Page 783 of 880 FirstFirst ... 283683733773781782783784785793833 ... LastLast
Results 7,821 to 7,830 of 8791

Thread: Evolution: The Grand Deception

  1. #7821
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    34,082
    Thanks
    4,416
    Thanked 5,720 Times in 4,780 Posts
    Blog Entries
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    Making the BB an event that had no choice but to transcend our current natural laws, ie: a supernatural event.
    If Roger thinks it was an event that established natural laws, that is a lot of faith at work. Bangs do not make for order but disorder.
    ------------------------
    "He has shown you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justly..and to love mercy...and to walk humbly with your God."

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Dottie For This Useful Post:

    mikeboll64 (05-23-2017)

  3. #7822
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    2,620
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked 321 Times in 275 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    Really? What kinds of things did you post to "deal with" the fact that your own experts think neo-Darwinism is unexplainable caprice from top to bottom, and that it is now both passť and dead?
    Obviously the kind that you easily forget about or don't even bother to read but I think the latter is wrong since I am quit sure you even responded to them. If you are really interested all you have to do is go and read them.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can also make you commit atrocities

    - Voltaire

  4. #7823
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,400
    Thanks
    331
    Thanked 215 Times in 175 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by solver View Post
    I make it a point to never assume anything. But what I AM pointing out, is the very UNLIKELY SIMULTANEOUS successful evolution of NUMEROUS ORGANS in living organisms, and the SIMULTANEOUS presence of life-sustaining gases (such as oxygen) in the air!
    Maybe I should rephrase the question to avoid this non-answer. Could there be no other possible explanation, than "God did it all"? If evolution is not the best explanation, then please explain it to me. How did we all get here? So far all you guys tell us, is how it COULDN'T have happened. Sorry I didn't rephrase the question. Maybe second time will be the charmer. I'm not interested in your inferences or arguments from ignorance. This answer again simply states how Evolution is UNLIKELY or couldn't have happen. Don

  5. #7824
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,867
    Thanks
    2,591
    Thanked 1,551 Times in 1,195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    I wonder if he thinks that it was never buried deeper than 2 ft?

    Of course the fossils that are found are pretty much at the surface.
    How else can you see them to find them?

    I wonder too, if they could say just what they mean by "soft tissue"?

    is soft now, or was soft then or what?
    What I read, it's soft (as Max says) after it was been bathed in a chemical solution.
    Never underestimate the power of unreason to overwhelm reason

  6. #7825
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,811
    Thanks
    235
    Thanked 878 Times in 739 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    Whether I give you guys another list of creation hypothesis for you guys to pick at like buzzard. But really, wanting me to find evidence to disprove a Theory that I actually believe is correct, is totally irrelevant to my question. I did expect you guys to dodge, shift, ignore, and do just about anything to avoid presenting any of your own tangible, exclusive, or creation-specific evidence to support your claims. It is ironic that both of your claims are the same. Isn't life from non-life the same as life from a spiritual life? Aren't the both non-life? Couldn't life have occurred as a result of a random combination of NATURAL materials and NATURAL events? Couldn't the specific precursor to the creation of life, be the result of trial and error. Couldn't this pattern be extended to Natural Selection? What you guys try to do is create your own false-dichotomy. This makes sure that Creation can only have 2 possibilities, naturally or supernaturally. Again totally dishonest. No one knows for certain which answer(or any other answer) is is the right one. Unless of course you are a God. Although selective amnesia seems to be your forte, I have stated among other proposed creation hypotheses, that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable explanation in science.

    So continue trying to to make "s**t sound good enough to eat". Continue trying to make BS sound like science. The only people you are impressing are the ignorant, and the other one-dimensional thinkers. Don


    So then, that's a big fat NO! No, you have no other option for life's beginning. You could have just said that.

    I thought I was going to escape the dishonest claim, but true to form you threw it out there - again. There are only a few things that are certain; death, taxes and being called dishonest by TE.
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to ShelbyGT For This Useful Post:

    mikeboll64 (05-23-2017)

  8. #7826
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,400
    Thanks
    331
    Thanked 215 Times in 175 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by solver View Post
    Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed one million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their `evolution` that began 200 million years ago.
    This is an example of how Creationist do bad science. Itís the same old standard bad math trick. Select the data that matches your conclusion, and then say that the data you've selected proves your conclusion. This sad measurement dishonesty sported by answers in Genesis, Creation.com, and other creation internet sources, has been thoroughly debunked. I won't introduce you to the science of simple optics, known to even the most amateurish of astronomers, so just see the reasons for it being debunked. http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/200...ng-sun-part-1/ , http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/if-sun-l...ions-years-ago , http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html, https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/...sun_shrinking/ .

    To everyone, DON'T BELIEVE THIS SUN SHRINKING ARGUMENT BY CREATIONIST. The sun is not shrinking, in fact the sun is very, very, very, slowly and steadily getting bigger. Don't be intellectually lazy, like creationist. Do your own independent research. Above all, if you don't want to appear ignorant, don't listen to their BS. They lack the knowledge to chose or interpret any data objectively or honestly. Please, I know my human brothers are smarter then this. The Dark Ages are over, let not return there again. Don

  9. #7827
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,400
    Thanks
    331
    Thanked 215 Times in 175 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    So then, that's a big fat NO! No, you have no other option for life's beginning. You could have just said that.

    I thought I was going to escape the dishonest claim, but true to form you threw it out there - again. There are only a few things that are certain; death, taxes and being called dishonest by TE.
    Stop shifting responsibilities. There may be any number of ways life was created on this earth. It is the height of arrogance to expect me to know how life was created on this planet. It is also the height of ignorance to claim that if I don't know something that only a God would know, THAT YOU MUST BE RIGHT. Look Shelby, you cannot simply assert the conditions to justify your claims. In other words, you can't say that if I can't present any other alternative choice, that it proves that no other choices exists. Neither of us knows if our choices are correct. I simply don't know, but it's delusional to think that it means you are correct by default. Unless any choice can be falsified, neither choice can be valid. I also noticed that you didn't address my life from non-life and spiritual life comment. Maybe you can tell me what the difference is? In this case, you are just merely being intellectually dishonest. Don

  10. #7828
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,171
    Thanks
    1,866
    Thanked 2,229 Times in 1,898 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    This is an example of how Creationist do bad science.
    Now now, not all creos are the same. Some are out there past the orbit of Pluto, others are more grounded. Plenty of creationists
    do good research in various fields. None of them have ever found
    the smoking gun that would disprove ToE, tho sometimes they come up with interesting questions.

    The crazies among the creos dont represent ALL of them.
    AIG points out that the shrinking sun is nonsense based on bad math.

    The part in bold is for Solvers benefit.

    AIG-

    Conclusion
    Does the nuclear source of the sun indicate that the sun is billions of years old? Not at all. A nuclear energy source merely means that the sun could last for billions of years, but not that the sun is necessarily that old. .

  11. #7829
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    10,487
    Thanks
    477
    Thanked 1,160 Times in 986 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dottie View Post
    If Roger thinks it was an event that established natural laws, that is a lot of faith at work. Bangs do not make for order but disorder.
    "Bang" is just a descriptive term, no more accurate than "He banged her good".

    Note that the example I gave can result in a lot of organized matter too.

    Roger
    It is not God that kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.
    It's us. Only us. - Rorschach

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Rogerh For This Useful Post:

    Truly Enlightened (05-19-2017)

  13. #7830
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,171
    Thanks
    1,866
    Thanked 2,229 Times in 1,898 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    What I read, it's soft (as Max says) after it was been bathed in a chemical solution.
    The "soft tissue' found in Cambrian fossils is not soft. It is soft tissue that has been
    fossilized. Some of the molecules present are original material. But it isnt soft.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •