank you for a sentence that means nothing. You obviously work for the government. Are you a speech writer?), you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others (and how the hell do you know this? You spend a lot of telling people what it is they require...)with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.(Another journey into Nonsense Land!)

You asshats (what asshats?) validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). (PFFFTTT....HAHAHAHAHAHA) IOW, (Is that a technical term?) if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless (more vanity speak)conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. (Again with the "you" and repetetive nonsense.) Every bit of (Really, EVERY BIT? That's a LOT) evidence and valid logic (redundant, again) that refutes your "evidence" (redundant redundancy) is judged invalid (please use new words)because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. (Is this how they teach you to debate in scientist school?) For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid. (Wow where have I heard that before? Shouldn't you cite me?)

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?" (Honestly, who cares?)

Here's what a serious and well trained debater would have written:


There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you ..

Oh never mind. There's absolutely nothing in that post of substance. But it was fun to mark it up.

This was enlightening and candid admission that you literally ignore the substance of what I post. Then based upon your deliberate refusal to acknowledge that substance, you claim there is no substance to the post. BRAVO!!!!

This is an unusually refreshing (and stunningly self-aware) departure from your usual brand of intellectual dishonesty. It's so gratifying to see you so plainly and earnestly confirming each and every point I made.

I sincerely thank you!