spiritman Posted October 30, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 as far as your claim about Irreducible complexity goes, most of it is an argument based on the fact that professor behe was not peer reviewed by a mob of evolutionary scientists, and the fact that these evolutionary scientists gave all those papers still doesn't change the fact that they are evolutionary scientists. Are you sure you want to hold up Behe as your front man? You do realize he accepts common descent between humans and apes right? I believe that behe has come up with a good amount of evidence for Irreducible complexity; How ever just because I agree with someone on one point doesn't mean I agree with them on another point; So what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritman Posted October 30, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 So you still have to convince me that we have an old earth without using Radiometric dating. Score Evolutionists 1 Creationists 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritman Posted October 30, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 Ok lurker I corrected the Radiometric decay information on # 1. it now talks about Helium in the rocks and atmosphere; btw thank you for posting that retraction. I guess that means I'm back up to 14 again. Oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritman Posted October 30, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 Second of all the radiation would be scattered quickly because of the quick creation and the fast spreading out of the universe it self. don't you agree that the universe is expanding, that is how the radiation was dealt with. Indeed lurker you don't understand creation concepts very well at all do you? That still makes no sense. We're talking about the radiation from just the elements physically in the earth. . .are you under the impression that the earth is expanding or something? Not that it would solve this problem but it might help explain just what on earth you think you're talking about. No not the expansion of the earth; but the expansion of space. when space expanded it dissipated a lot of the heat with it. We see the same expansion occurring today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritman Posted October 30, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 I said; "According to Evolutionary time frames, when digging for fossils in strata; the further you dig down the older the fossil should be. But it has been discovered that in some digs there has been younger fossils under older fossils. for further information your replied; "Wow, a wordpress blog with precisely zero actual examples of claims made. I reply; " Go to the link look at example 1" this gives an ample statement to back what I've said above. click here You said; "Nice re-hash of pseudoscience but if you want to actually make this point you'll need to present some actual examples. I reply; " The first half of your statement is opinion. As for the second half concerning proof. here is an article about the cambrian explosion. click here Please just read the top half because the rest of it goes into Radiometric dating, which is irrelevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritman Posted October 31, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 Second of all the radiation would be scattered quickly because of the quick creation and the fast spreading out of the universe it self. don't you agree that the universe is expanding, that is how the radiation was dealt with. Indeed lurker you don't understand creation concepts very well at all do you? That still makes no sense. We're talking about the radiation from just the elements physically in the earth. . .are you under the impression that the earth is expanding or something? Not that it would solve this problem but it might help explain just what on earth you think you're talking about. If you read my link located in Radiometric dating section on page 1 post 1. go down to the "Dealing with the heat" section, the author refers to 3 expansions 1. of space at the beginning of the creation of the Universe. 2. when God divided the waters below from the waters above. and 3. during the flood. The last 2 take place on earth, possibly displacing the heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritman Posted October 31, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 I said; "According to Evolutionary time frames, when digging for fossils in strata; the further you dig down the older the fossil should be. But it has been discovered that in some digs there has been younger fossils under older fossils. for further information your replied; "Wow, a wordpress blog with precisely zero actual examples of claims made. I reply; " Go to the link look at example 1" this gives an ample statement to back what I've said above. click here I looked again and didn't see any actual examples. It's possible I missed them, would you be kind enough to point them out? You said; "Nice re-hash of pseudoscience but if you want to actually make this point you'll need to present some actual examples. I reply; " The first half of your statement is opinion. As for the second half concerning proof. here is an article about the cambrian explosion. click here Please just read the top half because the rest of it goes into Radiometric dating, which is irrelevant Again I see we're selectively employing authority. Yes, I'm very familiar with the Cambrian explosion, it used to be one of my talking points when I argued for ID, your problem is that there is a very well established Pre-Cambrian. explain then if the fossil layers according to evolution should be the less evolved on the bottom layer, and progressively Evolving as you go up each layer, then why in the cambrian layer do you have a mixture of all kinds of fossils, some that should have been on the lower levels. you also have some from every layer. Please explain this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted October 31, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 31, 2009 I'm struck by the fact that so many new species appeared in the Cambrian...with no discernible ancestors. That some species just appeared and then disappeared, one hit wonders (for want of a better term.) From what I've read, scientists are really stumped by this. I've not read anything that indicates that the fossils were mixed in the many layers but what is the most reasonable explanation for the sudden (in terms of evolution) appearance of all the new species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted October 31, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 31, 2009 But do we find "apparent transitionals" that demonstrate chimps and humans have a common ancestor or are such claims based on bedtime stories? Yes, we do find apparent transitionals that demonstrate a common ancestor between humans and apes. Lurker What would those be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritman Posted November 1, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Author Share Posted November 1, 2009 I believe that behe has come up with a good amount of evidence for Irreducible complexity; How ever just because I agree with someone on one point doesn't mean I agree with them on another point; So what's your point? My point is that you are selectively using authority - Behe is right. . .but only when agrees with you, all other scientists are wrong about evolution. . .but right about everything else. How on earth do you decide who is right when? Is it based completely on whether or not you like the conclusions? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just trying to understand your thinking here. Lurker Ok that's a fair question; how do I decide who is right? Here's my answer, if the article or scientists findings contradict the Bible, then I don't agree with it. If they agree with the Bible then I'm on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts