Continue the debate in here

Page 12 of 15 Previous  1 ... 7 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:17 pm

Premeditated murder was punishable by death. An accidental killing was not punishable by death.

Exodus 12:29-30:- And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

Was this accidental or premeditated?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:20 pm

What about this:

Leviticus 26:21-22:- And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:01 pm

If there were crops outside the garden, then it was just as pleasant a place than the garden itself.
Actually inside of the garden would have been better than outside. Inside of the garden God had provided more than enough food for them to eat but outside of the garden Adam had to start working for his food by planting and growing crops. So life was better inside the garden. Also inside of the garden Adam and Eve had close connection with God, but after the fall communication between God and humans was more difficult because of manís sins. So all in all, life was much better inside the garden than outside.
This begs the question of why were the animals created in the first place? Also it assumes that there were animals OUTSIDE the garden, were there? If animals were created, not for human consumption, then it is a sin to eat any animal! Do you agree?
I believe they were created to showcase Godís creative power. Also God had work for Adam to do in the Garden of Eden. He was to name all the animals. Adam could never have done that if animals were not created. Also God is an omniscient and omnipotent God, therefore it would not have been difficult for God to know that after the fall animals would be required for food, clothes and for sacrifice in sin offerings. Straight after the fall, God killed animals to provide clothes for Adam and Eve:
Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Animals where only killed and eaten after the fall. Another mark of the fall. There was no need to eat animals before the fall and eating animals after the fall is not sinful. There where certain animals that Jews could not eat but those food laws no longer apply today.
Is that an assumption or have you any evidence to back it up?
Well thereís a lot of frozen water on Earth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_cap
Earth
Earth's north pole is covered by floating pack ice (sea ice) over the Arctic Ocean, the Arctic ice pack. Portions of the ice that don't melt seasonally can get very thick, up to 3Ė4 meters thick over large areas, with ridges up to 20 meters thick. One-year ice is usually about a meter thick. The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km≤. In addition, the Greenland ice sheet covers about 1.71 million km≤ and contains about 2.6 million km≥ of ice.
The land mass of the Earth's south pole, in Antarctica, is covered by the Antarctic ice sheet. It covers an area of almost 14 million km≤ and contains 25-30 million km≥ of ice. Around 70% of the fresh water on the Earth is held in this ice sheet. In addition, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet covers 3.2 million km≤ and the Ross Ice Shelf covers 0.5 million km≤. See Climate of Antarctica.
We could assume that if all the frozen water at the north and south poles melted that most of the places on Earth where humans live would be flooded.
Again, you make the ASSUMPTION that life only exists on this planet. Out of the countless galaxies in the universe, there may well be life on other planets.
Well itís not likely thereís life on another planet seeing as so many factors are required on Earth for there to be life here. Anyhow if there was life somewhere in one of the galaxies and they were as advanced as we are then I would expect them to be broadcasting into space and sending messages like humans are doing here.
It also begs the question, that if the universe is so fine tuned for life, why is life so rare (as we know it)?
Life is so rare because of the sheer complexity required for life. So many factors are required for there to be life that when thereís life it is very rare.
Fine tuning itself has to be defined. How fine is fine?
Perfect before the fall.
The anthropic principal says nothing about motives or methods, which is how design is defined. The scarcity of life and multi-billion-year delay in it appearing argue against life being a motive.
Multi-billion-year delay? We canít be sure the Earth is that old seeing as dating methods arenít always accurate. Anyhow an Earth billions of years old would contradict what Genesis says about creation. God wanted to design and create the Earth, humans and animals. Godís desire to create us is His motive for doing so.
Nature is but a name for an effect whose cause is God.

-- William Cowper
If God can do anything, he could create life in a universe whose conditions do not allow for it.
That not a valid statement. If thereís life then there are conditions to allow for it. If there is no life then the conditions to allow for life are not all there. Anyhow God did create life where the conditions did not allow for it. Look at the rest of the planets in our solar system where thereís no life, yet there is life on our planet.
How often do you share your resources with the third world?
I could give money to charity. Or leave out clothes I no longer need for a charity to pick up.
It doesn't! And how do you know it wasn't Allah, Thor, Krishna or Zeus?
How do I know God is true? Because He revealed Himself in a real living human being called Jesus and Jesus is still alive today.
For whatever reason God chose to make man as he is--limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death--He had the honesty and courage to take His own medicine. Whatever game He is playing with His creation, He has kept His own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that He has not exacted from Himself. He has Himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death. When He was a man, He played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it was well worthwhile.
... Dorothy L. Sayers, Christian Letters to a Post-Christian World [1969]
No you don't! If you did then you should be able to give me an overview of the process? Can you? (In your own words)
Evolution is a theory where the strongest survive through natural selection.
This shows how you know NOTHING about evolution. Every fossil is a transitional fossil! And drastic changes do not happen over one generation. If you knew what evolution was you would know that natural selection occurs in the DNA.
So where are the fossils showing every stage of evolution of one creature to another? In most cases we see fossils for one creature and fossils for another different creature and the scientists just announce one evolved into the other. For example, if a horse evolved into a giraffe then I would expect there to be horses will a neck a bit longer, horses with a neck much longer and horses with a neck as long as a giraffe. Fossils showing the animal at each stage of evolving.

Liam, you might want to watch these videos:

The Way Of The Master : Evolution (Part 1 of 3):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHTN8Re1izg

The Way Of The Master : Evolution (Part 2 of 3):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGh48yt4flI

The Way Of The Master : Evolution (Part 3 of 3):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohCDWDsUefk
You said that it was the parents fault, and that THEY should have brought her to the doctor, but you claim that God is her Father, making God her parent.
Her earthly parents should have taken her to see a doctor. It was their fault.
True. But you do realise that the very earliest manuscripts of the bible, are completely different from the bible you read and use as the word of God. This makes the stories that YOU used UNRELIABLE!
Can you provide an example for that? Any errors there might be are due to errors in translating the Bible not errors in the original texts.

The Bible is very reliable. Take for example the Old Testament prophecy (contained in the book of Micah) about the destruction of Samaria:
MICAH 1:6 6 Therefore I will make Samaria as an heap of the field, and as plantings of a vineyard: and I will pour down the stones thereof into the valley, and I will discover the foundations thereof.
The prophecy was from 730BC and details four specific predictions; Samariaís ruins would become a heap of rubble, the stones used to construct Samaria would be pushed into a valley, Samariaís foundations would be laid bare and Samaria would eventually become a place where vineyards would be planted.
Even though the prophecy was from 730BC, it didnít begin to be fulfilled until 1265AD, almost 2000 years later. Samaria was totally destroyed in A.D. 1265 when Muslims defeated the Crusaders who were defending the city, and it has never been rebuilt. Arabs living in the vicinity cleared much of the ruins in order to use the site for agricultural purposes, and in so doing, they dug up its foundations and dumped them into a valley nearby. Today, grapevines can be seen growing on this ancient site, just as prophesied by Micah over 2700 years ago.
http://www.searchgodsword.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?number=T3202
This city, after passing through various vicissitudes, was given by the emperor Augustus to Herod the Great, who rebuilt it, and called it Sebaste (Gr. form of Augustus) in honour of the emperor. In the New Testament the only mention of it is in Acts 8:5-14, where it is recorded that Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached there.
Herod rebuilt Samaria and called it Sebaste:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
27 BC ó An assassination attempt on Herod was foiled. To honor Augustus, Herod rebuilt Samaria and renamed it Sebaste.
The full name for the city was Cśsarea Sebaste:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=10&letter=C
the full name of the city was therefore "Cśsarea Sebaste" ("Ant." xvi. 5, ß 1; Ammianus Marcellinus, xiv. 8 ).
It is on the outskirts of the ancient port city Caesarea Maritima:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea
Caesarea (Hebrew: קיסריה‎, Qesarya ) is a town in Israel on the outskirts of Caesarea Maritima, the ancient port city.
Caesarea Maritima was destroyed in 1265:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea_Maritima
The bishops did not govern: Saladin retook the city in 1187; it was recaptured by the Crusaders in 1191, and finally lost by them in 1265 this time to the Mamluks, who ensured that there would be no more battling over the siteó where the harbor has silted in anywayó by razing the fortifications - in line with their practice in other formerly-Crusader coastal cities.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vie/Caesarea.html
In 1265, Caesarea fell to Baybars, the Mamluk sultan of Egypt, who destroyed the city, which remained in ruins until 1884. In 1884, a small fishing village was established on the remains at Caesarea by Muslim refugees from Bosnia. The city was abandoned by its inhabitants during the War of Independence (1948).
The fulfilment of this prophecy is one example of just how reliable the Bible is.
Also the stories of the bible (the important and miriculous ones) have no historical evidence whatsoever!
There are eye witness accounts. If Jesus never rose from the dead then the tomb with the body still in it should be available for the whole world to see. So where is the tomb with the body still in it?

In regard to the miracles of Jesus:
Christís healing of the paralytic was just one of numerous miracles he performed during his earthly ministry. Although sceptics typically dismiss the Gospel miracle narratives out of hand as myth or legend, there are good reasons to conclude that these accounts, at least in general, reflect historical fact. Non-Christian sources dated as early as the first century refer to Jesusí reputation for performing miracles-although sometimes these sources denigrate Jesusí miracles as sorcery. Although the apostle Paul does not discuss any specific miracles of Jesus, there are traces in his writings of an awareness that Jesus performed them (Rom. 15:18-19; 1 Cor. 4:20; 13:2; cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; 2 Thess 2:9). Furthermore, all of the Gospels, and all of the source materials that biblical scholars think the Gospels incorporated, attest to Jesusí miracles. Minimally, historians can say with full confidence that the belief that Jesus performed miracles originates from his own lifetime and is not the product of later myth or legend. Internally, the Gospels exhibit remarkable restraint in their miracle narratives, lacking many of the elements common to legendary tall tales. In his cautious and thorough study of the historicity of the Gospel accounts of Jesusí miracles, Graham Twelftree concludes that ďthere is hardly any aspect of the life of the historical Jesus which is so well attested as that he conducted unparalleled wonders.Ē
- Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ by by Darrell L. Bock (Foreword), Robert M., Jr. Bowman (Author), J. Ed Komoszewski (Author)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Putting-Jesus-His-Place-Christ/dp/0825429838/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207493982&sr=1-1
A quote about the fig tree that you might find interesting (taken from the same book):
When he was in Jerusalem, Jesus saw a fruitless fig tree and cursed it, causing it to wither. When the disciples asked him how that had happened, Jesus told them that if they had faith and no doubts, they could even tell a mountain to go jump into the sea and it would obey. The traditional understanding of this passage is that Jesus was speaking hyperbolically about the performance of extraordinary miracles. Whatever type of event Jesus means here, he says it will happen in response to prayer: ďAnd all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receiveĒ (Matt. 21:18-22 NASB, likewise Mark 11:12-14, 20-24).
A similar qualification applies to Jesusí promise that those who believe in him will do the works that he did and even greater works (John 14:12). Jesus immediately explains, ďI will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do itĒ (John 14:13-14). Jesus is the actual miracle worker; the disciples are merely the ďpetitioners of numinous powerĒ (PNP), asking Jesus in his name to perform the miracles in order to glorify the Father in the Son.
As a matter of record, the apostles do not seem to have performed any ďnature miraclesĒ after Christís ascension, such as walking on water. When the ship taking Paul to Rome encountered heavy seas, no miracle prevented its shipwreck, although God providentially protected Paul and his shipmates from death (Acts 27:14-44). The miracles the apostles performed appear to have consisted primarily of healings, exorcisms, and a couple of judgement miracles, inflicting blindness and death. The miracles that the Gospels report Jesus as performing go beyond anything reported of the apostles.


Last edited by bennett_david on Wed May 14, 2008 10:03 pm; edited 19 times in total

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:06 pm

Jesus met far too many people on this Earth for the existence of Jesus to be a myth. 5000 people fed, 12 disciples, 10 lepers, Pilate, John the Baptist and Herod. Jesus met all these people. In regard to the existence of Jesus, did Herod or Pilate ever come out and tell the world that Jesus never existed and that He was a fake and a myth? By the way, there where coins issued by Herod and Pilate. This proves that Herod and Pilate both existed.
Exodus 12:29-30:- And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

Was this accidental or premeditated?
Neither. God was punishing the Egyptians for their sin. Do you think sin does not deserve punishment? Anyhow Liam, what right do you have to judge what God should or should not do?
I see you avoided this completly!
I showed you the example of Peter escaping from prison. That was an example of answered prayer by God.

What about this:

Leviticus 26:21-22:- And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate
Humans cannot sin and then expect God to just ignore what we do. God gives humans freedom and freewill but there are consequences to our actions.
In an age of web and cyberspace, of Mars missions and genetics, however, I still find it easy to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles. Ė Rob Frost
Liam, you might find this article interesting:

http://christiananswers.net/evangelism/responses/comfort-suffering.html

Ultimate confidence in the goodness of life cannot rest upon confidence in the goodness of man. If that is where it rests, it is an optimism which will suffer ultimate disillusionment. Romanticism will be transmuted into cynicism, as it has always been in the world's history. The faith of a Christian is something quite different from this optimism. It is trust in God, in a good God who created a good world, though the world is not now good; in a good God, powerful and good enough finally to destroy the evil that men do and redeem them of their sins. This kind of faith is not optimism. It does not, in fact, arise until optimism breaks down and men cease to trust in themselves that they are righteous.
... Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), Beyond Tragedy [1938]
----

Liam, here are the questions Iím still waiting for you to answer:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noahís flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? Iím beginning to think that you donít believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldnít it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? Iím beginning to think youíre a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans canít live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasnít evolved?

If there was an oxygenĖless atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.
The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldnít function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God canít all be deluded.

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

What about Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life?

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which Ė a functional gene or protein Ė is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?


Last edited by bennett_david on Wed May 14, 2008 9:58 pm; edited 2 times in total

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:34 pm

Liam, just to let you know, Nathan Purdy is currently too busy to contribute to this debate. I was in contact with Nathan and he said he was incredibly busy; with study, travel etc.

----
http://www.icr.org/article/3769/
Squid Reflects Creation Evidence
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.*

Imagine having skin that can mimic your surroundings, or even make you invisible. The Hawaiian bobtail squid (Euprymna scolopes) in the central Pacific has just such an astounding ability. It is designed with special proteins called reflectins that are as beautiful to view as they are amazing in their role.

The study of this function is a new discipline called biophotonics, which examines the use of electromagnetic radiation (light) in the living world. Biophotonic structures of the bobtail squid give it the ability to actually control how it reflects the sunlight that shines on its body. This unique trait reflects the Creator's glory while erecting yet another scientific roadblock to the evolutionary explanation of physical origins--for how could random genetic mutations lead to such intricate molecular structures?

According to a recent article in Nature Materials, the reflectin proteins "function in static and adaptive colouration, extending visual performance and intra-species communication."1 In other words, the biophotonic structures give the squid the ability to not only communicate with other squid, but to also change its coloration to blend with its surroundings and thus hide from predators. Reflectins in the skin mantle of the bobtail squid exhibit a quality known as variable reflectivity, which can make the creature at times virtually invisible. Once again, it is God's incredible creation that may pave the way for man to one day do the unthinkable--in this case, to possibly devise a cloak that can make something (or someone) virtually undetectable.

The near instantaneous color change of the squid is due to designed microscopic organs in the skin called chromatophores. Each chromatophore has a cell containing pigment and is surrounded by about 20 muscle fibers. Motor neurons enter these fibers, and neurons extending from the fibers go to cell bodies located in special lobes of the cephalopod brain. Thus, these are "neurally-controlled photonic structures."1

The reflectins seem to be unique to squid, coded for by at least six genes (specific DNA segments). In addition, researchers have found that the Hawaiian bobtail squid efficiently uses an exclusive bilobed ("two-lobed") light organ to its advantage. A species of bioluminescent bacteria called Vibrio fischera in the light organ receives nourishment from the squid. In return, the bacteria secrete a tracheal cytotoxin designed to control the development of the light organ. This cytotoxin is a small segment of the deleterious bacteria that causes whooping cough in humans. But perhaps the toxin served a more useful function, as we see in the squid,2 prior to the introduction of sin into God's creation, which led to the Fall and the current curse under which creation groans (Romans 8:22).

To conclude, not only is biophotonic design evidence for a clearly seen creation (Romans 1:20), but the Hawaiian bobtail squid in particular provides the creation scientist with a possible original benign function for disease-causing bacteria. Truly, God's creation declares--and reflects--His glory (Psalm 19:1).

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:44 am

Liam, here are the questions Iím still waiting for you to answer:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noahís flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? Iím beginning to think that you donít believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldnít it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? Iím beginning to think youíre a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans canít live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasnít evolved?

If there was an oxygenĖless atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.
The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldnít function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God canít all be deluded.

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

What about Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life?

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which Ė a functional gene or protein Ė is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Thu May 01, 2008 12:45 pm

http://www.icr.org/article/3861/
Evolution's Biggest Hurdles
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

The theory of evolution has numerous problems, some of which are absolutely enormous and for which no adequate solution has even been proposed. The biggest problem comes right at the beginning with the supposedly spontaneous generation of life from non-life. Neo-Darwinian scientists admit this, recognizing that proposed evolutionary scenarios do not model reasonable conditions on earth, and could not have produced anything like the complex life we see all around us--even single-celled life.

The second-biggest problem involves the development of complex invertebrates, animals without a backbone, from single-celled life. How did this transition occur? A robust fossil record of one-celled life has now been found, and of course a truly abundant record of marine invertebrates can be discovered everywhere, from clams to sponges to jellyfish to starfish, etc. The "explosion" of life in the Cambrian system of strata continues to baffle evolutionists, for there is no record showing a transition from tiny single-celled life to complex invertebrates. There are innumerable fossils of invertebrate ocean bottom life, even those with no hard outer shell, but no ancestors of these invertebrates have been identified.

A third huge problem lies in the next step required by evolution. Fish, thought to be the first vertebrates, must have evolved from invertebrates, but again there is no record of this transition. "How this earliest chordate stock |i.e., early vertebrates| evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures, we do not know."1 Over the years nearly every invertebrate has been proposed as the ancestor, but each suggestion has only been in vogue for a time. As Dr. Duane Gish--former Senior Vice President at ICR and a well-known creation scientist--likes to say, if evolution can't derive either invertebrates from single-celled life, or vertebrate fish from invertebrates, it is "dead in the water."

One proposition receiving attention these days is that echinoderms were the creature that evolved into fish. Now, echinoderms usually don't look anything like fish. Their ranks include sea squirts, tunicates, and starfish. These do have a pseudo-spine with a central supportive notochord and a tubular nerve chord, features that are somewhat present in vertebrates, especially in the embryonic stage. It seems that Ernst Haeckel's theory of embryonic recapitulation is more extensive than once thought.2

It has been discovered that during embryonic development, certain features in the gut of the starfish bear similarity to a feature in vertebrate embryos. Further maturity yields a form and function far different from the vertebrate condition, yet this early formative pathway seemingly provides the hoped-for clue evolutionists need. Is this proof that a starfish evolved into a fish that evolved into a human?

It seems to me that they are grasping at straws. Without the assumption of evolution, without the neo-Darwinian scientist's "certain knowledge" that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates, this flimsy link would not merit such attention. How much more scientific it is to recognize the God-designed diversity in creation, and not attribute all living things to a hypothetical common ancestor. Scripture teaches, "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds" (1 Corinthians 15:39).

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Wed May 14, 2008 10:00 pm

Liam, here are the questions Iím still waiting for you to answer:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noahís flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? Iím beginning to think that you donít believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldnít it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? Iím beginning to think youíre a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans canít live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasnít evolved?

If there was an oxygenĖless atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.
The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldnít function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God canít all be deluded.

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

What about Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life?

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which Ė a functional gene or protein Ė is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:04 pm

http://www.icr.org/article/3882/
The Dinosaur Next Door by John D. Morris
Dinosaurs continue to play an important role in science education, for few subjects command students' attention as well as dinosaurs do. Evolutionists shrewdly use them as a tool to teach evolutionary thinking, often employing the statement "millions of years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the earth...". Creationists often use them, too, for the Bible claims that "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exodus 20:11), which necessarily includes the dinosaurs. If evolution is true, there should be no evidence that they lived at the same time as humans; but if creation is true, we should find historical memories of encounters with them.
Without a doubt, if you saw a huge dinosaur, you would tell your kids about it. And when they had kids, they would pass the story on. Eventually, as the creatures became rarer, the story would be embellished by added details, but a kernel of truth might remain in the folklore of civilizations. And that is what we find. Individuals who were known to history as real people encountered or chronicled great reptilian beasts called dragons. Alexander the Great, Beowulf, Herodotus, Asian kings, Indian warriors, St. George who "slew the dragon," sailors of many nations and centuries, and many more are remembered for their exploits with extraordinary creatures.
In recent years, several creationists have also discovered physical evidence of human encounters with such beasts. For example, American Indians have many legends of fearsome creatures such as the thunderbird, but they also left numerous rock pictographs indicating they had real interaction with them, both flying and walking. Drawings in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and elsewhere document this.
A monastery in Cambodia built in about 1200 A.D. includes carvings of numerous creatures on its ornate walls, creatures that evidently lived nearby. It also includes an explicitly clear carving of a stegosaur. Remember, dinosaurs were not discovered and reconstructed by scientists until the 1800s.
Aborigines of Australia etched an episode of numerous hunters gathering around a watery inlet and spearing a marine reptile like a plesiosaur, complete with long neck and powerful flippers. They must have killed and butchered it, for the pictograph also depicts its internal organs.
Experts have documented many thousands of ceramic figurines in Mexico, collected by a local merchant. Excavated from graves predating all known cultures, they date back to at least B.C. times. Many of the figurines are apparently of dinosaurlike creatures portrayed in living postures. It appears that an entire culture was engaged in their production.
In Peru, numerous burial stones have been excavated from graves. They depict various scenes, from human medical operations (or perhaps human sacrifice) to men interacting with great beasts that look like modern reconstructions of dinosaurs. Some have long necks and long tails; others have pointed structures on their spines, small forearms, and vicious teeth.
To those who value the biblical data, the frequent mention of "dragons" is of interest, as is the lengthy descriptions of "behemoth" and "leviathan" in the book of Job, written soon after the great Flood. God is the speaker in the narrative that describes behemoth in Chapter 40 as being of enormous size, with bones like iron and a tail like a cedar tree. The leviathan in Chapter 41 has terrible teeth, scaly skin, and the ability to breathe fire. Sounds like a dinosaur to me.
Surely the evidence is clear--dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time, just as it says back in Genesis!

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:04 pm

Liam, here are the questions Iím still waiting for you to answer:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noahís flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? Iím beginning to think that you donít believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldnít it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? Iím beginning to think youíre a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans canít live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasnít evolved?

If there was an oxygenĖless atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.
The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldnít function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God canít all be deluded.

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

What about Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life?

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which Ė a functional gene or protein Ė is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Sat Jul 26, 2008 6:46 pm

William, you might find this an interesting read:

http://www.amazingfacts.org/Resources/Download/PBLib/BK-EFS.PDF

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Mon Jul 28, 2008 5:50 pm

Yawn!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Strange how this man was able to describe what the guy on the plane said yet was unable to tell us his name or profession?

Also if you watch Kent Hovinds dvd's he pretty much has the same story, except he wasn't on a plane, but at a dinner of some sort.

Waste of time.

How about you read An Ancestors Tale?

Would you do that?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:55 pm

Strange how this man was able to describe what the guy on the plane said yet was unable to tell us his name or profession?

Also if you watch Kent Hovinds dvd's he pretty much has the same story, except he wasn't on a plane, but at a dinner of some sort.

Waste of time.
Why is it a waste of time? Did the article not include any useful points about evolution?
How about you read An Ancestors Tale?

Would you do that?
I donít believe the world is 4 billion years old. I also donít believe humans and monkeys came from a common ancestor. Do you want me to read a book about something I donít believe? Iíll read the book if you answer all of my questions to date.

----

Liam, here are the questions Iím still waiting for you to answer:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noahís flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? Iím beginning to think that you donít believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldnít it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? Iím beginning to think youíre a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans canít live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasnít evolved?

If there was an oxygenĖless atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.
The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldnít function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God canít all be deluded.

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

What about Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life?

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which Ė a functional gene or protein Ė is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:07 pm

Did the article not include any useful points about evolution?

No! But then again, what would I expect from a Christian.

Also you pointed out that you do not believe the world is approx 4 billion years old, so therefore you would not read a book about evolution. So what makes you think that the Christians authors you keep referring to believe? They don't believe it either, so what do you think they would have anything useful to bring to the argument.

They, just like you, do not present any evidence. All you say is 'Thats too improbable' That is not evidence, that is ignorance.

Also wheather you "Believe" the age of the universe is 13.5 billion years old or not is irrelevant. It IS wheather you believe or not.

Perhaps we should move on to something you have acutually read....the bible?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:29 pm

Did the article not include any useful points about evolution?


No! But then again, what would I expect from a Christian.
Are you dismissing all the points in that article without refuting them?
Also you pointed out that you do not believe the world is approx 4 billion years old, so therefore you would not read a book about evolution. So what makes you think that the Christians authors you keep referring to believe? They don't believe it either, so what do you think they would have anything useful to bring to the argument.
Those Christian authors are pointing out why they donít believe. They have reasons why they donít believe. Their reasons for not believing are very useful for the argument. By the way, I would like you to answer all my questions to date if you donít mind.
They, just like you, do not present any evidence. All you say is 'Thats too improbable' That is not evidence, that is ignorance.
Thatís because evolution is too improbable. The odds are stacked against it. The fossil record shows a sudden, unexplainable appearance of a huge variety of simple and complex life-forms. If evolution where true, there should only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.
Also wheather you "Believe" the age of the universe is 13.5 billion years old or not is irrelevant. It IS wheather you believe or not.
Well I donít believe the world is 13.5 billion years old.
Perhaps we should move on to something you have acutually read....the bible?
The Bible is the word of God. God is the Creator of the Universe, and because I believe that God can indeed be trusted, so can the Bible. Liam, can you show me any archeological evidence that disproves anything written in the Bible?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:30 pm

Liam, here are the questions Iím still waiting for you to answer:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noahís flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? Iím beginning to think that you donít believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldnít it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? Iím beginning to think youíre a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans canít live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasnít evolved?

If there was an oxygenĖless atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.
The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldnít function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God canít all be deluded.

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

What about Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life?

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which Ė a functional gene or protein Ė is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:34 pm


Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:28 pm

Well I see you totally ignored my point about evolution. So I shall have to repeat it again:

Thatís because evolution is too improbable. The odds are stacked against it. The fossil record shows a sudden, unexplainable appearance of a huge variety of simple and complex life-forms. If evolution where true, there should only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

http://creationwiki.org/Cambrian_explosion
Cambrian explosion

The Cambrian Explosion is the term used to define the relatively sudden fossil appearance of new animal species and body forms in the geologic record.

The Cambrian Explosion defies modern evolutionary theory of gradual descent through mutations and natural selection from one common ancestor, because the fossil record should then show simplest life forms at the bottom, and a slow upward chain of complexity building upwards. A sudden appearance is indicative of a sudden creation.
We canít be sure the exact age of Clovis points because dating methods arenít always accurate. Because there was no death before the fall, Clovis points wouldnít have been needed until after the fall.

There is plenty of evidence that Jericho was indeed destroyed by the Israelites:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/jericho.asp
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/kingp/jericho.html
There is also evidence the Israelites where slaves in Egypt:

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/exodus.html
I quote:
Conclusions

So, there is good archaeological evidence for the presence of Semitic Canaanites (which would include the Apiru / Hebrews) in Egypt at the time in question for the biblical Exodus story. And the end-point is basically beyond question, as we find the Apiru/Hebrews invading Canaan, and finally, with the Merneptah Stele specifically naming the nation of "Israel" in Canaan at around 1200 BC. --An exodus of Hebrews must have taken place.

--As a result, Nahum Sarna (Brandeis University professor emeritus of biblical studies) maintains that the story of the exodus account --which traces a nation's origins to an ignoble beginning of slavery-- "cannot possibly be fictional. No nation would be likely to invent for itself, and faithfully transmit century after century and millennium after millennium, an inglorious and inconvenient tradition of this nature."
--Similarly, Richard Elliott Friedman, professor at the University of California at San Diego, says, "If you're making up history, it's that you were descended from gods or kings, not from slaves" (ref: Sheler, p.78 ).

These historians --along with many others-- say there must have been some an actual exodus event by the Hebrews, and as we read the book of Exodus in the Bible, we are essentially reading an historical account which is confirmed by archaeological evidence.
There is archaeological evidence to back up the Bible:

http://yearegods.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/archeological-evidence-supporting-the-bible/

Liam, please could you answer all my questions to date.

---

Liam, here are the questions Iím still waiting for you to answer:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noahís flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? Iím beginning to think that you donít believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldnít it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? Iím beginning to think youíre a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans canít live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasnít evolved?

If there was an oxygenĖless atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.
The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldnít function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God canít all be deluded.

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

What about Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life?

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which Ė a functional gene or protein Ė is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:54 pm

Quick question, what age is the oldest ORIGINAL manuscript from the bible?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:37 pm

The fossil record shows a sudden, unexplainable appearance of a huge variety of simple and complex life-forms.

The explanation IS natural selection.

If evolution where true, there should only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

Who said natural selection occurs at a constant rate?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:02 pm


Have you ever noticed that all of the references on this site are from bible sites? Ans NOT archaeology sites?

Of course there is an article from Michael Lemonick form Time magazine. However, a quick search of his articles on the Time website produced this article: http://aolsvc.timeforkids.kol.aol.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980307,00.html

So, how can a man who accepts evolution, possible be qualified to prove the existence of an ancient city?

Also you have Goerwitz, Richard L, not an archaeologist but a Dr in near eastern languages and civilizations. A christian.

You also have Netzer, Ehud, an archaeologist. However his cited work does not appear in any scientific journal, just a bible dictionary. Hardly scientific I think you'll agree.

Statmueller, Michael, Paul Van De Burg, Jana Vande Keift, & Gary Sicard, "Archaeology in the Bible - Jericho," http://www.wartburg.edu/inside/israel/Jericho1.html.

This link does not work. So I cannot comment.

As for Wood, Bryant, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryant_G._Wood#Jericho

Please not that Bryant Wood used C14 dating. But of course you caim that this is inaccurate, so therefore you have disproved your own evidence.

Perhaps you should do some research. And a scientific paper would be nice, as opposed to retarded AIG bullshit.

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:04 pm

Burns_William wrote:Quick question, what age is the oldest ORIGINAL manuscript from the bible?

By the way I still want you to answer this!

And before you copy and paste those bullshit questions again, asking me to answer them please note that I have here. (Read All)

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:11 pm


Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by bennett_david on Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:08 pm

Quick question, what age is the oldest ORIGINAL manuscript from the bible?
Manusctipts had to be copied by hand and some of the earliest manuscripts include John Rylands (John), Bodmer Papyrus II (John), Codex Vaticanus (Bible), Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) and Codex Alexandrinus (Bible). But when you compare the number of number of manuscripts for the Bible in comparison to the number of manuscripts for other ancient books of the same time the Bible stands out as being very reliable.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm
The manuscript evidence for the "New Testament" is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. 4 Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years. 5

Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar's The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger's Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides' History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus' History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed); Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years); and Tacitus' Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years). 6
The fossil record shows a sudden, unexplainable appearance of a huge variety of simple and complex life-forms.


The explanation IS natural selection.
This doesnít explain the sudden appearance of a huge variety of life-forms. Surely if evolution was true there should be some gradual increase of fossils in both the numbers and complexity of the organisms before the Cambrian explosion. Does the fossil record show a gradual increase in the complexity of life-forms from the start of time until now?
If evolution where true, there should only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.



Who said natural selection occurs at a constant rate?
I didnít say it had to be a constant rate. But surely if we are told that we evolved from simple life-forms to the complex life forms found nowadays then the fossil record should show this if evolution is true? Does the Cambrian explosion not prove that lots of creatures suddenly appeared, as if they were created all at the same time? I have no problem believing that God was behind creation.
And before you copy and paste those bullshit questions again, asking me to answer them please note that I have here. (Read All)
How can that be true when I canít remember you giving a satisfactory explanation as to how single celled organisms became multi celled. As you believe evolution is true I would like to read your answer to that question along with your answers to the rest of my questions to date.

----

Liam, here are the questions Iím still waiting for you to answer:

Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

----

Why are we here?
Whatís our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?

So what was the creature before it became a mouse?

And what is your evidence that an asteroid/comet killed the dinosaurs? One issue with this is if dinosaurs where all killed by a asteroid/comet, then why are there still crocodiles and lizards living today? Also why did any animals survive? As for Noahís flood, animals where kept alive on the ark.

Can you show me a species of fish that has evolved into another species of fish?

Is there no room in your life for the possibility that God might exist? Iím beginning to think that you donít believe in supernatural or miraculous occurrences. Is this assumption correct?

You ask where the water came from. I ask well if God was able to create the whole universe, then wouldnít it have been easy for God to have just made it rain? I believe God caused it to rain.

Ok then; in your own words describe to me how you think the origin of life occurred.

What happens when you feel guilty about something? How do you deal with guilt? Do you ever get bored? Iím beginning to think youíre a humanist. Am I correct?

Have you proof that the shark was a hermaphrodite?

It is impossible that life on Earth came from nothing unless God was involved. Until scientists generate new life (in lab conditions) from absolutely nothing will they be able to prove that life originated without God being responsible. So where is the empirical evidence that life came from nothing without God being responsible?

Liam, from what you and scientists can observe nowadays, how do you know that God was not responsible for the creation of animals?

