The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[smashattack]

First you say that we can't have evolved from monkeys since there are still monkeys around, then you say that we can't have evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys since the common ancestor isn't around. HUH?!?

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that it is strange that, since every organism is "evolving", there are still monkeys around. I just made a point that they should have evolved as well, since they've been around as long as we humans have.

And I was also wondering about this "common ancestor". I didn't explain very well in the last post... let me try again. I meant that, since Bumble Bee Tuna pointed out that (and I quote):

If that isn't good enough, keep in mind that the world is a big place. A primate can evolve down one path in South America and down a completely different one in Africa. Evolution does not happen the exact same way in every location. It is a random process, and just because a monkey mutates in one location does not mean all monkeys in all places have the same mutation.

Basically, what I'm asking is this: what happened to the common ancestor? The world is a big place and many things can happen. The chances of this common ancestor existing is very high. Yet there is not a species that bridges the gap between monkeys and humans. I do not understand this. And if this common ancestor died off, how so? What explains it? What killed only the "common ancestor" and nothing else?

Ah, I understand about the beetle. I'm glad that's been brought back up. There is a lot of information to digest about this little guy, and it seems to be two-sided. I'd like to conduct some research on one myself, if I could get a hold of one... however, considering there are none here, it looks like I'll have to peruse through tons of info. In fact, I'm looking at the site you posted right now, Novowels...

Right now, I see one thing of importance so far: "(Other species spray an unpulsed stream; most species haven't been investigated so closely.)" So it's quite possible that the German study was not incorrect, it's just that the certain beetle has not been "re-discovered".

It also says this beetle's stuff explodes outside. Very interesting... I have found several sites now that say either way. What's going to end up happening is this: I'll say that my site is correct, you'll say yours was correct, when in fact it's probably both. For once, it seems like everybody is seeing what they only want to see...

So I think it goes either way! Since there are many that have not been discovered, the beetle found by the German guy (I don't even want to try and spell that name) exists, but has not been found again. The ones that are being studied today do, in fact, exist, and happen to work like you have said. So I think we're both right on this matter, if we can both see all sides of it.

Ah, that pesky rock... I think I'll leave this up to Gora_Nova, since he was the first to introduce the idea! I don't understand Geology too much, but can try and help out where needed. :D

As for your post, Bumble Bee Tuna, most of it was saying how I "still have an attitude" and you're still going on about Kent Hovind. Therefore, since Novowels has offered a great debate and some very good points, I'm sticking to replying to him.

So, Novowels, keep your ideas and points coming! I look forward to this debate. :D

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

too funny

you post a quote by me, and then ask a question...that is fully answered by the quote you just posted. What happened to the common ancestor? it evolved.
in some places, its evolutionary path made it into a human. In others, an ape. In others, a chimp. The common ancestor creatures that did not evolve were beat out in a survival of the fittest by the evolved versions (monkeys, people, apes, etc). This is why the common ancestor doesn't exist.
The reason there is no creature that "bridges the gap" between monkeys and humans is because...they both evolved from a common ancestor! there is no gap. Humans are not descended from monkeys. Monkeys and humans are descendent of the common ancestor.

Heh, I wouldn't have brought up Hovind again, but you insisted on continuing the charade that we haven't disproven him...and we have. And if there's any goal I have in this debate, it's at least to make you follow a more reasonable Young Earth Christian group, like the aforementioned answersingenesis ministries, as opposed to the utterly idiotic Creation Science Minsitries of Hovind. Kent Hovind is the absolute bottom of the barrel as far as respectable sources go. I don't pretend I can convert you from Christianity...but at least give up on following this guy.

It's funny that you claimed I didn't argue with you...but my previous post answered the questions you have in this post...

-B

 

[Flaming Blaze]

You still seem to miss the point about the common ancestor. Smashattack was stating the common ancestor has never been found in fossil form. With all of the other fossils that have been found, you would think it would have been found by now. There is no missing link.

 

[Novowels]

I can say that PimpLuigi sucks (he never comes to the Debate Hall anymore anyways)!

I'm glad you're enjoying this smashattack. So am I.

From reading some of your conclusions though, it seems like there is still some misconception about what evolution actually is. I really, really should have done this sooner, but here is the scientifically accepted definition of evolution:

Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

(credit: Talk.Origins, again. (click for a more in-depth definition)

Onwards....

The Bombardier Beetle:
Heh, no we're not both right. Only one of us is. The German paper doesn't say one thing and my source another. They both say the same thing. Your source's misinformation stems from an early, sloppy translation of the German report, that has since been corrected. In fact, the main- or first at least- creationist that used the "bomardier beetle argument" (Duane Gish) was informed of his mistake in 1978 and yet continued to use the knowingly wrong information. A lot of people quoted him in the meantime, and it made it's way into a published book in '81, which has been quoted on most creationist websites. Naturally, the quoters probably never learned that it was revealed to be untrue, so these erronous claims still exist on the web.

It certainly is an interesting animal, and I'm quite enjoying learning about it's marvelous evolutionary traits, but I'm afraid it doesn't really help your case any. Perhaps you should quit bringing it up.

The Common Ancestor:
There is a bit of a misconception about two things regarding this: First of all, the common ancestor of apes and humans would have been less intelligent (brainsize and bipedalism are the most important/main differences between humans and apes)-- and humans are already more intelligent than apes. Therefore any "common ancestor" would look like a lower form of an ape. There might be nothing that would distinguish it from an ape at all-- it would only contain some of the things that humans and apes have in common, making it look like a very simple ape. If you're talking about the common ancestor--human line, lots of fossils have been found that show that progression!

Curious? Check out the fossil hominids section of talk.origins. (check out the "Hominid Species" and "Hominid Fossils" section in the Table of Contents) It is HUGE, I've spent over 3 hours there tonight and I'm not past the first 3 links! It's very interesting stuff, though, and you should find it helpful because it actually contains links to rebuttals of some fossils by creationists. Very informative, for both of us!

That Darned Rock:
Everyone I've talked to that knows anything about it (most people are like, "what rock? There's lots of rocks in Canada" :D) say that there are upthrust marks on the rock, and that the whole area is a mass of crumpled and wrinkled layers of the geological table. Courtesy of the Ice Ages of course. Since Flaming Blaze and Gora are so adamant about it not being that way, however, I'm not going to take the geologists at their word. Apparently there ARE some pictures of the area somewhere on the web, as well as a detailed survey by a survey team, but I haven't been able to find them yet. I'll keep looking.

anyways.. whew, back to that Hominid Fossils page. That stuff is fascinating!

 

[smashattack]

Novowels, I've got to hand it to you... you are a very good debator!

Let's see... that dang little bombardier beetle. Okay, the point about that is this: the German guy may or may not have been wrong, and either way the facts (whichever they may be) are now divided into two. But even if it is wrong, what most creationists are trying to say is that it is extremely unlikely (I'll even go so far as to say impossible) for this little guy to have came about through evolution. I know that his spray explodes outside, yes, but just the amazing... well, technology involved in this organism is simply un-evolutional!

I have a question about evolution, then (and this follows along the lines of that common ancestor ordeal): how exactly does it work? I've never seen anything explain exactly what goes on in the brain, or in the designing of DNA from the parent organism to the offspring. It is definitely subconscious (for if it weren't and evolution did occur, we'd all know it). But how does the brain compensate with the environment to make the body design an offspring that reacts to the offspring.

Now, granted, I know we see this today, as in people in Alaska can handle the cold better than people in Jamaica (and vice versa with heat). But that's in one organism because if I convinced the Cool Runnings team to go up to Canada and live for a year, they'd eventually get used to it.

Unfortunately, I have no time to peruse through those links you posted (three hours? Wow!), as I have to go to class in a few minutes.

Hey, and thanks for keeping this civilized now. It's not so... stressful. :D

Bumble Bee Tuna, have I not proven anything to you? My goodness... I haven't used Dr. Hovind's ideas since the beginning! I, personally, haven't given up on him, but I have given up using him here because I know you think nothing of him (and that's certainly not the way to debate)!

I may not be the moderator of this forum, but I'm going to be bold and say that if you're not going to join the debate you might as well leave! I continue to reply to Novowels because he is offering great counter points. On this post I didn't reply to you because Novowels pretty much elaborated on what you said much better.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

the current theory of evolution

Actually, you're mistaken as to how evolution (as it is currently theorized) works. It is not a conscious or subconscious process. We do not willfully evolve our offspring, nor does our brain secretly do it for us. Evolution is a random process. Some offspring mutate to have a certain characteristic, and if that characteristic is helpful, that particular evolved offspring will have a greater chance of survival. Because of this it will have a greater chance of passing that attribute on to its offspring...rinse, repeat. Helpful characteristics will propagate throughout the specie over the (millions of) years. Unhelpful characteristics will do the opposite- the creature will have a higher chance of dying, and thus not be able to propagate his genetic material. This is evolution as currently theorized, as far as I know. An entirely random process, where random mutations make the changes. It may eventually be theorized that the passing of genetic material is controlled by the brain and thus evolution is a subconscious process...but as there is absolutely no evidence as of yet to lead us to that idea, for now it is discounted.

As for my debating, if you read my posts you'll notice I always make a point...but, as I've said about 4 times now, I can't make a blind man see, or a seemingly illiterate man read. So I've always been in the debate, and there's nothing to "join". I will admit, of course, that Novo is much better at this than I, because I am working from common knowledge and mild research on my own whereas he has devoted nearly 10 years (i think) of his life to research on the Bible, creationism, and evolution. He has hundreds of sources catalogued on his computer from his years of research and knows infinitely more than I on any particular subject. But this doesn't mean I contribute nothing...please do not ignore my posts. I certainly haven't thought I've seen a single point come from any of your posts, yet I dutifully respond to each of them...

-B

 

[Sirus011]

ugh...

Blaze, Nova and smash....

I post the following not as a deliberate attempt to belittle or insult you. Keep this in mind should you choose to respond.


Among these posts (of which I've read all )I have found absolutely no factual or relevant data of which can be used for the creationist cause. Quite the opposite, most of the supposed creationist evidence is turned against them, giving rise to untrue claims that we atheists are " bullies". The fact that Christianity falters in the face of logic is not our fault. If you yourselves were unbiased you would see just how foolish your side of the argument is. Smash went so far as to quote me:

quote:

How is it that only those who believe are saved? Are they in the eyes of the lord more valuable as people? Are the rest of us simply refuse? Are humans such pathetic creatures that we need some sort of all powerful being to watch out for us? Are we truly so weak minded we lack the ability to think for ourselves?



“You don't have to accept this as fact, but it is! What you have all asked here, I must say in reply, Yes.â€
--Smashattack

Yes you believe humans are pathetic creatures and that we lack the ability to think for ourselves?
It seems to me that you are the one who can’t think for yourself smash. If you must follow others opinions instead of forming your own then I suggest you take a step back and re-evaluate how you view yourself as a person…no… as a member of the human species.
Smash you supposed questions about evolution hardly fit in with the theory at all. You seem to post without even thinking at all just using others statements without understanding them.

Anywho...

Blaze riddle me this: If the world is less then 10,000 years old according to your bible how is it that pre-Cambrian rock even exists? You yourself said it was the oldest rock on the planet. Shouldn’t it be less then 10,000 years old? You hold to the myth that god created the earth 10,000 years ago and yet your using a rock that is billions of years old as your evidence? Regardless of your contradictory statements the force required to move this supposed rock would most certainly not destroy it.

Take the Earth for example it moves in fact its moving as I type and yet it seems to be quite intact.
You said in one of your earlier posts that north America was never covered by water and yet when I provided evidence to the contrary you ignored it and switched instead to focusing on the rocks existence alone.
Nova you said that a rich o2 environment would lead to more plants and yet when you were disproved you switched to something else as well.

None of you have provided any proof for your side of the argument that we have not been able to counter or outright disprove.

None, nada, zilch.

If you continues to post MYTHS to prove MYTHS I recommend you structure a better argument so when we tear it apart with logic it doesn’t appear to be insulting.

Incidentally you creationist seem to think your arguing with evolutionists. The fact that Christians in general find evolution distasteful is because it provides compelling evidence contrary to your beliefs. Look through all of your posts including Nova’s you have all attacked evolutionism not because it is baseless but because it is threatening to your beliefs. You fear the truth, this is understandable if I suddenly discovered what I was taught from birth was a lie I would be offended and resistant to it as well. I don’t blame you for that. I simply find it quite evident within your posts.

Throwing tantrums when your beliefs are threatened does nothing but perpetuate the ignorant Christian stereotypes we’ve all become so accustomed to.

Smash, Nova , and Blaze, you have provided nothing useful to your side of the argument cease posting until you can provide evidence that helps your cause instead of harming it.

I wish you luck and most assuredly this post will offend someone. Once again this is not an attack.

This is the process of rational thought.

 

[Antie]

I basically wanna know what most aetheists hope to accomplish.

I would like to live a good life, marry my girlfriend, and help other humans.

Do you guys think you'll change everyone by disproving anything bible related?

Not all atheists wish to change anyone. Not all atheists wish to disprove anything Bible-related.

But what harm have the christians done to you guys that makes you wanna bash on them?

It's rather rude when they come along and attempt to shove their ideas down other people's throats. It's also disconcerting when bigoted religious people imply that atheists are flawed individuals because they do not believe in a supernatural being.

So if heaven is not true, whynot just ignore them and let them live their christian lifes? They aren't causing any harm doing so.

When someone tries to convert me, it becomes my business. They are causing me harm when they attempt to convert me because they aren't minding their own business.

I'm an athiest and I don't need to disprove anybody. If Christians want to believe in a dreamworld after death, I'll let them.

I agree.

Personally, I don't like it to hear Aetheists bash Christians

Personally, I don't like to hear Christians bash atheists, either.

Well, we atheists do believe that there is no life after death, but that doesn't make your lives pointless.

Actually, I don't believe in an afterlife, but I don't attempt to claim that there is no afterlife.

What is the point of my existence? To presuppose that there is a point is to beg the question.

Logically I doubt I could prove God's existence, it takes faith, but as well does evolution.

It depends on what you mean by "evolution." Besides, the faith that one has in a deity and the trust that someone has when he or she comes up with a scientific theory are not the same thing.

How do you know you love her? Can you scientifically prove this to me on paper?

How does one "scientifically prove" something?

Science is used to describe the known universe. It it not flawless.

Well, I don't have to have faith in God- he just is.

How do you know? You may have faith in God, but how do you know he "just is"? To assume the truth of your argument when you state it is to beg the question.

Is science really written in stone?

No, and it doesn't claim to be.

Can you say with 100% certainty that evolution and the Big Bang theories are true? The answer: No.

Absolutely. And if you say that scientists think that science is completely true, then you're misrepresenting them.

Can you absolutely disprove that claim that you're the only individual in the universe and everyone else is a dream? No, you really can't.

No. That's why they're called "theories". They could easily be wrong. So you see, you too have faith- faith in these theories.

Equivocation. Having faith in a deity is entirely different than simply trusting a situation or a person, or believing that a certain event occurred in history.

However plausible these theories of evolution and the big bang may be, there is also evidence against them.

To put this into perspective, there may be evidence against the various theories of gravitation and light.

Unfortunately, Creationists use faulty logic, strawman arguments, and lies to try to show that the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are invalid.

I meant that it is strange that, since every organism is "evolving", there are still monkeys around. I just made a point that they should have evolved as well, since they've been around as long as we humans have.

According to the Theory of Evolution, modern monkeys and modern humans have a common ancestor. Monkeys have been evolving like humans have.

What killed only the "common ancestor" and nothing else?

Plenty of other species went extinct, too.

Smashattack was stating the common ancestor has never been found in fossil form.

Are you certain that a common ancestor has never been found in fossil form? What would Smashattack consider a common ancestor?

You continue to say it has been proven.

No scientific theory has been "proven" because that's not what happens to scientific theories. They explain the data that we have.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Originally posted by Sirus011
Blaze riddle me this: If the world is less then 10,000 years old according to your bible how is it that pre-Cambrian rock even exists? You yourself said it was the oldest rock on the planet. Shouldn’t it be less then 10,000 years old? You hold to the myth that god created the earth 10,000 years ago and yet your using a rock that is billions of years old as your evidence? Regardless of your contradictory statements the force required to move this supposed rock would most certainly not destroy it.

I never said I believed the rock was this old, I was trying to prove the rock was out of place without good explaination. That would prove you couldn't use the geologic table accuratly. I still believe God created the earth and the earth is less then10,000 years old.

Lets move to something completely different, the origin of life itself. Earth had only 400 million years to go through the whole evolution prosses and come up with what we have today. And no I don't believe the Earth is that old.

The mathmatical odds of assembling a living organism are so astronomical that nobody still believes in random chance accounts for the origins of life. Even of you optimized the conditions, it wouldn't work. If you took all of the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in 10 with 60 zeros after it.
-Walter L. Bradley, PH.D.

For those of you who need a visual aid here:
1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
that is the chance of just one protein molecule and not a living organism.(For those of you who don't know amino acids make up protein molecules which make up the building blockes of life.)

The probabilty of linking together just one hundred amino acids to create one protein molecule by chance would be the same as a blind-folded man finding one marked grain of sand somewhere in the vastness of the Sahara Desert--and doing it not just once, but three different times.
- J. Buell and G. Hearn, eds.,Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? (Dallas, Tex.: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994), pg 68-69.

Don't worry I have more.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

I'll leave this to Novo...

While I haven't actually researched this topic extensively, I can tell your statistics are silly. I will leave it to Novo to tell you how (though I'll bet I could find something on talk.origins myself, I'm too lazy).

The reason is that the bias and stupidity of his statement are revealed in the first sentence. "nobody still believes in random chance accounts for the origins of life"? What is he smoking? Almost every scientist in the field believes in random chance accounts for the origins of life! He's trying to convince you to believe him by making it seem like everyone agrees with him when it is in fact just the opposite. This calls into question the rest of what he said.

One thing I would love to know is how these probabilities were calculated.

-B

 

[Novowels]

When do I get to start making up statistics to prove my point?

...oh wait, I don't get to do that.

Anyways.. I'm not your goddmn lackey Bee, you can do your own research and debunk this crap.

*cough* abiogenesis info *cough*

It'd be nice if Creationists didn't create this faulty version of the theory of abiogenesis (and evolution for that matter), claimed it was what we believed in, and then proved that faulty version wrong.

That's called a "strawman" fallacy, by the way.

 

[smashattack]

Quite amusing. Comedy club, sitcom?

Several things just made me laugh. First off, Flaming Blaze is now suddenly a liar (just like I was a while ago--er, wait, I probably still am).

Then Novowels actually uses God's name... strange, since he does not believe in Him, yet calls upon him to d a m n BBT. "D a m n" meaning that Novowels wants God, the "totally nonexistent being", to send BBT to h e l l. That's funny. Really, it is.

And then Novowels states:

It'd be nice if Creationists didn't create this faulty version of the theory of abiogenesis

Hey, yo! Creationists have nothing to do with the abiogenesis theory! Evolutionists and atheists designed the theory (with all its flaws). Heh, heh. Abiogenesis, theorized by creationists. Just plain funny.

And I'll probably laugh even more when people reply to my post! You guys really should start a sitcom. Something like "Evolutionists in the Closet: Tales of Woe, Grief, Dysfunctional Friendships, and a Pointless Life". You could be the main cast.

Did I make a point? Uh... depends on your definition of a "point". Point: the sharp end of any instrument. Point: a tiny mark or dot. Point: a mark in punctuation. There are many more, but I suppose I have fulfilled the second and third definitions.

Oh, if I offended anybody, I'll make sure to clear it up with a few smilies. That seems to work around here. :D:D:D:D:D:D There you go.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

tsk tsk...smashattack, you were almost behaving...

smashattack- make a point or refute one, or else don't reply.

creationists did not create the abiogenesis theory. They took the real theory, which we do believe, and changed numerous key details to make it seem impossible. But, I don't know why I tell you this, because Novo JUST DID. Please pay attention. When someone posts a link, go to it and read.

oh, and Novo you're right, you're not my lackey....You're my bitch. From B, to Novo, to Pimp, to...wait that's the end of the chain. Pimp is everyone's *****.

-B

 

[smashattack]

Okay, I was right. It's still funny. I'm once again laughing...

Almost behaving? What do you mean? I thought I was never behaving! You, O Bumble Bee Tuna, always told me I made no points and strayed from the subject, even when I stayed on the subject.

But that's not as funny that, now, when I am really determined to get off track, you say I was "almost behaving", which means I was on track! Interesting... I must study the psyche of atheists and evolutionists much more. Perhaps their corpus callosums have been severed.

make a point or refute one, or else don't reply.

But, O gracious Bumble Bee Tuna, I did make a point. As I am right now! Watch, I shall make many more.............

You'll notice that, although those periods do not exist, you can still see them. They are not really there, simply some pixels arranged to look like one. What does this have to do with anything? I'm making a point.

Another funny thing. Your rules... number six. "Follow the main forum rules at all times." I looked at the forum rules. Rule number one: "No profanity."

I suppose this has no profanity and you have changed the entire social mindsetting of the world into believing that certain words are no longer profanity. I quote you:

oh, and Novo you're right, you're not my lackey....You're my B I T C H

The bolded word is the one in question. Tsk, tsk, O Bumble Bee Tuna, I thought you were better than breaking all the rules and then holding everyone else to them.

Actually, no, I knew you were like that from the start. Here are some smilies for you. :D:D:D Hope you feel better.

Keep those downright hilarious posts coming! I'm going to become a billionaire off you guys when I make this sitcom!

 

[Flaming Blaze]

And you think I'm closed-minded.

BBT actually no.

Bradley has a doctorate in Materials Science.

His work in polymer science gives him a background suitable to address origin of life questions.
Found at http://www.grisda.org/bclausen/papers/co42.htm

Bradley is a Creationist. He is also highly respected in the scientific world.

Your Evolutionists are the ones who have refuted it. Sorry. Don't believe me? Do you guys remember learnig about Stanley Miller's experiment in school? The one were they recreated earths primitive atmosphere? They modified the atmosphere so it would produce the out come they wanted (the building blockes of life: amino acids). Instead of using the gases that were supposed to be in primitive earths atmos(water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen) they used methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. Go to NASA's web site and they will tell you there what earths atmosphere was like 400 million years ago.

The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned. -Stanley Miller
(J. Hogan, "In the Beginning..." Scientific America, February 1991.)

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

smashattack, give it up

I've been here two years. I think I know the rules a little better than you. The policy is lax. I wouldn't punish someone for saying ***** once. It happens all the time. Granted, maybe I shouldn't have...but it was in the interest of humor.

In your case, though, you repeatedly break the rules (namely that one about not making points). I'd advise you start making points (no, not periods, points). Because I can and will ban you if you keep this up. And I don't want to do that, mainly because you're a Colorado smasher and I'd rather have more competition. But if you just keep posting mindless drivel I'm going to have to do it. At least Flaming Blaze, as weak as his points are, actually makes them. Speaking of...

Blaze, a doctorate does not make someone God. they can still make mistakes. In this case, the mistakes in Bradley's probabilities are revealed at Novo's link about abiogenesis. Because you people have demonstrated an incapability to click on links, I'll cut and paste:

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

and then there's a handy graphic explaining the actual theory of abiogenesis and the "theory" Creationists claim is the theory:

Actual theory:

Simple chemicals->polymers->replicating polymers->hypercycle->protobiont->bacteria
(and that's STILL missing many steps, but is reduced to those for simplicity in explanation)

Creationist's perverted version of the theory:

Simple chemicals->bacteria

This is why the probability is so tiny- In the creationist version of things, it's one huge step, which is of course very improbable. The real version of the theory is many small steps, all of which have a high probability. That's the difference.

Don't feel bad for Bradley- his doctorate is in materials science. He doesn't know about these things. Which is why you shouldn't listen to him.

-B

 

[Flaming Blaze]

I seem that Masculine to you?

You need to look at the links posted as well, it seems.

His work in polymer science gives him a background suitable to address origin of life questions.
Found at http://www.grisda.org/bclausen/papers/co42.htm

Creationist's perverted version of the theory:

Simple chemicals->bacteria

You obviously did not read my post because you would have seen I was starting with the begining of life. I have only just begun. No where in my post did I say
"Simple chemicals->bacteria", no where.

Here is a little quote from Klaus Dose, considered one of the foremost experts in the origin of life science:

More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or a confession of ignorance.
Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Review 13 (1998), pg 348.

Even the scientists, who are working on the origins of life questions, are saying they are stumped. Scientists can't even figure it out. Those who do figure it out are not worthy of their information in your eyes anymore. Scientists who used to be evolutionists and turned to Christianity found the truth through their research. Michael Behe is one of those Scientists. Try to be more opened-minded to the facts other people are saying and try to disprove them like novo does instead of aimlessly discrediting them.

 

[Sirus011]

....Why do I always repeat myself, myself???

Blaze... first things first, If you say you believe the world to is only 10,000 years old why do you post hypothisies that contridict your beliefs? Don't those hypothisies contridict the bible? Your attempts to give creditable evidence are quite lacking. You fail to refute B's counter points at all you simply say he's closed minded.

You obviously did not read my post because you would have seen I was starting with the begining of life. I have only just begun. No where in my post did I say

Blaze, B never once implied that was what you said, he simply stated that creationists pervert scientific evidence to suit their own needs. A fact a daresay not even you would dare refute.

More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or a confession of ignorance.

Thirty years and you expect scientists to answer all the questions in the universe? Of course there are more questions then answers, there are more questions then scientists. This is probably one of the reasons you chose christianity as your religion. It's one of the more lax faiths when it comes to effort and it explains everything in a simple easy to understand story book. You say we atheists are closed minded simply becasue you fail to see the larger picture as we do.

It is not our personal beliefs that are challenging yours it is rational thought.

Your last post only makes it clearer that you are incapable of posting decent evidence for your cause. Your christian scientists are biased as any true scientists would never allow his or her personal beliefs to enter into their reasoning. I myself have never heard of millers experiment and I would appreciate some factual data from it since you seem to be so involved with its processes.

Anywho, class is ending and I don't have the time to continue shredding your post. B- I implore you to take the time I lack and shred Blaze's post as you seem to be mutch more articulate in your responses. Your mind is certainly more organised and not as chaotic as my own.

 

[Serious Sam]

by Sirus011
Your last post only makes it clearer that you are incapable of posting decent evidence for your cause. Your christian scientists are biased as any true scientists would never allow his or her personal beliefs to enter into their reasoning. I myself have never heard of millers experiment and I would appreciate some factual data from it since you seem to be so involved with its processes.

Klaus Dose is not a christian scientist. Duh!

Kind of scary when your own scientist disagree with you, huh.

 

[Sirus011]

Special sam, wait a min thats not your name is it ?

Special sam .... yes the name is fitting.

Anywho, you might notice I never once mention Klose and furthermore whether or not any scientist is christian, atheist, agnostic or islamic is irrelevant. Scientists design experiments so that personal biases can not influence them. Blaze was suggesting that christian beliefs were answering questions posed by scientists. Special sam I've read most of your other posts in varying topics. You follow the creationist motto " Post no factual evidence to back up your claims but retain the stance you are correct." You have posted no evidence to back your claims. Until you post something of substance I ask that you refrain from cluttering more mature debates and try doing some reasearch because you obviously have some learning to do.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Sirus- Follow your own advice.

SIRUS! Stop it. Please. Too much flaming, not enough points. Follow your own advice, "Until you post something of substance I ask that you refrain from cluttering more mature debates ". Way too much flaming in your posts. Kick it down a notch.

I will edit later refuting what Flaming_Blaze had to say, but for now I'm outta here.

-B

 

[Sirus011]

Hehe.. sorry bout that.

Yeah i suppose it was a little overkill.. I tend to go off at things like that.. Sorry guys I should have heeded my own words.

Yet I wonder if it was entirely uncalled for youhave to admit that this sort of thing is increasingly common. Someone has to set them straight. Though I hardly think i match up to smash.

Besides its healthy for the selfrightous to take a beating once in awhile lest they percieve themselves correct in respect to life.

I agree maybe it was overdone... but what does one do when an disease begins to spread. You kill it with a weakend version of itself.

 

[smashattack]

Well, I wasn't really planning on coming back, since I feel I've had my fair share of debating (or cat-fighting, either term applies :D). I feel I gave enough points, digested enough points, and there really is nothing more to debate about. Hence my very off-topic posts the last two times (heh, heh, Sirus, you like those? I see you matched them very well, you pig-head :D). Also, debates are just pointless unless a vote is very near... nobody changes views or anything. Sure, it is interesting to defend one's beliefs, but you know what? It just gets boring after a while!

Besides, I'm spending too much time researching this when school work needs to be done! Speaking of that, I'm doing a survey of my school... seeing how religion (or lack thereof) affects behavior, attitude, depression, pride, anger-management problems, and others. Would anybody like to see the results when I'm finished? I thought maybe you'd be interested.

Anyway, I was going to stay away, but then I read a few of the posts, including Sirus'. Nah, I'm not going to bash him. Why stoop to his level? He just made a few low-intelligence posts... and I continued to read.

Bumble Bee Tuna. Wow. You continue to amaze me. Maybe you aren't such a bad moderator! :D Sirus posted some very lame posts (even this last one), as I quote:

But what does one do when an disease begins to spread. You kill it with a weakend version of itself.

Heh, they are not talking about disease, you pitiful mortal (I say this in a deep, booming voice :D). They're talking about religion and non-religion and backing it up with evidence. Unless you think both Christianity and atheism are diseases?

I suppose you don't, so you may as well shut up.

Anyway, back to Bumble Bee Tuna and Novowels. I salute you, Bumble Bee Tuna, and recognize you as a fair moderator (in some cases) and a fellow Smasher. I salute you, Novowels, for your great debating skills.

To all the rest of you who aren't on my side: Get a life. :D

Oh, I realized another thing. Why have I been on this debate, anyway? I just came here to talk about SSBM!

So have some great debates, guys! Good luck to all of you, and may neither side win! I may be around every once in a while to defend some things when I see fit. And then I'll post. But not too much. I want to talk about SSBM now.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Originally posted by Sirus011
Thirty years and you expect scientists to answer all the questions in the universe? Of course there are more questions then answers, there are more questions then scientists. This is probably one of the reasons you chose christianity as your religion. It's one of the more lax faiths when it comes to effort and it explains everything in a simple easy to understand story book. You say we atheists are closed minded simply becasue you fail to see the larger picture as we do.

Thirty years and they still don't have any solid information abiogenesis happened. They have had thiry years to be able to do experiments to find the information they seek. One more thing. If abiogenesis happened, and it was so easy to create that first life, then why can't we do it, even under controlled conditions, and why don't we see this life being created every day? Again, they have been working on this for thirty years.

Originally posted by Sirus011
Blaze... first things first, If you say you believe the world to is only 10,000 years old why do you post hypothisies that contridict your beliefs?

Of course they contradict my beliefs, that is why I post them, to prove them wrong. The obvious reason to post anything. You should really learn to use a little more common sence before you post.

Never once did I say I believed the stuff I posted that goes against my beliefs. Please read the whole post before you start jumping to conclusions. *sigh*

 

[Sirus011]

A few things...

er... blaze if you had taken my qoute in the correct way ( Not to say that was your fault I should have elaborated. )
you would have realized I was inferring that you were contridicting yourself with your evidence. You made a point of saying that this rock was extremely old but if you truly follow the bible you would see that a rock older then 10,000 yrs. couldn't possibly exist. Kind of odd you would try to prove god exists with evidence that opposes that belief. Furthermore no one has ever said the process of evolution was simple and easy. Thats what religion is blaze... anywho to refute your statement about what you post. You were posting evidence you believed to be the work of god yet that evidence contridicted his very existence...

Anyway on to other things.

Smash I may go off at times but you hardly have any room to flame me about it. I flamed, I got called on it. B was correct I should have kept my posts on topic instead of flaming you. I was wrong for cluttering up the debate even more but that does not mean I was incorrect in my posts. Someone had to say somthing.

Enough of that..

Throughout humanity's history religion has arisen in different forms agian and agian and agian... One in paticular has proven to block cultural and technological advances contrary to it's beliefs. Christianity.

Throughout it's history christanity has condemed all who do not follow it's way. It attempts to control who and what we are. Early on in our lives we are exposed to ideals, thoughts, and beliefs that we are taught to be true. Christian families tend to instill gods existence within their childs mind from an early age. In a very real why this parallels mental conditioning as what we are taught from birth influences us strongly when we are exposed to it day after day after day. More on this later however.

Religion also tends to gather people who feel lost and want to belong to something as well as those. Those who want a quick and easy explanation for life instead of thinking about it find one in the bible.

For example saying : " Follow this set of rules and believe in me at all times never questioning my existence and you will be rewarded with eternal life." is much more pleasing then to say: You can have a great life but in the end you will die and cease to exist. Thus life is ultimately futile." For one to believe god created the universe and everything in it requires less thought and more faith then to concieve of our own theories.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Oh Sirus Sirus Sirus *sigh*

Originally posted by Sirus011
er... blaze if you had taken my qoute in the correct way ( Not to say that was your fault I should have elaborated. )
you would have realized I was inferring that you were contridicting yourself with your evidence. You made a point of saying that this rock was extremely old but if you truly follow the bible you would see that a rock older then 10,000 yrs. couldn't possibly exist. Kind of odd you would try to prove god exists with evidence that opposes that belief. Furthermore no one has ever said the process of evolution was simple and easy. Thats what religion is blaze... anywho to refute your statement about what you post. You were posting evidence you believed to be the work of god yet that evidence contridicted his very existence...

You are still having a hard time reading these posts aren't you? Here I will say it again.

Originally posted by Flaming Blaze
I never said I believed the rock was this old, I was trying to prove the rock was out of place without good explaination. That would prove you couldn't use the geologic table accuratly. I still believe God created the earth and the earth is less then10,000 years old.

Originally posted by Sirus011
Throughout it's history christanity has condemed all who do not follow it's way. It attempts to control who and what we are.

Some Christians might do this and I'm sorry they do.

The truth is the people who don't believe are condeming themselves. Christians really have nothing to do with this.

As for teaching our children at an early age of course. Do not tell me you won't do the same thing when you teach your kids about your set of beliefs. I take it you are just going to let your kids run wild.

I see that you are deliberatly avoiding the points I have brought up.:D:D If you have anything to say about it then please do.:D

 

[Sirus011]

Lol.

Blaze, I have read you posts as well as everyone elses. The fact that you DID use evidence that contridicts your gods existance to help prove his existance is odd to say the least . You were trying to prove god existed by saying the geological timetable was inccorect and unfit to date the earth and yet the "fact" that these precambrian rocks are far older then you beliefs allow for is evidence agianst god because their very existances goes agianst what you hold to be true. The earth is billions of years old: Fact this has been proven not only through studing the layers of rock but also the age of neiboring stars including our sun.

End of disscusion you cannot prove this to be false.

Fact: You never countered our explanations for the rock either you went to somthing else instead.
The fact that you do not believe the rock to be this old is also irrelevant because pre-cambrian rock IS older then the bible will allow for. Its very existance is contrary to your beliefs.

It seems blaze that you are the one avoiding points as you never really countered my statements you attempted to mock me instead. I noticed you didnt debate my counter to your statement saying we believe evolution to be simple.

The reason you don't believe in evolution dear is because the bible won't allow for the vast amounts of time required for it to occur. This is why it doesn't fit with your beliefs. ( In case you havent been reading My posts and among many others who have said this.)

Oh, and as to the children.. Lol I never once said I'd let them run wild.

Christians force religion down peoples throats, not all do but a good number brainwash their children turning them into obediant drones who never think to question what they are told the simply have "faith" to guide them...
This is irresponsible
of the parent who should be teaching the child to make decisions for him or herself instead of following others blindly. That is quite diffrent then teaching a child right from wrong, the diffrence is that what is right may differ depending on culture and beliefs.

Beliefs do not differ because somthing is wrong,
as evidence might I point out the crusades.

As for non christians ****ing themselves, that statement shows just how blindly you follow.


Furthermore, I noticed you never countered my statement that christianity in paticular tends to try to block advancements in varying feilds. Whos avoiding what dear?

"Do not as you would if following do as if you are leading."
--Sirus O'neil-- shortly before the last attack.

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Originally posted by Sirus011
The earth is billions of years old: Fact this has been proven not only through studing the layers of rock but also the age of neiboring stars including our sun.

Oh you think you are soooo smart huh? Let me give you a little lesson in the age of the sun(not that you'll believe it or anything). The sun is rapidly loose tons of matter per day and this is causing it to shink. If the Earth is billions of years old, as you believe, then there would have never been a chance for life to be created on Earth. The sun would be so close to the Earth it would be touching the Earth in the time of the dinosaurs.

Since 1836, the diameter of the sun has been measured to be shrinking about 5 ft. per hour. By going back in history and studying solar eclipses, scientists say that this shrinkage appears to be constant. Extrapolating backward, we find that the sun would have been so large one million years ago that no life at all could have existed on this earth. If we went back 20 million, which is still far short of the 5 billion many evolutionists claim as the age of the solar system, the edge of the sun would have touched the earth. The earth would have exploded long before the sun ever got that close.

Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun.
--Hinderliter, H. 1989. The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy. Creation Research Society. pp. 113-125.


The stars are proving the universe to be young, as well...

Transformation of Sirius B from a red giant star to a white dwarf star within recorded history. This is supposed to take a long time.
--Ackerman, P.D. 1986. It's A Young World After All. Baker Books. pp. 67.

This was in recorded history.

Spiral Galaxies. Keplerian motion should destroy the arms of a spiral galaxy in one to a few rotations of the galaxy - 200-1000 million years at most. However, a huge number of spiral galaxies still exist.
--Slusher, H. S. 1980. Age of the Cosmos. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 15-16.

These are things they will not teach you in Astronomy because evolution is such a protected state religion. I'm sorry if this statement offends you but it is the truth whether you want to believe it or not.

Here is something you might get a kick out of...

Any of those Isotopic dating techniques used to age the Earth have failed miserably due to the fact of contamination. The dating techniques are based on the assumption the samples being dated are pure and have never been contaminated. This makes using Isotopic dating very uncertain.

Originally posted by Sirus011
This is irresponsible
of the parent who should be teaching the child to make decisions for him or herself instead of following others blindly. That is quite diffrent then teaching a child right from wrong, the diffrence is that what is right may differ depending on culture and beliefs.

And what do you think parents of non-religious people do. What will you do if one of your kids decides he wants to be a Christian? I have this sneaking suspicion(from reading the posts you have written) you will disown them. I have a religious back ground. When I was 15 my faith in God was very low because of the stuff I learned in school.
My parents never made me believe. This is common mistake made by ateists. No one can ever make someone else believe. This is a decision YOU have to make, even at an early age. Anyone who forces religion on their kids are irresponsible, I can agree to that, but just because they are trying to guide their children in the right direction does not make them irresponsible. That is just like me telling you are irresponsible because you are making your kids learn the lies taught in school.

The reason I gave up on the rock is because you guys haven't given any viable information on it yet. I have thought about what I said and realized what you guys had done. Explain the rock or don't post about. If you do not post viable info then I will not comment.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

that is possibly one of the stupidest things you've said yet

You do realize how big the sun is?
I can tell that the data you cite is false. Let me demonstrate- Eclipses have only been recorded in the last <2000 years, I forget the exact date of the first recorded eclipse. I'm tempted to say that it was even within the last 1000 years. There would be no way to "go back in history and study solar eclipses" to tell whether the sun shrank. In 1000 years, shrinking at a rate of 5ft/hr would give you a net shrinkage of 43,800,000 feet. Sounds big, but that wouldn't even dent the size of the sun. To put this in perspective, the diameter of the sun is 45,693,120,000 feet.

Doing the math, the amount the sun would have shrunk, by your data, since the first recorded eclipse and today, would be .01%-.02%. Which, by the way, is indubitably far lower than anyone could measure when the first recorded eclipse happened, especially because they didn't even have telescopes!

Simply put- your data is a bunch of lies. Studying solar eclipses? Are you kidding me? Please, tell me how studying records of solar eclipses would help scientists determine that the sun had been shrinking. I don't even see how modern science could ever measure a 4.5billion foot object that is a couple hundred billion feet away to an accuracy of 5 feet! It would be nice if we could measure things that easily...but we cant.

BTW, I am going on "vacation" of you will until Monday so if I don't respond to any new drivel you attempt to post, I'm not dodging the point, I'm merely not here. I'm sure Novo can do the job. And if you keep up with false astronomy stuff, Crono could help.

-B

 

[Mr. G & W]

Originally posted by Sirus011

Fact: You never countered our explanations for the rock either you went to somthing else instead.
The fact that you do not believe the rock to be this old is also irrelevant because pre-cambrian rock IS older then the bible will allow for. Its very existance is contrary to your beliefs.

where in the bible does it say that the earth is only 10,000 years old!? NOWHERE! that is the assumption by a catholic archbishop...or something like that, i don't remember. anyways, the bible does not say the earth is that old, whether flaming blaze believes that or not does not mean you should use that as an argument to discredit all of christianity. I believe the earth COULD be several billion years old...no man saw God make the earth, so we can not say that the earth is only 10,000 years old. therefore, that argument should be considered null and void.

 

[Sirus011]

I needed a laugh.

Wait a min... your serious arn't you blaze?


Wow... you've really outdone yourself.. If you had any shred of credibility left I'm pretty sure it just went down the proverbial crapper.

I thought we already wen't over you posting biased evidence... Oh well if you can think of anything with factual backing to help your argument blaze I will be more than happy to read it. Good luck to ya hun. I'm outa here

 

[Flaming Blaze]

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
Doing the math, the amount the sun would have shrunk, by your data, since the first recorded eclipse and today, would be .01%-.02%. Which, by the way, is indubitably far lower than anyone could measure when the first recorded eclipse happened, especially because they didn't even have telescopes!

Doing the math, Huh? Do you realize even then the sun would have touched the Earth 100,000,000 years ago.

Because even if we take Stephenson's bottom-of-the-range figure of a mere 0.02 second of arc per century (tiny shrinkage indeed), this means that, using the evolutionists' own uniformitarian assumption of extrapolating this shrinkage rate backwards in time, just as they extrapolate further back 10–15 billion years to the 'big bang', only 100 million years ago the sun would have been too large for life to exist on earth!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2760.asp

But you know something? Most of the time you guys don't give any references to the information you have gathered. If you want me to think about or trust your info you should give references. For the most part, Novowels has been thr exception.

Originally posted by Sirus011
I thought we already wen't over you posting biased evidence... Oh well if you can think of anything with factual backing to help your argument blaze I will be more than happy to read it. Good luck to ya hun. I'm outa here

Especially you, Sirus. Most you have given me is B.S. If you can't back it up with references then don't post it.

P.S. to BBT...I wish you a fun vacation and safe travels.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

If you hadn't noticed, which seems to be the case, BBT debunked your entire post. He said that even if your numbers were correct there would be only a tiny drop in size, and that it was moot since your numbrs were incorrect in the first place.

 

[MrSilver]

Trying to prove religion or disprove science with science is a bad idea

****, stupid firewall... I had typed a big post and hadn't had any trafic for a while so it had locked. Causing me to lose everything I typed when I hit the sent burron Anyway, I guess I'll type it again.

Blaze is right about one thing, the sun is shrinking. It could also be that he is right about the rate at wich it currently shrinks. But he is mistaken about it being constant for the entire length off the suns life. I don't even need to go quote unreliable readings (it's impossible to detirmine that the sun is shrinking at a constant rate in less then 200 years off researche) instead, I'll use logic.

When the sun was first formed it consisted mostly from Hydrogen (sp?) Gravity drew it together causing heat in the center. This heat got so high that the fusion off Hydrogen into Helium took place. Since Helium has a higher dencity (sp?) then Hydrogen the sun started shrinking. Besides resulting in Helium the fusion also produced a lot off energy. This energy caused the temperature in the sun to rise even further. This caused the fusion to take place more rapidly thuss making the sun shrink faster and become hotter, thuss making fusion faster and so on. Since the sun doesn't shrink at a constant rate but at en ever increasing rate it was a long time ago that it would have been so close it would have made life imposible. A lot longer then Blaze is saying.

On another note, the age off the Earth has not been detirmined by looking at the universe around it but by looking at the materials here on earth. Almost all materials are radiocative. Radiocativity is nothing more then the instabilitie (sp?) of molecules wich causes atoms to go flying off. Some materials are very unstable (Uranium for example) and are very radioactive and some are very stable (Lead) and barely are radioactive. If atoms fly off from a molecule it becomes a different molecule. For instance, a Uranium molecule loses 2 atoms (wich become a Helium molecule) and becomes a Lead molecule. This process is called degrading. Since every material has a set time in wich half off it's molecules will have degraded, ranging from onder a second (some substances made in laboratories) to billions off years (as far as I know only Hydrogene doesn't degrade at all since it consists off only one atom but I could be wrong about that one) This can be used to detirmine the age off a sample. (Kinda like the C14 technique used on organic materials) This methode has been used to date certain rocks on almost 5 billion years (4.7 to 4.9 billion year)

 

[smashattack]

Wow, Flaming Blaze, you must not be too secure in your femininity.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by Flaming Blaze
Since 1836, the diameter of the sun has been measured to be shrinking about 5 ft. per hour. By going back in history and studying solar eclipses, scientists say that this shrinkage appears to be constant. Extrapolating backward, we find that the sun would have been so large one million years ago that no life at all could have existed on this earth. If we went back 20 million, which is still far short of the 5 billion many evolutionists claim as the age of the solar system, the edge of the sun would have touched the earth. The earth would have exploded long before the sun ever got that close.

Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun.
--Hinderliter, H. 1989. The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy. Creation Research Society. pp. 113-125.


The stars are proving the universe to be young, as well...

Transformation of Sirius B from a red giant star to a white dwarf star within recorded history. This is supposed to take a long time.
--Ackerman, P.D. 1986. It's A Young World After All. Baker Books. pp. 67.

This was in recorded history.

Spiral Galaxies. Keplerian motion should destroy the arms of a spiral galaxy in one to a few rotations of the galaxy - 200-1000 million years at most. However, a huge number of spiral galaxies still exist.
--Slusher, H. S. 1980. Age of the Cosmos. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 15-16.

Like what Bee said, the Sun has only been closely examined for not nearly a long enough time to develop a constant. The Sun could go through a period of a thousand years where it expands 5 feet every hour. We can't be sure.
As well, just because the Sun gives off energy (thus losing mass due to the conversion), that does not mean the volume changes. The outer layer of the Sun can be sustained even if some of the mass within is lost. Measurement can barely be that specific in astronomical situations like this anyway, so I even question the credibility.

You should understand that neutrinos are almost massless, and can easily slip our detection. As well, there are things such as solar wind and stellar winds that can push the neutrinos out of the path of the Earth.

I don't know what crazy place you got your information on Sirius B from. Sirius A's companion star, Sirius B, was not even seen through a telescope (it is invisible to the naked eye, but a gravitational shift in Sirius A's motion pointed to its existence, and cultures contemplated this as far back as 5000 years ago) until 1970. In 1970, it was a white dwarf. Had it even been a red giant 5000 years ago, it would have been visible. So no, it never went from a red giant to white dwarf within written history. Sirius B would have been a red giant millions of years ago.

Keplerian motion tends to apply to planetary revolution, but I think I know what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the stars on the outer realms of spiral galaxies should be cast off into space because they are not held within the galaxy because there is not enough mass to have a strong enough gravitational pull? Well, gravity stretches over incredibly long distances, for one thing. Second, there is definitely enough mass in spiral galaxies (and all galaxies--not just spiral galaxies rotate) to keep hold of those outer rims. There is dark matter which compensates for the "missing mass." But I really don't know what your statement means.

While searching for the spiral galaxy stuff, I found the BS site that FB got all of her astronomy arguments from. "Evidence" for Recent Creation .

I'm sure most everything from that site makes no sense to you whatsoever, especially the Keplerian motion one. Only use information that you yourself can understand. Don't just post things in a debate because they sound good; make sure you understand the material.

Originally posted by Flaming Blaze
And what do you think parents of non-religious people do. What will you do if one of your kids decides he wants to be a Christian? I have this sneaking suspicion(from reading the posts you have written) you will disown them. I have a religious back ground. When I was 15 my faith in God was very low because of the stuff I learned in school.
My parents never made me believe. This is common mistake made by ateists. No one can ever make someone else believe. This is a decision YOU have to make, even at an early age. Anyone who forces religion on their kids are irresponsible, I can agree to that, but just because they are trying to guide their children in the right direction does not make them irresponsible. That is just like me telling you are irresponsible because you are making your kids learn the lies taught in school.

Let me respond to this with something I posted months ago:

Originally posted by Crono, in Skepticism of Religion and the Personal Philosophy:
I really hate it when parents teach their children about the "proper" religion (in other words, the parents' practiced religion).

"whoops well that crono guy is a stupid atheist, i bet he loves when parents raise kids as atheists."

If you were thinking that, hit yourself with a cardboard tube.

Philosophy and religion are meant to be very personal things. When parents introduce their religion to their offspring, the child really can't make a choice about whether it is truth or not. He hasn't been introduced to anything else, so he assuredly accepts it. Bada-bing, another follower. My point is that nobody should interfere with anyone's personal philosophy. Teaching them the correct one to follow may possibly take away that chance for them to find their own path. I would never tell my kids that atheism is the best and only correct philosophy. I would much rather have them decide for themselves just what is best. I would hope that they do become atheists, but I would not want to be the cause of it for them.

I would not have liked to have been raised as an atheist. I am much happier knowing that I evaluated my own personal beliefs and values, and, based on knowledge and logic, came to what I considered the best solution.

When religion becomes organized, it has become tainted. The views are now public rather than private, and people stop thinking for themselves and just listen to and accept whatever piece of misinformation that they are told. I don't have a problem with religion, just organized religion. When someone tells you what to believe, I don't like it. When you tell yourself what to believe, I accept it and respect it.

I can guarantee you that at least 90% of people involved in an organized religion were born into it. Most will say, "It is still my personal choice to be this way." But it wasn't their decision. They were raised to believe this is all entirely true, and are too afraid to stray even a little bit into skepticism because of the fear that their betrothed deity will smite them. Some are probably afraid to be skeptical also because their parents will reject them and lose all respect for them. This is how I used to be, until I overcame those fears and just did it. My parents don't accept it and disrespect my decision, but I don't care.

This is why organized religion works so well. It is such a "perfect" system to keep people following it. The leaders/creators make people believe that even if they stray just a little bit from the flock, they will be ****ed.

Like I said, I am tolerable of religion. It only upsets me when people do not ever feel skeptical at all. Questioning one's beliefs is the best way to decide what is right. If you ultimately choose an organized religion, fine, as long as you got to that point through questioning your beliefs and deciding what is best.

 

[Confuzor]

Who says time has to remain constant?

I only looked at the last two pages and there are issues in dealing with time.

When the Bible states the world was created in seven days, I personally don't translate that as the usual twenty-four hours we go through each and every day.

???

Application of the theory of relativity. Now wouldn't that be a mess...

 

[Novowels]

meh... Too much reading about hominid evolution this week. Onward!

re: Confuzor

Hah, you'll get no arguments from me about treating Genesis-days as actual 24-hour periods. Especially the first 2 days of Genesis.....

I mean, the Sun wasn't even created until the 4th day! How could you have days and nights?!? But I digress... I'm afraid I can't do the mental gymnastics I was capable of 6-7 years ago to wrap my brain around that kind of insanity.

I know you don't believe that Genesis is literally true. Kudos for that. But you still think it's metaphorically true (or something of the sort) so youse a baaaaad boy! Just joshin' ya man. Don't take it seriously. Anyways. Whew. I haven't posted in here in a while. Lots of catch-up to do.

Abiogenesis --
LOL. Blaze... Abiogenesis is a fact. I mean, there's a million to one chance that a particular sperm will fertilize an egg, but that doesn't mean that babies are never made. You're here, that's proof of fertilization. Life, as we know it, is here: That's proof of "abiogenesis" (note that I don't say we understand everything about HOW or WHY it happened, just that it did). Scientists are still studying the biology and chemistry that will help us understand the begining of life on Earth. In fact, there is not enough information to assign probabilities to how it could happen! The probability argument is not relevant, even if it wasn't contrived. Sorry. Also, evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories. Disproving one (even though you haven't) would not automatically discount the other.

Sol --
Interesting. The sun is shrinking now? I was under the impression that, if anything, it was growing slightly. Must be those pesky mathematics. I hate those things! Although the Sun is not really my forte, I read this page with interest, and it even nicely lists many of the Young-Earth/Universe arguments (some of which FB has been using) and why they are in error. Very complete work! Here is a small highlight that has particular relevence here:

A recent measurement of the solar diameter is that of Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998). From data taken over the period 1981-1988, they report a radius of 695,508 +- 26 km, with no evidence of change over time. The issue of surface definition is discussed at some length, leading to the conclusion that their definition is about 500 km smaller than that used in most previous estimates. Even over such a short period of time, their time series is sufficient to exclude an ongoing shrinking at the Akridge rate of five feet per hour, albeit at a modest statistical confidence level. I extracted the data from figure 2 in Brown & Christensen-Dalsgaard (1998) and did some line fitting, finding that the best fit to the data is a slight, statistically insignificant, growth of the diameter of the sun. No support whatsoever for shrinkage.

Misc. -
Meh? Ok, there's a few other things in there that could use rebutting, but I don't feel like searching them out. I've been working on this next section for a while, and I do believe that it's time for it. I was hoping I would be able to segue into it after doing a finishing rebuttal, but I'm thinking that won't happen. So....

Novowels switches from defense to offense!!

So far, I've basically been defending evolution. I haven't been putting forth proofs that only make sense from an evolutionary point of view, only defending creationists "proofs" that "only make sense from a Young-Earth/Creationist worldview." Obviously, if Evolution is right, and Creationism isn't, there'd be some evidence that only fits in the evolutionary paradigm right? Well how about jury-rigged design?

Obviously, Creationists believe that all life, and indeed all the universe was "designed" by "God" who is described as all-knowing and all-powerful. It would seem to be obvious that an all-knowing/all-powerful designer would, erm, "design" things- especially the "special creation" of humans- intelligently, yes?

So.. Explain a few of these from a creationist standpoint, because I don't see how it's possible:

1) The Prostate Gland: In all human males, the urethra goes directly through the prostate gland, a gland that is easily infected-- which causes it to swell. This blocks passage through the urethra. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that expands to block flow in the tube is not good design. Anyone could design male "plumbing" better, even if it were just to put the gland atop the tube or make the tube rigid. Evolution explains it quite satisfactorily (modification of a previous trait/organ). But if man were "created" then he was created with an appallingly badly designed urinary system.

2) The Joints: Prolonged kneeling can lead to an expansion of the bursa in front of the patella, a condition known as housemaid's knee. Likewise, there's a design flaw in the human elbow. At the knob on the lower end of the humerus the ulnar nerve is exposed just under the skin. A sharp blow by a hard object causes that numbing, painful sensation called "striking the funny bone." This could be easily remedied, both are mostly a side-effect of going from quadripedal to bipedal movement, I believe.

3) The Skull: The adult human skull is too thin to provide adequate protection to the gigantic brain. Plus the absence of brow ridges leaves the eyes extremely poorly protected. You can see the difference in skull thickness and the dissapearance over time of the brow ridge in fossils of human ancestors.

4) Human Eyes: Not only are the eyes not designed well (optical wiring is on the back, creating a blind spot) but squids and octopi have evolved a much better optical system. Well, they've had a bit more time to work on it than us, I guess. I won't bring up the theory that God's created the earth for giant squid. :D

Note that I have only listed human characteristics so far. There are many things in the animal (and plant, for that matter) kingdom that can only be explained via evolution or an extremely ignorant and/or lazy (and in one case EVIL) designer. I guess you can pick either one....

Oh, I don't know if he comes in here anymore but for smashattack's stupidity about the phrase "goddmn" - Maybe you should think twice next time you say "Thursday" (Thor's Day) -- Unless you've suddenly converted to Norse Paganism that is. I certainly was not "asking" "god" to "dmn" Bee to "h3ll" (I'm not that evil-- I wouldn't let my worst enemy go somewhere where he was tortured for eternity. No matter what he did to me. Nothing is worth eternal torment. And I actually like Bee!) I was merely using a common expletive in the English language, which BBT appropriately found funny and returned in kind.

Deal with it.

 

[MrSilver]

I shouldn't have replied to a topic like this at 5 AM. I was bound to make mistakes and make a fool off myself. I completely forgot to take into consideration that the heat and energy produced in the sun would make it expand. I can't say for sure whether it expands faster then it shrinks but I think it does. Anyway, saying it has been measured that the sun in shrinking constantly is nonsence. First up, the sun is constantly in motion, turning around it's own axis and moving things around internally. This causes it to not be a perfect sphere and have bulbs and stuff wich makes it even harder to measure it. Also, you would have to measure the sun for millions of years to get an accurate picture off how fast it expands/shrinks.

 

[smashattack]

...but for smashattack's stupidity about the phrase...

Yep, I've decided that debating is not my forte. But I tried to leave on a good note... you know, I said that BBT was a good moderator (in certain cases) and that you, Novowels, were a good debator.

Hmmm... I am only beginning to peel away the layers of this prison in which the enemy is not treated honorably, but is simply torn down when he or she demands the attention of a fair argument and asks to be seen as an equal human being.

Oh, yeah... yep. I can see the flamin' a-comin'... no matter.