Hmmmm Try Amazon I found my copy of Case for a Creator at a christian book store

quote:

and the fact that there is debate over that is what invalidated the experiment

The experiment was NEVER a smoking gun for spontaneous creation. What it was was a repeatable, measurable method from which complex organic molecules could be formed through fairly common abiotic means.

quote:

True though that is the actual point was to prove that nature can create living organiems and instead of producing the basics of life the produced several highly poisonus chemicals

Highly posionous to HUMANS. As I said before there are bacteria out there that EAT and excrete that stuff. And again the goal of the experiment was never to "prove" the creation of living organisms, merely test a model. And nobody expected cells to suddenly pop up. What did happen was amazing.

quote:

and I shall continue to post major points but I may make a new thread because after the first few chapters it goes off this threads topics

Good stuff. I'm up for it. I actually tried to look for the books today at Borders but they didn't carry them.

quote:

A creator has become plausible based upon some evidence

that's what I meant

quote:

First off, I've never heard amino acids called "red slime", secondly there is signifigant debate about what a primordial Earth atmosphere looked like. Anyone who says otherwise is probably wrong.

The red slime is what the results of the experiement were supposed to look like. and the fact that there is debate over that is what invalidated the experiment

quote:

Which nevertheless are complex organic molecules. The point behind these experiments is that highly organized molecules can be formed from completely abiotic events. Therefore, given that possibility, one could speculate that some series of processes could have formed a crude replicator.

True though that is the actual point was to prove that nature can create living organiems and instead of producing the basics of life the produced several highly poisonus chemicals

quote:

BS. Only if you listen to one side of it.

I wish I had time to read the books, but unfortunatly I lack both the time and money to go through them. If you want, keep posting major points, and I'll keep responding.

Maybe you can always make a good argument why the hell aren't you a govener or something? if Ahnuld can get it Doc they should give you the presidency god knows I'd vote for you

and I shall continue to post major points but I may make a new thread because after the first few chapters it goes off this threads topics

quote:

Also in all reality Gos is proven the more science advances in all reality.

God has never been "proven" by science. A creator has become plausible based upon some evidence, as opposed to being completely revelated from a book. This of course does not mean any one religion is correct. In no way has Judiasm, Islam, Bhuddism, or Christianity been supported by science. Merely the idea of a creator, and only then in a speculative, and not scientific sense.

quote:

[The Miller Experiment] - This produced amino acids (aka red slime) but again this experiment was incorrect scientists are now pretty sure of the gas mix in earths atmosphere at this time period.

First off, I've never heard amino acids called "red slime", secondly there is signifigant debate about what a primordial Earth atmosphere looked like. Anyone who says otherwise is probably wrong.

quote:

Do you know what happens when the experiemnt is repeated? It produces what is billed as "organic chemicals" these chemicals are Formalhyde and Cyanide which are key ingrediants to Embalming fluid.

Which nevertheless are complex organic molecules. The point behind these experiments is that highly organized molecules can be formed from completely abiotic events. Therefore, given that possibility, one could speculate that some series of processes could have formed a crude replicator.

quote:

But let's say Miller's experiment was 100% correct how do you get from Amino Acids to Cells? you don't a very good chemist can take basic chems and make a cell but the chances of it happening in nature? none at all.

Wrong. You cannot say ANYTHING about the chances of life starting up out of spontaneous sources, as we don't have any real data on it. All we can do is speculate. I used to be of the opinion that life was far too complex to spring out of non-biotic chemicals. However I've reconsidered this due to other experiments, and a general reassesment of my beliefs. Right now, we have a very, very weak mechanism for a spontaneous creation event. It's not much, and certainly no one should claim they "know" how life started. However, this is not evidence of a Creator, as there are plausible mechanisms. Formaldehyde and Cyanide may be toxic to us, however there are bacteria that eat and produce cyanide, and I beleive the same is true for formaldehyde. Just because they're used in embalming does not mean they're hostile to all life.

quote:

Doesn't support it at all Darwin says we are supposed all be from a common ancestor slowly changing in to what we are in modern times. but this is busted by his evidence with The Pre-Cambrian Explosion also called "The Biological Big Bang" where 25-30 new creature burst on the scene in stead of slowly evolving based on random mutations and survival of the fittest.

That is because Darwin's original theory is to Evolution as Freud was to Pyscology or Marx was to communism. There is a strong debate within the scientific community between short term drastic changes, and long term slow shifts. What it seems, however, is that the "long term" Darwin talked about is a blink of an eye in geologic time.

Example: Right now, the general consensus is that the human race in it's current evolutionary form is about 100,000 years old. Some of our more apish ancestors existed about 2 million years ago. 2 million years to evolve from "ape" (although that's a misnomer) to man, that's about .03% of geologic time since the begining of the Cambrian, not to mention all of the Archean and Proterozoic eons.

I fail to see how the Cambrian explosion (not Pre_Cambrian) "busts" Darwin's theory. The "explosion" still took millions of years, and given the reletively simple state of life at that point, it would be easy for a vast variety of small organisms to create. The Cambrian period is one of the stronger evidences for evolution, as a huge variety of life forms came into existance, and the most practical and effeicient thrived, while others failed.
For example, the evolution and explosion of hard-shelled creatures coincides with the apperance of large efficient predators.

The Cambrian also makes sense as it appears to follow a long period of extreme glacial / non deposition period. Somethign odd was going on back then, probably the "Snowball Earth" theory. After the Earth rapidly thawed and re-equilibrated, we see the Cambrian diversification. It is likely that rapid shifts in enivironment would cause life to attempt to radically adapt, such as forming large multicellular organisms that are much more efficient at gathering and storing energy.

quote:

Evolution-ID of some kind looks like an old Destroyer with a couple of torpedos in it, Taking on water, Snaping in Half and about to go to Davy Jones

BS. Only if you listen to one side of it.

I wish I had time to read the books, but unfortunatly I lack both the time and money to go through them. If you want, keep posting major points, and I'll keep responding.

quote:

quote:
The book of the Bible you reffed to is almost entirely prophetic and symbolic.


How convenient.

Revelations is a prophaetic book that is very symbolic it was written as a symbol, a prediction of the end times. It is for study from a very spirtual stand point not in (as fas as I know) any literal sense


Also in all reality Gos is proven the more science advances in all reality. For example the Miller Experiment that many speak of as the conclusive evidence for Darwinism, Few people out side of experts know that experiment which took the supposed atmosphere of earth at the time life emerged(note this atmosphere was later proven incorrect) and shot lightning through it. This produced amino acids (aka red slime) but again this experiment was incorrect scientists are now pretty sure of the gas mix in earths atmosphere at this time period. Do you know what happens when the experiemnt is repeated? It produces what is billed as "organic chemicals" these chemicals are Formalhyde and Cyanide which are key ingrediants to Embalming fluid. But let's say Miller's experiment was 100% correct how do you get from Amino Acids to Cells? you don't a very good chemist can take basic chems and make a cell but the chances of it happening in nature? none at all.

Haeckel's Embryos: These are very simple Faked most of it and the embryos were besides the ones that were faked were drawn in the mid-point of growth not the early stages as Haeckel claimed. So why the Hell are these still in the Text Books?

Next on to the Fossil record that is supposed to support Darwin's Theory? Doesn't support it at all Darwin says we are supposed all be from a common ancestor slowly changing in to what we are in modern times. but this is busted by his evidence with The Pre-Cambrian Explosion also called "The Biological Big Bang" where 25-30 new creature burst on the scene in stead of slowly evolving based on random mutations and survival of the fittest.

Evolution-ID of some kind looks like an old Destroyer with a couple of torpedos in it, Taking on water, Snaping in Half and about to go to Davy Jones

Sources and To Read More (you'd enjoy these Doc)

The Case for a Creator- Lee Strobel
Evoloution: A Theory in Crisis- Michael Denton
The Face The Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution- Hank Hanegraaff
Icons of Evolution- Jonathan Wells

this is such a pathetic thing!!! when will man learn to live and let live!!!!

I agree with you strangelove. Very well spoken response. I loved that movie by the way, lol, just as an aside.

Ah, I didn't see a source for that before. Anyway I went through that paper. The conclusion says a lot about the man's approach to "science":

quote:

When we consider the vast chasm that lies between Naturalism and Christianity, we do not see how creationists can escape the necessity of razing that worldview until no two stones are left standing, and then rebuilding natural history and its derivative stratigraphy from the ground up.

Creationist proponents of adopting the stratigraphic column believe that they are simply incorporating an empirical construct without any stain of Naturalism. We are confident that they decry any influence of Naturalism in creationism and gladly eschew its tenets. However, we fear that they are missing connections between the column and that worldview and we challenge them to examine more closely the assumptions, methods, and conclusions that surround the column.

This man clearly throws out emperical scienctific method, and admits a strong bias towards a Christian model that relies on revelation through God. This is not science, it is religion cherry-picking science, and glossing over the facts, to create pseudo-science.

"razing that worldview'?? No good scientist EVER attacks a problem like that. You do not pressupose an answer and then keep looking and scraping for evidence untill you build a structure around it. It's exactly the opposite, you get the answer from an interpretation of the evidence.

That is the difference between revelation and deduction. And that is why "Christian Science" fails.

What they are doing, in a sense, is shooting an arrow into the wall and painting a target around it.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_2/ucolumn.htm

That's the source of that thing Dunadaine posted about the geologic column and you said that guy was crazy and Dunadaine said that I said that they were right about everything. Eh, maybe some other site had the same article. I'm confused.

quote:

You just took what I said out of context, asshole. I said TalkOrigins was pretty much right about everything. Not CreationResearch.org. You're really making yourself look bad.

It's not CreationResearch.org, it's probably something like TrueOrigins. That's right, there's a counter-site to TalkOrigins. I'm going through the site now to pick some things apart. It looks like Dundaine has just been using talking points off this or a similar site.

quote:

I'm not at your level, but it was I who made you realize that basing all of whale evolution on 6 fossils was not logical.

Wow. You're making me mad. You're ignoring everything I say.

quote:

But that's just whale evolution. We don't know about the evolution of every single animal. Especially the evolution of marine animals. I bet if we had the technology to explore the very bottom of the ocean for longer periods of time, we'd find lots of anicent whale fossils. I don't think its very logical to assume the theory Evolution falls apart simply because whale evolution isn't very well documented.

Of course you're not at my level, you don't even understand anything I tell you. You don't think it over and speculate. You didn't make me realize basing whale evolution on a few fossils to be illogical. I did. You asked a question I answered with my own opinion. You showed me no evidence or anything that could lead me to that opinion. You're just using me to boost your flimsy arguments and I don't appreciate it. Whale evolution exists, it's just not very well documented and I don't think it's logical to make a conclusion about it now. Dead marine animals tend to sink to the bottom of the ocean, a place we know very little about, or other animals can scatter their bones. That is why whale evolution is so hard to document. But that doesn't mean Evolution falls apart. Science has documented the evolution of other animals quite well.

quote:

The book of the Bible you reffed to is almost entirely prophetic and symbolic.

How convenient.

quote:

But of course, if we ask EG,

You just took what I said out of context, asshole. I said TalkOrigins was pretty much right about everything. Not CreationResearch.org. You're really making yourself look bad.

quote:

I'm not at your level, but it was I who made you realize that basing all of whale evolution on 6 fossils was not logical.

It is a fully reasonable theory, and in all likelyhood true. Mammals evolved on land, and are now present in the sea. We find transitionary fossils. Logically, as with reptiles beforehand during the Mesozoic, we hypothosize that the animal evolved into a aquatic species. It totally fits in with the overall theory of evolution, and we have evidence. The reason that YOU don't subscribe to whale evolution is that you reject the core theory all together.

quote:

They're saying that the eve'ists are into the "what you see is what you get, if you can't see it its not there" mentallity.

That is what science is. It also is not "if you can't see it it's not there", it's "If it is not repeatably testable, and has no reason that is supported by fact, then it is not science."

And that's exactly what Creationism is. It's not Science, it's Faith. You cannot prove or test that God had a hand in it. Therefore you must operate as if he did not, untill you find evidence of such, and prove that it is indeed divine influence. Evolution is an explaination for the variety of species, and the progression of species that we see. It was not "revelated" from God, but rather deduced and reasoned, from man.

One man hears "God" talking to him and is a prophet, the other hears "God" talking to him and is a raving lunatic. You cannot treat one any more seriously than the other unless one readily provides proof in a repeatable situation. Creationism has not done so. Evolution has.

quote:

He's a scientist, you just misunderstand him. He's saying that evo'ists just prop a GC model against any SC model and suppose that they are identical.

Well I am one of the evolutionists he's talking about, I am involved in the sciences of geology, and I can tell you that he is DEAD WRONG about how we decide what strata is what age. You're speaking to a person who he is talking about, get it? We do not just "prop" one up beside the other, we use it as a intitial tool. Through a variety of other methods, which have been proven repeatedly, we determine the ages of the rocks. We never profess to know the exact ages unless there is a distinct reason to do so.

This man, in my opinion, is either ignorant, or a lier. I would also bet that he is a half-baked scientist who uses a presupposed belief in creationism to cherry pick data and fact to assemble a biased and unscientific conclusion.

quote:

For their structure to be accurate depends on the priciples of uniformity, which Uranus, no pun intended, blows out of the water.

Two points:
One, the structre is, 90% of the time, accurate. If it is not, the other 10% of the time an unknown system of folds or faulting is to blame. Or are you going to tell me that 100 years of oil exploration has just gotten lucky in using these "flawed" principles to find petroleum? You're telling me that despite repeatable, tangible, and clear succeses of this scientific predictablity, that it is somehow a coincidence that has duped most of humanity?

And what is this about Uranus now? How does this figure in with anything? Especially reletively microscale Earth processes? This should be good.

quote:

But you are right again, we lack observation. Why should we try to aply it then, if we have theory yet lack observation? I don't expect you to defend what theories they aply with lack of observation, I just don't like them using theories to credit their own findings.

You missed my point. Theory that has been developed by AMPLE observation in some sites has properly predicted geology in other sites. Thus the theory is proven to be likely true, and can be used in other areas to predict similar geology without extensive observation. A = C because A = B and B = C. Science.

quote:

Right! Only too many assume that the strata hasn't been overturn and whathaveyou.

NO! It is not "assumed". There's a little flaw in your theory. They're called primary sedimentary structures, as well as grading, and a whole host of more complex methods. You can easily tell if a series of strata has been overturned by examining the rocks. Firstly, there is the Law of Original Horizontality, which applies in all major cases. If it doesn't, such as in cases like alluvial fan depsotison, it is obvious through grading (ie. coaser particles being towards the bottom, vs. angle of bedding), or other primary structures, such as drag marks, dewatering structures, ripples, or mudcracks. Also, bedding becoming COMPLETELY overturned would require a catastrophic event, crust shattering, and would be evident in the local geology. We do not just assume, therefore, that strata are undistrubed.

quote:

I don't think I claimed my source disproved it.

You said that the Grand Canyon violated superposition, I called you on it, then you posted that article. What else were you doing?

quote:

Steno's Law however, still carries with it many if's.

If's that are accounted for within the law itself, and made irrelevent by other observed features. Also note that the law of superposition can be reversed and used just as effectively in deformed and overturned strata.

quote:

I though it was a different method and that they had abandon potassium/argon do to the dating of skull 1470.

That's because K-Ar dating doesn't work on objects so young as the skull you're talking about. Potassium's half life is 1.2 billion years or something like that. That skull is only a million or two years old, K-Ar wouldn't work.

quote:

I request corraborating evidence, outside the fossil record (there is no evidence of this in the fossil record anyway), that life can arise out of lifeless ooze. Not the origin of the universe, mind you, just the origin of life itself.

See The Miller-Urey experiment, and also More stuff.

The point is that there are models out there, however imperfect. It proves that it may be possible. On the other hand, we have no evidence whatsoever that it was divine influence. Untill then, you cannot say that it was God, but you can have faith that it was. Either way, the origin of life has nothing to do with the accuracy of modern geology and evolutionary theory.

quote:

I was only proposing a theory, you needn't freek. Giving how you defend your own theory and how EG thinks that there is a paralell universe I didn't think it would meet so much hosility. Remember too, that one's death usually goes hand-in-hand with one's life.

It wasn't a "theory", it was childish and largely irrelevent. You're little quip there at the end is not a fact, nor is it a adequate response to the apparent implication. The Bible states that all animal life was originally herbivore. We KNOW this to be untrue, unless perhaps you go back to the absolute first heterotropic bacteria, but you can't seriously claim that that was what the Bible was talking about there.

quote:

And why would Hebrews write something's name in Greek where and when Hebrew and Aramaic were the major languages and culture?

One, because Greek culture was extremely prolific in the ancient world. Many of the ancient texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, were written in Greek.
Two, in response to your asking for proof, the first civilizations arose around 3,000 years ago. Evidence for multiple languages before established civilizations. More languages. Yet more pre-civilization languages.
There is no evidence for the Tower of Babel outside of Mesopotamian ziggaruts, which clearly post-date many of the proto-languages we know of.

quote:

Index fossils again, thats still rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks.

Not in different formations it isn't! Index fossils are very prolific fossils that only existed for a very short, very precise period of time. That means it lived all over the place in question, from the enitre world to a region, but only lived for a short period of geologic time. Meaning, if we find fossil X in Strata Y in America, and we also find fossil X in Strata Z in Asia, then it is highly likely that X is around the same age as Z.

As to your attacks on radiometric dating, Lucy's skull (1470) is not applicable because dating rocks and dating organic creatures are two different situations. Rocks have definite chemical compositions, and because any good sample is taken directly from within the target mineral crystals, for example zircon, we can get very accurate readings.

The fact that index fossil dating, and radiometric dating coinicide with eachother is too strong a coincidence to ignore.

quote:

And why would Hebrews write something's name in Greek where and when Hebrew and Aramaic were the major languages and culture?

The Old Testement was translated into Greek when christianity became a major religion.

Oh and BTW, the site of Babylon in called "Tell Babel" in the language spoken in Iraq.

quote:

How would they know how old the writings were, and how old the Bible said Babel was?

Babylon started out as a small village attached to Kish during the Third Dynasty of Ur. It only became a large city in about 1700 BC. The Babylonians were building no ziggarats before that time, when the first great sky-scraping temple to Marduk was established.

Amazingly, we know of dozens of bona fide written languages that existed before this time, including Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Chinese, and others.

I havent read back through the entire board, but based on some of your "discussions," you're all going off about the bible or some nonsense.

Evolution is an entirely plausible theory. I have another example of this in action.

I have an avid passion for insects, and during the course of the summer, I breed moths and butterflies - mostly Saturniids, or Giant Silkworm moths. I also study them very extensively and scientifically. A colleague and myself, at the nature center where I work, have combined our notes in a sort of unofficial experiment over the last few years. He has been doing this far longer than I so he has his breeding journals extending far back for several years. One of the moths we raise in fairly large amounts is known as the polyphemus moth, or Antheraea polyphemus. Normally, this species has one complete generation in the northeast on Long Island (New York). This means the moth will become active in spring, mate, lay eggs, and the caterpillar will grow and form a cocoon by the end of the summer. That cocoon will stay in hibernation or diapause until the spring of the following year, or at least until the weather is warm enough. However, increasingly over the last few years, some of the polyphemus cocoons that we yield in late July to early August wind up eclosing or hatching outof their cocoons. These moths will then proceed to mate and yield a second generation. This has led us to believe that, either the polyphemus moth itself is evolving to have two generations since the summers have been growing ever longer and ever hotter for longer amounts of time, or a subspecies has developed amidst the population of polyphemus moths on Long Island.

Mind you, this is all unofficial and not to be taken for fact. Perhaps human interferance is simply causing some of them to hatch early. This is merely an observation, but an interesting one if you are a follower of evolution theory.

quote:

I just don't feel as if you're at my level of rational thought.

I'm not at your level, but it was I who made you realize that basing all of whale evolution on 6 fossils was not logical.

The book of the Bible you reffed to is almost entirely prophetic and symbolic. But, I guess you wouldn't know that any more than you know how to tune an arundo donac.

quote:

I've been up for 18 hours, running on 5 hours of sleep for the last two days, and have spent the last 14 hours in a office in Myren Hall working on a film project.

Do get some sleep. I hate debating with a man that only has half his wits about him. You have to explain things over and over.

quote:

HEY! Because revelation = TOTALLY LACKING OF EVIDENCE.

Not quite. What they mean by Revelation is having insight from God. It could be re-examing or testing or whatever you like. They're saying that the eve'ists are into the "what you see is what you get, if you can't see it its not there" mentallity.

quote:

This man is insane and knows nothing of geology.

He's a scientist, you just misunderstand him. He's saying that evo'ists just prop a GC model against any SC model and suppose that they are identical. But of course, if we ask EG,

quote:

Nope, they're pretty much right about everything.

quote:

Combining this with extensive and extremely detailed surficial mapping allows us to construct a rough 3D stucture of the surface of our Earth.

For their structure to be accurate depends on the priciples of uniformity, which Uranus, no pun intended, blows out of the water.

quote:

It is by no means complete, however this is not because of a lack of theory. It is a lack of observation.

The reason it is "simply applied" is because it works time and time again.

No, we don't have a lack of theories. But you are right again, we lack observation. Why should we try to aply it then, if we have theory yet lack observation? I don't expect you to defend what theories they aply with lack of observation, I just don't like them using theories to credit their own findings.

quote:

Steno's Law of Superposition says that, in unoverturned, undeformed strata, the deeper rocks must be older. That is because, sans faulting or igneous intrusion, there is no way that a strata can suddenly form below another lithified layer of rock.

Right! Only too many assume that the strata hasn't been overturn and whathaveyou.

quote:

The Law of Superposition is not defunct because of erosion, non deposition, faulting, or intrusion. The law and subsequeint laws account for these things very clearly. Your source in no way disproves Steno's law of Superposition.

I don't think I claimed my source disproved it. I did claim that the Grand Canyon violated it, however, I was incorrect. (now be a nice guy and don't glote. At least I have the spine to admitt when I am wrong, unlike so many others) Steno's Law however, still carries with it many if's.

quote:

Potassium/argon are radiometric measurements.

Oh, I had always known them as potassium/argon so when talko' mentioned radiometric in the stead, I though it was a different method and that they had abandon potassium/argon do to the dating of skull 1470.

quote:

I request corraborating evidence, outside the Bible, of the Supreme Being's influence in doing this. I do not require evidence of God, merely that a man actually lived 900 years or what have you, and that it was indeed the work of God. Go.

I request corraborating evidence, outside the fossil record (there is no evidence of this in the fossil record anyway), that life can arise out of lifeless ooze. Not the origin of the universe, mind you, just the origin of life itself.

quote:

Ridiculous answer to my statement.

I was only proposing a theory, you needn't freek. Giving how you defend your own theory and how EG thinks that there is a paralell universe I didn't think it would meet so much hosility. Remember too, that one's death usually goes hand-in-hand with one's life.

quote:

Because from various writings and histories of ancient peoples across the globe, we know that 6,000 years ago, there were a variety of languages. Also, Babylon IS Babel. Babylon is merely the Greek variant of the ancient name. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with destruction or rebuilding.

You still haven't brought any proof. I could just as well say that Irish had bagpipes before Scots. How would they know how old the writings were, and how old the Bible said Babel was? And why would Hebrews write something's name in Greek where and when Hebrew and Aramaic were the major languages and culture?

quote:

Absolute dates are determined with various means, such as radiometric dating or index fossils

Index fossils again, thats still rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks. And as for radiometric dating, I suggest that you do dome research on skull 1470.