One of the issues with life on Earth is the fact that a number of things need to be present for life to occur. For example humans canít live unless there is water to drink, food to eat and oxygen to breathe. The flagellum alone demonstrates the interaction of many finely-tuned systems. And without that interaction the flagellum could not function properly. So how can the flagellum function properly if one of those finely-tuned systems is missing?

From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasnít evolved?

If there was an oxygenĖless atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?

If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?

Is the sheer complexity found in life on Earth (for example the flagellum) not circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God? I believe it is circumstantial evidence that life was designed and created by God.

Liam, how do you explain the oldest living organism on the Earth; The Bristlecone Pine?

http://creationwiki.org/Bristlecone_pine

It is less than 5000 years old. If the Biblical global flood did not take place then surely there should be other living organisms that are older than the Bristlecone Pine. Unless of course there was a global flood that wiped out all life (apart from what went on the Ark) and the Bristlecone Pine just happens to be the oldest living organism since the flood.

Liam, what are your views on Dawkins calling himself a cultural Christian?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Liam, what about Christian revivals? A Christian revival is a time when God is clearly at work in the lives of humans on Earth. An example of this was the revivals in Wales:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/religion/sites/timeline/pages/religion_in_wales_13.shtml

These are real events that actually took place. Now if God was fake, not true and did not exist, then can you provide an explanation for events during a Christian revival? If Christianity was all a lie then I would expect there to be a lot less people who have had their lives transformed by Jesus.

Answer this question honestly: Is there any science that goes against evolution that you actually take seriously and consider not to be pseudoscience?

Also, did you watch the video I provided the link for (about our created Universe)?

http://www.nwcreation.net/media/Our_Created_Universe_high.wmv

In that video Spike Psarris mentions scientific issues and then quotes from evolutionists to prove that these issues he mentioned where not made up and where actually issues that evolutionists where trying to deal with. So how is that video pseudoscience? Could only be pseudoscience if Spike Psarris mentioned issues and he was making up the issues. But these issues where real scientific issues.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/darwin_critique1.htm
I quote:
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is defined as the base level of complexity below which a system no longer functions. Thus an irreducibly complex system is one comprising several unique interacting components that contribute to the basic function of the 'system' and wherein the removal of just one component renders the whole system no longer functional. An irreducibly complex system cannot 'evolve' by slight, single step successive modifications to a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part, is by definition non-functional and as such would have no purpose and presumably could not be the subject of 'natural selection'.
The human eye is an example of irreducible complexity. If one part of a human eye is missing then it cannot function as effectively. So Liam, can you show me a creature that if it missed one part could still function as effectively? If a human only had one lung instead of two lungs, yes that human might still be able to function, but nowhere as effectively. The flagellum is another example of irreducible complexity.

Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldnít function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?

Liam, can you explain how a woodpecker (Bird with strong claws and a stiff tail adapted for climbing and a hard chisel-like bill for boring into wood for insects.) evolved? Here is a video about just how complicated a woodpecker actually is:

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=817b7893bcdeed13799b

Liam you have to answer this question; if you think there is no proof for the existence of God, then why are there any intelligent people that believe in the existence of God? All intelligent people who believe in God canít all be deluded.

Liam, how do you know that atheism is true (or probably true)? How do you know that the criteria you use for deciding this question is the correct criteria?

What about Charles Hodge and his anti-slavery views in later life?

In regard to evolution (these questions are from the book In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation):

How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?

How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?

Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?

Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?

Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?

Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?

How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?

In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?

Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?

Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?

Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?

Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which Ė a functional gene or protein Ė is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?

Where does new information come from?

----

Who or what provided the material for the big bang?

Why did it not implode rather that explode?

How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?

How could life appear spontaneously?

How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?

bennett_david

Posts : 203
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:59 pm

Manusctipts had to be copied by hand and some of the earliest
manuscripts include John Rylands (John), Bodmer Papyrus II (John),
Codex Vaticanus (Bible), Codex Sinaiticus (Bible) and Codex
Alexandrinus (Bible). But when you compare the number of number of
manuscripts for the Bible in comparison to the number of manuscripts
for other ancient books of the same time the Bible stands out as being
very reliable.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm

I asked for an age! Care to give me an age??

I didnít say it had to be a constant rate.

Actually you did...

...if evolution was true there should be some gradual increase of fossils in both the numbers and complexity...

Natural selection does not have a constant speed.

Does the fossil record show a gradual increase in the complexity of life-forms from the start of time until now?

Yes! You can disprove this, if you can find a homo sapien that is older than a homo habilis. Can you find such an example.

Does the Cambrian explosion not prove that lots of creatures suddenly appeared, as if they were created all at the same time?

The problem with this question is you don't believe the Earth is billions of years old, therefore the Cambrian explosion never occurred. But, you obviously believe that this event took place, otherwise you wouldn't be so stupid as to ask a question on it.

I canít remember you giving a satisfactory explanation...

What would a satisfactory answer contain?

Burns_William

Posts : 160
Join date : 2007-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 12 of 15 Previous  1 ... 7 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum