VERY Nice Formal Proof of Evolution

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) 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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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:

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?

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

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 2.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.

 

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

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.

Says who?

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.

 

"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

 

*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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

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?

 

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.