|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2002 : 15:35:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I feel the reason why most of you are skeptic about Genesis and the accounts presented there are due to your lack in a faith in God.
Are you then saying that "faith" is required to believe your 6 Day theory? Because that would imply that you didn't go along with it simply because of facts but because of your religious convictions.
This "theory" revolves around a Diety. Since you cannot produce any diety at all, let alone the specific one you claim is behind it all, your "theory" falls apart.
The same would go for Tane'. If he could be produced the "man being decended from a magic coconut" theory would deserve some consideration. He cannot so we shelve that theory.
Yahweh is equally as unproducable so there is no reason to consider the "man being decended from a pile of magic dust" speculation.
Facts aren't subject to "faith" they are independent of it. If I had complete faith in the god Maui that would not make his fish hook a fact.
You science teacher didn't teach evolution because it was some belief that required faith. She taught it because it is a proven fact.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 16:21:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm not really intersted n getting into a "link war"
You think that just repeating something you have heared somewhere is somehow superior. To giving a reference to your source?
quote:
For example, I've noticed a few links to Talk.Origins. I in return could present a few links that present the theories I mentioned above quite scientifically.
The links to talkorigins don't just repeat our point of view, but give indepth rebutals to the specific arguments you use.
quote:
These scientific sites presented by guys with degrees before their names give me ample reason to be skeptic about evolution.
Those sites use a different definition of 'scientific' then the one I was thought in school.
The fact that many of those degrees are quite questionable does not concern you? I could give you a link on the topic, but...
Does it also not concern you that there are far more scientist with degrees in favour evolution then against it, or do you only listen to degrees when they say what you want to hear.
quote:
I feel the reason why most of you are skeptic about Genesis and the accounts presented there are due to your lack in a faith in God.
You have given a good example of what skepticism is -- 'Lack of faith'
The reason I don't belive in alien abductions for example is my lack of faith in UFOs.
quote:
I feel the models and opinions presented by the creationist are quite stable.
The models and opinions are not very stable they continually undergo evolution. Just take a look at the Answer in Genesis pages about what creationists are not supposed to believe anymore. (I won't provide a link)
And just think of all the different creationist models of old-earth, young-earth and intelligent design creationism. Hardly two creationist agree on what scientific creationism is. The whole creationism model is not very stable.
The Asatru creation model involving the slaying of the giant Ymir on the other hand is quite stable. No changes for centuries.
Of course being stable is not really important in a model. What is important is its usefulness. Darwins theory is usefull in that it lets us correctly predict things.
The Genesis account (independent of its truthfulness or spiritual usefulness) is not very useful from a scientific point of view.
I also have to note then you bring up arguments (and not very good or new ones at that), but don't like to hear any answers to them. One might almost think, that you are a troll who is not interested in discussing the topic or convincing us of your opinon.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 16:49:17 [Permalink]
|
Yumping ymir-ny that Asatru doesn't sound half bad. Worlds better than anything that came out of the middle east you bettcha.
http://www.magma.ca/~yeti/asatrufaq.html
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Sixdays
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 17:07:42 [Permalink]
|
You are correct when you say faith is required to believe in a six day creation.
It's a bit difficult to present evidence for something that was created ex-nihilo.
But what I can say is that the bible and it's prophecy has produced more than enough evidence to say it's true. That is, prophecy has established the bible as very accurate. Ask the Isreals and the predicted re-formationof their state. Don't forget the over 300 prophecies that mention the birth,life, death, resurrection and the return of of Jesus Christ. Of course I suppose now I'll get some links as to why the prophecy has not been fulfilled.
Now when we speak of the flood, that's a different story. I have already presented some of that evidence in a previous post. I'm sorry if you choose to look the other way.
The funny thing is I asked an opening question, and judging from the reception I have received I can say it's not all right to be a skeptic and a creationist.
Why didn't you guys say that in the first place?
Of course, if you like you can present some links to the missing gaps in the fossil record that shows the missing transitionals. usually we find a lot of plaster of paris and other types of filler.
Then again the gaps beween each species is a touchy problem for the evolutionist. Just ask Darwin
The way I see it, with all the species that have lived, and all the fossils in the museums and the over 100 years of collecting them, I would think the evolutionist would have a pretty good serial linage to present. but they don't.
Of course you could go to Talk.Origins and... er, "Hunt" up a few. Of course what you'll find there is fragments and a lot of bias.
But don't let me change your minds, check out the creation evidence for yourself. Don't forget to drop the bias you were indoctrinated with.
Well, now it's time for you guys to get nasty with me, so, I suppose I'll turn it back over to you fellows.
Just do me a favor this time, present some real evidence please.
Six days |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 17:12:50 [Permalink]
|
I'm a little busy to go dig up information that's been freely available for years. You've basically come here and said your theory requires faith to believe and that is the heart of the matter. Science has nothing to do with faith. Don't try and use faith in a discussion about science. It doesn't belong there.
And that's really about all you can say about it.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 17:34:24 [Permalink]
|
SixDays:
If you would be so kind as to read Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Gen. 2:4-24 side by side....
You will not that they are contradictory. How do you explain this contradiction? Were humans created before animals or animals created before humans?
quote:
But what I can say is that the bible and it's prophecy has produced more than enough evidence to say it's true.
If you mean archaologically, yes and no. Recent scholorship seems to cast doubt on the Exodus story, for example.
quote:
That is, prophecy has established the bible as very accurate. Ask the Isreals and the predicted re-formationof their state.
Isreal was never really a "state" in the Bible, not in the modern sense.
quote:
Don't forget the over 300 prophecies that mention the birth,life, death, resurrection and the return of of Jesus Christ.
Most, I am sorry, are taken out of context or refer to a generic Messiah. I have no links, really, only my own study of the issue.
quote:
Now when we speak of the flood, that's a different story. I have already presented some of that evidence in a previous post. I'm sorry if you choose to look the other way.
Recent evidence casts serious doubt on the flood theory, I am afraid. http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2002/noahsark.html
quote:
The funny thing is I asked an opening question, and judging from the reception I have received I can say it's not all right to be a skeptic and a creationist.
It seems that you are conceding the fact that six-day creationism and YEC are factually bankrupt?
quote:
Of course, if you like you can present some links to the missing gaps in the fossil record that shows the missing transitionals. usually we find a lot of plaster of paris and other types of filler.
I'm sorry, I've lost your argument. Are you seriously claiming that the thousands of transitional fossils are hoaxes?
quote:
Don't forget to drop the bias you were indoctrinated with.
Well, now it's time for you guys to get nasty with me, so, I suppose I'll turn it back over to you fellows.
Firstly, it seems a tad hypocritical to insult people, then complain that they are going to be nasty.
Secondly, I am the moderator in this forum. If your treatment violates accepted standards of Netiquette, I will deal with such a problem.
If you feel that you are being treated in a way that violates accepted standards of Netiquette, and I do nothing, drop me a private message and I will consider the matter.
----------
Every problem has a solution. Only sometimes the solutions involve imaginary numbers and make my head hurt. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 18:37:58 [Permalink]
|
It's a bit difficult to present evidence for something that was created ex-nihilo.
If you have no evidence of what you say then you have no way of knowing if your claims are true. Making claims that you yourself don't actually know to be true is lying.
That is, prophecy has established the bible as very accurate. ...Don't forget the over 300 prophecies that mention the birth,life, death, resurrection and the return of of Jesus Christ.
The only record of these magic prophecies is the bible. The only record that there ever was a Jesus Christ is the bible. They are only worth the paper they are printed on if there was a Jesus Christ and there is no evidence that such a character ever existed outside of literature.
I'm sorry if you choose to look the other way. I'm sorry you are mired in superstition.
The funny thing is I asked an opening question, and judging from the reception I have received I can say it's not all right to be a skeptic and a creationist.
It would be fine to be both. BUT, you are the one who falsely presented yourself as a Skeptic, then went on behaving completely credulous. If you are going to claim to be something you aren't don't be suprised if you are called on it.
Of course, if you like you can present some links to the missing gaps in the fossil record that shows the missing transitionals.
What missing links are you talking about? All fossils are transitionals--don't you even know what evolution is?
Then again the gaps beween each species is a touchy problem for the evolutionist.
What gaps?
Just ask Darwin Unlike religion science actually learns things. You can't go to a scientist in the mid 19th century and expect him to know what is known in the 21st.
The way I see it, with all the species that have lived, and all the fossils in the museums and the over 100 years of collecting them, I would think the evolutionist would have a pretty good serial linage to present. but they don't.
Have you never been to a Natural History museum? Why are you lying about them now?
But don't let me change your minds, check out the creation evidence for yourself. Don't forget to drop the bias you were indoctrinated with.
I already did drop the bias I was indoctrinated with. It was a nasty dehumanizing thing called Christianity. I can't tell you how glad I am to be rid of it.
Well, now it's time for you guys to get nasty with me, so, I suppose I'll turn it back over to you fellows.
But that is the very reason you came here isn't it? You show up and are welcomed, but you misrepresent yourself. Then you bait people.
Not a big deal. We get Christian punks like you here about once a month. They show up, spew some lies, call a few names and go. Much like a spray paint tagger, you people are ecclesiastical vandals.
Half a week from now your thread will slip to the back of the board and be forgotten.
Just do me a favor this time, present some real evidence please.
Six days
[/quote]
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 18:44:44 [Permalink]
|
Six, I see that you have an adversion to links, so I've put in some of the text as well. Hope it gets you interested enough to read the whole thing.
So, here's some transitional fossils:
----------------------------------------
Ichthyostega retains several primitive characters lost in most other tetrapods:
The braincase remained bipartite (there is a ventral division between the ethmoid unit and the otico-occipital unit), as in osteolepiforms. The notochord extended into the braincase to the level of pituitary fossa. The tail retained lepidotrichia. The tibia and fibula are dorso-ventrally compressed (as in a fin).
We will study temnospondyls first. They share the following derived characters: Large interpterygoid vacuities (open palate). These may have been used in breathing as part of a buccal pump (as in frogs). The skin of the palate was raised by the levator bulbi muscle and the floor of the mouth was depressed while air was brought into the mouth (either by opening the mouth slightly or through the nares). The mouth and nares were then closed, the skin covering the palate moved ventrally (perhaps through elastic recoil) and the floor of the mouth was raised. This pumped air into the lungs. This theory is supported by the short ribs of temnospondyls, which would not have been very efficient for costal ventilation of the lungs. The skull table is firmly sutured with the cheek. There was no mobility between the two units. There are only four digits in hand. Temnospondyls also have the following primitive characters: There is a contact between the postparietal and the supratemporal, as in sarcioterygians. Primitively, they have large crescentic intercentra and small, paired dorsal pleurocentra, just like those of Ichthyostega.
http://www.erin.utoronto.ca/~w3bio356/lectures/temno.html
Thirty years after they were uncovered, the bones drew a team of Danish and Swedish scientists back to Celsius Bjerg to look for more fossils and to map the stratigraphy of the mountains. The mountains were formed near the end of the Devonian Period, which stretched from 408 million to 360 million years ago. The Devonian was sometimes called the age of fishes because these were the dominant animals of the day; the oldest known fossils of land vertebrates--creatures called anthracosaurs--were only 300 million years old. In 1931 a 23-year-old paleontologist, Gunnar Saeve-Soederberg, took over the now-annual expeditions to Celsius Bjerg, and in that year he found a 360-million-year-old skull that he realized was not from a fish. A telltale pattern of bones in the back of the skull identified it as a tetrapod; Saeve-Soederberg named the animal Ichthyostega, meaning "fish plate," because the roof of its skull was shaped like that of a fish.
The more Clack and Coates uncovered of Acanthostega, the more they became convinced that not only was this an animal that lived underwater, but this was an animal whose ancestors had never left the water. By the time they got to the tail, the case was decided. Ichthyostega had a small fin on the top of its tail that was essentially a relic of its fishy pedigree. Acanthostega, on the other hand, had a powerful, flexible tail with large fins running along the top and bottom of it. Each vertebra in the tail tapered into a long upper and lower crest, each of which connected to a rod-shaped bone; the crests and rods could bend like a finger. Connecting to the rod, inside each fin, were rays made of dermal bone, the material that forms the scales of fish. Together the crest, the rod, and the ray (and the muscles attached to them all) allowed Acanthostega to use its tail to create underwater waves that could propel it forward or brake its momentum.
Just last year, for example, Thomson and Ted Daeschler, also of the Philadelphia academy, reported the discovery of a shoulder bone from a tetrapod in Pennsylvania that's about 5 million years older than Ichthyostega and Acanthostega. Significantly, a broad scoop in the bone showed that it had developed powerful, massive front leg muscles. Without the rest of the skeleton, which Daeschler is now frantically looking for, it's hard to say whether the animal was already up and running around on land.
Ichthyostega has pretty impressive shoulders of its own, but Coates, who has begun looking at the hind limb that Clack found in Greenland, doubts that it could walk well. "You have a massive pair of shoulders and a pair of hind limbs that are like flippers, like a seal. It shows an intermediate existence, one that's primarily aquatic but that can enable the animal to cope on land." It's possible that primitive tetrapods came ashore for the same reasons seals do--to mate or reproduce, and occasionally to escape attackers. And just this year a tantalizing clue surfaced that another contemporary relative of Acanthostega had become a true land walker. Researchers reported over 150 footprints that are preserved in southern Ireland. Judging by the shape and spacing of the prints, they seem to have been made by a three-foot-long creature that used all four feet on dry land
This principle of evolution is sometimes called preadaptation. There's no foresight involved, though--simply the lucky coincidence that a feature that evolved to do one thing may turn out later to do another thing even better. Bone, for example, probably began as a place where animals could store extra phosphorus; only later did it support their bodies. Acanthostega, loping around underwater with a body prepared from head to foot for life on land, may be one of the strongest demonstrations that we humans owe our existence to preadaptation's unpredictable nature.
"One gets the impression when reading popular accounts that there was some kind of imperative, as if tetrapods felt they had to do it, to embark on the Long March Toward Man," says Clack. "It was much more accidental than that."
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~reffland/anthropology/origins/comingonto.html
Say what? I didn't link the infamous talk.origins?
Didn't need to. But, I strongly recommend a visit to that, excellent resource.
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
Edited by - filthy on 06/30/2002 19:00:59 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 18:56:55 [Permalink]
|
I might add that I don't have the least amount of faith in the Theory of Evolution. I merely accept it as the best explanation for certain, biological phenomena, thus far. If empirical, peer-reviewed evidence disproving the Theory surfaced, I would drop it and walk away with not the least regret.
Great googley moogley, but wouldn't I love to be the person who found that evidence! Would I hide it so as not to upset the status quo? HELL no! I'd be shouting it from the rooftops!
Betcher ass I would, as would any scientist or interested layman, even Creationist alive today. Whoever found that evidence, well, his name would replace Darwin's.
But, that evidence is yet to be forth-coming. And believe it, many have searched, and the search by many continues.
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
Edited by - filthy on 06/30/2002 18:59:47 |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 21:36:24 [Permalink]
|
> That is, prophecy has established the bible as very accurate.
> ...Don't forget the over 300 prophecies that mention the birth,life,
> death, resurrection and the return of of Jesus Christ.[/quote]
Yes, the Bible claims that it's true, and we can prove that it's true because the Bible says it is.
> Then again the gaps beween each species is a touchy problem for the
> evolutionist.
I still hate the term "evolutionist." Are you a gravitationist? A luminist? A quantum machinist? A Special-General relativist?
If we try to fill in a gap for the Creationists, they'll come right back and ask us to fill two more gaps. And so on.
Slater:
> don't you even know what evolution is?
Well, duh, it's when human babies "pop out" of monkey mothers.
No, it's when Pikachu turns into Raichu.
Edited by - antie on 06/30/2002 21:37:40 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 21:42:03 [Permalink]
|
Well, it's past midnight, I'm having back spasms again and I've had just enough cheap whiskey that I don't want to go to bed, yet. In short, I'm not comfortable, a little tight, and bored out of my freakin' gourd.
So, I think I'll give our new friend Six a little more on transitional fossils to contemplate.
Six, this is a little technical, but still understandable. Here's a taste of it:
There are many skeletal features which allow us to distinguish the reptiles from the mammals (Carroll, 1988; Table 1, rows A, M). The single most important defining characteristic is the nature of the articulation of the lower jaw to the skull (Simpson, 1959). In reptiles, multiple bones comprise the lower jaw. A small bone at the posterior end of the lower jaw, the articular, articulates with the quadrate bone of the skull (Simpson, 1959; Carroll, 1988). In mammals, one large bone, the dentary, comprises the lower jaw. It articulates with the squamosal bone of the skull (Simpson, 1959; Carroll, 1988).
From comparative anatomy studies, it is certain that most of the bones of the reptiles and mammals are homologous (Crompton & Parker, 1978; Carroll, 1988). Of greatest importance, the middle ear bones of mammals (stapes, incus, malleus, and tympanic) are homologous with several of the skull and jaw bones of reptiles (stapes, quadrate, articular, and angular, respectively; Romer, 1956, p. 33-38, 1970a; Allin, 1975, 1986; Allin & Hopson, 1992; Crompton & Parker, 1978; Hopso n, 1987, 1994; Carroll, 1988). One group of reptiles, the synapsids (Subclass Synapsida), share with the mammals an additional homologous structure: the lateral temporal fenestra, which is an opening in the skull behind the eye socket at the triple junction between the squamosal, jugal , and post orbital bones (Broom, 1932; Frazetta, 1968; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). A band of bone composed of the jugal and the squamosal is adjacent to the lateral temporal fenestra (Broom, 1932; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). This is the cheek arch so characteristic of mammal skulls (Broom, 1932; Kemp, 1982; Carroll, 1988). Therefore, synapsids are commonly named the “mammal-like reptiles.”
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm
This was not written merely to jack the Creationists up. It is a genuine, peer reviewed study that reached certain, confirmed conclusions. This, not shouting and hand-waving, is how science is done.
Go to the link to see more including skull diagrams.
luck,
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 21:55:45 [Permalink]
|
"No, it's when Pikachu turns into Raichu."
Hey Auntie, I keep a 5 foot African Puff Adder (Bitis arietans) who aquired the unfortunate name of 'Jigglypuff' from my grand kids. Her family and the Pitvipers are evolution to the max!
Uh, what do Jigglypuffs evolve into? The grands haven't given me that info, so it must be something horrible.
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
|
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 22:17:42 [Permalink]
|
> Hey Auntie, I keep a 5 foot African Puff Adder (Bitis arietans) who
> aquired the unfortunate name of 'Jigglypuff' from my grand kids. Her
> family and the Pitvipers are evolution to the max!
Excellent! Maybe you can show Six sometime.
> Uh, what do Jigglypuffs evolve into? The grands haven't given me that
> info, so it must be something horrible.
It turns into a bug-eyed, rabbit-like thing called Wigglytuff.
Ian Andreas Miller. DIES GAUDII. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2002 : 23:47:25 [Permalink]
|
Wigglytuff, huh? Sounds truly dreadful. I'll have to keep a close eye on the puffy lest she begins to grow ears.
I'd love to give the Sixster a detailed history of Viperids and Elapids as well as the rear-fanged Colubrids and Gilas, but serpent fossils are so scarce that an evolutionary progression is all but impossible to describe.
I dunno. Maybe I will, anyway. Venomous reptile's feeding and defense strategies are so complex that an argument could be made that unless the deity was a totaly anal stickler for detail, he/she/it/whatever wouldn't bother. It would be long and involved, and would most likely bore all here to distraction.
Gotta think about it.
all luck,
f
Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)
|
|
|
|
Sixdays
New Member
20 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2002 : 02:14:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
SixDays:
If you would be so kind as to read Gen. 1:1-2:3 and Gen. 2:4-24 side by side....
You will not that they are contradictory. How do you explain this contradiction? Were humans created before animals or animals created before humans?
You guys are funny, you ask me to do some research priot to asking questions then you don't take your own advice.
Gen 2 is just a more detailed re-cap of Gen 1 focusing on the creation of man.
Six days |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
