Home > FreeHovind > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: arguments
arguments
8 Comments - 21945 Views
Submitted By 9tails on 09/05/26
FreeHovind, 9tails, Creation and Evolution 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

It's important to understand that everything follows a particular design. A functionality that pursuits a means of accomplishment through working mechanisms, that are the result and effect of a cause and a source.
 
With that being said, it is equally important to apply this precepts to your arguments as creationists. I'll give the best example.
 
The definition of - biological evolution - is:
 
"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
 
Pretending for a moment that this was all that evolution implied, there would be no argument. The funny thing is, we, as creationists, do not argue against this point.
 
We DO however, argue that " everything in biology has BOUNDARIES. LIMITS ".
 
(on a side note, you can see in the world, how this humanistic, evolutionary thinking begins to effect things, as I have posted before. Since they evolutionist/materialist/secular mind does not see boundaries ... they do not employ boundaries or limitations in their social lives. Everything must change, progress, evolve, etc.)
 
It's that evolutionism doctrine that impresses the mentality onto it's believers that when someone argues against specific aspects of evolution, that they are arguing against "change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next".
 
It's these implications that must be dismantled if there is to be any objective reasoning with the evolution community. I'll give another example of the fraudulent position it implies;
 
As a creationist, if you submit that all creation has a design that is a part of every organism, the evolutionary mind is trained to assume that you argue against very basic principles of actual science like, natural selection. No one would argue against natural selection, understanding science. The argument is not against the protocol of organisms meeting equilibrium with their enviroment or even one organism being extinguished by another thriving organism. We argue against a lot of the IMPLICATIONS. Like the bio diversity treaty or overpopulation. Not to mention that even in the midst of abeomutosis, natural selection, or adaptation, a design can be and is followed, by all organisms. Just because trees bloom, wilt and adapt does not mean they abandon their original functionality.
 
I like this one;
 
"Biological evolution and abiogenesis and the big bang (of course) have absolutely nothing to do with each other."
 
Riiiiiiiiight ......... and peanuts have nothing to do with peanut butter. It's like this, they all imply the same things. Evolution IMPLIES common ancestry of all life back to 1 organism. Abiogenesis IMPLIES that non-living materials self assembled the functionality of the 1rst organism. Each idea IMPLIES the other. This is elementary, yet, our evolutionists friends insist. Why? Well, I believe it's because they want it to APPEAR as though all these different fields of science suggest the other. So that if you argued against common ancestry, they would then IMPLY that you argue against all of science and are therefore a nincumpoop.
 
But this methodolgy isn't new, it's classic. If you can't win an argument, just rearrange the definitions and terms so that you can explain your way out of the situation. It's called circular reasoning. We are all onto their bullsrib.
 
I'll end with this classic example;
 
It's true that humans and apes are similarly designed (as all life), similar DNA patterns, arms & legs, body hair, primates, so forth, so on. Does that similar design prove that we had a common ancestor? No, of course not. You can believe that if you like, don't know what the appeal is, but your free anyway. See, the evolutionist mind sees the design and identifies that we're both primates and concludes that we're family. To add insult to lack of critical thinking, they lash out at those that question the idea. lol, I have to chuckle every time. More of those boundaries they are trying to destroy I guess.

» Reply to Comment
Re: arguments
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 17:47 GMT
"It's important to understand that everything follows a particular design. A functionality that pursuits a means of accomplishment through working mechanisms, that are the result and effect of a cause and a source."
- How can you prove design? Just becuase we don't have the answer for a specific question (hypothetically speaking) doesn't validate a super-natural being made it.

"We DO however, argue that " everything in biology has BOUNDARIES. LIMITS "
- And those are? I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say "boundries". A bit vague for my taste tbh.

"Since they evolutionist/materialist/secular mind does not see boundaries"
- 3 groups that is not the same. Why would we see boundries that isn't there?

"they do not employ boundaries or limitations in their social lives."
- And by that you mean? That we should stop seeing so many people or stop being social?

"Everything must change, progress, evolve, etc."
- Yes it does, do you want to stop progress and the evolution of society or what?

"It's that evolutionism doctrine that impresses the mentality onto it's believers that when someone argues against specific aspects of evolution, that they are arguing against "change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next"."
- Nope, argueing against the fact that you used 2 words like they meant something but didn't. There is no such thing as "evolutionism doctrine"! This has to be the first time i have ever heard those 2 words next to eachother. Oh and there are some who believe that nothing about evolution is right.

