Jump to content


Photo

Designed Or Not Designed...


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#21 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 July 2009 - 03:34 PM

You are using two unproven assertions (Young Earth Creation and Original Sin) to explain the imperfections due to evolution.


Has evolution been proven? Let's see you deny it falsifiability by implying or saying that it has. You know you want to. Just like every other evolutionist likes to do this. So let's here the: It's a proven true fact. Then while you at it, you can start another thread showing this and then explaining how something can be a proven fact and falsifiable at the same time.

What we all know is that there is no evidence for any form of 'elan vital' etc needed to initiate life.


Well you guys claim lightening did it, Right? Is that not implying another source or power is needed?

I presume your question about eyes refers to trilobite eyes.  There is a simple and obvious explanation which your creationist associates may have forgotten to tell you.

Trilobite eyes use crystals of calcite instead of soft organic tissue as lenses.  This makes preservation as fossils much easier.  Therefore we have far more information on trilobite eyes than on eyes in any other Cambrian creature.
It seems that many other Cambrian species also had sight, but the evidence has not survived in the fossil record.
"Fortey (2000, p91) used molecular clock theory to trace the origin of eyes into deep time, conjecturing that we may need to go back as far as the divergence time between the Protostome and Deuterostome animals; if valid then eyes may predate the basal trilobites by some 250 to 500 million years ."
http://www.fossilmus...iteArmsRace.htm


So why did not the highest evolved species end up with such eyes?

NB.  Use of terms like 'most evolved' is one of the clues that you really know much less about the theory of evolution than you claim.  All present-day species have an ancestry going back to the origin of life on earth.  Therefore, all species are equally 'evolved'.  It is just that the different species have evolved in different ways.

View Post


Using the reverse of burden of proof (common ancestry to replace the word evolve) to get out of answering questions is getting old and quite lame. But I notice you use the word evolve further down. So is this a freedom of speech thing where creationists are no longer allowed to use the word evolve because they disagree with evolution? Or is ancestry a better word because evolution has become an implied absolute, so the use of implied absolute processes are needed?

#22 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:31 PM

Has evolution been proven? Let's see you deny it falsifiability by implying or saying that it has. You know you want to. Just like every other evolutionist likes to do this. So let's here the: It's a proven true fact. Then while you at it, you can start another thread showing this and then explaining how something can be a proven fact and falsifiable at the same time.

Evolution would be falsified if we discovered rabbit fossils in the Precambrian rocks and various other anachronisms. The absence of such discoveries, and the amount of confirming evidence is what makes common descent with modification a fact.

Well you guys claim lightening did it, Right? Is that not implying another source or power is needed?
So why did not the highest evolved species end up with such eyes?

A source of energy is required for the formation of amino acids in the early earth's atmosphere. However, lightning is an entirely natural phenomena and did not have to be guided in any way.
If trilobites had continued to flourish, instead of going extinct, then they might have evolved intelligence and ended up on a couch watching TV through crystal eyes.

In response to my statement, "NB. Use of terms like 'most evolved' is one of the clues that you really know much less about the theory of evolution than you claim. All present-day species have an ancestry going back to the origin of life on earth. Therefore, all species are equally 'evolved'. It is just that the different species have evolved in different ways. "
you replied:-

Using the reverse of burden of proof (common ancestry to replace the word evolve) to get out of answering questions is getting old and quite lame. But I notice you use the word evolve further down. So is this a freedom of speech thing where creationists are no longer allowed to use the word evolve because they disagree with evolution? Or is ancestry a better word because evolution has become an implied absolute, so the use of implied absolute processes are needed?

View Post

which is quite irrelevant.
I was not contesting your use of 'evolved', but of the combination, 'most evolved'
'highest evolved species' is just another form of the same error.

#23 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:35 PM

Evolution would be falsified if we discovered rabbit fossils in the Precambrian rocks and various other anachronisms.

View Post

No. I'm quite certain such a find would make the paleontologists scurry to justify some odd geologic activity. :lol:

Even if a rabbit was found with a trilobite it would simply demonstrate that trilobites survived longer than expected. :lol:

Evolution is tailored to be able to absorb everything.

#24 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:57 PM

On whether evolution is falsifiable if a fossil rabbit were found in Precambrian rocks:-

No. I'm quite certain such a find would make the paleontologists scurry to justify some odd geologic activity.

I think there would certainly be a great deal of activity until other discoveries confirmed the first find.

Even if a rabbit was found with a trilobite it would simply demonstrate that trilobites survived longer than expected. 

That would certainly be the conclusion if trilobite fossils were found in place in recent rocks. What I postulated was rabbit fossils in precambrian rocks, so you are wandering off topic.

Evolution is tailored to be able to absorb everything.

View Post

What you really means is that all the evidence supports the theory rather than your YEC myth.

#25 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:01 PM

What you really means is that all the evidence supports the theory rather than your YEC myth.

View Post

Yeah, that's what I meant. :lol:

#26 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 July 2009 - 01:42 AM

Evolution would be falsified if we discovered rabbit fossils in the Precambrian rocks and various other anachronisms. The absence of such discoveries, and the amount of confirming evidence is what makes common descent with modification a fact.


Keith,

If your suggesting something as absurd as "Rabbits are predicted to be found with deep ocean organisms if they existed" then there is nothing we can do to help you.LOL

But lucky for you,scientific experiments have just confirmed that cats and dogs have evolved the ability to scuba dive.

SN1VcgRrEM8&hl=en&fs=1




Enjoy.

#27 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2009 - 02:28 AM

Oh no! We've been wasting our time looking for a bunny when we should have been looking for a cat. :lol:

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 July 2009 - 02:44 AM

Oh no! We've been wasting our time looking for a bunny when we should have been looking for a cat. :lol:

View Post

:lol:

#29 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 July 2009 - 03:55 AM

Evolution would be falsified if we discovered rabbit fossils in the Precambrian rocks and various other anachronisms.  The absence of such discoveries, and the amount of confirming evidence is what makes common descent with modification a fact.


Nope it would not. They would do the same as they did with this evidence:
Attached File  enhanced_footprint3.jpg   46.01KB   14 downloads
Make up stories as to how and why this happened. Stories that by the way panned out to be false.

A source of energy is required for the formation of amino acids in the early earth's atmosphere.  However, lightning is an entirely natural phenomena and did not have to be  guided in any way.


A second strike destroys what the first strike creates.

If trilobites had continued to flourish, instead of going extinct, then they might have evolved intelligence and ended up on a couch watching TV through crystal eyes.


And instead if HD TV, they would have to watch crystal vision.

In response to my statement, "NB. Use of terms like 'most evolved' is one of the clues that you really know much less about the theory of evolution than you claim. All present-day species have an ancestry going back to the origin of life on earth. Therefore, all species are equally 'evolved'. It is just that the different species have evolved in different ways. "
you replied:-which is quite irrelevant.
I was not contesting your use of 'evolved', but of the combination, 'most evolved'
'highest evolved species' is just another form of the same error.

View Post


Let's see. There is:
1) Slow evolution. Which solves anyone ever having to observe it.
2) Medium evolution. Which explains how some animals evolved more than others.
3) Fast evolution. Which explains how top of the chain evolution happens.
4) Timed evolution. Where things evolve just in the nick of time.
5) Parallel evolution. Where different complexities evolve at the same time.
6) Non-intelligent evolution. Where things are clearly designed, but evolution work arounds always solves the problem.
7) Addition evolution. Where micro to infinity = macro. Even though DNA has known limitations.
8) Anything can evolve evolution. Given enough time, evolution can make any life form.

#30 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 09 July 2009 - 08:30 AM

I think there is confusion here. I don't believe anyone would look at the first image and say that it was designed that way, but came about naturally.

But when you suggest that we would be like the roman aqueduct as opposed to the natural arch I would say that you are wrong. There are numerous examples that show we would be more similar to the natural arch than the roman built arch. Our lower backs are faulty, not having enough room in our mouths for all of our teeth are just 2 examples of structural issues that could have been fixed by a divine being.

One more thing that I think needs to be addressed is this. Saying that there is limits that an engineer has to work with in order to create something, such as portability for a laptop, would not apply to something that is all powerful. He could have made the physics work whoever he wanted.:-)

#31 Guest_Keith C_*

Guest_Keith C_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 July 2009 - 12:13 PM

On the formation of amino acids due to lightning in the atmosphere:-

A second strike destroys what the first strike creates.


Wrong as usual.
It is the lightning discharge through the atmosphere which produces the fragments of molecules which recombine to form amino acids. The point at which lightning strikes the ground is not involved.
This point was covered earlier in this forum

Amino-acids are removed relatively rapidly from the atmosphere in raindrops etc, even when there is no free oxygen in the atmosphere. ( also explained before)

#32 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 09 July 2009 - 01:08 PM

Nope it would not. They would do the same as they did with this evidence:
Attached File  enhanced_footprint3.jpg   46.01KB   14 downloads
Make up stories as to how and why this happened. Stories that by the way panned out to be false.

View Post



Ikester, you may want to stop using that picture (and I do realize it's one of your all-time favorites, considering how often you pull it out), especially considering the fact that even most creationists now realize the coexisting man/dinosaur footprints were an elaborate hoax.

http://www.edwardtba...aur_tracks.html

#33 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 July 2009 - 05:28 PM

Ikester, you may want to stop using that picture (and I do realize it's one of your all-time favorites, considering how often you pull it out), especially considering the fact that even most creationists now realize the coexisting man/dinosaur footprints were an elaborate hoax.

http://www.edwardtba...aur_tracks.html

View Post


Thats not true and you know it's not,Judy.

Some creationists caution it being used as proof against evolution because they can't verify it as being found in situ.The tracks have since been removed or destroyed and no one can examine them further.

Thats a far cry from claiming their a hoax.Only you and Glen Kuban are doing that.

#34 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 09 July 2009 - 06:25 PM

Thats not true and you know it's not,Judy.

Some creationists caution it being used as proof against evolution because they can't verify it as being found in situ.The tracks have since been removed or destroyed and no one can examine them further.

Thats a far cry from claiming their a hoax.Only you and Glen Kuban are doing that.

View Post

I'm sorry that my sister operates only in extremes (when her forum hat is on). I guess to prove her point as forcefully as possible. :huh:

#35 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 July 2009 - 10:57 PM

I think there is confusion here.  I don't believe anyone would look at the first image and say that it was designed that way, but came about naturally.

But when you suggest that we would be like the roman aqueduct as opposed to the natural arch I would say that you are wrong.  There are numerous examples that show we would be more similar to the natural arch than the roman built arch.  Our lower backs are faulty, not having enough room in our mouths for all of our teeth are just 2 examples of structural issues that could have been fixed by a divine being.

One more thing that I think needs to be addressed is this.  Saying that there is limits that an engineer has to work with in order to create something, such as portability for a laptop, would not apply to something that is all powerful.  He could have made the physics work whoever he wanted.:-)

View Post


Just like the wonderful natural selection god, or the survival of the fittest god, could have done the same thing. So what happened there? Were they asleep when it came time to select the best things for survival? Or will time god be the excuse, as to claim: Not enough time has passed to correct the problem. So poof two gods failed, and poof one god saves the day with time. Because time is your friend when it's so loooonnnng that no one can comprehend it. Nor will they never ever be able to observe what is claimed to have happened. Bow to the time god. The answer to all unanswerable question and problems.

Time god flow chart:

Creationist ask a question + The evolutionist cannot answer question = time god did it (given enough time, time god can make anything happen). And if time god says it happened, it happened. For how can you dispute a claim by the time god when you cannot go back in time? So time god wins everytime. :rolleyes:

I can be funny too.

#36 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 July 2009 - 11:24 PM

Ikester, you may want to stop using that picture (and I do realize it's one of your all-time favorites, considering how often you pull it out), especially considering the fact that even most creationists now realize the coexisting man/dinosaur footprints were an elaborate hoax.

http://www.edwardtba...aur_tracks.html

View Post



ANSWERS IN GENESIS'S MOST RECENT COMMENTS ON CARL BAUGH'S RESEARCH
"[We suggest creationists do not use...] many of Carl Baugh's creation 'evidences.' Sorry to say, AiG thinks that he's well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any 'evidence' he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis (e.g. Kent H*vind) who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh 'evidences' despite being approached on the matter (Ed. note: see our Maintaining Creationist Integrity, our response to H*vind's reply to this article)."
etc...


Yet not one of these organizations did a scientific debunk of the evidence. Not one took Carl Baugh to court about the accusations of carving the foot prints which by the way is defacing government owned property. Which is a federal offense.

Not even the atheists did this. Even though the atheists started most of it (rumors, lies, and gossip).

Where are the scientific papers, research, etc... showing how scientifically they were debunk? And since this would be considered the biggest find in all of scientific history, because of what it would prove. Where were all the top scientists who should have been studying this?

Its called not being interested in what you don't want to be true. So ignore it, don't do anything to protect the prints. Allow them to erode away and claim what ever you can in hopes the evidence gets swept under the debunk rug. Besides, there is no evidence for creation, right? So evolutionists will make sure there will never be. This is just one of many examples. So let's do a side by side comparison of what is acceptable for evolution, and what is rejected because it supports creation.

Attached File  enhanced_footprint3.jpg   46.01KB   14 downloadsAttached File  BBC_footprint.jpg   26.88KB   10 downloads



So which evidence wold you say is very clear as to what it is, compared to the other? And if you were to take these pics into a court room, how would you sell that the evolution pic is better, and debunk the creation one when you will have to prove everything you claim? Hearsay is not evidence.

So when they ask:

1) Where are your witnesses to Carl Baugh carving that print, what will you say? 2) When they ask: Why did it look human, with ten toes before it eroded and cracked, what will you say?
3) And when they ask: Where were all the top scientists studying this find, when it would be considered worthy news? How will you answer that question without sounding bias to any evidence that supports creation?

You see, your side maybe able to convince most of the masses through false accusations, lies, strong arm tactics, destroying credibility, etc... But when it boils down to the real stuff. You cannot answer. If you can answer these questions. I invite you to do so.

Well?

footprints were an elaborate hoax.


And by the way:
1) Who hoaxed the prints?
2) How were they hoaxed?
3) Where are your witnesses?

You wll have to back all this up since you are going to use other people's claims. If you cannot, it means that your source's are fraud, your claims are fraud, etc...

Well, you going to own up to the questions to back up your claims, or go run and hide?

#37 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 July 2009 - 12:02 AM

Just like the wonderful natural selection god, or the survival of the fittest god, could have done the same thing. So what happened there? Were they asleep when it came time to select the best things for survival? Or will time god be the excuse, as to claim: Not enough time has passed to correct the problem. So poof two gods failed, and poof one god saves the day with time. Because time is your friend when it's so loooonnnng that no one can comprehend it. Nor will they never ever be able to observe what is claimed to have happened. Bow to the time god. The answer to all unanswerable question and problems.

Time god flow chart:

Creationist ask a question + The evolutionist cannot answer question = time god did it (given enough time, time god can make anything happen). And if time god says it happened, it happened. For how can you dispute a claim by the time god when you cannot go back in time? So time god wins everytime. :rolleyes:

I can be funny too.

View Post


Umm, Ike, these selection, fitness and time gods you speak of don't exist. Or if they do they're very lonely as no one worships them :P

Since they don't exist perhaps you can understand why we have imperfect creatures running about (us included).

Actually I thought a better answer to "why did an all-powerful creator make us imperfect?" was "because of the fall". Doesn't make a lot of sense if you don't already believe the Bible, but it's a lot better than making up new Gods.

Regards,

Arch.

#38 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 July 2009 - 12:33 AM

Thats not true and you know it's not,Judy.

Some creationists caution it being used as proof against evolution because they can't verify it as being found in situ.The tracks have since been removed or destroyed and no one can examine them further.

Thats a far cry from claiming their a hoax.Only you and Glen Kuban are doing that.

View Post


Glen Kuban is known for his bias actions and refusal to work with a creationist. Like when he went out to to see a foot print with Carl Baugh. Baugh got called away, so kuban sneaks a plaster of the foot print an takes it to someone he knows will say it's fake.

1) What was wrong with taking the plaster while Baugh was there, unless you have something to hide?
2) What is wrong with taking the plaster with Baugh to an agreed upon examiner, unless you have something to hide?
3) Why sneak anything unless what you are doing is based upon a lie?

Truth never has to hide, only lies do. Which xplains Glen Kuban's actions.

#39 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 10 July 2009 - 12:44 AM

Glen Kuban is known for his bias actions and refusal to work with a creationist. Like when he went out to to see a foot print with Carl Baugh. Baugh got called away, so kuban sneaks a plaster of the foot print an takes it to someone he knows will say it's fake.

1) What was wrong with taking the plaster while Baugh was there, unless you have something to hide?
2) What is wrong with taking the plaster with Baugh to an agreed upon examiner, unless you have something to hide?
3) Why sneak anything unless what you are doing is based upon a lie?

Truth never has to hide, only lies do. Which xplains Glen Kuban's actions.

View Post


Is there a link about these tracks, I've seen them brought up a few times before and am interested in reading up on them.

#40 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 10 July 2009 - 12:56 AM

On the formation of amino acids due to lightning in the atmosphere:-
Wrong as usual.
It is the lightning discharge through the atmosphere which produces the fragments of molecules which recombine to form amino acids.  The point at which lightning strikes the ground is not involved.
This point was covered earlier in this forum

Amino-acids are removed relatively rapidly from the atmosphere in raindrops etc, even when there is no free oxygen in the atmosphere. ( also explained before)

View Post


So the amino acids did not form in a primordial soup? They formed in the atmosphere?

Also, comparing to Miller's experiment. How many volts are in lightening compared to the volts Miller used in his experiment? Huge difference. Now, do you actually believe that this much voltage zapped again upon the newly formed amino acid structures is not going to break them apart? An if you believe this, can you supply a test in which this voltage was applied so we can be sure?

For one thing, the contact voltage of a typical industrial electrical shock is 20 to 63 kilovolts, while a lightning strike delivers about 300 kilovolts.
http://science.nasa....sd18jun99_1.htm


I did not think so. You see Miller's experiment is no where near real world conditions. And neither are the revised experiments. One has to duplicate everything possible, or it becomes a controlled experiment with controlled results, instead of a real world experiment.

Attached File  miller_0007.jpg   10.26KB   11 downloads

The average capacitor ignitor system, under normal atmospheric pressures. Only has to produce 5-10,000 volts to jump across a 1-3 inch gap (between 2 sharp ended probes). How do I know this? I studied ignition theory. I know the variables required to increase voltage in an experiment. Miller's was no where near atmospheric lightening strength. So yes it would create the structures and not destroy them. But you up that voltage and it will.

The ability to produce such voltage is there.

Posted Image

Stun guns can produce over 100,000 volts. So the ability is there, and was not used because the real world experiment would have revealed the truth.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users