[jpheu]

Ok, Janos
I admit it, you caught me.  Your right, a rat is a rodent wow, that just proves evolution.  Hey, heres another proof, a rodent is a mamal.  Oh. my gosh! Burn the Bibles!  Darwin is now our messiah.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by jpheu
Flip,
You have made a couple of leaps in your statements.  First, what we know about stars is very new and still the theory stage (of course that is what it will always be)

And yet, of course, the evidence you can use to support creationism can be thrown up there with no kind of disclaimer about the relative newness of the study of stars.

Originally posted by jpheu
Second, you sliped when you said "...particular materials the Sun is fusing at the time."  The sun dosn't change the material it is fusing.

Yes, it does. It starts by fusing Hydrogen into Helium, then, when it runs out of hydrogen, it fuses the Helium to ... Beryllium I think, and so on until it reaches Iron, which can't be fused.  These are fundamental atomic changes to the material within the star.

Originally posted by jpheu
Third, you just stated that "...at the moment it is at 'Yellow Dwarf' phase, which is a quiescent burning period billions of years long." Which supports that the sun has remained at a constant rate of shrinking.

No it doesn't. It supports nothing more than what it says - that the yellow dwarf phase lasts billions of years. There's no mention of the behaviour of the star during those billions of years.

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu
Flip,
You have made a couple of leaps in your statements.  First, what we know about stars is very new and still the theory stage (of course that is what it will always be)

[/b]
Yep, so we're as good as we can within the bounds of current knowledge.
 

  Second, you sliped when you said "...particular materials the Sun is fusing at the time."  The sun dosn't change the material it is fusing.

Well I don't know, stars do change from hydrogen to helium fusion as they get older. Big stars go all the way to iron.

 Third, you just stated that "...at the moment it is at 'Yellow Dwarf' phase, which is a quiescent burning period billions of years long." Which supports that the sun has remained at a constant rate of shrinking.

Well that's right, Sun is not a dwarf. It's a G2 star, mediocre in most aspects.

I was using that as an example of a disproof.  It does have it's flaws.  The main one being assuming a constant rate of decay.  But, ultimately we are left with no proof for either creation or evolution and then our left to a choice of belief.  We can choose to believe evolution or creation. [/B]

Well we are left with proof of evolution and no proof for creation, but as creationists tend to bypass and dodge those proofs and come up with their own outrageous demands ("you must show me a living descedant of a dinosaur! oh a bird won't do, it has to be a LIVE MARTIAN VELOCIRAPTOR"), convincing them that sound and tested proof (which you have been excessively linked to in this thread alone) exists.

edit **** beaten

[jpheu]

Black Wolf,
Those thousand pieces you talk about can be just as easily explained by creation.  God didn't create the egg, he created the chicken.  In other words, God created with a maturity.

The problem, once again, is that scientists assume evolution is true, and never start with the premice of finding out what is true.  Therefore the proofs they find are flawed by the preconcieved theory.  ANY "Proof" for evolution can just as easily, and easilyer, be answered with creation.

[Scuddie]

Now that I think of it, the term "Science fiction" has to be the truest of them all .

[jpheu]

Janos
I am not making outrageous demands I simpley demand that if we are to use an evedentary system of proof then we go by evedentiary rules and start with asking, "Which one is true."
Both evolution and creation can explain how everything got here. Thus we are left with nothing.  Neither can be said as proof, because both give adiquite reasons for any proof postulated.  Then we are left with a choice of belief.  And, applying ocam's razor, what is more plausable:  God created it, or it evolved over billions of years.

[jpheu]

Scuddie,
Yea, science fiction is great.  I could almost believe we are in a matrix.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by jpheu
Black Wolf,
Those thousand pieces you talk about can be just as easily explained by creation.

I'm sorry, but not all of them can. In fact, the vast majority cannot. Ill give you one of my favourite examples - though I'll admit this was given to me by a lecturer.

We have a complete evolutionary sequence for the transition from regular echinoids to irrergular echinoids. When you dig in the correct places, or review what others have dug up, you'll find a series of fossils that show the gradual motion of the mouth and anus from the bottom and top (respectively) of the organism to the front and back, as well as the increasing complexty of the hard shells on the outside. These are found exactly in order, with the changes taking place gradually over millions of generations. The ages are accurate whether you date through compararison of local microfossils, the geological stratum the fossils are found in, or radiocative decay of the relevant elements in the fossil. It's a perfect sequence. How does creationism explain that?

Or how about all the other fossil sequences we have, for horses, humans, sauropods, bony fish, sharks, mammals etc. etc.?

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by jpheu
Janos
I am not making outrageous demands I simpley demand that if we are to use an evedentary system of proof then we go by evedentiary rules and start with asking, "Which one is true."
Both evolution and creation can explain how everything got here. Thus we are left with nothing.  Neither can be said as proof, because both give adiquite reasons for any proof postulated.  Then we are left with a choice of belief.  And, applying ocam's razor, what is more plausable:  God created it, or it evolved over billions of years.

You're missing the point, and I suspect it's deliberate.

Evolution has a lot more verified evidence than creationism does. This is fact. You check the creationist websites and you find a consistent theme - they flatten you with pseudoscience and poorly thought out arguments against the most well known evolutionary evidence, but toally ignore the really important stuff that modern geologists and biologists use as proof, like genetic correlation, radioactive dating and confimation of the geological column, etc. etc. They present little pure scientific evidence for creationism, and what they do present has often been debunked decades before, which a little googling can show.

If you want to apply Occam's razor (which I intensely dislike for the record) then evolution wins. Evolution and old earth provides us with a method by which everything we know today could have come to pass ithin the physical laws that govern the universe. Creationism and even ID require those laws to be broken, and are thus less simple (they only seem simpler because they are simpler to explain - creations requires one only to say "God made it" without describing the process by which he may have done so, wheras explaining evolution requires anexplaination of the process).

[jpheu]

Black Wolf,
You are talking about the fossil record, which, when a fossil is found is dated by the layer of strata it is in. Correct?  How then do we know how old that layer of strata is?  By the fossil record found in it.  You cant acurately date any fossil.  As for the how the layers of fossils appear... The great flood easily answers it.  Once you disturb a layer of sediment in water what settles first?  The heaviest particle, then lighter and lighter particles.  Thus the fossil record is born, not over a millenia but in about 40 days and nights.  
  Now, Carbon 14 dating.  Is the measurement of raidoactive decay of a Carbon atom.  I'll skip the plesentries and say that it's flawed by assuming the non-existence of a later element to begin with.

[Styxx]

This is just too damn fun to watch.

That said, I recommend this to anyone aspiring to dispute evolutionary theory - if you want to say something is wrong, you really should have all information you can about it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

And on another note, for the new members, HLP doesn't make any revenues from advertisement, so we have no reason whatsoever not to lock this thread if it gets out of hand. As long as you keep it civilized (which it is right now, apart from a couple of isolated events), it'll stay open. If it devolves into flames, it'll be locked. Though I really don't see much point in you guys continuing this discussion.

[ksw walker]

beyond time and space

 What is beyond time and space? Is it something beyond our reach? Or is space just there to keep us in wonder? Could there be another world more planets? Was the creator of star trek on to something in his wild imagination of creating new species and new cultures? Are we wasting our time and dollars trying to find aliens that don't exist? Or are we trying to find heaven and to see if there truly is a God?  Don't they know that there is a
cheaper way to finding heaven? Are we trying too hard and looking in the wrong places? Does anybody know the answers?  Maybe we are wasting time with science looking for proof  that God doesn't exist? Truly there must be a better reason for us humans being on this beautiful earth and a better answer then the big bang theory that we were evolved from apes? Could we be looking for the answers in all the wrong places? Could we be holding the answers to these question all along in the book we Christians call the Bible?  Maybe we should start  trying to close our eyes and start looking with our hearts instead of our minds. Could the stars be really angels giving us light in the darkness?  Are the falling stars, angels coming from heaven? How much time do we have till it runs out?  what if there really is a lake of fire called hell?



In the beginning God created heaven, earth and everything in it
It's not our time we should be worrying about it's God's time
For God is time and its on his time that we're still ticking

Beyond time and space is a most magical place
There's only one way to reach the heavens that's
By the Lord Jesus Christ who died making our way

You say where's the proof that the earth was made by God
If there's no God we wouldn't exist not even the outer space
We were created in Gods image not from evolving apes

Beyond time and space is Gods loving grace
One day those in the book of life will walk with
God, who will explain the works of His hand

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu
Black Wolf,
You are talking about the fossil record, which, when a fossil is found is dated by the layer of strata it is in. Correct?  How then do we know how old that layer of strata is?  By the fossil record found in it.  You cant acurately date any fossil.  As for the how the layers of fossils appear... The great flood easily answers it.  Once you disturb a layer of sediment in water what settles first?  The heaviest particle, then lighter and lighter particles.  Thus the fossil record is born, not over a millenia but in about 40 days and nights.  

[/b]


Oh yes, and the radioactive decay rates just go wildly up and down all the time, and lava pours inside those formations, and all species just mysteriously die in evolutionary order, and stuff , read this! Also, you also age fossils with radiometric dating, or the type of the rock it is found in, or ****loads of various data.

  Now, Carbon 14 dating.  Is the measurement of raidoactive decay of a Carbon atom.  I'll skip the plesentries and say that it's flawed by assuming the non-existence of a later element to begin with. [/B]

Now this is insane.

Of course, C14 has such a short decay time that it cannot be used in measuring anything else than rather recent archeological findings (roughly five thousand something years). One could use different

[jpheu]

Originally posted by Black Wolf


You're missing the point, and I suspect it's deliberate.

Evolution has a lot more verified evidence than creationism does. This is fact. You check the creationist websites and you find a consistent theme - they flatten you with pseudoscience and poorly thought out arguments against the most well known evolutionary evidence, but toally ignore the really important stuff that modern geologists and biologists use as proof, like genetic correlation, radioactive dating and confimation of the geological column, etc. etc. They present little pure scientific evidence for creationism, and what they do present has often been debunked decades before, which a little googling can show.

.

I'm not missing you point, I get that you think Evolution is more verifyed.  My point is that if you assume something and look for ways to prove it, you will find them.  Superstitions are born this way.  I'm sure the first person to open an umbrella indoors had a string of bad luck that he would say is proof of that superstition.  Again your comming from a presupposition that evolution is true and anything you see to prove against it will seem like pseudoscience and poorly thought out arguments,and any evidence for will debunk it.
You must first start with asking what is true. And give up any preconcieved notions.  If you still end up with evolution then it will ultimately be by your choosing to believe it.

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu


I'm not missing you point, I get that you think Evolution is more verifyed.  My point is that if you assume something and look for ways to prove it, you will find them.  Superstitions are born this way.  I'm sure the first person to open an umbrella indoors had a string of bad luck that he would say is proof of that superstition.  Again your comming from a presupposition that evolution is true and anything you see to prove against it will seem like pseudoscience and poorly thought out arguments,and any evidence for will debunk it.
You must first start with asking what is true. And give up any preconcieved notions.  If you still end up with evolution then it will ultimately be by your choosing to believe it.

Prove creation and disprove evolution is scientifically viable way, now.

[Ghostavo]

Anyway...

Originally posted by jpheu
Black Wolf,
You are talking about the fossil record, which, when a fossil is found is dated by the layer of strata it is in. Correct? How then do we know how old that layer of strata is? By the fossil record found in it. You cant acurately date any fossil. As for the how the layers of fossils appear... The great flood easily answers it. Once you disturb a layer of sediment in water what settles first? The heaviest particle, then lighter and lighter particles. Thus the fossil record is born, not over a millenia but in about 40 days and nights.
Now, Carbon 14 dating. Is the measurement of raidoactive decay of a Carbon atom. I'll skip the plesentries and say that it's flawed by assuming the non-existence of a later element to begin with.

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
A prominent theory is that there was a fairly large flood near the Black Sea, which inspired the flood legends in most Indo-European religions.

[jpheu]

Janos,
There you go.  You know all the arguments for and against evolution.  We don't have to discuss it anymore.  You have made your choice to believe what you do.  The truth is relitive then for my choice is to believe the opposite.  But what if your wrong?

[jpheu]

Originally posted by Janos


Prove creation and disprove evolution is scientifically viable way, now.

That's my point, you cant!  I cant, No one can.  It comes down to a choice given the evidence presented.  First, you must weigh ALL the evidence.  Search for it and then make a decision.  I am done searching, for the logic and evidence of the existence of a God, and that he created the world in six literal days, is more and more powerful.

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
There you go.  You know all the arguments for and against evolution.  We don't have to discuss it anymore.  You have made your choice to believe what you do.  The truth is relitive then for my choice is to believe the opposite.  But what if your wrong?

Truth is relative? That's... uhm.

I can be wrong, and so be it. But until evolution is disproved and debunked, it is correct. It has evidence for it - as you have propably seen, if you have read the links I have so generously given - and is just as much a theory than gravity or relativity. Your choice to believe the opposite is your own business, but it has nothing to do with scientific credibility, it has no links to observable reality, has been proved wrong zillion times and is based on a book which is written by Man (oh yes i went there).

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu


That's my point, you cant!  I cant, No one can.  It comes down to a choice given the evidence presented.

IT CAN BE DONE AND IT HAS BEEN DONE.
Don't dodge.