"It's these implications that must be dismantled if there is to be any objective reasoning with the evolution community. I'll give another example of the fraudulent position it implies;"
- What the hell is "evolution community"?! Stop making up words for things that does not exist, but only in your mind. It's like you're fighting a ghost with burning witches. I mean it doesn't make any sense. You are making the assumptions, we don't. The title of Darwins book was a really good one, "The origin of Species". NOT "The origin of Life"!!!
He did actually make a hypothesis about that there could be a universal common decent, but he didn't prove it and he didn't have to to prove his theory.

"As a creationist, if you submit that all creation has a design that is a part of every organism, the evolutionary mind is trained to assume that you argue against very basic principles of actual science like, natural selection."
- Well if you attack evolution you have to expect the scientific community to defend it from ignorance, don't you?

"We argue against a lot of the IMPLICATIONS."
- Still they aren't implications if we got evidence from different areas of science that supports a couple of theories.

"...a design can be and is followed, by all organisms."
- Still, you can't define what kind of design and when you can't define what god is or how he did it. Then you're just back on square one man.

""Biological evolution and abiogenesis and the big bang (of course) have absolutely nothing to do with each other.""
- 3 different areas of science. They have connections, but the same goes for say, chemistry and physics. When we got evidence for explaining a phenomena in nature from one field, we can use that info in other fields. The whole thing of the age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution is pure bull. There are calculations from before darwins book was published that supported the old earth. I still don't get how you can get big bang and evolution so close. They are so seperate and 2 totally independent theories. If one would fail it doesn't exclude the other from being right or wrong.

"...and peanuts have nothing to do with peanut butter."
- Extreme oversimplification that doesn't cut it in any argument. To have peanut butter you have to have peanuts. You don't have to have big bang for evolution or abiogenesis to work. Besides there are no theories on how life started, only hypothesis and a number of ways for it COULD have happened.

"Evolution IMPLIES common ancestry of all life back to 1 organism."
- No, evolution only speaks about how life evolved over time and how species came to be. Not that it started with one organism. BUT there are some evidence that supports this, genetics, structure, genetic material etc.

"Abiogenesis IMPLIES that non-living materials self assembled the functionality of the 1rst organism."
- Again no. There are a number of hypothesis of how it could happen and the fact that we have life on earth makes it a strong case. The enviroment and a large number of conditions has been tested, but no one knows for sure exactly what happened.

"Each idea IMPLIES the other. This is elementary, yet, our evolutionists friends insist. Why? Well, I believe it's because they want it to APPEAR as though all these different fields of science suggest the other. So that if you argued against common ancestry, they would then IMPLY that you argue against all of science and are therefore a nincumpoop."
- Ehm, if you read what you wrote again sometimes. You might find out that it is you who smash it all together, not we. We don't need the other theories and hypothesis to as evidence for out case, but it verifies it and makes it more probable.

"But this methodolgy isn't new, it's classic. If you can't win an argument, just rearrange the definitions and terms so that you can explain your way out of the situation. It's called circular reasoning. We are all onto their bullsrib."
- And that comes from a guy who is very vague in his descriptions and ASSUMES thath things are or what people think, when they don't.

"It's true that humans and apes are similarly designed (as all life), similar DNA patterns, arms & legs, body hair, primates, so forth, so on. Does that similar design prove that we had a common ancestor?"
- Yes, with fossils and DNA compairing.

"See, the evolutionist mind sees the design and identifies that we're both primates and concludes that we're family."
- And by the design you mean exterior or on DNA level?

"To add insult to lack of critical thinking, they lash out at those that question the idea."
- Talk about being original! You are not even trying to question your own beliefs so why do you think we should question ours? We have done that for 150 years and still no dice for you guys. Creation has been here for over 2000 years and you are lecturing US on critical thinking?

"More of those boundaries they are trying to destroy I guess."
- Yeah we should isolate ourselves and live like the amish!
» Reply to Comment
Re: arguments
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/27 - 7:41 GMT
ellman says:
 
"How can you prove design? Just becuase we don't have the answer for a specific question (hypothetically speaking) doesn't validate a super-natural being made it."
 
-Design can be observed. The DNA that exists within primates, ecspecially apes and humans are intricately similar, not to mention all life. Even through the thousands of years of history, that design and functionality has never receeded.
 
There are other observances of that same design. Bisymmetry, H - C - O base chemical makeup in all life. In everything! Even stars are balls of furnaced Hydrogen, helium and compressed carbon. There are tons of examples of design in biology, cosmology, chemistry, anatomy, etc.
 
Design is to intend the functionality of something. "to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan"
 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design
 
We see this this type of architecture everywhere. When I say that things are marked by a design, I am not saying "Goddunit", which is what the evolutionist loves to throw back at people. I'm saying that an outside interferance for the mechanisms of this world is very likely.
 
"And those are? I don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say "boundries". A bit vague for my taste tbh."
 
-Boundaries exist in every aspect of science and life. While it is yet not known what specific kind of boundaries exists within biology specifically, we are sure they exist, as we can identify with limitations within biology.
 
A conceptual example:
 
Food is good, we need it to survive. But we must balance our diets with excercise and health, so to nuture our well being. If one indulges themselve with too much food, too much unhealthy food and does not balance it with excercise and metabolic rate, they become unhealthy and overweight. A BOUNDARY is learned and is kept to keep people on healthy standards so that they don't become unfit and unstable.
 
This is just an illustration to show, even in biology, that in order to keep things stable and organized, limitations are met, like in abeomutosis, and boundaries are kept, like interbreeding.
 
"3 groups that is not the same. Why would we see boundries that isn't there?"
 
-They all correlate. Peanut --- peanut butter.
And if the boundaries did exist? Then liberalism and evolution would be in trouble.
 
"And by that you mean? That we should stop seeing so many people or stop being social?"
 
-No, I mean that if people lived with certain boundaries that they adhered to, then the world would be better for it. But their idea is to hold nothing revered or sacred, nothing is too far or out of bounds.
 
"Yes it does, do you want to stop progress and the evolution of society or what?"
 
No, I'm saying that change and progress go so far, then it becomes unstable, then it begins to destroy itself, as history and every facet of the universe would tell us. Keep the beast caged and you won't get eaten.
 
"Nope, argueing against the fact that you used 2 words like they meant something but didn't. There is no such thing as "evolutionism doctrine"! This has to be the first time i have ever heard those 2 words next to eachother. Oh and there are some who believe that nothing about evolution is right."
 
-Yes, I am one of those people. Does Evolution teach something that is not observable or substantial? Yes. Therefore it is a doctrine. Evolutionism doctrine.
 
"What the hell is "evolution community"?! Stop making up words for things that does not exist, but only in your mind. It's like you're fighting a ghost with burning witches. I mean it doesn't make any sense. You are making the assumptions, we don't. The title of Darwins book was a really good one, "The origin of Species". NOT "The origin of Life"!!!
He did actually make a hypothesis about that there could be a universal common decent, but he didn't prove it and he didn't have to to prove his theory."
 
-Evolution community is a group of people that believe in evolution. Do some people believe in evolution? Yes. Evolution   .....    community.
That doesn't make sense to you?
 
This next part is really good. Book is "origin of species" not "origin of life" eh? Now this is the part you have to think real hard about. What is a species?
 
": a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name".
 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species
 
In biology, a species is a specific classification for all life. There exists a number of species within each baramin of animal and all life. So, his book means, the beginning of the classifications of life. See? The argument is not against speciation. It is against all the implications of the evolution theory itself. Common descent has nothing to do with speciation, except through implication from the theory. And you say he didn't have to prove his theory.
 
So, then I would like someone to explain to me why common descent (which has nothing to do with speciation and it lacks any real evidence), abiogenesis (yet another implication), and lies
 
http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10
 
In the textbooks are being force taught in school. You just told me, my friend, that darwin did not prove his theory and didn't have to.
 
"Well if you attack evolution you have to expect the scientific community to defend it from ignorance, don't you?"
 
-lol, wow. Neverminding the raw, strict imagination that is involved with it. Don't you really love it when some people say that people that question evolution are "attacking science".
 
"Still they aren't implications if we got evidence from different areas of science that supports a couple of theories."
 
-So, then you agree that you see science in the world, and you INTERPRET it to fit your theory? Sounds a lot like that to me.
 
"Still, you can't define what kind of design and when you can't define what god is or how he did it. Then you're just back on square one man."
 
-Well, I partially disagree. Let me explain. "God", in the providential sense, is that which is responsible for the creation of the universe. At this point, "god" is nothing animate, just an idea. This idea is identified as the source for the universe. But, we learn from basic reduction that "god" would have to have 4 qualities within its being.
 
1) It had the (raw energy) resources to create the universe
2) It was driven to create the universe
3) It had the ability to create the universe
4) It is not bound by time
 
I think it's fair to believe that the source of the universe had these qualities.
 
"3 different areas of science. They have connections, but the same goes for say, chemistry and physics. When we got evidence for explaining a phenomena in nature from one field, we can use that info in other fields. The whole thing of the age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution is pure bull. There are calculations from before darwins book was published that supported the old earth. I still don't get how you can get big bang and evolution so close. They are so seperate and 2 totally independent theories. If one would fail it doesn't exclude the other from being right or wrong."
 
-That is a fair position. I personally believe that is why evolutionists attempt to demarginalize their arguments. When people say that "Evolution teaches the earth is billions of years old", that is not a direct teaching of the theory itself no. But, the idea is that evolutionists imply common ancestry.
 
Can you be an evolutionist and not believe in common ancestry? Can you be an evolutionist and not believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Can you be an evolutionist and not believe in abiogenesis? Can you believe in evolution and not believe these other things? Of course you can.
 
But the interesting thing is that these ideas, seperately, are all agreed upon by the community of people that aggresively advocate evolution. Strange. If Evolution is taught as it is defined, there would be no problem. Until, you introduce transfomation evolution, macro evolution.
 
Questions: If you can call abiogenesis a theory and teach it in schools, seperate from evolution, can you teach biogenesis? Could you teach The cosmic allomanifestation?
 
If you can teach the earth may be 4.6 billion and call it a theory, seperate from evolution, can you teach it may be 6,000 years, based on historical factors?
 
If you can teach transformation (macro) evolution and call it a theory, can you teach baraminology? Or abeomutosis, that all organisms follow their original functionality and design, in accordance with their baramins?
 
"Extreme oversimplification that doesn't cut it in any argument. To have peanut butter you have to have peanuts. You don't have to have big bang for evolution or abiogenesis to work. Besides there are no theories on how life started, only hypothesis and a number of ways for it COULD have happened."
 
"To have peanut butter you have to have peanuts"
 
-Your getting it, great job man. wax on, wax off.
 
"No, evolution only speaks about how life evolved over time and how species came to be. Not that it started with one organism. BUT there are some evidence that supports this, genetics, structure, genetic material etc."
 
Bah, im tired. I'll come back later.
» Reply to Comment
Re: arguments
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/27 - 9:58 GMT
"{-Design can be observed. The DNA that exists within primates, ecspecially apes and humans are intricately similar, not to mention all life. Even through the thousands of years of history, that design and functionality has never receeded."
 
YOU MISSED THE POINT.
that "design", needs not be designed by a godlike designer. THAT is the point.
look at crystals. look at SNOWFLAKES.
LOOK AT SELF REPLICATORS!!
no god hand there.
 
"Design is to intend the functionality of something. "to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan""
 
now look at the noun.
this is the same semantics that you tried to do with that quotemined archittecture.
 
"This is just an illustration to show, even in biology, that in order to keep things stable and organized, limitations are met, like in abeomutosis, and boundaries are kept, like interbreeding."
 
your illustration has NOTHING TO DO with mutations carried over from generations. so it's not even an ilustration of evolutionary boundries.
 
oh and btw, i can be obese and STILL live to reproduce.
 
"And if the boundaries did exist? Then liberalism and evolution would be in trouble."
 
how liberalism.....i still DON"t GET how you keep drawing this line....it boggle my mind that you would stick to such falacious reasoning.
 
" But their idea is to hold nothing revered or sacred, nothing is too far or out of bounds."
 
kiling your child is out of bounds no matter what your holy book says.
again. the bible ripped morality out of sociaty, society did not rip it from the bible.
 
want an example? slavery in the bible, that was accepted then, not now.
 
"as history and every facet of the universe would tell us. Keep the beast caged and you won't get eaten."
 
...history and every facet of the universe tells us that everythign is ever changing. good thing keep going and bad things die off...
 
if we had adopted your mentality, we would still be stuck in the dark ags quoting the bible for the mother church.
there'd still be slavery, women would still have no rights.
those are all thigns that came about through social change.
 
i get that you are afraid of the future. but that is just silly. you're just as much part of the process as i am, ur just directign it to a way you see fit. however to achieve that, your ideals have to compete with other in the thing we call society.
 
"Does Evolution teach something that is not observable or substantial? Yes."
 
no, a scientific theory is based on somethign observable by default.
so it is NOT a doctrine.
 
how many tim es must i keep explaining this to you.
 
"Evolution community is a group of people that believe in evolution. Do some people believe in evolution? Yes. Evolution   .....    community."
 
all good and dandy, but you shot yourself in the foot here. followign your definition, anyone in the evolution comminity needs not accept abiogenesis. something you DO keep ascribing to that community, with your own definition of what ToE and the evolution it describes applies to.
 
"What is a species?"
 
you want me to give you the explination in my biology book?
paraphrased it's this.
 
"any population of organism in which there is an active exchange of genetic material"
 
that boils down to, any group of animals that can produce viable, fertile offspring.
 
"": a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name"."
 
that falls horibly short of the biologicla usage.
i think you should have read the REST OF THE DEFINITION YOU QUOTEMINIGN PRICK.
 
1 a: kind, sort b: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name ; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class <confessing sins in species and in number> c: the human race : human beings —often used with the<survival of the species in the nuclear age> d (1): a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2): an individual or kind belonging to a biological species e: a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion
 
 
" In biology, a species is a specific classification for all life. There exists a number of species within each baramin of animal and all life. So, his book means, the beginning of the classifications of life. See?"
 
NO. first you have yet to define the criteria for a baramin.
second, you're talking about taxonomy. darwins book DID NOT TALK ABOUT TAXONOMY.
read the dam book if you don't beleive me, and don't quoteming the eye part.
 
"Common descent has nothing to do with speciation,"
 
commen decents has EVERYTING TO DO WITH SPECIATION.
you don't understand the process at all.
it's one species BRANCHING INTO DIFFERENT SPECIES. then when we look back in the geneology, THAT FIRST SPECIES WAS THE COMMEN ANCESTOR SPECIES.
 
how fuckign hard is it to grasp?>!
 
"then I would like someone to explain to me why common descent"
i just did,, you might look up the divs i linked by pothole54, cdk007, Donexodus2 (a christian) or even AronRa.
 
"abiogenesis"
Cdk007 explains one of the principle fairly well...i suggest you watch it.
 
"In the textbooks are being force taught in school. You just told me, my friend, that darwin did not prove his theory and didn't have to."
 
fortunately i DO understand what ellman ment.
you see unlike what you might think, we came a LONG way sicne darwin, and when we got the hang of genetics, it was pretty much established fact.
 
the remark "darwing didn't have to prove his theory" was more aimed at the fact that he could publish his bok with a hypothesis that could be tested, without him having to run all the tests himself.
the remakr has nothign to do with the validity of the current theory.
 
"He did actually make a hypothesis about that there could be a universal common decent, but he didn't prove it and he didn't have to to prove his theory."
 
READ THE REST OF THE REMARK BEFORE YOU DRAW CONCLUSIONS.
 
"Don't you really love it when some people say that people that question evolution are "attacking science""
 
when they want to redifine the definition of what science is, like the ID peopel did in Dover, YES i'd call that attacking science.
 
or like hovind who butches simple and complex science and then bends the blody remains to his own beleifs. YES i call that an attack on science.
 
"So, then you agree that you see science in the world, and you INTERPRET it to fit your theory?"
 
if we'd to that, we'd not be doing science.
we try to look for the stuff that DOESN'T conform to the theory.
if we can't find it, that means he the theory explains reality just fine, and we adopt it.
 
superficially it might appear we're only lookign for the stuff that fits, but that's only what it appears like to scientific illiterates.
"Sounds a lot like that to me."
proving that you are one.
 
""God""
and here's the fun.
describe god to me, and describe HOW he made the universe.
is that question rly to much to ask?
 
"1) It had the (raw energy) resources to create the universe"
and energy can't "condense" into subatomic particle because...?
 
"2) It was driven to create the universe'
and particles aren't subject to particular forces because???
(where that force comes from is where you plaster god, but that's just intelectually shallow)
 
"3) It had the ability to create the universe"
and particle aren't subjugated to the forces that effect them because?
 
"4) It is not bound by time"
and there was anytime before there where events to mar it because??
(bigbang states that spacetime expanded. so it wasn't there yet in the singularity state, when there was not matter to create space and there' was not space to mark events and thus no time.
 
"I think it's fair to believe that the source of the universe had these qualities."
and i think it's unfair to claim that this is the god of the bible, and not somehting much less antropomorphic and sadistic.
 
"When people say that "Evolution teaches the earth is billions of years old", that is not a direct teaching of the theory itself"
 
no person in their right mind who know what evolution is will say that.
only your camp does.
 
the large age of the earth allows for the evolution of the species we have now from the animals we find in the fossil record.
that's all.
 
". But, the idea is that evolutionists imply common ancestry."
the earth is old. (varified by OTHER field of science)
evolution is an property of all organism.
 
conclusion?
why the hell not?

it's more because of this that you feel you need to disprove the age of the earth. trying to refien the age is fine, but offering a 6000-10000 year old alternative from a holy book is not.
 
"Can you be an evolutionist and not believe in common ancestry?"
yes, but onyl when you know this
deeeeeep down, in the bacerial stage of life, genetic material could be swapped out via congugation, this means that the early "taxons" could jump from one to the other. so there was no real commen ancestor here.
 
but when it comes down to large sexually reproducing organims, no. understanding ToE, commo ancestory becomes the best explination, and seeming as we have all this supportign evidence...why should we doubt it? oh i know...because the bible sais...
 
"Can you be an evolutionist and not believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old"
 
yes, but then you'd be cherry picking what part of the ToE you wish to accept. but most peopel who accept that the earht is old will be scientifically literate enough to understand evolution, and why it works.
(NOTICE THE DAM ORDER IN WHICH I WROTE THAT).
 
"Can you be an evolutionist and not believe in abiogenesis?"
 
yes, i explained this via the 4 origins arguement.
god, or an alien, created the firt living cell, and the he took the hands of aproach.
 
:Can you believe in evolution and not believe these other things?"
 
can you cherry pick science to support you belief? ofc you can.
it's not rly ohonest tho.
can you cherry pick the evidence to support your science? ofc you can't.
then you wouldn't be doign science....mr Hovind...
 
"But the interesting thing is that these ideas, seperately, are all agreed upon by the community of people that aggresively advocate evolution."
 
probably because they understand science, and the see ID and creationism for what it really is, namely a cheap apologetics.
 
"introduce transfomation evolution, macro evolution"
macro evolution is pretty much a fact, why? because micro evolution is a fact.
i also think the word "transformation" is out of place. it implies the creationist idea of specition, an idea that is wrogn on so many levels it's just laughable.
 
"can you teach biogenesis?"
biogensis beign the creationis "alternative" which isn't exactly an alternative al ALL. as it says ( in it's definition) NOTHING about where the first livign cell came from, it only says that living cells produce other cells.
their REAL alternative is" god didit" which we arent gonna teach as it is religion.
 
"can you teach it may be 6,000 years, based on historical factors?"
no you can't. on the simpel fact that you cherry picked your evidence by only saying "historical" meanign you ignore ALL the other evidence, like geology.
that is such a horrible way of accepting things...by just looking at what fits you predisposed ideas
 
"If you can teach transformation (macro) evolution and call it a theory,"
macro evolutio, which is what speciation is, IS part of the theory. and it is a fact sicne there is micro evolution and mutations accumulate.
 
"can you teach baraminology? Or abeomutosis,"
 
define me a baram first, then i'll answer.
 
"that all organisms follow their original functionality and design,'
coupled with same designer that migth look pretty convincing....but it's not. simply because you want to see boundries that aren't there.
 
"Your getting it, great job man. wax on, wax off."
 
and you are NOT getting it at all...
 
"Bah, im tired."
 
so am i, of this outdated bedunked "teach the controversy" crap.
you have no legs to stand on in science, so quit jabbering that you do. if these field of which you speak held any merit the scientific comunity would investigate, and they have investigated the claims, them, they do not. so no dice.
 
go and start learngin a bit more about biology and THEN coem back to argue.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: arguments
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 18:49 GMT
yay another logn and whindign rant by 9tails...lets see if he learned something new and stopped doing the  "lying fo jezus" routine.
 
"It's important to understand that everything follows a particular design. A functionality that pursuits a means of accomplishment through working mechanisms, that are the result and effect of a cause and a source."
 
and that cause is a magical sky daddy becuase?
 
really, anyone with a bisc understanding of organic chmesrty, or biology can tell you that the "designs" you're referring to (i presume this is a ID argument) are just mechanism (which evolved by natural means) that when they were expressed, allowed organisms to survive in a niche. if they didn't they'd die and the "design" is lost.
 
bottom line, if it works, it stays, if it doesn't hamper you enough, it doesn't go away. thus we still have the gene's for tails, but since they aren't expressed anymore, they aren't selected against.
 
"The definition of - biological evolution - is:"
dammit....must we get into this again..
if you're arguing agaisnt ToE, (the acceptence of ToE makes you and "evolutionists") you're arguign against what you're callign biological evolution. period.
if ur arguing agaisnt abiogenesis, you're arguing agaisnt abiogenesis, if ur arguing agaisnt big bang theory, you're arguing agaisnt big bang theory. NOT a unrealted field of science.
 
"Pretending for a moment that this was all that evolution implied, there would be no argument. The funny thing is, we, as creationists, do not argue against this point."
 
actually yes, a couple of you do, those are the people who whine "there are no beneficial mutations!"
butnever the less. AGAIN. you argue agaisnt soem sort of characature of evolution you made in your head, you refute that, THEN you want us to dismiss the ACTUAL ToE. srly..do you not see how dishonest you are beign at expecting us to to that?
 
"We DO however, argue that " everything in biology has BOUNDARIES. LIMITS"
 
VAGUE. ofc there are limits to reality. but ur probably referring to howfar natural selction can go, in which case, it can go just as far as you give it time to.as long as organism live and reproduce, the mutations and changes keep accumulating.
 
" Since they evolutionist/materialist/secular mind does not see boundaries"
 
3 things whihc aren't mutually dependant or the same.
GJ at extenign your vocabulary.
tell that to the hindu humanist.
 
"they do not employ boundaries or limitations in their social lives. Everything must change, progress, evolve, etc.)"
 
k you;re referrign to the "atheist have no morals" claim.
FU!
i have my morals, i draw them from empathy and rational thinking, not a book that tells me i get to keep slaves and i get to kill non believers.
there are MANY more issues on how the moral "codes" planted throughout the bible are just outdated and just plain wrong in modern society.
 
the arguemnt has been thoroughly debunked many times, including the "where do morals come from" part.
euthypho's dilemma dude.
 
"It's that evolutionism doctrine"
doctirine? you're just begging for me to expose the irony.
 
"that impresses the mentality onto it's believers that when someone argues against specific aspects of evolution, that they are arguing against "change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next"."
 
as explained in my reply above. if you argue science, argue science don't argue fairy tales.
yo're pullign the sematic trick on us by predefining what the ToE applies to, instead of using the scientific usage.
 
START TO ARGUE SPECIFICALLY FOR ONCE!
i rly understna dwhy the other sites banned you for using wrong terminology...
 
"It's these implications that must be dismantled if there is to be any objective reasoning with the evolution community."
 
what? WHAT>? don't tell me you don't find i laughable you expect us to dismiss science when you debunk a homemade strawman.
 
" No one would argue against natural selection, understanding science."
 
yet you do, you fail grasping how macro evolution is simply the accumulation of micro evolution. you just DON"T want to grasp it i suppose....we've explained to you, and the ID people, time and time agian, the principales of the accumulation of mutations, yet you still argue like we never explained it.
 
"As a creationist, if you submit that all creation has a design that is a part of every organism, the evolutionary mind is trained to assume that you argue against very basic principles of actual science like"
 
when you start to say "well evolution cannot explain this design, thereofre god..." OFC WE INTERVIENE. ToE DOES explain how these systems can form. there is NO NEED to invoke any supernatural entity AT ALL, so WHY people keep doing it.
 
you're misrepresentign our problems 9tails. you're misrepresenting a lot....
 
"We argue against a lot of the IMPLICATIONS. Like the bio diversity treaty or overpopulation."
 
1) what do you think the biodiversity treaty is?
 
2) do you have even the bacis understandign of ecology? populations always flat of at the resource limit...ALWAYS. it's only logical that they do, how can they use more then there is.
 
"Not to mention that even in the midst of abeomutosis"
i'll just point this out to everyone who doesnt know this.
abeomutosis =
"but creation science in baraminology has the term abeomutosis: the science of variable changes over a period of time due to adaptation and reproduction. but never outside the original lineage of baramins."
 
now the funny thing is, you people never specify the criteria of a baramin.
and the other thing is that you people essntially say, you can go 1 metre, 10 metre, not a kiometer.
 
this term also fails to understand how speciation works.
i've explained this SO MANY times to you 9 tails. i've ven linked video's.
 
do you want me to explain how speciation works again, or not?
 
"a design can be and is followed, by all organisms"
yet this design is constantly changing and adapting to the whim of the natural selection it's surroundign dictate to it.
 
"Just because trees bloom, wilt and adapt does not mean they abandon their original functionality."
 
firts of all vauge, second of all again again failure to udnerstand ToE, and thridly
genehomology and junk DNA.
You lose.
 
"
I like this one;
 
"Biological evolution and abiogenesis and the big bang (of course) have absolutely nothing to do with each other.""
 
i've been over this in length with the 4 origins argument.
even if god DID make the first living cell. that's all he'd have to do to, natural selection will promts that single species to diversify into different forms, and you'd end up with organism that superficially don't look anythign liek each other.
 
even IF god causes the universe. the earth and life can still form by natural processes, and life can stil diverse without natural processes.
 
"Evolution IMPLIES common ancestry of all life back to 1 organism. Abiogenesis IMPLIES that non-living materials self assembled the functionality of the 1rst organism. Each idea IMPLIES the other."
 
LOL...do you ned see how you failed at making your point apparent?
you tell us evolution imples on a single ancestor, yet you fail to make clear how that would mean that that first organism formed.
instead you start from the other side.
you go D->C->B->A and then A<-5<-4<-3<-2<-1, k my statement is vauge, but it's a bit hard to make clear the leap in logic you're making here.
 
"So that if you argued against common ancestry, they would then IMPLY that you argue against all of science and are therefore a nincumpoop."
 
you fail to understand what our criticism is adressed to for the main part.
it's the arugment you present and how you present them, that's where you fail to even make a god basis.
 
we don't argue agaisnt you'r conclusion if you cannot even reach one through logic or science.
 
 
"f you can't win an argument, just rearrange the definitions and terms so that you can explain your way out of the situation."
 
IRONY.
 
"It's called circular reasoning."'
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! NNNNNOOOOO!!!
tha't NOT what circular reasoning is.
let me give you a clear cut example.
 
The bible is correct (conclusion) because the bible sais it is correct (argument), and it is correct (conclusion) because the bible is correct (argument).
 
or soemthign liek it..
point is, somethign that is selfaffiriming is circular reasoning, NOT what you said it was.
 
"Does that similar design prove that we had a common ancestor? No, of course not."
 
why the hell did the designed make it appear so then? how come we find so much genehomology and morphological similarity, and how come we are alb eto reconstruc a working theorie from LOOKING at these "common designs".
 
either it's commen ancestory, or god is doing his utmost to make it appear so.
 
:You can believe that if you like, don't know what the appeal is, but your free anyway."
 
well i know what your appeal is. and why you don't want to give your up.
 
"the evolutionist mind sees the design and identifies that we're both primates and concludes that we're family."
 
and seeing as we share so many characteristics coupled witht the fossil evidence this is so crazy to conclude because?????
 
"o add insult to lack of critical thinking, they lash out at those that question the idea."
 
if you make a jackass of your self. you bet ur ass i'll laugh at you.....
 
"More of those boundaries they are trying to destroy I guess."
 
still vague..but i can at least respond to this.
 
demonstrate the boundries to me. and yes, i know you can't.
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: arguments
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/26 - 18:50 GMT
to bad 9tail that this new thread has added shockingly little to the overall content of your arguments.
 
in essence this is the same old "deluded god denying evolutionists" rant, but then rephrased.
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: arguments
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/05/27 - 10:21 GMT
Well, you missed one important factor, 325. The doctrines of evolution are crap. There is not 1 reason why I would think, even for a second, that I am related to apes, certainly not all of life, that is a stupid unfounded idea.
 
Abiogenesis the same, someone reached into their butt and pulled that fairy tale out. And the age of the earth? My earth is not possibly older than 10 thousand years.
 
My family is not taught that garbage, no more than we would willingly attend a scientology convention. In fact, our church has a group that works to keep evolutionism out of schools, as it is a dangerous silly idea.
 
Wax on, wax off. Come on man, we've been through this.
» Reply to Comment
Re: arguments
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/27 - 10:43 GMT
"There is not 1 reason why I would think, even for a second, that I am related to apes, certainly not all of life, that is a stupid unfounded idea."
 
perhaps the fact that you are classified as an ape might clear that "special humainity" factor from your mind.
 
"Abiogenesis the same, someone reached into their butt and pulled that fairy tale out."
 
so we just pulled organic chemstry out of our ass?
tell that to the people in the industry.
 
"My earth is not possibly older than 10 thousand years."
 
and your earth is what? that flat, piller supported, dome covered version the bible tells you?
 
you have no idea of the scale of time. you're arguing from "i can't graps it, so therefore it isn't so".
 
"our church has a group that works to keep evolutionism out of schools, as it is a dangerous silly idea."
 
and you just wan't us to fall on our knees and priase your version of Yaweh, oh yes, now that isn't dangerous.
do you want me to quote the part where they say "stone all disobedient children" or "stone those that work on te sabbath" ?
 
"Wax on, wax off. Come on man, we've been through this."
 
we have, it's just that you never seem to learn.
instead you just act like we never explained anything and you just keep repeatign the same old crap over and over again.
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: arguments
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/27 - 11:13 GMT

Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.

Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily

The term indoctrination came to have awkward connotations during the 20th century, but it is necessary to retain it, in order to distinguish it from education. In education one is asked to stand as much as possible outside the body of accumulated knowledge and analyze it oneself. In indoctrination on the other hand, one stands within the body of knowledge and absorbs its teachings without critical thought. Compare theology and comparative religion for examples, of which many could be drawn.


This is why evolution is not a fucking doctrine! ID and Creation and the bible is indoctrination!

"Abiogenesis the same, someone reached into their butt and pulled that fairy tale out."
- I said it before and i'll say it again. THERE ARE NO MAIN THEORY ON ABIOGENESIS!!! There are a large number of hypothesis of how it could happen and those hypothesis have been tried and tested. We can never know for sure, but the fact that we have so many ways for life to have been formed it sounds a lot more plausible than "DOGDUNNIT!". Why you say we came from rocks is pulled out of your asses, the bible says we come from clay. See the recemblanse?

"And the age of the earth? My earth is not possibly older than 10 thousand years."
- Because why? That the bible says so? Do you really think the scientific method is that flawed for us to get the earths age wrong by 4.6 billion years?

"My family is not taught that garbage, no more than we would willingly attend a scientology convention. "
- And that seems to be a problem with you. You just don't understand it. As i stated above there is a difference between indoctrination (as of a scientology convention) and education (as in a school where you are encouraged to think outside the body of teachings).

"In fact, our church has a group that works to keep evolutionism out of schools, as it is a dangerous silly idea."
- That is just wrong, why are you trying to enforce your ignorant ideas on others?! If you don't want YOUR kids to learn about evolution (altho they should) then send them to fucking bible camp or something.


GenTime: 0.0292 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2021 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff