Continue the debate in here

Page 13 of 15 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Continue the debate in here

Post by Burns_William on Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:04 pm

Further quick question...

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

Do you know how long was the Cambrian explosion was?

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 11:44 pm

I asked for an age! Care to give me an age??
Some of them are less than one hundred years from the time of the actual events themselves.
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.
Gradual or not there should still be an increase.
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.
I canít do that because they are both types of humans. Adam and Eve where the first humans and they appeared when God created them.
I canít remember you giving a satisfactory explanation...


What would a satisfactory answer contain?
Start by telling me how it happened.
Further quick question...
Does the Cambrian explosion not prove that lots of creatures suddenly appeared, as if they were created all at the same time?


Do you know how long was the Cambrian explosion was?
How long? Nope. But I do know how the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution:

http://www.learnthebible.org/creation_science_cambrian_explosion_disproves_evolution.htm

----

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 Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:00 am

Some of them are less than one hundred years from the time of the actual events themselves.

How do you know that?

Gradual or not there should still be an increase.

Says who?

I canít do that..

And until you or someone else does, evolution shall remain the dominant theory.

How long? Nope. But I do know how the Cambrian explosion disproves evolution:

Do some research... or if your too lazy and ignorant (which you are) should I tell you?

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 Aug 01, 2008 10:14 pm

Some of them are less than one hundred years from the time of the actual events themselves.


How do you know that?
I quote from the book ĎAnswers to Tough Questions About the Christian Faithí by Josh McDowell & Don Stewart:
How can anyone believe the New Testament account of the life of Jesus, seeing it was written long after his death?

There seems to be some type of general consensus among many people that the New Testament documents were written many years after the events took place and hence do not contain reliable information. However, the fact of the matter is that the life of Jesus was written by eyewitnesses or people who recorded firsthand testimony. The writers were all living at the same time these events transpired, and they had personal contact with the events or with people who witnessed the events.
There is strong internal testimony that the Gospels were written at an early date. The Book of Acts records the missionary activity of the early church and written as a sequel by the same person who wrote the Gospel according to Luke. The Book of Acts ends with the Apostle Paul being alive in Rome, his death not being recorded.
This would lead us to believe that it was written before he died, since the other major events in his life have been recorded. We have some reason to believe that Paul was put to death in the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64, which indicates the Book of Acts was composed before this time.
If the Book of Acts was written before A.D. 64, then the Gospel of Luke, to which Acts was a sequel, had to have been composed some time before that, probably in the late fifties or early sixties of the first century. The death of Christ took place around A.D. 30, which would make the composition of Luke at the latest within thirty years of the events. The early church generally taught that the first Gospel composed was that of Matthew, which would place us still closer to the time of Christ. This evidence leads us to believe that the first three Gospels were all composed within 30 years from the time these events occurred, a time when unfriendly eyewitnesses were still living who could could contradict their testimony if it was not accurate.
This type of evidence has led one liberal scholar, John A.T. Robinson, to re-date the New Testament documents much earlier that most liberal scholars would have us believe. Robinson has argued in Redating the New Testament that the entire New Testament could have been completed before A.D. 70, which is still well into the eyewitness period.
Facts involved in the issue led W.F. Albright, the great biblical archaeologist, to comment, ĎWe can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of todayí (William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1995, p. 136).
Albrightís A.D. 80 date might be questioned when it comes to the Gospel of John. There is a strong possibility the Apostle Johnís banishment to Patmos under Domitian was as late as A.D. 95-96 in Revelation 1. There is strong tradition John wrote Revelation there at that time. This is testified to by Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius and Irenaeus (cf. New Testament Survey, p. 391, by Robert Gromacki).
The evidence points out that (1) the documents were not written long after the events but within close proximity to them, and (2) they were written by people during the period when many who were acquainted with the facts or were eyewitness to them were still living. The inescapable conclusion is that the New Testament picture of Christ can be trusted.
Gradual or not there should still be an increase.


Says who?
Well thatís what would be expected if creatures nowadays are evolved from less complex creatures in the past.
I canít do that..


And until you or someone else does, evolution shall remain the dominant theory.
Itís the dominant theory because it rules God out of the picture. I have no problem believing the facts of Biblical creation.


Last edited by bennett_david on Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:33 pm; edited 1 time 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 Aug 01, 2008 10:14 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 Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:21 pm

http://www.icr.org/article/3961/
The Origin of Flight
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*

Evolution has many steep obstacles to overcome. Many are the stupendous design characteristics and environmental balances that can scarcely be understood by today's scientists, let alone mimicked. Yet evolution must work alone with random mutations (usually harmful and therefore discarded) and unthinking natural selection, which cannot see the future or do anything novel on its own. Beneficial mutations (if there are any) can perhaps be selected naturally for survival and enhanced reproductive success, but the elegance of design on display in nature stuns us. Is it credible to rely on such ineffective and inefficient methods to produce all we see?

One of evolution's greatest challenges is the origin of flight. Each flying creature seems specifically designed to do just that and only that. There's nothing random or unthinking about it.

According to evolution, flight was achieved on several occasions. Happening once is highly unlikely. Happening multiple times--how can they assert this and maintain a straight face?

Flight was supposedly first achieved by insects. The insects are classed as arthropods, as are the many invertebrate animals in the sea. Along the way, insects gained many wonderful adaptations to fit them for life on the land, thus only some of them took to the air. Yet the wide variety and abilities of flying insects continue to astound those who try to catalog them. From the delicate butterfly, to the aggressive dragonfly, to the filthy housefly, to the irritating gnats, etc., all exhibit precise design characteristics quite different from each other, yet bear little evidence of relationship to any other insects. Both living specimens and fossil specimens are easily identified, appear designed to do what they do, and show neither transitional forms among themselves nor with non-flying insects. They testify for purposeful creation, not random evolution.

The flying reptiles are likewise separate and distinct from all other reptiles, yet from the earliest time their fossils are seen (read: lowest in the strata column), they display all the design traits which characterize them. There are two basic types of flying reptiles, and they are fully distinct from each other and lacking any fossil evidence that they evolved from some other type. They seem to have been created to be flying reptiles only, and created precisely with that goal in mind by an intelligent Creator.

The birds are not thought to have evolved from flying reptiles, but from ground-dwelling or tree-climbing reptiles. Birds fill diverse ecological niches and accomplish numerous necessary purposes, all the while filling the air with song and beauty.

The marvels of bird flight seemingly testify to intelligent aerodynamic engineering. The feathers, the wings, the hollow bones, the sternum, the flight muscles, etc.--all are designed specifically for flight. This suite of features is only useful for flight, and yet each is necessary for any of them to accomplish their intended purpose. Random mutation and natural selection would be hard pressed to accomplish something like this.

Mammals, too, can fly, or at least some of them. Bats exhibit many unique design features, including wing design and radar. Their radar signal and receivers even supplied the model from which design engineers got their idea for the use of radar today. Bats accomplish several necessary tasks, including keeping insect populations in check, without which our lives would be difficult. And bat fossils are 100 percent bat. No evolution here!

And that's the point. The evidence does not uniquely point to evolution. The person who says all life came from a common ancestor through "descent with modification" must not have studied living things very carefully. The whole evolution story can best be understood as an attempt to provide scientific support for a life lived without accountability to a Creator God.

http://www.icr.org/article/3962/
The Amazing Design of the Human Nose
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Besides adding distinction to the human face, the nose is an amazingly complex instrument. The insides of our noses are not just straight hollow tubes, but are shaped specifically to regulate airflow. A smooth bony constriction in the front has a smaller diameter than a human finger. This both protects the soft inner tissue from errant fingers and may act as a de Laval nozzle,1 increasing airspeed inside the nasal chamber.

Three curved plates called conchae intrude into each nasal passageway, one stacked upon the other. Made of thin bones shaped like crashing waves, the lower and middle conchae are larger and longer than the upper concha and process most of the air passing through. The shapes of the air passages between these bones induce a laminar (orderly, streamlined) airflow pattern, thus reducing turbulence. The middle and lower passages are curved in three dimensions--vertically they curl in a semicircle, lengthwise they curve downward toward the trachea, and widthwise they are convex.

Attached to the conchae is expandable soft tissue that can congest the nasal passages or contract to open them. This is covered by a special skin designed to capture debris with small hairlike projections and a layer of mucus, thus protecting sensitive lung tissue. Our noses regulate airflow direction, humidification, heating, and immune functions by partnering with the lymphatic system.

In 2005, Dr. Denis Doorly of Imperial College, London, built and tested airflow through a see-through model of the nose. He concluded that "airflow in the nose is not simply laminar or turbulent."2 Is the fact that our noses produce some turbulent ("disordered") airflow an indication of poor design? Interestingly, the turbulence causes eddies to waft upward, allowing controlled puffs of air into the narrow space above the upper concha where the sensitive olfactory nerves are located. Much of our sense of smell depends on this unique airflow pattern. Most of the air is not wafted up, but jetted down. It is likely that this flow rate is increased by the downward curvature of the conchae, which may utilize the Coanda effect. This effect can be demonstrated by observing how fluid speeds up as it runs down the back of a vertically held spoon.

The same principles utilized by our noses are being considered by engineers in their quest to build more efficient machines. For example, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is currently in production and promises to operate 20 percent more efficiently than the similarly-sized 767 (a 1982 product).3

As good as that sounds, an even more efficient airplane is being designed by scientists with the Silent Aircraft Initiative.4 The SAX40 will look like a giant manta ray, with wide wings attached to a wedge-shaped body. CNN reported that "the team found that the same technological changes that make craft quieter also make them more fuel-efficient."5 If human noses did not have conchae, turbulent air would rush right next to our ears, making life miserably noisy.

Increasingly, scientists are more closely examining nature to gain inspiration for new technologies. Evolutionary thinking would have us believe that nasal conchae developed over time through natural selection. However, there is no clear progression of fossilized transitional conchae to back up this claim; only fully-formed noses are in the rock record. There is not even a theoretically realistic mechanism that nature could implement--assuming a non-intelligent, non-volitional entity like the universe could implement anything at all--to generate such complex features. When we examine the nose, we can join Job in exclaiming, "Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?"6

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 Aug 02, 2008 5:19 pm

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/amarillo-tx/TT9VU1J3HT2G10701
Seven Reasons Why Evolution is a Fraud
1. It's not science. You cannot observe, test and repeat the ever-changing ideas that are little more than wild speculation.

2. It devalues real science. Chemistry, physics and biology don't have the same problems of legitimacy because they are real sciences, not philosophical wannabes trying to appear legit.

3. Complex engineering. Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms.

4. Genetics. The programming code of life, according to evolutionists, is just a series of biochemical accidents and mutations. If you believe this, I have a bridge in New York that's for sale. The infinitely complex engineering of this code means that it did not come about via 'natural selection,' aka random chance.

5. Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds.

6. Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

7. Racism. This is the ugly secret that evolutionists don't want to discuss; that Darwin, Huxley and many of the early advocates of evolution stated publicly that Asians, Africans, Australian Aborigines and other non-white, non-European groups were evolutionary throwbacks. Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was a pioneer in the early field of eugenics which was the study of skills by ethnic groups. While Galton's work was relatively harmless, Hitler's work -- to synthesize natural selection by exterminating a race of people -- was not.

More info at http://www.evofraud.com
You can also have a read of these 40 reasons why evolution didn't occur:

http://www.geocities.com/lamb_of_god_2005/no_evolution.html
Reason # 40: In conclusion, all you have to do is look up at the sky and see the billions of stars and the universe circulating in intracate precision to know you were "designed" by God. This universe is infinetly complex. Just take the Earth for example, it is very complex and unique. The earth is the precise distance from the sun. If it was much closer it would fry and if it was much farther it would freeze. If you made a map of the universe and nine inches represented the distance from the earth to the sun the map would be over forty miles long to chart the next closest star, Alpha Centauri. But that was just a product of "chance" after the Big Bang. Yeah right. The earth is unique because it is the only planet with a 23.5-degree tilt on its axis. If that were not so the middle would fry and the poles would accumulate huge masses of ice. The earth is the only planet with abundance of water. Water and Bismuth are the only two elements that are heavier at four degrees Celcius then they are a freezing. If this was not so all the lakes, rivers, ponds, etc, would freeze from the bottom up and kill all the fish. Consider the moon, if it was ever deflected from its orbit life would cease to exist. The moon is a maid to clean up the oceans. The tides that the moon produces areate the oceans, keep it clean, and supply oxygen for the plankton which is the foundation of the food chain. No other atmosphere is like earth's. Our atmosphere consists of approx. 81 % nitrogen, 18 % oxygen, and 1 % of a dozen trace elements. No other atmosphere is even close to this. These elements are NOT mixed chemically but are mechanically intermingled by the moon's tidal effect upon the atmosphere. Mankind dumps an enormous amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it is absorbed into the ocean. If this were not so the human race would cease to exist. Consider the unique cloud cover of earth. At any given time the earth's surface is 50 % covered by clouds which lets just the right amount of sunshine in. If earth had cloud cover like Venus life would cease to exist. (The cloud cover of Venus is several miles thick) Consider the amazing nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen is extremely inert, if it wasn't we would all be poisoned by it. However, because of its inertness, it is impossible to get it to combine natrually with other things. But plants need it in the ground for their survival. How does God provide nitrogen for the plants? He does it by lightning. 100,000 lightning bolts strike earth daily, creating 100,000,000 tons of useable nitrogen plant food in the soil every year. Just consider these points and many others and you will see how God has shown His handiwork (Psalm 19:1) to us. He has provided many amazing things for us to know that He designed the universe. Just consider how complex and amazing this world of ours is. It is not the product of evolution or any other "chance" happenstance. You and everything else around you was designed by God.

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 Aug 02, 2008 9:56 pm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1980
CONCLUSION
Scientifically, the choice is between matter only and more than matter as the fundamental explanation for the existence and orderliness of the Universe. The difference, therefore, between the evolution model and the creation model is the difference between: (a) time, chance, and the inherent properties of matter; or (b) design, creation, and the irreducible properties of organization. In fact, when it comes to any particular case, there are again only two scientific explanations for the origin of the order that characterizes the Universe and life in the Universe: either the order was imposed on matter, or it resides within matter. However, if it is suggested that the order resides within matter, we respond by saying that we certainly have not seen the evidence of such. The creation model not only is plausible, but also is the only one that postulates an adequate cause for the Universe and life in that Universe. The evolution model cannot, and does not. The evidence speaks clearly to the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.

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 Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:40 pm

Well done in ignoring all the evidence I sent! You really are a retard.

Did you find out how long the Cambrian Explosion was?

Have you an accurate date for the oldest NT manuscript?

Do you know what the process of evolution consists of?

No! Because you are an ignorant moron who cannot do anything other than copy and paste from christian websites. You have shown that you lack an understanding of what exists and even what you believe.

You are the ultimate example of a sheep!

Continue to live in your bubble. The worlds a better place if you stay there. However, if you have the balls to actually do some research start of by 'knowing thine enemy'!

You continually fail to address my most fundamental points. For example, when I pointed out that all of the sources that you presented were flawed and not peer reviewed you failed to provide any rebuttal. Which means one of two things, either you are an ignorant moron who couldn't find a website with a rebuttal to copy and paste, or, you know I was right and you choose to ignore it rather than address it.

As for the continued post of questions I (supposedly) fail to answer, perhaps you should read both this forum and the imd one, for I am confident that I have answered 90-99% of those questions. If you do, do that, then I will be happy to answer the remaining questions. You, however are guilty of dodging questions, specifically one, remember 'Can you (Yes or No) prove the existance of God?'

You have failed to answer this question each time it has been asked.

So I guess what I'm really asking is, Dave are you a sheep who cannot think for himself and consistently plagiarises or are you a homo sapien who can think (and type) for himself?

Let me know!

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 Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:43 pm

Did you find out how long the Cambrian Explosion was?
Not the exact length. But I do know it is a sudden appearing of lots of fossils around the same time. A sudden appearing of lots of fossils would fit well into the creation account; God creating the Universe.
Have you an accurate date for the oldest NT manuscript?
Not an accurate date but I do know they are within 100 years of the events themselves and that this makes them reliable and trustworthy.
Do you know what the process of evolution consists of?
For an in-depth description of the theory of evolution, you can check this page:
http://www.reference.com/search?q=evolution
Just bear in mind evolution is only a theory.
As for the continued post of questions I (supposedly) fail to answer, perhaps you should read both this forum and the imd one, for I am confident that I have answered 90-99% of those questions.
I keep posting them because Iím still waiting for you to answer them. You still havenít given me an answer to this question: Can you explain and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?
You, however are guilty of dodging questions, specifically one, remember 'Can you (Yes or No) prove the existance of God?'
Since we started debating, way back on the IMD forum, I have given many reasons why I believe in the existence of God. But so far none of them has been satisfactory for you.
You have failed to answer this question each time it has been asked.
Can I prove God exists? Not exactly. But what I can do is give reasons (for example: the fact that the Earth is suited for life) which I think are strong enough to warrant belief in God.

----

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 Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:04 am

Not the exact length.

Why don't you find out??

But I do know it is a sudden appearing of lots of
fossils around the same time. A sudden appearing of lots of fossils
would fit well into the creation account; God creating the Universe.

The Cambrian Explosion occurred 530 million years ago, who does that fit in with god's creation?

Not an accurate date but I do know they are within 100 years of the
events themselves and that this makes them reliable and trustworthy.

How do you know? What are your dating methods?

In relation to my question:

Do you know what the process of evolution consists of?

Well, do you? You didn't answer it. Juts copy and paste AGAIN!!!

Just bear in mind evolution is only a theory.

Retard!! Read this (again):

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new
evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific
theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not
so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive
explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many
facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make
predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

National Academy of Sciences (2005), Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a brochure on the book of the same title

I keep posting them because Iím still waiting for you to answer them.
You still havenít given me an answer to this question: Can you explain
and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?

The why don't you read my answers and post the unanswered questions?

Can I prove God exists? Not exactly. But what I can do is give reasons
(for example: the fact that the Earth is suited for life) which I think
are strong enough to warrant belief in God.

Yes or No?

I see you have dodged my rebuttals, yet again in relation to you flawed sources!

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 Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:24 am

BTW Have you seen Expelled? Do you have a copy of it?

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 Aug 04, 2008 9:26 pm

But I do know it is a sudden appearing of lots of
fossils around the same time. A sudden appearing of lots of fossils
would fit well into the creation account; God creating the Universe.


The Cambrian Explosion occurred 530 million years ago, who does that fit in with god's creation?
How do you know it occurred 530 million years? Dating methods arenít always accurate. It is very clear that the process of evolution if it ever did occur would be a very slow process. Thatís why scientists are always branding about ages for the Earth in the millions of years.
Not an accurate date but I do know they are within 100 years of the
events themselves and that this makes them reliable and trustworthy.


How do you know? What are your dating methods?
They are within 100 years because the Apostle Paul was still alive at the end of the Book of Acts and at least 3 of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) where written before that.
I keep posting them because Iím still waiting for you to answer them.
You still havenít given me an answer to this question: Can you explain
and prove how single celled organisms became multi celled?


The why don't you read my answers and post the unanswered questions?
Ok. 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 Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:26 pm

Can I prove God exists? Not exactly. But what I can do is give reasons
(for example: the fact that the Earth is suited for life) which I think
are strong enough to warrant belief in God. I believe answered prayer does indeed prove the existence of God.


Yes or No?
What about answered prayer? Does that prove the existence of God? I believe answered prayer does indeed prove the existence of God.
BTW Have you seen Expelled? Do you have a copy of it?
Iíve heard about it but I have neither seen it or own a copy.

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 Aug 06, 2008 11:08 pm


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 Aug 07, 2008 6:15 pm

Liam, I see you also havenít dealt with the following:
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?


Last edited by bennett_david on Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:19 pm; edited 1 time 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 Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:16 pm

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.
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]

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 Aug 31, 2008 5:09 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 Sep 20, 2008 7:12 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 Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:12 am


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 Sep 29, 2008 12:36 pm

C-14
What do you mean by that?

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 Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:50 pm

bennett_david wrote:
C-14
What do you mean by that?

Click it and find out!

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 Oct 03, 2008 8:22 pm

Burns_William wrote:
bennett_david wrote:
C-14
What do you mean by that?

Click it and find out!
Please explain why you are referring to Carbon-14.

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 Oct 03, 2008 8:23 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 Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:39 pm

http://creationwiki.org/Young_earth
Geomagnetic field decay

Main Article: Geomagnetic field decay

Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth. If the decay is projected back 20,000 years, the heat produced by the electric current that generates the Earth's magnetic field would have liquefied the Earth. Naturally this would make life impossible. The best model for the Earth's magnetic field and observed data places the age of Earth at 6,000 Ė 8,700 years.
Pleochroic halos

Main Article: Pleochroic halos

Radioactive inclusions in rock often cause concentric spheres of discoloration due to the damage caused by alpha particles as they are emitted by the radioactive substance. Pleochroic halos are the scars of radioactive decay, particularly alpha decay. These scars appear as spheres (rings when views in cross-section) in the rock surrounding a crystal rich with decaying radioactive atoms. The size of the halo is a signature of the energy of the emission and therefore the element and isotope involved. Creationists use these halos in several ways to suggest problems with the standard uniformitarian model.
Helium diffusion

Main Article: Helium diffusion

One type of nuclear decay is the emission of helium nuclei, known as alpha decay. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a by-product of their radioactivity. This helium diffuses out of zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the conventional age given by assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time.
Helioseismology

Main Article: Helioseismology

The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years.
Accelerated Nuclear Decay

Main Article: Accelerated Nuclear Decay

The main assumption of radiometric dating is that the decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay is worthless. However, if radioactive decay has been happening for Billions of years then there is insufficient argon diffusion, insufficient lead diffusion, insufficient helium in the air, and too much Helium in Rocks. Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay has taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years.

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 Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 13 of 15 Previous  1 ... 8 ... 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