<a href="http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/creationscience.html">http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/creationscience.html</a>

I read the article and found it very interesting. It made some good points. It was a bit harsh in dealing with us evolution believing Christians, not very objective at all. But hey thats what most scientists and atheist get from Christians so I guess we had it comeing.
I would point out however that even science DEMANDS an open minded approach. As for unexplainable phenomenon and spiritual movement...even Einstein believed there were many such things he may never explain...and he delighted in them. :O) A good percentage of scientists also attend church...which tells me even the most skeptical and factuall minds know there is more to life than breathing.
Peace. Thanks for the article.

*Originally posted by tetra
VERY Nice Formal Proof of Evolution *

Nah, it's only a very nice formal proof that you can quote a url.
The site provides the major flaw with the "proof" right up front, when it says that science ceases to be science when dealing with supernatural forces.

The site is also masterfully aware of the obvious when it says that creationism exists for religious reasons.
Hey Cletus, who'da thunk that without being told?

The site is very upfront about the uselessness of scientific knowledge, too, when it claims that theory is the highest form of understanding in science.
Many other people would put speculation at the bottom of the ladder, but not these guys.

The "proof" itself is so ludicrous, that one would think the site is actually "www.atheisthumor.snicker"

If "The Logic Of Evolution" is the best that atheist thinking can come up with, I can only ask one question, "Can atheists feed themselves?"

Note how the second statement in the first observation refers to dealing with situations when living things ARE already in existence.

Didn't anyone think of telling these guys that Genesis handles the situation when living things are NOT already in existence?

The folishness of the assumptions is staggering.
Foolish assumption 1: What "remote" past?
Foolish assumption 2: How does one know that the fossils are of what you consider progenitors of today's lifeforms?

*Originally posted by Taken
But hey thats what most scientists and atheist get from Christians so I guess we had it comeing.*

They get it from God.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2:4, KJV).

If antichristian evos think they have it tough now, wait til later.

*I would point out however that even science DEMANDS an open minded approach.*

Science demands only stupidity; it may politely request intelligence, but it rarely gets it.

Another nugget from the article deals with the issue of biblical myths being true resulting in all types of fossils being found thru all rock layers.

The assumption is that there was no flood, therefore everything died randomly.
However, with no flood, there would be no fossils, since scavengers would eat the carcasses.
That's too much for atheists to figure out.

All in all, that article was fuuuuunnnnnnyyy.
Thanks, tetra.

Tony, this article was not posted to even try and make you use a braincell or two, as you have outlined before that this is clearly beyond your limits. You claim the article is nonsense and ludacris, and yet your reply to it is even more so. I mean, take a couple of your points for example:
However, with no flood, there would be no fossils, since scavengers would eat the carcasses.
I'm not sure how you came up with that. Following your logic, there must not be any fossiles on the planet since the planet was not completely immersed in water for 4 billion years. An animal walks beside a cliff, there is a mudslide, the animal is covered in mud which later hardens. There, you have a very good chance of a fossile forming. Amazing isn't it?
Science demands only stupidity; it may politely request intelligence, but it rarely gets it.
If scientists are stupid, I feel very sorry for you.
Many other people would put speculation at the bottom of the ladder, but not these guys.
A speculation would be a hypothesis. After a hypothesis is formulated, it is tested, and tested again, and retested. If it passes all these tests and still remains the best explanation it is considered a theory. A theory is one step down from a hard fact. It's really very simple tony.

*Originally posted by Xelios
I'm not sure how you came up with that.*

It's a process you're unfamiliar with, called "thought."

*Following your logic, there must not be any fossiles on the planet since the planet was not completely immersed in water for 4 billion years. An animal walks beside a cliff, there is a mudslide, the animal is covered in mud which later hardens. There, you have a very good chance of a fossile forming. Amazing isn't it?*

It's amazing that you are past grade two.
So, the trillions of fossils are all due to "the animal" walking beside a mud cliff which slides?
The birds presumably flew too close to that cliff, and the fish were all swimming just under that cliff, etc.
So, how long could that cliff have lasted with all the mud sliding off it for 4 billion years?

Are you actually posting from Ponoka?

*If scientists are stupid, I feel very sorry for you.*

Well, get ready for some serious sorrow then.

*A speculation would be a hypothesis. After a hypothesis is formulated, it is tested, and tested again, and retested. If it passes all these tests and still remains the best explanation it is considered a theory. A theory is one step down from a hard fact. It's really very simple tony. *

Only the simple would go for that, I admit.
On your metaphorical ladder of knowledge, theory is one step down from hard fact.
The problem is that your ladder is upside down.

Lets talk about the flood. Many experts agree it can't be a myth. The account of the flood is found in ancient storys from every culture from Isreal to Mexico. The names and places may change as the story is passed down, but the accounts are strikingly similar. While scientist say there is no evidence of a world wide flood. They do say that there is in fact evidence of a massive regional flood at that time that would encompass an area large enough that for all intents and purposes would cause those actually living in the area that held the then population of humanity to believe it was in fact world wide.

Take in to consideration that with the modes of transport at that time...to make and survive a trip from Jeruselem to what we now know as the USA and back to tell exactly how vast the world actually was would have been pretty impossible. So if the flood in fact covered and destroyed everything as far as any man knew land and life to exist, he would in fact see it as the ENTIRE world being under water. Where did that Ark start out at, and where was it when Noah got off of it? The accounts although divinely inspired were written by men who used what they knew as they told what happened, and the flood account in the Bible as far as we know was NOT a first hand account by Noah himself, but the story after it had been passed down through MANY generations. Point is: the names and mileage doesn't matter, the fact remains the flood did under the best evidence we have occur...and obviously someone knew of it's comeing before it did and was able to build a boat in preperation. Even the CIA...haveing been laughed at during an inqusition for admitting it, has pictures of what even they speculate appears to be a boat resembling in appearence and size of the Ark perched on the side of a mountain where men have yet to be able to get to it to further investigate it.

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/images/wpe23.gif

http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ararat_anomaly_1949_Frame%202.jpg



CIA spy photos sharpen focus on Ararat Anomaly
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

In the secret world of intelligence, it goes by the bland name of the "Ararat Anomaly." But former intelligence officials say soon-to-be-released U.S. spy photographs of the odd formation high on Turkey's Mount Ararat could reveal something far more explosive: the remnants of Noah's Ark, the ancient vessel from the Bible that safely preserved a pair of every creature on Earth in the midst of a global flood.

"The pictures are real clear. You see the whole summit and lots of rock formations," said Dino A. Brugioni, a retired CIA photographic specialist who was directed to study the high-resolution photographs of the unusual Mount Ararat site two decades ago.

A series of images snapped by a U-2 spy plane at the end of a 3,000-mile reconnaissance flight from what was then the Soviet Union to Turkey caught the attention of a photo interpreter in his section.

CIA spokesman Tom Crispell said the release of the U-2 photographs will contain pictures of the Ararat Anomaly. But other photos taken by KH-9 and KH-11 high-resolution spy satellites are not likely to be made public any time soon, intelligence sources said.

Getting the public to see the photographs of Mount Ararat has been a four-year quest for Porcher L. Taylor III, a University of Richmond professor who first heard rumors about the spy pictures of Noah's Ark as a cadet at West Point in 1973.

"Although it is remote that the Ark could survive for 4,500 years in a moving glacier, some CIA photo interpreters have not ruled this out," Mr. Taylor said.

It's a process you're unfamiliar with, called "thought."
Yeah, I guess to you it doesn't matter that you're thinking in the wrong direction eh?
It's amazing that you are past grade two.
So, the trillions of fossils are all due to "the animal" walking beside a mud cliff which slides?
It's amazing YOU're past grade two, after what you tried to pull of in your last post. And no, the trillions of fossiles did not all come from mudslides on the same cliff. It is an example of one way a fossile forms, there are others too.
The problem is that your ladder is upside down.
Says who?
Are you actually posting from Ponoka?
No.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Yeah, I guess to you it doesn't matter that you're thinking in the wrong direction eh?*

And your mother wears army boots.

*no the trillions of fossiles did not all come from mudslides on the same cliff. It is an example of one way a fossile forms, there are others too.*

OK, so what's your point?
That there were trillions of mud cliffs?

There really isn't any point in trying to come up with all the different ways a fossil might form.
I've heard them all.
I went to school like you, with better marks mind you, and I've been debating evo/cre for a while.

The point is that you have to come up with a way that accounts for ALL of the fossils, not just one here or one there.

Your teachers think you're real smart when you come up with one or two ways that fossils may have formed, and they'll reward you with a cube of sugar.

In reality, you have to explain ALL of the fossils or you aren't explaining anything at all, except how useless your science teacher was.

tony1,

You're a silly little man.

Fossilisation is a VERY rare event. Only a TINY fraction of creatures are ever fossilised.

You really need to do some basic reading.

"Fossilisation is a VERY rare event. Only a TINY fraction of creatures are ever fossilised."

Xelios said trillions. Why don't you point that out to him?

Ben

I did, KalvinB. Everybody can read my posts.

*Originally posted by James R
You're a silly little man.

Fossilisation is a VERY rare event. Only a TINY fraction of creatures are ever fossilised.

You really need to do some basic reading. *

You need to look out the window once in a while.
Where fossils are found, the fossil beds cover hundreds of square miles.
There's nothing rare about fossilization in a flood.

What you're talking about is normal circumstances.

My point has always been that fossilization is extremely rare, ordinarily.
The flood was not ordinary, and that is why there are trillions upon trillions of fossils.

You should consider some basic thinking.
Oh, what am I saying?
You're the guy that proved beyond a doubt that he was not the kind of person who thinks.

hehehehe
This person is on your Ignore List.

I have no clue what you have said, tony1, but I am almost positive that it wouldnt be worth my time :o)

Originally Posted By Tony:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Originally posted by James R
You're a silly little man.

Fossilisation is a VERY rare event. Only a TINY fraction of creatures are ever fossilised.

You really need to do some basic reading. *

You need to look out the window once in a while.
Where fossils are found, the fossil beds cover hundreds of square miles.
There's nothing rare about fossilization in a flood.

What you're talking about is normal circumstances.

My point has always been that fossilization is extremely rare, ordinarily.
The flood was not ordinary, and that is why there are trillions upon trillions of fossils.

You should consider some basic thinking.
Oh, what am I saying?
You're the guy that proved beyond a doubt that he was not the kind of person who thinks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any time you wish to post only to point out you can't see what Tony posts, I'll repost his post for you.

Ben

Actually KB, it was tony1 that suggested there were trillions. Maybe you should read the posts harder next time.

Tony, if there was a giant flood there would be one layer of fossiles covering the entire planet containing "trillions of fossiles". If this was the case you would discover fossiles no matter where you dig. Obviously, this is not what happens. Or do you think all the animals came together in large groups in certain areas just before the world flooded?

Originally posted by Xelios
Actually KB, it was tony1 that suggested there were trillions. Maybe you should read the posts harder next time.

Tony, if there was a giant flood there would be one layer of fossiles covering the entire planet containing "trillions of fossiles". If this was the case you would discover fossiles no matter where you dig. Obviously, this is not what happens. Or do you think all the animals came together in large groups in certain areas just before the world flooded?

Xelios,
While back I was reading the comentry on Quran and Science and they mention that the great flood I mean the flood during the time of noah was only on certain part of the world. Quran gave that description unlike Bible. It was very interesting that how Quran avoided the biblical mistake still there were not much resources 14 or 1500 years ago. Any ways did you go through all the topics in that site?.

i]tetra [/i]

Where's the formal proof?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Yes I did Mark. It is actually very interesting. Some of it could be coincidence, but a lot of it seems to match up to the modern world. The only doubt I would have about the Quran is its authenticity. That is, is everyone sure it has not been altered as new facts were discovered? It sounds extreme, but some cults and religions would do these things, they would simply update their sacred texts as science progressed and then claim their text prophesised it.

For example, the speed of light was proven fairly accuratly in the late 1800's. It would not have taken much to change a few sentances in the Quran, or any other book, to match up with these new results.

I'm not saying it has been tampered with, but the possibility should be checked out.

*Originally posted by KalvinB
Any time you wish to post only to point out you can't see what Tony posts, I'll repost his post for you.*

That'll teach him.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Tony, if there was a giant flood there would be one layer of fossiles covering the entire planet containing "trillions of fossiles". If this was the case you would discover fossiles no matter where you dig. Obviously, this is not what happens*

The only thing "obvious" is that you've done nothing but attend school and read books.

Try visiting the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology in Drumheller since it's not too far away from you.
While you're there, don't just look at the exhibits.

Go outside (horrors! but I'm sure you'll survive).

See where they dig up the fossils, and walk along the Red Deer River until there are no more fossils.
Guaranteed you'll be walking for hundreds of miles.

Do the same in other areas of the world where they dig up fossils.
Walk along the shores of Georgian Bay in Ontario and you'll see hundreds of square miles of rock that consists of almost solid fossils.
Go to the Petrified Forest in Arizona and see how many hundreds of square miles those fossils cover, etc, etc.

The funniest thing is that at the same time all of the exhibits in places like that claim that evolution is true, and that fossilization is rare, they have maps showing that fossils are the next most common thing after rock, water and air.

Paleontologists estimate that fewer than 4% of all <b>species</b> which have ever lived are preserved as fossils. In other words, there is no record of the vast majority of life forms which have existed on Earth.

The number of fossils that do exist is testament to the large time span since the origin of life.

"Paleontologists estimate that fewer than 4% of all species which have ever lived are preserved as fossils. In other words, there is no record of the vast majority of life forms which have existed on Earth."


hmmm...

species found fossilized / all species that have ever existed = 4%

I suppose the obvious question would be

"How do they know how many species have ever existed?"

Does that number include the "missing links"?

e.g. how can you include a species in that number if you have no proof it actually existed?

Ben

Just for a minute, think about it, Ben. If it was up to you to try to work out the average rate of fossilisation (how many fossils per year, say), how would you go about it?

Next, ask what proportion of currently existing species you would expect to be fossilised per year, on average. Then, look at the fossil record to determine the median lifespan of species.

Now, work out how to combine this information to get an estimate of the proportion of all species which are fossilised.

The method you arrive at will probably be very similar to how the paleontologists did it.

Just think about it.

The next obvious question is

"how many years of fossilization?"

and let's not pretend we actually have an accurate dating system for fossils in the first place.

It's all speculative.

Ben

To begin, the article in question has a rather dubious assumption early on. To quote: "...teaches that all human beings are descended from one pair of white people." Nowhere in any of my bibles are Adam and Eve referred to as white people. If the authors of the article are unwilling or unable to check facts as simple as these, I do not find it reasonable to believe anything else they have written (without careful examination that is).

Other issues that should be noted:
From the section on "The Logic of Evolution, Observation 2":
The fossil record only shows that at one point creatures existed which do not exist now. It is a completely different issue to assume that modern creatures did not exist at the same time. The fossil records appear to be a large ink blot test. They tell everyone that what they want to believe is true.

From the section "The Logic of Natural Selection":
The authors appear to ignore predator/prey relationships. The reason that we are not overrun with rabbits is not that the rabbits are competing for finite resources as the rabbits are being killed by predators. Only humans (with few predators, other than themselves) are overrunning the earth. Furthermore, in making their assumption, they ignore the potential for one-time catastrophic occurences that result in large reductions in the population of a species. Therefore, it appears that there entire argument based on "observations" 1 and 2 is as much an ipso facto argument as 'the roosters crow in the morning before the sun rises, and the sun rose this morning, therefore the crowing of the roosters caused the sun to rise'.

For these reasons, and others, I find it very hard to take this article seriously. The only point that I am willing to concede is that majority of "Creation Science" has been based on the disproving of evolution (that's why I put 'science' in quotes). Other than that, it appears that the article contains large amounts of weak reasoning.

The fossil record only shows that at one point creatures existed which do not exist now. It is a completely different issue to assume that modern creatures did not exist at the same time.
So you don't find it strange that we find absolutly no fossile record of, say, a Zebra at the same level we find dinosaur fossiles in? The reason we know "modern" animals did not exist at the time of the dinosaurs is that we have found many fossiles of all kinds of life, but not a single fossile of any "modern" animals. The only animals that existed at that time in addition to the dinosaurs are some kinds of fish, aligators and other reptiles. But no mammals.

I suppose that next you're going to tell me that every place that different levels of different types of fossils were found, the different types of levels all occured in the same order. I admit that my case would be stronger if I could cite a specific instance of a fossil of a "modern" animal at the same time as a "prehistoric" animal. Let me do some research.

The earth changes...we all KNOW that and due to changes in climate, temperature and resources, life forms change to adapt...that also is a given. I do not give in to the theory that we evolved from a fish or other animal...but if we did come from a mutation of a smaller organism like an ameoba...whats the big hoorah about it. The Bible clearly states we were made from the DIRT. Weather God did that thru an amazing mutation of a single cell or like a potter with clay we still come from the DIRT. I do not know why Christians argue evolution, no where in the Bible does it say life is stagnate. As for the fossil layers...yes of course there were animals and plants here LONG before men existed. The Bible states that too...unless you refuse to believe that the original text did NOT say all life was created in 6 24 hour incriments. Just search and study it a minute, it really DID NOT say that. The point is we ARE here, the question then becomes...what are we going to do with it?

I find it interesting that you admit the presence of "modern" animals such as birds, fish, and reptiles, but claim that since mammals haven't been found, therefore the whole premise is false. I spent about half an hour (shows how serious I am) but was unable to find any specific instances of mammalian fossils embedded with other types in the manner that you want. However, this doesn't mean I've given up, just that I'm tired. Tired of reading the arrogant ramblings of anti-creationists who begin by summarily dismissing the creationist point as rubbish, and then proceeding to argue obscure points. Do people really expect others to believe their positions just because they're extermely arrogant? This is no criticism of anyone is particular, just an side note.

I did bump into a series of interesting links that should be read be all (note: these links support both positions).

Becoming more Random (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v14n1_fossil-rec.asp)

Quotes on Creation and Evolution (http://www.netcentral.co.uk/steveb/penkhull/create3.htm)

Large Gaps in the Fossil Record (http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm)

Common Creationist Arguments (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Lies.shtmlv)

Problems with Evolutionary Explanations of the Fossil Record (http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/fossrec.htm)

It's interesting to note how most of these pages quickly assume a 'preaching to the choir' attitude. Is it possible to carry on a reasonable discussion about this topic?

--------------------
Your ego should never be so close to your position that when your position is destroyed, so is your ego.

*Originally posted by KalvinB
species found fossilized / all species that have ever existed = 4%
I suppose the obvious question would be
"How do they know how many species have ever existed?"*

Are you starting to get an idea why God will be laughing?

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2:4, KJV).

*Originally posted by James R
The method you arrive at will probably be very similar to how the paleontologists did it.

Just think about it.*

Oh no.
Aren't you the guy who conclusively proved that he doesn't think?
I stand in awe of your debating prowess, but here you are trying to get someone to "think" like you do, which as you so eloquently proved, was NOT.

Reminder.
-----------
James R
*"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks.... "[snip]

... or perhaps I'm not one of those people. *
01-06-02 09:16 AM
-----------

I repeat, I stand in awe.

*ask what proportion of currently existing species you would expect to be fossilised per year, on average. Then, look at the fossil record to determine the median lifespan of species.*

Naturally, the lifespans, and other temporal estimates, will be based on the assumption that the entire fossil record is 4.6 billion years.

Of course, how many creatures fossilized last year?
That's fairly recent information, so it should be easy to verify.

*Originally posted by makaera
The only point that I am willing to concede is that majority of "Creation Science" has been based on the disproving of evolution*

The reason it is "science" in quotes is that comedy is all that is really required to disprove evolution.
No science is actually needed, since the opposition isn't science either.

Ok ok, sheesh. Instead of fossiles in the same layers lets say fossiles from the same time period, as measured with modern carbon dating techniques.

All organisms that have ever existed on Earth have been precursurs to modern animals. But you couldn't go back 65 million years and expect to see horses and eagles. They simply did not exist at that time, and so far fossile evidence backs this up.

No science is actually needed, since the opposition isn't science either.
So you're saying evolution isn't science? I'm sure I could find many people that would disagree with you on that, including fellow theists.
Do people really expect others to believe their positions just because they're extermely arrogant? This is no criticism of anyone is particular, just an side note.
Ah, did you see that tony? Better think about it for a while, it applies to you quite well.
Is it possible to carry on a reasonable discussion about this topic?
Ohhh believe me, there have been attempts at it on this board. But it is a very touchy subject, one wrong sentance and suddenly everyone is throwing around insults and posting nonsense arguements in an attempt to backup their side. Just the way it goes I guess. :cool:
whats the big hoorah about it.
I'm guessing one of the factors for the big hoorah of it is that God created all living things in one day. This day would had to have been a couple billion years long to account for the evolution of life from a single celled organism to what we see today. Unless the lengths of God's days can be changed to whatever we want them to be, this is in conflict with the other 5 days of His creation.

EXACTLY...it isnt 6 DAYS as we know them. That is only the translated version...the ACTUALL BIBLE did NOT say 6 days but 6 general periods of time given no specific length. But you can't seem to get most Christians to see that. Im not makeing it up...it is a FACT! With modern technology and computers it wouldn't take long for anyone to research it. But I will post it:

The word "day" sometimes signifies an indefinite time (Genesis 2:4This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. When the LORD God made the heavens and the earth)


The word translated in to DAY in Gen1 was:
~wy from an unused root meaning to be hot
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Yowm TWOT - 852
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
yome Noun Masculine

Definition
day, time, year
day (as opposed to night)
as a division of time 1b
a working day, a day's journey
days, lifetime
time, period (general)
year
temporal references
today
yesterday
tomorrow


The term may refer to an era (Matt 24:37) or to the span of human history (Gen 8:22), or specify a memorable event (Isa 9:4) or a significant time (Zep 1:14-16). The term often has a metaphorical meaning. A "day" is important largely for what fills it rather than for its chronological dimension.The "Day" and Cosmic Order. The "days of creation" in Genesis 1, given the semipoetic nature of the composition, are quite possibly intended as literary devices, division markers as in a mosaic.


First mention of what is correctly translated to a DAY as we know it: The division of the day by hours is first mentioned in Daniel 3:6,15; 4:19; 5:5.


Ok there are 3 different sources...how many does anyone need? Better yet check it out for yourself. If God did not SAY He created the earth in 6 /24 hour days then why argue it? I'm certainly not gonna go to bat for KJV when it is obviously not accurate.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Instead of fossiles in the same layers lets say fossiles from the same time period, as measured with modern carbon dating techniques.*

Let's not.
Let's say same layers when they are same layers.
Nobody has dated every single instance of every single layer anyway.
Of course, the assumption of the ToE is that it is as good as done.
In reality, it hasn't been done.

*All organisms that have ever existed on Earth have been precursurs to modern animals.*

Well, duhhhhhhhhh!
Just learn about the birds and the bees for the first time?

*But you couldn't go back 65 million years and expect to see horses and eagles. They simply did not exist at that time, and so far fossile evidence backs this up.*

No it doesn't.
The fossil evidence only proves that you haven't found any.
There is no way that absence of evidence of an animal is proof of absence of the animal.
If it is in your world, you may as well trade your brain in for some used bubble gum.

*So you're saying evolution isn't science? I'm sure I could find many people that would disagree with you on that, including fellow theists.*

I admit that it is easy to find confused theists.
Look at Taken, she'd be one of the ones you'd want to have on your side.
And I am saying that evolution isn't science.
What science is, is collecting the rocks, and fossils and counting layers, and what not.
What science is not, is jumping to some insane conclusion of fallacious logic.

Evolution, after all, is based on two assumptions...
1. Absence of a fossil proves absence of the animal
2. Absence of fossils proves the presence of undiscovered fossils.

*Ah, did you see that tony? Better think about it for a while, it applies to you quite well.*

Only if I'm wrong.

*nonsense arguements in an attempt to backup their side.*

For proof, merely view the pro-evolution arguments.

*This day would had to have been a couple billion years long to account for the evolution of life from a single celled organism to what we see today.*

Whew!
Luckily, it doesn't have to account for evolution, so it is one day long.

*Originally posted by Taken
Im not makeing it up*

Yeah, you are.

---01242 boqer {bo'-ker}
from 01239; TWOT - 274c; n m
AV - morning 191, morrow 7, day 3, days + 06153 1, early 3; 205
1) morning, break of day
1a) morning
1a1) of end of night
1a2) of coming of daylight
1a3) of coming of sunrise
1a4) of beginning of day
1a5) of bright joy after night of distress (fig.)
1b) morrow, next day, next morning---

---06153 `ereb {eh'-reb}
from 06150; TWOT - 1689a; n m
AV - even 72, evening 47, night 4, mingled 2, people 2, eventide 2,
eveningtide + 06256 2, Arabia 1, days 1, even + 0996 1,
evening + 03117 1, evening + 06256 1, eventide + 06256 1; 137

1) evening, night, sunset
1a) evening, sunset
1b) night---

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, KJV).

*The division of the day by hours is first mentioned in *

The division of time by days is first mentioned in Ge. 1:5, and the day was defined by EVENING and MORNING.

*If God did not SAY He created the earth in 6 /24 hour days then why argue it?*

OTOH, since he did say that, why are you arguing against God, as usual, I might add.
So far, there has not been one single verse quoted on this forum that you have agreed with, Taken.
What is your problem, aside from the demonic, of course?

And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, ASV).

And there was evening, and there was morning--a fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, DBY).

And the evening and morning were the fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, DOUAY).

And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, JPS).

Fu sera, poi fu mattina: quinto giorno.
(Genesi 1:23, Nuova Riveduta).

Ja tuli ehtoo, ja tuli aamu, viides päivä.
(1 Mooses 1:23, Pyhä Raamattu).

Y fué la tarde y la mañana el día quinto.
(Génesis 1:23, Reina Valera).

So it was evening--and it was morning, a fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, Rotherham).

Y fue la tarde y la mañana el día quinto.
(Génesis 1:23, Sagrada Escritura).

and there is an evening, and there is a morning--day fifth.
(Genesis 1:23, YLT).

Taken, I realize that for you the English is as incomprehensible as the other languages, but everyone seems to agree on "DAY."
What is your problem?

Gee it is mighty funny I found all sources saying that ~wy was the noun originally translated in those verses. I didn't write the sources. It is very simple for anyone else here to research it and see the same results. The noun you pulled up was not used in those verses.

As for your evening and dusk...was not the light created before the sun existed?

Well, duhhhhhhhhh!
Just learn about the birds and the bees for the first time?
No, I was simply clarifying a point.
No it doesn't.
The fossil evidence only proves that you haven't found any.
I did not say the fossile evidence proves this, I simply pointed out it concurres with this conclusion so far.
What science is, is collecting the rocks, and fossils and counting layers, and what not.
What science is not, is jumping to some insane conclusion of fallacious logic.
Evolution is not "jumping to a some insane conclusion of fallacious logic". There is much evidence supporting evolution, as many on this board have pointed out so far. So far everything we have discovered about life and the origins of life agrees with evolution, and until we find evidence that does not agree with evolution it will continue to remain the best description of the origin of life, in science anyway.
Only if I'm wrong.
You would think so wouldn't you? Unfortunatly, no.
For proof, merely view the pro-evolution arguments.
Pro-evolution arguments may be nonense to you, but then again you seem to be a special case. The majority of scientists support evolution. It has so far passed every test it has been put through, although it is far from a proven fact at the moment. If it was made of nonense points it would never have made it this far in the scientific community.
Whew!
Luckily, it doesn't have to account for evolution, so it is one day long.
It seems it does, as fossile evidence shows otherwise.

While on the topic of the creation of the universe, it may be interesting to point out that all evidence at the moment points toward the fact that heavier elements such as carbon and iron were not created "in the beginning". In essense, in the first few billion years of the universe's life stars formed and crushed light elements such as hydrogen and helium into heavier elements, such as iron and carbon.

Eventually these stars exhausted their nuclear fuel and exploded, thereby releasing all the heavier elements they had fused together into huge clouds of atoms. These clouds picked up yet more hydrogen and formed into a new star, which started the process over. Eventually enough heavy elements were created to pull together and form other bodies such as planets. So again, the creation of the universe was not done in set time frames such as days, unless God's days were very long and could change lengths to fit the timeframe required.

Any time you wish to post only to point out you can't see what Tony posts, I'll repost his post for you.

tisk tisk... Ill have to ignore you too.

Also, I believe that attempting to circumvent the website's ignore system may also have some serious implications with violation of Sciforum's User Agreement.

I would like to point out, that the only thing that is able to be proven is math. Everything else that we know to be true is a theory. Religion is not a theory because it cannot be tested.

By the way, KalvinB, I cannot read tony1's posts.

"tisk tisk... Ill have to ignore you too."

Okay.

Ben

Not everything is a theory tetra. For example, the fact that light can move through a vacuum is proven. The fact that a hydrocarbon such as butane burns in the presence of oxygen when heat is applied is proven. I could go on, but I think you get the point. :)

*Originally posted by Taken
Gee it is mighty funny I found all sources saying that ~wy was the noun originally translated in those verses.*

So, you're saying that all the manuscripts that have "yowm" in them are actually incorrect, because there exists an older manuscript which has "~wy" in it?

What does "~wy" mean?

*The noun you pulled up was not used in those verses.*

Apparently, you cannot tell the difference between "day," "evening" and "morning."

*As for your evening and dusk...was not the light created before the sun existed? *

That is correct, except for the "dusk" thing.
The Bible uses "morning."

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Genesis 1:5, KJV).

*Originally posted by Xelios
No, I was simply clarifying a point.*

You were clarifying that all animals are descended from their parents?
Was that in doubt at any time?

*I did not say the fossile evidence proves this, I simply pointed out it concurres with this conclusion so far.*

It does prove that you haven't found any evidence.
Since the conclusion is that you haven't found any, the absence of fossils proves that you haven't found those fossils.

Thus, any conclusion other than "I don't know" is not borne out by the evidence, which doesn't exist.

*There is much evidence supporting evolution*

Actually, there isn't.
What there is, is evidence of something else which has been construed as evidence for evolution.
For example, the famous "Lucy" which consists of a vaguely humanoid skull and a knee joint found two or three miles away.

It is actually evidence of something fishy going on, but it is still presented as evidence of evolution.

*So far everything we have discovered about life and the origins of life agrees with evolution*

That is just recycled science teacher spit spray.
You've been sitting too close to the teacher.

Since evolution is imaginary, nothing can agree with it, and nothing actually does.
All of the fossils prove that evolution did not occur, because in the ordinary course of events, all dead bodies are consumed by scavengers.
The absence of huge mountains of fecal matter and the absence of huge 2 million year old garbage dumps prove that evolution did not take place.

For example, look at the excavations of the garbage piles in front of the caves in France.
Some of them are 50 ft. thick with garbage after a claimed 12000 years or so.
If man had been around for 2 millions years as per the ToE, there should be piles of garbage 75,000 ft thick in places.
Since no one is going to climb that high, the garbage should be spread pretty evenly all over the planet.
It isn't there, and neither are the huge mountains of crap from 4.6 billion years of animal life.

Claiming that "disappearing" crap proves that evolution is true is exactly the same as claiming that no evidence of any kind proves your side of the issue.

*It has so far passed every test it has been put through, although it is far from a proven fact at the moment. If it was made of nonense points it would never have made it this far in the scientific community.*

It hasn't been put thru any tests, and the scientific community thrives on garbage.
Because you're still in school, you think that "scientists" are very rigorous and always right.
In reality, they are wrong more often than right, although they are persistent.

*It seems it does, as fossile evidence shows otherwise.*

Just repeating "fossil evidence" mindlessly doesn't make it evidence of the ToE.
You don't even know what the fossil evidence IS, let alone what it might mean.

*it may be interesting to point out that all evidence at the moment points toward the fact that heavier elements such as carbon and iron were not created "in the beginning". In essense, in the first few billion years of the universe's life stars formed and crushed light elements such as hydrogen and helium into heavier elements, such as iron and carbon.*

Naturally, you have other universes to compare with, to establish that this is indeed so?

*Eventually enough heavy elements were created to pull together and form other bodies such as planets.*

I thought you said that science was based on observation.
Who observed any of that?

*Originally posted by tetra
Everything else that we know to be true is a theory.*

Thus, you simply prove that you know nothing and you speculate about everything.

*Originally posted by Xelios
...is proven. I could go on, but I think you get the point.*

We get the point.
Do you?
Everything that is true can be proven in one way or another.
Evolution can't be proven at all, which means that it is not true.

Evolution is merely the desperate wish that God isn't there.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).

You were clarifying that all animals are descended from their parents?
Was that in doubt at any time?
No, that's not what I was clarifying.
It does prove that you haven't found any evidence.
Since the conclusion is that you haven't found any, the absence of fossils proves that you haven't found those fossils.
Yes, of course it does. At the same time it concurrs with the theory of evolution as well.
For example, look at the excavations of the garbage piles in front of the caves in France.
Some of them are 50 ft. thick with garbage after a claimed 12000 years or so.
If man had been around for 2 millions years as per the ToE, there should be piles of garbage 75,000 ft thick in places.
Since no one is going to climb that high, the garbage should be spread pretty evenly all over the planet.
It isn't there, and neither are the huge mountains of crap from 4.6 billion years of animal life.
That's complete nonsense. Man did not create that much garbage 2 million years ago, not even 50,000 years ago. Garbage of that magnitude is a rather modern thing. At the same time, much of the garbage we have produced in the past is biodegradable. I doubt humans 12,000 years ago had plastics, or much of anything else that isn't biodegradable.
Just repeating "fossil evidence" mindlessly doesn't make it evidence of the ToE.
You don't even know what the fossil evidence IS, let alone what it might mean.
Fossile evidence proves that at one time animals such as dinosaurs existed. It proves these animals were not similar to any mammals we have on Earth today. Are you suggesting God created all these animals millions of years ago, and that by chance a whole swack of them died out leaving only the animals we observe today?
Naturally, you have other universes to compare with, to establish that this is indeed so?
No, but we do have a large amount of evidence pointing toward this conclusion. For example, the supernovae remnant's in the form of large clouds of gas contain many heavy elements, whereas other clouds in which stars are forming contain almost none. In addition, atoms do not spontaneously come together to form heavier elements. For this reason there had to have to be a set of special circumstances (such as high heat and pressure, ie. a star) in order for heavy elements to form.
I thought you said that science was based on observation.
Who observed any of that?
Yes, science is based partly on observation, but also on other factors such as experimental evidence and common sense. If you had a small sphere of heavy elements with it's own gravity field, do you think it would start to "suck in" other heavy elements? And as these were added to the sphere, the sphere's gravity well increased thereby attracting more atoms. We have not been able to test it directly, simply because of the scale involved, but through common sense and logic we can we can accuratly state that this is indeed what would happen.
Everything that is true can be proven in one way or another.
Evolution can't be proven at all, which means that it is not true.
Ah, God cannot be proven, thus He is not true. I get it now, thanks tony.
Evolution is merely the desperate wish that God isn't there.
No, evolution is an attempt to explain how we came to exist in the form we hold today. God is a desperate wish that evolution isn't there.

tony1,

You should realise that <i>ad hominem</i> attacks against the posters here, or against science teachers, or against "dumb evolutionists" do not advance your position in any way. They just make you look childish and support the view that you have no real answers. Similarly, statements claiming that you can refute evidence for evolution without you actually doing so, are worthless.

Let's look at the one or two substantive points you've made in amongst all the obfuscatory personal rubbish.

<i>Of course, how many creatures fossilized last year?
That's fairly recent information, so it should be easy to verify.</i>

Yes.

<i>The reason it is "science" in quotes is that comedy is all that is really required to disprove evolution.</i>

This is an example of one of those claims I mentioned above. You assert that evolution can be refuted, yet you do nothing towards attempting to support your point.

<i>The fossil evidence only proves that you haven't found any. There is no way that absence of evidence of an animal is proof of absence of the animal.</i>

That is a valid point, and quite true, up to a point. However, in the case where certain organisms are ubiquitous and continually fossilised today, can you explain why some of those organisms are <i>never</i> seen in fossil strata beyond a certain age. Chance of fossilisation alone cannot explain that.

<i>Evolution, after all, is based on two assumptions...
1. Absence of a fossil proves absence of the animal.
2. Absence of fossils proves the presence of undiscovered fossils.</i>

It's funny how your bases for evolution change from thread to thread. You really don't know <i>what</i> assumptions evolution is based on, do you? Time to hit the books, tony1.

<i>That is just recycled science teacher spit spray.
You've been sitting too close to the teacher.</i>

Example of <i>ad hominem</i> attack on teachers. Just thought I'd point it out so you can avoid it in future.

<i>Since evolution is imaginary, nothing can agree with it, and nothing actually does.</i>

Assertion with nothing to back it up. Just pointing it out so you can avoid it in future.

<i>...all dead bodies are consumed by scavengers.</i>

What about tar pits? What about being buried in volcanic ash? What about mud slides? What about insects trapped in amber?

<i>Claiming that "disappearing" crap proves that evolution is true is exactly the same as claiming that no evidence of any kind proves your side of the issue.</i>

Nobody claimed disappearing crap proves evolution. This is you putting up a straw man to knock down (not even a particularly good one). Just pointing it out so you can avoid it in future.

<i>Because you're still in school, you think that "scientists" are very rigorous and always right. In reality, they are wrong more often than right, although they are persistent. </i>

<i>Ad hominem</i> attack on scientists, followed by assertion without support. Just pointing it out so you can avoid it in future.

<i>Evolution is merely the desperate wish that God isn't there. </i>

Then why do so many evolutionists believe in God?

*Originally posted by Xelios
Yes, of course it does. At the same time it concurrs with the theory of evolution as well.*

Therefore, since the "evidence" is actually lack of evidence, it concurs with the ToE, which in turn must be the absence of evolution.
Or, can you not tell that you have completely lost your train of thought and are now arguing against yourself?

*That's complete nonsense. Man did not create that much garbage 2 million years ago, not even 50,000 years ago.*

Which, of course, is what I'm saying.
However, you're saying that for 2 million years, people lived garbage-free lives.
I say garbage.

*Are you suggesting God created all these animals millions of years ago, and that by chance a whole swack of them died out leaving only the animals we observe today?*

No, you are saying that.
Or, haven't you noticed that there aren't any dinosaurs?
Arguing against yourself again.

*No, but we do have a large amount of evidence pointing toward this conclusion.
...
For this reason there had to have to be a set of special circumstances *

Large amounts of evidence do not equal "special circumstances."
If there really is a "large" amount of evidence, then by definition, that would mean normal circumstances.

You're arguing against yourself again.
You may be starting to notice that you are having difficulty making sense and remembering what your point is.
When that happens, try to remember that you are deluded, if you can.

*science is based partly on ... common sense.*

Famous last words.
When your argument is "common sense," it is well known that you don't have any.

*We have not been able to test it directly, simply because of the scale involved, but through common sense and logic we can we can accuratly state that this is indeed what would happen.*

I'm not as easily fooled as you are.
Just putting the word "accurately" in a sentence does not increase the believability of the sentence.
IOW, when you feel that it is necessary to use the word "accurately," be forewarned that it makes you look stupid and it tells me that you have no clue.

*God cannot be proven, thus He is not true. I get it now, thanks tony.*

OK, he's not true to you.
But, he is to me.

*God is a desperate wish that evolution isn't there. *

You've gone insane.
God was worshipped long before anyone even thought of something as stupid as a rock turning into a fish turning into a frog turning into man.

*Originally posted by James R
Yes.*

OK, how many animals fossilized last year, then?

*You assert that evolution can be refuted*

Yes, with comedy.
Evolution is like the straight man in comedy routines.
The scientist is very serious and intent on whatever, and the comic pokes fun at the straight man.
No one actually takes the straight man as anything other than the butt of jokes in real life.

*You really don't know what assumptions evolution is based on, do you?*

Actually, I do.
As you noted, my statements of what the bases of evolution are, do change from post to post.
That happens because evos have zero clue as to why they, or you, believe in evolution.
Thus, the basis for evolution constantly varies and makes no sense.

Besides, I note that whenever you are faced with an insurmountable argument, you immediately perform either an ad hominem or ad "stylem" attack.

How about dealing with the issues instead of whining about the vagueness of the theory?

*Just thought I'd point it out so you can avoid it in future.*

Not going to avoid it in the future.
Anytime someone states something that is only "true" in the classroom, they can count on getting it pointed out to them.

*Assertion with nothing to back it up. Just pointing it out so you can avoid it in future.*

That's only because the ToE is just assertion with nothing to back it up.
The beauty of the ToE is that, from your perspective, it is like arguing that loud whistling on a bus keeps lions away.
If someone challenges you, you simply say, "Do you see any lions on the bus?"

That is the ToE in a nutshell; if you state long and loud enough that "scientific evidence" keeps God away, your "proof" is "Do you see God anywhere?"

IOW, evolution is the stupidest form of fallacious logic in existence.

*What about tar pits? What about being buried in volcanic ash? What about mud slides? What about insects trapped in amber?*

What about them?
Where are all the huge tar pits, ash piles, slides and amber blobs that would allow you to consider them as "normal" events?

*Nobody claimed disappearing crap proves evolution.*

Nobody claims that lions appear on buses when the whistling stops either.
IOW, the argument of the ToE is argument from absence of evidence.

*Ad hominem attack on scientists, followed by assertion without support.*

Unsupported assertion.

*Then why do so many evolutionists believe in God?*

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
(James 2:19, KJV).


As you yourself so eloquently put it...
*"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks...."
[snip]
... or perhaps I'm not one of those people. *
James R, 01-06-02 09:16 AM

For a guy who complains about ad hominem attacks so much, why would you perform the mother of all ad hominem attacks like that?
And on yourself, yet?

I stand in awe.

tony1,

<i>Evolution is like the straight man in comedy routines.</i>

This is an unsupported assertion.

<i>Thus, the basis for evolution constantly varies and makes no sense.</i>

This is a false statement, also unsupported.

<i>Anytime someone states something that is only "true" in the classroom, they can count on getting it pointed out to them.</i>

Nobody has stated that here.

<i>That's only because the ToE is just assertion with nothing to back it up.</i>

This statement is an unsupported assertion.

<i>IOW, evolution is the stupidest form of fallacious logic in existence.</i>

This statement is an attempt at proof by ridicule, which some people might describe as "the stupidest form of fallacious logic in existence".

<i>IOW, the argument of the ToE is argument from absence of evidence.</i>

This is patently false since evolutionists attempt to provide evidence for their arguments.

<i>"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks...."
[snip] ... or perhaps I'm not one of those people</i>

This is an <i>ad hominem</i> attack. Please review the relevant exchange.

Therefore, since the "evidence" is actually lack of evidence, it concurs with the ToE, which in turn must be the absence of evolution.
Or, can you not tell that you have completely lost your train of thought and are now arguing against yourself?
No, but I do know that the fossile record so far concurrs with evolution, and not creation. It does not completely prove evolution, but it does support it.
However, you're saying that for 2 million years, people lived garbage-free lives.
I say garbage.
Basically, yes. The most garbage they would have is some old spears and flint stones. Up until about 50,000 years ago garbage was never really a problem.
No, you are saying that.
Or, haven't you noticed that there aren't any dinosaurs?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying all organisms that have ever existed have come in eras. They did not all suddenly appear on Earth together.
Arguing against yourself again.
It only seems that way because you have no understanding of science at all.
Large amounts of evidence do not equal "special circumstances."
If there really is a "large" amount of evidence, then by definition, that would mean normal circumstances.
Not necessarily.
Famous last words.
When your argument is "common sense," it is well known that you don't have any.
Science is PARTLY based on those things.
OK, he's not true to you.
But, he is to me.
Who's arguing against himself now? I thought you said if something cannot be proven it's not true?
You've gone insane.
God was worshipped long before anyone even thought of something as stupid as a rock turning into a fish turning into a frog turning into man.
Obviously, you have managed to miss my point again. I was simply showing you how stupid that statement you made really is. It is just a bland accusation showing a complete lack of evidence and substance to back it up.

*Originally posted by James R
This is an unsupported assertion.*

Argumentum ad nauseam.
Besides, my statement wasn't an assertion, it was a simile.

*This is a false statement, also unsupported.*

Argumentum ad perperam.
It is supported by the facts.

*Nobody has stated that here.*

Argumentum ad perperam.

*This statement is an unsupported assertion.*

Argumentum ad nauseam.

*This is patently false since evolutionists attempt to provide evidence for their arguments.*

The key word being "attempt," I say they fail.

*This is an ad hominem attack. Please review the relevant exchange. *

Actually it is NOT an ad hominem attack.
Ad hominem takes the form of, "you are ugly, therefore your ideas are invalid."
What I am saying is "You cannot reason, therefore your arguments are unreasonable" which is not ad hominem, but is germane to the topic at hand.

*Originally posted by Xelios
I do know that the fossile record so far concurrs with evolution, and not creation. It does not completely prove evolution, but it does support it.*

Actually, you don't know that, you have merely been told that.
The fossil record does not support evolution for the simple reason that it does not take the form you've been told it takes.

*Basically, yes. The most garbage they would have is some old spears and flint stones. Up until about 50,000 years ago garbage was never really a problem.*

I see that anthropology and paleoanthropology are two more things that you are completely unfamiliar with.
Anthropologists, when they are not studying living people, study garbage almost exclusively.
The reason? Because there is so much of it.

*I'm saying all organisms that have ever existed have come in eras.*

You have merely been told that.
No one has observed that, and you know no one has.
What has happened is that you think that Paleozoic, Triassic and Jurassic sound real cool.

*Not necessarily.*

Do you have any idea at all, what "normal" and "special" even mean??

*I thought you said if something cannot be proven it's not true?*

You can't prove God so he isn't true to you, or do you disagree with that?

*I was simply showing you how stupid that statement you made really is.*

The problem is that evolution really is a desperate wish by foolish men that God isn't real.
Saying the opposite simply isn't true, since God pre-exists any foolish men and their desperate wishes.

You're still young, so you think you're right.
You simply haven't ever seen an atheist die.

No one has observed that, and you know no one has.
No one has observed God, so you don't know he exists right?
You can't prove God so he isn't true to you, or do you disagree with that?
Don't try and turn the question back on me tony. I am asking how you know God exists if there is no evidence for Him. You said yourself if there is no evidence for a thing it cannot be true. Answer the question please.
You're still young, so you think you're right.
Tony, you think you're right too. Therefor by your logic you must also be young. I know, I know, it was just another stupid insult. One day you'll have to learn insults do not substitute support and evidence. It's really surprising that I know more about these things than you.

Tony, your whole arguement is based on the idea that everything evolutionists say is false. To "back that up" you say nothing of it has been proven, and so it cannot be true. What I want to know is how are you so sure it is not true in the first place? There is much less evidence for a God than there is for evolution, and yet you scoff at it just because it does not fit your view of things.

You refuse to accept evidence, you refuse to accept ideas. You refuse even to have a constructive discussion in which you put forth more than one point per thread. You refuse to give support, examples and evidence for your statements. I'm no longer interested in playing along with your little fantasy, where your view is right, and anything different must be false. Show some evidence and support for your points, as they will be the only ones I reply to from now.

*Originally posted by Xelios
No one has observed God, so you don't know he exists right?*

That is correct, I believe he does.

*Don't try and turn the question back on me tony.*

I'm not.
You simply do not understand the statement.

*I am asking how you know God exists if there is no evidence for Him. You said yourself if there is no evidence for a thing it cannot be true. Answer the question please.*

I answered for my part a long time ago, in this forum.
You simply expressed an inability to understand the evidence.
Thus, all that remains is what you accept for evidence for God, which is nothing since you reject all evidence for God.
Therefore, he is not real for you.

*Tony, you think you're right too. Therefor by your logic you must also be young.*

Your error is called "Affirming The Consequent" which is logic reversal. A correct statement of the form "if P then Q" gets turned into "Q therefore P".

*I know, I know, it was just another stupid insult. One day you'll have to learn insults do not substitute support and evidence. It's really surprising that I know more about these things than you.*

You actually know very little, and furthermore your lack of knowledge has actually been categorized, by others, in advance.

*Tony, your whole arguement is based on the idea that everything evolutionists say is false.*

No, that would be assuming my conclusion as my premise.
You do that; I don't.

*To "back that up" you say nothing of it has been proven, and so it cannot be true.*

You seem to have the idea that, for evolutionists, all they, or you, have to say is anything along with the word "evolution" and everything is true because of that.

Everything that evolutionists say is false because everything that is said turns out to be false.
For example, the crap mountains we discussed earlier.
You said a 4.6 million foot layer of crap "disappeared."
While I agree that it would have decomposed, and been eaten, or what not, it did NOT disappear.
IOW, the volume of crap still has to be accounted for, and saying it "disappeared" is not accounting for it.

*What I want to know is how are you so sure it is not true in the first place? There is much less evidence for a God than there is for evolution, and yet you scoff at it just because it does not fit your view of things.*

I started out as a believer in evolution, until I started to question the statements being made.
I scoff at the "evidence" not because it didn't fit my view, but because it isn't evidence of what it is declared to be evidence of.

*You refuse to accept evidence, you refuse to accept ideas.*

Sorry, dude, you're flat wrong.
I started out believing in evolution, and now I believe in God.

You are the one who refuses to accept alternative ideas, since you hold, and are limited to, just one single idea.

*I'm no longer interested in playing along with your little fantasy, where your view is right, and anything different must be false. Show some evidence and support for your points, as they will be the only ones I reply to from now. *

Account for the "missing" crap and we'll see if your view is right.
My evidence is that there is no missing crap because there is only 6000 years' worth to account for.

You have to explain how animals managed to avoid crapping for 4.6 billion years, OR you have to explain where the missing crap, or the 4.6 million foot deep layer of compost, went.

I'm guessing that you are going to see that you can't answer that and you are going to stick your head in the sand.

tony1,

Why do you think that your Creationist friends (if you have any) don't put the "mountain of crap" argument as a rebuttal of evolution? Could it be that even they realise how silly it would make them look?

*Originally posted by James R
...the "mountain of crap" argument as a rebuttal of evolution?*

Just never thought of it before.
There are a large number of issues that evos or creationists have never thought of before.

1. The fact that animals defecate regularly
I've never seen that issue addressed by evolutionary biology books
2. The fact that fish dry out when they are out of the water
3. The fact that fish can jump out of the water in mere fractions of a second as opposed to the millions of years the ToE claims it takes
4. Etc.

The fact that you identify the issue as silly means that you have never been around large groups of animals, or farms, or zoos.
A rough rule of thumb for omnivores is around 2lbs of manure for each 1lb of weight per year.
Herbivores are more, and carnivores somewhat less.

Therefore, if dinosaurs were warm-blooded, a forty-ton dino would have defecated about 100 tons per year.
If they were cold-blooded, the amount would be considerably less.

Of course, since the favored anti-creationist argument is pro warmblooded due to some other creationist point, we'll go with the favored thinking.
Thus, if dinos ruled for 250 million years, and the population of dinos was anything but negligible then you have to account for trillions upon trillions of tons of dino doo-doo.
Even composted, the quantity has to be accounted for.
And of course, one has to account for the total amount accumulated by all creatures, whether composted or not, over 4.6 billion years.

Needless to say, your argument of "silly" is merely the fallacy called "Argument By Emotive Language."
And saying the crap "disappeared" sounds, well, kind of silly as well.

It's an irrelevant point anyway tony. The absence of this crap proves nothing. It's the same as you saying the absence of fossiles proves nothing either. Obviously the world is not buried in tons of crap, so why worry about it?

The point is, there is overwhelming evidence for the age of the Earth being more than 6 thousand or so years, and dating methods prove some fossiles's we've recovered are many hundreds of millions of years old. Just because there is an absence of crap doesn't mean all this evidence is instantly nullified. It really isn't an arguement at all, just an imaginary and irrelevent triviality in the big picture. The absence of crap is not a problem, why make it one?

tony1,

Please review the previous posts. The answer is there. You just missed it.

*Originally posted by Xelios
The absence of this crap proves nothing.*

It proves that there weren't 4.6 billion years worth of animals.

*Obviously the world is not buried in tons of crap, so why worry about it?*

I'm not worried.
Evolutionists should be, since their next argument will have to be how animals didn't crap for 4.6 billion years.

*The point is, there is overwhelming evidence for the age of the Earth being more than 6 thousand or so years, and dating methods prove some fossiles's we've recovered are many hundreds of millions of years old.*

That's just speculation.
You don't know what a fossil of any particular age should be like since you don't have any fossils of a known age.
Thus measuring the characteristics of a fossil, and saying those characteristics date the fossil, is spurious.
In order to establish that certain characteristics mean a certain age, one would need a fossil of a KNOWN age to compare to.

*Just because there is an absence of crap doesn't mean all this evidence is instantly nullified.*

Actually, it means the evidence needs to be re-evaluated.
If animals in days past didn't crap, and animals today do, then an additional evolutionary mechanism must be described that explains the evolution of the ability to crap.

*It really isn't an arguement at all, just an imaginary and irrelevent triviality in the big picture. The absence of crap is not a problem, why make it one? *

That "imaginary and irrelevent triviality in the big picture" is a major industry on the planet today.
Other people have noticed the need to deal with large-scale volumes of crap.
Attempting to sweep the issue under the carpet does not work.

You either have to explain the absence of crap, or explain how animals didn't crap for 4.6 billion years, or more popularly, try to ignore the issue.
That last one is a little tough since you'll be reminded of the issue on a daily basis for the rest of your life.

Here is the answer to your crap issue. These remarkable creatures perform an incredible and continuous task. I saw a TV documentary on these creatures a few months ago and learnt how millions of these creatures are almost entirely responsible for keeping the whole of Africa clear of masses of animal dung.

Dung beetles are found in three families in the order Coleoptera, superfamily Scarabaeoidea. The families, Geotrupidae (900 species), Scarabaeidae (4500 species) and Aphodiidae (2500 species) make up our dung feeders.

The Scarabaeoidea are ecologically important creatures. They are nature’s very own ‘pooper scoopers’. Without these tank-like little insects, there is a good chance that humans and the rest of Earth’s terrestrial organisms would be up to their neck in dung. To date, the only climate in which the dung beetles are absent is the Antarctic (Smithsonian Magazine 1997). This is likely due to the fact that the limited amount dung that is present is probably frozen and difficult to work with. Geographically, the Scarabaeidae tend to occupy the more tropical climates, where cooler climates seem more suitable to the Geotrupidae and Aphodiinae (Halffter and Edmonds 1982:12). Canada is home to mostly Geotrupidae species (Howden 1964).

The full article –

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~ja2macne/412paper.html

There are numerous other interesting and related articles on the web.

Continue crapping.
Cris

*Originally posted by Cris
Here is the answer to your crap issue. These remarkable creatures perform an incredible and continuous task. I saw a TV documentary on these creatures a few months ago and learnt how millions of these creatures are almost entirely responsible for keeping the whole of Africa clear of masses of animal dung.*

I'm going to assume that you are aware that these little creatures aren't magicians, i.e. they don't make crap disappear.

1. What happened prior to the evolution of dung beetles?
2. Are coproliths actually jam-packed with fossilized dung beetles?
3. Since dung beetles don't actually make crap disappear, then presumably the crap goes somewhere.
4. Since crap has volume, this volume has to be accounted for even if dung beetles relocate the volume of crap.
5. Since dung beetles find piles of crap and after the dung beetles are done, these piles of crap are gone, one can assume that dung beetles are primarily leveling the crap, i.e. large volumes of crap will not appear in huge piles, rather the level of the ground will slowly rise.
6. Dung beetles don't deal with anything other than dung, i.e. human garbage will be essentially untouched by them, and will also have to be accounted for.
7. Assuming that the current ground level is where it is due to the dung beetle scenario after 4.6 billion years is circular logic since it assumes the conclusion as one of the premises.
8. If the earth is only 6000 years old, then one would not need to account for huge quantities of crap.
9. If dung beetles really did eliminate 4.6 billion years' worth of crap then it should be easy to find billions upon billions of dung beetle fossils.

Hi tony1,

Matter is consumed producing two products, energy and crap. Energy is used to consume more matter. This cycle appears to result in a net loss of matter. But that balance is restored by the use of energy from the sun that results in more matter (plant and vegetable growth). Excess energy escapes via the atmosphere into space.

Balance is maintained. Matter and energy are exchanged as needed.

Cris

The absence of this crap proves nothing.*

It proves that there weren't 4.6 billion years worth of animals.
You are still stuck on this subject?!? My explanation was not lacking and neither are the hundreds of more specific versions. I ask this: If plants don't eat crap then where do they come from? I defer you to a wonderful creation called a book. For persons of your limited intelligence, there are also videos and telecasts. That you have not been exposed to this subject in any media can mean only that you are not only uneducated but far worse, unaware.

It is not surprising considering the arguments you make. I know a multitude of children who know the answers to the questions you ask. Have you attended a school? Perhaps the reason that you are so set in your ways can be derived from your use of the word "mark". The grade system has changed since marks were around. Human knowledge has also increased. Please take a second to catch up with the rest of us.

That's just speculation.
You don't know what a fossil of any particular age should be like since you don't have any fossils of a known age.
Thus measuring the characteristics of a fossil, and saying those characteristics date the fossil, is spurious.
In order to establish that certain characteristics mean a certain age, one would need a fossil of a KNOWN age to compare to.


Carbon 14 degrades. For a learned person that should end the argument. For you: human fossils are generally less degraded, having more of a particular isotope. The dating yields a system that grades humans typically in recent terms. Dinosaurs are far more degraded. Other groups of post- dinosaur creatures can form particular stages. Beyond that we have evidence that the universe has existed for 10-20 billion years. Light takes time to arrive here. When we found the farthest star we were able to extrapolate the distance it travelled and thus the time it took. Also we have the date of the moon, somewhat less than the estimated age of the Earth. To doubt this would mean that those impacts on the moon were less than 6,000 years old. Also why does not the moon have a more erratic orbit. If it was recently captured then it would not be tidally locked yet. You also forget the other lackings of your position. It is unlikely that humans could compete with dinosaurs. They occupied some of the same areas as humans. Why is it that we have yet to find a human next to dinosaur inside the Earth?

Cris and Teg have once again outlined where the crap goes for you tony. Digestion is not 100% efficient, when an animal (or plant) ingests matter some of it is used to sustain it's bodily functions, some of it is released as waste heat and some passes through the digestive system and "out the other end". Another organism then ingests this crap in one way or another, and this organism again has a less than 100% efficient digestive system. The futher along the line you go, less and less crap is produced when compared to what was digested by the first animal.

The volume of crap does not have to be accounted for, as it does not all simply pass through the digestive system, but rather some of the energy the crap contains is converted to other forms. Thus, the volume of crap ingested to crap excreted is not the same. Put this into a scale of billions of these little animals all digesting the crap, and it tends to balance out quite nicely, as can be seen when we look out our windows.

If you still don't believe me, consider this. How much crap should we be seeing outside if the Earth was 6000 years old as compared to 4.6 billion? Granted, there would be much less, but I'm pretty sure we'd still notice it. So why isn't it there? The crap problem is not just a problem for evolutionists, but for creationists too. The only difference is evolutionists have already answered it.

Granted, there would be much less, but I'm pretty sure we'd still notice it. So why isn't it there? The crap problem is not just a problem for evolutionists, but for creationists too. The only difference is evolutionists have already answered it.

A good counter argument. Tony1 needs a huge display of ignorance to argue that point again. The sad detail is that people have short memories. Tony1 and others like him will doubtless try to make this argument for the next generation of programmed christian children. They will eat it with great excitement, as their indoctrination will seem to have evidence.

The PBS series "Evolution" was appalling in its display of the capacity of ignorance that such programming can breed. Highschool students petitioned for introduction of "creation-science". The school board of that school had the sense to deny their wants. A few fringe religious individuals have begun to piece together bible quotes and call it science. Most of their evidence is in the form of counter evidence. All of it is based upon a lack of understanding. Schools teach the facts and the students choose to ignore such facts. One conclusion: the bias of the child is the fault of the parents. These people are able to penetrate areas of power through association. This lack of understanding exists into the presidency.

*Originally posted by Cris
But that balance is restored by the use of energy from the sun that results in more matter (plant and vegetable growth).*

True, so where is all that extra matter?

*Excess energy escapes via the atmosphere into space.*

Well, not quite.
There would have to be a LOT of excess energy before it escapes into space in any appreciable amount.

As things stand now, global warming is an issue specifically because enough energy is not escaping into space.

*Balance is maintained. Matter and energy are exchanged as needed.*

Sounds neat, but that isn't borne out by observations.
Since we had an Ice Age only about "10,000" years ago, and now we are struggling with global warming, it is obvious that we are not in a state of balance now, nor at any time since the last Ice Age.

*Originally posted by Teg
My explanation was not lacking and neither are the hundreds of more specific versions.*

Well, they're certainly not lacking in imagination.

*If plants don't eat crap then where do they come from?*

You just end up begging the question with the route you are taking.
If all of the dead plants, humus, crap and compost added only one hundredth of a millimeter to the thickness of the earth's crust per year, then you need to explain where 46,000 meters of missing stuff went, since in theory 4.6 billion years have to be accounted for.

*I know a multitude of children who know the answers to the questions you ask.*

Of course.
They all go to the same schools you do.
I would have been hoping for correct answers, not just any answers.

*The grade system has changed since marks were around.*

Depends on the slang in use where you are.

*Carbon 14 degrades. For a learned person that should end the argument.*

Yes, learned folks are much more gullible, having been trained Pavlov-style to accept anything.

Besides, C14 has problems, mainly the upper limit of about 50,000 years (in theory).
What fossils, according to the theory of evolution, are that new?

*Light takes time to arrive here. When we found the farthest star we were able to extrapolate the distance it travelled and thus the time it took.*

The "extrapolation" would be accurate only if the speed of light is correctly assumed to be constant.
There is no evidence for a constant speed of light.
Besides, you are extrapolating 15 billion years from known data of only about 1000 years' worth.
That is ridiculous.

*Why is it that we have yet to find a human next to dinosaur inside the Earth?*

Why haven't "we" found any transitional fossils, either?
Why haven't "we" found all the fossils yet?

*Originally posted by Xelios
How much crap should we be seeing outside if the Earth was 6000 years old as compared to 4.6 billion?*

Using a hundredth of a millimeter per year as an approximation, I would only need to explain the presence of 0.6 meters of crap, humus, etc.
That's pretty easy, since that's how much there is outside your window, maybe more.
In fact, I might expect about 6 meters of crap, humus, etc.

Of course, if that rate of deposition were true then you would have to explain where 460,000 meters of crap went.
Much harder.

*A good counter argument.*

It's pathetic.

*The PBS series "Evolution" was appalling*

Yes it was.
Especially that graphic of the "tree of life."
That has sucked in many hundreds of thousands of people.
Look at poor tiassa.
He is actually thinking that it takes fish 20 million years to jump out of the water.
Not only that, he thinks that fish can stay out of the water for 20 million years without drying out.
Real fish can jump out of the water in seconds, and they dry out in minutes.

*This lack of understanding exists into the presidency.*

Talk about missing the point.
He's the president, and you are....um, who exactly?

tony1

As things stand now, global warming is an issue specifically
because enough energy is not escaping into space.

Global warming is an issue because of the pollutants such as carbon dioxide and others that we have been pumping into our atmosphere for the last century. This pollution is trapping more of the sun's energy in our out atmosphere which thereby warms up the Earth. It has very little to do with composting crap.

Since we had an Ice Age only about "10,000" years ago, and now we are struggling with global warming, it is obvious that we are not in a state of balance now, nor at any time since the last Ice Age.

The ice ages can be explained by realizing the Earth's orbit and axis of rotation are not completely fixed. At some points the Earth orbits the sun in an almost perfect circular path, whereas other times it is an elongated ellipse (more so than it is now). This combined with the fact that the Earth wobbles on its axis like a spinning top that is not spinning fast enough to sustain an upright position, and the fact that atmospheric composition, density and amount of energy being receieved from the sun all change give us a good explanation for the ice ages. Global warming is caused by our doing, if we weren't polluting the atmosphere is would likely not be happening.

Besides, C14 has problems, mainly the upper limit of about 50,000 years (in theory).

Which is why scientists use a variety of dating techniques. If they all match up to about the same time period (lets say give or take 5-10,000 years) then it's a good bet the fossil is from that time period. For example, over time potassium 40 decomposes into argon 40. Potassium is found in most rocks, and so using radioactivity dating we can tell how old a fossil is by measuring how much argon 40 gas it contains. Using powerful lasers to melt individual crystals of rock also gives you a fairly accurate age, with an error margin of about 1% or less.

The "extrapolation" would be accurate only if the speed of light is correctly assumed to be constant.
There is no evidence for a constant speed of light.

The speed of light in a vacuum is not only proven to be constant in a multitude of experiments carried out in labs and in space, but is also predicted to be constant in many mathematical formulas and theories. It is an accepted fact that a pulse of light will travel at exactly 299 792 458 m/s in a vaccuum.

Of course, if that rate of deposition were true then you would have to explain where 460,000 meters of crap went.
Much harder.

Actually, you would have to explain the same thing.

It's pathetic.

No it's not actually, you are just not going to answer it because now you've realized creationism cannot account for the missing crap any more than evolutionism can. Well, evolutionism can account for it, but you don't seem to accept that. Why not answer my question though? Where does creationism say the 4.6 billion years worth of crap went? And please don't try to pull that "The Earth is only 6000 years old" blanket over your eyes, imagine, if you have to, that the Earth really is 4.6 billion years old, as it has already been proven to be much older than 6000 years.

He is actually thinking that it takes fish 20 million years to jump out of the water.

I believe he was thinking it took fish 20 million years to evolve to a stage where they were amphibians, where they could live on water or on land.

Sorry for the long post, just have a lot of spare time right now ;)

*Originally posted by Xelios
Global warming is an issue because of the pollutants such as carbon dioxide and others that we have been pumping into our atmosphere for the last century. This pollution is trapping more of the sun's energy in our out atmosphere which thereby warms up the Earth. It has very little to do with composting crap.*

I have news for you; the last Ice Age didn't take place 100 years ago.
Therefore the globe has been warming for the entire time since the last Ice Age.
The pollutants thing is just fiction.

*Global warming is caused by our doing, if we weren't polluting the atmosphere is would likely not be happening.*

You just proved that it wasn't our doing, and now you're saying it is.
That is called doublespeak, and is the result of attending school.

*If they all match up to about the same time period (lets say give or take 5-10,000 years) then it's a good bet the fossil is from that time period.*

"If they all match up"
Ha ha ha.
ROTFLMAO.
Dream on.

*For example, over time potassium 40 decomposes into argon 40. Potassium is found in most rocks, and so using radioactivity dating we can tell how old a fossil is by measuring how much argon 40 gas it contains.*

Check here (http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp) to see an analysis of how "accurate" such dating is.

*The speed of light in a vacuum is not only proven to be constant in a multitude of experiments carried out in labs and in space, but is also predicted to be constant in many mathematical formulas and theories. It is an accepted fact that a pulse of light will travel at exactly 299 792 458 m/s in a vaccuum.*

Aside from the fact that it is 0 thru a block of wood, you perhaps don't understand what "constant" means.
For the speed of light to be a constant, it isn't enough to say that readings of c over the last ten minutes agree.
For c to be a constant, it would have to be constant since light was invented.
There is no evidence for that.

*Actually, you would have to explain the same thing.*

No, I don't, since I'm arguing for an age of about 6000 years for the earth.
Therefore I am arguing for about 0.6 to 6 meters of crap, humus and compost outside your window.
I don't have to explain 460,000 meters; you do.

*creationism cannot account for the missing crap any more than evolutionism can.*

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Let's try to see if you can understand this.
I don't have to explain the missing crap; you do.
I only have to explain about a meter.
Since that's what is there, my job is done.
Creationism agrees with the observations.

*Well, evolutionism can account for it, but you don't seem to accept that.*

You are a master of doublespeak, triplespeak and quadruplespeak.
Evolution has not accounted for it.
Xelios merely says he does, and blames evolution for the non-explanation, namely that it "disappeared."

*Where does creationism say the 4.6 billion years worth of crap went? And please don't try to pull that "The Earth is only 6000 years old" blanket over your eyes, imagine, if you have to, that the Earth really is 4.6 billion years old, as it has already been proven to be much older than 6000 years.*

You've been lied to; the earth really isn't 4.6 billion years old.
Therefore, creationism doesn't have to explain any missing crap.

Just an aside: the way debate works is that I get to give my own arguments.
It's an interesting tactic you have of trying to give me your own arguments and asking me to argue my point using your arguments.
Since your arguments are the losing arguments, I don't think I'll bother with that technique.

*I believe he was thinking it took fish 20 million years to evolve to a stage where they were amphibians, where they could live on water or on land.*

I realize that he WAS thinking that, but what he was NOT thinking was how a fish is actually supposed to take 20 million years to move from water to land.
If the fish breeds in the water, it isn't going to want to move onto land.
If it tries to breed on the beach where the waves wash ashore repeatedly, its eggs are going to get washed away, so how exactly does a fish take 20 million years to evolve like that?

BTW, books on evolution show cute little pictures with a fish in the water, with an amphibian half in the water, half on land and a land creature on land, and arrows in between pointing in the direction of the land.
The assumption is that there are no waves, no storms and that somehow fish adapt to not drying out while still in the water.

Pure fiction.

I have news for you; the last Ice Age didn't take place 100 years ago.
Therefore the globe has been warming for the entire time since the last Ice Age.
The pollutants thing is just fiction.

Of course it has been warming, but it should be warming only a very small amount. Recent pollution has added to the problem. That combined with the natural variations in Earth's orbit, axis and the amount of light received from the sun has all come together to cause this warming. But the real noticable change in temperature in the last century has been caused by pollution.

"If they all match up"
Ha ha ha.
ROTFLMAO.
Dream on.

Are you simply "laughing" because you have no counter to that arguement? It is pretty straight forward, isn't it?

Aside from the fact that it is 0 thru a block of wood, you perhaps don't understand what "constant" means.
For the speed of light to be a constant, it isn't enough to say that readings of c over the last ten minutes agree.
For c to be a constant, it would have to be constant since light was invented.
There is no evidence for that.

The block of wood idea is just stupid, so I'll skip it. The speed of light is constant, as long as it is travelling in a vacuum. As you get into refractive indexes such as glass, the apparent speed of light changes, but the overall speed does not. That is, in a vacuum the entire waveform of a pulse of light is measured to be travelling at the exact same speed every time the experiment is performed, roughly 3.0x10^8 m/s. When in glass, light appears to be travelling slower than that, when in fact this is just due to the fact that you are not measuring the entire waveform of the pulse of light. If you accounted for the whole waveform, you would see that the overall speed really is about 3.0x10^8 m/s.

Creationism agrees with the observations.

Excuse me? Creationism does the exact opposite. Almost everything science is finding in its observations is refuted by creationism. One day you will have to accept that the Earth is much older than 6000 years.

You are a master of doublespeak, triplespeak and quadruplespeak.
Evolution has not accounted for it.

I will say it again, evolution has accounted for it, but you don't seem to accept that. After all, for the first couple billion years there was nothing alive anyway. For about a billion years after that there was so little living that their crap contribution was pretty much negligable.

You've been lied to; the earth really isn't 4.6 billion years old.

Says who? The Bible? And you actually believe the observations made by a small group of people 2000 years ago over the modern observations by a large group of people today? No, you have not been lied to, such a crude estimation as 6000 years is probably the best people could have come up with 2000 years ago.

Since your arguments are the losing arguments, I don't think I'll bother with that technique.

The real reason you will not bother to answer my question is because you don't have an answer for it. Why not try saying "I don't know" instead of trying to sidestep the question entirely?

If it tries to breed on the beach where the waves wash ashore repeatedly, its eggs are going to get washed away, so how exactly does a fish take 20 million years to evolve like that?

I cannot answer that, simply because biology is not my field. However, if you would like an answer: www.madsci.org

The "problem" of crap is a non-problem, as discussed earlier. The total amount of biomass on Earth at any one time is approximately constant. Crap is mostly broken down by micro-organisms and recycled into other living things.

<i>Why haven't "we" found any transitional fossils, either?</i>

Um... we have. The idea that we haven't is more creationist nonsense.

*Originally posted by Xelios
But the real noticable change in temperature in the last century has been caused by pollution.*

What are they paying your teachers for?
The real noticable change in temperature in the last century has been caused by the INVENTION OF THE THERMOMETER.

*Are you simply "laughing" because you have no counter to that arguement?*

No.
I'm laughing because of the idea of "matching up" the various dates which are accurate plus or minus 10000% or so.
The idea of various dates "matching up" is based on skillful fudging of figures.

*The speed of light is constant, as long as it is travelling in a vacuum.*

What was the speed of light in 2000 BC?

*Creationism does the exact opposite.*

No, your brain does the exact opposite, just like a trained seal.
I predicted 0.6 to 6.0 meters of crap, humus, dead plants, etc outside your window.
That's how much there is.
You predicted that 46,000 meters of crap "disappeared."
Well, where are the "observations" that proved that 46,000 meters of crap "disappeared?"

*One day you will have to accept that the Earth is much older than 6000 years.*

You are absolutely right.
When it turns 6001, I'll admit that it is 6001.

*evolution has accounted for it, but you don't seem to accept that. After all, for the first couple billion years there was nothing alive anyway. For about a billion years after that there was so little living that their crap contribution was pretty much negligable.*

Nothing alive for two billion years?
Who observed that?
In any case, you still have to account for 16,000 meters of crap.
Saying it "disappeared" doesn't count.
That doesn't work even at a four year old's birthday party, when the magician makes a favorite toy disappear.

*Says who? The Bible? And you actually believe the observations made by a small group of people 2000 years ago over the modern observations by a large group of people today?*

You bet.
I went to school with many of the people who perform those "observations."
I had a low opinion of their scholastic abilities then and I haven't seen anything that would change it now.

*No, you have not been lied to, such a crude estimation as 6000 years is probably the best people could have come up with 2000 years ago.*

Scientists keep changing the number all of the time, so there is no number now that is provably valid.

*The real reason you will not bother to answer my question is because you don't have an answer for it.*

DUHHHHHH!!
Let's try this again.
In a debate, d-e-b-a-t-e, you prove your side, I prove my side.
I don't have to explain your misbegotten ideas, that's your job.

*I cannot answer that, simply because biology is not my field.*

Nobody can answer that regardless, because it is LUDICROUS.

*Originally posted by James R
The total amount of biomass on Earth at any one time is approximately constant.*

Except for obvious examples like the portion of the biomass which constitutes the human race, among other things.

*The idea that we haven't is more creationist nonsense.*

Glad you brought that up.
Since Xelios and I were discussing the transition (over 20 million years plus) from sea animals to land animals, where do you propose those transitional fossils would be found?
In the sea, on land, or sort of scattered exactly along the line where the waves hit the beach?

The real noticable change in temperature in the last century has been caused by the INVENTION OF THE THERMOMETER.

So you are suggesting the temperature of the Earth went up when the thermometer was invented? Hmmm.... I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.

I'm laughing because of the idea of "matching up" the various dates which are accurate plus or minus 10000% or so.
The idea of various dates "matching up" is based on skillful fudging of figures.

If you were paying attention when I first mentioned it, I said if they all matched up to approximatly the same time period, it would be safe to assume the fossil is indeed from that time period. Different dating techniques will have different margins of error, but it's not uncommmon for 3 or 4 different dating tests to come up with approximatly the same result with, say, 10% difference between them maximum, most of the time it's closer to 3 or 4%.

What was the speed of light in 2000 BC?

Approximatly 3.0x10^8 m/s, in vaccuum. How do we know? Because a) there is nothing to suggest otherwise b) if it wasn't, out observations of the current light reaching us would be much different, c) because a myriad of theories and laws require the speed of light to be constant.

I predicted 0.6 to 6.0 meters of crap, humus, dead plants, etc outside your window.
That's how much there is.

I can just as easily make my own theory, that the Earth is only 2000 years old, and therefor there should only be .2-2 meters of crap. It agrees with the observations doesn't it tony? It must be right then. :bugeye:

You are absolutely right.
When it turns 6001, I'll admit that it is 6001.

It has already turned out to be a few billion, so when are you going to admit it?

In any case, you still have to account for 16,000 meters of crap.

We have accounted for it, many times now. It has not disappeared, if you would read over our posts once again maybe you will discover where you had that misunderstanding.

You bet.
I went to school with many of the people who perform those "observations."
I had a low opinion of their scholastic abilities then and I haven't seen anything that would change it now.

That's because you have not taken your eyes off your Bible. You cannot expect to see through it you know...

Scientists keep changing the number all of the time, so there is no number now that is provably valid.

I would rather have a changing number that actually agrees with current observations than a rediculous number that does not agree with any observations.

In a debate, d-e-b-a-t-e, you prove your side, I prove my side.
I don't have to explain your misbegotten ideas, that's your job.

Look at what you just wrote tony, in your own words "I prove my side." You have not even tried to as yet, all you have done so far is attempt to shoot down the other side's arguements, without even once trying to prove your own. Sorry tony, Bible quotes do not count as proof in a debate.

Nobody can answer that regardless, because it is LUDICROUS.


Stop being a jackass tony. If you want an answer, I have pointed out a very good source for you. If getting an answer is just too much work for you, that's ok. You are free to believe what you want, but your beliefs to not negate the heaps of evidence in support of the sciences.

Except for obvious examples like the portion of the biomass which constitutes the human race, among other things.

Please tony, at least make an effort to understand people's posts. The --->TOTAL<--- biomass of the Earth stays approximatly constant. Humans consume biomass and change some of it into waste energy such as heat. Thus, as more humans enter the world, more biomass is used up by them.

<i>Except for obvious examples like the portion of the biomass which constitutes the human race, among other things.</i>

Please re-read what I wrote, carefully. Then read it again. Keep doing that until you understand it.

<i>Since Xelios and I were discussing the transition (over 20 million years plus) from sea animals to land animals, where do you propose those transitional fossils would be found? In the sea, on land, or sort of scattered exactly along the line where the waves hit the beach?</i>

No fossils are found in the sea. A fossil is, by definition, preserved in the ground. That ground can be beneath the current sea floor or beneath what is currently land. The boundaries between land and sea have changed many times over the eons, due to rising and falling sea levels, continental drift and so on. Why do I have to keep explaining such simple concepts to you, tony1?

I have news for you; the last Ice Age didn't take place 100 years ago.
Therefore the globe has been warming for the entire time since the last Ice Age.
The pollutants thing is just fiction.
That would be true, were it not completely false. A very noticable spike of temperature increase has occurred in parallel to the dramatic boost in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Beyond the fact that a comittee selected by Bush for their impartiality returned with a conclusion that pollution was the cause of the temperature increase, we have a god deal impiracle evidence. Couple that with the fact that green-house gas effects have been proven to cause the trapping of heat. Heck, we even have the entire planet Venus.
For the speed of light to be a constant, it isn't enough to say that readings of c over the last ten minutes agree.
For c to be a constant, it would have to be constant since light was invented.
There is no evidence for that.
Are you kidding? If the speed of light was noit constant, then there would be abnormalities in the light from our sun. Do you not recieve an equal amount of light from our sun everyday, factoring out cloud cover and variatian due to the earth's changing position? Is not the sky blue? If we were to expect abberations in the speed of light we would not expect any particle to maintain dominance. The relative size of blue would no longer matter.

Originally posted by James R


<i>Why haven't "we" found any transitional fossils, either?</i>

Um... we have. The idea that we haven't is more creationist nonsense. [/B]


If that is so you have got it made go to http://missinguniversemuseum.com/Reward.htm

and collect your $100,000

Bullfrog:

If the offer was genuine, the reward would have been collected by now.

Even the terms of the reward on the linked page are unclear. Primarily, the problem is with the word "kind", as used on the page. Without a clear, unequivocal definition of "kind", I doubt the owners of the site would accept any evidence presented to them. They would always be free to argue that the examples given were not "kinds". It's a common Creationist ploy.

Moreover, the owners of the site do not seem to have the money. They claim they could raise it, but there is no evidence of that.

Compare the skeptic challenge of the James Randi Education Foundation, which is backed up with actual money and a solid contract pre-signed by both parties before any chall